Adiabatic condition and equation of state

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the adiabatic compression of 8.02 × 10−1 moles of nitrogen gas (γ = 1.40) from a volume of 2.00 × 10−2 m³ at a pressure of 1.00 × 10⁵ Pa and temperature of 300 K. Participants confirm that the change in entropy is zero due to the reversible adiabatic process. They also derive that the relationship TV^(γ-1) remains constant during the process, leading to the determination of the final temperature of the gas using the ideal gas law and the adiabatic condition.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the ideal gas law (PV = nRT)
  • Familiarity with adiabatic processes and their properties
  • Knowledge of the specific heat ratio (γ) for gases
  • Ability to manipulate equations involving thermodynamic variables
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the adiabatic condition PV^γ = constant
  • Learn about the implications of the first law of thermodynamics in adiabatic processes
  • Explore the concept of entropy in thermodynamics and its calculation
  • Investigate the behavior of real gases under adiabatic conditions
USEFUL FOR

Students of thermodynamics, physics enthusiasts, and professionals in engineering fields focusing on gas dynamics and heat transfer.

LivvyS
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


8.02 × 10−1 moles of nitrogen gas ( γ= 1.40) is contained in a volume of 2.00 × 10−2 m3 at a pressure of 1.00 × 105 Pa and temperature of 300 K. The sample is adiabatically compressed to half its original volume. IT behaves as an ideal gas.

(i) What is the change in entropy of the gas?

(ii) Show from the adiabatic condition and the equation of state that TV γ-1
remains constant, and hence determine the final temperature of the gas

Homework Equations


PV=nRT
PVγ = A (constant)

The Attempt at a Solution


For I, I think that because the compression is a reversible adiabatic process there will be no entropy change.

It is ii, that I am stuck on. I think that the equation of state will need to be rearranged to give P=nRT / V and that this will need to be substituted into the adiabatic condition to give (nRT Vγ) / V = constant which feels close but I cannot think of the last step.

Or is it better to start with PVγ = constant
PVVγ-1 = constant
nRT *Vγ-1 = constant and ignore n and R seeing as they themselves are constants? giving TVγ-1 = constant
(I am not sure whether n and R can just be ignored or whether this method is even correct or valid).

or some other way entirely, any insight would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Both methods are correct, and give the correct result. In the first method, Vγ/V=Vγ-1

Chet
 
I think the answer might be along the lines:
PV=nRT
for adiabatic process PVgamma= A
V=nRT/P
so fitting this into the equation:
P(nRT/P)gamma

then you get TgammaP1-gamma=A/(nR)gamma

Use the same principle to substitute P=nRT/V into the adiabatic condition
hope that helps

Sorry about the subscripts, my first post and new to forums. But since I always check here for help, is only fitting that I help when I can
 
Astoreth said:
I think the answer might be along the lines:
PV=nRT
for adiabatic process PVgamma= A
V=nRT/P
so fitting this into the equation:
P(nRT/P)gamma

then you get TgammaP1-gamma=A/(nR)gamma

Use the same principle to substitute P=nRT/V into the adiabatic condition
hope that helps

Sorry about the subscripts, my first post and new to forums. But since I always check here for help, is only fitting that I help when I can
Hi Astoreth. Welcome to Physics Forums.

It looks like LivvyS had already solved the problem correctly in post #1. Do you feel that there was a problem with what he/she did?

Chet
 
Hello:

sorry about that. No, the answer was not incorrect, but given this:

LivvyS said:
which feels close but I cannot think of the last step.
I thought I'd help.

I am sorry if I overstepped. I was only trying to help

Also, i didn't noticed that it was marked as resolved.

Again, am sorry
 
Astoreth said:
Hello:

sorry about that. No, the answer was not incorrect, but given this:I thought I'd help.

I am sorry if I overstepped. I was only trying to help

Also, i didn't noticed that it was marked as resolved.

Again, am sorry
No need to apologize. As you said, you were just trying to help.

The OP used one method to solve it in post #1, and got it correct. And he tried another method to solve it, but couldn't complete the final step. In post #2, I pointed out how to complete the final step, which, when applied, leads to the same correct solution.

Again, Welcome to Physics Forums. It's great to have you in our community.

Chet
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Greg Bernhardt
Thanks, Chet :)
Is good to be here
 
All help much appreciated, thanks guys!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
49
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K