Interpreting Diagrams: Why is C_v Used in Isobaric Process?

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion about the isobaric process and the use of C_v in calculating internal energy (U), it is clarified that for an ideal gas, the change in internal energy is dependent solely on temperature, regardless of the process type. The relationship ΔU = nC_vΔT holds true even during constant pressure changes, as C_v serves as the proportionality constant between ΔU and ΔT. The participants emphasize that while work is done during the volume change at constant pressure, the internal energy change remains a function of temperature alone. This understanding reinforces that C_v can be applied in the context of the isobaric process. Ultimately, the internal energy change is independent of the specific conditions of the process.
yklin_tux
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hello All, I am interpreting a diagram from the following question.
(I didnt have a chance to take thermo and I learned it by myself so I might have some problems)

http://www.physicsgrad.com/pgre/9677-15

I understand that I can just do ΔW and I get the right answer,
but upon doing it with the specific heats, I am a little confused.

The isobaric process (B->C) specifically:

I looked at this solution:
http://grephysics.net/ans/9677/15

Why, in the calculation of U, is there C_v present?
I thought the pressure was constant, and the volume changes,
then why is U = C_v(ΔT)??

Any advise appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You ask a good question.

For n moles of an ideal gas, we can show that U = n\frac{\nu}{2}RT,
in which \nu is 3 for a monatomic gas (such as helium) and approximately 5 for a diatomic gas such as oxygen.

Thus we have \Delta U = n\frac{\nu}{2}R\Delta T.

Thus there is a proportionality constant, n\frac{\nu}{2}R, between \Delta U and \Delta T which is fixed for any particular sample of gas, and is independent of whether the gas experiences changes at constant volume, constant pressure, or under any other conditions.

Now, for a constant volume change the heat flow Q is equal to the rise in internal energy, since no work is done.
So Q = \Delta U [constant volume!]

But, by definition of the molar heat capacity, C_v, Q = nC_v \Delta T [constant volume!]

So \Delta U = nC_v \Delta T

But we showed at the beginning that the proportionality constant between \Delta U and \Delta T is fixed for any particular sample of gas, and is independent of whether the gas experiences changes at constant volume, constant pressure, or under any other conditions. So having shown for constant volume that the proportionality constant is nC_v, this must be the proportionality constant for all changes.

In other words, nC_v is an alternative way of writing n\frac{\nu}{2}R.
 
Last edited:
Philip,

Thank you for that explanation.

I understand everything you say when there is constant volume, etc,
but in that problem (first link), the B->C process has constant pressure,
and volume changes, so work is being done...

What you are saying is that for ΔU calculation for that specific process I can use
C_v?
 
A characteristic of an ideal gas is that the internal energy is a function only of temperature, irrespective of the process.
 
yklyn Yes, that's just what I'm saying. nCv is the proportionality constant between ΔU and ΔT.

The key passage in my earlier post was the penultimate paragraph, staring "But we showed...".
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top