Pressure At Surface And Scale Height

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the scale height (λ) of a planet's atmosphere using pressure measurements at different altitudes. The user attempts to rearrange the pressure equation but encounters a problem when λ cancels out during the logarithmic transformation. A participant points out an error in the logarithmic manipulation, suggesting a correction to the equation. The user seeks clarification on whether the mistake is minor or if a complete reevaluation is necessary. The conversation emphasizes the importance of careful mathematical handling in atmospheric pressure calculations.
bobbles22
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Please can someone tell me if my thinking here is right...

I've got a planet with an atmospheric pressure at 6km of 0.5 P0 and at 8km of 0.4 P0 (P0 = pressure at the surface).

I want to work out the scale height of the atmosphere.

Given scale height = λ

and for height above surface = z

P(z)=P(0)e(-z/λ)

I could rearrange to show the pressure at the surface as:

P(0)=P(z)/e(-z/λ)

I could then use the relative pressure, assume P(0)=1 (as it will cancel out shortly) and height from each of the know quantities and set them equal to each other like this:

0.4/e(-8000/λ) = 0.5/e(-6000/λ)

A little mutliplication...

0.4 e(-6000/λ) = 0.5 e(-8000/λ)

Take the Log of both sides...

(-6000/λ) log 0.4 = (-8000/λ) log 0.5

But know I'm left with the λ cancelling out if I multiply both sides by λ. I'm sure I've gone wrong here somewhere. Probably something very simple. Can anyone advise? Have I made a simple mistake in my working or have I gone completely off the reservation and need to start again? I just need to end up with λ = xxx metres.

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hi bobbles22! :smile:
bobbles22 said:
0.4 e(-6000/λ) = 0.5 e(-8000/λ)

Take the Log of both sides...

(-6000/λ) log 0.4 = (-8000/λ) log 0.5

nooo :wink:

(-6000/λ) + log 0.4 = (-8000/λ) + log 0.5 :smile:
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top