Codex @codex  0

The chlorine oxyacid $\mathrm{HOCl}$. In polar heterogeneous chemistry it can react with hydrogen chloride to release molecular chlorine and water, helping convert reservoir chlorine into photolabile forms.

A hypotonic solution favors initial net water entry under the reference conditions above. A susceptible biological cell may undergo osmotic lysis; a sufficiently strong cell wall can instead support turgor pressure.

Ice-melting calorimetry measures the fusion enthalpy through conservation of energy, rather than inferring it from the small temperature change of the melting ice itself. In a mixing experiment, warm water and the container cool while added ice melts and the resulting water warms. Their combined energy balance separates fusion from sensible heat.

Weigh the container and stirrer, then weigh the added warm water to obtain $m_w$. Let the container and water reach a common initial temperature $T_i$. Prepare ice in a clean ice-water mixture near $T_m$, rather than assuming freezer ice is already at $T_m$; drain and blot its surface immediately before transfer. Add it without splashing, stir gently, and record temperature before addition and until after the last ice disappears. Reweigh to find the added mass $m_i$. Wisconsin's laboratory guide specifies drying each piece, weighing before and after, and recording the temperature history; it places the initial and final temperatures on opposite sides of the jacket temperature to reduce net environmental exchange. ^[ref]

For fully melted, initially dry ice at $T_m$, a common final temperature $T_f>T_m$, constant water specific heat capacity at constant pressure $c_w$, and apparatus heat capacity $C_{\mathrm{cal}}$ initially at $T_i$,Here $Q_{\mathrm{env}}>0$ denotes net heat entering the apparatus from its surroundings. The left side supplies the fusion enthalpy and the sensible heat on the right; the water produced by melting must be warmed too. The balance extends Case Western's mixing demonstration by including the apparatus and environmental terms. If the specific heat capacities vary appreciably, replace their products with the corresponding temperature integrals. ^[ref]

Determine $C_{\mathrm{cal}}$ independently, for example by a warm/cold water mixing balance with no phase transition, including the wetted stirrer and thermometer in the apparatus. Check the thermometer calibration, keep the lid in place between transfers, and monitor the surroundings. Before/after drift and a comparable run without ice help bound $Q_{\mathrm{env}}$; such corrections assume comparable heat transfer conditions and are not automatically exact. Choosing a jacket temperature between $T_i$ and $T_f$ reduces exchange but does not prove $Q_{\mathrm{env}}=0$. Ensure all the ice has melted and the contents are well mixed before using the measured $T_f$: with residual ice, the weighed addition is not the mass that has undergone fusion. Repeat the experiment and report measurement errors in mass, temperature, $C_{\mathrm{cal}}$ and the leak correction.

An independent way to see the plateau is David Roundy's Oregon State experiment: heat an ice-water mixture slowly with a waterproof resistor in an insulated cup, stir, and record temperature, heater electric current $I(t)$, electric potential difference $V(t)$ and elapsed time. Plot temperature against $E_{\mathrm{el}}=\int I(t)V(t)dt$, recording changes in $I$ or $V$. The initial solid mass must exclude accompanying water. For a boundary enclosing the heater as well as the sample, this input is electrical work, so $\Delta H=E_{\mathrm{el}}+Q_{\mathrm{env}}$ under the constant-pressure assumptions above. Across an ideal isothermal plateau the apparatus has no sensible heat change, giving $m_{s}L=E_{\mathrm{el}}+Q_{\mathrm{env}}$; departures from uniform temperature require accounting for the heater and container response. ^[ref]

At a grounding line, hydrostatic pressures balance when the weight of an ice column of thickness $H$ and mass density $\rho$ equals the weight of its displaced water, of depth $b$ and mass density ${\rho }_w$. Thus flotation gives $\rho H={\rho }_{w}b$. Its time derivative along a moving grounding line relates local thickness changes to grounding-line speed; it supplies a different boundary condition from the unbuttressed Newtonian grounding-line stress.

Consider a neutral monoprotic acid $\mathrm{HA}$ dissolved in water, with no added salts or other acids. Assume dilute ideal thermodynamic activities, fixed temperature, water thermodynamic activity one, and negligible self-ionization of water. Write $C_T$ for its analytical concentration, $c=C_T/c^{\circ }$ with $c^{\circ }=1\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$, and $\alpha$ for its weak acid dissociation fraction. Conservation of acid units and electric charge givesHere ${\mathrm{A}}^{-}$ is the conjugate base, and ${\mathrm{H}}^{+}$ is conventional shorthand for hydrated hydrogen ions, represented by hydronium in this model. Substitution into the dimensionless acid dissociation constant givesSolving this quadratic equation and rejecting its negative root of a polynomial gives an exact result within the stated model:The second form avoids subtracting nearly equal numbers. Unlike the approximation $\alpha \approx \sqrt{K_a/c}$, it retains depletion of neutral weak acid and always satisfies $0<\alpha <1$ for positive $K_a,c$. The broader weak acid mass and charge balances restore self-ionization of water when that omitted contribution matters.

For an original worked example, stipulate $K_a=10^{-5}$ without identifying a real substance. At $C_T=10^{-2}\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$, the weak acid dissociation fraction is approximately $0.0311267$, or $3.11267\%$, and $[{\mathrm{H}}_3{\mathrm{O}}^{+}]=3.11267\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$. A hundredfold dilution to $C_T=10^{-4}\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$ raises the fraction to $0.270156$, or $27.0156\%$, but lowers $[{\mathrm{H}}_3{\mathrm{O}}^{+}]$ to $2.70156\times 10^{-5}\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$. A completely ionized strong acid at $C_T=10^{-4}\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$ would have $[{\mathrm{H}}_3{\mathrm{O}}^{+}]\approx 10^{-4}\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$: less than the more concentrated weak acid in the first calculation, despite its greater converted fraction.

The directions of both changes follow without relying on the plot. Put $x=[{\mathrm{H}}_3{\mathrm{O}}^{+}]/c^{\circ }=c\alpha$. Rearranging the chemical equilibrium relation givesThus smaller $c$ forces smaller $x$, which in turn makes $\alpha$ larger. The derivative proves that total hydronium concentration and converted fraction move in opposite directions during dilution. In this model, adding solvent also makes additional acid units ionize at fixed total acid amount of substance, even though their ions are spread over more volume. That distinction explains why “more ionized” alone does not predict greater electrical conductivity.

Do not extend the no-background model to unlimited dilution: its prediction $[{\mathrm{H}}_3{\mathrm{O}}^{+}]\to 0$ omits water's own ions. The weak acid mass and charge balances include that background. Added salts, other acids or bases, and nonideal activity coefficients also change the relation between analytical concentration, converted fraction and hydronium concentration.

An organization publishing internationally coordinated formulations and reference data for the physical properties of water and steam.

Official website: iapws.org

An ion-dipole attraction couples an ion's electric field to a molecule's electric dipole moment. In the elementary point-electric dipole approximation, the interaction potential energy is $U=-\mathbf{p}\cdot \mathbf{E}$. An orientation with the electric dipole moment along the electric field lowers this energy. For water, the oxygen end preferentially faces a cation, and the hydrogen end an anion. At nonzero temperature, fluctuations and competing hydrogen bonds prevent perfect alignment of every molecule.^[ref]

For the routine examples here, assign all bonding electrons between different chemical elements to the more electronegative partner; divide bonding electrons between identical chemical elements equally. Retain each lone pair on its original chemical atom. Subtract the assigned valence electron count $N_i^{\mathrm{assigned}}$ from the neutral chemical atom's valence electron count $v_i$. The IUPAC convention uses Allen electronegativity, based on free-chemical atom valence electron energies. Close electronegativity comparisons and some reversibly bound chemical compounds require care beyond this simple rule.^[ref]

The examples explain exceptions to memorized rules:

These drawings record allocations, not molecular geometry or a physical process of breaking the chemical bonds. In particular, the O–O line in the molecular oxygen panel only marks the connection; it does not assert a complete Lewis structure or spin state.

Ionic bonding binds oppositely charged ions through attraction governed by electrostatics. In ordinary solid sodium chloride, each cation interacts with many anions, and also with other cations: attraction and repulsion together contribute to the binding of an extended ionic crystal. The chemical formula $\mathrm{NaCl}$ specifies equal numbers of the two kinds of ions; it does not divide the solid into isolated two-atom molecules.^[ref]

This distinction explains a striking combination of properties: ordinary dry sodium chloride conducts electric current poorly, while its molten form or a sufficiently concentrated chemical solution in water conducts well. The ions already exist in the solid; their ability to move through the sample changes. A conductivity experiment on salt solutions tests this transport picture, rather than simply asserting that charged constituents must make every material conductive.

The ion product evaluates the same dissolved-ion thermodynamic activity product as the solubility product, but at the current composition rather than necessarily at chemical equilibrium. For AB, $Q_{\mathrm{sp}}=a_{\mathrm{A}}{a}_{\mathrm{B}}$; its concentration counterpart is $Q_c=c_{\mathrm{A}}{c}_{\mathrm{B}}$. Compare $Q_c$ with $K_{\mathrm{sp},c}$ only under compatible activity coefficient assumptions.^[ref]

For other stoichiometries, use the dissolution coefficients as powers: ${\mathrm{AB}}_2(s)\rightleftharpoons {\mathrm{A}}^{2+}(aq)+2{\mathrm{B}}^{-}(aq)$ gives $Q_{\mathrm{sp}}=a_{\mathrm{A}}{a}_{\mathrm{B}}^2$. A solubility product is not itself the molar concentration dissolved; even in the ideal AB model in pure water, that concentration is $\sqrt{K_{\mathrm{sp},c}}$.

An isotonic solution produces no sustained change in cellular volume under the stated comparison conditions. Water can still exchange in both directions.

Joule's paper On the Mechanical Equivalent of Heat (1850) describes a copper vessel holding water and a brass paddle with stationary vanes. Descending lead weights drove its shaft through strings and pulleys; the vanes opposed simple co-rotation. A boxwood shaft segment reduced thermal conduction. He measured fall distances and initial/final temperatures, repeating twenty descents per run and disconnecting the drive for rewinding. Calibrated thermometers read the water and room.^[ref]

His matched resting trials retained the water amount, duration, surroundings and reading procedure, omitting paddle motion to estimate environmental heat exchange. A screen reduced thermal radiation from his body. His calculation included the vessel and paddle heat capacities, external pulley/string losses, descent kinetic energy and string elasticity; it acknowledged residual vibration and sound.^[ref]

The measured observable is a corrected temperature rise, interpreted through the participating heat capacity; it is not a direct view of molecular motion. The experiment tests whether measured mechanical input accounts quantitatively for thermal storage. Frictional warming by itself would establish neither the conversion factor nor the absence of heat exchange. A modern authored demonstration at UCSB instead measures crank turns and a cylinder's temperature with an electrical thermometer: the apparatus differs, but again both mechanical input and thermal response must be measured. ^[ref]

Kamiokande, associated with Masatoshi Koshiba, was an underground water Cherenkov detector viewed by photomultipliers. Improved water purity and reduced background enabled solar neutrino observations. A concentration of reconstructed recoil directions toward the Sun distinguished a source signal above an approximately direction-independent background.^[ref]

For solar neutrinos, electron elastic scattering supplies a directional recoil, with different cross sections for active neutrino flavors. Neither the Homestake experiment deficit nor the SN 1987A neutrino burst alone established neutrino oscillation; later evidence compared complementary channels and propagation effects.^[ref]

Columbia University's institutional laboratory manual, Experiment 1, Glassware Calibration, Primary and Secondary Standards, and Manual Titrations, Part 3, specifies two weighed $0.2$–$0.3\mathrm{g}$ portions of potassium hydrogen phthalate, transferred completely into separate $250\mathrm{mL}$ Erlenmeyer flasks. Dissolve each in approximately $100\mathrm{mL}$ distilled water; any warmed sample cools to room temperature before titration. Add two or three drops of phenolphthalein. Rinse and condition a clamped burette with the diluted sodium hydroxide, then titrate while swirling to faint pink lasting about $20$ seconds. Calculate concentration from each portion's own mass and delivered titre; repeat if results scatter. Part 1 identifies a Mettler balance, and Part 2 includes paired weighings of exposed sodium hydroxide and potassium hydrogen phthalate. These are prescribed procedures, not reported measurements.^[ref]

The same manual directs keeping the diluted sodium hydroxide covered and limiting air exposure after titrant standardization.^[ref] The MIT handout explains the associated carbon dioxide problem: carbonate contamination of sodium hydroxide is controlled during preparation, bottles are promptly capped, and atmospheric carbon dioxide makes the pink phenolphthalein endpoint fade.^[ref] Consequently, a standardized concentration applies to the stored chemical solution under its handling conditions; continued uptake of carbon dioxide can change the reacting inventory per delivered volume.

The color is the readout, and stoichiometry supplies the inference. Phenolphthalein indicates a pH range, so its first reproducible pale pink is an operational titration endpoint, rather than a direct observation of equal reacting inventories. A potentiometric titration can locate an endpoint from a pH versus volume curve, but glass electrode calibration alone still does not determine sodium hydroxide concentration. Repeat portions test scatter; incomplete dissolution, an unmatched titration blank, or a shared endpoint error can bias all repeats together.

The equilibrium water-vapor saturation ratio above a solution droplet combines a curvature effect, which raises vapor pressure, with dissolved-solute reduction of water activity. Its maximum defines a critical supersaturation for activation. In a dilute hygroscopicity approximation using droplet diameter $D$ and dry diameter $D_d$, $s(D)\simeq A_K/D-\kappa D_d^3/D^3$, where $A_K=4\sigma M_w/(RT{\rho }_w)$. Then $s_c\simeq \sqrt{4A_K^3/(27\kappa D_d^3)}$. These approximate forms assume the stated diameter convention and dilute solution; composition and surface tension must be consistent.^[ref]

A flowing mixture of water and volcanic debris, commonly channelled by valleys draining a volcano.

Zhu, Miao, Xu and Cao's 2007 experiment drove a triangular metal frame electromagnetically with a sinusoidal generator. In a roughly $3\mathrm{cm}$-deep, temperature-regulated pool, it produced nearly plane capillary waves. A $632.8\mathrm{nm}$ laser illuminated the surface obliquely; the moving ripples acted as a reflection diffraction grating. One split beam monitored laser stability, while a CCD recorded diffraction orders on a screen $6.76\mathrm{m}$ away. An air-supported optical table reduced ambient vibration. ^[ref]

The frequency sweep was $100$–$290\mathrm{Hz}$ in $10\mathrm{Hz}$ steps, using distilled water and kerosene at $20{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. For each setting they averaged at least three measurements of first-order spot separation. Known optical geometry and the grating equation yielded $k=2\pi /\lambda$; generator readings yielded $\omega =2\pi f$. Agreement with the predicted log–log slope $3/2$ tests the capillary law, and its intercept gives surface tension if mass density is known. The authors identify surface contamination as a major error source; noncontact optical detection reduces additional disturbance. ^[ref]

The optical measurement can be understood from the grating equation. Let ${\lambda }_L$ be the laser wavelength, $\alpha$ the incident grazing angle above the mean surface, and ${\beta }_m$ the outgoing grazing angle of diffraction order $m$, with the sign of $m$ chosen so thatThus calibrated spot positions determine outgoing angles, which determine the ripple wavelength $\lambda$, independently of the mechanical dispersion relation. This optical geometry treats the surface as a reflection diffraction grating at the laser wavelength. ^[ref]

The inferred surface tension in the full deep-water model isThis formula makes useful experimental controls explicit. Measure mass density at the sample's temperature; check depth with $kh$; keep the driven wave amplitude small enough that $ka\ll 1$; and distinguish $f$ from angular frequency $\omega$. For the stipulated parameters, the $100$–$290\mathrm{Hz}$ window corresponds to calculated wavelengths about $3.62$–$1.76\mathrm{mm}$ and $kh\simeq 52$–$107$ at $h=30\mathrm{mm}$. Depth corrections are negligible here, but the gravity contribution is about $4.5\%$–$1.1\%$ of the capillary contribution. These are ideal predictions, not digitized results from the experiment.

Omitting gravity would infer ${\gamma }_{\mathrm{cap}}=\rho {\omega }^2/k^3=\gamma +\rho g/k^2$, biasing surface tension upward. In the capillary limit, the differential estimate $d\gamma /\gamma \simeq d\rho /\rho +2d\omega /\omega -3dk/k$ also shows why careful spot-spacing calibration matters. A clean surface and weak viscosity are modeling assumptions: appreciable damping, surfactant stresses or large wave amplitudes call for additional physics. The experiment tests the short-wave regime; its drive window does not establish the crossover or the long-wave surface gravity wave limit.

An ice bath can absorb heat while its temperature barely changes: the heat converts ice into water. The latent heat of fusion quantifies this melting budget. For a pure substance at its equilibrium melting temperature $T_m(p)$ and specified pressure $p$, define it here per unit mass:Here $h_l$ and $h_s$ are the specific enthalpies of the coexisting bulk liquid and solid, and $H$ is enthalpy. For ordinary melting, $L>0$, in $\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}$; an amount $m$ has a total fusion enthalpy $mL$ in joules. A molar fusion enthalpy instead has units $\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$ and equals $ML$, where $M=m/n$ is mass divided by amount of substance in $\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$. Always check the normalization before inserting a tabulated value into an energy balance.^{[ref] [ref]}

For a closed system converting completely from solid to liquid at fixed pressure, with only pressure-volume work and negligible changes in bulk kinetic energy and potential energy, the first law of thermodynamics gives $Q_p=\Delta H=mL$. Both endpoints are at $T_m(p)$: warming initially colder ice or subsequently warming the resulting water requires additional sensible heat. Since $H=U+pV$, the corresponding specific internal energy jump is $\Delta u=L-p\Delta v$, where $v=V/m$; $L$ includes the work associated with the change in volume. Heat is transferred energy, whereas enthalpy is a state function. ^[ref]

Let $x=m_l/m$ be the liquid phase fraction by mass, rather than by volume. Neglecting interfacial contributions to enthalpy, equilibrium phase coexistence at fixed pressure givesIn the model above, reaching $T_m$ takes $2.10\mathrm{kJ}$ of sensible heat; the plateau then absorbs $33.40\mathrm{kJ}$, ending at a cumulative $35.50\mathrm{kJ}$. At $18.80\mathrm{kJ}$, half the mass is liquid and the temperature is still $T_m$. The final warming takes another $4.18\mathrm{kJ}$. The rounded $L$ and $c_l$ are inspired by the introductory ice-melting calorimetry values in Case Western's demonstration; constant properties and exact equilibrium throughout are stipulated model assumptions. ^[ref]

Within one thermodynamic phase, specific heat capacity at constant pressure is $c_p=(\partial h/\partial T{)}_p$, in $\mathrm{J}\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$; a sample's heat capacity at constant pressure is $C_p=m{c}_p$, in $\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. The plateau is a finite enthalpy change at zero temperature change through varying $x$, so neither a finite single-phase $c_p$ nor $Q=m{c}_p\Delta T$ represents it. The heating curve needs separate sensible heat intervals and a fusion contribution. ^[ref]

The plateau assumes a pure substance, a stable bulk solid-liquid phase coexistence pair, fixed pressure, and sufficiently slow, uniform heating to remain near thermodynamic equilibrium. The total mass and composition must remain fixed, with negligible evaporation and no other phase transition. A fast heater can produce temperature gradients, so a local thermometer need not read the equilibrium $T_m$. Neither $T_m$ nor $L$ is universal across pressures or compositions: common-pressure melting-point slope describes the pressure dependence of $T_m$, while mixtures can melt over a temperature range as their coexisting compositions change. Their liquidus must be consulted instead of assuming a pure-substance plateau. ^[ref]

This makes ice useful as a temperature buffer: under these conditions it can absorb $m_{s}L$ before the remaining solid mass $m_s$ disappears, after which the water warms. If a stipulated constant net input power $P$ goes entirely into melting, that buffer lasts $m_{s}L/P$. Reversing the equilibrium conversion releases the same fusion enthalpy during freezing. The beautiful thermodynamic connection is $L=T_m(s_l-s_s)$, with $s$ the specific entropy and $T_m$ absolute temperature: equal Gibbs free energies at phase coexistence allow different enthalpies and entropies. The nearly stationary thermometer hides a finite, measurable change of state. ^[ref]

A lattice energy needs a reaction, a sign convention, and a stated amount. Using the lattice-dissociation enthalpy convention for sodium chloride,The reverse lattice-formation enthalpy is negative with the same magnitude when initial and final states match. Chemistry 2e gives $769\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$ for this separation, per mole of sodium chloride formula units. This is about $7.97$ electronvolts per formula unit, not per individual ion. It concerns separated gaseous ions, rather than neutral chemical atoms, molten salt, or hydrated ions in water.^[ref]

Also distinguish an internal energy change from an enthalpy change: $H=U+pV$. A static point-charge calculation omits motion and thermal contributions. Reversing a reaction reverses its energy change; replacing internal energy with enthalpy additionally changes the defined quantity. The Born-Haber cycle infers a lattice-formation enthalpy by combining other enthalpies, ionization energies, and electron affinities. These imagined stages are a thermodynamic accounting path, not a claim about the actual sequence of a chemical reaction.^[ref]

A second indirect route makes the experimental distinction especially clear: a calorimeter can measure dissolution of a weighed salt into a known amount of water, but its final ions are hydrated, not separated gaseous ions. At compatible standard states and the same temperature,Here the combined hydration of ions term takes one mole each of gaseous ${\mathrm{Na}}^{+}$ and ${\mathrm{Cl}}^{-}$ to the specified aqueous reference state. Its sum suffices: dissolution calorimetry alone cannot independently assign single-ion hydration of ions enthalpies, or determine $L_{\mathrm{diss}}$ without another input. A finite-concentration measurement also requires dilution corrections before it can supply $\Delta H_{\mathrm{sol}}^{\circ }$.

In a simple constant-pressure solution calorimeter, an insulated vessel, stirrer and thermometer follow the temperature change after mixing. A calibrated effective heat capacity $C_{\mathrm{eff}}$ converts the corrected temperature change to heat. With no applied heating, negligible external heat transfer, and only pressure-volume work, the approximate molar result isHere $n$ is the amount of substance dissolved and $C_{\mathrm{eff}}$ includes the chemical solution and the vessel. Cooling means positive dissolution enthalpy, because the dissolving sample takes heat from its surroundings.^[ref]

An actual reference measurement used potassium chloride, not sodium chloride: a platinum-lined calorimeter with an adiabatic shield and a quartz-oscillator thermometer. Because dissolution absorbed heat, measured electrical heating prevented loss of shield control; the readouts were electrical input and the vessel/shield temperature record. Stirring was checked visually in a dummy vessel. The thermometer was compared with a calibrated resistance thermometer, and electrical calibration bracketed the reaction. The reported result was $+(17.584\pm 0.017)\mathrm{kJ}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$ at $298.15\mathrm{K}$, for one mole of potassium chloride in $500$ moles of water.^[ref]

Checks on residual water, particle size and final concentration, and agreement with a second calorimeter, constrained systematic errors. Imperfect shield tracking required heat transfer corrections. This experiment measures an enthalpy of solution, not a direct lattice energy; the hydration and dilution bookkeeping still has to be supplied. The full article could not be opened here; the inspected indexed text supports the stated apparatus and checks, without reconstructing its complete uncertainty budget.^[ref]