Raising boiling point of salt water

AI Thread Summary
To raise the boiling point of salt water to 325 degrees at 28 PSI is not feasible, as saturating water with salt only increases the boiling point by about 10 degrees Celsius. Using a pressure cooker for this purpose poses significant safety risks, particularly with highly pressurized boiling water. Alternatives like food-safe glycerin, which has a boiling point of 554 F, could be effective, especially if mixed with a small amount of water to achieve desired temperatures. Superheating steam is another method to create moist heat above 300 degrees, but caution is advised due to the risks associated with elevated pressures. Overall, exploring safer methods is crucial for working with materials like animal horns.
shofarsogood
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
How much salt per quart does it take to raise the temperature of water to 325 degrees at 28 PSI?

I am sorry to say I am not educated in physics but I do understand the more particles in the water the higher the boiling point. I am trying to plasticize animal horns in a pressure cooker with a maximum pressure of 28 psi.

Thank you for making this kitchen table ready !

Shalom

Shofarsogood
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Answer: No amount. Look at a Dühring plot; saturating water with NaCl only raises its boiling point by about 10 degrees C. You can't get up to 325 F without pressures substantially larger than 28 psi.

Then there's also a quite obvious concern about having highly pressurized boiling water around, and using pressure cookers in ways they're not intended.

Why not just use oil instead?
 
Thanks, for the prompt reply. The dilema is not to cook the horn by using direct heat. I am concerned about the horn becoming brittle. I know it is possible to soften the solid tip deep enough to straighten it sufficiently to drill and form a mouthpiece.

The particular pressure cooker I am using has two saftey devices integral to keep it safe. One is set at 28 lbs PSI, the other is at 40 PSI, (and is not mechanical but a failure point of a rubber plug in case the first fails). The tank itself can go much higher, well over 100 psi without failure. I contacted the design department first to make sure I was not in danger.

Not sure if food safe glycerin would work?

Are there other ways to create moist heat above 300 degrees? I thought about super heating steam.

Any help would be appreciated. The horn is keratin much like a tough fingernail.


Thanks
 
shofarsogood said:
Not sure if food safe glycerin would work?

That'd work. It's got a boiling point well over 300 (554 F). If you must have some water in it, you could add about 5-10% water (by weight) and get a boiling point at about 300 degrees at atmospheric pressure, according to http://www.dow.com/glycerine/resources/table16_91100.htm" . Should be fairly easy to test yourself, on a stove with a thermometer.

Are there other ways to create moist heat above 300 degrees? I thought about super heating steam.

Yeah well that's what you'd need with just water or water/salt. Most autoclaves don't go that high even (and if you've seen one, they're a lot sturdier than a pressure cooker.) I'd strongly recommend against working at elevated pressures. Worst case scenario doing it the first way is a spill, worst case the latter way means an explosion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top