The Saha equation (degree of ionization in plasma)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zarude22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Plasma
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the Saha equation and its application in calculating the degree of ionization in plasma. Participants express confusion about the absence of units in the equation's numerical factor, specifically questioning how it can yield a dimensionless ratio. It is clarified that the numerical factor indeed has units, which are derived from fundamental constants like Planck's constant and the mass of the electron. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the units involved in the equation to ensure proper calculations. Overall, the dialogue highlights the complexities of applying the Saha equation correctly.
Zarude22
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
We were asked to calculate the degree of ionization which is described by the Saha equation (below). We were given T=0.3 eV, dominating ion species of O+ with density of 10^11 / m^3 and ionization energy of oxygen of 13.62 eV.
Relevant Equations
The equation was given to us in a form of n_i/n_n=3*10^27*T^(3/2)*n_i^(-1)*e^(-U/T) (some approximations used and constants bunched together)
I tried to understand the equation and plug in the numbers, but I just don't get how that is supposed to give us a ratio (with no units!), when it only has the temperature/energy to the power of 3/2 and that multiplied by m^3. Other units (in the exponent of e) cancel each other out. Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you check to see if the numerical factor of ##3 \times 10^{27}## has units?
 
TSny said:
Did you check to see if the numerical factor of ##3 \times 10^{27}## has units?
Hi! It didnt, which I also thought was kinda of weird, since one of the course books has another constant, 2.4*10^21, with the only difference being KT instead of T in the e^U/T term.
Also in that equation not sure how they are supposed to cancel out.
 
The numerical factor does have units. The Saha equation as given to you must not have indicated the units for the numerical factor. A quick search will show that the numerical factor is expressible in terms of certain fundamental constants such as Planck's constant and the mass of the electron. See here for example. It's a good exercise to show that for the units that you are using, where temperature ##T## is in energy units of eV and length is in meters, the numerical factor has units of (m3 eV3/2)-1.
 
TSny said:
The numerical factor does have units. The Saha equation as given to you must not have indicated the units for the numerical factor. A quick search will show that the numerical factor is expressible in terms of certain fundamental constants such as Planck's constant and the mass of the electron. See here for example. It's a good exercise to show that for the units that you are using, where temperature ##T## is in energy units of eV and length is in meters, the numerical factor has units of (m3 eV3/2)-1.
Yes, I figured it must have OR I have understood the equation and assignment wrong and it's more complex. But if it a simple plug in the value to the equation, then it must have units for it to cancel out. I was just wondering if there was something else that I didn't realize. But thank you!
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top