Estimating the (average local field)/(Applied field) in water

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on estimating the ratio of the average local field to the applied field in water, specifically addressing the complexities introduced by water's molecular dipole moment. The initial attempt using the Clausius-Mossotti formula yields an incorrect result, prompting a reevaluation of assumptions regarding molecular interactions in a dielectric. Participants suggest utilizing the Langevin (Debye) formula, which incorporates polarization and molecular density, to derive the correct ratio of 6.6. The conversation highlights the challenges of understanding dielectric behavior in polar substances like water, emphasizing the need for a deeper grasp of molecular dynamics. Ultimately, the correct approach combines various equations to accurately estimate the local field effects in polar liquids.
Order
Messages
96
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


At room temperature the relative permittivity (ε) of water is 80. The dipole moment of a water molecule is 6.2×10-30 coulomb meters. What is the average value of Elocal/E for a water molecule? (In working out this problem, neglect the contribution to the relative permittivity from induced dipole moments.)


Homework Equations


\textbf{P}=\varepsilon_0 \chi_E \textbf{E}
\textbf{p}=(\chi_E/N)_{gas} \varepsilon_0 \textbf{E}_{local}
E_{local}/E=(N / \chi_E)_{gas} (\chi_E/N)_{liquid}
where N is the molecular density. Problem with the latter formula is that I don't know \varepsilon_{gas}. I guess there is more reasoning needed than equations.


The Attempt at a Solution


I don't know why you shouldn't be able to use the Clausius-Mossotti formula for this. It gives a very incorrect result, but anyway, here is the reasoning i thought was correct:
Imagine a spherical cavity in the dielectric. Here lies the molecule that is under the influence of the local field. Now there will be negative charges in the direction of the field and positive in the other because of the polarization of the dielectric. The field from these boundary charges creates a field in the same direction as the applied field and the problem is to estimate it.

If anyone wants me to show how this is done I can of course spend an hour in deriving it. But this will not do much good since it yields the wrong answer. The end result (the derivation is correct) is:
E_{local}/E \simeq 1+ \chi_E/3=27.3
But the correct result is 6,6. Completely wrong. What is wrong in my assumptions here? How can I reason about the dipole moment?

The book talks about it: "Even in a liquid, dielectric behaviour is complicated when polar molecules are present, since very large fields are generated by the permanent dipole moment." So why leave it to the student to solve such a difficult problem? Is there something i have missed?

(I Heard, by the way, that this is a special problem. I solved all the other problems in the chapter, but here I don't even know where to start. I have reread the whole chapter and parts of it resulting in better understanding, but still...)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you covered the Langevin (Debye) formula which relates the polarization ##P##, the local field ##E_{local}##, the permanent dipole moment of a molecule, the number of molecules per unit volume, and the temperature? See for example equation 1.9.11 here.

If you combine the Langevin formula with the formula ##P = \epsilon_o \chi_E E## I think you can get the result of 6.6 for the ratio of the local and applied fields.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
TSny said:
Have you covered the Langevin (Debye) formula which relates the polarization ##P##, the local field ##E_{local}##, the permanent dipole moment of a molecule, the number of molecules per unit volume, and the temperature? See for example equation 1.9.11 here.

If you combine the Langevin formula with the formula ##P = \epsilon_o \chi_E E## I think you can get the result of 6.6 for the ratio of the local and applied fields.

Yes, I have covered the orientational polarizability induced by dipoles aligning with the Electric field, but with a simpler derivation than done in your linked presentation. As they hint I let the distortional polarizability be zero and then I get the quotient 6,6.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top