Specific enthelpy at dryness fraction

  • Thread starter Thread starter MonkSpeed
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fraction Specific
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a thermodynamics assignment involving the calculation of specific enthalpy at a given dryness fraction, particularly in the context of an experiment measuring the efficiency of a kettle in boiling water. Participants explore the relationships between various thermodynamic properties and the calculations involved in determining efficiency.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the origin of the term Hf in the equation for specific enthalpy, suggesting it refers to the saturated liquid value from enthalpy tables but is unsure which temperature to use.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on the experimental setup, confirming the amount of water and the process of measuring energy required to boil it.
  • A participant notes discrepancies in the enthalpy of vaporization values used, pointing out a difference between their textbook and the value used by the original poster, which may affect the efficiency calculations.
  • It is mentioned that the original poster calculated an efficiency greater than 100%, indicating a potential error in their calculations or assumptions.
  • The original poster acknowledges using the enthalpy of vaporization in their calculations and questions whether this is appropriate, indicating uncertainty about the terminology and its implications for their results.
  • After adjusting the enthalpy value based on the feedback, the original poster finds that the efficiency calculation still exceeds 100%, leading to further confusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct values for enthalpy or the calculations involved, and multiple competing views regarding the appropriate use of enthalpy values remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the definitions and values of specific enthalpy and enthalpy of vaporization, as well as the assumptions made in the calculations. The discussion reflects a reliance on various sources for thermodynamic data, which may lead to inconsistencies.

MonkSpeed
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Hi there,
I am trying to complete a thermodynamics assignment. I am doing fine until I get to the following question.

"Hx = Specific enthalpy at dryness fraction = hf + x . hfg" - I am not quite sure where Hf came from, I guess they want a value for Saturated liquid from the Enthalpy tables but which one?


Homework Equations



I have two Hf's I have already calculated.

Hf @ Ti 63 kJ/kg
Hf @ Tb 419.2 kJ/kg

These are just the values for saturated water at 15°C and 100°C.

Other relevant equations:

X = Dryness fraction = Mev / Mw = 0.013kg / 1.805kg = 0.007
Hfg at boiling temperature = 2256.4
Hev = Hx - Hf @ Ti
Qev = Mw * Hx

The Attempt at a Solution



I would just like to add that I have calculated all of the above, they were not given to me.

When I put the numbers I assume is supposed to be there I get.

Hx = Hf + x * Hfg = 419.2 - 0.007 * 2256.4 = 435
Hev = Hx - Hf @ Ti = 435 - 63 = 372
Qev = Mw * Hx = 1805grams * 435 = 785175J

Energy delivered by kettle
Qk = Pk * t = 2100watt * 310.4 = 651840J

Efficiency of my kettle
Nev = Qev / Qk = 785175 / 651840 = 1.20 or 120% lol

That can't be 120% so I have gone wrong somewhere and I think it is to do with "Hx = Specific enthalpy at dryness fraction = hf + x . hfg"

If anyone could shed some light that would be great.

Many Thanks.

Sorry for the long post.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just to make sure i understand the experiment so that i can help -- So you had ~1.8kg of water in a kettle at 15°C which you evaporated fully? And you measured how long it took, along with the kettles power rating, to find the energy required which you then compare with the theoretical energy required? Is that the experiment you did?
 
danago said:
Just to make sure i understand the experiment so that i can help -- So you had ~1.8kg of water in a kettle at 15°C which you evaporated fully? And you measured how long it took, along with the kettles power rating, to find the energy required which you then compare with the theoretical energy required? Is that the experiment you did?

Hi there,

You are nearly right. It's my fault for not explaining the situation properly.

I had 1.8kg of water which was at 15°C, I boiled that in a kettle and timed how long it took to boil and switch off (310.4s). Then I did some calculations using specific heats to work out my kettles efficiency. Then I did calculations using Steam Tables. I got 98.4% for the former and 98.6 for the latter methods respectively.

Then I had to do the calculations using steam tables and taking evaporation into account; of which there was 13g (1792g total after kettle had boiled) of water lost to evaporation.

This is where I am getting stuck and I have calculated 120% efficiency which must be wrong surely?

Many thanks.
:)
 
So you had water at 15 degrees, it was heated to 100 degrees and then 13g was evaporated?

Have i interpreted that correctly? I did the calculation and got an efficiency of more than 100% which as you have noted is not possible.

I also noticed that you have used 2256.4 kJ/kg for the vapour enthalpy, however my textbook (Engineering and Chemical Thermodynamics, Koretsky) says that it should be 2676.0 kJ/kg which is significantly different. Did you maybe accidentally read the enthalpy of vaporisation instead of the vapour enthalpy (my textbook quotes the enthalpy of vaporisation as 2257.0 kJ/kg, so this is a possibility)?
 
13g of water evaporated during the heating of the water to 100°C yes

You are right I have used enthalpy of vaporisation, is this not correct? Is this also known as Hfg?

For your information, I have just tried the calculations with 2676 kJ/kg and it has raised the efficiency from 120% to 121%

This really has me stumped. I keep going over everything and I'm starting to mix things up because I've been staring at it for too long.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
908
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
16K
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K