Fe23Ho6: enthalpy of formation
4 accepted literature formation-enthalpy value(s) (experimental 1, model 3).
Systems: Fe–Ho
Literature values
| Value | Phase as printed | T (K) | Class | Method | System | Source | Location | Quote |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -6.7 kJ/mol (basis unstated) | Fe23Ho6 | 298.15 | experimental | EMF | Fe–Ho | [1] Kardellass 2014 cites Gozzi 2007 doi | Table 3, p. 3, row 7 report | |
| -6.2 kJ/mol (basis unstated) | Fe23Ho6 | 300 | model | Calculation | Fe–Ho | [1] Kardellass 2014 cites Gozzi 2007 doi | Table 3, p. 3, row 6 report | |
| -2.12 kJ/mol (basis unstated) | Fe23Ho6 | 298.15 | model | Prediction | Fe–Ho | [1] Kardellass 2014 cites Kardellass 2013 | Table 3, p. 3, row 5 report | |
| -1.84 kJ/mol (basis unstated) | Fe23Ho6 | 298.15 | model | Optimization | Fe–Ho | [1] Kardellass 2014 | Table 3, p. 3, row 8 report |
Uncertainty budget
Components kept separate, in the value's unit (literature SCHEMA.md, UNCERTAINTY_CALIBRATION.md): effective = max(sqrt(max(printed, reading, method)^2 + composition^2 + conversion^2), scatter). The method floor is the robust between-study scatter of the method class in ORCHID (calibrated) or a documented prior; printed values and printed uncertainties are unchanged.
| Value | Unit | Printed | Reading | Method (class, basis) | Composition | Scatter | Conversion | Effective |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -6.7 | kJ/mol (basis unstated) | 0.05 | 23 (emf, cleaned_below_threshold) | 23 | ||||
| -6.2 | kJ/mol (basis unstated) | 0.05 | 19.5 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 19.5 | ||||
| -2.12 | kJ/mol (basis unstated) | 0.005 | 19.5 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 19.5 | ||||
| -1.84 | kJ/mol (basis unstated) | 0.005 | 19.5 (model_calculated, calibrated) | 19.5 |
Sources
- S. Kardellass, C. Servant, N. Selhaoui, A. Iddaoudi, M. Ait Amar, L. Bouirden, A thermodynamic assessment of the Iron+Holmium phase diagram, The Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics 74, 78-84 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.jct.2013.11.037