Heat capacity under constant pressure or volume question

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a thermally isolated container with a constant volume where the number of particles and temperature are changing over time. The problem involves understanding the heat required to change the temperature in a scenario where particles are escaping, leading to questions about the appropriate heat capacity to use.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of a thermally isolated system and the effects of particle flow on heat capacity. There is debate over whether to use heat capacity at constant volume or constant pressure, with some questioning the definition of adiabatic processes in this context.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various interpretations being explored. Some participants have provided insights into the thermodynamic principles involved, while others are seeking clarification on the professor's reasoning regarding the heat capacity. There is no explicit consensus yet on the correct approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem states the container is adiabatic and has a tiny hole, which complicates the assumptions about heat transfer and system behavior. The changing number of particles and the implications for pressure and volume are also under scrutiny.

  • #61
Joker93 said:
From your last help, I tried something more familiar to me. I again wrote dE=dQ+dW but this time I wrote dW=μ*dN - W where W is the work done to push the gas out but in a form that implies a change in volume. To clarify, I wrote W=Pv*dN(as you did) which is like pushing small volumes v out of the fixed control volume. Also, μ is the chemical potential(like you said, the energy that gets transported outside the control volume) and it is equal to μ=dE/dN which gives μ=f/2*kT. So, dW=f/2*kT*dN + Pv*dN with v=V/N (note that I wrote +PvdN rather than -PvdN because when dN>0 then work is being done ON the system so dW>0 as opposed to the typical dW=-PdV).
These, along with dE=dQ+dW and dE=0(due to dV=0) and thus dE=f/2*k*(NdT+TdN) gives:
dQ+f/2*kT*dN +Pv*dN=f/2*k*(NdT+TdN) and so
dQ=-PvdN+f/2*k*NdT and because TdN=-NdT and PV=kNT
dQ=(f/2+1)*k*PV*(dT/T)
which is the correct answer.

I think this is correct. What really annoys me is that our professor thought that it was an easy task of writing the extra term of PvdN. This is conceptually very tricky and I think I would have never think of this if it wasn't for you..
Nice job.

As I said in a previous post, I think that your professor did you a disservice by giving you this problem, which is waaayyyy too advanced for you right now. The open system (fixed control volume) version of the first law is a little difficult to relate to at first, because of the very term you identified. Of course, once you have learned about it and got some experience applying it, it seems much easier.

I was very impressed with how you attacked this problem and with the questions you asked. I think you have a bright future in science.

Chet
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Joker93
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Chestermiller said:
Nice job.

As I said in a previous post, I think that your professor did you a disservice by giving you this problem, which is waaayyyy too advanced for you right now. The open system (fixed control volume) version of the first law is a little difficult to relate to at first, because of the very term you identified. Of course, once you have learned about it and got some experience applying it, it seems much easier.

I was very impressed with how you attacked this problem and with the questions you asked. I think you have a bright future in science.

Chet
Wow, thanks! And I thought that you would think "ah, this kid did not understand the basics that I was saying to him"!
Thanks for your patience(I know I have taken a lot of your time; it's just that if I don't understand something exactly, then I can't connect the dots and find a solution that is also conceptually valid in my head).
Thanks again!
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
7K