I note that in many case, we always use the constant-volume specific heat to calculate the change of internal energy.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

For example, in a adiabatic process (P1, V1, T1) to (P2, V2, T2), since internal energy is state variable, we always like to build a fictitious isochoric process from (P1, V1, T1) to (P1', V1, T2) and isobaric process from (P1', V1, T2) to (P2, V2, T2) so that the total change of internal energy be

[tex]\Delta U = n C_v(T2-T1) + nC_p(T2-T2) = n C_v(T2-T1)[/tex]

Is this always true? There is a chapter about isobaric process in my text. The author use the constant-volume specific heat to calculate the change of internal energy

[tex]\Delta U = nC_v \Delta T[/tex]

the work done by the ideal gas is

[tex]\Delta W = nR\Delta T[/tex]

according to first law

[tex]\Delta Q = \Delta U + \Delta W = nC_v\Delta T + nR\Delta T = nC_p \Delta T[/tex]

this results is really confusing me. I wonder why don't we just use the constant-pressure specific heat to calculate the change of internal energy for isobaric process? But if we use [tex]C_p[/tex] to calculate [tex]\Delta U[/tex], the result will be different ... well all of these doubts is concluded in the following questions:

1) will it ALWAYS be true to use constant-volume specific heat to calculate the change of internal energy? No matter what process is concerned (even for isobaric process)?

2) The definition of heat capacity is: the change of heat per mole per degree. So why we keep use specific heat to calculate the change of internal energy instead of the change heat?

Thanks.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Change of internal energy

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**