Finding q to then raise an object, hoping someone can check this work

  • Thread starter Thread starter speny83
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Work
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the height a horse can raise a weight based on its ability to heat ice water. The participant calculated the energy required to heat 11.6 kg of ice water from 273 K to 355 K, resulting in 3.976E6 J. They then converted this energy to find the height a 217 kg weight could be raised in 2.5 minutes, arriving at a height of 31.1 meters. The calculations are deemed correct, although the participant expressed confusion regarding the concepts of reversible and irreversible processes.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of thermodynamics, specifically heat transfer and energy calculations.
  • Familiarity with the specific heat capacity formula: qp = mcΔT.
  • Knowledge of gravitational force calculations: h = W/(mg).
  • Basic principles of reversible and irreversible processes in thermodynamics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of thermodynamics, focusing on heat transfer and energy conservation.
  • Learn about the implications of reversible and irreversible processes in thermodynamic systems.
  • Explore practical applications of specific heat capacity in engineering contexts.
  • Investigate the relationship between work, energy, and gravitational potential energy in physics.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, engineering, and thermodynamics who are interested in energy calculations and the principles of heat transfer.

speny83
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
I think I've got this but not 100% sure.

if a horse can heat 11.6kg ice water T=273k to 355K in 2.5 hours how high could it raise a 217kg weight in 2.5 min?

heres what I've done

qp=mcp,sdt=(1.16E4 g)(4.18 J K-1g-1)(82K)=3.976E6 J

(3.976E6 J/2.5hr)(1hr/60min)(2.5min)=6.627E4 J

h=w/mg=6.627E4 J/((217 kg)(9.81m s-2))=31.1m

does this seem legit? we working with all this rev/irr-rev work and transfer and I am getting really mixed up by simple stuff but if p=const then it would be irreversible right?


any suggestions would be great if I am way off track

Thnaks
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Looks OK to me (I haven't checked the numbers, just skimmed the logic), but your comment about reversibility/irreversibility makes me wonder if there is not some context to the question which makes it more complicated. But if treated literally as posted - its OK.