I Why is first TD law different for chemical reactors

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of the first law of thermodynamics to open systems, specifically in relation to energy balance in a Continuous Stirred-Tank Reactor (CSTR). There is confusion regarding the interpretation of the total change of system energy, denoted as ##\frac{\partial E}{\partial \tau}##, and its relationship to enthalpy changes and mass balance equations. The participants seek clarification on whether the equations presented in the referenced materials are correct and how enthalpy differentials should be incorporated into the energy balance equations. The conversation emphasizes the need for accurate derivation and understanding of energy balances in thermodynamic systems. Overall, the discussion highlights the complexities involved in applying thermodynamic principles to reactor design and analysis.
ussername
Messages
60
Reaction score
2
I've learned that first thermodynamic law for some open system is in the form of:

Energy+Conservation+Friction+Loss+%28Viscous%29+Mechanical+Work+Heat.jpg

where total change of system energy ##\frac{\partial E}{\partial \tau }## is equal to the transferred heat and work.
Total change of system energy ##\frac{\partial E}{\partial \tau }## is equal to the energy transferred via mass flux (surface integral) plus energy change within the system (volume integral).

Now I've seen energy balance of CSTR reactor and it is in the form of:
tKdm2rH.png


Full derivation is here or here.

I think ##\frac{\partial E}{\partial \tau }## in the bottom picture means total change of system (internal) energy, because further in the derivation it is replaced with total enthalpy differential and it is substituted with CSTR mass balance:
$$\frac{\partial n_{i}}{\partial \tau }=F_{i}^{0}-F_{i}+V\cdot \upsilon _{i}\cdot r_{V}$$
which makes sense only if ##\frac{\partial E}{\partial \tau }## is total change of energy.

If ##\frac{\partial E}{\partial \tau }## in the bottom picture means total change of system energy then it is not the same equation as in the first picture.

Can anybody explain?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have correctness problems with both the insets in your post, and one of the links. In my judgment and experience, the development that is done correctly is this one: http://jbrwww.che.wisc.edu/home/jbraw/chemreacfun/ch6/slides-enbal.pdf. If you wish to learn more about correctly-done energy balances (both for mechanical energy and thermal energy), see Bird, Stewart, and Lightfoot, Transport Phenomena.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
My second picture is from the link you posted.

I had basically problem to understand where to put enthalpy total differential H=f(T,p,n):
$$\frac{\partial H}{\partial \tau}=\dot{H}_{out}-\dot{H}_{in}+\frac{\partial }{\partial \tau}\left (\int_{V}^{ }\frac{\partial H}{\partial m}\,dm \right )$$
First I thought that ##\frac{\partial H}{\partial \tau}## is the total enthalpy change of the system so the total differential H=f(T,p,n) should belong to there.
But the derivation says that total differential belongs to this term:
$$\frac{\partial }{\partial \tau}\left (\int_{V}^{ }\frac{\partial H}{\partial m}\,dm \right )$$and it seems partially logical because this integral adds elements of system enthalpy ##dH## along the system volume, so this integral is equal to the system enthalpy.
 
ussername said:
My second picture is from the link you posted.

I had basically problem to understand where to put enthalpy total differential H=f(T,p,n):
$$\frac{\partial H}{\partial \tau}=\dot{H}_{out}-\dot{H}_{in}+\frac{\partial }{\partial \tau}\left (\int_{V}^{ }\frac{\partial H}{\partial m}\,dm \right )$$
First I thought that ##\frac{\partial H}{\partial \tau}## is the total enthalpy change of the system so the total differential H=f(T,p,n) should belong to there.
But the derivation says that total differential belongs to this term:
$$\frac{\partial }{\partial \tau}\left (\int_{V}^{ }\frac{\partial H}{\partial m}\,dm \right )$$and it seems partially logical because this integral adds elements of system enthalpy ##dH## along the system volume, so this integral is equal to the system enthalpy.
Are you saying that the equations in the second inset you posted are incorrect? Are you familiar with the derivation of the open system (control volume) version of the first law of thermodynamics?
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top