Bubble chart: Difference between revisions

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search
en>Interface hawk
 
en>Ronz
m Reverted edits by George Huhn (talk) to last version by Ronz
Line 1: Line 1:
Thousands of sites are giving their views on what the very best poker rooms are. Almost every poker or gaming related site carries a poker room reviews section. But can these evaluations really be trusted? <br><br>The answer is no, a lot of the reviews arent true. Where theres money theres problem, and theres lots of money in the online poker industry. Even the greatest poker sites position high in search engines will modify their reviews centered on how much a particular poker area is paying them <br><br>On-line poker sites spend their affiliates a fixed sum of money to register players through their site. If you think anything, you will perhaps hate to read about [http://www.revish.com/people/cambogiapotassiumamh/ cambogiapotassiumamh | Revish]. The problem is that instead of writing reviews on the poker sites, they make up the reviews based on the amount of money theyre getting paid. Ive seen poker rooms that are notorious for having no traffic rank and the worst quality software number 1 o-n many common poker place opinions sites, simply because those rooms offer more money for sign ups. Navigating To [http://social.xfire.com/blog/amazongarciniaarea visit our site] perhaps provides lessons you could use with your co-worker. <br><br>The poker locations dont want you going for negative scores. If you examine an affiliate terms and conditions plan it&quot;ll reveal that youre required to promote them, As widely and strongly as possible in order to increase the economic advantage to affiliate and to company. This wonderful [http://www.iamsport.org/pg/bookmarks/officialsitesaa/read/26928523/do-not-give-up-weight-loss open in a new browser window] article has collected cogent warnings for the inner workings of this concept. So this implies that poker rooms wont even let you give them any negative evaluations if not theyll prohibit you from their program. <br><br>What ends up happening is several poker room EVERY poker room is recommended by review sites. Most of the poker rooms they rate get yourself a 5/5 or very near it. Bad areas of the room are overlooked because the work as an affiliate isnt to provide honest its to advice; to provide the room to the visitors. <br><br>But dont worry; on-line poker isnt filled up with only cheats and liars. My site, for-one, has step by step and honest poker room evaluations. If you can sort through these assessment sites giving clear fake reviews youll locate a group giving important information. Just know that many exist only-to generate income from you..<br><br>If you loved this posting and you would like to receive additional info concerning health plan ([http://storify.com/ovalranch1552 just click the following internet page]) kindly visit our web-site.
The '''Pilling-Bedworth ratio''' ('''P-B ratio'''), in [[corrosion]] of metals, is the ratio of the volume of the [[Crystal_structure#Unit_cell|elementary cell]] of a metal oxide to the volume of the elementary cell of the corresponding metal (from which the oxide is created).
{{tocright}}
On the basis of the P-B ratio, it can be judged if the metal is likely to [[Passivation (chemistry)|passivate]] in dry air by creation of a protective oxide layer.
 
==Definition==
The P-B ratio is defined as:
: <math>\mathrm{R_{PB} =\frac{V_{oxide}}{V_{metal}}= \frac{ M_{oxide} \cdot \rho_{metal}} {n \cdot M_{metal} \cdot \rho_{oxide}} }</math>
 
where:
* R<sub>PB</sub> is the Pilling-Bedworth ratio,
* M - the atomic or molecular mass,
* n - number of atoms of metal per one molecule of the oxide
* ρ - density, and
* V - the molar volume.
 
==History==
N.B. Pilling and R.E. Bedworth<ref>N.B. Pilling, R. E. Bedworth, "The Oxidation of Metals at High Temperatures". J. Inst. Met 29 (1923), p. 529-591.</ref> suggested in 1923 that metals can be classed into two categories: those that form protective oxides, and those that cannot. They ascribed the protectiveness of the oxide to the volume the oxide takes in comparison to the volume of the metal used to produce this oxide in a corrosion process in dry air. The oxide layer would be unprotective if the ratio is less than unity because the film that forms on the metal surface is porous and/or cracked. Conversely, the metals with the ratio higher than 1 tend to be protective because they form an effective barrier that prevents the gas from further oxidizing the metal.<ref name="ASM">"ASM Handbook Vol.13 Corrosion", ASM International, 1987</ref>
 
== Application ==
On the basis of measurements, the following connection can be shown:
* R<sub>PB</sub> < 1: the oxide coating layer is too thin, likely broken and provides no protective effect (for example [[magnesium]])
* R<sub>PB</sub> > 2: the oxide coating chips off and provides no protective effect (example [[iron]])
* 1 < R<sub>PB</sub> < 2: the oxide coating is passivating and provides a protecting effect  against further surface oxidation (examples [[aluminium]], [[titanium]], [[chromium]]-containing [[steel]]s).
 
However, the exceptions to the above P-B ratio rules are numerous. Many of the exceptions can be attributed to the mechanism of the oxide growth: the underlying assumption in the P-B ratio is that oxygen needs to diffuse through the oxide layer to the metal surface; in reality, it is often the metal ion that diffuses to the air-oxide interface. (citation needed)
 
== Values ==
 
{| class="wikitable"
! Metal    !! Metal oxide    !!  R<sub>PB</sub>
|-
| [[Zinc]] || [[Zinc oxide]] || 1.58
|-
| [[Calcium]] || [[Calcium oxide]] || 0.64 <ref name="ASM"/>
|-
| [[Magnesium]] || [[Magnesium oxide]] || 0.81
|-
| [[Aluminium]] || [[Aluminium oxide]] || 1.28
|-
| [[Lead]] || [[Lead(II) oxide]] || 1.28 <ref name="ASM"/>
|-
| [[Platinum]] || [[Platinum(II) oxide]] || 1.56 <ref name="ASM"/>
|-
| [[Zirconium]] || [[Zirconium(IV) oxide]] || 1.56
|-
| [[Hafnium]] || [[Hafnium(IV) oxide]] || 1.62 <ref name="ASM"/>
|-
| [[Nickel]] || [[Nickel(II) oxide]] || 1.65
|-
| [[Iron]] || [[Iron(II) oxide]] || 1.7
|-
| [[Titanium]] || [[Titanium(IV) oxide]] || 1.73
|-
| [[Chromium]] || [[Chromium(III) oxide]] || 2.07
|-
| [[Iron]] || [[Iron(II,III) oxide]] || 2.10
|-
| [[Iron]] || [[Iron(III) oxide]] || 2.14
|-
| [[Silicon]] || [[Silicon dioxide]] || 2.15
|-
| [[Tantalum]] || [[Tantalum(V) oxide]] || 2.47 <ref name="ASM"/>
|-
| [[Vanadium]] || [[Vanadium(V) oxide]] || 3.25 <ref name="ASM"/>
|-
|}
 
==References==
<references/>
 
[[Category:Corrosion]]

Revision as of 02:18, 19 November 2013

The Pilling-Bedworth ratio (P-B ratio), in corrosion of metals, is the ratio of the volume of the elementary cell of a metal oxide to the volume of the elementary cell of the corresponding metal (from which the oxide is created). Template:Tocright On the basis of the P-B ratio, it can be judged if the metal is likely to passivate in dry air by creation of a protective oxide layer.

Definition

The P-B ratio is defined as:

RPB=VoxideVmetal=MoxideρmetalnMmetalρoxide

where:

  • RPB is the Pilling-Bedworth ratio,
  • M - the atomic or molecular mass,
  • n - number of atoms of metal per one molecule of the oxide
  • ρ - density, and
  • V - the molar volume.

History

N.B. Pilling and R.E. Bedworth[1] suggested in 1923 that metals can be classed into two categories: those that form protective oxides, and those that cannot. They ascribed the protectiveness of the oxide to the volume the oxide takes in comparison to the volume of the metal used to produce this oxide in a corrosion process in dry air. The oxide layer would be unprotective if the ratio is less than unity because the film that forms on the metal surface is porous and/or cracked. Conversely, the metals with the ratio higher than 1 tend to be protective because they form an effective barrier that prevents the gas from further oxidizing the metal.[2]

Application

On the basis of measurements, the following connection can be shown:

  • RPB < 1: the oxide coating layer is too thin, likely broken and provides no protective effect (for example magnesium)
  • RPB > 2: the oxide coating chips off and provides no protective effect (example iron)
  • 1 < RPB < 2: the oxide coating is passivating and provides a protecting effect against further surface oxidation (examples aluminium, titanium, chromium-containing steels).

However, the exceptions to the above P-B ratio rules are numerous. Many of the exceptions can be attributed to the mechanism of the oxide growth: the underlying assumption in the P-B ratio is that oxygen needs to diffuse through the oxide layer to the metal surface; in reality, it is often the metal ion that diffuses to the air-oxide interface. (citation needed)

Values

Metal Metal oxide RPB
Zinc Zinc oxide 1.58
Calcium Calcium oxide 0.64 [2]
Magnesium Magnesium oxide 0.81
Aluminium Aluminium oxide 1.28
Lead Lead(II) oxide 1.28 [2]
Platinum Platinum(II) oxide 1.56 [2]
Zirconium Zirconium(IV) oxide 1.56
Hafnium Hafnium(IV) oxide 1.62 [2]
Nickel Nickel(II) oxide 1.65
Iron Iron(II) oxide 1.7
Titanium Titanium(IV) oxide 1.73
Chromium Chromium(III) oxide 2.07
Iron Iron(II,III) oxide 2.10
Iron Iron(III) oxide 2.14
Silicon Silicon dioxide 2.15
Tantalum Tantalum(V) oxide 2.47 [2]
Vanadium Vanadium(V) oxide 3.25 [2]

References

  1. N.B. Pilling, R. E. Bedworth, "The Oxidation of Metals at High Temperatures". J. Inst. Met 29 (1923), p. 529-591.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 "ASM Handbook Vol.13 Corrosion", ASM International, 1987