I Why is estimation of ##\frac{Pv}{RT}=1+BP+CP^2+...## interesting?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the equation ##\frac{Pv}{RT}=1+BP+CP^2+...##, which models the behavior of real gases compared to ideal gases. It highlights that for real gases, deviations from ideal behavior can be quantified, with values above 1 indicating larger molar volumes due to intermolecular forces. The formulation is particularly interesting because it allows for the estimation of virial coefficients, which describe these deviations at various pressures and temperatures. The relationship provides a straightforward method to assess how real gases behave under different conditions, especially at higher pressures. Overall, this equation serves as a critical tool in understanding gas behavior beyond the ideal gas law.
zenterix
Messages
774
Reaction score
84
TL;DR Summary
There is a derivation in the book Heat and Thermodynamics by Zemansky and Dittman which links the ideal gas law to an empirical power series equation relating ##Pv## and ##P##. The final equation of the derivation is ##\frac{Pv}{RT}=1+BP+CP^2+...## and there is a table with the estimated virial coefficients for nitrogen gas. I would like to know what makes this particular form of the equation interesting?
Consider ##n## moles of a gas at a constant temperature ##T##.

If we vary pressure ##P## and measure the corresponding values of volume ##V##, we can make a plot of ##P\frac{V}{n}=Pv## against ##P##.

This gives us some graph which has some form. Turns out that for a range of pressure starting at 0 the graph is approximately linear. At higher pressures, it becomes more nonlinear.

We can model this relationship using a power series

$$Pv=A(1+BP+CP^2+...)\tag{1}$$

Empirically, we see that for any such plot (ie, for any gas), the vertical intercept is the same. That is, ##A## is the same in the power series.

We can find what this limiting value is from the ideal gas law. For a constant volume gas, we have

$$T=273.16\text{K} \cdot \lim\limits_{P_{TP}\to 0} \left ( \frac{P}{P_{TP}} \right )\tag{2}$$

$$=273.16\text{K} \frac{\lim\limits_{P_{TP}\to 0} Pv}{\lim\limits_{P_{TP}\to 0} P_{TP}v}\tag{3}$$

and so

$$\lim\limits_{P_{TP}\to 0} Pv = \frac{\lim\limits_{P_{TP}\to 0} P_{TP}v}{273.16\text{K}}\cdot T\tag{4}$$

$$=RT$$

where $R$ is the molar gas constant.

We can also write

$$\lim\limits_{P_{TP}\to 0} PV=nRT\tag{5}$$

which is an equation of state for a gas in a hypothetical limit of low pressure.

Now, let's go back to the idea of modeling the entire relationship between ##Pv## and ##P##.

$$Pv=A(1+BP+CP^2+...)=RT(1+BP+CP^2+...)\tag{6}$$

$$\frac{Pv}{RT}=1+BP+CP^2+...\tag{7}$$

My question is about equation (7). Essentially, why is it interesting in this form?

Consider the following table

1699757379781.png


Here we have estimates for the virial coefficients in (7) for nitrogen gas.

Why is the formulation in (7) interesting?

Here is my attempt to answer this
- If the gas were ideal then we would have ##\frac{Pv}{RT}=1##. That is, ##B=C=D=...=0##.

- But we are dealing with a real gas.

- For a fixed temperature, if the value of ##\frac{Pv}{RT}## is above 1 then I assume this means that the molar volume is larger than expected for an ideal gas. I remember reading something in the past about intermolecular forces. Is this the origin of such a discrepancy at higher pressures?

- Below, I take the values of the table above for three temperatures and plot equation (7).

idealgas.png


Thus, it seems that (7) allows us to gauge deviation from ideal gas behavior in a relatively simple way, namely deviation from 1.
 

Attachments

  • 1699756239465.png
    1699756239465.png
    16.8 KB · Views: 97
Physics news on Phys.org
zenterix said:
TL;DR Summary: There is a derivation in the book Heat and Thermodynamics by Zemansky and Dittman which links the ideal gas law to an empirical power series equation relating ##Pv## and ##P##. The final equation of the derivation is ##\frac{Pv}{RT}=1+BP+CP^2+...## and there is a table with the estimated virial coefficients for nitrogen gas. I would like to know what makes this particular form of the equation interesting?

- For a fixed temperature, if the value of PvRT is above 1 then I assume this means that the molar volume is larger than expected for an ideal gas. I remember reading something in the past about intermolecular forces. Is this the origin of such a discrepancy at higher pressures?
Ideal gas has no molecule volume. Real gas molecules have volume which makes upward tendency in the graph. Some real gas molecules have in general attractive forces between which makes downward tendency.
 
zenterix said:
TL;DR Summary: There is a derivation in the book Heat and Thermodynamics by Zemansky and Dittman which links the ideal gas law to an empirical power series equation relating ##Pv## and ##P##. The final equation of the derivation is ##\frac{Pv}{RT}=1+BP+CP^2+...## and there is a table with the estimated virial coefficients for nitrogen gas. I would like to know what makes this particular form of the equation interesting?

Consider ##n## moles of a gas at a constant temperature ##T##.

If we vary pressure ##P## and measure the corresponding values of volume ##V##, we can make a plot of ##P\frac{V}{n}=Pv## against ##P##.

This gives us some graph which has some form. Turns out that for a range of pressure starting at 0 the graph is approximately linear. At higher pressures, it becomes more nonlinear.

We can model this relationship using a power series

$$Pv=A(1+BP+CP^2+...)\tag{1}$$

Empirically, we see that for any such plot (ie, for any gas), the vertical intercept is the same. That is, ##A## is the same in the power series.

We can find what this limiting value is from the ideal gas law. For a constant volume gas, we have

$$T=273.16\text{K} \cdot \lim\limits_{P_{TP}\to 0} \left ( \frac{P}{P_{TP}} \right )\tag{2}$$

$$=273.16\text{K} \frac{\lim\limits_{P_{TP}\to 0} Pv}{\lim\limits_{P_{TP}\to 0} P_{TP}v}\tag{3}$$

and so

$$\lim\limits_{P_{TP}\to 0} Pv = \frac{\lim\limits_{P_{TP}\to 0} P_{TP}v}{273.16\text{K}}\cdot T\tag{4}$$

$$=RT$$

where $R$ is the molar gas constant.

We can also write

$$\lim\limits_{P_{TP}\to 0} PV=nRT\tag{5}$$

which is an equation of state for a gas in a hypothetical limit of low pressure.

Now, let's go back to the idea of modeling the entire relationship between ##Pv## and ##P##.

$$Pv=A(1+BP+CP^2+...)=RT(1+BP+CP^2+...)\tag{6}$$

$$\frac{Pv}{RT}=1+BP+CP^2+...\tag{7}$$

My question is about equation (7). Essentially, why is it interesting in this form?

Consider the following table

View attachment 335216

Here we have estimates for the virial coefficients in (7) for nitrogen gas.

Why is the formulation in (7) interesting?

Here is my attempt to answer this
- If the gas were ideal then we would have ##\frac{Pv}{RT}=1##. That is, ##B=C=D=...=0##.

- But we are dealing with a real gas.

- For a fixed temperature, if the value of ##\frac{Pv}{RT}## is above 1 then I assume this means that the molar volume is larger than expected for an ideal gas. I remember reading something in the past about intermolecular forces. Is this the origin of such a discrepancy at higher pressures?

- Below, I take the values of the table above for three temperatures and plot equation (7).

View attachment 335217

Thus, it seems that (7) allows us to gauge deviation from ideal gas behavior in a relatively simple way, namely deviation from 1.
Yes. Equation 7 is a relationship for calculating the "compressibility factor" z.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top