How to Convert Diffusion Rate to Hertz?

[amy1vaulhausen]

TL;DR Summary

Does anyone know hot to do this ; How to Convert Diffusion Rate to Hertz?

How to Convert Diffusion Rate to Hertz - Hi, new here. Does anyone know if it is possible to convert the molecular diffusion rate

to a frequency in hertz?

 

[hutchphd]

I have no idea what you are trying to do. Please be specific.

 

[phinds]

How to Convert Diffusion Rate to Hertz - Hi, new here. Does anyone know if it is possible to convert the molecular diffusion rate

Like @hutchphd, I don't understand the question. Sounds like you are trying to convert bananas to bicycles.

 

[Mayhem]

Hertz (Hz) is the same as reciprocal seconds (1/s). I can't think of a diffusion quantity with that dimension. Did a bit of searching, and as I suspected the unit for such a quantity is better described as amount per area times seconds.

For details, see Fick's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fick's_laws_of_diffusion

 

[amy1vaulhausen]

Thanks Mayhem, the reason behind my question is based on the diffusion rate in time.
Formula ; t=x^2/2D
see reference ; https://www.physiologyweb.com/calculators/diffusion_time_calculator.html
Since a solute will take a range of time to diffuse for a spacial unit with known viscosity and related parameters
and since that time range can be computed in seconds, then if light seconds are used as a distance value and we convert the distance to a value in hertz, wouldnt we end up with a means to covert rate to a hertzian frequency? Am just wondering if there is a standard way to approach this? A formula to use?

 

[hutchphd]

I like to think of the diffusion rate as a measure of the growth of the blob of diffusing stuff. By some measure the surface area of the blob grows linearly with time. I don't know how any particular frequency is useful.

 

[amy1vaulhausen]

A cycle of time can be converted to a frequency in hertz. If we know the amount of time in seconds it takes a solute to diffuse in a specific unit of space with know characteristics then there must be a way to convert this time period to a hertzian value or at least a range of frequency values?

 

[phinds]

A cycle of time can be converted to a frequency in hertz.

Really? It took me 20 secons to read your post. What frequency is that?

If we know the amount of time in seconds it takes a solute to diffuse in a specific unit of space with know characteristics then there must be a way to convert this time period to a hertzian value or at least a range of frequency values?

You're still trying to convert bananas to bicycles. Plus, as @hutchphd said, even if your could square this circle,

I don't know how any particular frequency is useful.

 

[russ_watters]

Really? It took me 20 seconds to read your post. What frequency is that?

1/20th Hz, of course. I'll rephrase the objection: @amy1vaulhausen you can convert any repeating time period into a frequency by inverting it, but that doesn't make it useful/meaningful. What's the real goal here? What do you think this tells you?

 

[Drakkith]

Thanks Mayhem, the reason behind my question is based on the diffusion rate in time.
Formula ; t=x^2/2D
see reference ; https://www.physiologyweb.com/calculators/diffusion_time_calculator.html
Since a solute will take a range of time to diffuse for a spacial unit with known viscosity and related parameters
and since that time range can be computed in seconds, then if light seconds are used as a distance value and we convert the distance to a value in hertz, wouldnt we end up with a means to covert rate to a hertzian frequency? Am just wondering if there is a standard way to approach this? A formula to use?

There is no standard way to approach this because it's not a standard approach at all. It doesn't even make sense to use hertz in this manner as you don't have a repeating process or some cyclic phenomenon. Just because something is a rate doesn't make it cyclic or applicable to use hertz. Acceleration is a rate, as it has units of m/s/s, but you would never use hertz as a unit for acceleration. The same is true for velocity, which has units of m/s. An object moving at 10 m/s does not have a frequency of 10 Hz. It doesn't have a frequency at all.

 

[DrDu]

So we have Hertz for periodic processes, Becquerel for radioactive decay, although lifetime can be formulated as imaginary part of frequency.
One of the last realms of physics where the babylonian-anglosaxonian unit mess persists.