I have attached a photo of a page from a book that I am studying. The author is showing a derivation of E(ave) = kT(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

However, I can't follow this derivation. He says that you need to use integration by substitution and I am OK with that. But when he actually does the substitution it looks wrong. Where there is uv - int vdu , he seems to have left out E in the first term. He also seems to have left out a negative sign. Then the E suddenly pops up again in the second term, int v du and then he says limit e^-E/kT = 0, as E becomes 0. Is that correct? I thought it became 1, or am I completely off the mark? Thanks

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# A dodgy derivation?

Loading...

Similar Threads - dodgy derivation | Date |
---|---|

I Derivative and Parameterisation of a Contour Integral | Feb 7, 2018 |

I Why does this concavity function not work for this polar fun | Jan 26, 2018 |

I Euler Lagrange formula with higher derivatives | Jan 24, 2018 |

I Derivative of infinitesimal value | Jan 15, 2018 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**