Re: Derivation of Collision Rate
mathimagical_at_netscape.net
Date: 03/19/05
- Next message: OsherD: "Re: TOE Via Cantor's Transfinite Arithmetic"
- Previous message: Sam Wormley: "Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem!"
- In reply to: Repeating Rifle: "Re: Derivation of Collision Rate"
- Next in thread: David Cross: "Re: Derivation of Collision Rate"
- Reply: David Cross: "Re: Derivation of Collision Rate"
- Reply: Repeating Rifle: "Re: Derivation of Collision Rate"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 19 Mar 2005 11:41:03 -0800
Thank you for your reply.
Just to be clear on the details, I am not thinking of the particles as
point masses and I am considering them to be hard sphere particles with
no potential of interaction. I am more interested in the derivation of
the collision frequencies etc. One of the reasons I am interested in a
good rigorous derivation is because I know for a fact that the typical
"cylinder" derivation you learn in P Chem 1 is not really correct : it
assumes that in the cylinder the particle traces out, the other
particles are stationary, which is obviously not true. Since I am not
sure if there are other such assumptions I would need to question, I
want to see the complete derivation.
Sincerely,
Matthew T. Brenneman
The Jeans suggestion is good: I'lll check it out.
- Next message: OsherD: "Re: TOE Via Cantor's Transfinite Arithmetic"
- Previous message: Sam Wormley: "Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem!"
- In reply to: Repeating Rifle: "Re: Derivation of Collision Rate"
- Next in thread: David Cross: "Re: Derivation of Collision Rate"
- Reply: David Cross: "Re: Derivation of Collision Rate"
- Reply: Repeating Rifle: "Re: Derivation of Collision Rate"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|