trouble with question (1 Viewer)

[Fruitcake05]

The question involves elements in the crust. It is about how someone had an iron bearing ore, and performed experiments to see what % of iron was in the ore.
He took a sample of 5.0grams, and after experiments iron accounted for 2.65%

Now the question asks if this iron ore sample has sufficient iron content to be mined economically. Im not sure what this means. What would be the adequate amount for something to be mined? and is gravitmetric analysis linked to this question?

Thanks.

 

[Jaydels]

gravimetric analysis involves weighing things, so yes it is linked. I have no idea how to answer the rest.

what topic is this from?

 

[Fruitcake05]

Its year 11, a sheet called "elements and pure substances"

 

[Slidey]

Now I remember why I didn't pay attention in year 11 chemistry - it was so boring.

Sorry, I can't help you. I do however remember the textbook explaining this. It's generally a good idea to always check your textbook first. Can save some hassle.

 

[KFunk]

I also slept through year 11 chemistry. That stuff was deadly boring.

 

[funking_you]

I payed attention during year 11 ! (while teaching the course of course)

The question involves elements in the crust. It is about how someone had an iron bearing ore, and performed experiments to see what % of iron was in the ore.
He took a sample of 5.0grams, and after experiments iron accounted for 2.65%

Now the question asks if this iron ore sample has sufficient iron content to be mined economically. Im not sure what this means. What would be the adequate amount for something to be mined? and is gravitmetric analysis linked to this question?

Thanks.

Firstly

• this do NOT involve a gravimetric analysis
  (thou to get that figure 2.65%, they have already performed it, and given you the result)

• i'm sure you understand what an ore is (the mixture the actual metallic compound is found in the ground). For example, bauxite is aluminium ore. So what does economically viable mean? Simple put, is it worth spending all the time and money on actually setting up a mine at that site the sample was taken, and mining it?

• think about this? would you go spend all your time and effort in setting up a mining operation if the area only contained 26.5 kg of iron in EVERY 1000 kg of dirt mixture u dug up? logically you wouldn't, cause 1000kg is a lot of earth to mine for only 26.5 kg of metal?.

• why did i choose 26.5 kg out of 1000 kg, cause this is 2.65% (from your question)

• the point here is to understand that we get our metals from mines, but in the real world you cant just go around mining all the earth, you must decided whether a specific site is worth mining? if its 'worth' mining the site to get the metal, then we say it is 'economically viable'.

• so where is the chemistry in this? well to determine whether its economically viable you would perform a gravimetric analysis of a sample of that mine, and see what percentage of the soil mixture is actually the metal u want

This task is simply an amalgamation of many other concepts you've been studying, its nothin hard ot too foreign.

ANY MORE QUESTIONS, POST THEM HERE

Cheers,
george

 

[Fruitcake05]

Thanks guys, I understand it now

 

[~*HSC 4 life*~]

tip for any yr 10 students...DONT sleep throuhg yr 11 chem! it forms the fundamental basics you need for yr 12!

 

[Jaydels]

Firstly

• this do NOT involve a gravimetric analysis
  (thou to get that figure 2.65%, they have already performed it, and given you the result)

• so where is the chemistry in this? well to determine whether its economically viable you would perform a gravimetric analysis of a sample of that mine, and see what percentage of the soil mixture is actually the metal u want

im confused.......why is it not gravimetric analysis? what would be an example of gravimetric analysis?

 

[Slidey]

Gravimetric was performed on the sample FOR you. Nobody said it didn't occur.

 

[Slidey]

tip for any yr 10 students...DONT sleep throuhg yr 11 chem! it forms the fundamental basics you need for yr 12!

By the same token, don't lose heart if you did sleep through it - you can still catch up and do well.

 

[funking_you]

By the same token, don't lose heart if you did sleep through it - you can still catch up and do well.

I STRONGLY refute this proposition.

The Entire year 11 chemistry syllabus, Year 12 electrochemistry and Year 12 Module 2, teach you the most fundemental and important chemistry you will ever need to know.

 

[Casmira]

He speaks the truth, I don't remember metals or chemical earth at all, I only payed attention during energy and partially through water

I regret that because some concepts don't make sense too me during my half yearlies, over my holidays im going to go over my prelim shit again

 

[xiao1985]

@ slide rule: simply dont' give the yr11 any chance to slack up...
yr 12 chem is the construction of knowledge on the fundamentals u learnt in every previous science yrs... missin out in any level will be hard to catch up...

 

[Casmira]

Have fun learning moles :uhhuh:

 

[Slidey]

@ slide rule: simply dont' give the yr11 any chance to slack up...
yr 12 chem is the construction of knowledge on the fundamentals u learnt in every previous science yrs... missin out in any level will be hard to catch up...

I am entirely against people bludging through year 11.

But using intimidation and scare tactics ("if you don't do well at year 11, you'll do poorly in year 12") will only make things worse. And I don't believe such things are the truth anyway. If you are determined to do well at chemistry and work hard, you will do well.

 

[xiao1985]

@ slide rule: it's never too late to catch up at any level...
i agree with u in some respect... if u did crap in yr 11, there's still chance, but that's no excuse to do crap in yr 11...