Introductory Chemistry Atoms First 5Th Edition Russo Solutions Manual Full Chapter PDF

Introductory Chemistry Atoms First 5th
Edition Russo Solutions Manual

Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://testbankdeal.com/dow
nload/introductory-chemistry-atoms-first-5th-edition-russo-solutions-manual/
CHAPTER
9
Stoichiometry and the Mole
9.1 See solution in textbook.

9.2 The two possible conversion factors are
1 cup sugar 5 eggs
and
5 eggs 1 cup sugar
Because you want your answer in eggs, use the one with eggs in the numerator:
5 eggs
3 cups sugar * = 15 eggs
1 cup sugar
9.3 The two possible conversion factors are
3 blocks cream cheese 5 eggs
and
5 eggs 3 blocks cream cheese
Use the second one because you want your answer in eggs:
5 eggs 21 * 5
21 blocks cream cheese * = eggs = 35 eggs
3 blocks cream cheese 3
6.022 * 10 23 atoms U 21.5
9.5 (a) 0.10 mol U * = 6.0 * 10 22 atoms U
1 mol U 3
238.029 g U
(b) 0.10 mol U * = 23.803 g U, which you must report as 24 g because 0.10 has
1 mol U
only two significant digits.
1 mol C
9.6 (a) 120.11 g C * = 10.000 mol C
12.011 g C
6.022 * 1023 atoms C
(b) 10.000 mol C * = 6.022 * 10 24 atoms C
1 mol C
287
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

9.8 From Practice Problem 9.7, you know 1 mole of propane has a mass of 44.096 g; therefore 2 moles
of propane has a mass of
44.096 g propane
2 mol propane * = 88.192 g propane
1 mol propane
9.9 The molecular formula for propane is C3H8 :3 moles of C atoms for every 1 mole of propane.
Therefore:
3 mol carbon atoms
2 mol propane * = 6 mol carbon atoms
1 mol propane
9.10 1 mole of propane and 5 moles of oxygen react to give 3 moles of carbon dioxide and 4 moles of water.
127.9 g HI
9.12 (a) 0.565 mol HI * = 72.3 g HI
1 mol HI
6.022 * 1023 molecules HI
(b) 0.565 mol HI * = 3.40 * 10 23 molecules HI
1 mol HI
1 mol CH4
9.13 (a) 5.000 * 10 24 molecules CH4 * = 8.303 mol CH4
6.022 * 10 23 molecules CH4
(b) The molar mass of CH4 is 11 * 12.011 g C2 + 14 * 1.0079 g H2 = 16.043 g>mol. Thus:
16.043 g CH4
8.303 mol CH4 * = 133.2 g CH4
1 mol CH4
9.15 (a) C6H6 + 3H2 S C6H12
(b) 1 mole of benzene and 3 moles of hydrogen react to give 1 mole of cyclohexane.
(c) The molar mass of benzene is 16 * 12.011 g C2 + 16 * 1.0079 g H2 = 78.113 g>mol. The
balanced equation tells you that you need 1 mole of C6H6 to form 1 mole of C6H12:
1 mol C6H6 78.113 g C6H6
1 mol C6H12 * * = 78.113 g C6H6
1 mol C6H12 1 mol C6H6
The molar mass of hydrogen is 12 * 1.0079 g H2 = 2.0158 g>mol. Because the equation says
that 1 mole of C6H12 requires 3 moles of hydrogen,
3 mol H2 2.0158 g H2
1 mol C6H12 * * = 6.0474 g H2
1 mol C6H12 1 mol H2
(d) The most you can form is 1 mole of cyclohexane. The molar mass of cyclohexane is
16 * 12.011 g C2 + 112 * 1.0079 g H2 = 84.161 g>mol. This 84.161 g is the theoretical
yield of C6H12.
Actual yield 24.0 g
(e) Percent yield = * 100% = * 100% = 28.5%
Theoretical yield 84.161 g
288 Complete Solutions

9.16 (a) C6H12O6 + 6O2 S 6CO2 + 6H2O
(b) 1 mole of glucose and 6 moles of oxygen react to give 6 moles of carbon dioxide and 6 moles of
water.
(c) The molar mass of glucose is
16 * 12.011 g C2 + 112 * 1.0079 g H2 + 16 * 15.999 g O2 = 180.155 g>mol.
1 mol glucose 180.155 g glucose
6 mol H2O * * = 180.155 g glucose
6 mol H2O 1 mol glucose
The molar mass of O2 is 12 * 15.999 g O2 = 31.998 g>mol.
6 mol O2 31.998 g O2
6 mol H2O * * = 191.99 g O2
6 mol H2O 1 mol O2
(d) The theoretical yield is 6 moles of CO2. The molar mass of CO2 is 44.009 g. The theoretical
yield in grams is therefore
44.009 mol CO2
6 mol CO2 * = 264.05 g CO2
6 mol CO2
Actual yield 196.0 g
(e) Percent yield = * 100% = * 100% = 74.23%
1 mol glucose 6 mol H2O 18.015 g H2O
9.18 10.0 g glucose * * * = 6.00 g H2O
180.155 g glucose 1 mol glucose 1 mol H2O
1 mol glucose 6 mol CO2 44.009 g CO2
9.19 10.0 g glucose * * * = 14.7 g CO2
180.155 g glucose 1 mol glucose 1 mol C2O
1 mol CO2 1 mol glucose 180.155 g glucose
9.20 10.0 g CO2 * * * = 6.82 g glucose
44.009 g CO2 6 mol CO2 1 mol glucose
1 mol Al2O3 2 mol Al 6.022 * 10 23Al atoms
9.22 10.0 g Al2O3 * * * = 1.18 * 10 23 Al atoms
101.96 g Al2O3 1 mol Al2O3 1 mol Al
1 mol H2O 6.022 * 10 23 H2O molecules
9.23 10.0 g H2O * * = 3.34 * 10 23 H2O molecules
18.015 g H2O 1 mol H2O
9.25 (a) Step 1: C3H8 + 5O2 S 3CO2 + 4H2O
1 mol C3H8
Step 2: 100.0 g C3H8 * = 2.268 mol C3H8
44.096 g C3H8
Step 2a is not necessary because reactions run in balanced fashion.
5 mol O2
Step 3: 2.268 mol C3H8 * = 11.34 mol O2
1 mol C3H8
31.998 g O2
Step 4: 11.34 mol O2 * = 362.9 g O2
1 mol O2
Chapter 9: Stoichiometry and the Mole 289

(b) Because the reaction is run in a balanced fashion, you may use either reactant to calculate
theoretical yield:
4 mol H2O 18.015 g H2O
2.268 mol C3H8 * * = 163.4 g H2O theoretical yield
1 mol C3H8 1 mol H2O
or
4 mol H2O 18.015 g H2O
11.34 mol O2 * * = 163.4 g H2O theoretical yield
5 mol O2 1 mol H2O
9.26 (a) 2ZnS + 3O2 S 2ZnO + 2SO2
(b) Calculate molar masses:
ZnS 65.39 g>mol Zn + 32.06 g>mol S = 97.45 g>mol
O2 15.999 g>mol O * 2 = 31.998 g>mol
ZnO 65.39 g>mol Zn + 15.999 g>mol O = 81.39 g>mol
SO2 32.06 g>mol S + 2 * 15.999 g>mol O = 64.06 g>mol
Step 1: Done
1 mol ZnS
Step 2: 10.0 g ZnS * = 0.103 mol ZnS
97.45 g ZnS
1 mol O2
10.0 g O2 * = 0.313 mol O2
31.998 g O2
0.103
Step 2a: ZnS = 0.0515
2
0.313
O2 = 0.104
3
ZnS is limiting reactant because of smaller ratio.
2 mol ZnO
Step 3: 0.103 mol ZnS * = 0.103 mol ZnO
2 mol ZnS
2 mol SO2
0.103 mol ZnS * = 0.103 mol SO2
2 mol ZnS
81.39 g ZnO
Step 4: 0.103 mol ZnO * = 8.39 g ZnO
1 mol ZnO
64.06 g SO2
0.103 mol SO2 * = 6.60 g SO2
1 mol SO2
(c) The excess reactant is the O2. From step 2 above, you know that the 10.0 g of O2 is 0.313 mole.
Figure out how much of that combined with the 0.103 mole of ZnS:
3 mol O2
0.103 mol ZnS * = 0.155 mol O2
2 mol ZnS

This is the amount of O2 consumed, which means
0.313 mole - 0.155 mole = 0.158 mole of O2 is left over, which is
31.998 g O2
0.158 mol O2 * = 5.06 g O2 left over
1 mol O2
7.50 g
(d) Percent yield = * 100% = 89.4%
8.39 g
9.27 (a)
Step 1: Convert grams of CO2 to moles of C and grams of H2O to moles of H:
1 mol CO2 1 mol C
0.686 g CO2 * * = 0.0156 mol C
44.009 g CO2 1 mol CO2
1 mol H2O 2 mol H
0.561 g H2O * * = 0.0623 mol H
18.015 g H2O 1 mol H2O
Step 2: Convert to grams of C and H:
12.11 g C
0.0156 mol C * = 0.187 g C
1 mol C
1.0079 g H
0.0623 mol H * = 0.0628 g H
1 mol H
Step 3: Determine whether there is any O in the compound and, if so, convert to moles:
0.250 g sample - 10.0628 g H + 0.187 g C2 = 0 g O.
Step 4: Divide subscripts through by the smallest subscript:
C 0.0156 H0.0623 S C1.00 H3.99 S CH4 molecular formula
0.0156 0.0156
(b) CH4 + 2O2 S 2H2O + CO2

9.28 (a)
Step 1: Convert grams of CO2 to moles of C and grams of H2O to moles of H:
1 mol CO2 1 mol C
0.478 g CO2 * * = 0.0109 mol C
44.009 g CO2 1 mol CO2
1 mol H2 O 2 mol H
0.293 g H2O * * = 0.0325 mol H
18.015 g H2O 1 mol H2O
Step 2: Convert to grams of C and H:
12.011 g C
0.0109 mol C * = 0.131 g C
1 mol C
1.0079 g H
0.0325 mol H * = 0.0328 g H
1 mol H
Step 3: Determine whether there is any O in the compound and, if so, convert to moles:
0.250 g sample - 10.131 g C + 0.0328 g H2 = 0.0862 g O
1 mol O
0.0862 g O * = 0.00539 mol O
15.999 g O

Step 4: Divide subscripts through by the smallest subscript:
C 0.0109 H 0.0328 O 0.00539 S C2.02H6.09O1.00 S C2H6O
0.00539 0.00539 0.00539
(b) C2H6O + 3O2 S 2CO2 + 3H2O

9.29 (a)
Use the four-step process for determining empirical formula from combustion analysis data.
The four steps are shown here:
Step 1: Check that the percent by mass elemental compositions add up to 100%. If they do not,
calculate the percent by mass of the additional element(s) by subtracting the total of the
given percentages from 100%.
Step 2: Assume a 100 g sample of the compound.
Step 3: Convert grams of each element to moles of each element. This gives you the subscript in
the formula for that element.
Step 4: Divide all subscripts by the smallest one to get the subscripts in the empirical formula.
1. 54.56% C + 9.16% H = 63.81%, which is less than 100%. Therefore the percent
O = 100% - 63.81% = 36.19%
2. Assume 100 g of compound (percentages then become grams).
54.65 g of carbon, 9.16 g of hydrogen, 36.19 g of oxygen
3. Calculate the moles of each element 1moles = grams>atomic mass2.
1 mol C
Moles of C = 54.65 g C * = 4.550 moles C
12.011 g C
1 mol H
Moles of H = 9.16 g H * = 9.088 moles H
1.0079 g H
1 mol
Moles of O = 36.19 g O * = 2.262 moles O
15.999 g O
4. Divide by the smallest number to obtain the subscripts in the empirical formula.
The smallest number is 2.262.
4.550
Subscript for C: = 2
2.262
9.088
Subscript for H: = 4
2.262
2.262
Subscript for O: = 1
2.262
The empirical formula is therefore C2H4O.
(b) Divide the given molar mass of the compound by the molar mass of the empirical formula:
132.159
= 3
44.053
The molecular formula is therefore C2 * 3H4 * 3O1 * 3 S C6H12O3.
(c) The balanced equation for the combustion reaction is C6H12O3 + 15O2 S 12CO2 + 12H2O

9.30 (a)
Step 1: Check that the percent by mass elemental compositions add up to 100%. If they do not,
calculate the percent by mass of the additional element(s) by subtracting the total of the
given percentages from 100%.
Step 2: Assume a 100 g sample of the compound
Step 3: Convert grams of each element to moles of each element. This gives you the subscript in
the formula for that element.
Step 4: Divide all subscripts by the smallest one to get the subscripts in the empirical formula.
1. 85.62% C + 14.37% H = 99.99%, which is essentially equal to 100%,
given the slight inaccuracy in measurements.
85.62 g of carbon: 14.37 g of hydrogen
1 mol C
12.011 g C
1 mol H
1.0079 g H
7.128
7.128
14.26
7.128
The empirical formula is therefore CH2.
28.054
= 2
14.03
The molecular formula is therefore: C1 * 2H2 * 2 S C2H4.
(c) The balanced equation for the combustion reaction is C2H4 + 3O2 S 2CO2 + 2H2O
9.31 Step 1: Begin by assuming you have 1 mole of H2O2, and calculate the mass in grams of each
element in that 1 mole of H2O2:
2 mol H 1.0079 g H
1 mol H2O2 * * = 2.0158 g H
1 mol H2O2 1 mol H
2 mol O 15.999 g O
1 mol H2O2 * * = 31.998 g O
1 mol H2O2 1 mol O

Step 2: Divide each calculated mass by the mass of the 1 mole of H2O2 you are assumed to be
working with and multiply by 100: The mass of 1 mol H2O2 is its molar mass—34.014 g.
2.0158 g H
* 100% = 5.926% H
34.014 g H2O2
31.998 g O
* 100% = 94.07% O
34.014 g H2O2
9.32 Step 1: Assume you have 1 mole of TNT, and calculate the mass in grams of each element in
that 1 mole:
7 mol C 12.011 g C
1 mol TNT * * = 84.077 g C
1 mol TNT 1 mol C
5 mol H 1.0079 g H
1 mol TNT * * = 5.0395 g H
1 mol TNT 1 mol H
3 mol N 14.007 g N
1 mol TNT * * = 42.021 g N
1 mol TNT 1 mol N
6 mol O 15.999 g O
1 mol TNT * * = 95.994 g O
1 mol TNT 1 mol O
Step 2: The molar mass of TNT is 227.1 g>mol. Therefore:
84.077 g C
* 100% = 37.02% C
227.1 g TNT
5.0395 g H
* 100% = 2.219% H
227.1 g TNT
42.021 g N
* 100% = 18.50% N
227.1 g TNT
95.994 g O
* 100% = 42.27% O
227.1 g TNT
9.33 Step 1: To get the empirical formula from percent composition, assume 100 g of compound (that
way, percent values become grams):
1 mol Cl
89.09% Cl S 89.09 Cl * = 2.513 mol Cl
35.453 g Cl
1 mol C
10.06% C S 10.06 g C * = 0.8376 mol C
12.011 g C
1 mol H
0.84% H S 0.84 g H * = 0.8334 mol H
1.0079 g H
Step 2: Use the calculated number of moles as subscripts and divide through by the smallest:
Cl 2.513 C 0.8376 H0.8334 S Cl3.02C1.01H1.00 S Cl3CH empirical formula
0.8334 0.8334 0.8334
The molecular mass of this empirical formula is 119.4 g>mol. That the molar mass of the
compound is given as 119.378 g>mol tells you the molecular formula is the same as the
empirical formula.

9.34 Because the percentages of C and H do not add up to 100%, you know the compound contains O:
100% - 154.53% C + 9.15% H2 = 36.32% O
Step 1: To get the empirical formula from percent composition, assume 100 g of compound
(that way, percent values become grams):
1 mol C
53.53% C S 54.53 g C * = 4.540 mol C
12.011 g C
1 mol H
9.15% H S 9.15 g H * = 9.08 mol H
1.0079 g H
1 mol O
36.32% O S 36.32 g O * = 2.27 mol O
15.999 g O
Step 2: Use the calculated number of moles as subscripts and divide through by the smallest:
C 4.540 H9.08 O 2.27 S C2.00H4.00O1.00 S C2H4O empirical formula
2.27 2.27 2.27
Molar mass of compound 88.106 g>mol

= = 2
Molar mass of C2H4O 44.053 g>mol
The molecular formula is therefore C2 * 2H2 * 4O2 * 1 S C4H8O2.
9.35 A balanced equation is like a recipe because the equation specifies how much of each reactant must
be used to give a certain amount of product.
1
pound butter
1 egg 1 egg 2 cups flour 4
9.36 (a) , , , ,
2 cups flour 3 cups sugar 3 cups sugar 3 cups sugar
1 cup milk 1 dozen sugar cookies
,
1 dozen sugar cookies 1
pound butter
4
Many other conversion factors are possible.
1 dozen cookies 2 cups flour
(b) 30 cookies * * = 5 cups flour
12 cookies 1 dozen cookies
(c) You don’t have the conversion factor for how many cups of milk are in a container of milk.
4 cups milk 1 egg
(d) 1 container of milk * * = 4 eggs
1 container of milk 1 cup milk
1
(e) 1 egg + 2 cups flour + 3 cups sugar + pound butter + 1 cup milk S 1 dozen cookies
4
5 eggs
9.37 (a) 3 cakes * = 15 eggs
1 cake
5 eggs
(b) 63 blocks of cream cheese * = 105 eggs
3 blocks of cream cheese

5 eggs
(c) 5 cakes * = 25 eggs; Then add 2 eggs: 25 + 2 = 27.
1 cake
1 cake 1 mol of cakes
(d) 3.011 * 1024 eggs * * = 1 mole of cakes!
5 eggs 6.022 * 10 23 cakes
9.38 One mole represents the quantity 6.022 * 1023, just as one dozen represents the quantity 12.
9.39 Always.
9.40 6 billion = 6 * 10 9.
6 * 10 9
% = * 100% = 9.96 * 10 -13%
6.022 * 1023
9.41 There are 6.022 * 1023 bicycles in 1 mole of bicycles.
(a)
(b) Because there are two tires on every bicycle, the number of tires in 1 mole of bicycles is two
times 6.022 * 10 23 = 1.204 * 10 24.
6.022 * 10 23 bicycles 2 tires 24 spokes
(c) 1 mole of bicycles * * * = 2.9 * 10 25 spokes
1 mole of bicycles 1 bicycle 1 tire
6.022 * 1023 spokes 1 tire 1 bicycle
(d) 1 mole of spokes * * * = 1.3 * 10 22 bicycles
1 mole of spokes 24 spokes 2 tires
9.42 There are 6.022 * 1023 O2 molecules in 1 mole of O2 molecules. Because there are two O atoms in
every O2 molecule, the number of O atoms in 1 mole of O2 molecules is two times 6.022 * 10 23, or
1.204 * 1024.
6.022 * 10 23 pennies
9.43 2.5 moles of pennies * = 1.5 * 10 24 pennies
1 mole of pennies
1 dollar
1.5 * 10 24 pennies * = 1.5 * 10 22 dollars
100 pennies
9.44 1 mole of seconds = 6.022 * 10 23 s; thus:
1 min 1h 1 day 1 year
6.022 * 1023 s * * * * = 1.91 * 10 16 years
60 s 60 min 24 h 365 days
9.45 Two molecules of sulfur dioxide react with 1 molecule of oxygen to give 2 molecules of sulfur
trioxide. Two moles of sulfur dioxide react with 1 mole of oxygen to give 2 moles of sulfur trioxide.
9.46 There is no such thing as a fractional molecule, such as (5>2) molecules of oxygen. The word moles
solves the difficulty because a fraction of a mole can be measured out.
9.47 The mass of 1 mole of atoms of an element is equal to the element’s atomic mass expressed in grams.
9.48 The mass of 1 mole of any molecule is the molecule’s mass expressed in grams.
9.49 A compound’s molar mass is calculated by summing the molar masses of all the atoms in the
compound.
9.50 Chemical equations “speak” in moles, but you need to measure substances in grams. Molar mass
allows you to translate from moles to grams or from grams to moles.
9.51 The atomic mass of this isotope is exactly 12 amu, by definition. Therefore, the molar mass is exactly
12 g, meaning that 12 g of 126C is 1 mole and must contain 6.022 * 10 23 atoms.

9.52 (a)
The periodic table tells you that 12.011 amu is the atomic mass of carbon. Thus, from the
definition of molar mass, you know that 12.011 g of carbon is 1 mole of carbon, containing
6.022 * 1023 atoms.
6.022 * 10 23 atoms of C 1 dozen
(b) 1 mol C * * = 5.018 * 10 22 dozens of C atoms
1 mol C 12 atoms of C
(c) 1 mole
9.53 The subscript on each atom in the chemical formula tells you the number of moles of the atom in
1 mole of the compound:
6 mol C
(a) 1 mol C6H12O6 * = 6 mol C
1 mol C6H12O6
12 mol H
(b) 1 mol C6H12O6 * = 12 mol H
1 mol C6H12O6
6 mol O 6.22 * 10 23 atoms O
(c) 1 mol C6H12O6 * * = 3.613 * 10 24 atoms O
1 mol C6H12O6 1 mol O
9.54 The subscripts in the formula give the number of moles of each atom in each mole of the compound:
3 mol H
(a) 1 mol NH3 * = 3 mol H
1 mol NH3
3 mol H
(b) 2 mol NH3 * = 6 mol H
1 mol NH3
1 mol N 6.022 * 10 23 atoms N
(c) 2 mol NH3 * * = 1.204 * 10 24 atoms N
1 mol NH3 1 mol N
9.55 The theoretical yield of a reaction is the maximum amount of product that can be made from a given
amount of reactants.
9.56 The actual yield is the amount of product that is actually recovered after a chemical reaction.
9.57 Some reactions have competing side reactions that use up reactants to produce unwanted side products.
Sometimes difficulties in collecting the desired product make it impossible to recover all of it.
9.58 The percent yield of any reaction is the actual yield expressed as a percent of the theoretical yield.
Actual yield
Percent yield = * 100%
Theoretical yield
15.5 g
9.59 Percent yield = * 100% = 38.8%
40.0 g
9.60 (a) 2NO + O2 S 2NO2
(b) 2 moles of nitrogen monoxide and 1 mole of oxygen react to give 2 moles of nitrogen dioxide.
(c) You need 2 moles of NO and 1 mole of O2. The molar masses are
14.007 + 15.999 = 30.006 g>mol for NO and 2 * 15.999 = 31.9988 g>mol for O2.
30.006 g NO
2 mol NO * = 60.012 g NO
1 mol NO
31.998 g O2
1 mol O2 * = 31.998 O2
1 mol O2

(d) The theoretical yield is 2 moles of NO2, and the molar mass of NO2 is 46.006 g>mol:
46.006 g NO2
2 mol NO2 * = 92.012 g NO2
1 mol NO2
Actual yield 22.5 g
(e) Percent yield = * 100% = * 100% = 24.5%
9.61 (a) 2HCl + Zn S H2 + ZnCl2
(b) 2 moles of hydrogen chloride and 1 mole of zinc react to give 1 mole of hydrogen and 1 mole of
zinc chloride.
(c) You need 2 moles of HCl and 1 mole of Zn. The molar masses are
1.0079 + 35.453 = 36.461 g>mol for HCl and 65.39 g>mol for Zn:
36.461 g
2 mol HCl * = 72.922 g HCl
1 mol HCl
65.39 g
1 mol Zn * = 65.39 Zn
1 mol Zn
(d) The theoretical yield is 1 mole of H2, and the molar mass of H2 is 2.0158 g>mol:
2.0158 g H2
1 mol H2 * = 2.0158 g H2
1 mol H2
Actual yield 2.00 g
(e) Percent yield = * 100% = * 100% = 99.2%
9.62 (a) 2Na + Cl2 S 2NaCl

(b) 2 moles of sodium and 1 mole of chlorine react to give 2 moles of sodium chloride.
(c) Because the equation is written for 2 moles of NaCl but you want to produce only 1 mole, you
need to divide the reactant amounts by 2, which means you need 1 mole of Na and 0.5 mole Cl2.
The molar masses are 22.9898 g>mol for Na and 2 * 35.453 = 70.906 g>mol for Cl2:
22.9898 g Na
1 mol Na * = 22.9898 g Na
1 mol Na
70.906 g Cl2
0.5 mol Cl2 * = 35.453 g Cl2
1 mol Cl2
(d) The theoretical yield is 1 mole of NaCl, which is
58.443 g NaCl
1 mol NaCl * = 58.443 g NaCl
1 mol NaCl
(e) Percent yield = * 100% = * 100% = 77.85%
6 mol C atoms 12 mol H atoms 1 mol C6H12O6 6 mol C atoms
9.63 (a) , , , ,
1 mol C6H12O6 1 mol C6H12O6 6 mol O atoms 12 mol H atoms
12 mol H atoms 12 mol H atoms
, ; others possible.
6 mol O atoms 6 mol C atoms
6 C atoms
(b) 72,000 H atoms * = 36,000 C atoms
12 H atoms

1 molecule of C6H12O6 1 mole of C6H12O6
(c) 72,000 H atoms * * *
12 H atoms 6.022 * 10 23 molecules of C6H12O6
180.157 g
= 1.8 * 10 -18 g
1 mole of C6H12O6
9.64 From the equation:
2 mol AgBr 2 mol AgBr 2 mol Ag 2 mol Ag 1 mol Br2 1 mol Br2
, , , , ,
2 mol Ag 1 mol Br2 1 mol Br2 2 mol AgBr 2 mol AgBr 2 mol Ag
From the formulas:
1 mol Ag atoms 1 mol AgBr molecules 1 mol Br atoms
, , ,
1 mol AgBr molecules 1 mol Ag atoms 1 mol AgBr molecules
1 mol AgBr molecules 2 mol Br atoms 1 mol Br2 molecules
, ,
1 mol Br atoms 1 mol Br2 molecules 2 mol Br atoms
9.65 (a) I 2 + 3Cl2 S 2ICl3
1 mol I 2 1 mol I 2 3 mol Cl2 3 mol Cl2 2 mol ICl3 2 mol ICl3
(b) , , , , ,
3 mol Cl2 2 mol ICl3 2 mol ICl3 1 mol I 2 1 moI I 2 3 mol Cl2
2 mol I atoms 1 mol I 2 molecules 2 mol Cl atoms 1 mol Cl2 molecules
(c) , , , ,
1 mol I 2 molecules 2 mol I atoms 1 mol Cl2 molecules 2 mol Cl atoms
1 mol I atoms 1 mol ICl3 molecules 3 mol Cl atoms
, , ,
1 mol ICl3 molecules 1 mol I atoms 1 mol ICl3 molecules
1 mol ICl3 molecules
3 mol Cl atoms
1 mol H atoms 6.022 * 10 23 H atoms
9.66 2.0158 g H atoms * * = 1.204 * 10 24 H atoms
1.0079 g H atoms 1 mol H atoms
1 mol O2
9.67 (a) 24.0 g O2 * = 0.750 mol O2
31.998 g O2
2 moles O atoms
(b) 0.750 mol O2 * = 1.50 moles O atoms
1 mol O2
1 mol O2
9.68 (a) 92.5 g O2 * = 2.89 mol O2
31.998 g O2
2 moles O atoms
(b) 2.89 mol O2 * = 5.78 moles O atoms
1 mol O2
6.022 * 10 23 O atoms
(c) 5.78 moles O atoms * = 3.48 * 10 24 O atoms
1 mol O atoms
This number is twice as large as the number of O2 molecules present.
9.69 (a)
The molar mass of H2SO4 is
H 2 * 1.0079 g>mol = 2.0158 g>mol
S 1 * 32.064 g>mol = 32.64 g>mol
O 4 * 15.999 g>mol = 63.996 g>mol
98.076 g/mol

(b) 98.076 g
98.076 g H2SO4
(c) 2.50 mol H2SO4 * = 245 g
1 mol H2SO4
1 mol H2SO4 98.076 g H2SO4
(d) 1000 molecules H2SO4 * 23 *
6.022 * 10 molecules H2SO4 1mol H2SO4
= 1.629 * 10 -19 g H2SO4
1 mol O2 6.022 * 1023 molecules O2
9.70 1.00 g O2 * * = 1.88 * 10 22 molecules O2
31.998 g O2 1 mol O2
1 mol H2O 18.015 g H2O
9.71 1.00 * 10 9 molecules H2O * 23 * = 2.99 * 10 -14 g H2O
6.022 * 10 molecules H2O 1 mol H2O
1 mol C 1 mol C6H12O6
9.72 5.00 * 10 30 atoms C * 23 *
6.022 * 10 atoms C 6 mol C
180.15 g C6H12O6
* = 2.49 * 10 8 g C6H12O6
1 mol C6H12O6
1 mol H2O2 2 mol H2O 18.015 g H2O
9.73 (a) 20.0 g H2O2 * * * = 10.6 g H2O
34.014 g H2O2 2 mol H2O2 1 mol H2O
1 mol H2O 2 mol H2O2 34.014 g H2O2
(b) 20.0 g H2O * * * = 37.8 g H2O2
18.015 g H2O 2 mol H2O 1 mol H2O2
1 mol O2 2 mol H2O2 34.014 g H2O2
(c) 20.0 g O2 * * * = 42.5 g H2O2
31.998 g O2 2 mol O2 1 mol H2O2
1 mol SCl4 2 mol H2O 18.015 g H2O
9.74 (a) 5.000 g SCl4 * * * = 1.036 g H2O
173.88 g SCl4 1 mol SCl4 1 mol H2O
1 mol H2O 1 mol SO2 64.064 g SO2
(b) 10.00 g H2O * * * = 17.78 g SO2
18.015 g H2O 2 mol H2O 1 mol SO2
(c) Because the mass of H2O you calculated in part (a) is exactly the mass of H2O that reacts with
5.000 g of SCl4, you may use either reactant to calculate the amount of HCl formed:
1 mol SCl4 4 mol HCl 36.460 g HCl
5.000 g SCl4 * * * = 4.194 g HCl
173.88 g SCl4 1 mol SCl4 1 mol HCl
or
1 mol H2O 4 mol HCl 36.460 g HCl
1.036 g H2O * * * = 4.193 g HCl
18.015 g H2O 2 mol H2O 1 mol HCl
9.75 Since B was the limiting reactant, some of the excess reactant A will be left behind. At the end of the
reaction, you will discover that the product C is contaminated with the leftover reactant A. Since both
A and C are solids, it will be rather difficult, and hence expensive, to separate them from each other.
9.76 To determine which is the limiting ingredient, multiply each given amount by the appropriate
conversion factor:
1 dozen cookies
3 cups flour * = 1.5 dozen cookies
2 cups flour

1 dozen cookies
3 cups sugar * = 1 dozen cookies
3 cups sugar
Because it gives the smaller number, the sugar is the limiting ingredient. You can make only one
dozen of cookies.
9.77 To determine which is the limiting ingredient, multiply each given amount by the appropriate
conversion factor:
1 cheesecake
25 eggs * = 5 cheesecakes
5 eggs
1 cheesecake
9 blocks cream cheese * = 3 cheesecakes
3 blocks cream cheese
1 cheesecake
4 cups sugar * = 4 cheesecakes
1 cups sugar
Because it gives the smallest number, the cream cheese is the limiting ingredient. You can make three
cheesecakes.
1 mol H2 2 mol H2O 18.015 g H2O
9.78 (a) 5.00 g H2 * * * = 44.7 g H2O
2.0158 g H2 2 mol H2 1 mol O2
1 mol H2O 1 mol O2 31.998 g O2
(b) 5.00 g H2O * * * = 4.44 g O2
18.015 g H2O 2 mol H2O 1 mol O2
1 mol H2
(c) The number of moles of H2 in 100.0 g is 100.0 g H2 * = 49.61 mol H2
2.0158 g H2
The number of moles of O2 required to react in a stoichiometric fashion with 49.61 moles of H2 is
1 mol O2
49.61 mol H2 * = 24.81 mol O2
2 mol H2
This many moles of O2 expressed in grams is
31.998 g O2
24.81 mol O2 * = 793.9 g O2
1 mol O2
1 mol O2 2 mol H2O 18.015 g H2O
(d) 50.0 g O2 * * * = 56.3 g H2O
31.998 g O2 1 mol O2 1 mol H2O
1 mol H2O 6.022 * 1023 molecules H2O
(e) 56.3 g H2O * * = 1.88 * 10 24 molecules H2O
18.015 g H2O 1 mol H2O
9.79 The first thing you must do is balance the equation: 4P + 5O2 S 2P2O5
1 mol O2 4 mol P 30.973 g P
(a) 20.0 g O2 * * * = 15.5 g P
31.998 g O2 5 mol O2 1 mol P
(b) Because part (a) was calculated for running the reaction in a balanced fashion, you may use
either mass to calculate the theoretical yield:
1 mol O2 2 mol P2O5 141.941 g P2O5
20.0 g O2 * * * = 35.5 g P2O5
31.998 g O2 5 mol O2 1 mol P2O5
or

1 mol P 2 mol P2O5 141.941 g P2O5
15.5 g P * * * = 35.5 g P2O5
30.973 g P 4 mol P 1 mol P2O5
9.80 The balanced equation is 3H2 + N2 S 2NH3
1 mol H2 1 mol N2 28.014 g N2
(a) 10.0 g H2 * * * = 46.3 g N2
2.0158 g H2 3 mol H2 1 mol N2
(b) Because the masses of part (a) are for the reaction run in a balanced fashion, you may use either
mass to determine the mass of product:
1 mol H2 2 mol NH3 17.031 g NH3
10.0 g H2 * * * = 56.3 g NH3
2.0158 g H2 3 mol H2 1 mol NH3
or
1 mol N2 2 mol NH3 17.031 g NH3
46.3 g H2 * * * = 56.3 g NH3
28.014 g N2 3 mol N2 1 mol NH3
1 mol NH2 6.022 * 10 23 molecules NH3
(c) 56.3 g NH2 * * = 1.99 * 10 24 molecules NH3
17.031 g NH3 1 mol NH3
9.81 (a) H2 + Br2 S 2HBr
(b) The balanced equation tells you the H2 and Br2 combine in a one-to-one ratio.
1 mol H2
10.079 g H2 * = 5.0000 mol H2
2.0158 g H2
Because you have 7.00 moles of Br2 but only 5.0000 moles of H2, the H2 is the limiting reactant.
(c) Because H2 is the limiting reactant, you must use it to calculate the theoretical yield:
2 mol HBr
5.0000 mol H2 * = 10.000 mol HBr
1 mol H2
80.912 g HBr
(d) 10.000 mol HBr * = 809.00 g HBr
1 mol HBr
(e) You begin with 5.0000 moles of H2 and 7.00 moles of Br2. You know from the one-to-one
reactant ratio in the balanced equation that 5.00 moles of Br2 react with 5.00 moles of H2.
Therefore, the excess amount of Br2 is 7.00 mol - 5.00 mol = 2.00 mol.
159.81 g Br2
(f) 2.00 mol Br2 * = 320 g Br2
1 mol Br2
9.82 Because the amounts given are not easy-to-work-with whole numbers as they were in the preceding
problem, use the four-step procedure given in the textbook.
(a) Step 1: Cl2 + 3F2 S 2ClF3
(b) Step 2 is unnecessary because amounts are given in moles.
2.50
Step 2a: Cl2 = 2.50
1
6.15
F2 = 2.05
3
Its smaller mole-to-coefficient ratio tells you F2 is the limiting reactant.

2 mol C1F3
(c) Step 3: 6.15 mol F2 * = 4.10 mol ClF3
3 mol F2
92.447 g ClF3
(d) Step 4: 4.10 mol CIF3 * = 379 g ClF3
1 mol ClF3
(e) The excess reactant is Cl2, and you began with 2.50 moles of it. Because this problem deals with
theoretical yields, you can assume the entire 6.15 moles of limiting reactant F2 was used up.
The amount of Cl2 consumed was
1 mol Cl2
6.15 mol F2 * = 2.05 mol Cl2
3 mol F2
The leftover Cl2 is therefore: 2.50 mol - 2.05 mol = 0.45 mol.
70.906 g Cl2
(f) 0.45 mol Cl2 * = 32 g Cl2
1 mol Cl2
9.83 Step 1: 2Na1s2 + Br21l2 S 2NaBr1s2
(a)
1 mol Na
(b) Step 2: 5.00 g Na * = 0.217 mol Na
22.9898 g Na
1 mol Br2
30.0 g Br2 * = 0.188 mol Br2
159.8 g Br2
0.217
Step 2a: Na = 0.109
2
0.188
Br2 = 0.188
1
Because 0.109 is the smaller number, Na is the limiting reactant.
2 mol NaBr 102.89 g NaBr
(c) Steps 3 and 4: 0.217 mol Na * * = 22.3 g NaBr
2 mol Na 1 mol NaBr
(d) Because the problem deals with theoretical yields, all the 5.00 g = 0.217 moles of limiting
reactant Na is used up. The amount of Br2 it combined with is
1 mol Br2 159.82 g Br2
0.217 mol Na * * = 17.3 g Br2
2 mol Na 1 mol Br2
The leftover Br2 is therefore: 30.0 g - 17.3 g = 12.7 g.
14.7 g NaBr
(e) * 100% = 65.9%
22.3 g NaBr
9.84 (a) Step 1: Cl2 + 3F2 S 2ClF3
1 mol Cl2
(b) Step 2: 10.00 g Cl2 * = 0.1410 mol Cl2
70.906 g Cl2
1 mol F2
10.00 g F2 * = 0.2632 mol F2
37.996 g F2

0.1410
Step 2a: Cl2 = 0.1410
1
0.2632
F2 = 0.08773 limiting
3
(c) Steps 3 and 4:
2 mol ClF3 92.447 g ClF3
0.2632 mol F2 * * = 16.22 g ClF3
3 mol F2 1 mol ClF3
(d) All of the F2 is used up, consuming
1 mol Cl2 70.906 g Cl2
0.2632 mol F2 * * = 6.221 g Cl2
3 mol F2 1 mol Cl2
The leftover Cl2 is 10.00 g - 6.221 g = 3.78 g.
12.50 g ClF3
(e) * 100% = 77.07%
16.22 g ClF3
9.85 (a) Step 1: 2 Na + H2 S 2 NaH
1 mol Na
(b) Step 2: 10.00 g Na * = 0.4350 mol Na
22.9898 g Na
1 mol H2
0.0235 g H2 * = 0.0117 mol H2
2.0158 g H2
0.4350
Step 2a: Na = 0.2175
2
0.0117
H2 = 0.0117 limiting reactant
1
2 mol NaH 23.998 g NaH
(c) Steps 3 and 4: 0.0117 mol H2 * * = 0.562 g NaH
1 mol H2 1 mol NaH
(d) All of the H2 is used up, consuming
2 mol Na 22.9898 g Na
0.0117 mol H2 * * = 0.538 g Na
1 mol H2 1 mol Na
The leftover Na is therefore: 10.00 g - 0.538 g = 9.46 g.
0.428 g NaH
(e) * 100% = 76.2%
0.562 g NaH
9.86 (a) Step 1: 2C4H10 + 13O2 S 8CO2 + 10H2O
1 mol C4H10
(b) Step 2: 10.00 g C4H10 * = 0.1720 mol C4H10
58.123 g C4H10
1 mol O2
10.00 g O2 * = 0.3125 mol O2
31.998 g O2
0.1720
Step 2a: C4H10 = 0.0860
2
0.3125
O2 = 0.0240 limiting reactant
13

8 mol CO2 44.009 g CO2
(c) 0.3125 mol O2 * * = 8.463 g CO2
13 mol O2 1 mol CO2
10 mol H2O 18.015 g H2O
0.3125 mol O2 * * = 4.331 g H2O
13 mol O2 13 mol H2O
2 mol C4H10 58.123 g C4H10
(d) 0.3125 mol O2 * * = 2.794 g C4H10 consumed
13 mol O2 1 mol C4H10
10.00 g - 2.794 g = 7.21 g C4H10 left over
(e) Find the total number of grams of O2 needed to run the reaction in balanced fashion with
10.00 g of C4H10:
1 mol C4H10 13 mol O2 31.998 g O2
10.00 g C4H10 * * * = 35.78 g O2
58.123 g C4H10 2 mol C4H10 1 mol O2
35.78 g O2 needed - 10.00 g O2 present = 25.78 g additional O2
Molar mass of compound 90 g>mol
9.87 Step 1: = = 2 approximately
Molar mass of empirical formula 44.053 g>mol
Step 2: C2 * 2H2 * 4O2 * 1 S C4H8O2
26 g>mol
9.88 (a) Step 1: = 2 approximately
13.02 g>mol
Step 2: C2 * 1H2 * 1 S C2H2
52 g>mol
(b) Step 1: = 4 approximately
13.02 g>mol
Step 2: C4 * 1H4 * 1 S C4H4
78 g>mol
(c) Step 1: = 6 approximately
13.02 g>mol
Step 2: C6 * 1H6 * 1 S C6H6
9.89 (a)
O = 100% - 46.71% = 53.29%
2. Since the mass of the sample is provided, calculate the mass due to each element:
Mass of C = 0.4000 * 1.540 g = 0.6160 g C
Mass of H = 0.0671 * 1.540 g = 0.103 g H
Mass of O = 0.5329 * 1.540 g = 0.8207 g O
1 mol C
12.011 g C
1 mol H
1.0079 g H
1 mol
15.999 g O

0.05129
0.05129
0.102
0.05129
0.05129
0.05129
The empirical formula is therefore CH2O.
30
= 1
30.026
Because the molar mass is equal to the mass of the empirical formula. The molecular formula is
also CH2O.
9.90 (a)
O = 100% - 82.98% = 17.02%
Mass of C = 0.7659 * 2.230 g = 1.708 g C
Mass of H = 0.0639 * 2.230 g = 0.142 g H
Mass of O = 0.1702 * 2.230 g = 0.3795 g O
1 mol C
Moles of C = 1.708 g C *
= 0.1422 moles C
12.011 g C
1 mol H
Moles of H = 0.142 g H *
= 0.141 moles H
1.0079 g H
1 mol
Moles of O = 0.3795 g O *
= 0.02372 moles O
15.999 g O
0.1422
0.02372
0.141
0.02372
0.02372
0.02372
The empirical formula is therefore C6H6O.

94
= 1
94.112
Because the molar mass is equal to the mass of the empirical formula. The molecular formula is
also C6H6O.
9.91 (a)
1. 92.3% C + 7.7% H = 100.0%. Therefore the sample does not contain any oxygen.
Mass of C = 0.923 * 1.000 g = 0.923 g C
Mass of H = 0.077 * 1.000 g = 0.077 g H
1 mol C
12.011 g C
1 mol H
1.0079 g H
0.0768
0.076
0.076
0.076
The empirical formula is therefore CH.
78
= 6
13.019
The molecular formula is C1 * 6 H1 * 6 = C6H6.
9.92 (a)
The % by mass of H in the sample is
0.2874 g H
* 100% = 14.37% H
2.000 g sample
(b) Since the information was given in grams, not % by mass composition, you need to
somewhat modify your approach. Since the compound is said to contain only C and H, you
can obtain the mass of C from the difference between the mass of sample and the mass of H:
Mass of C = 2.000 g - 0.2874 g = 1.713 g C
Convert grams of each element to moles of each element. This gives you the subscript in the
formula for that element.
1 mol C
Moles of C = 2.713 g C * = 0.1426 mol C
12.011 g C
1 mol H
1.0079 g H

Divide by the smallest number to obtain the subscripts in the empirical formula.
0.1426
Subscript for C:
= 1
0.1426
0.2851
Subscript for H:
= 2
0.1426
The empirical formula is therefore CH2.
(c) To find the molecular (actual) formula of the compound, divide the given molar mass of the
compound by the molar mass of the empirical formula 11 * 12.011 + 2 * 1.0079 = 14.0272
71
= 5
14.027
The molecular formula is therefore: C1 * 5H2 * 5 S C5H10
9.93 (a)
1. 55.55% C + 3.15% H = 58.70%, which is less than 100%. Therefore, the percent
Cl = 100% - 58.70% = 41.30%.
54.65 g of carbon, 3.15 g of hydrogen, 41.3 g of chlorine
1 mol C
12.011 g C
1 mol H
1.0079 g H
1 mol
Moles of Cl = 41.3 g Cl * = 1.165 moles Cl
35.453 g Cl
4.550
Subscript for C: = 3.91 1approximately 42
1.165
3.125
Subscript for H: = 2.67 12 2>3 or 8>32
1.165
1.165
Subscript for Cl: = 1
1.165
The subscripts in the empirical formula are therefore C4H2.67Cl. However, note that the sub-
scripts are not all integral (whole) numbers. To get all whole numbers, we must multiply each
subscript by 3, to obtain the actual empirical formula of C12H8Cl3.
(b) If the empirical formula is one-third the mass of its actual formula, we multiply the subscripts in
the empirical formula by three to get the molecular formula, which is C36H24Cl9.
9.94 (a)
1. 24.78% C + 2.08% H = 26.86%, which is less than 100%. Therefore, the percent
Cl = 100% - 26.86% = 73.14%

24.78 g of carbon, 2.08 g of hydrogen, 73.14 g of chlorine
1 mol C
12.011 g C
1 mol H
1.0079 g H
1 mol
Moles of Cl = 73.14 g Cl * = 2.063 moles Cl
35.453 g Cl
2.063
2.063
2.064
2.063
2.063
Subscript for Cl: = 1
2.063
The empirical formula is therefore CHCl.
(b) If the empirical formula is one-fourth the mass of its actual formula, we multiply the subscripts
in the empirical formula by four to get the molecular formula, which is C4H4Cl4.
9.95 Step 1: To get the empirical formula from percent composition, assume 100 g of compound
(that way, percent values become grams):
1 mol C
66.63% C S 66.63 g C * = 5.547 mol C
12.011 g C
1 mol H
11.18% H S 11.18 g H * = 11.09 mol H
1.0079 g H
1 mol O
22.19% O S 22.19 g O * = 1.387 mol O
15.999 g O
Step 2: Use the calculated numbers of moles as subscripts and divide through by the smallest:
C 5.547 H11.09 O 1.387 S C4.00H8.00O1.00 S C4H8O
1.387 1.387 1.387
9.96 Step 1: Assume 100 g of compound and convert element masses to moles:
1 mol C
58.5% C S 58.5 g C * = 4.87 mol C
12.011 g C
1 mol H
4.91% H S 4.91 g H * = 4.87 mol H
1.0079 g H
1 mol
19.5% O S 19.5 g O * = 1.22 mol O
15.999 g O
1 mol N
17.1% N S 17.1 g N * = 1.22 mol N
14.007 g N
Step 2: C 4.87 H4.87 O 1.22 N 1.22 S C3.99H3.99O1.00N1.00 S C4H4ON
1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22

9.97 First determine the percent by mass oxygen:
100% - 126.4% Na + 36.8% S2 = 36.8% O
Step 1: Assume 100 g of compound and convert masses to moles:
1 mol Na
26.4% Na S 26.4 g Na * = 1.15 mol Na
22.9898 g Na
1 mol S
36.8% S S 36.8 g S * = 1.15 mol S
32.066 g S
1 mol O
36.8% O S 36.8 g O * = 2.30 mol O
15.999 g O
Step 2: Na 1.15 S1.15 O 2.30 S Na 1.00S1.00O2.00 S NaSO2
1.15 1.15 1.15
9.98 First determine the mass percent of oxygen:

100% - 143.2% K + 39.1% Cl2 = 17.7% O
Step 1: Assume 100 g of compound and convert masses to moles:
1 mol K
43.2% K S 43.2 g K * = 1.10 mol K
39.098 g K
1 mol Cl
39.1% Cl S 39.1 g Cl * = 1.10 mol Cl
35.453 g Cl
1 mol O
17.7% O S 17.7 g O * = 1.11 mol O
15.999 g O
Step 2: K 1.10 Cl 1.10 O 1.11 S K1.00Cl1.00O1.01 S KClO
1.10 1.10 1.10
9.99 Step 1: Assume you have 1 mole of C2H6O. That way, the subscripts tell you how many moles you
have of each element in the compound. Use this information to convert element moles to
element masses:
12.011 g C
2 mol C * = 24.022 g C
1 mol C
1.0079 g H
6 mol H * = 6.474 g H
1 mol H
15.999 g O
1 mol O * = 15.999 g O
1 mol O
Step 2: Divide each mass calculated in step 1 by the mass of the 1 mole of C2H6O you are assumed
to have. The mass in grams of that 1 mole is numerically equal to the molar mass. The molar
mass of C2H6 is 46.068 g>mol, which means you are working with 46.068 g of C2H6O.
Multiply each quotient by 100% to get the mass percent of each element:
24.022 g C
* 100% = 52.14% C
46.068 g C2H6O
6.0474 g C
* 100% = 13.13% H
46.068 g C2H6O
15.999 g C
* 100% = 34.73% O
46.068 g C2H6O

9.100 Step 1: Assume you have 1 mole of C2H6O2, so that the subscripts tell you how many moles of each
element you have. Convert moles to masses:
12.011 g C
2 mol C * = 24.022 g C
1 mol C
1.0079 g H
6 mol H * = 6.0474 g H
1 mol H
15.999 g O
2 mol O * = 31.998 g O
1 mol O
Step 2: The molar mass of C2H6O2 is 62.067 g>mol, meaning the assumed 1 mole you are working
with has a mass of 62.067 g. Divide each element mass by this mass and multiply by 100%
to get mass percents:
24.022 g C
* 100% = 38.70% C
62.067 g C2H6O2
6.0474 g H
* 100% = 9.743% H
62.067 g C2H6O2
31.998 g P
* 100% = 51.55% O
62.067 g C2H6O2
9.101 Since P2O5 can be viewed as the empirical formula for P4O10, there is no difference in the % by mass
composition for P and for O between these two formulas.
9.102 Step 1: Assume 1 mole of C15H11NO4I 4, so that the subscripts tell you moles of each element.
Convert moles to masses:
12.011 g C
15 mol C * = 180.17 g C
1 mol C
1.0079 g H
11 mol H * = 11.087 g H
1 mol H
14.007 g N
1 mol N * = 14.007 g N
1 mol N
15.007 g O
4 mol O * = 63.996 g O
1 mol O
126.90 g I
4 mol I * = 507.60 g I
1 mol I
Step 2: The molar mass of C15H11NO4I 4 is 776.86 g>mol, meaning your 1 mole has a mass of
776.86 g. Divide each element mass by this mass and multiply by 100% to get mass
percents:
180.17 g C
* 100% = 23.192% C
776.86 g C15H11NO4I 4
11.087 g H
* 100% = 1.4272% H
776.86 g C15H11NO4I 4
14.007 g N
* 100% = 1.8030% N
776.86 g C15H11NO4I 4

63.996 g O
* 100% = 8.2378% O
776.86 g C15H11NO4I 4
507.60 g I
* 100% = 65.340% I
776.86 g C15H11NO4I 4
9.103 (a) 5 mol C = 5 * 12.011 g>mol = 60.055 g>mol
10 mol H = 10 * 1.0079 g>mol = 10.079 g>mol
5 mol O = 5 * 15.999 g>mol = 79.995 g>mol
1 mol C5H10O5 S 150.129 g>mol
150.129 g
(b) 3.87 mol * = 581 g
1 mol
6.022 * 10 23 molecules
(c) 3.87 mol * = 2.33 * 10 24 molecules
1 mol
5 mol O 6.022 * 1023 atoms O
(d) 3.87 mol ribose * * = 1.16 * 10 25 atoms O
1 mol ribose 1 mol O
15.999 g
(e) 1.16 * 10 25 atoms O * = 309 g
6.022 * 1023 atoms O
Mass of one S atom: 32.064 amu; mass of one O2 molecule: 2 * 15.999 amu = 31.998 amu.
9.104 (a)
The S atom has more mass.
(b) The molar mass of S8 is 8 * 32.064 g>mol = 256.5 g>mol. Therefore:
256.5 g S8
0.125 mol S8 * = 32.06 g S8
1 mol S8
The molar mass of O3 is 3 * 15.999 g>mol = 47.997 g>mol. Therefore:
47.997 g O3
0.670 mol O3 * = 32.16 g O3
1 mol O3
The O3 sample has more mass.
9.105 No, because the theoretical yield is 100% of what you can possibly get.
9.106 (a) 2Na1s2 + 2H2O1l2 S 2NaOH1aq2 + H21g2
1 mol Na
(b) 100.0 g Na * = 4.350 mol Na
22.9898 g Na
Mole-to-coefficient ratios:
4.350
Na = 2.175
2
4.00
H2O = 2.00
2
H2O is the limiting reactant because it has the lower ratio.
9.107 C2H4 molar mass 2 * 12.011 g>mol = 24.022 g>mol
4 * 1.0079 g>mol = 4.032 g>mol
28.054 g>mol

CO molar mass 1 * 12.011 g>mol = 12.011 g>mol
1 * 15.999 g>mol = 15.999 g>mol
28.010 g>mol
N2 molar mass 2 * 14.007 g>mol = 28.014 g>mol
The 1 mole of C2H4 has the greatest mass.
9.108 100%
9.109 (a) 12 * 12.011 g>mol C = 144.13 g>mol
22 * 1.0079 g>mol H = 22.17 g>mol
11 * 15.999 g>mol O = 175.99 g>mol
342.29 g>mol C12H22O11
342.29 g
(b) 1.25 mol * = 428 g
1 mol
6.022 * 1023 molecules
(c) 1.25 mol * = 7.53 * 10 23 molecules
1 mol
22 mol H 6.022 * 10 23 H atoms
(d) 1.25 mol sucrose * * = 1.66 * 10 25 H atoms
1 mol sucrose 1 mol H
1.0079 amu 1.661 * 10 -24 g
(e) 1.66 * 10 25 H atoms * * = 27.8 g
1 H atom 1 amu
9.110 (a) 2Al1s2 + 3Cl21g2 S 2AlCl31s2
1 mol Al
(b) 100.0 g Al * = 3.706 mol Al
26.98 g Al
3.760
Al = 1.853
2
5.00
Cl2 = 1.667 smaller ratio, limiting reactant
3
9.111 (a) 2Cu2O1s2 + C1s2 S 4Cu1s2 + CO21g2
(b) Begin by converting the Cu2O mass from tons to grams:
2000 lb 1 kg 1000 g
1.000 ton * * * = 9.070 * 10 5 g
1 ton 2.205 lb 1 kg
Convert to moles:
1 mol Cu2O
9.070 * 10 5 g Cu2O * = 6339 mol Cu2O
143.08 g Cu2O
Use the equation coefficients to determine the number of moles of C that react with this
much Cu2O, then convert to mass:
1 mol C
6339 mol Cu2O * = 3170 mol C
2 mol Cu2O
12.011 g C
3170 mol C * = 3.807 * 10 4 g C
1 mol C

This is the amount of C you need but you must account for the fact that the coke is only 95% by mass C:
100 g coke 1 kg
3.807 * 10 4 g C * * = 40.07 kg coke
95 g C 1000 g
9.112 For 100 g of sample,
1 mol Na
17.552% Na S 17.552 g Na * = 0.7635 mol Na
22.9898 g Na
1 mol Cr
39.696% Cr S 39.696 g Cr * = 0.7634 mol Cr
51.996 g Cr
1 mol O
42.752% O S 42.752 g O * = 2.672 mol O
15.999 g O
Na 0.7635 Cr 0.7634 O 2.672 S Na 1.00Cr1.00O3.50
0.7635 0.7634 0.7634
To remove the decimal subscript on O, multiply through by 2, to get an empirical formula of Na 2Cr2O7.
1 mol PF3 3 mol CO 28.010 g CO
9.113 (a) 10.0 g PF3 * * * = 4.78 g CO
87.968 g PF3 2 mol PF3 1 mol CO
(b) Determine the limiting reactant:
5.0
Fe1CO25 = 5.0
1
8.0
PF3 = 4.0 smallest ratio, limiting reactant
2
6.0
H2 = 6.0
1
3 mol Co 28.010 g CO
8.0 mol PF3 * * = 3.4 * 10 2 g CO
2 mol PF3 1 mol CO
1 mol Fe1CO25
(c) 25.0 g Fe1Co25 * = 0.128 mol Fe1CO25
195.9 g Fe1CO25
1 mol PF3
10.0 g PF3 * = 0.114 mol PF3
87.968 g PF3
0.128
Fe1CO25 = 0.128
1
0.114
PF3 = 0.057 limiting reactant
2
3 mol CO
0.114 mol PF3 * = 0.171 mol CO
2 mol PF3
0.0820 g H2 1 mol H2
(d) 5.00 L H2 * * = 0.203 mol H2
1 L H2 2.0158 g H2
3 mol CO 28.010 g CO
0.203 mol H2 * * = 17.1 g CO theoretical yield
1 mol H2 1 mol CO
13.5 g
Percent yield = * 100% = 78.9%
17.1 g

9.114 (a) CH41g2 + 2O21g2 S CO21g2 + 2H2O1g2
(b)
(c) The balanced equation tells you one CH4 molecule needs two O2 molecules, meaning that three
CH4 molecules need six O2 molecules. With only four O2 molecules available, O2 is the limiting
reactant. You should have one unreacted CH4 molecule in your “after” drawing.
1 mol AgNO3
9.115 (a) 5.00 g AgNO3 * = 0.0294 mol AgNO3
169.9 g AgNO3
3 mol O
(b) 0.0294 mol AgNO3 * = 0.0882 mol O
1 mol AgNO3
1 mol N 14.007 g N
(c) 0.0294 mol AgNO3 * * = 0.412 g N
1 mol AgNO3 1 mol N
1 mol Ag 6.022 * 10 23 Ag atoms
(d) 0.0294 mol AgNO3 * * = 1.77 * 10 22 Ag atoms
1 mol AgNO3 1 mol Ag
0.50 12.0
9.116 (a) N2 = 0.50 (b) N2 = 12.0
1 1
0.50 20.0
F2 = 0.17 limiting F2 = 6.67 limiting
3 3
2.5 100
(c) N2 = 2.5 (d) N2 = 100 limiting
3 1
t no limiting reactant
7.5 500
F2 = 2.5 F2 = 167
3 3
1 mol N2
(e) 5.00 g N2 * = 0.178 mol N2
28.014 g N2
1 mol F2
15.0 g F2 * = 0.395 mol F2
37.997 g F2
0.178
N2 = 0.178
1
0.395
F2 = 0.132 limiting
3
1 mol N2 1g
(f) 20.0 mg N2 * * = 7.14 * 10 -4 mol N2
28.014 g N2 1000 mg
1 mol F2 1g
70.0 mg F2 * * = 1.84 * 10 -3 mol F2
37.997 g F2 1000 mg

7.14 * 10 -4
N2 = 7.14 * 10 -4
1
1.84 * 10 -3
F2 = 6.13 * 10 -4 limiting reactant
3
1 mol N2
9.117 (a) 0.50 mol F2 * = 0.17 mol N2
3 mol F2
0.50 mol N2 = 0.17 mol N2 = 0.33 mol N2 left over
1 mol N2
(b) 20.0 mol F2 * = 6.67 mol N2 used up
3 mol F2
12.0 mol N2 - 6.67 mol N2 = 5.3 mol N2 left over
(c) The two reactants are present in the needed 3:1 ratio, meaning both are used up completely.
3 molecules F2
(d) 100 molecules N2 * = 300 molecules F2 used up
1 molecule N2
500 molecules F2 - 300 molecules F2 = 200 molecules F2 left over
(e) From the preceding problem, 15.0 g F2 = 0.395 mol F2
1 mol N2
0.395 mol F2 * = 0.132 mol N2 used up
3 mol F2
28.014 g N2
0.132 mol N2 * = 3.69 g N2 used up
1 mol N2
5.00 g N2 - 3.69 g N2 = 1.31 g N2 left over
(f) From the preceding problem, 70.0 mg F2 = 1.84 * 10 -3 mol F2
1 mol N2
1.84 * 10 -3 mol F2 * = 6.13 * 10 -4 mol N2 used up
3 mol F2
28.018 g N2
6.13 * 10 -4 mol N2 * = 0.0172 g N2 = 17.2 mg N2 used up
1 mol N2
20.0 mg N2 - 17.2 mg N2 = 2.8 mg N2 left over
1 penny 1 dollar
9.118 5789.25 g * * = $23.25
2.49 g 100 pennies
9.119 (a) Ca 3P2 + 6H2O S 3Ca1OH22 + 2PH3
1 mol Ca 3P2
(b) 60.0 g Ca 3P2 * = 0.329 mol Ca 3P2
182.2 g Ca 3P2
6 mol H2O 18.015 g H2O
0.329 mol Ca 3P2 * * = 35.6 g H2O
1 mol Ca 3P2 1 mol H2O
(c) Because you calculated the exact amount of H2O needed to react completely with 60.0 g of
Ca 3P2, you may use either reactant to calculate theoretical yield:
2 mol PH3 33.998 g PH3
60.0 g Ca 3P2 = 0.329 mol Ca 3P2 * * = 22.4 g PH3
1 mol PH3 1 mol PH3
1 mol H2O 2 mol PH3 33.998 g PH3
35.6 g H2O * * * = 22.4 g PH3
18.015 g H2O 6 mol H2O 1 mol PH3

9.120 Iron(III) carries a 3+ charge, and the sulfate ion carries a 2- charge. The chemical formula is
therefore: Fe 21SO423.
12 mol O 6.022 * 10 23 O atoms
0.262 mol Fe 21SO423 * * = 1.89 * 10 24 O atoms
1 mol Fe 21SO423 1 mol O
9.121 Assume you have 1 mole of C8H9NO2.
12.011 g C
8 mol C * = 96.088 g C
1 mol C
1.0079 g H
9 mol H * = 9.0711 g H
1 mol H
14.007 g N
1 mol N * = 14.007 g N
1 mol N
15.999 g O
2 mol O * = 31.998 g O
1 mol O
The molar mass of C8H9NO2 is 151.16 g>mol, meaning your 1 mole has a mass of 151.16 g.
96.088 g C
* 100% = 63.57% C
151.16 mol C8H9NO2
9.0711 g H
* 100% = 6.001% H
151.16 mol C8H9NO2
14.007 g N
* 100% = 9.266% N
151.16 mol C8H9NO2
31.998 g O
* 100% = 21.17% g O
151.16 mol C8H9NO2
9.122 The balanced equation is 2KCl + 3O2 S 2KClO3.
1 mol KCl
42.6 g KCI * = 0.571 mol KCl
74.56 g KCl
1 mol O2
36.5 g O2 * = 1.14 mol O2
31.998 g O2
0.571
KCl = 0.286 limiting
2
1.14
O2 = 0.380
3
2 mol KClO3 122.6 g KClO3
0.571 mol KCl * * = 70.0 g KClO3
2 mol KCl 1 mol KClO3
This is the theoretical yield. The amount you actually get is 0.560 * 70.0 g = 39.2 g.
9.123 The balanced equation is C12H22O11 + 12O2 S 12CO2 + 11H2O.
1 mol sucrose
2.00 g sucrose * = 5.84 * 10 -3 mol sucrose
342.3 g sucrose
12 mol CO2 44.009 g CO2
5.84 * 10 -3 mol sucrose * * = 3.08 g CO2
1 mol sucrose 1 mol CO2
11 mol H2O 18.015 g H2O
5.84 * 10 -3 mol sucrose * * = 1.16 g H2O
1 mol sucrose 1 mol H2O

9.124 The name tells you the molecular formula is CCl4.
1 mol CCl4 4 mol Cl 6.022 * 10 23 Cl atoms
44.6 g CCl4 * * * = 6.98 * 10 23 Cl atoms
153.82 g CC14 1 mol CC14 1 mol Cl
9.125 (a) 4BF3 + 3H2O S H3BO3 + 3HBF4

(b) Theoretical yield is
1 mol BF3 3 mol HBF4 87.81 g HBF4
24.2 g BF3 * * * = 23.5 g HBF4
67.81 g BF3 4 mol BF3 1 mol HBF4
14.8 g
% yield = * 100% = 63.0%
23.5 g
1 dozen cupcakes 12 cupcakes
9.126 (a) 5 eggs * * = 30 cupcakes
2 eggs 1 dozen cupcakes
1 cup sugar
(b) 5 eggs * = 2.5 cups sugar
2 eggs
or
1 cup sugar
30 cupcakes * = 2.5 cups sugar
12 cupcakes
9.127 Assume 100 g of chrome yellow.
1 mol Pb
64.11% Pb S 64.11 g Pb * = 0.3094 mol Pb
207.19 g pb
1 mol Cr
16.09% Cr S 16.09 g Cr * = 0.3094 mol Cr
51.996 g Cr
1 mol O
19.80% O S 19.80 g O * = 1.238 mol O
15.999 g O
Pb 0.3094 Cr 0.3094 O 1.238 S Pb 1.00Cr1.00O4.00 S PbCrO4
0.3094 0.3094 0.3094
1 mol H2S 34.08 g H2S

9.128 1.62 * 10 25 molecules H2S * 23 * = 917 g H2S
6.022 * 10 molecules H2S 1 mol H2S
9.129 The balanced equation is 3SiCl4 + 4NH3 S Si3N4 + 12HCl. Find out which reactant is the limiting
one:
1 mol SiCl4
64.2 g SiCl4 * = 0.378 mol SiCl4
169.9 g SiCl4
1 mol NH3
20.0 g NH3 * = 1.17 mol NH3
17.03 g NH3
0.378
SiCl4 = 0.126 limiting reactant
3
1.17
NH3 = 0.293
4

The theoretical yield is
1 mol Si3N4 140.3 g Si3N4
0.378 mol SiCl4 * * = 17.7 g Si3N4
3 mol SiCl4 1 mol Si3N4
Actual yield = 0.960 * 17.7 g = 17.0 g Si3N4
9.130 (a)
O = 100% - 45.51% = 54.49%
Mass of C = 0.4093 * 0.160 g = 0.0655 g C
Mass of H = 0.0458 * 0.160 g = 0.00733 g H
Mass of O = 0.5449 * 0.160 g = 0.0872 g O
1 mol C
12.011 g C
1 mol H
1.0079 g H
1 mol
15.999 g O
0.00545
0.00545
0.00727
Subscript for H: = 1.33
0.00545
0.00545
0.00545
The subscripts in the empirical formula are therefore C1H1.33O1. However, note that the sub-
scripts are not all integral (whole) numbers. To get all whole numbers, we must multiply each
subscript by 3, to obtain the actual empirical formula of C3H4O3.
176
= 2
88.0062
The molecular formula is therefore C3 * 2H4 * 2O3 * 2 S C6H8O6
9.131 The balanced equation is Cr2O3 + 3H2S S Cr2S3 + 3H2O.
1 mol Cr2O3 3 mol H2S 34.080 g H2S
(a) 13.6 g Cr2O3 * * * = 9.15 g H2S
151.99 g Cr2O3 1 mol Cr2O3 1 mol H2S

1 mol Cr2O3 1 mol Cr2S3 200.2 g Cr2S3
(b) 13.6 g Cr2O3 * * * = 17.9 g Cr2S3
151.99 g Cr2O3 1 mol Cr2O3 1 mol Cr2S3
or
1 mol H2S 1 mol Cr2S3 200.2 g Cr2S3
9.15 g H2S * * * = 17.9 g Cr2S3
34.080 g H2S 3 mol H2S 1 mol Cr2S3
9.132 Magnesium is a group IIA metal and therefore forms 2 + cations. The phosphate anion is PO43 -
making the formula for this compound Mg31PO422. Assume 1 mole of the compound, which contains
3 moles of Mg, 2 moles of P, and 8 moles of O.
24.312 g Mg
3 mol Mg * = 72.936 g Mg
1 mol Mg
30.974 g P
2 mol P * = 61.948 g P
1 mol P
15.999 g O
8 mol O * = 127.99 g O
1 mol O
The molar mass of Mg31PO422 is 262.9 g>mol.
72.936 g Mg
* 100% = 27.74% Mg
262.9 g compound
61.948 g P
* 100% = 23.56% P
262.9 g compound
127.99 g O
* 100% = 48.68% O
262.9 g compound
9.133 (a) SiCl4 + 2H2O S SiO2 + 4HCl
1 mol HCl
(b) 120.0 g HCl * = 3.291 mol HCl
36.46 g HCl
1 mol SiCl4 169.9 g SiCl4
3.291 mol HCl * * = 139.8 g SiCl4
4 mol HCl 1 mol SiCl4
2 mol H2O 18.015 g H2O
3.291 mol HCl * * = 29.64 g H2O
4 mol HCl 1 mol H2O
1 mol SiO2 60.08 g SiO2
(c) 3.291 mol HCl * * = 49.44 g SiO2
4 mol HCl 1 mol SiO2
or
1 mol SiCl4 1 mol SiO2 60.08 g SiO2
139.8 g SiCl4 * * * = 49.43 g SiO2
169.9 g SiCl4 1 mol SiCl4 1 mol SiO2
or
1 mol H2O 1 mol SiO2 60.08 g SiO2
29.64 g H2O * * * = 49.42 g SiO2
18.015 g H2O 2 mol H2O 1 mol SiO2
9.134 Assume 100 g of compound.
1 mol Si
91.77% Si S 91.77 g Si * = 3.267 mol Si
28.086 g Si
1 mol H
8.23% H S 8.23 g H * = 8.165 mol H
1.0079 g H

Si 3.267 H8.165 S Si1.00H2.50 S Si2 * 1.00H2 * 2.50 S Si2.00H5.00 S Si2H5 empirical formula
3.267 3.267
122 g>mol compound

= 2 approximately
61.21 g>mol empirical formula
The molecular formula is Si2 * 2H2 * 5 S Si4H10~
9.135 The balanced equation is Fe 2O3 + 3CO S 2Fe + 3CO2.
1 mol Fe 2O3
24.0 g Fe 2O3 * = 0.150 mol Fe 2O3
159.687 g Fe 2O3
1 mol CO
34.0 g CO * = 1.21 mol CO
28.01 g CO
0.150
Fe 2O3 = 0.150 limiting reactant
1
1.21
CO = 0.403
3
Theoretical yield:
3 mol CO2 44.009 g CO2
0.150 mol Fe 2O3 * * = 19.8 g CO2
1 mol Fe 2O3 1 mol CO2
9.136 The balanced equation is 2C13H18O2 + 33O2 S 26CO2 + 18H2O.
1 mol ibuprofen 26 mol CO2 44.009 g CO2
0.250 g ibuprofen * * * = 0.693 g CO2
206.3 g ibuprofen 2 mol ibuprofen 1 mol CO2
1 mol ibuprofen 18 mol H2O 18.015 g H2O
0.250 g ibuprofen * * * = 0.196 g H2O
206.3 g ibuprofen 2 mol ibuprofen 1 mol H2O
1 mol N2O5 2 mol N 6.022 * 10 23 N atoms
9.137 200.0 g N2O5 * * * = 2.230 * 10 24 N atoms
108.0 g N2O5 1 mol N2O5 1 mol N
1 mol N2O5 5 mol O 6.022 * 10 23 O atoms
200.0 g N2O5 * * * = 5.576 * 10 24 O atoms
108.0 g N2O5 1 mol N2O5 1 mol O
9.138 The balanced equation is 4KNO3 S 2K2O + 2N2 + 5O2~
1 mol KNO3 5 mol O2 6.022 * 1023 molecules O2
18.6 g KNO3 * * *
101.1 g KNO3 4 mol KNO3 1 mol O2
23
= 1.38 * 10 molecules O2
9.139 The balanced equation is P4O10 + 6H2O S 4H3PO4.
1 mol P4O10
52.5 g P4O10 * = 1.185 mol P4O10
283.9 g P4O10
1 mol H2O
25.0 g H2O * = 1.39 mol H2O
18.015 g H2O
0.185
P4O10 = 0.185 limiting reactant
1
1.39
H2O = 0.232
6
4 mol H3PO4 97.9 g H3PO4
0.185 mol P4O10 * * = 72.4 g H3PO4
1 mol P4O10 1 mol H3PO4

9.140 The formula is Al21SO423. Assume 1 mole of the compound, which contains 2 moles of Al, 3 moles
of S, and 12 moles of O.
26.98 g Al
2 mol Al * = 53.96 g Al
1 mol Al
32.064 g S
3 mol S * = 96.19 g S
1 mol S
15.999 g O
12 mol O * = 192.0 g O
1 mol O
The molar mass of the compound is 342.2 g/mol.
53.96 g Al
* 100% = 15.77% Al
342.2 g Al21SO42
96.19 g S
* 100% = 28.11% S
342.2 g Al21SO423
192.0 g O
* 100% = 56.11% O
342.2 g Al21SO423
9.141 The balanced equation is Cl2O7 + H2O S 2HClO4.
(a) Rearrange the percent yield equation by solving for theoretical yield:
Actual yield
Percent yield = * 100%
Theoretical yield
Actual yield 52.8 g HClO4
Theoretical yield = * 100% = * 100% = 64.4 g HClO4
Percent yield 82.0%
(b) You must use the theoretical yield in calculating how much of each reactant was used up.
1 mol HClO4 1 mol Cl2O7 182.9 g Cl2O7
64.4 g HClO4 * * * = 58.6 g Cl2O7
100.5 g HClO4 2 mol HClO4 1 mol Cl2O7
1 mol HClO4 1 mol H2O 18.015 g H2O
64.4 g HClO4 * * * = 5.77 g H2O
100.5 g HClO4 2 mol HClO4 1 mol H2O
9.142 Use the four-step procedure for determining empirical formula demonstrated in Problem 9.29 to get
the empirical formula and the molecular formula.
(a) The empirical formula is C5H4.
(b) Because the molar mass (128 g>mole) divided by the empirical formula mass (64 g>mole) is
equal to two, the molecular formula is C10H8.
9.143 The balanced equation is C2H41g2 + 6F21g2 S 2CF41g2 + 4HF1g2.
1 mol C2H4
2.78 g C2H4 * = 0.0991 mol C2H4
28.054 g C2H4
2 mol CF4 88.003 g CF4
0.0991 mol C2H4 * * = 17.4 g CF4
1 mol C2H4 1 mol CF4
4 mol HF 20.006 g HF
0.0991 mol C2H4 * * = 7.93 g HF
1 mol C2H4 1 mol HF

9.144 The name tells you the molecular formula is SF6. Thus:
1 mol F 1 mol SF6 146.05 g SF6
5.25 * 10 24 F atoms * 23 * * = 212 g SF6
6.022 * 10 F atoms 6 mol F 1 mol SF6
9.145 The balanced equation is 2HSbCl4 + 3H2S S Sb 2S3 + 8HCl.
1 mol HSbCl4
118.2 g HSbCl4 * = 0.4467 mol HSbCl4
264.6 g HSbCl4
1 mol H2S
47.9 g H2S * = 1.41 mol H2S
34.080 gH2S
0.4467
HSbCl4 = 0.2234 limiting reactant
2
1.41
H2S = 0.470
3
Theoretical yield:
8 mol HCl 36.46 g HCl
0.4467 mol HSbCl4 * * = 65.15 g HCl
2 mol HSbCl4 1 mol HCl
41.6 g
65.15 g
9.146 Assume 100 g of caffeine.
1 mol C
49.48% C S 49.48 gC * = 4.120 mol C
12.011 g C
1 mol H
5.19% H S 5.19 gH * = 5.15 mol H
1.0079 g H
1 mol N
28.85% N S 28.85 g N * = 2.060 mol N
14.007 g N
1 mol O
16.48% O S 17.1 g O * = 1.030 mol O
15.999 g O
C 4.120 H 5.15 N 2.060 O 1.030 S C4.00H5.00N2.00O1.00 S C4H5N2O empirical formula
1.030 1.030 1.030 1.030
194 g>mol caffeine

= 2 approximately
97.1 g>mol C4H5N2O
C2 * 4H2 * 5N2 * 2O2 * 1 S C8H10N4O2 molecular formula
9.147 (a) 4NH3 + 6NO S 5N2 + 6H2O
1 mol NH3
(b) 15 g NH3 * = 0.881 mol NH3
17.03 g NH3
1 mol NO
22.0 g NO * = 0.733 mol NO
30.01 g NO
0.881
NH3 = 0.220
4
0.733
NO = 0.122 limiting reactant
3

5 mol N2 28.014 g N2
0.733 mol NO * * = 17.1 g N2 theoretical yield
6 mol NO 1 mol N2
13.3 g
* 100% = 77.8% yield
17.1 g
9.148 Assume 1 mole of nicotine, which contains 10 moles of C, 13 moles of H, and 2 moles of N.
12.011 g C
10 mol C * = 120.11 g C
1 mol C
1.0079 g H
13 mol H * = 13.103 g H
1 mol H
14.007 g N
2 mol N * = 28.014 g N
1 mol N
The molar mass of nicotine is 161.23 g>mol.
120.11 g C
* 100% = 74.50% C
161.23 g nicotine
13.103 g H
* 100% = 8.127% H
161.23 g nicotine
28.014 g N
* 100% = 17.38% N
161.23 g nicotine
9.149 The balanced equation is CaC2 + 3CO S 4C + CaCO3. That some CaC2 is left over tells you CO
is the limiting reactant and therefore the one to use to calculate theoretical yield. Determine what
mass of CO was used to get the CaCO3:
1 mol CaCO3 3 mol CO
135.4 g CaCO3 * * *
100.1 g CaCO3 1 mol CaCO3
28.01 g CO
= 113.7 g CO present at beginning of reaction
1 mol CO
Now determine what mass of CaC2 combined with the 113.7 g of CO:
1 mol CO 1 mol CaC2 64.10 g CaC2
113.7 g CO * * * = 86.73 g CaC2 used up
28.01 g CO 3 mol CO 1 mol CaC2
86.73 g CaC2 used
38.5 g CaC2 left over
125.2 g CaC2 present at beginning of reaction
9.150 Assume 100 g of beryl.
1 mol Be
5.03% Be S 5.03 g Be * = 0.558 mol Be
9.012 g Be
1 mol Al
10.04% Al S 10.04 g Al * = 0.3721 mol Al
26.98 g Al
1 mol Si
31.35% Si S 31.35 g Si * = 1.116 mol Si
28.09 g Si

1 mol O
53.58% O S 53.58 g O * = 3.349 mol O
15.990 g O
Be 0.558 Al 0.3721 Si 1.116 O 3.349 S Be 1.50Al1.00Si3.00O9.00
0.3721 0.3721 0.3721 0.3721
Multiplying through by 2 to get a whole number for the Be subscript gives Be 3Al2Si6O18 for the
empirical formula, the molar mass of which is 537.5 g>mol. Because the molar mass of the mineral
is given as 538 g>mol, the molecular formula is the same as the empirical formula.
9.151 (a) S + 2H2SO4 S 3SO2 + 2H2O
1 mol S
(b) 4.80 g S * = 0.150 mol S
32.06 g S
1 mol H2SO4
16.20 g H2SO4 * = 0.1652 mol H2SO4
98.07 g H2SO4
0.150
S = 0.150
1
0.1652
H2SO4 = 0.0826 limiting reactant
2
3 mol SO2 64.06 g SO2
0.1652 mol H2SO4 * * = 15.87 g SO2
2 mol H2SO4 1 mol SO2
9.152 Assume 1 mole of AZT, which contains 10 moles of C, 13 moles of H, 5 moles of N, and 5 moles of O.
12.011 g C
10 mol C * = 120.11 g C
1 mol C
1.0079 g H
13 mol H * = 13.103 g H
1 mol H
14.007 g N
5 mol N * = 70.035 g N
1 mol N
15.999 g O
5 mol O * = 79.995 g O
1 mol O
The molar mass of AZT is 283.2 g>mol.
120.11 g C
* 100% = 42.41% C
283.2 g AZT
13.103 g H
* 100% = 4.627% H
283.2 g AZT
70.035 g N
* 100% = 24.73% N
283.2 g AZT
79.995 g O
* 100% = 28.24% O
283.2 g AZT
9.153 No. The number of moles is proportional to the number of product and reactant particles, which can
change during a reaction. For example, in the reaction 2H2 + O2 S 2H2O, you begin with 3 moles
of reactants and end up with 2 moles of product.

9.154 (a) N2O4 + 2N2H4 S 3N2 + 4H2O
(b) Work back from actual yield to theoretical yield and then use theoretical yield to find out how
many grams of reactants were needed to form the theoretical amount of product. (Even though
this amount of product was not recovered because of the low yield, it was created.)
Theoretical yield = * 100% = * 100% = 62.70 g N2 theoretically possible
% yield 67.5%
1 mol N2 1 mol N2O4 92.01 g N2O4
62.70 g N2 * * * = 68.64 g N2O4
28.014 g N2 3 mol N2 1 mol N2O4
1 mol N2 2 mol N2H4 32.046 g N2H4
62.70 g N2 * * * = 47.82 g N2H4
28.014 g N2 3 mol N2 1 mol N2H4
9.155 The balanced equation is 2NH4F + Ca1NO322 S CaF2 + 2N2O + 4H2O.
1 mol NH4F
22.8 g NH4F * = 0.616 mol NH4F
37.04 g NH4F
1 mol Ca1NO322
38.2 g Ca1NO322 * = 0.0233 mol Ca1NO322
164.1 g Ca1NO322
0.616
NH4F = 0.308
2
0.233
Ca1NO322 = 0.233 limiting reactant
1
1 mol CaF2 78.08 g CaF2
0.233 mol Ca1NO322 * * = 18.2 g CaF2
1 mol Ca1NO322 1 mol CaF2
2 mol N2O 44.01 g N2O
0.233 mol Ca1NO322 * * = 20.5 g N2O
1 mol Ca1NO322 1 mol N2O
4 mol H2O 18.015 g H2O
0.233 mol Ca1NO322 * * = 16.8 g H2O
1 mol Ca1NO322 1 mol H2O
9.156 As usual, assume 1 mole of compound.
Calcium citrate, molar mass 498.3 g>mol:
40.08 g Ca
3 mol Ca * = 120 g Ca in 1 mol Ca 31C6H5O722
1 mol Ca
120 g Ca
* 100% = 24.1% Ca
498.3 g calcium citrate
Calcium carbonate, molar mass 100.0 g>mol:
40.08 g Ca
1 mol Ca * = 40.08 g Ca in 1 mol CaCO3
1 mol Ca
40.08 g Ca
* 100% = 40.1% Ca
100.0 g calcium carbonate
The carbonate form contains a higher percentage of Ca.

9.157 The balanced equation is PbS + 4H2O2 S PbSO4 + 4H2O.
1 mol PbS
(a) 63.2 g PbS * = 0.264 mol PbS
239.3 g PbS
1 mol H2O2
48.0 g H2O2 * = 1.41 mol H2O2
34.01 g H2O2
0.264
PbS = 0.264 limiting reactant
1
1.41
H2O2 = 0.352
4
4 mol H2O2 34.01 g H2O2
(b) 0.264 mol PbS * * = 35.9 g H2O2 used up
1 mol PbS 1 mol H2O2
Because the reaction began with 48.0 g of H2O2, the amount remaining is
48.0 g - 35.9 g = 12.1 g.
(a) The empirical formula is C9H12O.
(b) Because the molar mass (272 g>mole) divided by the empirical formula mass (136 g>mole) is 2,
the molecular formula is C18H24O2.
9.159 The balanced equation is CaCN2 + 3H2O S CaCO3 + 2NH3~
1 mol CaCN2
5.65 g CaCN2 * = 0.0705 mol CaCN2
80.11 g CaCN2
1 mol H2O
12.2 g H2O * = 0.677 mol H2O
18.015 g H2O
0.0705
CaCN2 = 0.0705 limiting reactant
1
0.667
H2O = 0.226
3
2 mol NH3 17.03 g NH3
0.0705 mol CaCN2 * * = 2.40 g NH3 theoretical yield
1 mol CaCN2 1 mol NH3
Actual yield = 0.860 * 2.40 g = 2.06 g NH3
9.160 Assume 100 g of saccharin.
1 mol C
45.90% C S 45.90 g C * = 3.821 mol C
12.011 g C
1 mol H
2.75% H S 2.75 g H * = 2.728 mol H
1.0079 g H
1 mol O
26.20% O S 26.20 g O * = 1.638 mol O
15.999 g O
1 mol N
7.65% N S 7.65 g N * = 0.546 mol N
14.007 g N

1 mol S
17.50% S S 17.50 g S * = 0.546 mol S
32.064 g S
C 3.821 H2.728 O 1.638 N 0.546 S0.546 S C7.00H5.00O3.00N1.00S1.00 S C7H5O3NS empirical formula
0.546 0.546 0.546 0.546 0.546
183.19 g>mol saccharin

= 1
183.2 g>mol C7H5O3NS
The molecular formula is the same as the empirical formula.
47.90 amu 1.66 * 10 -24 g
9.161 5.00 * 10 11 Ti atoms * * = 3.98 * 10 -11 g
1 Ti atom 1 amu
9.162 The theoretical yield of NO is
1 mol Cu 2 mol NO 30.01 g NO
25.0 g Cu * * * = 7.87 g NO
63.54 g Cu 3 mol Cu 1 mol NO
7.24 g
7.87 g
9.163 Assume 100 g of arginine.
1 mol C
41.37% C S 41.37 g C * = 3.444 mol C
12.011 g C
1 mol H
8.10% H S 8.10 g H * = 8.037 mol H
1.0079 g H
1 mol N
32.16% N S 32.16 g N * = 2.296 mol N
14.007 g N
1 mol O
18.37% O S 18.37 g O * = 1.148 mol O
15.999 g O
C 3.444 H8.037 N 2.296 O 1.148 S C3.00H7.00N2.00O1.00 S C3H7O2N empirical formula
1.148 1.148 1.148 1.148
174 g>mol arginine

= 2 approximately
87.1 g>mol C3H7N2O
C2 * 3H2 * 7N2 * 2O2 * 1 S C6H14N4O2 molecular formula
9.164 The balanced equation is As4S6 + 9O2 S As4O6 + 6SO2.
1 mol As4S6 9 mol O2 31.998 g O2
(a) 58.9 g As4S6 * * * = 34.5 g O2
492.1 g As4S6 1 mol As4S6 1 mol O2
1 mol As4S6 6 mol SO2 64.06 g SO2
(b) 58.9 g As4S6 * * * = 46.0 g SO2 theoretical yield
492.1 g As4S6 1 mol As4S6 1 mol SO2
41.2 g
46.0 g
1 mol Cu2O 2 mol Cu 63.546 g Cu
9.165 11.0 g Cu2O * * * = 9.77 g Cu
143.09 g Cu2O 1 mol Cu2O 1 mol Cu
1 mol Cu2S 2 mol Cu 63.546 g Cu
12.6 g Cu2S * * * = 10.06 g Cu
159.16 g Cu2S 1 mol Cu2S 1 mol Cu
The Cu2S sample contains more Cu.

9.166 (a) In the reaction, the number of moles of A equals the number of moles of C, meaning every
1 mole of A used up forms 1 mole of C. This relationship holds for any number of moles
-0.3 mol A S 0.3 mol C, 0.278 mol A S 0.278 mol C, and so on. So even though you don’t
know what the mole number is for these particular reactant and product masses, you do know it is
the same for A and C. Thus 8.0 g of A and 10.0 g of C represent the same number of moles. Say
that number is 1, for simplicity: 8.0 g>mol A, 10.0 g>mol C, giving C the greater molar mass.
(b) The number of moles of B consumed is half the number of moles of A consumed. Because the
6.0 g of B consumed is more than half the 8.0 g of A consumed, the molar mass of B must be
greater than that of A.
(c) The number of moles of A consumed is twice the number of moles of D produced. The 8.0 g of A
consumed is twice the mass of the 4.0 g of D produced, telling you A and D must have the same
molar mass (even though they are different substances).
(d) For simplicity, begin by saying that the masses given in the problem statement correspond to the
mole numbers indicated by the equation coefficients, so that 8 g is 2 moles of A, 6 g is 1 mole of B,
10 g is 2 moles of C, and 4 g is 1 mole of D. Dividing by the coefficients tells you that:
8>2 = 4 g>mol is the molar mass of A
6>1 = 6 g>mol is the molar mass of B
10>2 = 5 g>mol is the molar mass of C
4>1 = 4 g>mol is the molar mass of D
Because the stated molar mass of A, 24 g/mol, tells you your hypothetical value of 4 g/mol was
multiplied by 6, multiply the other hypothetical values to get true values:
B 6 * 6 = 36 g>mol
C 6 * 5 = 30 g>mol
D 6 * 4 = 24 g>mol
1 mol S
9.167 4.25 * 10 22 atoms S * = 0.0706 mol S
6.022 * 1023 atoms S
1 mol Al2S3
0.0706 mol S * = 0.0235 mol Al2S3
3 mol S
150.2 mol Al2S3
0.0235 mol Al2S3 * = 3.53 g Al2S3
1 mol Al2S3
9.168 The balanced equation is 2Al2O3 + 3C S 3CO2 + 4Al. First get theoretical yield of Al:
284 kg Al
Theoretical yield = * 100% = 300. kg Al
94.7%
Now figure out how much of each reactant was needed to form this mass of Al. Because masses are
in kilograms, you can save yourself a conversion step by working in kilomoles.
1 kmol Al 2 kmol Al2O3 102.0 kg Al2O3
300. kg Al * * * = 567 kg Al2O3
26.98 kg Al 4 kmol Al 1 kmol Al2O3
1 kmol Al 3 kmol C 12.011 kg C
300. kg Al * * * = 100. kg C
26.98 kg Al 4 kmol Al 1 kmol C

1g 1 mol C9H8O4 6.022 * 1023 molecules C9H8O4
9.169 250 mg * * *
1000 mg 180.2 g C9H8O4 1 mol C9H8O4
20
= 8.35 * 10 molecules C9H8O4
There are nine C atoms in each molecule:
9 atoms C
8.35 * 10 20 molecules C9H8O4 * = 7.52 * 10 21 atoms C
1 molecule C9H8O4
9.170 The balanced equation is 3Ca + N2 S Ca 3N2.
1 mol Ca
(a) 33.8 g Ca * = 0.834 mol Ca
40.08 g Ca
1 mol N2
20.4 g N2 * = 0.728 mol N2
28.014 g N2
0.843
Ca = 0.281 limiting reactant
3
0.728
N2 = 0.728
1
1 mol Ca 3N2 148.3 g Ca 3N2
(b) 0.843 mol Ca * * = 41.7 g Ca 3N2 theoretical yield
3 mol Ca 1 mol Ca 3N2
Actual yield = 0.724 * 41.7 g Ca 3N2 = 30.2 g Ca 3N2
(a) The empirical formula is C8H8O3.
(b) Because the molar mass (152 g>mole) divided by the empirical formula mass (152 g>mole) is 1,
the molecular formula is also C8H8O3.
9.172 The balanced equation is 3Ca1OH22 + 2H3PO4 S Ca 31PO422 + 6H2O.
1 mol Ca 1OH22 2 mol H3PO4 97.99 g H3PO4
(a) 34.6 g Ca1OH22 * * * = 30.5 g H3PO4
74.09 g Ca1OH22 3 mol Ca1OH22 1 mol H3PO4
1 mol Ca1OH22 1 mol Ca 31PO422 310.2 g Ca 31PO422
(b) 34.6 g Ca1OH22 * * *
74.09 g Ca1OH22 3 mol Ca1OH22 1 mol Ca 31PO422
= 48.3 g Ca 31PO422
or
1 mol H3 PO4 1 mol Ca 31PO422 310.2 g Ca 31PO422
30.5 g H3PO4 * * *
97.99 g H3PO4 2 mol H3PO4 1 mol Ca 31PO422
= 48.3 g Ca 31PO422
9.173 The balanced equation is 16Cr + 3S8 S 8Cr2S3. First determine the theoretical yield:
Actual yield 235.0 g Cr2S3
Theoretical yield = * 100% = * 100% = 368.3 g Cr2S3
Percent yield 63.80%
1 mol Cr2S3 16 mol Cr 52.00 g Cr
368.3 g Cr2S3 * * * = 191.3 g Cr
200.2 g Cr2S3 8 mol Cr2S3 1 mol Cr

1 mol Cr2S3 3 mol S8 256.5 g S8
368.3 g Cr2S3 * * * = 177.0 g S8
200.2 g Cr2S3 8 mol Cr2S3 1 mol S8
9.174 The balanced equation is Al2S3 + 6H2O S Al1OH23 + 3H2S.
1 mol Al2S3
(a) 56.0 g Al2S3 * = 0.373 mol Al2S3
150.2 g Al2S3
1 mol H2O
48.2 g H2O * = 2.68 mol H2O
18.015 g H2O
0.373
Al2S3 = 0.373 limiting reactant
1
2.68
H2O = 0.447
6
Because Al2S3 is the limiting reactant, the H2O is the excess reactant.
6 mol H2O 18.015 g H2O
(b) 0.373 mol Al2S3 * * = 40.3 g H2O used up
1 mol Al2S3 1 mol H2O
48.2 g - 40.3 g = 7.9 g H2O left over
9.175 (a)
(b) 2H21g2 + C2H21g2 S C2H61g2

(c) Three moles of hydrogen gas and one mole of acetylene 1C2H22 gas react to give one mole of
ethane 1C2H62 gas.
mole C2H6 2 mole H2 2.0158 g H2
(d) 110.0 g C2H62a b * a ba b = 1.34 g H2
30.0694 g C2H6 mole C2H6 mole H2
9.176 (a) 118.88 g C>47.20 g2 * 100% = 40.00% C; 125.15 g O>47.20 g2 * 100% = 53.28% O;
13.17 g H>47.20 g2 * 100% = 6.72% H
(b) Subscript on C = 40.00 g C>12.011 g>mol = 3.33
Subscript on O = 53.28 g O>15.999 g>mol = 3.33
Subscript on H = 6.72 g H>1.0079 g>mol = 6.67
Empirical formula is COH2 1or CH2O2.
(c) The MM of the empirical formula is 30.02 g>mol, which is half the reported MM of the
compound. Therefore, the actual formula is C2O2H41or C2H4O22.
9.177 (a) 1 cup sugar + 3 pkgs cream cheese + 4 eggs S 12 dessert squares
(b) Still only 12 dessert squares
(c) The sugar

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
What has Gustavus Adolphus done for the art of war? In a
tactical sense, many things. Before him, not a few noted generals
had introduced improvements naturally growing out of the
introduction of gunpowder. Gustavus made various changes towards
greater mobility. The cumbrous armies of the day were marshalled in
battalia, which were huge, dense squares or phalanxes of deep files
of musketeers and pikemen mixed, awkward and unwieldy. The
recruiting of the day assembled many men of many minds, and the
three arms worked at cross-purposes. Gustavus began by reducing
the pikemen to one-third the entire infantry, and later (1631) formed
whole regiments of musketeers alone. He lightened the musket, did
away with the crutch-rest, till then used in firing, introduced wheel-
locks, paper cartridges, and cartridge-boxes. He taught his men a
much quicker manual of aims. The times and motions of loading and
firing had been some one hundred and sixty; Gustavus reduced
them to ninety-five, which sounds absurdly slow to us to-day. But his
men none the less vastly exceeded the enemy in rapidity of fire. He
lightened the guns of his artillery, and made the drill of other arms
conform to its manœuvres, so that his whole army worked with one
purpose. His batteries became active and efficient. In the Thirty
Years’ War he generally had a preponderance of artillery over the
Imperialists.
To secure better fire, Gustavus reduced his musketeers to six
ranks, which to fire closed into three. This it was which principally
gave it so much greater nimbleness of foot. The troops were well
armed and equipped, and uniformed for the first time. Few wagons
were allowed per regiment, and effectual discipline prevailed. Severe
regulations were enforced. The behavior of the Swedish troops was
the marked reverse of that of Wallenstein’s and Tilly’s forces. Service
and seniority alone secured promotion; nepotism was unknown. The
force Gustavus created was the first truly national regular army.
So much for discipline and tactics, which, in themselves, are of
minor value. But what has given Gustavus Adolphus unfading
reputation as a captain is the conduct, for the first time in the
Christian era, of a campaign in which the intellectual conception
overrides the able, consistent, and at times brilliant execution. From
a mere contest of animal courage he had raised war at one step to
what it really should be, a contest in which mind and character win,
and not brute force. Little wonder that Gustavus, landing at Rügen to
attack the colossal power of the German Empire with his 15,000
men, should have excited the laughter of his enemies, and have
provoked Wallenstein to exclaim that he would drive him back to his
snow-clad kingdom with switches. It appeared like Don Quixote
riding at the windmills. But his action was in truth founded on as
substantial a calculation as Hannibal’s march into Italy, and was
crowned with abundant results. The method of his work could not but
win. And Gustavus did one thing more. He showed the world that
war could be conducted within the bounds of Christian teachings;
that arson, murder, rapine, were not necessary concomitants of able
or successful war; that there was no call to add to the unavoidable
suffering engendered of any armed strife, by inflicting upon innocent
populations that which should be borne by the armies alone. In both
these things he was first and preëminent, and to him belongs
unqualifiedly the credit of proving to the modern world that war is an
intellectual art; and the still greater credit of humanizing its conduct.
L E C T U R E V.
FREDERICK.
WHILE Frederick II., or as Prussians love to call him “Friedrich der

Einzige,” had been brought up by a military martinet, and had gone
through every step by which a Hohenzollern must climb the ladder of
army rank, he had, in youth, exhibited so little aptitude for the pipe-
clay of war, that few suspected how great his military achievements
were to be. But Prince Eugene, then the greatest living soldier,
whom young Frederick joined with the Prussian contingent in 1733,
is said to have discovered in him that which he pronounced would
make him a great general. Frederick had been a keen student of
history, and there is nothing which trains the high grade of intellect
and the sturdy character which a good leader must possess as
birthright, as does the study of the deeds of the great captains, for
out of these alone can that knowledge be gleaned, or that inspiration
be caught, which constitutes the value of the art. The camp and drill-
ground, however essential, teach but the handicraft, not the art, of
war.
We all know how Frederick’s youth was passed: how his father
sought to mould him into the ramrod pattern of a grenadier, and how
he avoided the system by constant subterfuge. He was an intelligent,
attractive lad, witty and imaginative, and possessed a reserve of
character which grew abreast with his father’s harshness. As we
know, Frederick William’s brutality finally culminated in an attempt to
punish by death the so-called desertion of his son, to which his own
cruelty and insults had impelled him. The succeeding years of
retirement were full of active work, and no doubt gave Frederick the
business training which in after life made him so wonderful a
financier, as well as the opportunity for study; and perhaps the
tyranny of his father added to his constancy and self-reliance as well
as to his obstinacy, than which no character in history ever exhibited
greater. Frederick William, before his death, understood his son’s
make-up. Frederick ascended the throne in 1740, and from that day
on he was every inch a king.
Frederick had certain hereditary claims to Silesia, in the validity
of which he placed entire confidence, though no doubt his belief was
colored by the desirability of this province as an appanage of the
Prussian crown. Maria Theresa was in the meshes of the Pragmatic
Sanction imbroglio. Frederick determined to assert his claims. He
was, thanks to his father, equipped with an army drilled, disciplined,
and supplied as none since Cæsar’s day had been, unconquerable if
only the divine breath were breathed into it, and a well-lined military
chest. Giving Austria short shrift, he marched across the border and
in a few weeks inundated Silesia with his troops. From this day until
1763, when it was definitely ceded to him, Frederick’s every thought
was devoted to holding this province. Nothing could wrest it from his
grasp.
His first campaign, however, brought him near discomfiture.
Field-Marshal Neipperg quite out-manœuvred Frederick, who, under
the tutelage of old Field-Marshal Schwerin, had failed to carry out his
own ideas, and cut him off from his supply-camp at Ohlau. Seeking
to regain it, the Prussian army ran across the Austrians at Mollwitz
(April 10, 1741). Here, but for the discipline of the Prussian infantry,
the battle would have been lost, for the Prussians were tactically
defeated. But these wonderful troops, drilled to the highest grade of
steadiness, had no idea of being beaten. To them rout and disaster
on all sides were as nothing. They stood their ground like a stone
wall, and their five shots to two of the enemy’s finally decided the
day. The young king had been hurried off the field by Schwerin when
defeat was imminent.
This campaign taught Frederick that in war he must rely only on
himself. He never after allowed one of his generals to hamper his
movements. Counsel was neither asked nor volunteered. Frederick
was distinct head of the Army and State.
Map for Seven Years’ War.
In the second campaign the king advanced, with the French and
Saxons, in the direction of Vienna. But these allies proved weak, and
Frederick was fain to abandon his project. Prince Charles made his
way around the king’s right flank and threatened his supplies. But
Frederick took prompt advantage of this manœuvre, and at the battle
of Chotusitz (May 17, 1742) inflicted a stinging defeat on the
Austrians. This ended the First Silesian War. Silesia became a
Prussian province.
Frederick had learned good lessons. He had gained self-poise,
and a knowledge of the hardships of war, the meannesses of courts,
and the fact that he could trust no one but himself and his devoted
legions. He was disenchanted. War was no longer a glory, but a
stern, cold, fact. He had, however, won his point, and he proposed to
maintain it, though he must give up the delights of his attractive
French Court for the labors of his thoroughly German camp. He had
found that his own conceptions of war ranged beyond the
stereotyped routine of the Prussian army, though this indeed was not
to be underrated. Silesia became valuable to Prussia beyond the
wildest dreams of its worth by Austria, and, being allied by religion
with North Germany, had every reason to remain satisfied and
faithful.
It is generally assumed that great captains are fond of war for
war’s sake, or for the lust of conquest. While often true, it was not so
with Frederick. To none of the great captains was war so heartily
distasteful. Not one was so fond of the pursuits of peace. The king
had as marked a liking for the pleasures of literature, music, art, the
companionship of clever men, and intellectual friction of all kinds, as
any monarch who ever reigned. He cordially hated the hardships and
mental strain of war. But Frederick would listen to no peace which
should not leave him in possession of Silesia. His naturally inflexible
nature could entertain no other idea. And for this he would fight if he
must.
During the two years’ peace which ensued, Frederick prepared
for the war which he knew must occur whenever Maria Theresa felt
strong enough to attempt to reconquer her lost province. He was
abundantly ready for it when it came in 1744. Austria had as allies
England, Saxony, Sardinia, and some of the lesser German States.
Frederick had France, the Emperor, the Elector Palatine, and Hesse
Cassel. As usual, Frederick opened with a sharp offensive. Prague
was taken, and from here, the French agreeing to neutralize Prince
Charles, who was in the Rhine country, the king undertook a second
operation toward Vienna (Sept., 1744). But this was equally unlucky.
The French were shiftless. Field-Marshal Traun was joined by Prince
Charles, and the two drove Frederick from his purpose. Traun would
not come to battle, but worried the king by restless manœuvring. The
Prussians were fortunate to reach Silesia without a serious disaster.
Frederick had this time learned that confederates were like broken
reeds, and that he himself was his own best ally. With the wonderful
frankness which characterized him, the king acknowledged the
ability of Traun, and the good lessons he had learned from this
opponent.
Elate Prince Charles, early next year (1745), invaded Silesia with
seventy-five thousand men and descended upon its fertile plains with
flying colors, intending to march on Breslau. The king made no
attempt to stop his crossing the mountains. “If you want to catch a
mouse, leave the trap open,” quoth he, and lay in wait for him, with
an equal force, behind Striegau Water. This time he was managing
his own affairs. Prince Charles camped near Hohenfriedberg,
unsuspicious of his vicinity (June 4). Silently, all night long, and with
such precautions that he was not discovered, Frederick marched his
men across the stream. His plan was perfectly worked out. Every
man and officer had his orders by heart. Daylight had no sooner
dawned than, with a tactical beauty of precision which reads like the
meter of a martial poem, Frederick struck the Saxon left. Blow
succeeded blow; battalion after battalion was hurled upon the enemy
with a rapidity and certainty and momentum which the world had
never yet seen. By eight o’clock—barely breakfast-time—the Saxons
and Austrians were utterly overthrown. They had lost nine thousand
killed and wounded, seven thousand prisoners, seventy-six
standards, and sixty-six guns. Frederick’s whole performance—his
first—had bordered on the marvellous.
The king followed the Austrians across the mountains. By
careless detachments and small-war his forces fell to eighteen
thousand men. Prince Charles had nearly forty thousand. Frederick
was about to retire to Silesia, when Prince Charles surprised him,
and appearing in rear of his right flank at Sohr, actually cut him off
from his line of retreat. The prince had bagged his game. But not so
thought Frederick, though his army stood with its back to the enemy.
“They are two to one of us, but we will beat them yet, meine Kinder!
You shall see!” exclaimed the king, and ordered a change of front of
the army by a right wheel of over one-half circle, under a fire of
artillery enfilading the whole line. Fancy an army doing such a thing
to-day! The manœuvre was completed in perfect order. Not a man
left the ranks unless shot down. The line came into oblique order
opposite the Austrian left. And no sooner in place than the king flung
his squadrons and regiments up the heights against the Austrians,
who stood curiously watching the strange evolution. So audacious
and skilful was the whole affair, and so brilliant the Prussian fighting,
that the king inflicted another telling defeat, with loss of eight
thousand men, twenty-two guns, and twelve flags, on the Austrian
army (Sept. 30). After some manœuvring, during the winter peace
was made, and Frederick kept Silesia. This was the Second Silesian
War.
Such was Frederick’s apprenticeship. He emerged from it the
best tactician the world has ever seen. As a strategist he had yet
made no great mark.
The First and Second Silesian wars were succeeded by a ten
years’ peace, which Frederick used to the best advantage in military
preparations. His army became the one perfect machine of Europe.
In 1756 came the Seven Years’ War. Maria Theresa had
resolved to regain Silesia at any cost. We can barely glance at the
leading events of each year. In 1756 Frederick had Field-Marshal
Brown opposed to him. He took Dresden, and defeating Brown at
Lobositz, he captured the Saxon army at Pirna (October). The year’s
end saw Saxony under Frederick’s control. The campaign was in
every sense deserving its success.
In 1757, France, Russia, and Sweden made common cause with
Austria. England was Frederick’s one reliance, and aided him with
money and an observation-army in Hanover. No less than one
hundred millions of population were arrayed against his scant five
millions, including Silesia. The allies put four hundred and thirty
thousand men on foot, Frederick one hundred and fifty thousand.
Always first in the field and retaining the offensive, Frederick
advanced on Prague in three large concentric columns, setting the
sixth of May for meeting there and beating the Austrians. So
accurate were his calculations and their execution by his lieutenants,
that in the bloody battle of Prague, on the very day set, he drove
Prince Charles and Field-Marshal Brown into the city and sat down
before it.
But Field-Marshal Daun was not far off with an army of relief of
sixty thousand men. To meet this serious threat, Frederick, from his
lines at Prague, could barely detach thirty-four thousand, and in the
battle of Kolin (June 18), by a series of contretemps, in part due to
the king’s hasty temper,—though he had attacked and handled Daun
so roughly that the latter actually gave the order of retreat,—he was
finally beaten and obliged to raise the siege. But Frederick shone in
reverse far higher than in success. From not only the field of battle
but from the siege-lines of Prague he retired deliberately, without a
symptom of flurry, and unopposed.
He was none the less in a desperate strait. He had but seventy
thousand men available. In his front were the victorious Austrians,
one hundred and ten thousand strong, elate and confident. On his
left were approaching one hundred thousand Russians, and these
not only threatened Berlin, but an Austrian raiding party actually took
the suburbs. On his right, a French and Imperial army of sixty
thousand threatened Dresden. The king’s case was forlorn. But he
utilized to the full his central position. Turning on the French, and
marching one hundred and seventy miles in twelve days,—a
remarkable performance at that date,—he reached their vicinity at
Rossbach, beyond the Saale. Soubise outnumbered Frederick
nearly three to one. But in a simply exquisite manœuvre the king
took advantage of the enemy’s error in trying to cut him off by a wide
flank march, fell upon their head of column, and in a bare half-hour
disgracefully routed them, with loss of eight thousand men, five
generals, and four hundred officers, seventy guns, and numberless
flags (Nov. 5). Having performed which feat, he at once turned his
face toward Silesia, whence came alarming rumors.
During his absence disaster had piled on disaster. The Duke of
Bevern, left in command, had been driven back to Silesia, and the
Austrians had captured Breslau and Schweidnitz, and proclaimed
Silesia again part of Her Imperial Majesty’s dominions. There is
something so heroic, so king-like, about Frederick’s conduct in the
ensuing campaign, which culminated in the battle of Leuthen, that I
cannot refrain from enlarging upon it, as typical of the man.
As the king proceeded on his way, the news of what had
happened gradually reached his ears. There had been, God wot,
enough already to tax Frederick’s manliness, and such great
misfortunes were fit to overwhelm him. But the king’s mettle was
indomitable. There was not an instant of pause or hesitation. The
greater the pressure, the more elastic his mood and his method. And
he had the rare power of making his lieutenants partake of his
buoyant courage. Nothing was ever lost to Frederick till he had
played his final card. He would rather die with his last grenadier at
the foot of the Austrian lines than yield one inch of Silesia. His men
marched in light order, leaving the heavy trains behind, and making
no stops to bake the usual bread. The king rationed his army on the
country. This was not the first instance, but it had been rare, and but
partially done, and was a novelty in war. It is curious that so clear-
sighted a man as Frederick did not expand the method, so important
a factor in speed. But at that day, to sustain an army by foraging in
an enemy’s country would have been considered an infraction of the
laws of nations. The distance from Leipsic, nearly one hundred and
eighty miles, was covered in fifteen days. At Parchwitz he met the
troops brought from Breslau by Ziethen, some eighteen thousand
men. This increased Frederick’s force to thirty-two thousand under
the colors.
The king determined to attack Prince Charles whenever and
wherever he should meet him. He called together his general officers
and made them one of those stirring speeches which lead captive
the heart of every soldier: “You know, Meine Herrn, our disasters.
Schweidnitz and Breslau and a good part of Silesia are gone. The
Duke of Bevern is beaten. There would be nothing left but for my
boundless trust in you and your courage. Each of you has
distinguished himself by some memorable act. These services I
know and remember. The hour is at hand. I shall have done nothing
if I do not keep Silesia. I intend, in spite of all the rules of art, to seek
Prince Charles, who has thrice our strength, and to attack him
wherever I find him. It is not numbers I rely on, but your gallantry and
whatever little skill I myself possess. This risk I must take or
everything is lost. We must beat the enemy, or perish every one of
us before his guns. Tell my determination to your officers, and
prepare the men for the work to be done. I demand of you and them
exact obedience. You are Prussians, and will act as such. But if any
one of you dreads to share my dangers, he may now have his
discharge without a word of reproach.” The king paused. A murmur
and the soldier’s look of pride were his answer. “Ah! I knew it,” said
the king, “not one of you would desert me. With your help victory is
sure!” After a few more words the king added, “I demand again exact
obedience. The cavalry regiment which does not on the instant, on
orders given, dash full plunge into the enemy, I will unhorse and
make a garrison regiment. The infantry battalion which, meet it what
may, pauses but an instant shall lose its colors and sabres, and I will
cut the trimmings from its uniform. And now, goodnight. Soon we
shall have beaten the enemy, or we shall never meet again.”
Having learned of the approach of the Prussian army, Prince
Charles, relying on his vast preponderance of forces, left his
intrenched camp at Breslau and marched out to meet the king. He
felt certain of victory, as how could he otherwise? Had not Frederick
been beaten at the last encounter and his territory overrun? He
imagined that he would stand on the defence along the Katzbach.
He little knew this iron-hearted king.
The Austrian van, with the bread bakery, was sent to Neumarkt.
In his own advance, Frederick ran across this outpost and bakery
and captured it. It was on a Sunday, and furnished the men a holiday
dinner. He was glad to learn that the enemy had come out to meet
him. Prince Charles, surprised at the Neumarkt incident, lost heart
and retired to receive battle in front of Schweidnitz Water. The
Austrian army was posted at Leuthen, extending from Nypern to
Sägeschütz. The villages in its front were prepared for defence.
The king broke up from Neumarkt long before day. He was
advancing by his right, in four columns, on the straight road toward
Breslau. Prince Charles lay across his path (Dec. 5). In Frederick’s
mind was nothing but the firm determination he had expressed to his
officers. He proposed to attack the enemy on sight, and under any
conditions. In boldness alone for him lay safety, and he never
doubted himself or his men.
Leuthen Dec. 5, 1757.
Riding with the vanguard, as was his wont in an advance, the
king ran across a cavalry outpost at Borne. Quickly surrounding it, he
captured almost the entire body. The few who escaped carried
confused tidings back to Prince Charles, who believed the king’s
party to be only scouts. From here Frederick rode to the Scheuberg,
from whence he could see the Austrian line, and gauge its strength.
Careful to occupy this hill and a range of knolls running south from it
and parallel with the Austrian line, the king speedily perfected his
plan of battle. He was never at a loss. His vanguard he sent beyond
Borne to engage the enemy’s attention. He knew the ground well.
On the Austrian right it was swampy and unsuited to manœuvring.
On their centre and left it was open and firm. The Austrian position,
in two lines, had been well chosen, but, almost five miles long, was
open to be broken by well-concentrated columns. Nadasti held the
left, Lucchesi the right. Frederick filed his entire army off the main
road in columns of platoons to the right, behind the swelling hills, and
ployed his four columns of advance into two, which would thus
become the first and second lines when the column should wheel to
the left into line. Upon doing this they were to advance in echelon
and obliquely upon the Austrian left flank. On good manœuvring
ground and with Prussian troops, the king felt confident that he could
strike a formidable blow to the enemy.
Frederick’s officers and men had become familiar with this
oblique order of attack, from the frequency of its use on the drill-
ground and in battle. Its origin was Epaminondas’ manœuvre at
Leuctra, but the details the king himself had introduced. The
cumulative effect of the impact, acquiring power as every additional
battalion came into line, was apt to impose strongly upon the enemy.
And at the actual point of contact Frederick would have the larger
force, though outnumbered three to one.
Prince Charles occupied Leuthen belfry. He could not see
beyond the Scheuberg hills. The Prussian cavalry here he assumed
to be the Prussian right wing, as it extended some distance south of
the main road. The attention of Lucchesi was particularly called to
the Prussian van of horse, and he conceived that the Austrian right
was to be attacked in overwhelming numbers. He sent for
reënforcements. These were denied him by Daun, who was second
in command; but the request was repeated so urgently that Daun,
finally convinced, moved the bulk of the cavalry and part of the
reserve from the Austrian left over to the right, an operation requiring
nearly two hours. Here was an unfortunate blunder to begin with. To
read aright your enemy’s intentions savors of the divine.
The king’s columns soon emerged from the shelter of the
Scheuberg hills, opposite the strongly posted Austrian left. To the
distant observer they appeared a confused mass, without form or
purpose. But the king well knew how certainly, at the proper moment,
his perfectly drilled battalions would wheel into line. Eye-witnesses
state that the movement was conducted as if on parade; that the
heads of columns remained absolutely even, and that the echeloning
of the line was done at exact intervals. Each battalion followed the
one on its right at a distance of fifty paces. The line was not only
oblique from its echeloned character, but was formed at an angle to
the Austrian front as well. The Austrian left was thrown back in a
crochet. It was the salient of line and crochet which was to be the
centre of attack. The manœuvre had lasted two hours. The Austrians
had not budged.
It was one P.M. A battery of ten heavy guns was placed opposite
the abatis which protected the Austrian left and shortly broke this
down. Ziethen headed his cavalry for an attack upon the extreme left
of the enemy, to complement that of the main line. Lest his own right
should be turned, he reënforced it with some infantry troops. Nadasti
had been weakened by the removal of his cavalry, but nothing
daunted, he sallied out without waiting for Ziethen’s shock, and all
but countered the Prussian blow. But though the Prussian horse,
charging uphill, for a moment wavered, the infantry on its right was
undisturbed. Nadasti was hustled back.
While the cavalry was thus advancing to the assault, the
batteries posted by the king to sustain the attack of his infantry
delivered an effective fire. Under its cover the Prussian regiments,
despite the abatis which, now quite levelled, still retained them under
fire, after a sanguinary struggle, broke the salient at its apex, while
Ziethen turned its extreme left. The crochet was thus taken in double
reverse, a battery of fourteen guns was captured, and the main line
of the enemy was outflanked. It was barely two o’clock, but the left
wing of the Austrians had been completely broken.
Prince Charles, alarmed, hurried troops and guns from the
centre to the assistance of Nadasti; but the more came up the
greater the confusion. Ziethen was taking whole regiments prisoners.
Seeing that all efforts to rally the left were useless, and that Nadasti
could probably retreat upon the centre while the Prussians were
gathering for a second blow, the prince made a desperate effort to
form a new line at Leuthen. Lucchesi moved forward by a left wheel.
Nadasti fell back as best he might. Prince Charles posted a strong
force in Leuthen churchyard as a point d’appui.
The Prussian army was now advancing almost north. The new
Austrian line lay at right angles to its first position, and, as drawn,
encircled the village. The Prussians, within half an hour, attacked
them in this new position. A bitter contest ensued around the
churchyard and some windmills on the hills beyond. The Austrian
line was badly mixed up. In places it was thirty to one hundred men
deep, and the Prussian guns cut great furrows through the mass.
Still the resistance was so stubborn that Frederick was compelled to
put in his last man.
Meanwhile Lucchesi, whose misconception had caused the
defeat of the Austrian left, debouched with his cavalry upon the
Prussian left, which was engaging the enemy on the west of
Leuthen. This diversion was well intentioned and came near to being
fatal. But the Prussian squadrons left by the king on the Scheuberg
hills, emerging from their hiding when the Austrians had somewhat
passed, fell smartly upon their flank and rear. Lucchesi was killed
and his cavalry scattered; the flank of the enemy’s new line was thus
taken in reverse, and the position soon made untenable. Prince
Charles was compelled again to beat a hasty retreat.
A third stand was attempted at Saara, but to no effect. The
defeated Austrians poured pell-mell over the bridges spanning
Schweidnitz Water. The Prussian cavalry followed them some
distance.
In this astonishing victory, which was won in three hours, the
Prussian loss was six thousand two hundred killed and wounded out
of thirty thousand men. The Austrians, out of over eighty thousand
men, lost ten thousand in killed and wounded, and twelve thousand
prisoners on the field of battle, fifty-one flags, and one hundred and
sixteen guns. Within a fortnight after, nearly twenty thousand more
men, left by Prince Charles at Breslau, were taken prisoners.
Prince Charles crossed the mountains and reached Königsgrätz
with a force of but thirty-seven thousand men, of whom twenty-two
thousand were invalided. So much alone was left of the proud army
which was to give the coup de grace to doughty Frederick.
By this victory, whose like had not been seen since Cannæ, and
which is, tactically considered, distinctly the most splendid of modern
days, Frederick rescued himself from immediate disaster, and
earned a winter’s leisure in which to prepare for the still desperate
difficulties before him. The most threatening matter was the Russian
army; the one comfort a subsidy from England. Pitt was clear-sighted
in his help to the king.
Frederick is by no means as distinguished a strategist as
Napoleon, but he is a more brilliant tactician. He was not a
conqueror; he was a king defending his territory. While theoretically
on the defensive, he kept the initiative and was always the attacking
party. Surrounded as he was by enemies, his strategy was confined
to selecting the, for the time, most dangerous opponent and making
an uncompromising onslaught upon him. During the Seven Years’
War he was placed somewhat as was Napoleon in the campaign
around Paris, in 1814, and flew from one margin of his theatre of
operations to the other. But Frederick won; Napoleon lost. It was
Frederick’s fortitude, unmatched save by Hannibal, which carried
him through.
In 1758, true to his custom, Frederick took the field before the
enemy and surprised him by a march into Moravia and a sudden
siege of Olmütz. But Frederick, like Hannibal, was never happy in his
sieges. This one was interrupted by Daun from Königsgrätz, and
ended in the capture of one of Frederick’s convoys by the active
partisan chieftain Laudon. Frederick was forced to retire, but he did
so deliberately and with all his trains. One of the most remarkable
qualities of the king was the dread he inspired, even in defeat. As the
Romans avoided Hannibal, so the Austrians never ventured to attack
Frederick in disaster. Napoleon by no means rose superior to
misfortune in the manner of Frederick. In this instance the enemy
attempted no pursuit, and to Daun’s utter consternation, instead of
retreating on Silesia from whence he had come, Frederick made a
forced march around the Austrian flank, captured and established
himself in Daun’s own fortified camp, and there feasted his men on
Daun’s supplies. He had absolutely checkmated the Austrian
general. This turning of the tables almost provokes a smile. (July.)
From Königsgrätz, however, Frederick was soon called against
the Russians, who had advanced as far into Prussian territory as
Frankfurt. He marched rapidly northward, met the enemy at
Zorndorf, and by a beautiful movement around their position
established himself on their communications. Then with his thirty
thousand men he boldly assailed the fifty thousand Russians
strongly entrenched on Zorndorf heights (August 25). The Russians
have always been stubborn fighters, but they now met a man who
would not take less than victory. There ensued one of those horrible
butcheries which these tenacious troops have so often suffered
rather than yield. Frederick won the day, but it was with a loss of ten
thousand four hundred killed and wounded out of his thirty thousand
men,—more than one-third,—in a few hours, while the Russians lost
twenty-one thousand men and one hundred and thirty guns.
Frederick, however, from sheer exhaustion, allowed the Russians to
retire without pursuit, and singularly enough he neglected to seize
the Russian wagon-camp, which was absolutely under his hand.
This was an undoubted error; but he had eliminated the most
grievous danger from his problem, which was all he had in view.
He was now obliged to hurry back to draw Daun away from
Dresden. This he accomplished; but Daun still stood athwart his path
to Silesia, which the king must reach to relieve the siege of Neisse.
In endeavoring to elude the enemy he ran across him at Hochkirch,
and, in one of his not unusual fits of unreasonable obstinacy, sat
down in a recklessly bad position within a mile of the Austrian front.
Here he remained four days. “The Austrians deserve to be hanged if
they do not attack us here,” said grim Field-Marshal Keith. “They fear
us worse than the gallows,” replied the king. But just as Frederick
was preparing a new flank march, Daun, who had ninety thousand
men, fell upon the Prussian army of less than forty thousand, and,
despite the best of fighting, fairly wrested a victory and one hundred
guns from the king (Oct. 14). For all which Frederick retired from the
field in parade order—merely shifted his ground, as it were—and
again camped within four miles of the battle-field. “The marshal has
let us out of check; the game is not lost yet,” quoth he. From here,
within a few days, Frederick made another of his wonderful turning
movements, and this time actually seized the road to Silesia. Thus in
spite of a defeat and of numbers he had gained his point. The
Austrians raised the siege of Neisse at the mere rumor of his
approach, and this campaign of marvellous marches left the king in
possession of all that for which he had been contending.
But though Frederick had in every sense held his own, and had
won battles such as the world had never yet seen, he had none the
less lost ground. His three years’ hard fighting had robbed him of
most of his trusted generals and the flower of his army. He had an
inimitable knack of making recruits into soldiers, but these were not
his old grenadiers, nor could his dead lieutenants be replaced. The
Austrian troops were, on the contrary, distinctly improving. Their
ranks contained more veterans, for, in their larger standing army, the
losses of the Austrians did not decimate their battalions.
The king’s financiering during these years was remarkable. He
never ran in debt. He always had money ahead. How he managed to
arm, equip, supply, feed, and pay his men on less than eighty-five
dollars per man per year, is beyond our comprehension. But he did
it, and well too.
As 1759 opened, a cordon of over three hundred and fifty
thousand men surrounded Frederick’s one hundred and fifty
thousand. The king had, however, interior lines and undivided
purpose. His difficulty in raising troops—and he had a press-gang in
every country of Europe—obliged him to give up fighting for
manœuvring, like Hannibal after Cannæ. He could afford battle only
when he must wrench the enemy’s grip from his very throat. He
remained in Silesia watching Daun, who induced the Prussians to
advance into Brandenburg, by sending Soltikof some
reënforcements under Laudon.
Frederick must parry this thrust at his heart. He marched on the
allies and met them at Kunersdorf, and, though he had but half their
force, he attacked them with his usual impetuous valor. But the king
was over-impetuous that day. Ill luck beset him. His combinations
would not work. He tore himself to shreds against the entrenchments
and artillery of the enemy. He would have victory. Not until he had
lost one-half his army, nineteen thousand out of forty-two thousand
men, would he desist from repeated, obstinate assaults. He was the
last to leave the field. No such stubborn fighting is elsewhere
inscribed on the roll of fame. After the battle the king could assemble
but three thousand men. The allies had been too roughly handled to
pursue (Aug. 12).
For once despair seized poor Frederick. He thought the end had
come. But his elasticity came to the rescue. In three days he was
himself again. Every one was certain that Prussia was gone beyond
rescue. Happily the allies were lax. Dresden was indeed lost, and
Frederick was cut off by Soltikof and the Austrians from Prince
Henry, who were on the confines of Saxony. But by a handsome
series of manœuvres between him and the prince—as beautiful as
any on record—he regained touch and reoccupied all Saxony except
Dresden. And although he suffered another grievous blow, and again
by his own obstinacy, as at Hochkirch, in the capture of twelve
thousand men at Maxen, still Daun made no headway, and the end
of the fourth year saw the king where he was at the beginning.
The characteristic of 1760 was a series of wonderful
manœuvres. Frederick, from Saxony, had to march to the relief of
Breslau, threatened by Laudon. He had thirty thousand men. The
enemy barred his passage (August) with ninety thousand, and the
Russians were near by with twenty-four thousand more. Despite this
fearful odds of four to one, despite the unwonted activity of the
enemy, Frederick, by unheard-of feats of marching, the most
extraordinary schemes for eluding his adversaries, strategic turns
and twists by day and night, the most restless activity and untiring
watchfulness, actually made his way to Silesia, beat the Austrian
right at Liegnitz and marched into Breslau safe and sound, and with
martial music and colors flying. No parallel exhibition of clean grit
and nimble-footedness can be found. From Breslau as base,
Frederick then turned on Daun in the Glatz region.
The Russians and Austrians now moved on Berlin, and while
Frederick followed, Daun marched towards Saxony (October). The
king by no means proposed to give up this province. To its fruitful
fields he was indebted for too much in breadstuffs and war material
for a moment peaceably to yield them up. His stubbornness had
grown by misfortune. Knowing full well that failure meant the
dismemberment of Prussia, he was ready to sacrifice every man in
the ranks and every coin in the treasury, and himself fall in his tracks,
rather than yield his point. This wonderful man and soldier was made
of stuff which, like steel, gains quality from fire and blows.
The Berlin incident proved more bark than bite, and in the battle
of Torgau, though Daun and the Imperialists had over one hundred
thousand men to Frederick’s forty-four thousand, the king attacked
their intrenchments and won a superb victory (Nov. 3).
For 1761, Frederick’s forces dropped to ninety-six thousand
men. The enemy had the usual number. This, too, was a year of
manœuvres, which are of the greatest interest to the soldier, but
need volumes to relate. At the camp of Bunzelwitz, for the first time,
Frederick resorted to pure defence. The result of this year left the
king where he had been, save the capture of Schweidnitz by General
Laudon. Frederick was fighting to keep Silesia, and the close of each
year, through good and evil alike, saw him still in possession of the
cherished province.
The winter of 1761–2 was one of great bitterness to the king. His
health had broken down. On every hand the situation was clearly
desperate. No prospect but failure lay before him. He led the life of a
dog, as he said. Still the iron-hearted man ceased not for a moment
his preparations. He was resolved to die with honor if he could not
win. Had the outlook been promising in the extreme, he could not
have labored more consistently, even if more cheerfully. “All our wars
should be short and sharp,” says he; “a long war is bad for our
discipline and would exhaust our population and resources.” The
theory of the strategy as well as the battle evolutions of the king was
the saving of time by skill and rapidity.
The death of the Czarina and accession of Peter III. gave
Frederick a breathing-spell. This lasted but a short while, when the
death of Peter again changed the current. But the war from now on
languished, and there finally came about a peace on the “as-you-
were” principle. Frederick kept Silesia (1763).
Frederick had not been a strong boy, but in early manhood he
had gained in physique. His life with troops had lent him a
robustness of constitution equal to any drain or strain, and his
wonderful determination drove him to ceaseless activity. Later in life
he was troubled with gout. Even when seventy-three years old, and
clinging to life by a mere thread, he never ceased daily, hourly work.

Introductory Chemistry Atoms First 5Th Edition Russo Solutions Manual Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introductory Chemistry Atoms First 5Th Edition Russo Solutions Manual Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introductory Chemistry Atoms First 5th

Edition Russo Solutions Manual

9.1 See solution in textbook.

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

288 Complete Solutions

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Chapter 9: Stoichiometry and the Mole 289

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

290 Complete Solutions

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

(b) CH4 + 2O2 S 2H2O + CO2

Chapter 9: Stoichiometry and the Mole 291

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

(b) C2H6O + 3O2 S 2CO2 + 3H2O

292 Complete Solutions

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Chapter 9: Stoichiometry and the Mole 293

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

294 Complete Solutions

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Molar mass of compound 88.106 g>mol

Chapter 9: Stoichiometry and the Mole 295

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

296 Complete Solutions

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Chapter 9: Stoichiometry and the Mole 297

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

9.62 (a) 2Na + Cl2 S 2NaCl

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Chapter 9: Stoichiometry and the Mole 299

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

300 Complete Solutions

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Chapter 9: Stoichiometry and the Mole 301

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

302 Complete Solutions

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Chapter 9: Stoichiometry and the Mole 303

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

304 Complete Solutions

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Chapter 9: Stoichiometry and the Mole 305

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

306 Complete Solutions

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

308 Complete Solutions

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Chapter 9: Stoichiometry and the Mole 309

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

9.98 First determine the mass percent of oxygen:

310 Complete Solutions

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Chapter 9: Stoichiometry and the Mole 311

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

312 Complete Solutions

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Chapter 9: Stoichiometry and the Mole 313

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

314 Complete Solutions

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Chapter 9: Stoichiometry and the Mole 315

(b) CH4 + 2O2 S 2H2O + CO2

(b) C2H6O + 3O2 S 2CO2 + 3H2O

9.62 (a) 2Na + Cl2 S 2NaCl

9.125 (a) 4BF3 + 3H2O S H3BO3 + 3HBF4

(b) 2H21g2 + C2H21g2 S C2H61g2