Soil Physics: Mixing different soils

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the average particle density of a soil mixture containing 3% soil organic matter and 97% soil minerals. The densities provided are 1.37 g/cm³ for organic matter and 2.73 g/cm³ for minerals. The expected average density is approximately 2.65 g/cm³, as indicated by the professor. To find this value, one should multiply the density of each component by its respective weight percentage and then sum the results. This approach clarifies the calculation method needed to achieve the correct average density.
sfd101
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
This is a lab question I have for Environmental Soil Physics. Been thinking about it for awhile and I have nothing.

What would be the average particle density of a mixture of 3% soil organic matter and 97% soil minerals by weight. Soil orgainc matter and soil minerals have densities of 1.37g/cubic centimeter and 2.73g/cubic centimeter, respectively.

According to the prof., the answer should be ~2.65g/cubic centimeter, which is the average value for mineral soils.

I have tried using a ratio of 3% soil organic matter and 97% soil minerals and multiplying it by the total density. Just like if it is 50% of each. However, it is not close to 2.65g/cubic centimeter. I just need a point in the right direction.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Take 3% of 1.37g/cubic centimeter and 97% of 2.73g/cubic centimeter and then add the two values.
 
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