Heating Water with Coal Gas: Calculating Gas Consumption

Karol
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
22

Homework Statement


200 liters of water are heated from 100 to 650C by burning coal gas. The heat loss in the chimney is 25%.
How many cubic meters of gas are needed

Homework Equations


Calories required: [itex]Q=mc\delta t[/itex]
Burning heat of coal gas: 4320[Cal/m3]

The Attempt at a Solution


Net heat needed: [itex]Q=200\cdot 55=11,000[/itex]
Gross heat needed: [itex]Q\cdot 0.75=11,000\rightarrow Q=14,667[/itex]
Gas needed: [itex]4320\cdot x=14,667\rightarrow x=3.4[m^3][/itex]
It should be 2.9
 
on Phys.org
You need to show units in all your calculations. It makes your work much easier to follow and analyze for mistakes.
 
Net heat needed: [itex]Q=200[kg]\cdot 55^0=11,000[Cal-kg][/itex]
Gross heat needed: [itex]Q[Cal-kg]\cdot 0.75=11,000[Cal-kg]\rightarrow Q=14,667[Cal-kg][/itex]
Gas needed: [itex]4320[Cal/m^3]\cdot x=14,667[Cal-kg]\rightarrow x=3.4[m^3][/itex]
It should be 2.9[/QUOTE]
 
You are missing something in the first formula. How can you get Calories by multiplying kg by degrees?
 
And how did the kg vanish again in the third line? This issue will go away once you fix the first line.

What should be 2.9?
 
I mistakenly omitted the specific heat:
Net heat needed: [itex]Q=200[kg]\cdot 1[\frac{Cal}{^0\cdot kg}]\cdot 55^0=11,000[Cal][/itex]
Gross heat needed: [itex]Q[Cal]\cdot 0.75=11,000[Cal]\rightarrow Q=14,667[Cal][/itex]
Gas needed: [itex]4320[Cal/m^3]\cdot x[m^3]=14,667[Cal]\rightarrow x=3.4[m^3][/itex]
The answer should be 2.9[m3]
 
Your answer is right, IMHO. Let's solve the problem by a false-position approach: we assume that you burn 2 cu. m of gas. The energy obtained is 4320*2 = 8640 Cal. You lose 25% through the chimney, and are left with 8640*0,75 = 6480 Cal. Now, you have 200 liters of water, so with those 6480 Cal, its temperature will rise by 6480/200 = 32,40ºC. But you need a rise of 55ºC, hence you need more gas... Exactly (55/32,4)*2 = 3,4 cu. m...
 
Thanks
 
° is not a unit. Use K instead.
Apart from that, it looks fine (but I really don't like "Cal" for kcal).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K