Prove the relationship between kPa and mmHg?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathmore
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relationship
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the relationship between pressure measurements in mmHg and kPa, specifically that 760 mmHg equals 101.35 kPa. To solve this, the density of mercury (13.6 g/cm³) and the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s²) are key factors. The participant initially struggles with the math but realizes that approaching the problem as a physics question simplifies it. They successfully convert the pressure using the correct units and clarify a common misconception about the definition of Pascal. Ultimately, understanding the conversion factors and viewing the problem from a mathematical perspective leads to a clearer solution.
Cathmore
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I suppose this is more of a math question, but it's a bonus question in my chemistry upgrade class.

Homework Statement


Prove the relationship 760mmHg=101.35kPa mathematically, by using conversion factors.

Homework Equations


1 Pa=1 kgm/s2 (No it doesn't?...)
density of Hg=13.6g/cm3
acceleration due to gravity=9.8m/s2

The Attempt at a Solution


I'll be honest, my mind is totally blanking on this, I know my math skills should be able to handle this no problem, but it feels like all my math skills have ran away for the summer. I mean yeah I can convert 101.35kPa into an area using gravity I guess, but I'm not sure what that tells me. While telling me how to get the answer would be great, I'd even be happy with a hint at where to get start.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have a column of mercury sitting on a one meter by one meter square that is 760 mm high. What is the pressure on that square in kPa?
 
This question was a lot easier than it felt at the time, just stepped entirely away from chemistry for a bit and looked at it as a math problem, what you said helped me get into the right mindset. I even got an extra mark for pointing out the mistake in the problem. (1 Pa equals 1kg/s2m, not 1kgm/s2)
 
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