Thermodynamics - compression of a gas in a piston-cylinder device

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the compression of an ideal gas in a piston-cylinder device, starting at 100 kPa and 300 K with an initial volume of 5 liters. The gas is compressed according to the relationship pV^2=constant until it reaches a final temperature of 400 K. A participant incorrectly assumes that the work done is zero due to the freely moving piston, suggesting a horizontal line on the p-V diagram. However, this assumption is challenged, emphasizing the need to consider work in relation to pressure and volume changes. The conversation highlights the importance of accurately applying thermodynamic principles to determine work in such processes.
roldy
Messages
206
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



An ideal gas initially at 100kPa and 300K is contained in a piston-cylinder device with an initial volume of 5 liters. The gas is then compressed slowly according to the relationship that pV^2=constant until a final temperature of 400K is reached. Sketch the process on a p-V diagram and find how much work is done in this process.

Homework Equations


pV^2=costant


The Attempt at a Solution



I'm not sure in my logic but since this is a freely moving piston-cylinder device, the work should be 0 which would result in a horizonatal line. Is this assumption correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. Review the definition of work as it pertains to pressure and volume changes.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top