Time of Impact of Gas Molecules on the Inner Wall of a Pressure Vessel

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between gas molecule collisions and pressure exerted on the walls of a pressure vessel. It highlights the confusion regarding the time of impact versus the time between successive collisions, emphasizing that the time of impact is crucial for understanding momentum change and pressure. A hypothetical scenario is presented where molecules collide once with the wall, generating a pressure pulse, but this does not reflect steady-state pressure conditions. The conversation also points out that steady-state pressure is derived from the average effects of numerous collisions over time. Ultimately, understanding the average frequency and nature of these collisions is essential for accurate pressure calculations.
Zahid Iftikhar
Messages
121
Reaction score
24
In derivation of relation for pressure of Gas ,(see pic below) the time for rate of change of momentum of molecules should be the time for which the wall of the vessel and the molecules kept interacting with each other, not the time between successive collisions. As circumscribed below, my confusion is how the time between two such collisions can be equal to the time of impact between the wall and the molecules. The time of impact has actually caused the change of momentum, thereby causing the pressure. I further argue, that let us suppose there are 100 or so molecules colliding just once on the wall, bounce back, and then never return (just assume), during this one-time collision, pressure has been exerted on the wall of the vessel. In this case, there is no time between successive collisions involved. I would be obliged if learned people on this forum help me to understand. High regards
Zahid
1622899741635.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Zahid Iftikhar said:
I further argue, that let us suppose there are 100 or so molecules colliding just once on the wall, bounce back, and then never return (just assume), during this one-time collision, pressure has been exerted on the wall of the vessel.

In that case you would get a force exerted on the wall, and of course you could divide that force by the wall's area and get a pressure. But it would be a pressure pulse, and would last for a very short time. In that case, your reasoning is correct.

But if you go back and carefully read the derivation of the expression for the pressure of a gas in a box, you should see it stated that we are interested in a steady state pressure. There is a huge number of molecules colliding with the wall, and we are interested in the average pressure exerted on the wall due to the collisions. In this case we are interested in how often they collide and the number of such collisions.

There's a chapter-end problem in some textbooks where machine gun bullets are fired at Superman's chest. It's the same situation as above. To get the average force exerted on Superman we look at the frequency of collisions and the number and nature of the collisions.
 
Last edited:
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