Derivation of kintetic theory equation

  • Thread starter Thread starter leibo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation Theory
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the kinetic theory equation pv=1/3nMwC^2, specifically addressing the assumptions made in common derivations, particularly regarding the average time between collisions of gas molecules.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of assuming that molecules travel without collisions and question the validity of this assumption in the context of the derivation. They discuss the significance of the factor 1/3 in the equation and its relation to the random motion of molecules.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the reasoning behind the factor 1/3 and its connection to the average velocities of molecules in different directions. Some participants have provided insights into the relationship between the number of molecules and their random motion, but a consensus on the rigorous derivation remains elusive.

Contextual Notes

Participants express a desire for more rigorous derivations and accurate explanations regarding the assumptions made in the derivation of the kinetic theory equation.

leibo
Messages
11
Reaction score
1
Hello.

My question is related to the derivation of the equation pv=1/3nMwC^2. Most of the derivations i have seen assume that the average time between colisions, t, is 2l/Vx when l is the length of the cube. When assuming this, you actually assume that each molecule travel from one wall to the other wall without any clashes with other molecules. this is an unlikely assumption, yet those derivations do succeed. my quastion is - why? and where can i find more rigorous derivation?

I am sorry for my poor english...

Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would say that the answer lies in the appearance of the factor 1/3 in the equation.
If you start the analysis by considering only 1 molecule bouncing between 2 opposite walls then you get Force = rate of change of momentum or
Force = change of momentum for each collision x number of collisions per second
F = 2mc x c/2L = (mc^2)/L
In fact the container contains N molecules moving in random directions and this is equivalent to a container with N/3 molecules moving in each of the x,y and z directions.
So the 1/3 in the equation covers the random motion of N molecules.
The molecules also have a range of speeds and therefore the idea of a 'root mean square' speed is used to give a representative 'average' speed.
Very much simplified...hope it helps.
 
thanks, but I am not sure I fully understand you. is the factor 1/3 really comes to "correct" the worng assumption that no clashes are made during the travel from one wall to the other? if so, maybe you know where can I find a rigorous and accurate derivation of this factor and all the equation? as far as I know, the "1/3" is not such a correction factor but it comes from the fact that the average velocity at each one of the 3 axises is equal.
 
Last edited:
I would say that the 1/3 comes from there being a large number of molecules in random motion.
The average velocity is taken car of with the introduction of a 'root mean square' (rms)
Speed
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
12K