What is the Missing Piece in Solving for ρ in this Simple Problem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MadMatSci
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Unknowns
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on solving for the characteristic length, ρ, in the energy equation of a Van der Waals bonded solid. Participants clarify that the condition E = 0.9 E_attr is only valid at the equilibrium spacing of r = 1.5 angstroms. It is emphasized that while there are three unknowns (A, B, and ρ) and two equations, it is unnecessary to find A and B separately; instead, the ratio A/B can be determined. The confusion arises from the assumption that the energy condition must hold for all r, but it is confirmed that it is specifically applicable at r = 1.5 angstroms. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment of the correct approach to solving for ρ using the provided equations.
MadMatSci
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The total energy for a Van der Waals bonded solid is:

E=-\frac{A}{r^6}+B*e^{-\frac{r}{\rho}}

where the 1st and 2nd terms are for attraction and repulsion respectively, A and B are constants, r is the inter-atomic distance, and \rho is the range of interaction (i.e. characteristic length)

Given E=.9*E_{attr.} and Eqm Spacing, r_o= 1.5 angstroms, find \rho in angstroms

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


The first piece of information, E=.9*E_{attr.}, gives me:

E=-\frac{A}{r^6}+B*e^{-\frac{r}{\rho}}=.9*E_{attr.}=.9*(-\frac{A}{r^6})

Rearranging yields:

.1*\frac{A}{r^6}=B*e^{\frac{-r}{\rho}}

The second piece of information leads me to assume that at r=1.5 the derivative of the expression for total energy=0. This gives me the following equation:

6\frac{A}{1.5^7}=\frac{B}{\rho}e^{\frac{-1.5}{\rho}}

From here I am confused. I first tried to solve .1*\frac{A}{r^6}=B*e^{\frac{-r}{\rho}} for A and then substitute that into 6\frac{A}{1.5^7}=\frac{B}{\rho}e^{\frac{-1.5}{\rho}}.
Seeing no way out, I set the r's in the equation for A to 1.5. This led to:

\frac{60}{1.5}B*e^{\frac{-1.5}{\rho}}=\frac{B}{\rho}*e^{\frac{-1.5}{\rho}} which leads to:

\rho=\frac{1.5}{60}=.025

It does not seem valid to just sub in r=1.5. This was a shot in the dark as I am out of ideas.

I spoke to my instructor about this and how I did not see a way to solve for \rho because it looks as though there are 2 equations and 3 unknowns. His response was that this is a simple problem and that I do not need to know the constants A and B. I must be over thinking this. Does anyone see what I am missing?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
MadMatSci said:
I realize that is not correct.
I didn't check the numbers, but the approach is right.
The condition E=0.9 EAttr is satisfied at r0 only.

You have three unknowns for two equations, but it is neither possible nor necessary to find A and B separately. You can find the ratio A/B, as both equations depend on this and ρ only.
 
mfb said:
I didn't check the numbers, but the approach is right.
The condition E=0.9 EAttr is satisfied at r0 only.

You have three unknowns for two equations, but it is neither possible nor necessary to find A and B separately. You can find the ratio A/B, as both equations depend on this and ρ only.

Wow. Thank you. I did not realize that E=.9 EAttr is valid at r0 only. I guess it does make sense though since at equilibrium it is possible to determine what fraction of the total energy is attractive and repulsive. Thanks again!
 
Why do you say that answer is clearly not correct? The method is sound, and I can see no numerical errors.
 
haruspex said:
Why do you say that answer is clearly not correct? The method is sound, and I can see no numerical errors.

I did not think that I could just assume r=1.5. I thought it had to be valid for all r until mfb indicated otherwise.
 
MadMatSci said:
I did not think that I could just assume r=1.5. I thought it had to be valid for all r until mfb indicated otherwise.
The equation in question is valid for all r. In particular, it is valid at r=1.5 A.
 
haruspex said:
The equation in question is valid for all r. In particular, it is valid at r=1.5 A.

Thank you very much for your help!
 
haruspex said:
The equation in question is valid for all r. In particular, it is valid at r=1.5 A.
The equation that says the total energy is 90% of the attractive potential energy? No, that is not correct everywhere.
 
mfb said:
The equation that says the total energy is 90% of the attractive potential energy? No, that is not correct everywhere.
I'm fairly sure MadMatSci was referring to the general equation quoted first off: ##E=−\frac A{r^6}+B∗e^{−rρ}##. The value of 1.5 for r had already been substituted in the 90% equation.
 
Back
Top