Potential Energy of a compressed gas cylinder

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on replacing a steel compression spring with a gas cylinder to absorb kinetic energy during vehicle impacts. The challenge lies in predicting the force response of the gas cylinder, which varies significantly throughout its compression, making it difficult to design an effective ratchet mechanism. Participants discuss the formulas for calculating potential energy in a compressed gas cylinder, emphasizing the need to account for variables like diameter, initial pressure, and compressed length. The conversation also touches on the adiabatic nature of gas compression and the importance of consistent unit systems in calculations. Ultimately, the goal is to derive a reliable formula for the potential energy of the gas cylinder to ensure effective design and performance.
Sean Powell
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hello,

This is not a homework problem, but an engineering office problem.

I’m looking to replace a steel compression spring with a gas cylinder. The spring is presently designed to absorb a known amount of kinetic energy which it ideally converts to potential energy (neglecting friction, yadda yadda) and compression is solvable by a simple formula. PE = ½*K*dL assuming the spring was fully relaxed to start.

When I impact a closed gas cylinder the force response is governed by PV=nRT and we can generally assume no major temperature changes during impact. That means force doubles at half stroke, quadruples at ¾ stroke, is 10 times at 90% stroke etc. I know enough to subtract ambient air pressure to get a correct baseline. My problem is the force is so low for the first half of the stroke and climbs so rapidly for the last 20% or so that I’m having a tough time predicting the response of stopping a rolling vehicle impact.

Ideally I need a formula for potential energy in a compressed gas cylinder if I know: Diameter, L1 (usually free length), P1 (usually atmospheric), L2 (new compressed length) and some basic assumptions like human breathable atmosphere not too far from sea level.

From here I think I can calculate peak force so I know how to design the ratchet mechanism so the car isn’t rebounded. Yes, I know I could probably do this better with a dampened spring but there are other design issues (and patents to get around).

Thanks in advance,
Sean
 
Physics news on Phys.org
whether it's a spring or an isothermal (or adiabatic) gas cylinder being compressed, the general formula for work done in compressing is:

W = \int_{x_1}^{x_2} F(x) dx

which for a relaxed spring is

W = \int_{x_1}^{x_2} K \cdot (x-x_1) dx = \frac{1}{2} K (x_2-x_1)^2.

for the gas cylinder, you have to define what the dimensions of it are (the radius of the cross section, call it r_0, and its length L. I'm setting x_1 to zero, with no loss of generality. the ambient pressure is P_0 = nRT/(\pi r_0^2 L)

W = \int_{0}^{X} F(x) dx = \int_{0}^{X} \frac{P(x)-P_0}{\pi r_0^2} dx = \int_{0}^{X} \frac{nRT/\left(V(x)\right) - P_0}{\pi r_0^2} dx

= \int_{0}^{X} \frac{nRT/\left(\pi r_0^2 \cdot(L-x)\right)-P_0}{\pi r_0^2} dx

someone's got to blast out that integral for me. it has a log() in it, that's all that i know. everything other than x is constant.
 
Last edited:
Sean Powell said:
When I impact a closed gas cylinder the force response is governed by PV=nRT and we can generally assume no major temperature changes during impact.

rbj said:
W = \int_{0}^{X} F(x) dx = \int_{0}^{X} \frac{P(x)-P_0}{\pi r_0^2} dx = \int_{0}^{X} \frac{nRT/\left(V(x)\right) - P_0}{\pi r_0^2} dx

= \int_{0}^{X} \frac{nRT/\left(\pi r_0^2 \cdot(L-x)\right)-P_0}{\pi r_0^2} dx

someone's got to blast out that integral for me. it has a log() in it, that's all that i know. everything other than x is constant.

When a volume of gas is compressed suddenly, it is generally an adiabatic process, and no heat is exchanged with the environment. But the temperature will change, and that has to be taken into account.

I have given a simple and rough treatment for another situation much like this in another thread. It's nothing but work done during adiabatic expansion. Perhaps you can have a look at it.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1471310#post1471310
 
Last edited:
Shooting star said:
When a volume of gas is compressed suddenly, it is generally an adiabatic process, and no heat is exchanged with the environment. But the temperature will change, and that has to be taken into account.

I have given a simple and rough treatment for another situation much like this in another thread. It's nothing but work done during adiabatic expansion. Perhaps you can have a look at it.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1471310#post1471310

Hello Shooting Star.
Thanks for the input. You are correct, while system transfers no heat to the surroundings there probably is a sudden increase in temperature. That was something I did not consider.

In your link you submitted the following formula:
****
Since the process is quick, we’ll consider it to be adiabatic. Then, PV^g=K, where I am writing ‘g’ for gamma. For air, g=7/5. The value of K can be obtained by putting in the initial values of P and V, which you had given.

Work done= integral (P-Pa)dV between V1 and V2, where V1 is the volume of the compression chamber and V2 is (V1+volume of barrel), and Pa is the outside pressure.

After integrating, W=K[V2^(-g+1)-V1^(-g+1)]/(-g+1) – Pa(V2-V1).
****
Which I think I follow fairly well and have all of the relavent information to fill out and calculate... but the units don't seem to be working out for me. Assuming gamma is unitless, P is N/m^2 & V is m^3 then K has the units of N*m^21/10? The (-g+1) term becomes -2/5 and after a bunch of crunching I see N*m^1.5 for the first chunk of the equation while the right hand portion is N/m^2*m^3 => N*m (please excuse my sloppy shorthand as I convert my hand scribbles into a post) Was the first part of the equation supposed to condense to N*m as well?

Am I making a math error or am I missing something more important here?

Sean
 
If you follow a consistent system of units, then there is no need to worry about the unit of K -- both sides will ultimately give you the dimension of energy. Just find the values, after converting everything to same units like kg, m ,s.

You have done some math error. I am getting that K has unit of Nm^(11/5). On the RHS inside the bracket it is v2^(-2/5). After multiplying by K, the unit is simply Nm. Both sides should have units of N*m, since that is the unit of energy.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top