Calculating Efficiency of a Heat Engine: Converting Celsius to Kelvin

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, specifically focusing on the conversion of temperatures from Celsius to Kelvin. The formula for efficiency is presented, and there is an emphasis on understanding the implications of using this formula for ideal versus real heat engines.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the formula for efficiency and the necessity of converting temperatures from Celsius to Kelvin. There is an attempt to clarify the correct conversion and the implications of using the efficiency formula.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided corrections regarding temperature conversions and have confirmed the formula used for calculating efficiency. There is an ongoing exploration of the assumptions related to ideal versus real heat engines, but no consensus has been reached on the specific values used in the calculations.

Contextual Notes

There appears to be confusion regarding the correct temperature conversions, with one participant correcting another's conversion from Celsius to Kelvin. The discussion also highlights the importance of accuracy in these conversions for calculating efficiency.

cowgiljl
Messages
63
Reaction score
1
when i am calculating the eggiciency of a heat engine i have to convert the celicus to kelvis and used this formula

eff = 1-(T cold/T hot)*100

fro example 302C = 593K 610C = 883K

eff = 1-593/883 = about 32.8% efficient

right ?

thanks joe
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by cowgiljl
eff = 1-(T cold/T hot)*100
You mean: eff = [1-(T cold/T hot)]*100.

This is the efficiency of an ideal (reversible) heat engine; real engines will be less efficient.
...
eff = 1-593/883 = about 32.8% efficient
Right.
 
Originally posted by cowgiljl
fro example 302C = 593K

Nope, 302+273=575.
 
it was 320 not 302 but thanks
 


Originally posted by Tom
Nope, 302+273=575.
Good catch, Tom. :smile:
 

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K