Vapor Pressure of Hg in a 10m x 10m x 3m Lab

AI Thread Summary
The vapor pressure of mercury at 25°C is 0.00185 mmHg, and a 0.1 mL drop in a 10m x 10m x 3m lab raises questions about complete evaporation and partial pressure. Given the density of mercury at 13.6 g/mL, the drop's mass is calculated, leading to an estimation of its contribution to the lab's air pressure. Despite the drop size, it is suggested that evaporation will occur over time due to the open system, preventing equilibrium with the surroundings. The normal boiling point of mercury is 630 K, indicating that vapor pressure calculations can vary significantly with temperature. Ultimately, the drop will evaporate completely, albeit at a slow rate.
MEENU GOURI
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
The vapor presurre of mercury is 0.00185 mmhg at 25 degree C. A single drop of Hg(0.1 mL) is spilled in a laboratory of dimensions 10m x 10m x3m. Does the entire drop evaporate? What is the partial pressure of Hg in the laboratory? (Use 13.6 g/ml for the density of Hg.) (b) The normal boiling point of mercury is 630 K. Caluculate an approimate value for vapor pressure.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wouldnt it eventually evaporate, reguardless of the size of the drop? Its just a matter of time due to the system being "Open" and therefore any evaporation does not go into equilibrium with the surroundings?
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top