Kinetic Pressure: Explanation and Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kenny Lee
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kinetic Pressure
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of average force exerted by molecules colliding with a wall, questioning the use of round trip time versus collision time. It highlights that the average force is derived from impulse divided by the total time, which includes periods of zero force during travel. Participants suggest that considering a longer duration, like two round trips, could yield different results. The validity of the information from the referenced site and textbooks is acknowledged, but the focus remains on the nuances of the average force calculation. The conversation seeks clarity on the implications of time measurement in kinetic pressure calculations.
Kenny Lee
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
Please visit this site for me. I'm having a little trouble with the explanation.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kinthe.html#c3
Note however that you can find a similar explanation in all textbooks, so I'm in no way questioning the validity of the information.

The average force that the wall exerts on the molecule is impulse/ time (N's second law). But the time they have made use of, is the time for a 'round trip'. Shouldn't it be the time taken for the collision?
Thans
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Kenny Lee said:
Please visit this site for me. I'm having a little trouble with the explanation.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kinthe.html#c3
Note however that you can find a similar explanation in all textbooks, so I'm in no way questioning the validity of the information.
The average force that the wall exerts on the molecule is impulse/ time (N's second law). But the time they have made use of, is the time for a 'round trip'. Shouldn't it be the time taken for the collision?
Thans
This is an "average" calculation, assuming there are enough molecules that some are striking the wall at any given time. In terms of individual molecules, the force that one molecule contributes is, say, F during the collision, 0 while it is making the trip to the other wall and back. It's average contribution is the impulse divide by the time of the entire trip. You can, if you like, think of it as "total force"- the actual force times the duration of the collision plus 0 times the duration of the trip- divided by the total time.
 
But couldn't we then make use of the 'average' over a longer period; let's say two 'round trips'. In which case, we would obtain a duration of 4d/v. And a different final result.
Or have I misunderstood?
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...
Back
Top