Maximum Work Theorem : Herbert Callen

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around Herbert Callen's Maximum Work Theorem, which states that for reversible processes, the heat flux to a reversible heat source is minimized while the work flux to a reversible work source is maximized. The user questions the necessity of a reversible heat source, arguing that constant volume and mole numbers should suffice for proving the theorem. They express confusion over Callen's definitions and the implications of reversibility in thermodynamic processes. Another participant suggests an alternative textbook, "Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics" by Moran et al., as a potentially clearer resource. The conversation highlights the complexities of thermodynamic principles and the importance of understanding reversibility in maximizing work output.
mayank pathak
Messages
8
Reaction score
2
Hi, I have been studying thermodynamics from Herbert Callen's "Thermodynamics : an introduction to the physical theories of equilibrium thermostatics and irreversible thermodynamics"
In Chapter 4, Section 4.4, he writes : "
all processes occurring between a given initial and a given final state of a system, the flux of heat to an associated reversible heat source is minimum and the flux of work to an associated reversible work source is maximum for reversible processes."

Now he also describes what a reversible heat source is : "
A reversible heat source is defined as a system enclosed by a rigid
impermeable wall and characterized by relaxation times sufficiently short
that all processes of interest within it are essentially quasi-static."

I understand his argument. But I fail to understand why is the heat source required to be reversible ? According to me, as long as the heat source(or sink) is constrained to have constant volume and constant mole numbers, same heat input will lead to same rise in internal energy and hence same increase in entropy in accordance with the fundamental equation of the heat source. And that is all that we need to prove maximum work theorem. And we don't actually need the heat source to be reversible.

Am I missing something ?

Edit : I have uploaded the relevant text from the book.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot from 2018-12-18 01-52-55.png
    Screenshot from 2018-12-18 01-52-55.png
    39.8 KB · Views: 514
  • Screenshot from 2018-12-18 01-53-13.png
    Screenshot from 2018-12-18 01-53-13.png
    30.1 KB · Views: 513
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
For what it is worth, none of it makes any sense to me.
 
Chestermiller said:
For what it is worth, none of it makes any sense to me.

does my question sound incomplete ? Let me share some pages from the book to make it easy for others.
 
None of it makes any sense to me. It is well known that, for two specified thermodynamic equilibrium states of a closed system, there are an infinite number of reversible paths, and they don't all involve the same work and heat.

As an alternate to Callen, might I suggest Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics by Moran et al. I think you will find it much easier to understand.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top