Is Solid Residue Present in Pure Water?

Thread starter KiraraChem
Start date Apr 16, 2017
Tags

Pure Residue Solid Water

AI Thread Summary

Pure water should not contain any solid residue, as it is defined by its lack of impurities. A sample that leaves a solid evaporation residue, despite having a density close to that of pure water, cannot be classified as pure. The presence of conductivity or solid residue indicates impurities or dissolved substances. Therefore, if a sample shows these characteristics, it cannot be considered pure water.

Apr 16, 2017

KiraraChem

Please use the template when posting a question in the HW section.

Hi everyone!
If I have a sample that didn’t present conductivity and left a solid evaporation residue but its density is approximately 1 g/mL (1,08 g/mL), can I still say it is pure water?
I suppose pure water shouldn’t have any kind of solid residue.

Thanks!

Physics news on Phys.org

Apr 16, 2017

Borek

Mentor

KiraraChem said:

I suppose pure water shouldn’t have any kind of solid residue.

And you are right.

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...

View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

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...

View full post »