The proportion of Hydrogen to limit errors in measurement.

AI Thread Summary
To accurately measure approximately 5% oxygen in nitrogen with 0.5% hydrogen using a katharometer, the proportion of hydrogen must remain constant to limit measurement errors to +/- 0.1%. The thermal conductivities of nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen are 0.993, 1.052, and 6.993, respectively. An approximation of the mixture's thermal conductivity can be calculated using a mole fraction-weighted sum of the individual components. Understanding the impact of hydrogen's proportion on the overall thermal conductivity is crucial for precise measurements. Maintaining a stable hydrogen concentration is essential for achieving the desired accuracy in oxygen measurement.
rrab186
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
It is proposed to use a katharometer to mesaure the amount (about 5%) of oxygen in nitrogen, in the presence of a small amount (0.5%) hydrogen. How constant would the proportion of hydrogen have to be in order to limit errors in measurement of % oxygen to +/- 0.1%?

The thermal conductivities are:
Nitrogen 0.993
Oxygen 1.052
Hydrogen 6.993

Not to sure where to start with this one, any guidance just to start me off would be most appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
An approximation of the mixture's thermal conductivity can be expressed as the mole fraction-weighted sum of the individual components. For example,

λm = χ1λ1 + χ2λ2 +… χnλn
 
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