Question about the Carnot engine

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Carnot engine and its efficiency formula, specifically the relationship between heat input (QH), heat output (QL), and their corresponding temperatures (TH, TL). Participants explore the scientific basis for the proportionality of temperature to heat input and output, as well as the implications of thermodynamic principles.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the scientific explanation behind the proportionality of TH to QH and TL to QL, suggesting it may be based on common sense or Carnot's observations.
  • Another participant suggests that the relationship can be deduced through the derivation of Carnot efficiency, referencing a Wikipedia article for further information.
  • A different participant asserts that the proportionality is defined by thermodynamic temperature and relates it to the second law of thermodynamics, indicating that all Carnot engines have the same efficiency based solely on temperatures TH and TC.
  • One participant provides a mathematical derivation involving entropy (ΔS) and heat flow, reinforcing the relationship between heat and temperature in the context of the Carnot cycle.
  • A later reply expresses appreciation for the simplicity of the explanation provided by others.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the explanation for the proportionality of temperature to heat input and output, with multiple viewpoints and approaches presented.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to thermodynamic principles and mathematical derivations, but does not resolve the underlying assumptions or definitions related to the efficiency of the Carnot engine.

titaniumpen
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
I was reading about the Carnot engine, and I stumbled upon this formula:

Carnot efficiency = 1 - (QH-QL)/QH = 1 - (TH-TL)/TH

Where QH is the heat input, QL is the heat output, TH is the input temperature, TL is the output temperature.

The book says that TH is proportional to QH, and TL is proportional to QL, but it does not state why. Well it seems common sense that you have more heat input if the source is hotter, but is there a more scientific explanation? Or is it just a finding from Carnot's observations?
 
Science news on Phys.org
It's true by definition of thermodynamic temperature, T. You can show from the second law of thermodynamics that all Carnot engines have the same efficiency, independently of working substance, so their efficiencies can depend only on the temperatures TH and TC. It was, I believe, the idea of William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) to define temperature such that \frac{T_H}{T_C}=\frac{Q_H}{Q_C} in which QH and QC are the heat input and heat output of a Carnot engine.

By taking the special case of an ideal gas as working substance in a Carnot engine, it is easy to show that the thermodynamic temperature as defined above, is equivalent to temperature defined by pV = nRT for a gas at limitingly low density.

Obviously what I've written is highly condensed. It is spelled out in detail in old-fashioned textbooks such as Zemansky.
 
titaniumpen said:
I was reading about the Carnot engine, and I stumbled upon this formula:

Carnot efficiency = 1 - (QH-QL)/QH = 1 - (TH-TL)/TH

Where QH is the heat input, QL is the heat output, TH is the input temperature, TL is the output temperature.

The book says that TH is proportional to QH, and TL is proportional to QL, but it does not state why. Well it seems common sense that you have more heat input if the source is hotter, but is there a more scientific explanation? Or is it just a finding from Carnot's observations?
Start with:

ΔS = ∫dQ/T

In the Carnot cycle, ΔS = 0. Since heat flows at constant temperature, this means that Qh/Th + Qc/Tc = 0. Since Qh = -|Qh| (i.e. heat flow is out of the hot register so it is negative), we have: |Qc|/Tc = |Qh|/Th, which reduces to |Qh/Qc|= Th/Tc.

AM
 
Thanks for the replies! I didn't know the answer is so simple. :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
14K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
14K
  • · Replies 113 ·
4
Replies
113
Views
20K