Volume problem - Closest packing

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jchem
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Volume
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the packing efficiency of three types of sphere arrangements: hexagonal closest packing, cubic closest packing, and body-centered packing. The user seeks to determine the volume of the box surrounding the spheres, given that both hexagonal and cubic packing configurations contain 13 spheres. A formula for efficiency is provided, where efficiency equals the volume of the spheres divided by the volume of the box. Suggestions include aligning the box with the centers of the spheres and counting whole and fractional spheres within that volume to achieve accurate results. The conversation concludes with the acknowledgment that the cubic configuration is also known as face-centered cubic.
Jchem
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Ok I am trying to show the packing efficiency for 3 different types of packing.

1) Hexagonal closest packing (efficiency = 74%)
2) Cubic closest packing - (efficiency = 74%)
3) Body-centered - (efficiency = 68%)

I know the efficiency values because they are in my textbook and all over the internet. I need to come up with these numbers myself.


efficiency = Volume of the spheres/Volume of a box around the spheres.

the spheres in my model have a radius of 3cm, so volume of the spheres is easy... 4/3(pie)r^3 x (number of spheres)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm trying to figure out a way to find the volume of a box around Hexagonal closest packing and cubic closest packing.

_____________________________________________________________
Hexagonal closest packing: 13 balls in total in 3 layers. (see pictures below)

bottom layer: 3 spheres
middle layer: 7 spheres
top layer 3 spheres

_____________________________________________________________
Cubic closest packing : 13 balls in total in 3 layers

bottom layer: 4 balls
middle layer: 5 balls
top layer: 4 balls
______________________________________________________________


I know that the volume of both must be the same since they each have 13 balls and each have the same packing efficiency.

How do I find the volume of a box around these spheres?



:

I've been trying to figure this out for hours so any help at all is appreciated...and sorry for the length of the question :redface:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can't think of a way to do this from scrath, but if you know the effeciency, you can solve for the volumes. That's kind of cheating though.

\frac{\mbox{Volume of Spheres}}{\mbox{x}} = \mbox{effiency}

Solve for x.

I'm curious to the full answer of this problem as well.
 
Jchem said:
Ok I am trying to show the packing efficiency for 3 different types of packing.

1) Hexagonal closest packing (efficiency = 74%)
2) Cubic closest packing - (efficiency = 74%)
3) Body-centered - (efficiency = 68%)

I know the efficiency values because they are in my textbook and all over the internet. I need to come up with these numbers myself.


efficiency = Volume of the spheres/Volume of a box around the spheres.

the spheres in my model have a radius of 3cm, so volume of the spheres is easy... 4/3(pie)r^3 x (number of spheres)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm trying to figure out a way to find the volume of a box around Hexagonal closest packing and cubic closest packing.

_____________________________________________________________
Hexagonal closest packing: 13 balls in total in 3 layers. (see pictures below)

bottom layer: 3 spheres
middle layer: 7 spheres
top layer 3 spheres

_____________________________________________________________
Cubic closest packing : 13 balls in total in 3 layers

bottom layer: 4 balls
middle layer: 5 balls
top layer: 4 balls
______________________________________________________________


I know that the volume of both must be the same since they each have 13 balls and each have the same packing efficiency.

How do I find the volume of a box around these spheres?



:

I've been trying to figure this out for hours so any help at all is appreciated...and sorry for the length of the question :redface:

In most cases, a box around whole spheres is not the way to look at it. You will probably do better assuming the corners of the volume you select are alighned with the centers of some spheres and then count the number of whole spheres and fractional spheres contained within that volume. Simple cubic can be done either way because there is no interlacing of layers. That is not the case for close-packed configurations.
 
ahh ok, thanks for the quick response ... I was trying to come up with something that would give me a precise answer.. but i guess that's not the most efficient way to solve it. :smile:

So basically, just pick the lines of an imaginary cube, calculate the volume..

Count the amount of spheres/partial spheres within that cube, multiply that by the volume of a sphere.

then doctor up your count to make the efficiency close to 74% :smile:



thanks
 
Jchem said:
ahh ok, thanks for the quick response ... I was trying to come up with something that would give me a precise answer.. but i guess that's not the most efficient way to solve it. :smile:

So basically, just pick the lines of an imaginary cube, calculate the volume..

Count the amount of spheres/partial spheres within that cube, multiply that by the volume of a sphere.

then doctor up your count to make the efficiency close to 74% :smile:



thanks
You won't even have to doctor it up :smile: Your second configuration also goes by the name face-centered-cubic.
 
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