Calculation of the Free Volume and the Internal Pressure of Liquids from Sonic Velocity Data

1956 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 581-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. C. Collins ◽  
W. W. Brandt ◽  
M. H. Navidi
Keyword(s):  
Internal Pressure ◽  
Free Volume ◽  
Sonic Velocity ◽  
Velocity Data

MOLECULAR INTERACTION THROUGH FREE VOLUME AND INTERNAL PRESSURE OF AQUEOUS AMINO ACIDS AT 308.15 K

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amardeep Shende Hemant Baradkar Vilas Tabhane Amardeep Shende Hemant Baradkar Vilas Tabhane ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Amino Acids ◽  
Internal Pressure ◽  
Free Volume ◽  
Molecular Interaction

Heat capacities at constant volume, free volumes, and rotational freedom in some liquids

1971 ◽  
Vol 24 (9) ◽  
pp. 1817 ◽  
Author(s):  
DD Deshpande ◽  
LG Bhatgadde
Keyword(s):  
Heat Capacity ◽  
Free Volume ◽  
Heat Capacities ◽  
Organic Liquids ◽  
Velocity Of Sound ◽  
Velocity Data ◽  
Volume Analysis ◽  
Straight Lines ◽  
Rotational Freedom ◽  
Residual Heat

This paper presents the experimental results on the velocity of sound, densities, and heat capacities of eight organic liquids at 25�, 35�, and 45�C. Using Eyring's equation, the free volumes have been calculated from the sound velocity data. For pure liquids, a quantity Cv* = (Cv)L- (Cv)g- Cstr called the residual heat capacity is found to be linearly dependent on free volume. Analysis of the data for 34 liquids shows that a plot of residual heat capacity against the free volume gives a series of straight lines differing in slopes for different groups of liquids such as hydrocarbons, halogen-substituted hydrocarbons, alcohols, etc. This behaviour is ascribed as being due to different degrees of rotational freedom of molecules in these liquids.

A COMPARISON OF WELL VELOCITY METHODS IN SOUTH TEXAS

Geophysics ◽  
1959 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 443-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. B. Wood
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Data ◽  
Short Interval ◽  
Present Form ◽  
South Texas ◽  
Basic Data ◽  
Sonic Velocity ◽  
Velocity Data ◽  
Interval Velocity ◽  
Delay Times

This velocity study is limited to data from one well in South Texas. Two short‐interval velocity logging methods compared with conventional seismic geophone data show large discrepancies. The Shell short‐interval velocity log agrees within close limits to the conventional seismic data except for the lower 4,000 ft. The indicated delay times for the upper 2,000 ft of this 4,000‐ft interval are short by 6.5 percent, and indicated delay times for the lower 2,000 ft are short by 4.0 percent. The Schlumberger Sonic Velocity Log, limited in this survey to the bottom 4,200 ft of hole, indicated delay times larger than the seismic time by more than 5 percent. There is a difference of approximately 9 percent between the two velocity logs, even though the tools were of similar dimensions. The spacing between detectors was three feet, and the distance from transmitter to near receiver was four feet for the Shell tool and three feet for the Schlumberger tool. An analysis of the basic data is necessary to resolve these discrepancies. There is no check on the Sonic data in its present form, but a thorough study of the Shell Oscillogram log and conventional seismic data for errors fails to explain the 6.5‐percent and 4‐percent discrepancies in the Shell short‐interval velocity data. The conclusion must be drawn that these discrepancies are real. This survey demonstrates the necessity to check short‐interval velocity logging with conventional seismic shots to maintain acceptable seismic well velocity standards.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document