Computation of the ratio of barometric pressure

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the computation of the ratio of barometric pressure at the top of Custer Peak to that at the bottom of the Homestake gold mine, considering the effects of altitude on pressure. Participants explore the application of the barometric formula under the assumption of ideal gas behavior at a constant temperature.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Mathematical reasoning, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes using the barometric formula $P=P_0 e^{-\frac{m_g h}{kT}}$ to calculate pressures at different altitudes.
  • Another participant suggests expressing the ratio as a simplified formula, leading to $e^{\frac{m_g}{kT}(h_2 - h_1)}$.
  • Some participants calculate the mass of an individual atmospheric molecule and substitute values into the formula, noting the importance of including gravitational acceleration in the exponent.
  • There is a correction regarding the units, emphasizing that the exponent in the formula should be dimensionless and that the mass should be expressed in kilograms.
  • One participant concludes that the final ratio of pressures is approximately 0.8721, indicating that the pressure at Custer Peak is lower than at the Homestake mine.
  • Another participant mentions a different computed ratio of 0.71, suggesting discrepancies in calculations.
  • Participants discuss the implications of the ratio, noting that a value close to 1 suggests similar pressures at both altitudes, while a value close to 0 indicates significant differences in pressure.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct computation of the ratio, with some agreeing on the final value while others present alternative calculations. There is no consensus on a single correct ratio, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact numerical outcome.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the calculations, particularly regarding unit conversions and the inclusion of gravitational acceleration in the barometric formula. The discussion reflects ongoing corrections and refinements of earlier claims.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for those interested in atmospheric physics, barometric pressure calculations, and the application of ideal gas laws in varying altitudes.

WMDhamnekar
MHB
Messages
378
Reaction score
30
Hi,

The Homestake gold mine near Lead,South Dakota is excavated to 8000 feet below the surface. Lead is nearly a mile high; the bottom of the Homestake is about 900 m below sea level. Nearby custer peak is about 2100 m above sea level.

What is the ratio of barometric pressure on the top of the custer peak to the barometric pressure at the bottom of Homestake?
(Assume that the entire atmosphere is at 300 K and that it behaves as a single ideal gas whose molar mass is 29.

How to answer this question? The known barometric formula is $P=P_0 e^{-\frac{m_gh}{kT}}$ where T=temperature, k=Boltzmann's constant, $m_g$=mass of an individual atmospheric molecule.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We can fill in 2100 m respectively -900 m into the formula to find the pressures. And then divide them to find the ratio.

Alternatively, we can first express the ratio as a formula and simplify it, and then evaluate it.
That is, let $h_1=2100\, m$ and $h_2=-900\,m$.
Then the requested ratio is:
$$\frac{P_0 e^{-\frac{m_g h_1}{kT}}}{P_0 e^{-\frac{m_g h_2}{kT}}}=e^{\frac{m_g h_2}{kT} - \frac{m_g h_1}{kT}}=e^{\frac{m_g}{kT}(h_2 - h_1)}$$
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
We can fill in 2100 m respectively -900 m into the formula to find the pressures. And then divide them to find the ratio.

Alternatively, we can first express the ratio as a formula and simplify it, and then evaluate it.
That is, let $h_1=2100\, m$ and $h_2=-900\,m$.
Then the requested ratio is:
$$\frac{P_0 e^{-\frac{m_g h_1}{kT}}}{P_0 e^{-\frac{m_g h_2}{kT}}}=e^{\frac{m_g h_2}{kT} - \frac{m_g h_1}{kT}}=e^{\frac{m_g}{kT}(h_2 - h_1)}$$
Hi,
So, $m_g=\frac{29 g}{6.02214e23mol^{-1}}=4.8155e-23 g, e^{\frac{4.8155e-23 g(900 m-2100 m)}{\frac{1.38065e-23J}{K}300 K}} $= $e^{-0.013951577 s^2/m}$

Now, what is the final ratio? What does this answer mean to the readers?
My other conclusions from the information given in this question are

1) South Dakota is about 1538.4 m above sea level.

2)Custer Peak is about 561.6 m above South Dakota.

Are these conclusions correct?
 
Dhamnekar Winod said:
So, $m_g=\frac{29 g}{6.02214e23mol^{-1}}=4.8155e-23 g, e^{\frac{4.8155e-23 g(900 m-2100 m)}{\frac{1.38065e-23J}{K}300 K}} $= $e^{-0.013951577 s^2/m}$

There is something wrong with the units.
The exponent should be dimensionless.

From wiki, it appears the correct formula is $P=P_0 e^{-\frac{m_g g h}{kT}}$.
That is, with an extra $g= 9.81 \,\text{m/s}^2$ in it. Then the exponent will indeed be dimensionless.

Btw, the unit of the $29\,\text g$ should actually be $29\,\text g\cdot \text{mol}^{-1}$. Consequently, the $\text{mol}^{-1}$ cancels against the one in the denominator as it should.

Now, what is the final ratio? What does this answer mean to the readers?

We should find a ratio that is lower than 1 since the pressure high up is lower than a pressure deep down.
If it is close to 1, then the pressure is more or less that same at all altitudes in this range, and we can breathe normally at both altitudes.
If it is close to 0, then we won't be able to breathe normally at both altitudes. And water will boil at a noticeably different temperature.

My other conclusions from the information given in this question are
1) South Dakota is about 1538.4 m above sea level.
2) Custer Peak is about 561.6 m above South Dakota.
Are these conclusions correct?

Yep. Correct.
 
Last edited:
Klaas van Aarsen said:
There is something wrong with the units.
The exponent should be dimensionless.

From wiki, it appears the correct formula is $P=P_0 e^{-\frac{m_g g h}{kT}}$.
That is, with an extra $g= 9.81 \,\text{m/s}^2$ in it. Then the exponent will indeed be dimensionless.

Btw, the unit of the $29\,\text g$ should actually be $29\,\text g\cdot \text{mol}^{-1}$. Consequently, the $\text{mol}^{-1}$ cancels against the one in the denominator as it should.
We should find a ratio that is lower than 1 since the pressure high up is lower than a pressure deep down.
If it is close to 1, then the pressure is more or less that same at all altitudes in this range, and we can breathe normally at both altitudes.
If it is close to 0, then we won't be able to breathe normally at both altitudes. And water will boil at a noticeably different temperature.
Yep. Correct.
Hi,

Thanks for helping me in finding out the correct ratio of barometric pressure.. I wrongly omitted $g=9.81m/s^2$ in the barometric formula.

I got the answer dimensionless which is 0.8721. That means if there is 1.25 bar barometric pressure at the bottom of Homestake gold mine, then Custer Peak will have 1.09 bar barometric pressure.
 
answerto yahoo2.png


There is a mistake in my computaion of ratio. Correct ratio is as above.
 
Dhamnekar Winod said:
View attachment 10805

There is a mistake in my computaion of ratio. Correct ratio is as above.
The formula with the substitution looks a bit off...
  1. The unit gram ($\text{g}$) should be converted to the SI unit $\text{kg}$ as part of the calculation.
  2. The gravitational acceleration $g=9.81\,\text{m/s}^2$ (not to be confused with the gram unit $\text{g}$) seems to be missing.
Note that I'm using an upright font for the unit gram and an italic font for the quantity of the gravitational acceleration to distinguish them. It's the recommended typography for SI units.

Either way, I also get $0.71$ so it seems that you did do the correct calculation.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
10K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K