What is the true value of the water triple point temperature?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the discrepancies in the reported triple point temperature of water, with one source stating it as 272.16K and others citing 273.1598K. The lower value may stem from historical definitions of the Celsius scale, which were based on the melting and boiling points of water. The 273.1598K figure is considered exact and is linked to the stable coexistence of water, ice, and vapor at specific conditions. The conversation also touches on the redefinition of the Kelvin scale, which led to the Celsius scale being adjusted, potentially causing confusion. Ultimately, the true value of the water triple point remains a topic of debate among various sources.
Diego Saravia
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Water triple point T is 272.16K

http://www.omega.com/temperature/z/pdf/z186-193.pdf
http://media4.physics.indiana.edu/~courses/p340/S11/Lecture_Presentations/ITS-90_metrologia.pdf


But several internet pages say that water triple point is at 273.1598 K
http://www.quimica.es/enciclopedia/Punto_triple.html
http://temperaturemeasurement.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/international-temperature-scale/http://www.duncaninstr.com/pdfs/Temperature%20Measurement.pdf
http://es.scribd.com/doc/61755350/Punto-Triple-y-Punto-Critico

Which is the source of this number 273.1598?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps a historical artifact? Original definition of deg C used melting and boiling temperatures of water, perhaps 273.1598 is a triple point measured using these old degrees. In 1954, after Kelvin was defined as exactly ##\frac 1 {273.16}## both Celsius and Kelvin slightly changed. But I am just guessing.
 
they are so closed numbers not to to much go through that :D
 
The first site you reference states
La única combinación de presión y temperatura a la que el agua, hielo y vapor de agua pueden coexistir en un equilibrio estable se produce exactamente a una temperatura de 273.1598 K (0.0098 ° C) y a una presión parcial de vapor de agua de 611,73 pascales (6,1173 milibares, 0,0060373057 atm).
which I take that the one temperature is exact.

I think Borus is correct. The defining of the Kelvin scale left the Celcius scale to be redefined as the triple and boiling point of water and that was "assumed" to be 273.16 K. Experimentation afterwards found the actual triple point was not 0.01 C and therin lies the descrepancy.
 
Diego Saravia said:
Water triple point T is 272.16K

http://www.omega.com/temperature/z/pdf/z186-193.pdf
http://media4.physics.indiana.edu/~courses/p340/S11/Lecture_Presentations/ITS-90_metrologia.pdf


But several internet pages say that water triple point is at 273.1598 K
http://www.quimica.es/enciclopedia/Punto_triple.html
http://temperaturemeasurement.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/international-temperature-scale/http://www.duncaninstr.com/pdfs/Temperature%20Measurement.pdf
http://es.scribd.com/doc/61755350/Punto-Triple-y-Punto-Critico

Which is the source of this number 273.1598?

It seems that the question is "what is the source of the 272.16 value" that you show here.
I looked at the first link indicated in the post. I did not read it all, it's a long pdf. However it refers several times to the triple point temperature as 273.15..
The second link does not work for me.

It is somehow interesting that the triple point of the ionic liquid 1-Methylimidazole is reported as 272.16. Is it possible that you confused some values?
The link is here:
http://www.chemie1.uni-rostock.de/pci/emelyanenko/publications/62.pdf

For water it is about 273.16K
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/kelvin.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

What Is the Boiling Temperature of the Liquid Using Van der Waals Equation?
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top