Adiabatic expansion at constant pressure.

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion on adiabatic expansion at constant pressure, a participant analyzes a problem involving 4.00 mol of oxygen undergoing expansion in a 20L vessel at 270K. They assert that since the process is adiabatic, the heat transfer (q) is zero, leading to the conclusion that the change in enthalpy (ΔH) should also be zero. However, confusion arises regarding whether ΔH can be considered zero when the system's pressure is not constant, despite the external pressure being constant. The participant clarifies that while Δ(PV) can equal Δ(nRT), the changing pressure of the system complicates the relationship, confirming that ΔH is not simply derived from q. Ultimately, they resolve their confusion about the equations and relationships involved in the thermodynamic process.
LogicX
Messages
175
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



A sample of 4.00mol of oxygen is originally confined in a 20L vessel at 270K and then undergoes adiabatic expansion against a constant pressure of 600torr until the volume has tripled. Find q, W, dT, dU, dH.

Homework Equations



U=q+w
H=U+PV

The Attempt at a Solution



q=0 (Adiabatic)

w=-pexΔV

U=w

ΔT= ΔU/Cv

ΔH=0The reason I'm posting this is because I believe that all of the above is correct, but my friend claims that ΔH is not zero. First of all, ΔH=q for a constant pressure expansion, and q=0, so ΔH=0, right?

Also:

ΔH=ΔU+Δ(PV)=w+ PΔV= -PΔV+PΔV=0

I believe oxygen is considered a perfect gas in this question, because we are expected to calculate C(v) from C(p)-C(v)=nR

So, am I right, does ΔH=0?

EDIT:

So, I get different answers depending on whether I use ΔH=ΔU+Δ(PV) or ΔH=ΔU+Δ(nRT)

Shouldn't they be the same? shouldn't Δ(PV)=Δ(nRT) ?

I've been obsessing over problems like this for weeks now. Every time I figure one thing out another thing pops up that just confuses everything for me.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
LogicX said:
The reason I'm posting this is because I believe that all of the above is correct, but my friend claims that ΔH is not zero. First of all, ΔH=q for a constant pressure expansion, and q=0, so ΔH=0, right?

No, ΔH = q only if the pressure of the system stay constant. Although the external pressure is constant in this problem, the pressure of the system is not.
 
Ygggdrasil said:
No, ΔH = q only if the pressure of the system stay constant. Although the external pressure is constant in this problem, the pressure of the system is not.

Are you talking about a reversible vs. irreversible change here?

So why does Δ(PV) not equal Δ(nRT)? Is it because to use Δ(PV), the P that you use has to be constant for the whole system? I didn't see that anywhere in my textbook.

So the P in the work equation is p(external) and in the enthalpy equation it is the pressure of the system?

EDIT: Ok, I see see that my last statement is correct, and Δ(PV) does indeed equal Δ(nRT), but since P is changing Δ(PV)≠PΔV because P is the pressure of the system. So we just use nRΔT because we know all those quantities.

I'm glad I finally cleared this up.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top