Calculating Thermodynamic Heat and Work

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating thermodynamic properties for an ideal gas expanding isothermally from 20 to 30L at 20°C against a constant pressure of 1 atm. The work done, calculated using the integral method, resulted in -1013 J, while an alternative equation yielded -987.7 J, prompting questions about the discrepancies. It was clarified that during an isothermal process, the change in internal energy (ΔE) is zero, making the heat (q) equal to the negative of work (w). The conversation also addressed the assumption of reversibility, concluding that a quasistatic process allows for constant temperature maintenance. Ultimately, the situation described was deemed impossible if both temperature and pressure are held constant, as it contradicts the ideal gas law.
Youngster
Messages
37
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



One mole of ideal gas expands isothermally at 20°C against a constant pressure of 1 atm from 20 to 30L. (1 atm = 1.013 x 105Pa; 1 m3 = 1000L

Find q, w, ΔE, and ΔH in Joules

Homework Equations



ΔE = q + w
w = -\intPdV
H = E + PV

The Attempt at a Solution



I solved for work using the second equation listed above. Since pressure is constant, I removed it from the integral and simply integrated the volume from 20L to 30L. This resulted in -10 atm x L.

Converting that to Joules using the conversion factors given, I obtained -1013 J as the thermodynamic work.

But then how do I obtain the thermodynamic heat?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to figure out the change in the internal energy of the gas, ##\Delta E##, considering it is ideal.
 
Okay, so what I'm getting is that since it's an isothermal process, the change in internal energy is 0.

That would mean q is just the reverse of w. Does this sound right? That would mean this is reversible too, yes?
 
Youngster said:
Okay, so what I'm getting is that since it's an isothermal process, the change in internal energy is 0.

That would mean q is just the reverse of w. Does this sound right?
Yes. Just to be clear, the energy lost by the gas as it does work is compensated by heat coming in from the environment.

Youngster said:
That would mean this is reversible too, yes?
I guess that it is reasonable to assume that this is the result of a slow (quasistatic) process, for the temperature to be maintained constant during the entire process, and therefore it is reversible.
 
Ah yes, thank you.

I have one more item I'd like to clarify.

I have two equation for thermodynamic work listed in my notes.

1. w = -∫PdV
2. w = -nRT ln\frac{V_{2}}{V_{2}}

I used the first equation to obtain -1013J, but the second equation provides a different value of -987.7J. This is a pretty significant difference, so I'm curious what the differences between the equations are, if any.
 
I didn't pay enough attention to the original statement. The situation described is simply impossible: an ideal gas cannot expand when both temperature and pressure are held constant. Obviously, since ##PV = nR T##, ##V## can't change if ##P##, ##T##, and ##n## are all kept constant.

Otherwise, you get equation 2 from equation 1 by replacing ##P## by ##n R T/V##, and then integrating over ##V## for ##T## constant. Equation 2 is therefore useful for isothermal processes (for an ideal gas only).
 
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