10-23-2003, 06:03 PM | #1 (permalink) |
Crazy
|
chemistry guys
just wondering:
say you had a flask with some liquid in it, and you capped the flask but let a small opening. then if you heated the flask, allowed the liquid to boil and evaporate out of the flask, and then capped the flask and allowed it to cool, you almost create a vaccuum (assuming the glass was strong enough not to collapse in on itself) correct? my question here is, would it be possible to create a complete vaccuum inside of the sealed flask, and if you did, what would the temperature be inside?
__________________
cough |
10-23-2003, 06:28 PM | #2 (permalink) |
Upright
|
iirc:
from the heating, capping, and cooling, you do create lower air pressure. in addition, as long as your flask doesn't have any serious flaws, it can easily withstand a vacuum. now - you could create a very close approximation to a vacuum by using a vacuum pump to remove nearly all of the air. since temperature is really the measure of the state of excitement of atoms, since there aren't any atoms to measure i think the temperature would be considered absolute zero. however, it has been awhile since i took chemistry, so i may be wrong....
__________________
Truth is independant of Belief. |
10-23-2003, 07:40 PM | #3 (permalink) |
Psycho
Location: PA
|
There are no perfect vacua. Your hole would allow air in as well as vapor out. You actually couldn't get it below atmospheric pressure this way. Putting in hot air at atmospheric pressure, and then capping and cooling would give you low pressure, but it isn't very good compared to a vacuum pump.
|
10-23-2003, 08:32 PM | #4 (permalink) |
The sky calls to us ...
Super Moderator
Location: CT
|
You can get enough of a vacuum to fill about 3/4 of a 2L flask by heating a small amount of water until it boils, then capping it with a stopper that has a hole in it, then inverting it and placing the stopper in a wide basin of water.
|
10-23-2003, 09:09 PM | #5 (permalink) |
Banned
Location: UCSD, 510.49 miles from my love
|
if you had a liquid in a flask, you could never approach a vacuum, because some of the liquids vapor would fill the emptiness in the air.
If you used a vacuum pump, however, and you were using some very robust vials, you could aproach a vacuum, and also have the temperature approach absolute zero, 0K, or -283C. You wouldnt be able to do this with your pyrex flask, it would definitely implode if the pressure got too low. The stopper probably wouldnt stay stopped either. The same thing basically happens if you bring a drink on an airplane, to approximately the same degree as the boiling experiment. |
10-23-2003, 11:55 PM | #6 (permalink) |
Devils Cabana Boy
Location: Central Coast CA
|
Temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of the atoms (or something like this) so if there were no matter there would be no temperature. Creating a perfect vacuum is practically impossible though.
__________________
Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen |
10-28-2003, 12:24 AM | #7 (permalink) | |
Crazy
Location: some volcano in the middle of the pacific
|
Quote:
As for the temperature, the vacuum has no temperature, (no molecules = no temp) however if you were to put an object in the vacuum (technically no longer a vacuum) say a thermometer, that thermometer would be heated by infra red radiation given off by all molecules that have heat. IR radiation can pass through a vacuum ( sun heats earth by IR) and strike an object, converting the IR radiation to the kinetic energy that moves molecules and is in turn: heat. |
|
10-28-2003, 12:51 AM | #8 (permalink) |
Psycho
Location: PA
|
Your perfect vacuum is not perfect. There is a bit of mercury vapor for example that will always be there. Again, a perfect vacuum is not possible on macroscopic scales.
To say that the vacuum has no temperature depends on your definition of temperature. The usual one that people throw around is kinetic energy of molecules. This is however not precise. E=n/2kT for n degrees of freedom, but this depends on "degrees of freedom" meaning a very specific thing which doesn't always hold. In any case, that formula (and its inadequacies) come from a deeper definition. Its fairly involved, so I won't get into it. The basic idea, though, is that objects are said to be at the same temperature if they can be brought into contact with one another without heat (non-mechanical energy) flowing between them. So matt_mll's radiation would actually be said to be at a certain temperature even without matter being present. Its just semantics though. |
Tags |
chemistry, guys |
Thread Tools | |
|
|