The Ideal Gas Law: A Theoretical Derivation
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2025
- This video provides a theoretical derivation of the ideal gas law.
Some of the assumptions made in the model are as follows:
1. The gas molecules are small point masses
2. Collisions between molecules and walls are perfectly elastic
3. The distance between molecules is, on average, much larger than the size of the molecules
4. The molecules have no preferred direction of motion and are moving randomly
5. Newton's Laws apply
6. There is no interaction between molecules except for their collisions (no repulsion or attraction)
Thanks so much! This was probably the clearest explanation I've seen!
Love from Pakistan ..great job sir
It is so amazing to see you redrew cube diagram many times to make it appear on new papers!
great video man, really a shame you don't have more support
I don’t understand why people give a thousand likes on videos that are useless but care less when it comes to important useful stuff
Good job! This is clear and straightforward. Thanks a bunch! Your gift to the world of physics and chemistry learning is appreciated.
Very well explained. Please make videos on thermodynamics II
Great Video! Clearly explained, if you're not a teacher, you should be!
It is a superb explanation, perfectly paced.
Great video 👍👍my all confusions are gone ☺☺😊Thank you so much 😊😊
Best way of explanation I've seen on this one.
Well done
👏🏻 bravo, that was fantastic, such a clear explanation
Omg, Thank you, trying to find a good explanation for long time!
Extraordinary making.....sir. we are awaiting your subjective presentation or explanation sir. Thank you so much sir. Really cool and in-depth working sir..
Thank you sir ♡ i will always be grateful to you ♡ oh god he saved me
Awesome! So clear.
nice explanation :)
@ 4:34 The total force on ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE BOX, assuming there are N particles pushing on that side, at the same time. What about the other sides? Don't they feel any pressure? In my opinion, the pressure in a box is equally spread throughout the box. @ 6:28 Only 1/3N is hitting one side of the box.
At 5:45 shouldn't the v^2 have a line above it, signifying it is the average of v^2?
Yes Youssef, you are correct. It is the average, (i.e. the sum of the averages), of the square of the velocity in each of the three directions (dimensions) x, y and z.
Thank you very much Sir.
acc to definition,delta t stands for the time to change the momentum,so why dont we take the impact time ? pls explain.
Same question. Have you found the answer?
Very clear video thank you. Put can you explain why you assumed the collision is completely elastic ?
In physics every collision is actually elastic. Inelastic collisions are simply classical mechanics' way of approximating collisions of large, macroscopic bodies. In this model, the bodies colliding are particles or molecules. Every collision is elastic. No exceptions.
5:00 why this volume is a cube?
Thanks!
Question, How come we use delta P = 2 mVx , and the V here is for velocity then you used v= x/t where V here stands for speed not velocity and took its valuue to plug it in the delta P = 2 mvx . explanation please?
deltaP=2mVx and V=deltaD/deltaT where v is still velocity, D is distance, and T is time. Velocity is a vector and has a direction where as speed does not. Speed is distance divided by time where velocity is change in distance over change in time.
he later used the 3 dimensional model assuming the particle velocity to be the same in all directions. Knowing the actual velocity of every particle is impossible but that is why we have averages
In college you all will understand (hopefully) that this calculation just is NOT RIGHT.
Why is it not right?
It’s not a calculation, it is a derivation. And it is not right, and it is not wrong. This derivation is used as (represents) a scientific model for the kinetic theory of gases. And is very useful to help understand the basic principles of gas dynamics, and the relationship between the macroscopic and microscopic properties of matter (at least in chemistry, anyway). Bet you’re a physicist. 🥸
@@sneakypress Good bet ;-)