Understanding Phase Diagrams: Boiling, Melting & Critical Points

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around confusion regarding phase diagrams, specifically the interpretation of boiling, melting, and critical points. Key concepts include the triple point, where all three states of matter coexist, and the critical point, beyond which liquid and gas distinctions disappear. The original poster expresses uncertainty about the relationship between the boiling and melting points and the provided phase diagram, noting discrepancies in labeling and the presence of seemingly invisible points. Concerns are raised about potential errors in the textbook used for reference, leading to a decision to seek clarification from the professor. Overall, the thread highlights the complexities of understanding phase diagrams and the need for accurate educational resources.
Qube
Gold Member
Messages
461
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/v/1012733_10201076259690370_236735593_n.jpg?oh=4896ca67a34d3b223b764aba8ed308ab&oe=528A1B57

Homework Equations



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Phase-diag2.svg

The Attempt at a Solution



Not sure entirely what's going on here.

A) Triple point. Where the three states of matter exist in equilibrium.
B) Critical point. Where the distinction between liquid and gas ends. No more condensation or evaporation past this point. A supercritical fluid exists beyond this point.
C) Looks like a point within the solid region of the phase diagram.

These don't correspond with any answers. Boiling and melting points lie ON the 760 torr/1 atm dotted line, right? So it looks like there is no correct answer?!

ETA:

This seems to be a common "problem." Consider this follow up problem - er - what is this e to f line? Is there some convention I am missing - that there is always an implied e to f line?

https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/v/576634_10201076272730696_868146875_n.jpg?oh=623c0ebd9b4868a62578d975129c85d3&oe=528A98A4

Also please consider this other problem in which there appear to be invisible points: https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/v/941858_10201076233729721_1666715440_n.jpg?oh=8f6cf59215279e3607fd06eb999ebedf&oe=528A8A74
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks like there is something wrong with the book.
 
Right. I thought something was going over my head. Guess I'll take it up with the prof.
 
Is this taken from a textbook or a past exam paper? If a book, maybe the editors got the figures jumbled up?

I'm uneasy where the question asks about lower-case points a, b and c but the nearest diagram is labelled in upper-case.
 
NascentOxygen said:
Is this taken from a textbook or a past exam paper? If a book, maybe the editors got the figures jumbled up?

I'm uneasy where the question asks about lower-case points a, b and c but the nearest diagram is labelled in upper-case.

These are actual past exam papers written by my professor and sold in a book. The problematic questions are also from separate years. I have no clue what is going on.

I might have to ask my prof for both clarification and refund on the price of purchasing his book.
 
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