Homework questions in Thermodynamics for Chemical Engineering

AI Thread Summary
The Kauzmann Paradox highlights the contradiction between thermodynamic predictions and the behavior of supercooled liquids, suggesting that entropy becomes negative at low temperatures. To address this paradox, various approaches can be employed, including examining the molecular dynamics and configurational entropy. In experiments observing phase transitions, distinguishing between binodal and spinodal transitions can be achieved by analyzing the coexistence curves and stability criteria. The friction experienced by a bouncing elastic rubber ball on a crystalline surface can be explained through entropy analysis, focusing on energy dissipation during deformation and recovery. Engaging with these concepts deepens the understanding of thermodynamic principles in chemical engineering.
mallinath
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
1. State what is "Kauzmann Paradox" and provide your own explanation (or solution) for the paradox and derive a unique explanation using different approaches.

2. If you observe a phase transition phenomenon in your own experiment, how to determine the whether the transition is binodal or spinodal?

3. Explain the origin of the friction when an elastic rubber ball is bouncing on a ground made of a crystalline material using an entropy analysis.

Thanks in Advance
Mallinath
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not going to get any help that way! C'mon, give it the ol' college try!
 
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