Change in potential energy of expanded air in piston-cylinder

Click For Summary
In a piston-cylinder assembly, heated air expands, increasing its volume by 1.6 ft^3 while maintaining constant pressure. The discussion centers on calculating the change in potential energy (PE) of the air, with confusion arising over whether to use the center of gravity (CG) height change or the top surface height change for calculations. It is argued that using the full 1.6 ft for height change inaccurately suggests all air molecules rise uniformly, which is not the case. The conclusion highlights that the change in potential energy of the air is negligible, while the change in internal energy pertains to the piston itself. This emphasizes the importance of considering the system's boundaries in thermodynamic calculations.
Danny_aero
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Thread moved from the technical forums to the schoolwork forums
Air is heated in a vertical piston–cylinder assembly fitted with an electrical resistor. The volume of the air slowly increases by 1.6 ft^3 while its pressure remains constant. The area of the piston is 1 ft^2. The mass of the air is 0.6 lb. The local acceleration of gravity is g = 32.0 ft/s^2.

Question: Find the change in potential energy of the air in Btu.

1645616112555.png


My calculation:
1645618233991.png


My answer is exact half as the book's answer.
I use the change of CG location to compute the elevation change. But it seems that the book uses the change of volume's top surface, which makes me confused. Shouldn't I use the height change of the CG instead of the height change of the top surface?

My thought is that:
If 1.6ft is used in height change, doesn't it mean that the whole volume and all the air molecules have risen for 1.6ft? But it shouldn't be the case, right? If the air is distributed evenly, there should be some air molecules stay on the bottom and some molecules move upwards for a little distance but absolutely not that much as 1.6ft higher. So, not all air molecules rise 1.6ft and ∆PE shouldn't be mg x (1.6ft).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I agree with you.
If we would double the volume, the location of the new CG would at the height the bottom of the piston initially occupies.
 
This problem from Moran et al clearly indicates that the change in potential energy of the air is negligible. In part b, they determine the change in internal energy of the piston (not the air) when they consider the piston as part of the "system." The vertical displacement of the piston times the weight of the piston is its change in potential energy.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes berkeman and Baluncore
Thread 'Why wasn’t gravity included in the potential energy for this problem?'
I’m looking at the attached vibration problem. The solution in the manual includes the spring potential energy but does NOT include the gravitational potential energy of the hanging mass. Can someone explain why gravitational potential energy is not included when deriving the equation of motion? I tried asking ChatGPT but kept going in circles and couldn't figure out. Thanks!

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
13K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K