Citation stating the maximum conductivity or resistivity of water

[WayneL]

Hi

Over the past week the has been so excellent feedback(threads) on my
question of water conductivity.
In a few thread the value of 18.3MR (0.055uS) was mentioned, forgive me for
being pedantic but could somebody help by quoting a reference that cites
this figure (either in ohms, mhos or Siemens)?

Cheers

Wayne

 

[Rich Grise]

Hi

Over the past week the has been so excellent feedback(threads) on my
question of water conductivity.
In a few thread the value of 18.3MR (0.055uS) was mentioned, forgive me for
being pedantic but could somebody help by quoting a reference that cites
this figure (either in ohms, mhos or Siemens)?

This might help you find some references:
http://www.google.com/search?q="resistivity+of+water"

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Tim Shoppa]

the value of 18.3MR (0.055uS) was mentioned

That's only at 25 deg C... in fact the actual value is both temperature
and pressure dependent.

Some relevant references:

http://www.hach.com/fmmimghach?/CODE:LG0055829|1//true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ionization_of_water

Eigen, M. & de Maeyer, L. (1955) Untersuchungen über die Kinetik der
Neutralisation I. Z. Elektrochem. 59 986.

Geissler, P. L.; Dellago, C.; Chandler, D.; Hutter, J. & Parrinello, M.
(2001) Autoionization in liquid water. Science 291 2121-2124.

Stillinger, F. H. (1975) Adv. Chem. Phys. 31 1.

Rapaport, D. C. (1983) Mol. Phys. 50 1151.
Chen, S.-H. & Teixeira, J. (1986) Adv. Chem. Phys 64 1.

Tim.

 

[WayneL]

Hi Can anyone send me a pdf of a paper (recent) to mail-nospam-@wlawson.
Remove -nospam-


Thanks again


Wayne

the value of 18.3MR (0.055uS) was mentioned

That's only at 25 deg C... in fact the actual value is both temperature
and pressure dependent.

Some relevant references:

http://www.hach.com/fmmimghach?/CODE:LG0055829|1//true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ionization_of_water

Eigen, M. & de Maeyer, L. (1955) Untersuchungen über die Kinetik der
Neutralisation I. Z. Elektrochem. 59 986.

Geissler, P. L.; Dellago, C.; Chandler, D.; Hutter, J. & Parrinello, M.
(2001) Autoionization in liquid water. Science 291 2121-2124.

Stillinger, F. H. (1975) Adv. Chem. Phys. 31 1.

Rapaport, D. C. (1983) Mol. Phys. 50 1151.
Chen, S.-H. & Teixeira, J. (1986) Adv. Chem. Phys 64 1.

Tim.

 

[Guy Macon]

Hi Can anyone send me a pdf of a paper (recent) to [deleted]

Why you shouldn't ask for E-mail responses on Usenet:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/mail-responses.html

 

[Robert Baer]

This might help you find some references:
http://www.google.com/search?q="resistivity+of+water"

Good Luck!
Rich

Speaking about terminology, *silver* is most conductive, and
(relatively pure) water is rather NONconductive.
And "resistivity" is *NOT* interchangeable with "conductive" !!
What you should say is "the most *resistive*".
As far as units go, the common measure is for resistivity of water in
megohms.

 

[Dieter Britz]

Hi

Over the past week the has been so excellent feedback(threads) on my
question of water conductivity.
In a few thread the value of 18.3MR (0.055uS) was mentioned, forgive me for
being pedantic but could somebody help by quoting a reference that cites
this figure (either in ohms, mhos or Siemens)?

[reaches up to book shelf above desk, aha!]
Yes: Aylward & Finlay, "SI Chemical Data", p. 125 in the 2nd Ed.,
under Ionic Properties of Water. Note the SI units though, m, not cm.

I suspect the CRC "rubber bible" would also have it, but I have
only some rather old editions on the shelf.

 

[Robert Baer]

Hi

Over the past week the has been so excellent feedback(threads) on my
question of water conductivity.
In a few thread the value of 18.3MR (0.055uS) was mentioned, forgive me for
being pedantic but could somebody help by quoting a reference that cites
this figure (either in ohms, mhos or Siemens)?

[reaches up to book shelf above desk, aha!]
Yes: Aylward & Finlay, "SI Chemical Data", p. 125 in the 2nd Ed.,
under Ionic Properties of Water. Note the SI units though, m, not cm.

I suspect the CRC "rubber bible" would also have it, but I have
only some rather old editions on the shelf.

Correct; the CRC is stating the *SI* units.
BUT.
In the trade, the commonly used terminology (like i said) is
*megohms*.

 

[Dieter Britz]

Correct; the CRC is stating the *SI* units.
BUT.
In the trade, the commonly used terminology (like i said) is
*megohms*.

Sure. I just pointed that out, not as a criticism of your "Megohms"
but to avoid Wayne's getting confused by the figure in Aylward &
FInlay, of 5.5, rather than 0.055. The units for 5.5 are microS/m,
and the resistivity figure of 18.3 must be MOhm.cm. If Wayne is writing
a paper, he must be more pedantic than trade jargon.

 

[Robert Baer]

Sure. I just pointed that out, not as a criticism of your "Megohms"
but to avoid Wayne's getting confused by the figure in Aylward &
FInlay, of 5.5, rather than 0.055. The units for 5.5 are microS/m,
and the resistivity figure of 18.3 must be MOhm.cm. If Wayne is writing
a paper, he must be more pedantic than trade jargon.

Check.