Does an Irreversible Adiabatic Process Defy the Equation PV^(gamma)=constant?

AI Thread Summary
An irreversible adiabatic process does not adhere to the equation PV^(gamma)=constant because it is not isentropic and does not maintain thermodynamic equilibrium throughout. For this equation to hold, the ideal gas law must apply at all times, which is not the case in irreversible processes. Such processes occur too quickly for the ideal gas relationships to be valid, leading to kinetic energy loss to the surroundings. Additionally, a reversible adiabatic expansion requires minimal pressure differences, which is not present in irreversible scenarios. Therefore, the characterization of all rapid expansions as adiabatic is debated, particularly when kinetic energy is transferred to the surroundings.
asdf1
Messages
734
Reaction score
0
Why doesn't an irreversible adiabatic process follow the equation,
PV^(gamma)=constant?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
asdf1 said:
Why doesn't an irreversible adiabatic process follow the equation,
PV^(gamma)=constant?

Although some people here (i.e. my friend Andrew Mason) are of another "school of knowledge", I must say an irreversible adiabatic process is not an isentropic one, and so it is not described by your equation.
 
Clausius2 said:
Although some people here (i.e. my friend Andrew Mason) are of another "school of knowledge", I must say an irreversible adiabatic process is not an isentropic one, and so it is not described by your equation.
For PV^\gamma = constant to apply, the ideal gas law must apply at all times during the process. But this assumes that the system is at perfect thermodynamic equilibrium at all times during the process.

For an adiabatic gas expansion to be reversible, it must occur with an arbitrarily small pressure difference between the gas pressure and the external pressure. If this is the case, the work done by the gas in expanding (\int P_{gas}dv)is equal to the work done on the gas by the external pressure to return it to its original state (\int P_{ext}dv) - hence it is reversible.

Typically an "irreversible adiabatic process" for an ideal gas is a process that occurs without exchange of heat with the surroundings but too rapidly for the relationship PV=nRT to apply during the process. The reason PV=nRT does not apply is because of the kinetic energy factor in the rapidly expanding or contracting gas.

My (mild) disagreement with friend Clausius2 is in calling all such processes adiabatic where kinetic energy is lost from the gas to the surroundings. If the gas expands rapidly and the resulting kinetic energy of the gas is ultimately transferred to the surroundings, I would say that the process is not adiabatic: heat (molecular kinetic energy) is effectively transferred to the surroundings.

AM
 
hmm... that makes sense~
thanks! :)
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'

Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'

Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
View full post »

Thread 'Do electron density waves accompany EM waves in coaxial cables?'

Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
View full post »
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'

Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'

The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Adiabatic irreversible process vs adiabatic reversible
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Solving Adiabatic Process for Two Compartments
Replies
1
Views
2K
Query on Isentropic relationships (such as PV^gamma = constant)
Replies
1
Views
125
B Adiabatic or Isobaric process?
2
Replies
61
Views
6K
B Adiabatic processes and temperatures
Replies
2
Views
2K
B Struggle to understand adiabatic process
Replies
2
Views
1K
Is Conservation of Energy Sufficient for Deriving the Adiabatic Process?
Replies
10
Views
8K
I Irreversible adiabatic processes & entropy change (clarification needed)
Replies
22
Views
5K
I T-S Diagram for an Irreversible Process
Replies
29
Views
5K
Chemistry Calculation of thermodynamic variables for irreversible adiabatic process of ideal gas
Replies
9
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top