Forces of attraction and repulsion of gas molecules in a Stirling engine.

[Tom Booth]

Here is a more realistic modeling of gas behavior incorporating the Lennard-Jones potential.

ezgif.com-optimize.gif (143.72 KiB) Viewed 875 times

https://youtu.be/MGTzTvG_OZw

More realistic that is, than modeling using the kinetic theory / ideal gas law that shows the molecules zipping around in straight lines with no interactions due to attraction and repulsion forces.

[Fool]

.

Wow! They never get close enough for the repulsion to kick in???

Kinetic theory allows for the explanation of three different phases. Solid, liquid and gas.

Two have very close attachments moving in and out in a vibration or orbit. Those two have very similar density.

The third phase has over a
Several orders of magnitude, of greater volume, or lower density.

The model you've provided fall is apart at that one fact.

Not to mention a bluff body going through the gas with included, lift, drag, vortex shedding, boundary layer laminar then turbulent flow.

.

[Fool]

.

Harshwardhan Chaturvedi is associated with Virginia Tech. Blacksburg. My Dad taught there back in the late 1950's.

Tom, you must have searched the Internet for hours looking for a model you could cherry pick.

Googled, the following came up:

Second:

https://www.falstad.com/gas/


Third:

https://ch301.cm.utexas.edu/simulations/js/idealgaslaw/


Fourth:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SFf3pcE08NM

Shall I continue?

The first one didn't run for me. Will try later.

.

[Tom Booth]

....

Tom, you must have searched the Internet for hours looking for a model you could cherry pick.

Googled, the following came up:

https://www.falstad.com/gas/
...
.

Your reference states:

"This java applet is a simulation that demonstrates the kinetic theory of gases."

That's "kinetic theory" not the more realistic Lennard-Jones modeling.

As I stated, the kinetic theory model is misleading, or just plain wrong.

I'm not "cherry picking", you apparently just did not Google "Lennard-Jones" simulation specifically.

Unfortunately 99% of the simulations on the internet are based on the simplified, "ideal", unrealistic and misleading kinetic theory intended to keep things simple for elementary or middle school students.

So yes, you may need to do a little digging to find the truth, or more advanced, more accurate more realistic modeling examples.

[Fool]

.

Kinetic theory is more accurate at lower density with higher temperatures. In other words, in the ideal gas ranges. Most modeling using the Lennard-Jones Potential cut it off above a radius of 2 times the molecular size, or there about.

Lennard-Jones Potential is about potential energy. Kinetic theory is about kinetic energy. The two trade off as the molecules get closer. If kinetic energy is greater than potential energy, the two molecules 'bounce'. They head away from each other at greater than their mutual escape velocity. The kinetic model works best for the higher energies especially if modified with size and the Lennard-Jones Potential. When gas expands beyond ten times it's liquid volume, or there about. That density is hundreds of times lower than it's liquid density. Well out and beyond the Lennard-Jones Potential action.

The Lennard-Jones Potential is only valid for liquids, solids, and substances near boiling temperatures pressures, high densities.

The reason there are a great deal more kinetic models available, is because they are more useful for typical situations. If not, phase diagrams and steam tables are used, which are more accurate and complete than both those theories put together. Phase diagrams and steam tables came out long before either of those theories. They are the standard to which all theories are tested.

.

[Fool]

.

Beware, digging gets you into the cherry picking, and straw grabbing, territory very quickly. Learn to know the full logic. Not some misunderstood inapplicable point that you erroneously want to be a certain way.

.

[Tom Booth]

.

Kinetic theory is more accurate at lower density with higher temperatures. In other words, in the ideal gas ranges. Most modeling using the Lennard-Jones Potential cut it off above a radius of 2 times the molecular size, or there about.

Lennard-Jones Potential is about potential energy. Kinetic theory is about kinetic energy. The two trade off as the molecules get closer. If kinetic energy is greater than potential energy, the two molecules 'bounce'. They head away from each other at greater than their mutual escape velocity. The kinetic model works best for the higher energies especially if modified with size and the Lennard-Jones Potential. When gas expands beyond ten times it's liquid volume, or there about. That density is hundreds of times lower than it's liquid density. Well out and beyond the Lennard-Jones Potential action.

The Lennard-Jones Potential is only valid for liquids, solids, and substances near boiling temperatures pressures, high densities.

The reason there are a great deal more kinetic models available, is because they are more useful for typical situations. If not, phase diagrams and steam tables are used, which are more accurate and complete than both those theories put together. Phase diagrams and steam tables came out long before either of those theories. They are the standard to which all theories are tested.

.

Your full of shit

[Fool]

.

Go learn something Tommy. Its obvious from your vulgar responses, you're out of your league here.

Gasses always push, never pull. Heat spontaneously travels from hotter to colder. Energy is conserved. There is no free lunch. Cyclic processes require work and back work. Work from expansion, requires back work into compression. Heat in requires, if correctly done, less heat out, accompanied by some work out.

https://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/ ... hey%20form.

Gases have three characteristic properties: (1) they are easy to compress, (2) they expand to fill their containers, and (3) they occupy far more space than the liquids or solids from which they form.

Learning is easy if you try. But not as easy as self misdirection on the fly. Avoid what you often seek, on the sly. Learn and you will understand why. Dig and cherry pick, and you will lie.

It seems I should end this with the word die...

Lie or die, one is a choice...

.

[Tom Booth]

....

Gasses always push, never pull.

LOL, still the broken record.

Heat spontaneously travels from hotter to colder.

There's nothing "spontaneous" about a heat pump.

Energy is conserved.

True. Nice to see you admit it, finally.

There is no free lunch.

Not true.I've gotten a free lunch on occasion.

Cyclic processes require work and back work. Work from expansion, requires back work into compression. Heat in requires, if correctly done, less heat out, accompanied by some work out.

chemed.chem.purdue.edu/...#:~:text=The%20Properties%20of%20Gases&text=Gases%20have%20three%20characteristic%20properties,solids%20from%20which%20they%20form.

Gosh, did you code all that highlighting into the URL yourself?

No?

So you can use Google. I suppose you think that makes you an authority on everything.

Gases have three characteristic properties: (1) they are easy to compress, (2) they expand to fill their containers, and (3) they occupy far more space than the liquids or solids from which they form.

Learning is easy if you try. But not as easy as self misdirection on the fly. Avoid what you often seek, on the sly. Learn and you will understand why. Dig and cherry pick, and you will lie.

It seems I should end this with the word die...


Lie or die, one is a choice...

A bad liar AND a bad poet!

[Tom Booth]

.

...you're out of your league here.

Gasses always push, never pull.
....

Right, that's why you think a Lennard Jones potential energy well has no kinetic energy and represents absolute zero. Then double and triple down on your obvious stupidity and try to pretend you are some kind of seasoned expert on the subject. LOL

[Tom Booth]

What you don't seem to understand "fool" with your cursory Googling of Lennard Jones potential is conservation of energy. As usual, a concept you don't seem to grasp or comprehend AT ALL. Your a total moron, habitually misunderstand EVERYTHING, draw insane, erroneous conclusions then arrogantly manufacture "facts" out of thin air that have no correspondence to reality in any way, shape or form.

The simulation graph with the potential energy well or dip or U shaped curve represents what it says: POTENTIAL energy.

Energy is conserved.

Kinetic energy does not exist at absolute zero.

When potential energy bottoms out on the graph what do you think happens with kinetic energy?

You think it goes to zero? You think you are looking at absolute zero at the bottom of the potential energy well? When potential energy is at a minimum?

You have it completely backwards, but are so idiotic on top of your self assuming arrogance you think the rest of the world has it all wrong.

You get on your high horse declaring that I don't know what I'm looking at, when it is laughably obvious you have no idea what you're looking at.

Think of a pendulum.

At the extreme right and left of the pendulum swing kinetic energy turns into potential energy.

In the middle of the swing potential energy turns back into kinetic energy. When potential energy is low, at the lowest part of the curve, that means kinetic energy is high, basically a mirror image.

At the bottom of a pendulum swing potential energy is at a minimum, that does not mean there is no kinetic energy (absolute zero) just the opposite.

Why am I bothering to try to explain any of this to a complete moron, I might as well go outside and try explaining it to to a pile of dog shit. That actually might be more productive. Dog shit has more brains than you do."fool".

Your just like dog shit. You stink.

You are on this forum like dog shit stuck to my shoe. I have to try and scrape you off my boot.

[Tom Booth]

If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis that all things are made of atoms — little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.

----- Richard Feynman

[Fool]

..

You are on this forum like dog shit stuck to my shoe. I have to try and scrape you off my boot.

Your unacceptable immature actions seem to place squarely on your tounge.

.

[Tom Booth]

..

You are on this forum like dog shit stuck to my shoe. I have to try and scrape you off my boot.

Your unacceptable immature actions seem to place squarely on your tounge.

.

You're a disgusting, smelly troll, filling thread after thread with your festering stinking trash posts, ruining this forum more than the deluge of useless spam.

At least the spam is recognizable as such, you try to pass yourself off as an authority making your judgements and criticisms of others, who actually have a brain.

Your posts here are nothing but lies and irrational nonsense. You're an ignoramus under the delusion of being an infallible genius. An idea vampire. Not having any original ideas of your own you feed on others with attacks and ridicule disguised as supposed "help" to what you seem to imagine are your misguided "students".

You're deranged.

[Fool]

.

Immature.

.