Degrees of freedom and RMS-speed of CO2?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the root mean square (RMS) speed of gas particles and their degrees of freedom. The RMS speed formula for monatomic gases is v_{rms}=sqrt{3k_{b}T/m}, reflecting three translational degrees of freedom. For diatomic gases, the kinetic energy includes additional rotational degrees of freedom, leading to a different RMS speed calculation. Carbon dioxide, with five degrees of freedom (three translational and two rotational), results in a calculated RMS speed of approximately 530 m/s at room temperature. The conversation highlights the distinction between translational speed and total kinetic energy, clarifying that not all degrees of freedom contribute to the RMS speed.
Thymo
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Are the RMS-speed of gas particles related to degrees of freedom?

I give up! I must consult help no matter how embarrassing it is!
Any help is greeted with a big smile! :smile:

Does the formula for root mean square speed of particles in a gas (below) apply for all particles?

v_{rms}=sqrt{frac{3k_{b}T}{m}}

I understand that it's derived from the kinetic energy of monatomic gases:

1) E_{k}=\frac{3}{2}k_{b}T

2) \frac{1}{2}mv_{rms}^2=\frac{3}{2}k_{b}T

3) v_{rms}=\sqrt{\frac{3k_{b}T}{m}}

However, the formula of the kinetic energy of diatomic gases is (from Cappelen's "Rom Stoff Tid: Fysikk 1"):
E_{k}=\frac{5}{2}k_{b}T

Thus the RMS speed must be:

v_{rms}=\sqrt{\frac{5k_{b}T}{m}}

No?

Monatomic particles have three translational degrees of freedom, diatomic particles have three translational and two rotational (as they are linear and the rotation around the axis that pierces both particles are "freezed out"), oui?
Is this what is reflected in their formulas for kinetic energy?

The research and lack of sleep resulted in this conclusion:

v_{rms}=\sqrt{\frac{D_{f}k_{b}T}{m}}

Where D_{f} stand for degrees of freedom

So the RMS speed for carbon dioxide in 23\circC must be:
v_{rms}=\sqrt{\frac{5 \times\ 1.38\ \times\ 10^{-23} \ J \ K^{-1} \times\ 296K}{44 \times\ 1.66 \times\ 10^{-27} \ kg}}

5 degrees of freedom comprising three translational, two rotational (linear molecule) and 0 vibrational as they are negliguble at room temperature.

v_{rms}=530\frac{m}{s}=1900\frac{km}{h}

Now, I will be very happy for any feedback (link to a site or anything) on whether my reasoning or calculation is correct or wrong.

~~~~ Thymo :smile:

PS: This is not homework, I'm in first grade physics.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, thanks a lot!

I posted the same question in norwegian at a Norwegian site, Realisten.com, and got two replies before this garbagee could produce ONE!

Hehe...

Anyways, I'm here to update about what I know now.

The speed of particles are always given by:
v_{rms}=\sqrt{\frac{3k_{b}T}{m}}

The "3" on the right side reflects the three translational degrees of freedom. It does not reflect the total degrees of freedom because speed is translational movement. The kinetic energy in the form of vibrational and rotational does not result in speed.

I still have a slight puzzle though.
If:
E_{k}=\frac{5}{2}k_{b}T
For CO2 particles.

Doesn't that imply that:
\frac{1}{2}mv^2=\frac{5}{2}k_{b}T
too?

But if we solve for v, we get:
v=\sqrt{\frac{5k_{b}T}{m}}

Which is wrong. So, is the E_{k} for CO2 different from the normal formula for E_{k}?

Any help is much appriciated! :smile:
 
Norway must be some country.

Your formula with the 5/2 is giving you the kinetic plus the rotational. I think you know that. The formula with the 3/2 will give you the "center-of-mass" kinetic energy, not counting anything else the molecule is doing.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top