1959
DOI: 10.1021/j150577a024
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Thermochemistry and Vapor Pressure of Aliphatic Fluorocarbons. A Comparison of the C–F and C–H Thermochemical Bond Energies

Abstract: The heat of formation of four organic fluorine compounds, including three completely fluorinated aliphatic compounds, was determined by a rota ting-bomb method of combustion calorimetry. An earlier technique that used sealed, fusedquartz ampoules for containing samples of volatile fluorine compounds was replaced by an improved technique that used sealed bags of a polyester film. For three of the compounds vapor pressure measurements were made by an improved method of comparative ebulliometry. The following val… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
49
0

Year Published

1961
1961
1996
1996

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 102 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
49
0
Order By: Relevance
“…By contrast, the surface tensions of the related mixture (methylcyclohexane + tetradecafluoromethylcyclohexane) -whose surface tensions are less dissimilar than those of the present mixture -display negative aneotropy in mixtures very rich in tetradecafluoromethylcyclohexane. Figure 5 shows the vapour pressures p* c of pure tetrachloromethane, according to Hildebrand and McDonald (34) and Boublik, (35) and p* t of pure tetradecafluoromethylcyclohexane, according to Good et al (36) Unusually, the vapor pressures of the components in the present mixture are almost equal -as figure 5 illustrates -and the mixture is thus very close to Bancroft-point behaviour at all temperatures and not only within the range considered here. Although there appear to have been no measurements of the vapour pressures of the mixture, it is obvious .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 54%
“…By contrast, the surface tensions of the related mixture (methylcyclohexane + tetradecafluoromethylcyclohexane) -whose surface tensions are less dissimilar than those of the present mixture -display negative aneotropy in mixtures very rich in tetradecafluoromethylcyclohexane. Figure 5 shows the vapour pressures p* c of pure tetrachloromethane, according to Hildebrand and McDonald (34) and Boublik, (35) and p* t of pure tetradecafluoromethylcyclohexane, according to Good et al (36) Unusually, the vapor pressures of the components in the present mixture are almost equal -as figure 5 illustrates -and the mixture is thus very close to Bancroft-point behaviour at all temperatures and not only within the range considered here. Although there appear to have been no measurements of the vapour pressures of the mixture, it is obvious .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 54%
“…(15)(16)(17) A rotating-bomb calorimeter (laboratory designation BMR II) (18) and two platinum-lined bombs (laboratory designation Pt-3b and Pt-5b) (19) with internal volumes of 0.393 4 dm 3 and 0.395 4 dm 3 , respectively, were used without rotation. For each experiment, a volume 1.0·10 −3 dm 3 of water was added to the bomb, and the bomb was flushed and charged to the pressure 3.04 MPa with pure oxygen.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Parity plot comparing sublimation pressures measured by Jim6nez et al (49) with values calculated using equation (19 inclined-piston gauge; water or decane refers to which material was used as the standard in the reference ebulllometer; T is the temperature of the experimental Inclined-piston pressure gauge measurements or, for ebulliometrlc measurements, of the condensation temperature of the sample; the pressure p for ebullion'letrlc measurements was calculated from the condensation temperature of the reference substance; Ap iS the difference of the calculated value of pressure from the observed value of pressure; _1is the propagated error calculated from equations (1)and (2) TABLE15.…”
Section: Figure9mentioning
confidence: 99%