Otto cycle combustion heat question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the efficiency of an ideal Otto cycle using the heat of combustion of gasoline and the compression ratio of a car. The initial calculation resulted in an unrealistic combustion temperature of over 51,000 Kelvin, prompting a reevaluation of the specific heat of air used in the formula. Participants highlighted the importance of considering the enthalpy of formation for both fuel and combustion products, suggesting that the heat of combustion may already account for this. A key correction involved recognizing the air-fuel ratio, which was identified as 14.7, leading to adjustments in the calculations. Ultimately, understanding the energy balance and correct parameters is crucial for accurate temperature predictions in the Otto cycle.
Saharka
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I have been trying to determine the efficiency of an ideal Otto cycle based on the compression ratio of my car and the heat of combustion of gasoline and I think I'm not entierly wrong but there is something quite off. When trying to calculate the temperature of the combustion stage my result gives me the amazingly high temperature of 51,621kelvin which is obviously silly.
Here is the data I used:

I used the heat of combustion of gasoline, in this case 42,500 Kj as Qin.
662.385kelvin as the temperature of the previous stage of the cycle.
0.834 Kj/KgK as the sepecific heat of air.

So according to me the temperature should be given by the following equation:

Qin=CvΔT

So I need one of the temperatures so it becomes:

T3=(Qin/Cv)+T2

Which translates to:

T3=(42,500/0.834)+662.385

And finally:

T3= 51,161kelvin

I suspect that I'm using the wrong number for the specific heat of air but I'm not entierly sure, any ideas?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
You have ok numbers for air. The problem is that you only took into account part of the energy balance. You need to consider the enthalpy of formation for fuel and products, not just the fuel. Remember, you don't get those product bonds without an energy exchange.
 
Thanks for the reply, but I'm still confused, I thought the heat of combustion already considered the enthalpy of formation of the products or am I missing the point?
 
Saharka said:
Thanks for the reply, but I'm still confused, I thought the heat of combustion already considered the enthalpy of formation of the products or am I missing the point?
Right.
But you are using 1 kg of gasoline, by combustion, to raise the temperature of 1 kg of air.
Would that be correct?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air–fuel_ratio
 
Ohhh right, should have been a duh, thanks.

So no I think the air fuel ratio is 14.7 I'll adjust for this thanks again.
 
Here's a video by “driving 4 answers” who seems to me to be well versed on the details of Internal Combustion engines. The video does cover something that's a bit shrouded in 'conspiracy theory', and he touches on that, but of course for phys.org, I'm only interested in the actual science involved. He analyzes the claim of achieving 100 mpg with a 427 cubic inch V8 1970 Ford Galaxy in 1977. Only the fuel supply system was modified. I was surprised that he feels the claim could have been...
Thread 'Turbocharging carbureted petrol 2 stroke engines'
Hi everyone, online I ve seen some images about 2 stroke carbureted turbo (motorcycle derivation engine). Now.. In the past in this forum some members spoke about turbocharging 2 stroke but not in sufficient detail. The intake and the exhaust are open at the same time and there are no valves like a 4 stroke. But if you search online you can find carbureted 2stroke turbo sled or the Am6 turbo. The question is: Is really possible turbocharge a 2 stroke carburated(NOT EFI)petrol engine and...
Back
Top