Increase Carnot Efficiency: Lower Low-Temp Res?

  • Thread starter Thread starter endeavor
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Carnot Efficiency
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the Carnot efficiency of heat engines and the impact of temperature changes in the high and low-temperature reservoirs on efficiency. Participants explore the relationship between temperature differences and efficiency, questioning the validity of a textbook statement regarding optimal temperature adjustments.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants analyze the effects of raising the high-temperature reservoir versus lowering the low-temperature reservoir on Carnot efficiency. They present calculations and interpretations of the Carnot efficiency formula, questioning assumptions about energy costs and efficiency outcomes.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and alternative interpretations of the Carnot efficiency formula. Some express skepticism about the textbook's guidance, while others reinforce the idea that lowering the low-temperature reservoir may yield higher efficiency under certain conditions.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing debate about the implications of temperature changes on efficiency, with some participants suggesting that the energy required to change the temperatures may not be adequately considered. The original poster's understanding of the problem is challenged by differing views on the relationship between temperature adjustments and efficiency outcomes.

endeavor
Messages
174
Reaction score
0
Suppose you had the choice of either raising the high-temperature reservoir a certain number of kelvins, or lowering the low-temperature reservoir the same number of kelvins. Which would you choose (assuming you wanted to increase the efficiency, of course)?

After doing experimenting with some random numbers, I thought the answer to be: lower the low-temperature reservoir.

For example,
1 - 100/300 = 66.7%
1 - 95/300 = 68.3%
1 - 100/305 = 67.2%
both of the last two are greater than the first, but the second has the greatest efficiency.
However, my book says to raise the high-temperature reservoir. Is my book wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Could you tell us what the question asks, exactly? I'm thinking there's something missing. Carnot efficiency approaches 100% as the cold resevoir approaches zero kelvins; for a constant temperature difference, the greatest efficiency will be found for the coldest cold resevoir. This is what you have noticed. But it would take more energy to remove 5 K from the cold than it would to add 5 K to the hot.
 
The exact question reads:
"The Carnot efficiency shows that the greater the temperature difference of the reservoirs of a heat engine, the greater the efficiency. Suppose that you had the choice of either raising the high-temperature reservoir a certain number of kelvins, or lowering the low-temperature reservoir the same number of kelvins. Which would you choose (assuming you wanted to increase the efficiency, of course)?"
 
The carnot heat engine efficiency is given to us as:

[tex]\eta_{th, rev} = 1 - \frac{T_L}{T_H}[/tex]

What can you conclude?

In other words, what happens as the denominator, [itex]T_H[/itex] approaches infinity? similarly, what happens as the numerator, [itex]T_L[/itex] approaches zero?

Edit: I think you and Chi are right and your book is wrong.
 
Last edited:
I've been over this several ways, but if you look at the other version of the carnot efficiency formula, it seals it:
e=(Thot-Tcold)/ Thot

this says that if the difference in temperature is the same, the greater that T-hot is, the lesser the efficiency is.
 
As I am sure you are already aware, your formula is the same thing Chi Meson. The formula[tex]\eta_{th, rev} = 1 - \frac{T_L}{T_H}[/tex] is derived from the reduction of your formula. (Just simplify your fraction)
 
Last edited:
cyrusabdollahi said:
As I am sure you are already aware, your formula is the same thing Chi Meson. The formula[tex]\eta_{th, rev} = 1 - \frac{T_L}{T_H}[/tex] is derived from the reduction of your formula. (Just simplify your fraction)
Yeah. It's just that looking at the other version (of the same thing) it was more obvious to me that the book is incorrect. You can simply say that efficiency is inversely proportional to T hot (if delta T is constant).
 
Last edited:
I thought my book was wrong.
Thanks, all.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
13K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
15K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K