Chemistry Is There a Correlation Between Thermal Conductivity and Molecular Weight?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the potential correlation between thermal conductivity and molecular weight (Mw). It emphasizes that thermal conductivity is measured in units that do not depend on mass, raising questions about the relationship. A suggestion is made to plot thermal conductivity on the Y-axis and Mw on the X-axis using various substances to visualize any correlation. Participants are encouraged to include a diverse range of materials, such as alkali metals or specific metals like aluminum and copper. The challenge remains in determining the nature of any observed correlation, particularly since it is noted that the relationship is not linear.
Dell
Messages
555
Reaction score
0
is there any corrolation between thermal conductivity coefficient and molecular wieght Mw

according to the units [K] W/(m·K) it is independant of mass units (kg or g/mol etc)

in my question i am asked to show with a graph, but i have no idea what graph they are talking about
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Put thermal conductivity coefficient of Y axis and Mw on X axis and plot data points for any number of substances (the more, the better). Either there will be some obvious correlation or not.

You may also try to make a plot for some selected group of substances, like alkali metals, or metals in general.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


using

Al; Cu; Ag; Au; Pb

this is the graph i got
untitled.jpg



but how do i know if there is any correlation, i know its not linear,
 
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