Calculating Volume of Water in a Swimming Pool Using Conductivity Measurements

  • Thread starter Thread starter utkarshakash
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electrochemistry
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the volume of water in a swimming pool using conductivity measurements. A resistance of 10000Ω was recorded for pool water, while a 0.02M KCl solution showed a resistance of 100Ω. After dissolving 585g of NaCl in the pool, a resistance of 8000Ω was measured. The molar conductance of NaCl is given as 125, and KCl's molar conductivity is 200Ω. The calculations for determining the volume of water based on these measurements are proving to be challenging and ambiguous.
utkarshakash
Gold Member
Messages
852
Reaction score
13

Homework Statement


A sample of water from a large swimming pool has a resistance of 10000Ω at 25C when placed in a certain conductance cell. When filled with 0.02M KCl solution, the cell has a resistance of 100Ω at 25C. 585gm of NaCl were dissolved in the pool, which was thoroughly stirred. A sample of this solution gave a resistance of 8000Ω. Molar conductance of NaCl at that concentration is 125 and molar conductivity of KCl at 0.02M is 200Ω. Find volume of water in litres.


The Attempt at a Solution



I found the cell constant to be 0.4.
k(NaCl) = \frac{0.4}{8000}

125 = 1000*k(nacl)/M

Plugging all the values in the above equation gives me the wrong answer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is as ambiguous here, as it was at CF.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top