Reversible vs irreversible work for adiabatic process

AI Thread Summary
In an adiabatic process involving a gas transitioning from state A to B and back to A, the net work done is questioned due to differing values of dE for reversible and irreversible steps. The key issue is that irreversibly compressing at constant pressure results in a final volume greater than the initial, preventing a return to the original state. The temperature increase during this irreversible compression is attributed to friction and viscous dissipation. The discussion highlights the necessity of reversible processes to achieve the initial state adiabatically. The problem posed is recognized as an interesting challenge in thermodynamics.
Andrew U
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I have a gas transitioning adiabatically between A (P1, V1) and B (P2, V2) where P1>P2 and V2>V1. The question is to determine the net work done on the gas if the gas is first expanded reversibly from A to B (w = dE = Cv(T2-T1)), and then compressed irreversibly from B to A (w = -Pext(V1-V2)) at a constant external pressure defined by A. In this scenario, simply looking at the areas under the graphs the net work should be positive.I am trying to reconcile this with dE for the gas. For the roundtrip transition (A to B to A), dE = 0. And if we take each step as adiabatic, then dE = w for each step, but as I have described above you would end up with two different values for dE for each step, thus dE not equal to zero. My logic is flawed somewhere, can someone help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is this a problem you invented yourself, or is it out of a book?

Chet
 
The flaw in the logic is this: If you try to recompress irreversibly at constant P1, you will re-equilibrate at a volume greater than V1 before ever reaching V1. So, you won't be able to reach the initial state in this adiabatic irreversible recompression. You can calculate what final volume and final temperature the system reaches by irreversibly recompressing at P1. The only way you can back to the initial state adiabatically is if you do it reversibly.
 
Chestermiller said:
The flaw in the logic is this: If you try to recompress irreversibly at constant P1, you will re-equilibrate at a volume greater than V1 before ever reaching V1. So, you won't be able to reach the initial state in this adiabatic irreversible recompression. You can calculate what final volume and final temperature the system reaches by irreversibly recompressing at P1. The only way you can back to the initial state adiabatically is if you do it reversibly.
Hi Chet, thanks! I invented this one (and obviously missed an important point). So if I end up at a larger volume, then my temperature must also be higher, correct? Is this because of friction during the irreversible compression?
 
Andrew U said:
Hi Chet, thanks! I invented this one (and obviously missed an important point). So if I end up at a larger volume, then my temperature must also be higher, correct? Is this because of friction during the irreversible compression?
Clarification: When I ask about the increase in temperature, I am referring to an additional increase that is larger than one would normally expect for an adiabatic compression, thus leading to a larger final volume.
 
Andrew U said:
Hi Chet, thanks! I invented this one (and obviously missed an important point). So if I end up at a larger volume, then my temperature must also be higher, correct?
Yes.
Is this because of friction during the irreversible compression?
Yes. Viscous dissipation.

Don't despair. You invented a very interesting problem. I've seen other versions of this before.

For more details in irreversible vs reversible processes, see my Physics Forums Insights article: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/reversible-vs-irreversible-gas-compressionexpansion-work/
 
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