2017-8

Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics: Collision Rate and the

Collision Frequency Paradox

Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Research, 050030 Medellin, Colombia
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32983.27048

Abstract

Rigorous expressions for determining the collision rate and collision frequency of molecules
with speeds following the generalized Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution are presented. The
collision frequency, defined as the reciprocal of the time between consecutive collisions, is a
random variable with a theoretical expected value approaching the positive infinite when no
upper boundary limit is considered. This is an apparent paradox, because the average collision
frequency cannot be infinite. In practice, given that molecular collisions are not instantaneous,
there is a maximum collision frequency related to the duration of the collision. When the
duration of the collision is considered, the average collision frequency becomes finite,
overcoming the paradox. Approximate analytical expressions for the average collision
frequency considering the duration of the collision, macroscopic collision rates and modal
collision frequencies are presented.

Keywords

Born-Mayer Repulsion Potential, Collision Frequency Paradox, Kinetic Theory, Maxwell-

Boltzmann Distribution, Molecular Collision Rate, Molecular Free Path, Molecular Speed
Distribution

1. Introduction

Molecular collision is a random process. The relative distance travelled between consecutive
collisions by a certain molecule (relative free path, ) is a random variable described by the
following exponential distribution:[1]

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (1 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

2
( ) 2
= , =1 , , 0
=1
(1.1)

where is the number density of molecules of type in the system, , is the collision
distance given by the sum of the radii of action of molecule and a molecule of type , and is
the number of different molecular species in the system.

The molecular speed relative to molecule (| ) is also a random variable, which is described
by the generalized Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution:[2]

2
| |
2
2 | 2
(| ) = 3/2

=1 ( )
|
(1.2)

where | = is the reduced mass of the two molecules involved in the collision,
+

= 1.3806 1023 / is Boltzmanns constant and is the equilibrium temperature of the

system. The relative molecular speed is the magnitude of the molecular velocity relative to the
macroscopic velocity of the system.

The resulting time between collisions of the reference molecule ( ) is also a random variable
whose distribution can be described by:[3]

2
( ) = ( , ) ( 2 )
2| 2| ,
=1 =1
(1.3)
where is the standard collision probability density function given by:

4 2
() = (1 + 2 ) 2(3 + 2 2 ) ()

(1.4)

and is a dimensionless collision time defined as:

= 2
2| ,
=1
(1.5)

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (2 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

From a kinetic point of view, it is important to determine the rate at which molecular collisions
take place per unit of time. The concept of the molecular collision rate and its distribution is
presented and discussed in Section 2. In Section 3, the concept of the molecular collision
frequency is introduced and its distribution is obtained. In Section 4, it is shown how the
resulting collision frequency distribution leads to an apparent paradox, the frequency paradox,
when the average collision frequency is determined, and in Section 5, the cause of such
paradox is explained and a strategy is presented for calculating the actual average collision
frequency.

2. Molecular Collision Rate

In a previous report,[3] it was shown that the average collision time ( ) is a normal random
variable given by:

1
=1 () 1 (

)
= = + 2


=1 ,
2
(=1 2 )
2| 2| ,

(2.1)

where is the number of consecutive collisions considered in the determination of the

()
average, is the time elapsed between collisions for the -th collision, and is the standard
random variable, with mean 0 and variance 1.

Please notice that those consecutive collisions take place at a time , defined as:

()
, =
=1
(2.2)

Now, the molecular collision rate of the reference molecule for those consecutive collisions
( ), which corresponds to the number of molecular collisions of that take place in a unit of
time, will be given by:

1
() = = =
, =1 ()
(2.3)

That is, the molecular collision rate is the reciprocal of the average collision time. Now, from Eq.
(2.1) this means that:

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (3 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

1
() =
1
1 ( )
+
2

=1 ,
2
(=1 2 )
2| 2| ,

(2.4)

It is now possible to use a truncated Taylor series approximation to eliminate the

nonlinearity,[4] resulting in:

2
2
( 1)
() , ,
2| 2|
=1 =1
(2.5)

This means that the expected value of the molecular collision rate is:

2 1
( ) , =
2| ( )
=1
(2.6)

and its variance is:

2

( 1)
( ) ( 2 )
2| ,
=1
(2.7)

Please notice that for macroscopic systems, where a very large amount of collisions take place
in a second, ( ) 0, and the collision rate behaves as a deterministic variable with a
value of:


= 2 = ()
2| ,
=1 =1
(2.8)

For a pure system, Eq. (2.8) becomes:

2
2
= = 4 3/2

(2.9)

where is the radius of action of such compound.

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (4 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

3. Molecular Collision Frequency Distribution

Given that the molecular collision rate is defined as the reciprocal of the average collision time,
let us now define the collision frequency ( ) as the reciprocal of the collision time ( ) of the
reference molecule :

1
=

(3.1)

Let us now consider the collision frequency between molecule and molecules of type only,
then:

1
() =
()
(3.2)

Given that (() ) = (() )() , then, by using the change of variable theorem[5] and the
chain rule[6] for the monotonically decreasing function given in Eq. (3.2), results in:

1
(() ) = (() = ) ()
()
(3.3)

where the corresponding probability density function for the collision time is:

2
(() ) = , ( 2 )
2| 2| , ()

(3.4)

and

()
() = 2
()
(3.5)

Therefore, Eq. (3.3) can be expressed as:

2 2
, ,
(() ) = 2 ( ) ()
2| () 2| ()

(3.6)

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (5 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

Eq. (3.6) can be simplified as:

1 1
() = 2 () (3.7)

where is a dimensionless collision frequency given by:

() 2|
= 2

,
(3.8)

Given that the function can be accurately approximated by the following empirical
expression:[3]
1 4
( ) 8

1 1+
(1 + 2)
(3.9)

Then, from Eq. (3.7) and (3.9), the probability density function of the dimensionless collision
frequency can be expressed as:
1 1 4
() = 2 ( ) 8 , 0
1+
1
2 (1 + 2)
(3.10)

Figure 1 presents a plot of the probability density function as a function of the dimensionless
collision frequency from 0 to 25.

Figure 1. Probability density function () of the dimensionless collision frequency . The plot
is presented for the dimensionless frequency interval [0, 25].

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (6 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

The probability density function of the dimensionless collision frequency satisfies the basic
conditions of a probability density function: It is non-negative for 0, and

1
4 4 4( 1)2 8 1
() 8 = 8 = = 8| =1
2( 1)2 1 1+ 8
0 0 1 1+

1+
1
2
(1 + )
2
(3.11)
1 1
where = 1 + 2, and therefore, = 2(1) and = 2(1)2.

The probability density function obtained presents a modal value, which can be determined by
using the first derivative test:[6]

8
2 (1 + )
() 8
| 8 + 8 =0
=
1 1+ 1 2+
3 (1 + 2 ) 4 (1 + 2 )
(3.12)

Therefore:
2 1
= 4 0.8784 (3.13)

which corresponds to a maximum, according to the second derivative test:[6]

8 8 8 8
4 (1 + ) 8 (1 + ) (1 + ) (2 + )
2 () 24
| 8 8 8 + 8
2 =
1 1+ 1 2+ 1 2+ 1 3+
4 (1 + 2 ) 5 (1 + 2 ) 5 (1 + 2 ) 6 (1 + 2 )
0.4029 < 0
(3.14)

Thus, the modal collision frequency (from Eq. 3.8 and 3.13) for the collisions of molecule with
molecules of type is:

8
() 2
4 2| ,
(3.15)

The overall modal collision for molecule can be determined considering that the overall
collision frequency probability density distribution is (from Eq.1.3 and 3.5):

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (7 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

2 2
, ,
( ) = ( )
2| 2 2|
=1 =1
(3.16)

which, can be expressed as:[3]

( ) = ( )
2
(3.17)

where is a characteristic parameter of the overall distribution, given by:

= 2
2| ,
=1
(3.18)

By setting:

= =


=1 ,
2
2|

(3.19)

and applying the first derivative test to Eq. 3.17, using Eq 3.15, Eq. 3.19 and the empirical
approximation for the function (Eq. 3.9), results in:

8
2 = ()

4 =1 2| ,
=1
(3.20)

Please notice that the modal frequency can be related to the macroscopic collision rate by the
following expression (from Eq. 2.8 and 3.20):

8
= 0.4956
4
(3.21)

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (8 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

4. The Collision Frequency Paradox

So far, we have described the probability density function of the molecular collision frequency.
Let us now consider the behavior of the collision frequency as a random variable. The expected
value of the dimensionless collision frequency is:

1 1 4
() = () = ( ) 8

0 0 0 1 1+
(1 + 2)
8

1 + 2 8 8 8
8 ( 1) 21 (1 + ,1 + ;2 + ; 2)|
1+
= 2 | = ( 0) = +
8 +
|

0
(4.1)

where 21 is the Gaussian hypergeometric function defined as:[7]

() ()
21 (, ; ; ) =
() !
=0
(4.2)

and () is the rising Pochhammer factorial given by:

1 =0
1
()
={
( + ) >0
=0
(4.3)

Eq. (4.1) indicates that the expected value of the dimensionless collision frequency is infinite!
We have seen in Section 2 that the collision rate is finite, and in Section 3 that the area under
the probability density function of the collision frequency is also finite (1), so the result
obtained in Eq. (4.1) is apparently paradoxical.

This result was obtained considering an approximated empirical function presented in Eq.
(3.10). So let us see now what happens when the exact function[3] is employed:

Analytical integration performed with the help of Wolfram Alpha.

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (9 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

1
2 1

1 1
1 4 1 2 ()
() = ( ) = [ (1 + 2 ) 2 (3 + 2 ) ]
0 0
1 1

1
2 ( )
1
2 ( )
4 4
= + 3
6 4
0 0 0 2 0 4
1 1 1
1
2 ( )
1 1
4 4 2 ( ) 2 ( )
= + 6 + 2 [ | + 2 ]
3 2 2 3
0 0 0 0 0
0
1 1
1
2 ( )
1
4 2 ( )
= ln | 4 + 2 |
0 0 2
0
1
3 1 1
22 (1,1; 2 , 2; 2 ) 2 ( )

4 1
= ln | 4 ( ( ) ) +2 | = +
0
2 2
0 0

(4.4)

where , the imaginary error function, is:[8]

2 2
() =
0
(4.5)

and the 22 hypergeometric function is:[7]

() ()
22 (, ; , ; ) =
() () !
=0
(4.6)

The result of Eq. (4.4) is obtained by comparing all undetermined terms using LHpitals
1
rule.[6] The most significant term turns out to be lim0 () +. This is the same result
obtained in Eq. (4.1), which confirms the actual existence of the paradox.

On the other hand, the variance of the dimensionless collision frequency is given by:

2 1 2 4 2
() = (2 ) (()) = ( ) (()) 8 (())
1+
0 0 1
(1 + 2)
8

42 1 + 2 8 8 8 2
= ( ) 21 (1 + ,2 + ;3 + ; 2)|| (()) =
4 + 1 + 1
2 0
(4.7)

Analytical integration performed with the help of Wolfram Alpha.

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (10 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

leading again to indetermination.

5. Overcoming the Collision Frequency Paradox

In order to understand the origin of the frequency paradox, let us consider the frequency as a
function of the relative free path and relative molecular speed:
|
() =
()
(5.1)

The expected value of the collision frequency () is then:

| 1 8 1 8 1
(() ) = ( ) = (| ) ( ) = () ( ) = ( )
() () | () | ()
(5.2)

where is the standard Maxwell-Boltzmann random variable[9] and () = 1.

On the other hand, the expected value of the reciprocal of the relative free path is:
2
2 , ()
1 ,
( )= () = ,
2
2
= , lim+ ()
() 0 () 0 0

(5.3)
2
where = , () and the exponential integral function is:[10]


() = + ln|| +
!
=1
(5.4)

is the exponential integral function, and 0.5772 is the Euler-Mascheroni constant.[7]

Given that lim0+ () = , then

1
( ) = + (5.5)
()

Eq. (5.5) indicates that the origin of the collision frequency paradox is the indetermination of
the reciprocal of the relative free path. Figure 2 shows the behavior of the expected value of
1
the dimensionless reciprocal relative free path ( ), obtained by Monte Carlo simulation
()

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (11 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

for different numbers of consecutive collisions (), on a decimal logarithmic scale. Although
finite values are always obtained, a divergent trend is observed.

Figure 2. Monte Carlo simulation of the expected value of the reciprocal dimensionless relative
1
free path ( ) between a reference molecule and molecules of type , for different
()

numbers of consecutive collisions (). The data points indicate the results of the simulation,
and the dotted line represents the best linear fit of the results obtained.

1
If the lower bound of the integral in Eq. (5.3) were different of zero, then the value of ( )
()

would be finite, and therefore, the expected value of the collision frequency would also be
finite, overcoming the paradox.

In fact, the lower bound of the integral in Eq. (5.3) cannot be zero. Suppose that a molecular
collision of molecule with any molecular of type takes place. If the next molecule that will
collide with is at a relative path of zero, in reality a multiple collision took place. Thus, the
collision with that molecule cannot be considered as a different collision, and for this reason,
the lower value of the relative free path cannot be zero. Now, since the relative free path is
lower bounded by a small, non-zero value, the collision frequency will also be upper bounded
by a finite value. In order to determine the lower bound of the relative free path, or the upper
bound of the collision frequency, it is first important to understand when a collision with a
molecule is a simple or a multiple collision.

Let us consider the situation depicted in Figure 3. If the molecular collisions were
instantaneous, that is, if the duration of the collision is zero, there would be no definite non-
zero lower boundary for the relative free path ((2) ) as it would tend to zero ((2)
0+ ), and the paradox would persist. It is therefore important to consider the actual duration of

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (12 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

a collision () . The duration of the collision () corresponds to the time interval during
which two molecules are in contact.

Figure 3. Consecutive collision of molecule with molecules 1 and 2 . The distance between
the radii of action of and 2 after the collision with 1 is (2) . If (2) (2), the lower
bound of the relative free path, then a multiple collision takes place.

Thus, the frequency paradox takes place only for () = 0, that is, only when the molecules
interact by means of a hard repulsion potential. If the molecules are considered to interact
according to a soft repulsion potential (for example, the Born-Mayer repulsion potential),[11]
then no paradox will occur. Considering the Born-Mayer repulsion potential, the relative
molecular speed as a function of time, from the beginning of the collision until the molecules
completely stop, will be given by the following expression:[12]

2 2 ,
| (0) | (0) + 2
,
| 2 (0)+
|
|
1+
2 2 ,
| (0) + | (0) +
2 , |
2 ( )
| () = | (0) +
|
2 2 ,
| (0) | (0) + 2
,
| 2
| (0)+
|
1
2 2 ,
| (0) + | (0) +
|
( )

(5.6)

where is the relative time elapsed after the first contact between the molecules, | (0) is the
relative molecular speed at the moment of first contact, corresponds to the interaction

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (13 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

energy between the particles, and is related to the reciprocal of the range of the interaction.
and are parameters of the Born-Mayer repulsion potential. The negative sign before | (0)
in the previous expression is due to the fact that the molecules must be approaching at the
beginning of the collision.

Considering that the time elapsed from the beginning of the collision to the moment when the
relative speed is zero is half the duration of the whole collision () , then:

2 , ,
1 + 2 (0) 1 1 + 1
| | 4 2
ln ln
2 , ,
1 + 2 (0) + 1 1 + +1
| | 4 2
( ) ( )
() = 2 =
2 , 2 ,
| (0)1 + 2 (0) 1 +
| | | 4 2

(5.7)

where is the realization for molecule of the standard Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution,[9]

immediately before the collision with molecule .

Thus, a lower boundary for the collision time should be () , whereas the upper boundary for

the collision frequency (() ) is:

2 ,
1 +
1 | 4 2

() = =
()
,
1 + 1
4 2
ln
,
1 + +1
4 2
( )
(5.8)

From Eq. (3.8), the upper bound for the dimensionless collision frequency is then:
,
1 +
2 4 2

() =
3/2 2, ,
1 + 1
4 2
ln
,
1 + +1
4 2
( )
(5.9)

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (14 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

Furthermore, the lower boundary for the relative free path of the next colliding molecule will
be given by:

,
1 + 1
4 21
ln
,
1 + +1
22 4 21
( )
(2) = 2| (1) =
1
,
1 +
4 21

(5.10)

Please notice that boundaries given by Eq. (5.7) (5.10) are random variables. For example, for
the dimensionless molecular collision frequency, the expected value becomes (from Eq. 4.1):

() ()
1 1 4
(() ) = ( ) () 8 ()
0 () () 0 1+
1
() (1 + 2 )
()

8 ()

1 + 2() 8 8 8
8() ( 1 ) 21 (1 + ,1 + ;2 + ; 2() )|
1+
2()
= |
8 +

0
8



1 + 2() 8 8 8
8() ( 1 ) 21 (1 + ,1 + ;2+ ; 2() )
1+

2()
=
8 +
(5.11)

The expected value of the collision frequency, expressed by Eq. (5.11) is a random variable
yielding always a positive finite value, thus overcoming the frequency paradox described in
Section 4. It can be approximated, for practical purposes, by considering the expected value of

() , thus:
8

1 + 2(
() ) 8 8 8
8(
() ) 1
2 1
(1 + ,1 + ;2+ ; 2(
() ))
1+
( 2(
() ))
(() )
8 +

(5.12)

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (15 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

where (from Eq. 5.9)

2,
1 +
2
(
() ) 2
3/2 , 2,
1 + 1

ln
2,
1 + +1

( )
(5.13)

1 8
given that () = 1 and (2 ) = .[1]

The overall expected value, considering Eq. (3.17) (3.19) is:

8

1 + 2( ) 8 8 8
8( ) ( 1 ) 21 (1 + ,1 + ;2 + ; 2( )) (=1 ,
2
)
2|
1+ )
2(
( )
(8 + )

(5.14)
where

1
(
)
1
=1
(
() )

(5.15)

From Eq. (5.14) and (2.8), the expected collision frequency as a function of the expected
maximum collision frequency and the macroscopic collision rate is:
8

1 + 2(
) 8 8 8
8(
)( 1 )
2 1
(1 + ,1+ ;2+ ; 2(
))
1+
2( )

( )
8 +
(5.16)

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (16 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

Figure 4. Plot of the ratio between the expected collision frequency and the macroscopic
( )
) as a function of the expected dimensionless collision frequency ( ).

collision rate (

Figure 4 shows the behavior of the ratio ()/ for different values of the expected value of
the maximum dimensionless collision frequency on a decimal logarithmic scale.

By using linear regression, it is possible to obtain the following relationship:

( )
1.2681(( )) 1.7973, ( ) 10

(5.17)

Thus, Eq. (5.16) can be expressed as:

( ) (1.2681(( )) 1.7973) , ( ) 10
(5.18)

Finally, the variance of the collision frequency will be given by:

Numerical values of the Gaussian hypergeometric function were obtained from Wolfram Alpha.

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (17 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

2
( ) = (2 ) (( )) =
8
2
4(( )) 1+ 2( ) 8 8 8
2
= ( ) 21 (1 + ,2 + ;3 + ; 2( )) ( , )
4 + 1 2 |
1+ =1
2( )
8 2

1 + 2( ) 8 8 8
8( ) ( 1 ) 21 (1 + ,1 + ;2+ ; 2( )) (=1 ,
2
)
2|
1+ )
2(

(8 + )

( )
8
2

2 2
1 + 2( ) 8 8 8
= 4(( )) ( , ) ( ) 21 (1 + ,2 + ;3 + ; 2( ))
2| 1
=1 1+
2( )
8

1 + 2( )
16 ( 1 )
1 1+ ) 8 8 8
2(
2 21 (1 + ,1 + ;2 + ; 2( ))
4 + (8 + )

( )
8 + 1 2 ( )
=( ) ( )( ) (
)
2 4 + (8 + )( )
(5.19)

7. Conclusion

The kinetics of molecular collision can be described in terms of the collision rate (from a
macroscopic point of view) and the collision frequency (from a microscopic point of view). The
macroscopic collision rate of a reference molecule ( ) in a multicomponent system at
equilibrium (following the generalized Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution) can be described by
the following expression:

= 2
2| ,
=1
(7.1)

On the other hand, the collision frequency ( ) can be described in terms of its probability
density function as follows:

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (18 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

( ) = ( 2 ) ( 2 )
2| , 2| ,
=1 =1
(7.2)

Such distribution presents a modal value ( ) at an approximate value given by:

8

4

(7.3)

It can be found that the expected value of the collision frequency is infinite, leading to an
apparent paradox. This frequency paradox results when the duration of the collision is
neglected. Given that for real systems, each collision has non-zero duration, it is possible to
obtain the following approximate result for the average collision frequency considering the
Born-Mayer repulsion potential:

8

1 + 2( ) 8 8 8
8( ) ( 1 ) 21 (1 + ,1 + ;2 + ; 2( ))
1+

2( )
( )
8 +
(1.2681(( )) 1.7973)
(7.4)

where

1
(
)
1
=1 ( )
(
() )

(7.5)

and

2,
1 +
2
(
() ) 2
3/2 , 2,
1 + 1

ln
2,
1 + +1

( )
(7.6)

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (19 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the helpful discussions with Prof. Jaime Aguirre
(Universidad Nacional de Colombia), as well as his valuable suggestions and contributions by
checking the analytical integrations and reviewing the whole manuscript. The author is also
grateful with M.Eng. Yew-Chung Chak (Universiti Putra Malaysia) and Dr. Ruben Dario Ortiz
(Universidad de Cartagena) for suggestions on the analytical solution of the integral
2
0 (), posted at Researchgate.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

[1] Hernandez, H. (2017). Molecular Free Path Statistical Distribution of Multicomponent

Systems. ForsChem Research Reports 2017-6. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15605.58088.

[2] Hernandez, H. (2017). On the generalized validity of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution and
the zeroth Law of Thermodynamics. ForsChem Research Reports 2017-4. doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.26937.16480.

[3] Hernandez, H. (2017). Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics: Rigorous Collision Time
Distribution. ForsChem Research Reports 2017-7. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26218.31689.

[4] Hernandez, H. (2016). Modelling the effect of fluctuation in nonlinear systems using
variance algebra - Application to light scattering of ideal gases, ForsChem Research Reports,
2016-1, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36501.52969.

[5] Casella, G., & Berger, R. L. (2002). Statistical Inference. 2nd Ed. Pacific Grove: Duxbury.

[6] Stewart, J. (2013) Single Variable Essential Calculus: Early Trascendentals. 2 nd Ed. Belmont:
Brooks/Cole.

[7] Srivastava, H. M., & Junesang, C. (2012). Zeta and q-Zeta functions and associated series and
integrals. London: Elsevier.

[8] Weisstein, Eric W. "Erfi." From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Erfi.html.

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (20 / 21)

www.forschem.org
 Multicomponent Molecular Collision Kinetics:
Collision Rate and the Collision Frequency Paradox
Hugo Hernandez
ForsChem Reserch
hugo.hernandez@forschem.org

[9] Hernandez, H. (2017). Standard Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution: Definition and properties.

ForsChem Research Reports 2017-2. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29888.74244.

[10] Abramowitz, M., & Stegun, I. A. (1964). Handbook of mathematical functions with
formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables. Applied Mathematics Series 55. Washington:
National Bureau of Standards.

[11] Abrahamson, A. A. (1969). Born-Mayer-type interatomic potential for neutral ground-state

atoms with Z= 2 to Z= 105. Physical Review, 178(1), 76.

[12] Hernandez, H. (2017). A Mathematical Reflection on the Origin of the Laws of Conservation
of Energy and Momentum. ForsChem Research Reports, 2017-1, doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.28312.60167.

23/06/2017 ForsChem Research Reports 2017-8 (21 / 21)

www.forschem.org