Connecting two Carnot engions-

  • Thread starter Thread starter C.E
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Carnot
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the efficiency of two Carnot engines connected in series. The original poster attempts to derive an expression for the overall efficiency based on the efficiencies of the individual engines, while also drawing a schematic diagram of the setup.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the relationship between the work done and heat input for each engine, with attempts to express overall efficiency in terms of individual efficiencies. Questions arise about manipulating equations and the implications of the second law of thermodynamics.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, exploring various algebraic manipulations and questioning assumptions about the relationships between the variables. Some guidance has been offered to encourage further exploration of the equations involved.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on ensuring that the derived expressions do not violate the second law of thermodynamics, with participants expressing uncertainty about their algebraic manipulations and the implications of their findings.

C.E
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
1. The efficiency of a cyclic engine is given by the work done by the engine, divided
by the heat intake from the surroundings. One Carnot engine drives another in series. Draw a schematic diagram of the combined engine and give an expression for the overall efficiency of this arrangement which contains only the efficiencies of the individual engines.

3. Hi, I have managed to draw the diagram but am really struggling with the next bit of the question. Let e1, e2 be the efficiencies of engions 1 and 2 respectively and let e be the overall efficiency.

I know that e[tex]\ 1=w1/Q_H and e2=w2/(Q_h-w1)[/tex] but I am struggling to find e in terms of e1 and e2, please help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Try writing the efficiency of the two engines in combination, then express the variables in terms of [itex]e_1[/itex] and [itex]e_2[/itex].
 
What do you mean by writing them "in combination"?

I get that overall e= (w1+w2)/Qh = e1+w2/Qh but I can't get w2/Qh solely in terms of e2, any ideas?
 
Keep trying, it's possible.
 
Ok, here we go!

w2/Qh= (|Qh|-|w1|-|Qc|)/|Qh|=(-|Qc|-|w1|)/|Qh| +1 =1-e1-|Qc|/|Qh|

Therefore (w1+w2)/Qh= 1-|Qc|/|Qh| =(|Qh|-|Qc|)/|Qh| = (w1+w2)/Qh and I am back to

the beginning again. Can you see what I should be doing differently? I can't see any other ways of trying to manipulate the

expression.
 
Last edited:
Are there any relevant formulas I have not tried in my above attempt?
 
Nope, it's just a matter of manipulating the equations you already have.
 
Could you please be a bit more specific? (I Have been stuck on this for a while and so I think I need a push in the right direction). I don't think I will get there otherwise.
 
Last edited:
What's the relationship between the heat input to the first engine and the heat input to the second engine?
 
  • #10
let Qh(1), Qh(2) be the heat inputs for engions 1 and 2 respectively.

Qh(2)=Qh(1)-w1. Is this right?

I thought I was already using that when I said e2= w2/(Qh-w1).
 
  • #11
Right; can't you go straight from

[tex]e=\frac{w_1+w_2}{Q_{h,1}}[/tex]

to something containing just [itex]e_1[/itex] and [itex]e_2[/itex]? Where are you getting stuck?
 
  • #12
This is what I keep doing and where I am getting stuck.

e=[tex]\frac{w1+w2}{Qh(1)}[/tex]

e=e1+[tex]\frac{w2}{Qh(1)}[/tex]

e=e1+[tex]\frac{w2}{Qh(2)+w1}[/tex]

e=e1+e2+[tex]\frac{w2}{w1}[/tex]

This is where I get stuck.

I can't get rid of the w2/w1 pluss this seems wrong as two engions of efficiency=0.5 would violate the second law if this formula holds.
 
  • #13
Then try something else! I tried a few approaches before something worked. I don't mean to be unhelpful, but just giving you the answer would deprive you of the experience of working it out yourself.
 
  • #14
Ok, I will try new approaches but just out of interest the comment I made at the end of my last post about the second law do you agree with it? If so what have I done wrong (though it may not show the desired result I still thought my Algebra was correct)?
 
  • #15
No, I don't agree;

[tex]\frac{A}{B+C}\neq\frac{A}{B}+\frac{A}{C}[/tex]
 
  • #16
Oh, yeah, my Algebra was wrong afterall. Sorry about this but I do not actually know what else I can try, any further hints?
 

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K