What is the equilibrium distance between atoms in a two-atom molecule?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on determining the equilibrium distance between atoms in a two-atom molecule using the potential energy model U(r)=U0[(r0/r)13-(r0/r)9]. A participant attempted to find the equilibrium distance by setting U(r) to zero but incorrectly concluded that it equals r0. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between potential energy and force, noting that stable equilibrium occurs when the force F(r) equals zero. Participants emphasize that to confirm stable equilibrium, one must also consider the second derivative of potential energy. The thread ultimately guides users toward correctly applying the principles of potential energy and force to find the equilibrium distance.
getty102
Messages
38
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



One model for the potential energy of a two-atom molecule, where the atoms are separated by a distance r, is U(r)=U0[(r0/r)13-(r0/r)9] where r0=0.85nm and U0=6.2eV. What is the distance between the atoms when the molecule is in stable equilibrium?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I set U(r)=0 b/k it's stable equilibrium and solved for r which gave me r0 which is incorrect. Any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hi getty102! :smile:
getty102 said:
U(r)=U0[(r0/r)13-(r0/r)9]

I set U(r)=0 b/k it's stable equilibrium and solved for r which gave me r0 which is incorrect. Any ideas?

the zero of potential energy is arbitrary

in this case, it has been deliberately set to 0 at r = ro

what is the connection between potential energy and force?
 
F(req) = -[U0'[(ro/req)13-(r0/req)9][((-13r013)/req14)+(9r09)/req10] ?
 
(just got up :zzz:)
getty102 said:
F(req) = -[U0'[(ro/req)13-(r0/req)9][((-13r013)/req14)+(9r09)/req10] ?

yes, except Uo is a constant, and your Uo' should just be Uo :wink:

and now what is the connection between force and equilibrium? :smile:

(btw, we don't usually write "eq" until the last line of the proof, it's too confusing)
 
When F(r) = 0, stable equilibrium?
 
getty102 said:
When F(r) = 0, stable equilibrium?

well, equilibrium of some sort (whether it's stable is another question) :smile:

so you're looking for U' = 0, and for U'' … … ? :wink:
 
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