Jump to content
Geochemist's Workbench Support Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'React'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Geochemist's Workbench
    • The Geochemist's Workbench
  • The Geochemist's Workbench Student
    • The Geochemist's Workbench Student

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 9 results

  1. Hi GWB Forum, I am trying to mix two seawater samples with the same chemistry, but different temperatures and calculate a flash diagram for aragonite saturation state using React following the "Fluid Mixing and Scaling" instructions. I have also calculated the endmember fluid Log(Q/K) values for aragonite using GSS. I am getting a very different answer for the end member compositions depending on which approach I take. I checked that I am using the same thermo database (phreeqpitz) for both, and am having trouble understanding why they are so different. I've attached my React file, and my gss file for your reference. Thanks for any insights, Amanda JFEndmembers.gss JanFeb-Mixing-AssumeSWinboth.rea
  2. Hi guys, i want to make a comparison between EQ3/6 and GWB about a simple water-rock reaction on the base of the same thermodynamic database. The final results seem to be alike, but the processes of the reaction have much difference. I guess the algorithms used by these two software cause the situation. A hybrid Newton-Raphson algorithm is employed in EQ3/6 during the reaction. However, i don't find the algorithm that GWB used during reaction. So i am here asking for help. ONE MORE, why can i only start a topic on the student forum?
  3. I updated to the latest version this morning. Now I'm finding that if I plot my results from a React run, I only have the option of a Piper diagram. When I open React-generated plots of constituents versus pH, made yesterday with the older version, they too open up as Piper diagrams. Any thoughts? Thank you.
  4. Recently, i want to run two reactions, the second one is on the basis of the first one. After running the first reaction, i use run-pick up-system-entire, but an error occurs. However, this situation doesn't occur all the time, just in a small range of amount of reactant. The reaction files and database are attached below. I don't know what's wrong, so i am here asking for help. Stage1.rea thermo.nn.tdat !What's more, aftering reading the content about redox pivot, i decoupled "HS-/SO4--" and solved this problem. But the sulfide won't form in the reaction. I am not sure what happened inside.
  5. Hi, I'm a new user to the software and am trying to simulate reduction of hexavalent chromium to chromium III by reacting the defined system with a ferrous sulfate amendment. As the ferrous sulfate concentration is increased in the reactants pane, more and more hematite is precipitated but very little to no chromium is converted from Cr VI to CrIII. Am I missing a step, or is this just what is most likely to happen under these conditions? I noticed also that Eh hardly seems to change from iteration 0 to 100 when the solution converged, no matter what concentration of the amendment is used. Is there a way to add your field measured Eh data in the Basis pane? Or can you only add it on a sliding scale in the Reactant pane? When I adjust the Eh in the reactants pane, the chromium does seem to precipitate out in the simulation, but it seems arbitrary for me to manually alter the Eh - I want to make sure that's what would be occurring in the real system as a result of the amendment. Does GWB automatically account for Eh changes as the result of a reactant with the system or does that need to be added as it's own reactant? I've attached the txt file script for the solution and the .rea file. Thanks, Ben React_output-React 25 mgL Ferrous Sulfate.txt MW-5S React_1-123016.rea
  6. I apologize in advance: I am far from familiar with GWB. The mix I'm trying to model is supersaturated in several Ca phosphate phases. Fluid A & B seem to equilibrate ok independently, but using pickup>reactants>Fluid A to react with Fluid B is not working for me. The popup-error seems to suggest the components need to be the same on both solutions -not sure if this is the case-. Modeling the solution as a single event is confusing because it looks like I can't choose CO3--, CH3COOH- and H+ simultaneously. (I am also confused by the requirement of equilibration with O2 for only 1 of the 2 fluids above.) Loading the fluid scripts one after the other and then running the equilibration, produces results albeit including several warnings of charge imbalance (which I expect) and the elimination of CO3-- from the basis; I am not sure this represents the mix I want. I haven't considered modifications to the default activities calculation, but this may be important for this example. Input is appreciated! MC FluidA.rea FluidB.rea
  7. Using the 'alter' command in react is a very convenient way to test the impact of thermodynamic data variability on modelling results. Unfortunately the command seems to be restricted to equilibrium constants. Is there any way to use the command for Pitzer ion interaction coefficients as well?
  8. In the react output files in the section "Mineral staturation states" the only the first 15 characters of a mineral name are printed. Longer mineral names are cut. In some cases it is necessary to have longer names, for example if dealing with solid phases of more complex nature such as clays and other naturally occuring multi-element phases. Examples: K8(HCO3)4(CO3)2:3H2O (20 characters) GreenRust(Na,SO4) (17 characters) Fe(OH)2.65Cl0.35 (16 characters) In order to make them distinguishable in the react output file, cryptic short names have to be used in the database which in turn appear in all dialogs and diagrams. It would be preferable if the full mineral names could be printed under "Mineral Saturation states" or if at least perhaps 25 characters could be used. Or is there any option to get around this problem?
  9. Hi all, I have got a simple question regarding to mixing of multiple fluids. I’m sure that I must have missed something, so I just wanted to check. I have the composition of three end-member solutions (Solution 1, 2, 3) that would be mixed to produce composition of Solution 4. Say 20%, 30% and 50% of Solution 4 is from Solution 1, 2, 3 respectively. I have the composition of all Solution 1, 2, 3, 4. Essentially I would like to check the mixing fraction through React (at which I have calculated manually) to see whether it gives me a good match for the solution 4 composition. I would like to run this mixing reaction through the REACT model to get the final concentration of Solution 4 with the known composition and mixing fraction of Solution1-3. But from my understanding, is it correct that I can only mix/react one solution with another one at a time on REACT? And of course if I run reaction of solution 1 and 2, pick up>reactant>fluid to react with solution 3 will not give the answer that I wanted since it’s a different mechanism. I have tried GSS where I can mix all three solution all at once. But when I did a test run of only mixing two solutions on GSS, it gives different results from reacting two solutions on REACT. So two questions: What is the best way to do fluid mixing of more than two solutions that accounts for different mixing fraction? What are the difference between GSS mixing function and React? i.e. say if I’m to mix two solutions together. Thank you very much for your help. Have a lovely day. Cheers, Charis
×