Solving Surface Tension w/Eötvös Rule: Obtaining Abnormal Results

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wishgames
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Eötvös rule to calculate the surface tension of water, specifically addressing the discrepancies in results obtained by participants. The focus is on the theoretical and mathematical aspects of the calculations, including temperature measurement units and the derivation of volume from molar mass and density.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant reports using Eötvös rule to find the surface tension of water but obtaining a value significantly lower than expected.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of using Kelvin instead of Celsius for temperature measurements, citing the arbitrary nature of other temperature scales.
  • It is noted that the equation can work in either Celsius or Kelvin, provided the same unit is used consistently.
  • A participant suggests that the error may stem from incorrectly deriving volume from molar mass and density, indicating a potential oversight in the calculations.
  • One participant mentions that after correcting a typo in the original post, they obtained a surface tension value closer to the expected result, but it still remains inaccurate.
  • There is a reference to a Wikipedia entry suggesting a further adjustment of 6 degrees, which does not significantly improve the results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct approach to temperature measurement and the calculations involved. While some agree on the need for consistent units, the overall discussion remains unresolved regarding the correct application of Eötvös rule and the resulting surface tension values.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the assumptions made in the calculations, particularly concerning the derivation of volume and the choice of temperature units. The discussion highlights the complexity of applying Eötvös rule accurately.

wishgames
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am attempting to use Eötvös rule
b492df588ae8d37ba6020019ac203ca7.png
to find the surface tension of water but am not obtaining normal results.

Surface Tension= 2.7*10^(-7)(374-x)*18^(-2/3)
at T=0 Celsius Surface tension = .0114 mN/m with this equation far from the normal 75.7 mN/m
what am I doing wrong?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Scientists normally measure temperature in degrees Kelvin not degrees Celsius
 
Last edited:
Studiot said:
Scientists normally measure temperature in degrees Kelvin not degrees celsius

. . . . . because the Zero, used in all other scales is quite arbitrary. It can be based on the fixed freezing point of water, alcohol or anything else. 0K, otoh, is Absolute.
Everybody, I'm sure, has made the mistake at least once in their lives of using °C when they should have used K and arrived at a crazy answer. :wink: You are in good company.
 
Since it's Tc-T, it will work in either Celsius or Kelvin. However, you have to make sure that either both are Celsius or both are Kelvin. You can't mix and match.
 
I think the error is in deriving V from molar mass and density. You should get 18.10-6 m3/mol. The 10-6 seems to have been lost.
 
I'm doing the calculations in Celsius since the critical temperature is in Celsius. Thank you haruspex. Measuring the V in m3/mol made the result 114 mN/m which is closer to the actual surface tension but still off.
 
wishgames said:
I'm doing the calculations in Celsius since the critical temperature is in Celsius. Thank you haruspex. Measuring the V in m3/mol made the result 114 mN/m which is closer to the actual surface tension but still off.
Yes, I also get 114 (after correcting the typo in the OP; you had 2.7 instead of 2.1). In the wikipedia entry it mentions subtracting another 6 degrees, but that doesn't help much. Curiously, that leaves the value almost exactly 3/2 times too high.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K