Calculating Work and State Variables for an ideal Stirling Engine

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating work and heat flows in an ideal Stirling engine cycle, involving an ideal gas with specific heat capacities. Participants are tasked with analyzing the heat transfers and work done during different legs of the cycle, while considering the effects of temperature and volume changes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the need for specific values such as mass and volume to calculate heat and work. There is discussion about using different equations to derive work and heat flows, with some questioning the appropriateness of certain formulas for individual legs of the cycle.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights and clarifications regarding the use of generic terms versus specific values. Some guidance has been offered regarding notation and sign conventions, but there is no explicit consensus on the approach to take for the calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the absence of defined values for mass and volume, which complicates the calculations. There is an emphasis on maintaining generic terms until specific calculations are necessary.

WalkTex
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Consider the ideal Stirling cycle working between a maximum temperature Th and min temp Tc, and a minimum volume V1 and a maximum volume V2. Suppose that the working gas of the cycle is 0.1 mol of an ideal gas with cv = 5R/2.

A) what are the heat flows to the cycle during each leg? Be sure to give the sign. For which legs is the heat flow positive?

B) What work is done by the cycle during each leg?

Homework Equations



W = Integral from Vi to Vf of PdV
W = QH-QC

The Attempt at a Solution



My attempt at a solution is given in the pdf below. My main problem was identifying some of these quantities without defined values for Vi, Vf, Qh, Qc or mass. I simply assumed some values that were gave in part C, but it was unclear to me if this is what was to be done, or if there was a way to calculate it without these values. For instance, in leg ii of the cycle, no mass is given for know data. How may I then calculate heat? Thanks in advance.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
For part (b), do not use any numerical values. Just derive the formulas for the work.

I don't understand why you write ##W=Q_H - Q_C## for individual legs. During the cycle, the working substance is imagined to be in contact with either the hot or the cold reservoir one at a time. I would use ##\Delta U = W + Q##, with ##U## the energy of the working substance.
 
DrClaude said:
For part (b), do not use any numerical values. Just derive the formulas for the work.

I don't understand why you write ##W=Q_H - Q_C## for individual legs. During the cycle, the working substance is imagined to be in contact with either the hot or the cold reservoir one at a time. I would use ##\Delta U = W + Q##, with ##U## the energy of the working substance.

Thank you for the tip. For part A, does one not need the mass of the working substance to solve for heat?
 

Attachments

Last edited:
WalkTex said:
For part A, does one not need the mass of the working substance to solve for heat?
No. Until you reach the point where you have to calculate actual values, such as efficiency, you should keep everything in generic terms.

I looked at your solution, and first I must say that your notation is confusing. For the volumes, you use ##V_\mathrm{min}## and ##V_\mathrm{max}## and ##V_\mathrm{i}## and ##V_\mathrm{f}##, while the problem states ##V_1## and ##V_2##. You should be also careful with the sign convention. When using ##\Delta U = Q + W##, ##W## is in terms of the work done on the working substance, while for an engine, you usually want the work produced by the working substance to be positive. You get ##W## correct at then end, but because you dropped a minus sign along the way.

The efficiency you get is indeed low. You should check your calculation of ##Q_\mathrm{pos}## again (don't confuse ##C_V## and ##c_V##...).
 

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K