>>7711880
Does this make sense?

>>7712935
and this for b?

>>7713024
Anyone know if I did these right/ know how to do this one?

>>7713030
Anyone have a opinion on this? I didn't use the saturation pressure of the solvent so I am a bit concerned about my solution. Maybe too many composition assumptions.

Basically assumed N2 real activity and infinitely dilute activity are the same since X_N2 ~ 0, which allowed to solve for vapor fraction of N2 through modified raoults law/ gamma phi formulation whatever you call it.

From there if I assume the solvent exists only in the liquid phase (risky assumption?) which allows for the reduction of the vapor phase to a binary system where:
vapor frac N2 + vapor frac CO2 = 1
then CO2 can be found simply.

Then lastly real activity and infinitely dilute CO2 activities are found through the symmetric gibbs excess equation/ one parameter margules eqn (whatever you call it)

Then solve for henrys coeff for CO2 using the found parameters.

>>7713173
I realise theres a good chance nobody is gonna help me with this stuff but hopefully someone looks at my work ad tells me if I'm fucking up.

Anyways, the process is cathartic for me either way so I'm gonna keep posting a I go. Tips and red flags where I'm fucking up are appreciated.

>>7713188
Opinions on solution method?

>>7713595
Trying this one now

>>7713600
Am I doing these right?

>>7713635
Why can't you just type them up on TeX? I can't read half your blurry photos. The figure I saw in your first question is wrong, I don't know why you drew an ideal curve when it says the excess gibbs energy is non-zero and the fugacity coefficients aren't one.

>>7713818
hard