Do All Engines Have the Same Efficiency as Carnot Engines?

  • Thread starter Thread starter annetjelie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Carnot Engines
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the efficiency of heat engines and the implications of combining real engines. It highlights that no real heat engine can exceed the efficiency of a Carnot engine operating between the same reservoirs, as demonstrated by the violation of the Clausius statement when imagining a more efficient engine driving a less efficient Carnot refrigerator. The conversation clarifies that this conclusion holds true primarily for reversible cycles, emphasizing that if the engine cycle is more efficient than the Carnot cycle, it could theoretically produce more work than needed, leading to a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Ultimately, the efficiency of real engines cannot be assumed to be the same as that of Carnot engines, as the laws of thermodynamics impose strict limitations. Understanding these principles is crucial for grasping the fundamental limits of thermodynamic systems.
annetjelie
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
My book states:

"To prove that no real heat engine operating between two reservoirs is more efficient than a carnot engine between the same reservoirs, imagine a more efficient engine to drive a less efficient carnot refrigerator. For the combination of the engine and refrigerator you get a net transfer of energy from the cold to the hot reservoir without work being done on the combination, which is a violation of the Clausius statement."

But what if i combine two *real* engines in the same way? This violates the Clausius statement too.
Does that mean that *any*(real or reversible) two or more engines between the same reservoirs have the same efficiency? I thought that was only true for Carnot engines.

help would be much appreciated, thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
annetjelie said:
My book states:

"To prove that no real heat engine operating between two reservoirs is
more efficient than a carnot engine between the same reservoirs, imagine
a more efficient engine to drive a less efficient carnot refrigerator.
For the combination of the engine and refrigerator you get a net
transfer of energy from the cold to the hot reservoir without work being
done on the combination, which is a violation of the Clausius statement."

But what if i combine two *real* engines in the same way? This violates
the Clausius statement too.
Does that mean that *any*(real or reversible) two or more engines
between the same reservoirs have the same efficiency? I thought that was
only true for Carnot engines.
The quoted statement only leads to this conclusion if the refrigeration cycle is reversible. Here is the explanation:

Since the Carnot refrigerator cycle is reversible, after it delivers heat from the cold to the hot reservoir it can return to its original state by reversing the cycle and using the heat delivered to the hot reservoir to produce the same amount of work that was used in the cooling cycle (ie a Carnot engine). If that energy is stored, (eg. by raising a weight or stretching a spring) the cooling cycle can be repeated followed again by the engine cycle etc.ad infinitum.

But suppose the engine cycle (which takes the heat and produces work, which is stored and used to drive the Carnot refrigeration cycle) is more efficient than the Carnot cycle. This means that it produces MORE work with the heat Qh than the refrigerator cycle needs to deliver that Qh back to the hot reservoir. If the refrigerator then uses all of the engine's work output, it would deliver MORE heat than Qh from the cold reservoir back to the hot reservoir. This means the hot register would get hotter and the cold reservoir colder using no net energy (ie using the same energy over and over). And this violates the second law.

AM
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top