1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Using the Ideal Gas temperature scale

  1. Jul 7, 2013 #1

    CAF123

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    Below is some values of the observed values of pressure P of a gas in a constant volume gas thermometer at an unknown temperature and at the triple point of water as the mass of the gas used is reduced.

    ##P_{TP}## (torr) | 100 | 200 | 300 | 400
    ##P## (torr) | 127.9 | 256.5 | 385.8 | 516

    Consider ##\lim_{P_{TP} \rightarrow 0} (P/P_{TP})## and then determine T.

    2. Relevant equations

    Ideal Gas scale

    3. The attempt at a solution

    Ideally, I would want to take the pressure at the triple point as close to possible to zero. However, with the given data, I closest I have is PTP = 100 torr, so I will have to extrapolate from the given ratios.

    The 4 ratios calculated were 1.279, 1.2825, 1.286 and 1.29. The answer in the back of the book is precise so I am not really sure how I could precisely extrapolate this data to the origin. I could approximate the data as linear (i.e P proportional to PTP), but this appears to not be what is required.

    Many thanks.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 7, 2013 #2

    Redbelly98

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The data do appear very nearly linear. If you go ahead and calculate a best-fit line to the data, how far off is your answer from the answer given in the book?
     
  4. Jul 7, 2013 #3

    CAF123

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If I average the values I got, P ≈ 1.28PTP. Subbing into P/PTP, cancelling and then multiplying by 273.16 for the ideal scale, this then gives T = 349.64K and the correct answer is 348.35K. So it is close, but I feel given the precision of the answer, what I have done is not the required way.

    Alternatively, using two points and computing the slope and then obtaining the linearisation gives ##P = 1.286P_{TP} - 0.7## which is a better approximation than the above. Then $$\frac{P}{P_{TP}} = \frac{1.286P_{TP} - 0.7}{P_{TP}} = 1.286 - \frac{0.7}{P_{TP}}$$ As I take increasingly smaller values of ##P_{TP}## (tending to zero), this tends to infinity. But this does not make sense.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2013
  5. Jul 8, 2013 #4

    CAF123

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Can anyone help explain the above observation?
     
  6. Jul 8, 2013 #5
    As suggested by Redbelly98, doing a linear fit via least squares is the way.
     
  7. Jul 8, 2013 #6

    CAF123

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thanks voko, the linear fit was ##P = 1.2936P_{TP} - 1.85##, but I am still having the same problem as above. When I put this into ##P/P_{TP}##, I obtain $$1.2936 - \frac{1.85}{P_{TP}}$$As ##P_{TP} \rightarrow 0,\,\,P/P_{TP} \rightarrow \infty##, which means T tends to infinity, which doesn't make sense. Where did I go wrong?
     
  8. Jul 8, 2013 #7
    Make your input variable x = 1, 2, 3, 4, and the measured variable y the corresponding ratios as per #1.
     
  9. Jul 8, 2013 #8

    CAF123

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't think I understand what you mean. Do you mean set the expression ##1.2936 - \frac{1.85}{P_{TP}}## equal to the four ratios that I calculated?
     
  10. Jul 8, 2013 #9
    Let your measured variable be ## y = p/p_{TP} ##. You have ## y_i = \{1.279, \ 1.2825, \ 1.286, \ 1.29\} ##. Let ## x_i = \{1, \ 2, \ 3, \ 4\} ##. Assume ## y = ax + b ##. Find ## a ## and ##b ## via least squares. You only need ## b ## to solve this problem.

    But then you need to be able to explain why that works :)
     
  11. Jul 8, 2013 #10

    CAF123

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I can see that this works and gives the required answer, but I can't really see why you did it. Why was the method I did not work?
    The equation is $$\frac{P}{P_{TP}} = 3.65 \times 10^{-3} x + 1.27525$$ Using the values of ##x_i = \left\{1,2,3,4\right\}## and ##P_{TP_i} = \left\{100,200,300,400\right\},## I obtain the values of pressure in the question. So I can see that it works but I am not sure why it works and the motivation behind it.
     
  12. Jul 8, 2013 #11
    In your method, you were essentially building ##p = a_0 + a_1 p_{PT}##, which you would then use in ## \frac {a_0 + a_1 p_{PT}} {p_{PT}} |_{p_{PT} = 0} ##. This will obviously never work no matter how you build ##a_0 + a_1 p_{PT}##. Besides, we known that physically ## p ## must go to zero, which it does not in this approximation. We could instead build ##p = A_1 p_{PT} + A_2 p_{PT}^2 ##, then ## \frac {A_1 p_{PT}+ A_2 p_{PT}^2} {p_{PT}} |_{p_{PT} = 0} = A_1 ##, which is OK. But then we could use just take ##p/p_{PT} = A_1 + A_2 p_{PT} = ax + b ##, where ## p_{PT} = cx ##.

    Perhaps more intuitively, and it is hinted in the problem, ##p/p_{PT}## is well behaved as the mass approaches zero, plus it is what we really need, so it makes sense to approximate that directly.
     
  13. Jul 8, 2013 #12

    CAF123

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Okay, so my method does not work because the end result does not conform with what we expect physically.

    So ##x = p_{TP}/c##, where ##a = cA_2 ## and you arbitrarily chose c such that when you divide each of the given triple points by c, you get 1,2,3 and 4?

    Really nice method

    Forgetting what the answer is supposed to be, in my first attempt taking p ≈ 1.28pTP, in the end when I evaluate p/pTP, I obviously do get some constant ##A_1## (namely 1.28). This gave quite a close result. Is there anything fundamentally incorrect here or does it suffice as a naive approximation?

    Thanks.
     
  14. Jul 9, 2013 #13
    In fact, there could be any sort of linear dependency between ##x## and ## p_{TP} ##. This reflects the fact that units are ultimately arbitrary.

    I would not talk about anything fundamentally incorrect, but it does ignore the obvious trend in the data.
     
  15. Jul 9, 2013 #14

    CAF123

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes, I see that the scaling of x can be arbritary.

    For example, by taking y = P/PTP and ##x_i = \left\{100,200,300,400\right\}## (i.e c = 1), I obtain the same result (for b in y = ax + b).

    Is there an underlying reason why finding p = ... and then subbing into p/pTP gives non-physical results?
     
  16. Jul 9, 2013 #15
    The question assumes that finding ##p## as a function of ##p_{TP}## would always produce something incorrect. That is not so. As shown in an earlier post, you can find such a dependency, but it must have ## p = 0 ## when ## p_{TP} = 0 ##.
     
  17. Jul 9, 2013 #16

    CAF123

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I see. Why is it that we must have ##p = 0## at ##p_{TP} = 0##? In my book it shows that as ##P_{TP} \rightarrow 0##, all gases converge to a limiting value (373.15K) when concerning the steam point of water, but the external pressure is 1 atm ≠ 0?
     
  18. Jul 9, 2013 #17
    Recall that the ideal gas scale works by assuming the ideal gas law becomes an increasingly better approximation of a real gas as pressure approaches zero.

    Perhaps I misunderstand you, but what does the "external pressure" have to do with the ideal has scale?
     
  19. Jul 9, 2013 #18

    CAF123

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Okay, this is expressed mathematically in my book as $$T = 273.16 \times \lim_{P_{TP} \rightarrow 0} \frac{P}{P_{TP}} K$$ Why is it they have defined T in terms of ##P_{TP}## going to zero and not ##P## going to zero (other than the fact that as the triple point goes to zero, all gases agree on a particular temperature)? (i.e you mention above about the pressure going to zero rather than the pressure at the triple point going to zero)

    Actually, it is external pressure so indeed has nothing to do with the ideal gas scale.
     
  20. Jul 9, 2013 #19
    Hello CAF. Try plotting a graph of P/Ptp against P and extrapolate to P=0. Using the same axes plot P/Ptp against Ptp and and extrapolate to Ptp=0. By doing this you might get a clearer picture of the procedure.
     
  21. Jul 9, 2013 #20
    For that to be a finite limit, ##P## must necessarily go to zero.

    Either one would be fine. The procedure is that the pressure is measured at two temperatures, then some gas is removed, and the process repeated. That makes pressure decrease no matter what temperature.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Using the Ideal Gas temperature scale
Loading...