Question 1

High-temperature measurement: To measure a tempering oil bath maintained near 400 °C during heat treatment of steel, which thermocouple type is most appropriate for reliable industrial service?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Thermocouple selection balances temperature range, environment, stability, and cost. Oil bath tempering of steel around 400 °C is common in heat-treat shops. The sensor must tolerate the temperature, oxidizing potential, and cycling, while providing adequate sensitivity and durability. Given Data / Assumptions: Measurement temperature ≈ 400 °C. General industrial environment; cost and ruggedness matter. Need for stable, repeatable signal over repeated cycles. Concept / Approach: Type K (chromel–alumel) is the general-purpose thermocouple for −200 °C to about 1100–1260 °C, with good oxidation resistance. Type J (iron–constantan) is limited by iron oxidation and is preferred for lower temperatures or reducing environments. Noble-metal Types S/R are accurate at very high temperatures but far more expensive than required for a 400 °C oil bath. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess suitable types by range and environment.Eliminate overly costly or environmentally mismatched options.Select Type K as the robust, economical choice for ~400 °C. Verification / Alternative check: Vendor datasheets and standards list Type K as the default for general furnace and bath work up to ~1100 °C. Field practice confirms reliable service in tempering operations. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Type J: Iron leg oxidizes; shorter life at elevated temperatures in oxidizing conditions. Type S/R: Technically suitable but uneconomical overkill for 400 °C oil bath tasks. Common Pitfalls: Confusing accuracy class with suitability; ignoring sheath selection (Inconel/SS) and junction style (grounded/ungrounded), which also affect performance. Final Answer: Chromel–alumel (Type K)

Question 2

Thermoelectric phenomena: Which named effect relates the absorption or evolution of heat at the junctions of a thermocouple directly to the electric current flowing in the circuit?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Thermoelectric devices rely on several coupled effects. Distinguishing Seebeck, Peltier, Thomson, and Joule effects helps in understanding both sensing (thermocouples) and active thermal control (thermoelectric coolers). The question targets which effect ties heat absorption/evolution at junctions to electric current. Given Data / Assumptions: Two dissimilar conductors or semiconductors form junctions. A current is driven through the circuit. We observe heating at one junction and cooling at the other. Concept / Approach: Peltier effect: Heat is absorbed at one junction and released at the other when current flows through a junction of dissimilar materials; the heat rate is proportional to current. Seebeck effect: A temperature difference at the junctions generates an emf (basis of thermocouples). Thomson effect: Heat is absorbed or evolved along a single conductor carrying current in the presence of a temperature gradient. Joule effect: Resistive heating proportional to I^2R everywhere in the conductor. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the phenomenon: junction heating/cooling with current.Map to the named thermoelectric effect: Peltier.Select the corresponding option. Verification / Alternative check: Thermoelectric coolers (TECs) leverage the Peltier effect to pump heat; reversing current swaps hot/cold sides—direct evidence of the effect described. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Seebeck: Temperature gradient causes emf, not heat flow due to current at junctions. Thomson: Distributed effect along a conductor, not localized at junctions. Joule: Non-directional resistive heating not specific to dissimilar junctions. Common Pitfalls: Confusing Seebeck (sensing) with Peltier (active heating/cooling); overlooking that Joule heating always adds heat, whereas Peltier can remove heat at a junction. Final Answer: Peltier effect

Question 3

Thermodynamic fixed points: Which of the following values is NOT a representation of water’s triple point on a temperature scale?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The triple point of water is a unique thermodynamic state where ice, liquid water, and water vapor coexist in equilibrium. It defines a precise temperature on absolute scales: 273.16 K or 491.69 °R. Recognizing correct and incorrect representations across scales prevents confusion with ordinary freezing points or rounded values. Given Data / Assumptions: Exact triple-point temperature: 273.16 K. Equivalent Rankine value: 491.69 °R (≈ 492 °R when rounded). 32 °F is the standard freezing point at 1 atm, not the triple point. Concept / Approach: On absolute temperature scales, the triple point is fixed by definition (historically used to define the Kelvin). Conversions: °R = 1.8 × K. Hence 273.16 K × 1.8 ≈ 491.69 °R. Some engineering texts round to 273 K or 492 °R for quick estimates, but these refer to the same physical state. In contrast, 32 °F is not the triple point; it is the freezing/melting point of water at standard atmospheric pressure, a different condition. Step-by-Step Solution: List each option and compare with the known triple-point values.273 K and 492 °R are rounded representations of 273.16 K and 491.69 °R.32 °F corresponds to the 1 atm freezing point, not the triple point. Verification / Alternative check: Thermodynamic tables distinguish the triple point and 1 atm freezing point, with small but real differences. Instruments like triple-point cells are used for calibration at 273.16 K, not at 32 °F. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 273 K / 492 °R: Though rounded, they represent the triple-point temperature on absolute scales approximately. 32 °R: (if considered) is far from the triple point; however, the explicit incorrect choice among those listed as common representations is 32 °F. Common Pitfalls: Equating freezing point at 1 atm with triple point; ignoring that absolute scales provide consistent fixed points for calibration. Final Answer: 32 °F (Fahrenheit)

Question 4

Dynamic behavior of instruments: Which of the following is considered an undesirable dynamic characteristic of a measuring instrument?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Instrument performance is judged by static and dynamic characteristics. In dynamic operation, the speed and fidelity with which an instrument tracks changes in the measurand are vital for control and safety. Undesirable dynamic traits degrade responsiveness and can destabilize closed-loop systems. Given Data / Assumptions: Dynamic characteristics include time constant, time lag, hysteresis, overshoot, and dead time. Static characteristics include accuracy, bias (static error), precision, resolution, and reproducibility. We seek the dynamic trait that is undesirable. Concept / Approach: Time lag (or dead time) is a delay between the input change and the beginning of output response. It reduces phase margin, complicates controller tuning, and can cause oscillations or poor disturbance rejection. While some dynamic smoothing is inevitable (first-order time constant), a pure lag is especially troublesome because it provides no new information to the controller during the delay interval. Step-by-Step Solution: Classify each option as static or dynamic and assess desirability.Identify the dynamic feature that impairs responsiveness: time lag.Select time lag as the undesirable dynamic characteristic. Verification / Alternative check: Control theory shows that additional dead time lowers achievable closed-loop bandwidth for a given robustness, raising integral absolute error for setpoint changes and disturbances. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Reproducibility: Desirable static property. Dead zone: Typically categorized as a static nonlinearity; undesirable but not primarily a dynamic attribute. Static error: A static bias; again, not a dynamic characteristic. Common Pitfalls: Conflating dead zone (static insensitivity) with dead time (dynamic delay); both are harmful, but the question asks specifically for a dynamic characteristic. Final Answer: Time lag (delay between input change and output response)

Question 5

Industrial instrumentation – thermocouple sensitivity comparison Which of the following thermocouple pairs will produce the highest electromotive force (emf) output for the same hot-junction and cold-junction temperatures?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Thermocouples generate a measurable electromotive force (emf) because of the Seebeck effect. Different metal combinations have different Seebeck coefficients, so for the same temperature difference between the hot and cold junctions, some thermocouples produce a larger voltage than others. Selecting the most sensitive type improves signal-to-noise ratio and measurement resolution in industrial temperature measurement. Given Data / Assumptions: The hot-junction and cold-junction temperatures are identical across options. Output comparison is based solely on inherent Seebeck coefficient of each pair. Standard, widely used types are implied by the metal pairs listed. Concept / Approach: The generated emf is approximately proportional to the temperature difference: E ≈ S * ΔT, where S is the effective Seebeck coefficient of the thermocouple pair. Among common thermocouples, the Chromel–Constantan pair (Type E) has one of the highest Seebeck coefficients, typically larger than Iron–Constantan (Type J) and much larger than the noble-metal Platinum–Platinum+Rhodium types (Types S/R), which trade sensitivity for stability at high temperature. Step-by-Step Solution: List typical sensitivities (approximate): Type E (Chromel–Constantan) ~ 60–70 µV/°C; Type J (Iron–Constantan) ~ 50–55 µV/°C; Type S/R (Pt–PtRh) ~ 6–12 µV/°C.For the same ΔT, E_TypeE > E_TypeJ > E_TypeS/R.Therefore, Chromel–Constantan will produce the highest emf. Verification / Alternative check: Thermocouple reference tables show that for the same span (for example 0 to 600°C), Type E develops a higher millivolt output than Type J and much more than Type S/R. This corroborates the selection. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Platinum–platinum + rhodium: Excellent stability at high temperature but low sensitivity; produces smaller emf per degree. Iron–constantan: Moderately sensitive, but less than Chromel–Constantan. All same: Incorrect because Seebeck coefficients vary significantly by metal pair. Common Pitfalls: Confusing high-temperature capability with sensitivity. Noble-metal thermocouples withstand higher temperatures but do not provide the largest voltage per degree at moderate ranges. Final Answer: Chromel–constantan

Question 6

Process control – comparing controllers by maximum deviation Which controller structure generally yields the least maximum deviation (minimum peak error/overshoot) for comparable tuning on the same process?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In feedback control, the choice of controller form affects both transient and steady-state performance. Maximum deviation (the largest excursion of the controlled variable from setpoint after a disturbance or setpoint change) is a practical metric related to overshoot and peak error. Given Data / Assumptions: Same process (e.g., first-order plus dead time), similar tuning effort across controllers. Maximum deviation refers to the peak magnitude of error after an upset. We compare P, PI, PD, and PID structures. Concept / Approach: Each controller term contributes differently. Proportional (P) reduces error but leaves offset. Integral (I) removes offset but can worsen overshoot if aggressive. Derivative (D) provides predictive action that damps the response, reducing peak error. Combining P, I, and D allows steady-state error elimination while damping the transient, typically achieving the least peak deviation when properly tuned. Step-by-Step Solution: P alone: fast but with offset; peak error can be significant.PI: removes offset but may increase overshoot without derivative damping.PD: improves damping and reduces peak, but cannot remove offset.PID: balances all three effects, minimizing both offset and peak deviation under proper tuning. Verification / Alternative check: Standard tuning correlations (e.g., Ziegler–Nichols, Cohen–Coon, IMC) and step-response comparisons show that PID typically yields lower peak error than P, PI, or PD alone for many common process classes. Why Other Options Are Wrong: P: Leaves offset and often larger peak deviation. PI: Eliminates offset but may overshoot more without derivative action. PD: Damps transients but cannot eliminate steady-state error, and peak may not be minimal for load disturbances. Common Pitfalls: Assuming any PID will always be best regardless of tuning. Poor PID tuning can still yield large peaks; the statement presumes competent tuning for each structure. Final Answer: P-I-D controller

Question 7

Thermoelectric phenomena – emf in a single homogeneous wire Which effect relates the electromotive force (emf) developed in a single homogeneous conductor to the temperature difference along its length?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Thermoelectric effects describe the coupling between heat flow and electric potential in conductors and junctions. Properly distinguishing Seebeck, Peltier, and Thomson effects is foundational for instrumentation and solid-state thermal management. Given Data / Assumptions: Only a single homogeneous wire (no dissimilar junctions). A temperature gradient exists along the conductor. We seek the named effect directly linking emf and temperature gradient in that wire. Concept / Approach: The Seebeck effect refers to an emf generated in a circuit of two dissimilar conductors when their junctions are at different temperatures. The Peltier effect refers to heating or cooling at a junction when current passes. The Thomson effect is the emf (and reversible heat) produced along a single homogeneous conductor that has a temperature gradient and carries current; it directly relates emf to temperature difference along the wire itself. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify system: single homogeneous conductor with ΔT along its length.Match to definitions: only the Thomson effect applies to a single homogeneous conductor under a temperature gradient.Therefore, the correct choice is the Thomson effect. Verification / Alternative check: Textbook summaries: Seebeck → two metals, Peltier → junction heating/cooling, Thomson → single conductor with gradient. This matches the problem statement precisely. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Peltier: Involves junctions of dissimilar materials and current flow. Seebeck: Requires a closed loop of two different conductors and two junction temperatures. None of these: Incorrect because Thomson is the proper effect. Common Pitfalls: Confusing Seebeck (two metals) with Thomson (single metal). Remember: Seebeck measures junction emf; Thomson is distributed along the conductor with temperature gradient. Final Answer: Thomson effect

Question 8

Temperature sensors – thermistors in resistance thermometry A thermistor used as the sensing element in a resistance thermometer has a high temperature coefficient of resistivity. A thermistor is best described as a:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Thermistors are widely used temperature sensors whose resistance changes strongly with temperature. Understanding their material class clarifies why they exhibit large, nonlinear temperature coefficients compared to metal RTDs or thermocouples. Given Data / Assumptions: Thermistor acts as the primary sensing element, not merely as wiring or housing. High temperature coefficient (often negative, NTC) is typical. Device is a bulk solid component. Concept / Approach: Thermistors are ceramic or polymer-based semiconductor materials (commonly metal-oxide ceramics such as Mn, Co, Ni oxides). Their charge carrier concentrations vary strongly with temperature, producing large resistance changes. They are solid-state devices, not liquids, and are not metallic conductors or classic insulators. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify material behavior: strong, nonlinear R–T dependence implies semiconductor physics.Thermistors are manufactured as solid pellets/beads/discs → solid state.Therefore, the correct classification is solid semiconductor. Verification / Alternative check: Manufacturer datasheets describe NTC/PTC thermistors as sintered semiconductor ceramics with specified beta constants, confirming the classification. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Insulator: Resistivity far too high and not the intended behavior. Conductor: Metals show small positive temperature coefficients, not large thermistor-like changes. Liquid semiconductor: Not applicable; devices are solid components. Common Pitfalls: Assuming all resistance thermometers are metallic RTDs. Thermistors differ by being semiconductor elements with much larger sensitivity but reduced linearity and narrower temperature range. Final Answer: solid semiconductor

Question 9

Measurement quality – desirable characteristic of instruments Which of the following is a desirable characteristic for an industrial measuring instrument?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Instrumentation performance is judged by how faithfully a device represents the measured variable, how stable it remains over time, and how quickly it responds. Recognizing desirable versus undesirable traits guides sensor selection and maintenance planning. Given Data / Assumptions: We compare fidelity, drift, lag, and reproducibility characteristics. Industrial context implies need for reliable, accurate, and repeatable readings. Concept / Approach: Fidelity denotes the degree to which the instrument output accurately follows the true value without distortion. Drift is an undesirable slow change in output unrelated to the measurand. Measuring lag is the delay between a change in input and the instrument response. Reproducibility is desirable when high, undesirable when poor. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify positive attribute: high fidelity → output tracks input closely.Identify negatives: high drift, high lag, poor reproducibility degrade measurement quality.Thus, the desirable choice is high fidelity. Verification / Alternative check: Standards and textbooks list high accuracy/fidelity, low drift, low lag, and good repeatability as primary desirable instrument characteristics. Why Other Options Are Wrong: High drift: Causes baseline wander and calibration loss. High measuring lag: Sluggish response; poor for control. Poor reproducibility: Inconsistent results, undermining trust in data. Common Pitfalls: Confusing precision with accuracy. An instrument can be precise but not faithful if biased; fidelity captures accurate tracking behavior. Final Answer: High fidelity

Question 10

Combustion diagnostics – zirconia probe application A zirconia (zirconium oxide) probe installed in a furnace stack is used for continuous measurement of which parameter in flue gases?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Optimizing combustion requires knowledge of excess air. Continuous oxygen monitoring enables tighter control of burners and improved fuel economy. Zirconia probes are the workhorses for O2 measurement in hot flue streams. Given Data / Assumptions: Zirconia solid-electrolyte sensor exposed to hot flue gas and a reference gas (usually air). High-temperature operation is typical for accurate readings. Output is an emf related to oxygen partial pressure difference. Concept / Approach: Zirconia acts as an oxygen-ion conductor at elevated temperature. The Nernst equation relates cell emf to the ratio of oxygen partial pressures across the electrolyte. The instrument is thus a direct oxygen analyzer, not a generic CO2/CO meter nor a temperature probe. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize sensing principle: oxygen-ion conduction across zirconia generates emf.Measured variable: oxygen partial pressure in flue gas relative to reference air.Hence, the probe continuously measures O2 in flue gases. Verification / Alternative check: Manufacturer specifications list zirconia analyzers as excess oxygen monitors for combustion control loops (trim control), confirming the application. Why Other Options Are Wrong: CO2/CO: Require infrared or electrochemical methods; zirconia is selective to oxygen via ionic conduction. Temperature: Although the probe is heated, it is not a temperature instrument. Common Pitfalls: Assuming flue gas analyzers are interchangeable. Each technology targets specific species; zirconia is specific to oxygen measurement. Final Answer: Oxygen in flue gases

Question 11

Thermocouple output at 600°C – type identification A thermocouple measuring about 5.5 mV at 600°C (with a standard cold junction) is most likely which type?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Selecting the thermocouple type from a measured emf requires familiarity with typical voltage–temperature characteristics. Different thermocouple types generate very different voltages at the same temperature, especially when comparing base-metal types to noble-metal types. Given Data / Assumptions: Measured emf near 5.5 mV at 600°C. Reference junction is at standard compensation temperature (near 0°C or properly cold-junction compensated). We compare common types: K (Chromel–Alumel), J (Iron–Constantan), and S/R (Platinum–Platinum+Rhodium). Concept / Approach: Base-metal thermocouples such as Type K and Type J have relatively high Seebeck coefficients, giving tens of millivolts by 600°C. Noble-metal types such as Type S (Pt–10%Rh/Pt) or Type R (Pt–13%Rh/Pt) have much lower emf outputs for the same temperature and fall in the neighborhood of a few to several millivolts at 600°C. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall typical outputs at 600°C: Type K ≈ 24–25 mV; Type J ≈ 33 mV; Type S/R ≈ 6–7 mV.The given 5.5 mV matches the order of magnitude of Pt–PtRh rather than Type K or J.Therefore, the correct identification is Platinum–platinum + rhodium. Verification / Alternative check: Consulting reference tables shows Type S output near 6.4 mV at 600°C (depending on reference), which is close to the stated 5.5 mV and far from the 25–33 mV of base-metal types. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Chromel–alumel (K): Would give about 25 mV at 600°C. Iron–constantan (J): Would give about 33 mV at 600°C. Either (a), (b) or (c): Inconsistent with the observed small emf. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring cold-junction compensation. However, even with small compensation differences, the order-of-magnitude gap between base- and noble-metal types remains decisive. Final Answer: Platinum–platinum + rhodium

Question 12

Plant automation – benefits of instrumentation In a process plant, modern instrumentation provides which of the following advantages?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Instrumentation underpins safe, efficient, and high-quality plant operation. From field sensors to control systems and analyzers, measurement and automation deliver tangible benefits across safety, quality, and cost domains. Given Data / Assumptions: General chemical/process plant environment. Modern instrumentation includes sensors, control loops, interlocks, and analyzers. Benefits are considered holistically. Concept / Approach: Accurate and timely data enable proactive control and protection. Safety instrumentation systems (SIS) and alarms reduce risk. Quality analyzers ensure specifications are met. Optimized control reduces variability and energy consumption, increasing throughput and yield, thereby lowering costs. Step-by-Step Solution: Safety: trips, interlocks, and continuous monitoring prevent unsafe excursions.Quality: inferential and direct analyzers (e.g., chromatographs, spectrometers) keep product within tolerances.Economy: advanced process control and optimization minimize energy and raw material use, improving OPEX. Verification / Alternative check: Case studies show reductions in process variability and energy use after installing better instrumentation and control, confirming all three benefit categories. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each single option captures only one dimension; the comprehensive improvement delivered by instrumentation covers all listed benefits. Common Pitfalls: Underestimating the value of calibration and maintenance. Poorly maintained instruments can erode the expected benefits. Final Answer: All (a), (b) and (c)

Question 13

Proportional control of a first-order process – effect of gain on offset A proportional controller with gain Kc regulates a first-order process. How does the steady-state offset change when Kc is varied?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Steady-state offset is the nonzero difference between setpoint and controlled variable after the transients decay. In pure proportional control of most plants, offset persists after load disturbances. Understanding how proportional gain affects offset is crucial for tuning. Given Data / Assumptions: First-order process with proportional (P-only) controller. Offset refers to steady-state error after a step load disturbance or setpoint change (with bias). No integral term is present unless stated. Concept / Approach: For a first-order plant under P-only control, the closed-loop steady-state error (offset) is inversely related to the loop gain. Higher proportional gain reduces the required error to produce the necessary controller output, thus reducing offset. Adding integral action eliminates offset by integrating error to drive steady-state error to zero. Step-by-Step Solution: Loop equation shows steady-state error e_ss ≈ disturbance effect / (1 + K_loop).K_loop increases with Kc, so e_ss decreases when Kc increases.Therefore, reducing Kc increases offset; increasing Kc reduces offset (up to stability limits). Verification / Alternative check: Classic control texts derive steady-state error constants showing proportional control yields finite error inversely proportional to gain, while integral control drives error to zero. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Kc increased → offset increases: Opposite of correct relationship. Introducing integral action: Decreases offset to zero, not increase. Introducing derivative action: Affects transient response, not steady-state offset. Common Pitfalls: Increasing Kc excessively can destabilize the loop even though it reduces offset; practical tuning balances offset reduction with stability and noise amplification. Final Answer: Kc is reduced → offset increases

Question 14

Stability margins – interpretation of negative gain margin In frequency-response analysis, a negative gain margin expressed in decibels indicates what about the closed-loop system?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Gain and phase margins quantify how far a feedback system is from instability. They are read from Bode or Nyquist plots and provide robust stability information in the presence of modeling uncertainty or gain variations. Given Data / Assumptions: Gain margin (GM) is defined at the phase crossover frequency (phase = −180 degrees). GM in decibels is 20log10(GM_linear). Negative gain margin means GM_linear < 1. Concept / Approach: If the loop transfer function magnitude at the −180° phase point already exceeds unity, then any additional positive gain is not required to reach instability; in fact, the system would need gain reduction to achieve marginal stability. A negative gain margin therefore implies the current loop is beyond the stability boundary, i.e., unstable (or would be unstable under standard loop closure assumptions). Step-by-Step Solution: At phase crossover (−180°), measure |L(jω_pc)|.If |L| > 1 → GM_linear = 1/|L| < 1 → GM_dB = 20log10(GM_linear) < 0.Negative GM_dB indicates the loop gain must be reduced to reach marginal stability → the current system is unstable. Verification / Alternative check: Nyquist criterion: encirclement of −1 point with |L| > 1 at −180° phase predicts closed-loop instability, consistent with negative gain margin. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Stable/Critically damped: Would require positive gain margin (GM > 1, GM_dB > 0). None of these: Incorrect because negative gain margin has a clear stability implication. Common Pitfalls: Confusing definitions: phase margin is evaluated at gain crossover (|L| = 1), while gain margin is evaluated at phase crossover (−180°). Keep these distinct. Final Answer: Unstable

Question 15

Electroanalytical chemistry application: which of the following quantities can be determined by measuring an electromotive force (EMF) with a suitable reference and indicator electrode setup?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: EMF (electromotive force) measurements underlie potentiometry, one of the most widely used analytical techniques in chemistry and biochemistry. By comparing the potential between an indicator electrode and a reference electrode under near-zero current, we can relate the measured voltage to chemical activities via the Nernst equation. This question checks recognition of the breadth of properties accessible by EMF methods. Given Data / Assumptions: A high-impedance voltmeter measures EMF with negligible current draw (potentiometric condition). Reference electrode potential is stable (e.g., Ag/AgCl, saturated calomel). Indicator electrode is selective to the target species (e.g., glass pH electrode, metal ion-selective electrode). Concept / Approach: The Nernst equation, E = E° − (RT/nF) ln a, links EMF to activity a of the electroactive species. With appropriate electrodes and calibration, EMF thus yields hydrogen ion activity (pH), can track shifts caused by hydrolysis, and can probe equilibria and composition of complex ions through titrations or direct potentiometry. Step-by-Step Solution: For pH: use glass electrode vs. reference; EMF maps to pH via slope ≈ 59.16 mV per pH unit at 25°C.For degree of hydrolysis: measure EMF before/after hydrolysis or during titration to infer equilibrium constants and extent of reaction.For complex ions: follow EMF during complexometric titration (e.g., metal–ligand systems) to determine composition and stability constants. Verification / Alternative check: Calibration with standards (buffer solutions for pH; known complexes for stability constants) validates EMF-derived quantities. Gran plots or Bjerrum methods can be used to verify complex composition from EMF data. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each individual item (pH, hydrolysis, complex composition) is indeed measurable by EMF, so choosing only one would be incomplete. The comprehensive choice is correct. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring junction potentials and temperature; poor ionic strength control alters activities. Always calibrate and, when possible, use ionic strength buffers or activity coefficient corrections. Final Answer: All of (a), (b), and (c)

Question 16

Air pollution monitoring: the smoke density (opacity) of flue gas leaving a chimney is commonly measured using which instrument principle?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Stack emissions compliance often requires a measure of smoke density (opacity), which reflects particulate content affecting light transmission. This is a standard parameter in combustion systems and environmental control engineering. Given Data / Assumptions: Flue gas contains particulate matter that scatters/absorbs light. We seek an on-line, non-invasive method through the stack cross-section. Opacity correlates inversely with light transmittance. Concept / Approach: A photoelectric smoke (opacity) meter transmits a light beam across the stack; a photodetector measures received intensity. The Beer–Lambert-type attenuation due to aerosols gives percent opacity. Thermal conductivity meters measure gas composition (e.g., H2 detection), polarographs measure current–voltage behavior of electroactive species in solution, and chromatographs separate components—not used for direct opacity. Step-by-Step Solution: Install light source and detector across stack path.Measure transmitted light intensity I relative to incident I0.Compute opacity = (1 − I/I0) * 100%.Report smoke density per regulatory standard and calibrate with neutral density filters. Verification / Alternative check: Correlation of opacity with gravimetric particulate sampling (isokinetic sampling) validates instrument readings and supports emission factor calculations. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Thermal conductivity: unrelated to optical scatter/absorption. Polarograph: solution electroanalysis, not flue opacity. Chromatograph: composition analysis, not direct optical density. Common Pitfalls: Window fouling and misalignment cause false opacity changes; regular purge-air systems and auto-zero routines are essential. Final Answer: Photoelectric cell (smoke meter/opacity meter)

Question 17

Control engineering: for a proportional–integral–derivative (PID) controller, which transfer function in the parallel (non-interacting) form is correct (τi = integral/reset time, τD = derivative time)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The PID controller combines proportional, integral, and derivative actions to shape closed-loop dynamics. Its standard parallel-form transfer function is a bedrock concept in process control, robotics, and motion systems. Given Data / Assumptions: We use Laplace-domain representation with zero manual reset bias for simplicity. τi is the integral (reset) time, τD is the derivative time, Kc is proportional gain. Parallel (non-interacting) form is intended. Concept / Approach: A parallel PID controller sums three terms: proportional Kc, integral Kc/τi * 1/s, and derivative KcτD * s. Thus Gc(s) = Kc [ 1 + 1/(τi s) + τD s ]. Other forms (series/ideal or velocity form) are algebraically equivalent but patterned differently. Step-by-Step Solution: Write proportional term: Kc.Write integral term: Kc * (1/τi) * (1/s).Write derivative term: Kc * τD * s.Sum: Gc(s) = Kc * [ 1 + 1/(τis) + τDs ]. Verification / Alternative check: Time-domain controller: u(t) = Kc [ e(t) + (1/τi) ∫ e(t) dt + τD de(t)/dt ]. Laplace transform with zero initial conditions gives the same Gc(s). Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b: integral written as τis (incorrect dimensionally); derivative constant as τD (missing s). Option c: lacks proportional term and misrepresents derivative as 1/(τDs). Option d: represents a lead-lag, not a PID in parallel form. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “reset time” τi with reset rate (1/τi); mixing interacting vs. non-interacting forms; forgetting derivative filtering in practical implementations. Final Answer: Gc(s) = Kc * [ 1 + 1/(τis) + τDs ]

Question 18

Temperature instrumentation: in a vapor-pressure thermometer, which component functions as the secondary element that converts pressure into mechanical motion?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Filled-system thermometers (liquid-in-glass, gas-filled, vapor-pressure) use a primary sensing bulb connected by a capillary to a pressure-responsive element that drives an indicator. Understanding which part is “secondary” helps classify instruments by function. Given Data / Assumptions: Vapor-pressure thermometer uses a volatile fluid in bulb and capillary. Temperature changes vapor pressure in the bulb. Pressure is converted to motion for indication. Concept / Approach: The primary element is the bulb where temperature–pressure conversion occurs. The Bourdon tube (or bellows) is the secondary element: it translates pressure into mechanical displacement. The pointer is an indicating element attached to the linkage, not the secondary transducer itself. Step-by-Step Solution: Temperature rise → vapor pressure increases in bulb.Pressure transmits through capillary to Bourdon tube.Bourdon tube flexes proportionally, driving the pointer via a linkage. Verification / Alternative check: Instrument schematics show bulb (primary), capillary (transmission), Bourdon/bellows (secondary), and pointer/scale (indication) in sequence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Pointer: indicates only; it does not convert energy. Bulb: primary sensor, not secondary element. None of these: incorrect because Bourdon tube is correct. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “secondary” with “indicator.” Secondary elements perform energy conversion (pressure → displacement); indicators simply display. Final Answer: Bourdon tube

Question 19

Gas magnetism: choose the incorrect statement regarding paramagnetism of common gases and its use in analysis.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Paramagnetic oxygen analyzers exploit the magnetic susceptibility of O2 to determine its concentration in gas streams. Differentiating paramagnetic and diamagnetic gases is essential for correct analyzer selection and interpretation. Given Data / Assumptions: Paramagnetism arises from unpaired electrons. O2 (triplet ground state), NO, and NO2 are paramagnetic; many others are diamagnetic. Magnetic susceptibility typically falls with increasing temperature (Curie-type behavior). Concept / Approach: CO2 is diamagnetic (all electrons paired), so calling it the strongest paramagnetic gas is false. Paramagnetic analyzers often measure torque or pressure differences produced by O2 in a non-uniform magnetic field, enabling accurate O2 measurements over wide ranges. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify known paramagnetic gases: O2, NO, NO2.Recall CO2: diamagnetic → weakly repelled by magnetic fields.Apply temperature effect: higher T → reduced susceptibility for paramagnets.Conclude: statement about CO2 being strongly paramagnetic is wrong. Verification / Alternative check: Instrument datasheets for paramagnetic O2 analyzers specify selectivity for O2 over diamagnets like N2 and CO2; cross-sensitivity corrections for NO/NO2 may be noted due to their paramagnetism. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a: correct—those gases are paramagnetic. Option c: correct—susceptibility decreases with temperature. Option d: correct—principle enables paramagnetic analyzers. Common Pitfalls: Assuming “acidic” or “heavy” gases are paramagnetic; magnetism depends on electronic structure, not chemical acidity or density. Final Answer: CO2 is the strongest paramagnetic gas

Question 20

Control systems: for a stable second-order closed loop, which location of closed-loop poles is possible?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Closed-loop stability in linear systems is determined by pole locations in the complex s-plane. For continuous-time systems, stability requires all poles to lie strictly in the left half-plane (negative real parts). Given Data / Assumptions: Second-order system, continuous time. Standard stability notion: bounded-input bounded-output (BIBO) stability. No time delays or non-minimum phase complications considered. Concept / Approach: Poles with negative real parts correspond to decaying exponentials or damped oscillations. Real negative poles yield overdamped responses. Complex conjugate poles with positive real parts cause exponentially growing oscillations, which are unstable. Any pole in the right half-plane (positive real) causes instability. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess each option's pole locations.Both real and negative → left half-plane → stable (overdamped).Complex conjugate with positive real parts → unstable growth.Both real and positive → unstable.Mixed sign (one positive, one negative) → unstable due to RHP pole. Verification / Alternative check: Time-domain response y(t) for real negative poles is sum of decaying exponentials; integral of absolute response converges, meeting BIBO criteria. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any case involving a pole with positive real part violates stability; mixed-sign or positive-real-part conjugates are unstable by definition. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “imaginary axis” marginal cases with stability; true stability requires strictly negative real parts (no repeated poles at the origin or on the jω-axis for strict BIBO stability). Final Answer: Both real and negative

Process Control and Instrumentation Questions