Work done by heat engine that uses exhaust from heat pump

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the efficiency and functionality of a heat engine that utilizes exhaust from a heat pump. Participants explore the theoretical underpinnings of heat pumps and heat engines, including their efficiencies, the implications of temperature differences, and the potential for perpetual motion. The conversation includes mathematical reasoning and conceptual clarifications related to thermodynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant calculates the efficiency of a heat pump and a heat engine, questioning the discrepancy in work output as graded by an automated system.
  • Another participant suggests that a Carnot engine could operate indefinitely with a constant supply of liquid nitrogen, challenging the assumptions about the refrigerator's operation.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of a small temperature difference leading to infinite efficiency, with some participants arguing this is not a paradox but a reflection of thermodynamic principles.
  • There is a discussion about the feasibility of using heat pumps to power heat engines without a temperature difference, with some participants asserting this idea contradicts established thermodynamic laws.
  • Participants debate the nature of thermodynamic laws, particularly the second law, with some suggesting it remains unproven while others defend its observational basis.
  • One participant notes that the efficiencies of heat pumps and engines are inverses of each other, implying limitations in their practical applications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the efficiency of heat pumps and engines, the implications of temperature differences, and the validity of thermodynamic laws. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on several key points.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the dependence of efficiency calculations on temperature differences and the assumptions underlying the operation of heat pumps and engines. The discussion also touches on the limitations of theoretical models in practical applications.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and professionals in physics, engineering, and thermodynamics, particularly those exploring the principles of heat transfer and energy conversion.

zenterix
Messages
774
Reaction score
84
Homework Statement
Suppose an inventor claims that he/she can do the following.

Using only the heat exhaust from a refrigerator and an unlimited supply of liquid nitrogen, he/she can generate more energy than his refrigerator uses to operate.

The refrigerator is an ideal heat pump that keeps its contents at 275K by pumping out exhaust at 304K.

The inventor uses an ideal heat engine to generate work from the refrigerator's exhaust.

Liquid nitrogen at 75K is used to cool the heat engine.
Relevant Equations
Calculate

a) refrigerator efficiency

b) heat engine efficiency and ##|W_{eng}|## output by the engine if the refrigerator uses 1570J to run

Note that there are other further items in the original problem but my question is about the calculation of engine work in part b).
The efficiency of a heat pump is

$$\mathcal{\epsilon}_{ref}=\frac{T_C}{T_H-T_C}=\frac{275}{29}=9.48$$

where ##T_H=304K## is the hot reservoir and ##T_C=275K## is the cold reservoir.

The efficiency of the heat engine is

$$\mathcal{\epsilon}_{eng}=1-\frac{T_C}{T_H}=1-\frac{75}{304}=0.753$$

where now we have a hot reservoir at 304K (the exhaust from the refrigerator) and a cold reservoir at 75K (the liquid nitrogen).

Schematically, here is the reverse Carnot cycle that represents the heat pump (ie, the refrigerator):

1719978892673.png


Note that I am naming the individual processes as -A, -B, -C, and -D because the corresponding heat engine has processes A, B, C, and D.

The refrigerator uses 1570J to run. This is the work required in order to obtain a certain amount of heat from the refrigerator's cold reservoir.

Let's denote this certain amount of heat as ##|Q_{-C}|##. This is the absolute value of the heat flow in process -C in the picture above.

Then

$$\mathcal{\epsilon}_{ref}=9.48=\frac{|Q_{-C}|}{1570\text{J}}$$

$$\implies |Q_{-C}|=9.48\cdot 1570=14.8\text{kJ}$$

As far as I understand, this is not the heat exhausted by the refrigerator. This is the heat removed from the cold reservoir.

The heat exhausted is the heat in process -A, namely, the heat that is transferred to the hot reservoir.

1570J represents the total work in the cyclic process.

$$|W_{pump}|=1570\text{J}=|W_{-C}+W_{-A}|=|-(Q_{-C}+Q_{-A})|$$

We can calculate ##W_{-C}## and ##W_{-A}## and show that ##W_{-C}+W_{-A}=-(Q_{-C}+Q_{-A})>0##. Thus, we can remove the absolute values and so

$$Q_{-A}=-Q_{-C}-W_{pump}$$

$$=-9.48\cdot 1570 - 1570=-10.48\cdot 1570$$

$$=16.45\text{kJ}$$

This is the heat exhausted by the refrigerator.

The work done by the engine is then

$$|W_{eng}|=0.753\cdot 16.45\text{kJ}=12.39 kJ$$

This problem is from EdX and has automated grading. The answer for this last calculation is, according to EdX, 11.2 kJ.

I am wondering where the discrepancy comes from.

More importantly, I am wondering if the reasoning I used above is correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you had an unlimited supply of liquid ##N_2## and a Carnot engine you could dispense with the refrigerator and just run the Carnot engine between the hot reservoir (ambient temperature 304K) and the liquid ##N_2##. So long as the Sun maintained the temperature of the hot reservoir it would keep going as long as you maintained your supply of liquid ##N_2##.

Also, I would question the correctness of the assumption that the refrigerator can keep pumping 1570 J per cycle indefinitely without lowering the temperature of the cold reservoir and, therefore, the COP of the refrigerator.

AM
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
1743260666079.png

in this formula if Tc is very close by Th, then Th-Tc->0
and the result goes to infinity. isn't that weird?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
Pisica said:
View attachment 359175
in this formula if Tc is very close by Th, then Th-Tc->0
and the result goes to infinity. isn't that weird?
No, it's not. Why would you think it is? It's saying it gets easier to move heat if you have a smaller temperature difference. (Heat pump efficiency).

If you're looking for perpetual motion in such equations you won't find it. A lot of people have looked.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Bystander
Pisica said:
View attachment 359175
in this formula if Tc is very close by Th, then Th-Tc->0
and the result goes to infinity. isn't that weird?
I Carnot agree with that.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
russ_watters said:
If you're looking for perpetual motion in such equations you won't find it. A lot of people have looked.
Please give me a single example of a single man who is looking for a perpetuum mobile or free energy in this equation!
 
Pisica said:
Please give me a single example of a single man who is looking for a perpetuum mobile or free energy in this equation!
Weird request, but the idea has come up a bunch of times in this forum. Since they always fail there are of course no famous examples, but if you Google "heat pump to power heat engine" you'll find a bunch of examples, including from PF.

[Edit] Lol, such as this thread, which you piggybacked on.
 
Last edited:
russ_watters said:
but if you Google "heat pump to power heat engine" you'll find a bunch of examples, including from PF.
Yes, that is true.
Well, let's:
1. I'm waiting for arguments why something like this wouldn't work? "heat pump to power heat engine"

In other words, why can we not transform heat from the external environment into mechanical work without a temp. difference?

This is a postulate, that is, an unproven physical law
A monothermal transformation is impossible because it would generate perpetuum mobile.

2. Why do we study thermodynamics?
To improve thermal machines.
Ideas?
Is there another reason why we study thermodynamics?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: BillTre
Pisica said:
1. I'm waiting for arguments why something like this wouldn't work? "heat pump to power heat engine"
You have received them. If the fact that the efficiency equations are inverses of each other* doesn't satisfy you, what sort of answer are you looking for?
Pisica said:
In other words, why can we not transform heat from the external environment into mechanical work without a temp. difference?

This is a postulate, that is, an unproven physical law
This question is almost too basic to have a detailed answer. Why can't you run a hydroelectric generator in a swimming pool? There is no energy to harness in an isolated reservoir. The energy you are trying to harness comes from the flow between reservoirs. This is a critical and fundamental concept in thermodynamics. It is, in essence, what thermodynamics is.
Pisica said:
2. Why do we study thermodynamics?
To improve thermal machines.
Ideas?
Is there another reason why we study thermodynamics?
Well, the first reason anyone should study anything is to learn it. You cannot skip that step and expect to succeed in improving it.

*Caveats/details discussed in a separate thread.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Pisica and BillTre
  • #10
Pisica said:
1. I'm waiting for arguments why something like this wouldn't work? "heat pump to power heat engine"
This sounds a little backwards as heat engines produce work and you can use that work to power the heat pump. When you look into the details, though, you find that the work output from a real heat engine isn't enough to run a real heat pump to completely undo the effect of the heat engine.

In principle, if you had a Carnot engine and a Carnot refrigerator working between the same two temperature reservoirs, the output from the engine would be exactly the amount needed to run the refrigerator. There'd be no extra work left over to do anything with.

Pisica said:
In other words, why can we not transform heat from the external environment into mechanical work without a temp. difference?

This is a postulate, that is, an unproven physical law.
To be more specific, it's the second law of thermodynamics. Note that in science, one generally does not prove things, so when you say the second law is unproven, my response would be "well, duh!"

The second law is, however, a statement describing what's we observe. In one formulation, it says that if heat is allowed to flow spontaneously, it always flows from hotter objects to cooler objects. If you're positing that the second law is wrong, you're essentially saying you can devise situations where heat spontaneously moves from a cold object to a hot object.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Bystander, russ_watters and BillTre

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
13K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
7K