Associate
Wouldn't a 1:1 mix mean equal volumes of each?
How would you describe it if that wasn't the case?
Should it be 1:2?
Last edited:
Wouldn't a 1:1 mix mean equal volumes of each?
How would you describe it if that wasn't the case?
But are we talking precision chemistry here or just instructions on a bottle of some supermarket product?
99% of people will interpret as a standard ratio.
Wouldn't a 1:1 mix mean equal volumes of each?
How would you describe it if that wasn't the case?
They mean take 1 volume of the solution and increase it by diluting it with water until its new volume is equivalent to 10 volumes. Yes, it's the same as doing a 10 times dilution on it, so that it's now at 10% of the original concentration.
This is very simple to do; for example, you just put 100 ml of the concentrated solution into a measuring flask/jug and add water until you have 1 litre of diluted solution.
No, it is incorrect. The approach I outlined above is standard practice in science labs internationally and so it's industry best practice too.
But you don't have to take my word for it: here is an explanation of dilution conventions.
(Edited to add a reference.)
Yeah I think the normal ratio interpretation is right after all and Mapel Leaf is wrong, see my edit. It doesn't look like Chemists can agree on a standard for dilutions (or perhaps the doc he linked to was an anomaly by someone who doesn't understand what a ratio is) but the few industry websites I've looked at seem to interpret a dilution ratio just as you'd expect a ratio to be interpreted as:
1:10 simply means 1 part and 10 parts as you'd expect.
see my post above, sometimes chemists talk about a dilution factor but this is a different to a dilution ratio.
There is a difference between the 2 concepts:
dilution factor is what your doc describes, but that would be more commonly shown with a slash, 1/10. Which looks more like a fraction and intuitively is a fraction.1 in 10, i.e. 10%
dilution ratio is the same as a mathematical ratio. so 1:10 would be 1 part with 10 parts, 11 in total.
I guess this is why on compounds like tile adhesive and plaster they say things like mix "20kg with 4L" and make it idiot proof.
That's still idiot proof, unless you're such an idiot that you can't do 12/20 * 4.That's just a matter of what each is typically supplied and measured in. It's far from idiot proof if you only have 12kg of plaster and need to know how much water to use.
Well hi. I was mixing up some cleaning solution today and the instructions stated:
Dilute 1:10 in water
And it got me thinking. Do they mean mix 1 part of solution with 10 parts water (so 11 parts in total, so approx 9% strength) or do they mean mix 1 part solution to 9 parts water (so 10 parts in total, at 10% strength)
Seems it can be either! Yes I'm bored lol. Any chance of a poll? A:11 parts total @9% B:10 parts total @10% C:Get a life/Pancake
Ta
They mean take 1 volume of the solution and increase it by diluting it with water until its new volume is equivalent to 10 volumes. Yes, it's the same as doing a 10 times dilution on it, so that it's now at 10% of the original concentration.
This is very simple to do; for example, you just put 100 ml of the concentrated solution into a measuring flask/jug and add water until you have 1 litre of diluted solution.
No, it is incorrect. The approach I outlined above is standard practice in science labs internationally and so it's industry best practice too.
But you don't have to take my word for it: here is an explanation of dilution conventions.
(Edited to add a reference.)
maybe i'm missing the point here, but why? we're talking about weights and measures which both have increments to infinitum and not "whole" thingsThe op refers to one they saw written as "Dilute 1:10 in water". I bet if it was written as 1:9 or 1:7 people wouldn't get as confused. I think with it being to the 10, that can automatically make people try to over complicate it and think of percentages/wholes.
As people have said, if 1:10 meant 1 to the 9, that would cause issues when mixing things 1:2, because it would massively affect the mix accuracy!
I'm not saying people that think this way are rational though.maybe i'm missing the point here, but why? we're talking about weights and measures which both have increments to infinitum and not "whole" things