B Thermal physics, COP upper bound for heat driven heat pumps

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the upper bounds for the coefficient of performance (COP) of heat engines and heat-driven heat pumps with three thermal reservoirs. The presenter seeks feedback on potential mathematical errors in their formulas and ways to make the presentation more succinct. Key points include the importance of clarity when switching between forward and reverse cycles, as well as suggestions for simplifying derivations in the presentation. Additionally, there's a recommendation to explain the rationale behind using a heat-driven heat pump instead of direct heat flow. The conversation emphasizes the theoretical nature of the derived efficiencies and COPs under isothermal conditions.
sf1001
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
I made a presentation where I derived, or at least attempted to derive, the formulae for the upper bounds of the efficiency/cop for a heat engine, work driven heat pump, and a heat driven heat pump with 3 thermal reservoirs, hot, warm, and cold. Could someone check my math?
I made a presentation where I derived, or at least attempted to derive, the formulae for the upper bounds of the efficiency/cop (cop = coefficient of performance) for a heat engine, work driven heat pump, and a heat driven heat pump with 3 thermal reservoirs, hot, warm, and cold. There are many online sources to compare my result for the efficiency/cop of a heat engine or work driven heat pump with 2 heat reservoirs, hot and cold, but I haven't found any for the last case, the heat driven heat pump. I am assuming all isothermal heat exchanges with the heat reservoirs, which I think yields a theoretical upper bound for the calculated efficiencies and cop. I intend to use this presentation for tutoring HS physics. Are there any mathematical errors in the linked presentation, particularly for my formulae for the cop of the heat driven heat pump? Also, is there a way I could make the presentation more succinct? Here is a link to the presentation:

https://docs.google.com/presentatio...ouid=113815052145113661511&rtpof=true&sd=true
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just a few comments.

1. It can get confusing if you use absolute values for heats when switching between the forward cycle (heat engines) and the reverse cycle (heat pumps and refrigerator). As as long as you make it clear that ##\frac{Q_c}{Q_h}>\frac{T_c}{T_h}## for the forward cycle and ##\frac{Q_c}{Q_h}<\frac{T_c}{T_h}## or ##\frac{Q_h}{Q_c}>\frac{T_h}{T_c}## for the reverse cycle, this is ok.*

*This follows from ##\Delta S=Q_h/T_h+Q_c/T_c>0## (where terms are actual, not absolute values). So when heat flow to the hot reservoir is negative (heat engine) the inequality is met only if ##\frac{|Q_c|}{T_c}>\frac{|Q_h|}{T_h}## and when heat flow to the cold reservoir is negative (heat pumps and refrigerators), the inquality is met only if ##\frac{|Q_c|}{T_c}<\frac{|Q_h|}{T_h}##

2. In frame 4, an easier to follow derivation might be:
\eta = \frac{W}{Q_h}=\frac{Q_h-Q_c}{Q_h}=(1-\frac{Q_c}{Q_h})
and, since: ##\frac{Q_c}{Q_h}>\frac{T_c}{T_h}## for a heat engine (from 1. above) this means:
\eta = (1-\frac{Q_c}{Q_h})&lt;(1-\frac{T_c}{T_h})
3. Similarly in frame 6, it might be easier to show:
COP_h = \frac{Q_h}{W}=\frac{Q_h}{Q_h-Q_c}=\frac{1}{(1-\frac{Q_c}{Q_h})}
and, since: ##\frac{Q_c}{Q_h}<\frac{T_c}{T_h}## for a heat pump (from 1. above) this means:
COP_h=\frac{1}{(1-\frac{Q_c}{Q_h})}&lt;\frac{1}{(1-\frac{T_c}{T_h})}
4. And again for frame 7 the cooling coefficent of performance:
COP_c = \frac{Q_c}{W}=\frac{Q_c}{Q_h-Q_c}=\frac{1}{(\frac{Q_h}{Q_c}-1)}
and, since: ##\frac{Q_h}{Q_c}>\frac{T_h}{T_c}## for a refrigerator (from 1. above) this means:
COP_c=\frac{1}{(\frac{Q_h}{Q_c}-1)}&lt;\frac{1}{(\frac{T_h}{T_c}-1)}
5. You might also want to explain why a heat driven heat pump makes any sense. Why not just have heat flow directly from hot to warm?

AM
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
Quick question that I haven't been able to find the answer to. Greenhouse gasses both warm and cool the atmosphere by slowing heat loss to space. But what would happen without GHGs? I read that the earth would be colder (though still relatively warm), but why? Without GHGs the atmosphere would still be a similar mass and still warmed by conduction from the surface, yet without a means to radiate that heat to space. Why wouldn't the atmosphere accumulate heat over time, becoming warmer? How...