aommaster Posted December 7, 2003 Author Share Posted December 7, 2003 ok thanx for your help The millionth time youve helped me thanx cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 Anytime dude and If I`m not here, others will do same 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aommaster Posted December 7, 2003 Author Share Posted December 7, 2003 thats very ensuring. As long as ur here, i dunno if a quiestion cannot be answered !!!! Keep up the good work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 I`ve never fathomed out how to open a tin can with a Banana yet, I`m sure it has something to do with acidic properties though 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aommaster Posted December 7, 2003 Author Share Posted December 7, 2003 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yessipermana Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 First time to join the scienceforums, but first time to see such a rediculous debate. Why aommaster always counts the butanol as if there is 2 mole eq of butanol in the reactio? It just has 1 mole eq of butanol !!! well, of course you made mistake since your 1st post. (Bond E of butanol = 1 x 5580 !!!!) C4H9OH + 6O2 ----------> 4CO2 + 5H2O (tot E=8569.8) (tot E=11080) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 hey easy on the attacks, were all here to learn what we dont know........not everyone ca be as great as you! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :there`s 2 schools of thought about that in all honesty. for instance Phosphourous Pentoxide is often writen as P2O5 when in fact the molecule is P4O10. That's different. ENTIRELY different. If you've got a reaction, you should always cancel down numbers to their lowest possible integer states (occasionally, it's convention to express them as fractions as well, expressing the ratio to the combusting/reacting chemical (well, the one you're testing)), not doing it is wrong. This is different from, say, cancelling H2O2 to HO. That's not a ratio of reactions. If you had only one molecule of butanol, that ratio of oxygen atoms would still be sufficient to make it undergo complete combustion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 yessipermana said in post # :First time to join the scienceforums, but first time to see such a rediculous debate. Be nice dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # : That's different. ENTIRELY different. If you've got a reaction, you should always cancel down numbers to their lowest possible integer states (occasionally, it's convention to express them as fractions as well, expressing the ratio to the combusting/reacting chemical (well, the one you're testing)), not doing it is wrong. This is different from, say, cancelling H2O2 to HO. That's not a ratio of reactions. If you had only one molecule of butanol, that ratio of oxygen atoms would still be sufficient to make it undergo complete combustion. LOL, that works probably fine for maths lessons or whatever, it is certainly NOT the way I was taught! and you`de certainly come unstuck in energetics if you tried that! heheheh. I`m sure there are SOME instances where you could apply that and get away with it, but to treat each molecule as it`s WHOLE is the way I was taught, same applies to dimetric or trimetric situations, you CANNOT afford to take to the lowest possible int, it`ll cock up all yer calcs else. it`s great if all elements(parts) have a single common denominator, and then factor up afterwards, but to avoid any mistakes you do it properly from the start. btw, it took you a long time to suddenly come up with this out the blue? it has been a busy day for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :LOL, that works probably fine for maths lessons or whatever, it is certainly NOT the way I was taught! and you`de certainly come unstuck in energetics if you tried that! heheheh. I don't see why that's true; surely, if a reaction works with one mole of a substance, it would work in the same proportions with 2 moles. Furthermore, I have studied chemistry at university. This module, specifically. YT2095 said in post # :I`m sure there are SOME instances where you could apply that and get away with it, but to treat each molecule as it`s WHOLE is the way I was taught, same applies to dimetric or trimetric situations, you CANNOT afford to take to the lowest possible int, it`ll cock up all yer calcs else. Oh I see, you're totally misunderstanding my point. This is for reactions like 20C + 20O2 -> 20CO2, which can obviously be cancelled down to C + O2 -> CO2. I'm not, say, talking about cancelling C6H6 to CH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Hmmm... ok, you probably don`t realise it but point 2 rellates to point 1. here`s how, in energetics (a euphemism for explosives and the like). it is VITAL to keep ALL in it`s original form, mole for mole doesn`t apply here, as with hydrodynamics just 50% more can double the effect, it can be exponential (and often is). it does share similarities with your second point that not ALL calcs can or SHOULD be treated like this, that`s all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfson Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 2 C4H10 + 13 O2 ==> 8 CO2 + 10 H2O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :Hmmm... ok, you probably don`t realise it but point 2 rellates to point 1. here`s how, in energetics (a euphemism for explosives and the like). it is VITAL to keep ALL in it`s original form, mole for mole doesn`t apply here, as with hydrodynamics just 50% more can double the effect, it can be exponential (and often is). it does share similarities with your second point that not ALL calcs can or SHOULD be treated like this, that`s all That's energy concerns, which deals with absolute amounts, not comparative calculations. Furthermore, (and correct me if I'm wrong) I'd think that it's more to do with physical conditions than chemical reactions if the output is increased more than suggested by mass ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 yes and no, mostly yes, but no in the way of dimetric to trimetric conversions with regard to Cyclo compounds, you`de expect 1 thrird extra power in yeild, in actual fact for some chems it more than doubles, as I said molarity need not apply here. it`s to do with bond enrgies and structure stability or the molecules in question, taking them to the lowest possible integers would be not only incorrect procedure for obvious reasons, but more than likely result in utter carnage! to but not too fine a point on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agaubr Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 C4H9OH + 6O2 --> 4CO2 + 5H2O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfson Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 LOL thought you had siad Isobutane, thats why i was giving: 2 C4H10 + 13 O2 ==> 8 CO2 + 10 H2O Sometimes i really need to read the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aommaster Posted February 29, 2004 Author Share Posted February 29, 2004 WHOA!! please don't get too complex! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanK2 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 This is correct and balanced: CH3(CH2)2CH2OH + 6O2 ------------> 4CO2 + 5H2O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aommaster Posted June 18, 2008 Author Share Posted June 18, 2008 Haha.. I hope you know that I posted this question more than 4 years ago, when I was still in school. (...and looking back at it now, my typing was absolutely HORRIBLE!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Science Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 butanol as in Butan-1-ol CH3(CH2)2CH2OH ? Butan-1-ol is C4H9OH The equation for the complete combustion of Butan-1-ol is... C4H9OH+6O2 ------> 4CO2+5H2O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Butan-1-ol is C4H9OH R Butan-2-ol is C4H9OH S Butan-2-ol is C4H9OH and also t-Butanol is C4H9OH But CH3(CH2)2CH2OH is Butan-1-ol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now