Mixed Water Temperature: 100ml @ 20°C & 400ml @ 40°C

AI Thread Summary
When mixing 100 ml of water at 20°C with 400 ml at 40°C, the final temperature can be calculated using the principle of energy conservation from the first law of thermodynamics. The heat lost by the hot water will equal the heat gained by the cold water, leading to a common equilibrium temperature. The specific heat capacities of water and the volumes involved will determine this final temperature. Participants in the discussion emphasize the importance of setting up the equation correctly to solve for the unknown temperature. Understanding these thermodynamic principles is crucial for accurately predicting the outcome of mixing different water temperatures.
HDBG
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement

If a beaker has 100 ml of water at 20 degrees and another one has 400ml of water at 40 degree what would the temperature be when mixed
 
Physics news on Phys.org


What are your thoughts on the question? Have you made an attempt?

HINT: Think about the first law of thermodynamics -- the energy transferred from the hot water will be equal to the energy transferred to the cold water. Whatever this energy is, it should cause the hot and cold water to end up at the same temperature.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

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 »

Similar threads

Constant-Pressure Calorimetry question
Replies
8
Views
3K
Specific Heat Problem (did something wrong?)
Replies
2
Views
2K
Calculating Vitamin C Content in Orange Juice using Titration Method
Replies
6
Views
2K
How Much Energy Is Released When Mixing HCl and NaOH?
Replies
1
Views
2K
A Ultrasound Velocities in 25% Propylene Glycol + Water between 20-40C
Replies
4
Views
139
Solubility of MgSO47H2O in water
Replies
28
Views
287
Chemistry Question regarding Chemistry ( Moles
Replies
1
Views
4K
Chemistry How to Convert a Number Concentration into Volume Mixing Ratio?
Replies
3
Views
3K
Affect of volume on the rate of diffusion?
Replies
9
Views
3K
Calculate Work and Entropy Change for an Ice Maker
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top