Is this Thermodynamic Cycle Possible and Reversible?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the analysis of a thermodynamic cycle involving heat transfer and work output. Participants are evaluating whether the cycle violates the first law of thermodynamics and whether it is reversible, irreversible, or impossible. The context includes theoretical considerations and application of thermodynamic principles.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant calculates the heat transfer and internal energy, concluding that the cycle does not violate the first law, but expresses uncertainty about the simplicity of the solution.
  • Another participant clarifies that the power produced refers to the work done by the heat engine, challenging the initial assumption that no work is done.
  • There is a discussion about the irreversibility of the cycle due to heat transfer from reservoirs, with one participant asserting that this process cannot be reversed.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of an ideal Carnot cycle, which also involves heat transfer but is reversible, suggesting that the reasoning for irreversibility may not be valid.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the implications of the first law and the conditions for reversibility, seeking clarification on their reasoning.
  • A suggestion is made to compare the efficiency of the given engine to that of a Carnot engine to determine the possibility and reversibility of the cycle.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the cycle is reversible or irreversible. There are competing views regarding the implications of heat transfer and the application of Carnot's theorem.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the assumptions made in their analyses, particularly regarding the definitions of work and heat transfer in the context of the first law of thermodynamics. The discussion highlights the complexity of determining reversibility in thermodynamic cycles.

Boom100
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Determine Whether or not this cycle violates the first law and if it is reversible, irreversible, or not possible.

2000kW or power are produced by taking 3000 kW of heat transfer from a 750C reservior and rejecting 1000kW of heat to a 20C reservoir.


Homework Equations



dU=Q-W

The Attempt at a Solution



My attempt was to simply sum the heat transfer (3000-1000)kW = Q and set dU=2000kW (The energy produced, or the internal energy it gathered). I set W=0 because this is just heat transfer and there is no work being done.

So 2,000 does = 2,0000 so I'm thinking this is true. It seems a bit easy though... so I am thinking something is off and I might have to incorporate the temperatures.

I said this is irreversible because it is heat transfer from a reservoir. So, once the heat is transferred, both heat sources change temperatures (The cold gets hotter and the hot gets cooler) so they are tending towards an equilibrium temperature. This can not be reversed and heat can not be sent back.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
.
Welcome to Physics Forums.

Boom100 said:

Homework Statement


Determine Whether or not this cycle violates the first law and if it is reversible, irreversible, or not possible.

2000kW or power are produced by taking 3000 kW of heat transfer from a 750C reservior and rejecting 1000kW of heat to a 20C reservoir.


Homework Equations



dU=Q-W

The Attempt at a Solution



My attempt was to simply sum the heat transfer (3000-1000)kW = Q and set dU=2000kW (The energy produced, or the internal energy it gathered). I set W=0 because this is just heat transfer and there is no work being done.

So 2,000 does = 2,0000 so I'm thinking this is true. It seems a bit easy though... so I am thinking something is off and I might have to incorporate the temperatures.

I said this is irreversible because it is heat transfer from a reservoir. So, once the heat is transferred, both heat sources change temperatures (The cold gets hotter and the hot gets cooler) so they are tending towards an equilibrium temperature. This can not be reversed and heat can not be sent back.
The "power produced" mentioned in the problem statement actually refers to the work done by this heat engine. That contradicts your thinking that W=0.
 
Redbelly98 said:
.
Welcome to Physics Forums.


The "power produced" mentioned in the problem statement actually refers to the work done by this heat engine. That contradicts your thinking that W=0.

Ahhh Ok great, thanks Red. So with that thinking then- Since the engine is doing the work, that means that W=-2000, So dU=2000-2000=0. So 2000 still = 2000 So am i correct in saying that this means that this statement is valid? Is my reason correct for why it is irreversible as well?

Once again, thank you!
 
I have asked around if any of the other Homework Helpers can help out on the question of reversible/irreversible/impossible. Meanwhile, I'll respond as I can.

Boom100 said:
I said this is irreversible because it is heat transfer from a reservoir. So, once the heat is transferred, both heat sources change temperatures (The cold gets hotter and the hot gets cooler) so they are tending towards an equilibrium temperature. This can not be reversed and heat can not be sent back.
But an ideal Carnot cycle also involves heat transfer from a reservoir, yet it is reversible.

Boom100 said:
Ahhh Ok great, thanks Red. So with that thinking then- Since the engine is doing the work, that means that W=-2000, So dU=2000-2000=0. So 2000 still = 2000 So am i correct in saying that this means that this statement is valid?
What statement are you referring to?
Is my reason correct for why it is irreversible as well?
I think not, for the reason I stated above on Carnot cycles.
 
Redbelly98 said:
I have asked around if any of the other Homework Helpers can help out on the question of reversible/irreversible/impossible. Meanwhile, I'll respond as I can.


But an ideal Carnot cycle also involves heat transfer from a reservoir, yet it is reversible.


What statement are you referring to?

I think not, for the reason I stated above on Carnot cycles.

The statement I was referring to was the first law. So I was just seeing if that was proof enough that it doesn't violate the first law.

As far as the reversibility thing, I see what you mean. I am still pretty confused on this one.
 
You want to compare the efficiency of the given engine to that of the Carnot engine and use Carnot's theorem to answer the question about whether the given engine is possible, and if so, if it's reversible or irreversible.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K