Promote Particle Growth: Add Precipitant Slowly

Thread starter higherme
Start date Oct 9, 2007
Tags

Growth Particle

AI Thread Summary

To promote particle growth, it is crucial to add the precipitant slowly while ensuring vigorous mixing. This method prevents the formation of local supersaturation, which can occur when the precipitant is introduced too quickly. The discussion hints at the von Wiemarn ratio, which may relate to the balance of solute concentration and particle formation. Understanding these concepts can enhance the efficiency of particle growth processes. Proper technique in adding precipitant is essential for optimal results.

Oct 9, 2007

higherme

I found this in a textbook about how to promote particle growth. I'm not really sure what it is talking about:

To promote particle growth:

" add precipitant slowly with vigorous mixing to prevent local, highly supersaturated condition where the stream of precipitant first enter the analyte."

what does that mean?

Physics news on Phys.org

Oct 10, 2007

lkh1986

Maybe the von Wiemarn ratio? (S-Q)/Q.

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 »