Can Enthalpy Be Solved Using Different Methods?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fubear
  • Start date Start date
fubear
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



2 moles of an ideal gas at 300K and 5 bar is expanded adiabatically at a constant pressure of 1 bar till the volume doubles. Cv = 3R/2. Calculate w, q, dE, dH and change in T.

Homework Equations



See below

The Attempt at a Solution



I found that w = dE = -997.78J

I solved dH by:

dH = CpdT = -1.66kJ
(found Cp by Cp=Cv+nR ; found dT by Cv=dE/dT)I was wondering if we could solve dH another way:
dH = dE + d(PV)

However, I get a different answer..
dH = dE + Pext dV (because pressure is constant)
dH = -997.78J +-997.78J (because Pext dV is work)
dH = -2.00 kJ

I also tried another way:
dH = dE + d(nRT)
dH = -977J + (2mol)(8.3145J/K)(-80K)
dH = -1.08kJ

I am not getting the same value for each of the different ways I am using... Am I doing something wrong or am I not allowed to solve dH using the other methods?

Also, at constant pressure, isn't dH = qrev.. and q=0, so shouldn't dH = 0?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So the gas starts at 5 bar and then is reversibly changed to1 bar?? Under what conditions?
 
H=E+PV, where P is the pressure of the gas. It is defined for the steady state. During the expansion, the gas in not in equilibrium, its pressure is not defined, you can not use the external pressure.
You can calculate the change of enthalpy from the parameters of the new equilibrium, E, P, T, and it will be the same -1.66 kJ.

ehild
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top