Mohs Scale of Mineral Hardness Hardness Mineral Absolute Hardness 1 Talc 1 2 Gypsum 2 3 Calcite 9 4 Fluorite 21 5 Apatite 48 7 Quartz 100 8 Topaz 200 According to the Moh's Scale of Mineral Hardness, the sample mineral that will scratch gypsum but not apatite is MOST LIKELY A) calcite. B) quartz. C) talc. D) topaz.

Answers

Answer 1

Answer:

Answer: A) calcite

Explanation:

Hardness can be defined as the ability of the mineral to resist the scratch. It is the property to judge the hardness of the mineral. Mineralogist study this property of hardness using Mohs hardness scale.

Talc is the least hard substance after that gypsum, then calcite, fluorite, and then apatite.

The gypsum can be scratched by the calcite but the calcite cannot scratch apatite as it is softer than apatite.

Related Questions

Duties that are often performed by pharmacy technician include
The diagram below shows the sequence of events and processes which resulted in the origin of life on Earth.Picture shows a flow chart with a rectangle labeled non-living matter at the top, an oval labeled chemical processes below it, and a rectangle labeled A at the bottom. Which of these events best fits the box labeled A? A.destruction of cells B.appearance of bacteria C.creation of primitive plants D.transformation of atmosphere
7. Methane, CH, burns in oxygen gas to form water and carbon dioxide. Wequation for this reaction?a. CH4+ O H2O CO2b. CH4+ 40 2H20+ CO2c. CH4 O2 H2O CO2d. CH4+ 202 2H20 CO28. How many atoms are present in 3 moles of chromium?c. 1.80 x 1024 atomsa. 6.02 x 1023 atomsb. 1.80 x 1023 atomsd. 52.00 atoms 9. How many grams of CO2 are in 2.1 mol of the compound?a. 21.0 gc. 66.0 gb. 44.0 gd. 92.4 g
(HELP FAST )The model shows a molecule of silk made by a spider.
Scientific experiments are specially designed to evaluate explanations for an observed phenomenon. A student decides to conduct an experiment to determine the effect that the amount of time spent in sunlight has on the overall growth of a plant. The student will carry out the experiment using two identical plants that will only spend different amounts of time in sunlight. All other aspects necessary for growth will remain identical for each. In the experiment described, what would be the amount of water given to each plant?

What is the percent composition by mass of nitrogen in (NH4)2CO3 (gram-formula mass = 96.0 g/mol)? (1) 14.6%
(2) 29.2%
(3) 58.4%
(4) 87.5%

Answers

The percentage composition by mass of nitrogen in ${\left( {{\text{N}}{{\text{H}}_{\text{4}}}} \right)_{\text{2}}}{\text{C}}{{\text{O}}_{\text{3}}}$ is $\boxed{\left( 2 \right){\text{ 29}}{\text{.2 \% }}}$ .

Further explanation:

The most commonly applied concentration terms are as follows:

1. Molality

2. Mole fraction

3. Molarity

4. Parts per million

5. Mass percent

6. Volume percent

7. Percentage composition

The given compound is ${\left( {{\text{N}}{{\text{H}}_{\text{4}}}} \right)_{\text{2}}}{\text{C}}{{\text{O}}_{\text{3}}}$ . It contains two atoms of nitrogen, eight atoms of hydrogen, one atom of carbon and three atoms of oxygen.

The mass of nitrogen in ${\left( {{\text{N}}{{\text{H}}_{\text{4}}}} \right)_{\text{2}}}{\text{C}}{{\text{O}}_{\text{3}}}$ can be calculated as follows:

${\text{Mass of N}} =\left( {{\text{Number of nitrogen atoms}}} \right)\left( {{\text{Molar mass of nitrogen}}} \right)$ …… (1)

The number of N atoms in ${\left( {{\text{N}}{{\text{H}}_{\text{4}}}} \right)_{\text{2}}}{\text{C}}{{\text{O}}_{\text{3}}}$ is 2.

The molar mass of nitrogen is 14.01 g/mol.

Substitute these values in equation (1).

$\begin{aligned}{\text{Mass of nitrogen}} &= \left( {\text{2}} \right)\left( {{\text{14}}{\text{.01 g/mol}}} \right)\n&= 28.02{\text{ g/mol}}\n\end{aligned}$

The formula to calculate the percentage composition of N in ${\left( {{\text{N}}{{\text{H}}_{\text{4}}}} \right)_{\text{2}}}{\text{C}}{{\text{O}}_{\text{3}}}$ is as follows:

${\text{\% composition of N}} = \left( {\frac{{{\text{Mass of N}}}}{{{\text{Mass of }}{{\left( {{\text{N}}{{\text{H}}_{\text{4}}}} \right)}_{\text{2}}}{\text{C}{{\text{O}}_{\text{3}}}}}} \right){\text{100 \% }}$ …… (2)

The mass of N is 28.02 g/mol.

The mass of ${\left( {{\text{N}}{{\text{H}}_{\text{4}}}} \right)_{\text{2}}}{\text{C}}{{\text{O}}_{\text{3}}}$ is 96.0 g/mol.

Substitute these values in equation (2).

$\begin{aligned}{\text{\% composition of N}} &= \left( {\frac{{{\text{28}}{\text{.02 g/mol}}}}{{{\text{96}}{\text{.0 g/mol}}}}} \right){\text{100 \% }}\n&= {\text{29}}{\text{.1875 \% }} \n &\approx {\text{2}}{\text{.92 \%}}\n\end{aligned}$

Therefore the percentage composition by mass of nitrogen in ${\left( {{\text{N}}{{\text{H}}_{\text{4}}}} \right)_{\text{2}}}{\text{C}}{{\text{O}}_{\text{3}}}$ is 29.2 %.

Learn more:

Calculate the moles of chlorine in 8 moles of carbon tetrachloride: brainly.com/question/3064603
What is the concentration of alcohol in terms of molarity? brainly.com/question/9013318

Answer details:

Grade: Senior School

Chapter: Concentration terms

Subject: Chemistry

Keywords: (NH4)2CO3, N, nitrogen, mass, 2.92 %, 96.0 g/mol, 28.02 g/mol, nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, mass of N, mass of (NH4)2CO3.

The % composition of nitrogen is 29.166% ~ 29.2%. Thus option 2 is correct.

The percent composition of nitrogen in ammonium carbonate can be calculated as:

% Composition = $\rm (mass\;of\;element)/(mass\;of\lcompound)\;*\;100$

Mass of nitrogen in the compound has been:

Number of Nitrogen atoms = 2

Mass of 1 nitrogen atom = 14 g/mol

Mass of 2 nitrogen atom = 28 g/mol

Mass of compound = 96 g/mol

% Composition of nitrogen = $\rm (28)/(96)\;*\;100$

% Composition of nitrogen = 29.166 %

The % composition of nitrogen is 29.166% ~ 29.2%. Thus option 2 is correct.

For more information about the percent composition, refer to the link:

brainly.com/question/17505281

Can someone solve 5 ?

Answers

Please what are we solving for
Is it oxidation number or what?

100 Points and Brainliest to the correct answer, if you type a random answer I will reportHow can matter and energy be described and conserved in a variety of systems? Hypotheses: As you view each scenario, make a prediction about what will occur when prompted by the video. The Iced Tea Debate The Salty Soup Predictions—What do you think will happen? Materials: 1. Demonstrations: “The Iced Tea Debate” and “The Salty Soup.” Procedures: 1. Observe and analyze the following video demonstrations: “The Iced Tea Debate” and “The Salty Soup.” 2. Use the data table to record observations on physical and chemical change, and the conservation of matter and energy. Variables: List the variables for The Iced Tea Debate: Independent: Dependent: Control: List the variables for The Salty Soup: Independent: Dependent: Control: Data and Observations: Record your detailed observations and draw some brief conclusions in the table below. The Iced Tea Debate The Salty Soup Describe the physical changes you observed. Describe the chemical changes you observed. Describe the instances of conservation of matter and energy in each demonstration. Questions and Conclusion 1. How was matter and energy conserved in each demonstration? 2. What phase changes did you observe? 3. What kind/s of energy transfers did you notice in each scenario? 4. Identify an example of matter and energy conservation in the world around you. Conclusion: How did your observations support or contradict your predictions? Describe an experiment that could further explore physical or chemical change.

Answers

Final answer:

The experiments 'The Iced Tea Debate' and 'The Salty Soup' illustrate different physical changes and energy transfers in the context of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

Explanation:

In 'The Iced Tea Debate', the independent variable could be the temperature of the tea, the dependent variable could be how quickly the ice melts and the control variable could be the amount of tea used in each trial. The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. In this case, the ice melting is a physical change, and the energy transferred is thermal energy from the tea to the ice.

In 'The Salty Soup,' the independent variable could be the amount of salt added, the dependent variable could be the taste of the soup, and the control variable could be the type of soup used. The added salt dissolving into the soup is a physical change, and no noticeable energy transfer occurs.

One example of conservation of matter and energy in everyday life is the process of photosynthesis in plants. The plant absorbs sunlight (energy), carbon dioxide, and water, and converts them into glucose and oxygen, thus conserving matter and energy.

Learn more about Conservation of Matter and Energy here:

brainly.com/question/11573747

#SPJ5

Final answer:

In these demonstrations, matter and energy were conserved, as total mass and energy stayed constant. Significant phase and energy transformations were observed, like the melting of ice and the dissolving of salt. The total mass before and after the transformations remained the same, demonstrating the law of conservation of mass.

Explanation:

Matter and energy can be described as being conserved in a variety of systems because they can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred between objects or converted from one form to another. In 'The Iced Tea Debate' and 'The Salty Soup' demonstrations,

Variables would include: Independent variable: the substance added (be it ice tea or salt); Dependent variable: physical and chemical changes observed; Control variables: the initial conditions of the system, like temperature and pressure.

When analyzing the results of each of these demonstrations, you should observe energy transfers, in the form of heat in both scenarios.

Moreover, there would be conservation of matter observable in both scenarios. This can be proven by extracting and weighing all substances before and after their reactions, summing up the total mass, which should stay constant.

To answer the questions:

In each demonstration, matter was conserved as the total mass remained constant despite the transformations. Energy was conserved as it was converted from one form to another.
Phase changes observed would be the melting of ice in the Iced Tea and the dissolving of salt in the soup.
Energy transfer in both scenarios was likely in the form of heat, from the hotter substance to the colder one.
An example of matter and energy conservation in the world around you could be photosynthesis.

Learn more about Conservation of Matter and Energy here:

brainly.com/question/11573747

#SPJ3

According to Bohr's model, what can be said of the amount of energy that an electron absorbs when it is excited compared to the amount of energy that it releases when it returns to ground state?A. The amount of energy that is absorbed is greater than the amount of energy that is released.

B. The amount of energy that is absorbed is the same as the amount of energy that is released.

C. The amount of energy that is absorbed is less than the amount of energy that is released.

Answers

letter b. because energy can't be created nor destroyed

How many grams are in 238 moles of arsenic

Answers

1 mole of arsenic----------- 75g
238 moles of arsenic ----------x g
x = 17850g of arsenic

Please helppp. Is manned space travel worthwhile or is it better to use robots? Explain your reasoning

Answers

Answer:

I think robots would be better. Even though it might take time or take a lot of money to make the robots, it is safer than sending humans into space. Also, if we were to send a ship somewhere far away in our solar system or even past it, it would be hard for humans, and they may not even survive long enough to get there. Robots, however, can survive longer, and, since they are programmed by humans, we can program them to record the data in space, and they can constantly record space as they travel. We also would be risking less lives, and wouldn't be putting too many risks on the survival of the humans sent into space. The only downside would be that the robots can malfunction, but other than that, robots are better. :)

Answer:

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has a difficult task. It must convince U.S. taxpayers that space science is worth $16.25 billion a year. To achieve this goal, the agency conducts an extensive public-relations effort that is similar to the marketing campaigns of America's biggest corporations. NASA has learned a valuable lesson about marketing in the 21st century: to promote its programs, it must provide entertaining visuals and stories with compelling human characters. For this reason, NASA issues a steady stream of press releases and images from its human spaceflight program

ADVERTISEMENT

The space agency is now saddled with the International Space Station, the budget-hemorrhaging “laboratory” orbiting Earth. NASA says the station provides a platform for space research and helps to determine how people can live and work safely in space. This knowledge could be used to plan a manned mission to Mars or the construction of a base on the moon. But these justifications for the station are largely myths. Here are the facts, plain as potatoes: The International Space Station is not a platform for cutting-edge science. Unmanned probes can explore Mars and other planets more cheaply and effectively than manned missions can. And a moon colony would be a silly destiny.

The Myth of Science

IN 1990 THE American Physical Society, an organization of 41,000 physicists, reviewed the experiments then planned for the International Space Station. Many of the studies involved examining materials and fluid mechanics in the station's microgravity environment. Other proposed experiments focused on growing protein crystals and cell cultures on the station. The physical society concluded, however, that these experiments would not provide enough useful scientific knowledge to justify building the station. Thirteen other scientific organizations, including the American Chemical Society and the American Crystallographic Association, drew the same conclusion.

Since then, the station has been redesigned and the list of planned experiments has changed, but the research community remains overwhelmingly opposed. To date, at least 20 scientific organizations from around the world have determined that the space station experiments in their respective fields are a waste of time and money. All these groups have recommended that space science should instead be done through robotic and telescopic missions.

These scientists have various reasons for their disapproval. For researchers in materials science, the station is simply too unstable a platform. Vibrations caused by the movements of astronauts and machinery jar sensitive experiments. The same vibrations make it difficult for astronomers to observe the heavens and for geologists and climatologists to study Earth's surface as well as they could with unmanned satellites. The cloud of gases vented from the station interferes with experiments in space nearby that require near-vacuum conditions. And last, the station orbits only 400 kilometers (250 miles) overhead, traveling through a region of space that has already been studied extensively.

Despite the scientific community's disapproval, NASA went ahead with experiments on the space station. The agency has been particularly enthusiastic about studying the growth of protein crystals in microgravity; NASA claims the studies may spur the development of better medicines. But the American Society for Cell Biology has bluntly called for the cancellation of the crystallography program. The society's review panel concluded that the proposed experiments were not likely to make any serious contributions to the knowledge of protein structure.

ADVERTISEMENT The Myth of Economic Benefit

HUMAN SPACELIGHT is extremely expensive. A single flight of the space shuttle costs about $450 million. The shuttle's cargo bay can carry up to 23,000 kilograms (51,000 pounds) of payload into orbit and can return 14,500 kilograms back to Earth. Suppose that NASA loaded up the shuttle's cargo bay with confetti before launching it into space. Even if every kilogram of confetti miraculously turned into a kilogram of gold during the trip, the mission would still lose $80 million.

The same miserable economics hold for the International Space Station. Over its history the station underwent five major redesigns and fell 11 years behind schedule. NASA has spent over three times the $8 billion that the original project was supposed to cost in its entirety.

NASA had hoped that space-based manufacturing on the station would offset some of this expense. In theory, the microgravity environment could allow the production of certain pharmaceuticals and semiconductors that would have advantages over similar products made on Earth. But the high price of sending anything to the station has dissuaded most companies from even exploring the idea.

Other Questions

Any method of determining whether an event or object is older or younger than others

Abdid is an astronomer who has been observing objects that orbit the Sun in the asteroid belt. He finds a previously undiscovered round, rocky object that is not similar in shape to the rest of the asteroids. What has Abdid most likely found?

Calculate the number of kilojoules to warm 125 g of iron from 23.5 °C to 78.0 °C.

Fill in the Blank. 1. You want to be shielded from all three types of nuclear radiation. If you find shielding that blocks _________________ radiation, then it will most likely also block the other two types. 2. When nuclear radiation enters the tube of a Geiger counter, it ____________________ the atoms of the gas contained in the tube. 3. The particles that make up protons and neutrons and are thought to be basic units of matter are ____________________.