Thermal Efficiency of a Heat Engine based on pV-diagram

In summary: I'm just saying that the problem statement does not say anything about reservoirs, so I don't see why you are assuming that. But in any case, I think we are both right depending on how you interpret the problem statement.
  • #1
Jesse2789
4
0

Homework Statement



Here's a link to the pV-diagram I am using - http://session.masteringphysics.com/problemAsset/1396784/2/p16.7.jpg
A heat engine takes 2.0 moles of an ideal gas through the reversible cycle abca, on the pV diagram shown in the figure. The path bc is an isothermal process. The temperature at c is 820 K, and the volumes at a and c are 0.010 m3 and 0.16 m3, respectively. The molar heat capacity at constant volume, of the gas, is 37 J/mol·K, and the ideal gas constant is R = 8.314 J/(mol·K). The thermal efficiency of the engine is closest to
Answers)
A - 0.026
B - 0.53
C - 0.40
D - 0.26<--- This is the right answer, but I'm not sure how to get to it
E - 0.33

Homework Equations



[tex] ΔU = Q - W [/tex]
[tex] ΔU = nC_vΔT [/tex]
[tex] Work = ∫PdV [/tex]

[tex] Isothermal Work = nRT*ln(V_f/V_i) [/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



I'm getting really lost on differentiating the positive/negative signs and thus finding Qin and Qout. I understand that the efficiency of a thermal engine is [tex] e = W_out/Q_H = 1 - Q_c/Q_h [/tex]

I started finding some of the areas, but I am not sure where to subtract and add them to find Q_c and Q_h.

Isothermal Work = nRTln(.010-.16) = 37804. J
ΔU = 0, therefore W=Q --> So since W = 37804 J, there is 37804 J of heat added to the gas here?

Isobaric Work = p(ΔV) = p(.16-.01)

To solve for the pressure I re-arranged PV=nRT. First I solved for the temperature at A.

[tex] V_A/T_A = V_C/T_C [/tex]

This gave me the temperature at A as 51.25 Kelvin.

Using PV=nRT.. [tex] P_A = (2.0mol)(8.314J/mol-K)(51.25 K)/(.010m^3) [/tex]
This gave me the pressure P_A = 85218.5 Pa.

Then the work under the Isobaric Line is p(ΔV) so I plugged in the pressure of A..
[tex] (85218.5 Pa)(.010 m^3-.16 m^3) = -12782.775 J [/tex]

For the isobaric line I also said that,
[tex] ΔU = nC_vΔT = (2.0mol)(37J/mol-K)(820K - 51.25 K) = 56887.5 J [/tex]

I think I'm close to the answer, but I'm not sure which numbers to use for the efficiency.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
How about this:
1. net work done by system W = area inside the p-V curve
2. compute Ta, pa and pb. This yields W.
3. compute ∫δQ for each of the three segments = Qab + Qbc + Qca.
Efficiency = work/heat in. 'Heat in' is the sum of the positive Qij segments.
 
  • #3
Jesse2789 said:

Homework Statement



Here's a link to the pV-diagram I am using - http://session.masteringphysics.com/problemAsset/1396784/2/p16.7.jpg
A heat engine takes 2.0 moles of an ideal gas through the reversible cycle abca, on the pV diagram shown in the figure. The path bc is an isothermal process. The temperature at c is 820 K, and the volumes at a and c are 0.010 m3 and 0.16 m3, respectively. The molar heat capacity at constant volume, of the gas, is 37 J/mol·K, and the ideal gas constant is R = 8.314 J/(mol·K). The thermal efficiency of the engine is closest to
Answers)
A - 0.026
B - 0.53
C - 0.40
D - 0.26<--- This is the right answer, but I'm not sure how to get to it
E - 0.33

Homework Equations



[tex] ΔU = Q - W [/tex]
[tex] ΔU = nC_vΔT [/tex]
[tex] Work = ∫PdV [/tex]

[tex] Isothermal Work = nRT*ln(V_f/V_i) [/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



I'm getting really lost on differentiating the positive/negative signs and thus finding Qin and Qout. I understand that the efficiency of a thermal engine is [tex] e = W_out/Q_H = 1 - Q_c/Q_h [/tex]
This cycle is not reversible, by the way.

You seem to be doing everything correctly.

Use W = Qh - Qc. Since Qh = Qab + Qbc

The temperature at a = TcVa/Vc = 820/16 = 51K, so ΔT = 820-51 = 769K

Like you I get: Qab = nCvΔT = 56.9 KJ and Qbc = nRTln(16) = 37.8 KJ, so Qh = 94.7 KJ

So the only tricky part is determining Qc = heat flow from c-a. Since it is constant pressure, you can use Cp = Cv + R and: Qc = nCpΔT and then use W = Qh-Qc.

OR you can do as you were doing but be careful to subtract the area under ba from the area under bc.

I get 69.7 KJ for Qc.

AM
 
  • #4
Andrew Mason said:
This cycle is not reversible, by the way.

Why do you say that?

If you compute ∑ ΔS around the loop assuming reversibility you get zero as must of course be. So reversibility seems satisfied.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
rude man said:
Why do you say that?

If you compute ∑ ΔS around the loop assuming reversibility you get zero as must of course be. So reversibility seems satisfied.
The problem is with the constant volume and constant pressure heat flows (c-a and b-c). These cannot be made reversible if you are operating between two reservoirs with a finite temperature difference (which is in this case 769K). If it was reversible, the efficiency would be 1-Tc/Th = 1-51/820 = 94%

AM
 
  • #6
Andrew Mason said:
The problem is with the constant volume and constant pressure heat flows (c-a and b-c). These cannot be made reversible if you are operating between two reservoirs with a finite temperature difference (which is in this case 769K). If it was reversible, the efficiency would be 1-Tc/Th = 1-51/820 = 94%

AM

No one said anything about two reservoirs. An infinite number of reservoirs can be postulated along any of the three segments, making all segments reversible.
 
  • #7
The efficiency is work out divided by heat in = W/(Qab + Qbc)
where
Qab = C_V(Tb - Ta)
Qbc = nRTb ln(Vc/Vb)
W = nRTb{ln(Vc/Vb) - (Vc - Vb)/Vc}
and efficiency e = W/(Qab + Qbc). All calculated on the assumption of reversibility.

Ta is per your derivation. I did not use numbers, leaving that to the OP. He/she seems to have lost interest but might still pop up later.

It is not necessary to compute Qbc which of course is heat removed and so is negative.
 
  • #8
rude man said:
No one said anything about two reservoirs. An infinite number of reservoirs can be postulated along any of the three segments, making all segments reversible.
To make it reversible you would need an infinite number of hot and cold reservoirs each of whose temperatures are separated by infinitesimal temperature differences making up the temperature difference from 51K to 820K so that the heat flows occur at infinitesimal temperature differences between system and surroundings from c-a and b-c. I am not sure how you would even begin to set that up.
rude man said:
The efficiency is work out divided by heat in = W/(Qab + Qbc)
where
Qab = C_V(Tb - Ta)
Qbc = nRTb ln(Vc/Vb)
W = nRTb{ln(Vc/Vb) - (Vc - Vb)/Vc}
and efficiency e = W/(Qab + Qbc). All calculated on the assumption of reversibility.

Ta is per your derivation. I did not use numbers, leaving that to the OP. He/she seems to have lost interest but might still pop up later.
My point was that if one calculates Qc one does not have to determine W from the graph: it is always the case that W = |Qh|-|Qc|.

AM
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Andrew Mason said:
To make it reversible you would need an infinite number of hot and cold reservoirs each of whose temperatures are separated by infinitesimal temperature differences making up the temperature difference from 51K to 820K so that the heat flows occur at infinitesimal temperature differences between system and surroundings from c-a and b-c. I am not sure how you would even begin to set that up.

That nonetheless is the basis of thermodynamic analysis - approximating actual processes with reversible ones. And I believe that is what was intended in the problem.
 
  • #10
Hi guys,

Probably I'm missing something. Doesn't the problem statement say "through the reversible cycle abca."

Chet
 
  • #11
Chestermiller said:
Hi guys,

Probably I'm missing something. Doesn't the problem statement say "through the reversible cycle abca."

Chet

You never miss a thing, Chet! :smile:

If it weren't reversible you couldn't calculate efficiency, do you agree? I mean, integratig δQ over the segments assumes reversibilty via

δQ = C_V dT + p dV or δQ = C_P dT + V dp, right?
 
  • #12
rude man said:
You never miss a thing, Chet! :smile:

If it weren't reversible you couldn't calculate efficiency, do you agree? I mean, integratig δQ over the segments assumes reversibilty via

δQ = C_V dT + p dV or δQ = C_P dT + V dp, right?
In order to determine efficiency, you only need to assume that the work done is ∫PdV. This can be achieved by non-reversible heat flow.

AM
 
  • #13
rude man said:
You never miss a thing, Chet! :smile:

If it weren't reversible you couldn't calculate efficiency, do you agree? I mean, integratig δQ over the segments assumes reversibilty via

δQ = C_V dT + p dV or δQ = C_P dT + V dp, right?
If the process were not reversible, the temperature and pressure within the cylinder would not be uniform.

Chet
 
  • #14
Chestermiller said:
If the process were not reversible, the temperature and pressure within the cylinder would not be uniform.

Chet

That's what I was thinking - the thermodynamic coordinates would not be defined during the process so δQ could not be computed since Q is not a state function. Sound right?

.
 
  • #15
Chestermiller said:
If the process were not reversible, the temperature and pressure within the cylinder would not be uniform.

Chet
It depends on how fast the changes occur. They can be pretty fast in a gas and still be practically reversible. For example, sound waves are modeled as a series of reversible adiabatic compressions and expansions, and they can occur very quickly.

AM
 
  • #16
Andrew Mason said:
It depends on how fast the changes occur. They can be pretty fast in a gas and still be practically reversible. For example, sound waves are modeled as a series of reversible adiabatic compressions and expansions, and they can occur very quickly.

AM
Sure, but in the case of sound waves, the pressure and the temperature are not spatially uniform. And they are viscously dissipated as they travel. The equations being used in our problem (involving T and p) assume that T and p are spatially uniform.

Getting back to the problem at hand, I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying. Are you saying that:
1. It doesn't matter whether the process is reversible or irreversible; the efficiency is the same either way.
2. The process they described is definitely irreversible and we can calculate the efficiency from the information given (assuming, say, that p is the force per unit area at the piston).
3. The process they described is irreversible, but we can't calculate the efficiency from the information given.

Chet
 
  • #17
Chestermiller said:
Sure, but in the case of sound waves, the pressure and the temperature are not spatially uniform. And they are viscously dissipated as they travel. The equations being used in our problem (involving T and p) assume that T and p are spatially uniform.
The point is that temperature and pressure changes in a gas occur very rapidly so you do not have to have a truly reversible process in order to apply the assumptions that T and P are essentially uniform.
Getting back to the problem at hand, I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying. Are you saying that:
1. It doesn't matter whether the process is reversible or irreversible; the efficiency is the same either way.
No. I am just saying that in this problem you don't need to assume that it is reversible. In this problem as long as the work output = ∫PdV, which does not require a reversible process, the efficiency will be the same whether the heat flow occurs reversibly or not. All efficiency depends on is Qh and Qc. η=1-Qc/Qh

For example, whether heat flows into the gas from a-b reversibly or not (it hard to conceive of how a constant volume heat absorption being reversible) is irrelevant. We are only interested in the amount of heat flow into the gas. Similarly, from b-c, it does not matter whether there is a finite temperature difference between the system and surroundings during that process. We are only interested in how much heat flow occurs. Similarly from c-a.

2. The process they described is definitely irreversible and we can calculate the efficiency from the information given (assuming, say, that p is the force per unit area at the piston).
I guess I am saying that it is difficult to understand, in any kind of reasonable model, how a-b and c-a could be made reversible AND that we don't need the assumption of reversibility in order to answer the problem.
3. The process they described is irreversible, but we can't calculate the efficiency from the information given.
Definitely not.

AM
 
  • #18
Andrew Mason said:
I guess I am saying that it is difficult to understand, in any kind of reasonable model, how a-b and c-a could be made reversible AND that we don't need the assumption of reversibility in order to answer the problem.

AM
Really? I think I could do it. a-b is just heating the gas at constant volume, using a sequence of constant-temperature reservoirs. c-a is a little more difficult, but, I'm confident I could figure out how.

Chet
 
  • #19
Chestermiller said:
Really? I think I could do it. a-b is just heating the gas at constant volume, using a sequence of constant-temperature reservoirs. c-a is a little more difficult, but, I'm confident I could figure out how.

Chet

Why isn't c-a realizable the same way: by using a sequence of constant-temperature reservoirs, of course in descending temperature, so as to maintain constant pressure pb.

E.g. an upright cylinder with piston on top of mass m and area A, within a controlled pressure ambient of around 80,000P so that the piston can maintain the lower pressure of pb = nRTb/Vb = 2 x 8.34 x 820/0.16 = 85,485P: 80,000P + mg/A = 85,485P.
 
  • #20
rude man said:
Why isn't c-a realizable the same way: by using a sequence of constant-temperature reservoirs, of course in descending temperature, so as to maintain constant pressure pb.

E.g. an upright cylinder with piston on top of mass m and area A, within a controlled pressure ambient of around 80,000P so that the piston can maintain the lower pressure of pb = nRTb/Vb = 2 x 8.34 x 820/0.16 = 85,485P: 80,000P + mg/A = 85,485P.
Well, the way I would do it is, as you suggested, use a sequence of constant temperature reservoirs, but, such that the absolute temperatures vary linearly with the cylinder volume:

T = 51+(820-51)*(V-0.01)/(0.16-0.01)

This would guarantee that the pressure remains constant along c-a.

Chet
 
  • #21
Chestermiller said:
Well, the way I would do it is, as you suggested, use a sequence of constant temperature reservoirs, but, such that the absolute temperatures vary linearly with the cylinder volume:

T = 51+(820-51)*(V-0.01)/(0.16-0.01)

This would guarantee that the pressure remains constant along c-a.

Chet

Big 10-4, Chet.
 
  • #22
Chestermiller said:
Well, the way I would do it is, as you suggested, use a sequence of constant temperature reservoirs, but, such that the absolute temperatures vary linearly with the cylinder volume:

T = 51+(820-51)*(V-0.01)/(0.16-0.01)

This would guarantee that the pressure remains constant along c-a.

Chet
Easier said than done! Leaving aside the question whether you can make any cycle reversible, I still think it is important for the student to realize that it is not necessary for the cycle to be reversible or even approximately reversible in order to calculate efficiency.

AM
 
  • #23
rude man said:
Big 10-4, Chet.
After further consideration, I withdraw my previous post. I like Rude Man's version much better. It seems very easy to implement: just contact the cylinder with each new incremental constant temperature reservoir, and then let the volume re-equilibrate.

Chet
 
  • #24
Andrew Mason said:
Easier said than done! Leaving aside the question whether you can make any cycle reversible, I still think it is important for the student to realize that it is not necessary for the cycle to be reversible or even approximately reversible in order to calculate efficiency.

AM
Hi guys. Please excuse me. I think I missed the point of this debate. If the question is "Is it possible to determine the efficiency of an irreversible cycle?" , my answer is Yes.

Chet
 

1. What is the definition of thermal efficiency?

Thermal efficiency is a measure of how well a heat engine converts heat energy into mechanical work. It is calculated by dividing the amount of work output by the amount of heat input.

2. How is the thermal efficiency of a heat engine calculated?

The thermal efficiency of a heat engine can be calculated by dividing the work output by the heat input, and then multiplying by 100 to get a percentage. The equation is: (Work output / Heat input) x 100.

3. How does the pV-diagram relate to the thermal efficiency of a heat engine?

The pV-diagram is a graphical representation of the pressure-volume relationship in a heat engine. It can be used to calculate the thermal efficiency by measuring the area under the curve, which represents the work done by the engine, and comparing it to the heat input.

4. What factors can affect the thermal efficiency of a heat engine?

Some factors that can affect the thermal efficiency of a heat engine include the type of fuel used, the design of the engine, the operating temperature and pressure, and the amount of friction and heat loss within the engine.

5. Can the thermal efficiency of a heat engine be greater than 100%?

No, the thermal efficiency of a heat engine cannot be greater than 100%. This would violate the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which state that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and that energy always flows from higher to lower concentrations.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
137
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
32
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
721
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
8K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top