Is this against Kelvin-Planck statement?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of the Kelvin-Planck statement in the context of an ideal gas expanding isothermally. The user calculates that the change in internal energy (∆U) is zero, leading to the conclusion that all absorbed heat (Q) converts into work (W), which appears to contradict the Kelvin-Planck statement. However, clarification is provided that the statement refers to processes that result solely in the transformation of heat into work without returning to the initial state. Thus, the scenario described does not violate the Kelvin-Planck statement as it involves a cyclic process.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the ideal gas law (pv=nRT)
  • Familiarity with the first law of thermodynamics (∆U=Q+W)
  • Knowledge of isothermal processes in thermodynamics
  • Comprehension of the Kelvin-Planck statement in thermodynamics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the first law of thermodynamics in cyclic processes
  • Explore isothermal expansion and its applications in thermodynamic cycles
  • Research the Kelvin-Planck statement and its relationship with real-world heat engines
  • Examine detailed examples of thermodynamic processes that adhere to or violate the Kelvin-Planck statement
USEFUL FOR

Students of thermodynamics, physics educators, and engineers interested in heat engine design and efficiency analysis will benefit from this discussion.

pitbull
Gold Member
Messages
25
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


An ideal gas expands isothermally in contact with a heat source. ∆U is zero in this case because it is an ideal gas and T=constant. Is this against Kelvin-Planck statement?

Homework Equations


pv=nRT
dW=-pdV
Kelvin-Planck statement: There is no process whose only result is the full transformation of heat into work.

The Attempt at a Solution


My guess is, ∆U=Q+W=0, therefore
Q=integral(pdv)=nRTlog(Vfinal/Vinitial)>0
W=-nRTlog(Vfinal/Vinitial)
So all the heat that the gas absorbs turns into work. Therefore, this is against K-P statement, but I have a feeling that I am wrong. Can you guys help me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K