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: 521
  • Screenshot from 2018-12-18 01-53-13.png
    Screenshot from 2018-12-18 01-53-13.png
    30.1 KB · Views: 520
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.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top