Correct Derivation of the Adiabatic Condition? (PV Diagram)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the adiabatic condition using the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Equipartition Theorem, leading to the relationship between pressure and volume in an adiabatic process. It establishes that adiabatic processes can be represented by the equation PV^(5/3) = constant, contrasting with isothermal processes represented by PV = constant. The participants debate the steepness of adiabatic curves compared to isotherms, suggesting that adiabatic processes involve temperature changes that necessitate steeper paths on a PV diagram. They acknowledge that while the constants in the equations are dimensionally different, the comparison of steepness is valid when considering logarithmic representations. The conversation concludes with a suggestion to analyze the derivatives of the equations for a more rigorous understanding of the relationship between pressure and volume in both processes.
PhDeezNutz
Messages
849
Reaction score
556
Homework Statement
Derive the condition the Adiabatic Condition ##PV^{\gamma} = \text{constant}## for a monatomic ideal gas. I believe ##\gamma = \frac{5}{3}##.
Relevant Equations
Equipartition Theorem:
##E = \frac{3}{2} NkT \Rightarrow \Delta E = \frac{3}{2} Nk \Delta T##

Ideal Gas Law:

## PV = NkT \Rightarrow P \Delta V + V \Delta P = Nk \Delta T ##

First Law:

##\Delta E = Q - W ##

Adiabatic:

##Q = 0##
By the First Law, Definition of an Adiabatic Process, and Definition of Work:

##\Delta E = Q - W = - W = - P \Delta V ## (because ##Q = 0##) (Equation 1)

By the Equipartition Theorem:

##\Delta E = \frac{3}{2} Nk \Delta T ## (Equation 2)

By Setting Equation 1 equal to Equation 2

## \Delta T = - \frac{2P}{3Nk} \Delta V## (Equation 3)

Differential Form of Ideal Gas Law:

##P \Delta V + V \Delta P = Nk \Delta T## (Equation 4)

Plug Equation 3 into Equation 4


## P \Delta V + V \Delta P = Nk \Delta T = - \frac{2P}{3} dV## (Equation 5)

So getting rid of the middle man

## P \Delta V + V \Delta P = - \frac{2P}{3} dV## (Equation 6)

Moving the LHS over to the RHS we have


##\frac{5}{3} P \Delta V + V \Delta P = 0## (Equation 7)

This can be stated another way


## \frac{\Delta P}{\Delta V} + \frac{5}{3} \left( \frac{1}{V} \right) P = 0## (Equation 8)


Equation 8 can be re-written in a calculus friendly way and we can use some basic methods of Differential Equations to solve for ##P## as a function of ##V## or just stop a step before doing that and establish ##PV^{\gamma} = \text{constant}##

## \frac{ dP}{dV} + \frac{5}{3} \left( \frac{1}{V} \right) P = 0## (Equation 8)

multiply through by integrating factor ##\mu = e^{\int \frac{5}{3V} \,dV} = e^{ln v^{\frac{5}{3}}} = v^{\frac{5}{3}}##

## v^{\frac{5}{3}} \frac{ dP}{dV} + \frac{5}{3} \left(v^{\frac{2}{3}} \right) P = 0## (Equation 8)

We recognize the LHS as the derivative of ##PV^{\frac{5}{3}}## So

##\frac{d}{dV} \left( PV^{\frac{5}{3}}\right) = 0## (Equation 9)

So

##PV^{\frac{5}{3}} = \text{constant}## (Equation 10)

of course if we really wanted to we could say

##P = \frac{\text{constant}}{V^{\frac{5}{3}}}##

Hopefully I didn't play too fast and loose with derivatives ##d## and full changes ##\Delta##, thanks in advance for any help/guidance.

If the above work is correct, how can we establish that "Adiabatic process on the PV diagram are steeper than those of isotherms".............after all we don't necessarily know what each "constant" is in

##PV = \text{constant}_1 ## (Isotherm)

##PV^{\frac{5}{3}} = \text{constant}_2## (Adiabat)

Are ##\text{constant}_1## and ##\text{constant}_2## the same?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe this is too simplistic but maybe it will get some ideas rolling

if we have two parallel isotherms (they have to be parallel at least locally for a given ##V##) to get from one to the other ##T## has to change. The only way to get from one ##T## to another ##T## (i.e. from one isotherm to another) is to follow a path that connects the two isotherms which is necessarily steeper than either isotherm.
 
PhDeezNutz said:
Are ##\text{constant}_1## and ##\text{constant}_2## the same?
It is meaningless to ask if they have the same value since they are dimensionally different.
The claim that one is steeper then the other would make sense on a log-log chart.
 
haruspex said:
It is meaningless to ask if they have the same value since they are dimensionally different.
The claim that one is steeper then the other would make sense on a log-log chart.

Fair but what about my reasoning in post 2?:

If isotherms are parallel and in adiabatic processes ##T## changes then adiabats must "travel between" isotherms making them necessarily steeper?

I will ponder your log-log argument and respond.
 
PhDeezNutz said:
Fair but what about my reasoning in post 2?:

If isotherms are parallel and in adiabatic processes ##T## changes then adiabats must "travel between" isotherms making them necessarily steeper?
That's probably valid, but you can also get there by writing down the equations for how P depends on V in the two cases, taking the derivatives, evaluating at ##(P_0, V_0)##and taking the ratio.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Back
Top