Thermodynamic Proof: Show PV^k=constant

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of the relationship Pv^k=constant for isentropic processes in thermodynamics. Participants analyze the derivation using Maxwell relations and the isentropic expansion coefficient, k. The conversation highlights the confusion surrounding the treatment of k as a constant, particularly in relation to real polyatomic gases versus ideal gases. The conclusion emphasizes the need for clarity in the assumptions made during the proof and the implications of varying degrees of freedom in non-ideal gases.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of isentropic processes in thermodynamics
  • Familiarity with Maxwell relations
  • Knowledge of the ideal gas law and specific heat capacities (C_p and C_v)
  • Concept of the isentropic expansion coefficient
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation of the isentropic relations for ideal gases
  • Study the implications of the isentropic expansion coefficient in real gases
  • Explore Maxwell's relations in greater depth
  • Investigate the behavior of polyatomic gases under varying temperatures and pressures
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in thermodynamics, particularly those studying isentropic processes, gas behavior, and the application of Maxwell relations in real-world scenarios.

cmmcnamara
Messages
121
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



Show that for an isentropic compression/expansion process that Pv^k=constant


Homework Equations



The usual thermodynamic potentials, maxwell relations


The Attempt at a Solution



The solution I am arriving at follows that of the solutions manual, but there is a substitution they use in the proof that is non-intuitive to me.

s=s(P,v)
ds=\left(\frac{∂s}{∂P}\right)_vdP+\left(\frac{∂s}{∂v}\right)_Pdv

Since the process is isentropic, ds=0, and using maxwell substitutions we arrive at:

dP-\left(\frac{∂P}{∂v}\right)_sdv=0

This is where our proofs are the same, they then diverge by making the substitution, and dividing by pressure:

k=-\frac{v}{P}\left(\frac{∂P}{∂v}\right)_s
\frac{dP}{P}+k\frac{dv}{v}=0
lnP+klnv=constant
Pv^k=constant

I don't find their substitution very intuitive. They describe it as the isentropic expansion coefficient. I do not understand how they can treat it as a constant however in the differential equation. Likewise, I feel that by their solution, if k can be treated as a constant then I would expect the partial differential component could be treated as such as well and the portion I had completed could be used to arrive at an algebraically different equation that could be rearranged but I don't see it. Can anyone help me understand the reasoning behind all of this?

NOTE: Later as a part of the problem it asks to prove that k reduces to the ideal gas ratio, for an ideal gas. I also tried working it from that angle but to no avail.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure they are claiming this more generally than for an ideal gas?
I remember that even for Van der Vaals Gases this expression has to be modified in a way similar to the equation of state!
 
Yes I am sure it is. The latter part of the proof is shown to be proven through further maxwell relations coupled with the cyclic properties of partial derivatives. I just don't understand the choice made for k and setting it constant. It just seems a bit arbitrary to me.
 
It has been a while since I last did thermodynamics. But why may I not write this:

k \equiv -\frac{\frac{dp}{p}}{\frac{dV}{V}} = \frac{Vdp}{pdV}

and then, using that I have an isentropic process:

k = \frac{dH}{dU} = \frac{C_p}{C_v}.

If this is still valid, then k can not be constant in a real polyatomic gas. With varying temperature the number of "frozen" degrees of freedom in the gas will change!
 
Sorry for my absence! Although I am not familiar with your first expression, the second I am familiar with as a definition for k. That ratio is constant for an ideal gas which is what the reduction should go to, but if that is the case I cannot see how they would allow it to be considered constant in the first portion of the proof.
 
cmmcnamara said:
That ratio is constant for an ideal gas which is what the reduction should go to, but if that is the case I cannot see how they would allow it to be considered constant in the first portion of the proof.

Exactly.
 

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
967
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K