Solving the Mystery of "Heavier" Gas Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter rach27
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gas Mass
AI Thread Summary
Hot air rises over cold air due to its lower density, which is a result of higher kinetic energy among the molecules. The discussion clarifies that while air behaves like an ideal gas, this approximation fails under sharp temperature gradients, leading to molecular attraction. The concept of "heavier" air is nuanced, as buoyancy plays a critical role; less dense air experiences greater upward force compared to its weight. Archimedes' principle is highlighted as essential for understanding why less dense air rises. Ultimately, the density of air, despite being a gas, is significant in explaining atmospheric behavior.
rach27
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Ok, so the other day I was chatting with a friend of mine, and this doubt came up...
It is my understanding that hot air rises over cold air in the atmosphere because, being hotter, it is less dense and, hence, lighter.
However, if we consider air as an ideal gas, doesn't that mean that the attraction between the molecules is negligible? If so, we could not really say that a mass of air is 'heavier' than another one, since gravity would pull on each of the molecules individually - as opposed to a solid object, where the molecules pull on each other and we can abstract their weight into a 'center of mass'... Here each molecule is on its own, so how would it matter if a certain portion of air is less dense than another one?

One possibility I imagined, discarding the 'heavier' or 'lighter' explanation, is that hotter air molecules have more kinetic energy so it takes a greater force to pull them down, and that because of this they tend to rise... But it is a guess mostly, and I have heard the 'heavier' gas explanation a lot of times, is there a way that it comes to terms with there being no attraction between the molecules?

Please do say if I have not been clear and I will attempt to rephrase it better.
I hope it is the right section to ask the question, bare with me please since I am new to the forum. Oh, and thanks in advance to anyone stopping by on this one.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rach27 said:
However, if we consider air as an ideal gas...

It's not.

The ideal gas approximation breaks down if there are sharp temperature gradients within the gas, so if you want to see ideal gas behavior, you have to allow the temperature (and kinetic energy - consider just how non-ideal the boundary between a jet engine exhaust and the air around it is) to reach equilibrium first.
 
So in this case, then, there is attraction between the molecules, and that is why we may speak of masses of air?
 
Are you sure you're using term "mass" correctly ?

If so, we could not really say that a mass of air is 'heavier' than another one,
Mass isn't the only measure .
if one mass of air occupies more volume than the other (equal)masses around it, it will be bouyed upward. Look up Archimedes principle.
 
jim hardy said:
Are you sure you're using term "mass" correctly ?

Sorry, here I was using 'mass' as in a given set of air molecules.


jim hardy said:
Look up Archimedes principle.

I think that cleared it up. Somehow it was strange to me that the density of something that is not a solid would have meaning (being that we could just define an arbitrary boundary of volume of which to calculate the density)... But it makes sense now that simply the less dense portions of air get a greater upward force than their weight.

Thank you both!
 
Even liquids have been known to have a density.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top