Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It's actually a chemistry problem focusing on galvanic cells, and working with redox equations but I only need help on the last part with the math. Either the professor gave us the wrong answer or I'm doing something wrong.

Haven't taken Calculus in a while, can't remember steps. Do I inverse both sides? Any help would be appreciated.

0.711 = 0.679 - 0.0257/6 ln

I'm not asking for answer, just how to get to it.

What are you trying to do, solve for x?

If that's the case, I think you'd subtract 0.679 from both sides, divide both sides by 0.0257/6, then put both sides as exponents of e, removing the natural log. Then it's easy to solve.

Sovling for x. Not sure if this is right though. The x exponent for e is what I'm having trouble with.

e^ln(x)=x

Originally posted by King Kandy
e^ln(x)=x I got that part, but it's this that I can't remember how to do.

e^(x)^2/(0.10)^3

edit: nevermind, i see what you're saying.

edit: Got the answer. I appreciate the help King.

Answer: 7.5 x 10^4

Which is the concentration I needed to find the Ksp for InF3.

im not sure if its pathetic that i have no idea what youre talking about.

Don't fret, I don't either.

Originally posted by BackFire
Don't fret, I don't either. Hope you're watching the Kings games man. Haven't had a season like this in a while. Was thinking about getting tickets after finals.

Don't hesitate to ask any more questions. After implicit differentiation and related rates (ugh) this seemed easy. Man I can't wait for calculus to be over.

Man, i hate math

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
Hope you're watching the Kings games man. Haven't had a season like this in a while. Was thinking about getting tickets after finals.

Absolutely. Watched them beat the Ducks tonight. Quick made some amazing saves.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick


0.711 = 0.679 - 0.0257/6 ln



well if someone can tell me what a "n [(x)^ " is, and wtf this is all about I might be able to help and learn something as well

why are you using ^ instead of * ?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Don't hesitate to ask any more questions. After implicit differentiation and related rates (ugh) this seemed easy. Man I can't wait for calculus to be over. Finished Calc II a year in a half ago. Barely got a B in the class. Very boring stuff.

Originally posted by BackFire
Absolutely. Watched them beat the Ducks tonight. Quick made some amazing saves. Ya, I never heard of Quick before this season. He's doing well. Also glad we have Smyth on the team.

How is that a Calculus problem? I see no differentiation or integration required. That looks like a college algebra problem.

Originally posted by Blinky
That looks like a college algebra problem. Really?

Originally posted by JacopeX
Really?

Yeah really. Last time I had a problem that said "solve for X" it was probably in Pre-Calc, many years ago. I took 3 semesters of Calc, differential equations and Numerical Analysis - not once did I ever get a problem where I had to simply solve for X.

That's true, this does not require anything more than algebra.

Originally posted by Blinky
How is that a Calculus problem? I see no differentiation or integration required. That looks like a college algebra problem. I remember using the function tons in calculus, maybe that's why I thought it was a calc problem.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's true, this does not require anything more than algebra. Again, thanks for the help.

I see you solved this already, but for the future Wolfram Alpha can actually solve such things for you, and show you the steps in between.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.711+%3D+0.679+-+0.0257/6+ln+

Just got back from the exam. The electrochemistry and thermodynamics portion I did well, the thermochem was a bit more difficult.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I see you solved this already, but for the future Wolfram Alpha can actually solve such things for you, and show you the steps in between.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.711+%3D+0.679+-+0.0257/6+ln+ Good to know about this. Thank you.

That doesn't really show how the result was gained though. Though I suppose future versions might.

okmngfd