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 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Thread 'A scenario of non-uniform circular motion'
(All the needed diagrams are posted below) My friend came up with the following scenario. Imagine a fixed point and a perfectly rigid rod of a certain length extending radially outwards from this fixed point(it is attached to the fixed point). To the free end of the fixed rod, an object is present and it is capable of changing it's speed(by thruster say or any convenient method. And ignore any resistance). It starts with a certain speed but say it's speed continuously increases as it goes...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Back
Top