Are Qin and W equivalent in the Rankine and Otto cycles?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter physea
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cycles Otto
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the equivalence of Qin and W in the context of the Rankine and Otto cycles. Participants explore the relationships between heat input, work done, and enthalpy changes in these thermodynamic cycles, addressing both theoretical and practical implications.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that in the ideal Rankine cycle, Qin is defined as h3 - h2 during isobaric expansion.
  • One participant proposes an alternative interpretation of Qin, suggesting that Qin - W = Δh, leading to Qin - PΔV = Δh.
  • Another participant agrees with the initial definition of Qin in the Rankine cycle but challenges the alternative interpretation, stating it is incorrect.
  • In the context of the Otto cycle, a participant questions whether knowing the mass flow rate is necessary to calculate power from Wnet expressed in kJ/kg.
  • Responses indicate that while it is acceptable to express power in terms of Wnet, actual power calculations require knowledge of mass flow rate.
  • Participants discuss the work generated during the constant pressure process in the Rankine cycle and whether it is accounted for in the enthalpy change.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is disagreement regarding the interpretation of Qin and its relationship to work in the Rankine cycle. While some participants support the standard definition, others challenge it. In the Otto cycle discussion, there is partial agreement on the necessity of mass flow rate for power calculations, but the nuances remain contested.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the treatment of work in the Rankine cycle and the implications of different interpretations on power calculations in the Otto cycle. The discussion reflects varying assumptions and interpretations of thermodynamic principles.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and professionals interested in thermodynamics, particularly those studying the Rankine and Otto cycles and their applications in engineering contexts.

physea
Messages
211
Reaction score
3
Hello!

In ideal Rankine cycle, we say that during the isobaric expansion, the heat provided to the system is Qin = h3 - h2
However, in my opinion, it is Qin - W = Δh -> Qin - PΔV = Δh. Which is correct?

Secondly,
In Otto cycle, let's say you have calculated Wnet in kJ/kg. In order to be able to calculate Power, isn't it necessary to know mass flow rate?

Thanks!
 
Science news on Phys.org
physea said:
Hello!

In ideal Rankine cycle, we say that during the isobaric expansion, the heat provided to the system is Qin = h3 - h2
However, in my opinion, it is Qin - W = Δh -> Qin - PΔV = Δh. Which is correct?

Secondly,
In Otto cycle, let's say you have calculated Wnet in kJ/kg. In order to be able to calculate Power, isn't it necessary to know mass flow rate?

Thanks!
The answer to the question about the Rankine cycle is that the first equation is correct (and yours is wrong).

The answer to the question about the Otto cycle is yes and no. It is acceptable to express the power as Wnet in kJ/kg if you also know that all you need to do to get the actual power is multiply by the mass flow rate.
 
Chestermiller said:
The answer to the question about the Rankine cycle is that the first equation is correct (and yours is wrong).

The answer to the question about the Otto cycle is yes and no. It is acceptable to express the power as Wnet in kJ/kg if you also know that all you need to do to get the actual power is multiply by the mass flow rate.

Why my equation is wrong?
Isn't 2->3 a constant pressure process where the volume expands?
Isn't there work generated? Why we don't count it?
 
physea said:
Why my equation is wrong?
Isn't 2->3 a constant pressure process where the volume expands?
Isn't there work generated? Why we don't count it?
It is counted. It’s lumped in with the enthalpy.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
948
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
9K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
10K