Timeline for Conductivity as a function of acid concentration
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 30, 2016 at 21:51 | history | undeleted | Curt F. | ||
| Mar 13, 2015 at 11:53 | history | deleted | Curt F. | via Vote | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 18:36 | comment | added | Curt F. | I updated my answer to explicitly refer to Fuoss-Onsager. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 18:35 | history | edited | Curt F. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added ref to Fuoss Onsager
|
| Mar 11, 2015 at 18:35 | comment | added | Geoff Hutchison | I can't speak for the OP, but I suspect even a sense of the leading corrections (e.g., in Dave's answer) would be helpful. Clearly you can find an empirical fit, but the question would be what the higher order terms mean physically. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 18:23 | comment | added | Curt F. | The easy answer is because the assumptions of Kolrausch's law break down at high concentrations...but I gather you (and the OP?) are asking why that is? That is a very different question than "what is a justifiable way to fit my experimental data". I worry that the OP wants a one-equation, globally applicable summary of the theory of the liquid state. That's an impossibly tall order. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 16:55 | comment | added | Geoff Hutchison | I think the question would be why there are higher-order terms. | |
| Mar 10, 2015 at 14:41 | history | answered | Curt F. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |