Heat engine

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

chiddler

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
2,439
Reaction score
4
"Work is done by the system onto the surrounding and heat is absorbed by the gas. In a combustion reaction, it is the explosion of gasoline that generates heat."

If heat is absorbed by the gas, then work is done on the gas, right? But this logic is contradictory with the first sentence "by the system onto surrounding".

Why am I wrong?
 
"Work is done by the system onto the surrounding and heat is absorbed by the gas. In a combustion reaction, it is the explosion of gasoline that generates heat."

If heat is absorbed by the gas, then work is done on the gas, right? But this logic is contradictory with the first sentence "by the system onto surrounding".

Why am I wrong?

is this associated with a certain question? if so id like to see it..I don't think it's contradictory but maybe im wrong? Work done by the system is negative, and absorbed heat would be positive, and you could add the two together to get the change in energy but im super confused on what you are asking. I'm assuming the heat absorbed is a greater number then the work done giving a positive change in internal energy which is kind of how combustion engines work; not 100% sure though, Its been a while since I studied anything combustion related.
 
"Work is done by the system onto the surrounding and heat is absorbed by the gas. In a combustion reaction, it is the explosion of gasoline that generates heat."

If heat is absorbed by the gas, then work is done on the gas, right? But this logic is contradictory with the first sentence "by the system onto surrounding".

Why am I wrong?

If the system does work on the surroundings, then the system produces heat and the surroundings absorb that heat, right? (I'm really asking, because I'm not 100% sure)

If the "gas" you are talking about is the surroundings, I don't think there is anything contradictory..?
 
is this associated with a certain question? if so id like to see it..I don't think it's contradictory but maybe im wrong? Work done by the system is negative, and absorbed heat would be positive, and you could add the two together to get the change in energy but im super confused on what you are asking. I'm assuming the heat absorbed is a greater number then the work done giving a positive change in internal energy which is kind of how combustion engines work; not 100% sure though, Its been a while since I studied anything combustion related.

Work done by the system on the surrounding. This means that heat goes from the system to the surrounding, right? If I do work on something, I transfer energy to it. Not the other way around. I lose energy.

Then the gas inside the system absorbs the heat. This is what I do not understand. If I am losing energy, then I do not absorb heat. I lose heat. Similarly, the gas inside the system should not absorb heat, it should lose heat.
 
If the system does work on the surroundings, then the system produces heat and the surroundings absorb that heat, right? (I'm really asking, because I'm not 100% sure)

If the "gas" you are talking about is the surroundings, I don't think there is anything contradictory..?

oh damn it may be the surrounding gas and not the system gas.

rereading.

"Heat is used to expand a gas in a closed system." I believe the gas being referred to is indeed system gas.
 
Work done by the system on the surrounding. This means that heat goes from the system to the surrounding, right? If I do work on something, I transfer energy to it. Not the other way around. I lose energy.

Then the gas inside the system absorbs the heat. This is what I do not understand. If I am losing energy, then I do not absorb heat. I lose heat. Similarly, the gas inside the system should not absorb heat, it should lose heat.

I need to reread that section on heat engines to figure out exactly how they work, lol. too tired to reread this now. If no one answers this by tomorrow then ill throw in my two cents..but yeah this is kind of confusing, i see what you mean now.
 
oh damn it may be the surrounding gas and not the system gas.

rereading.

"Heat is used to expand a gas in a closed system." I believe the gas being referred to is indeed system gas.

This is TBR, right? What book and what page?
 
I'm confused. Is this a passage or an example in the chapter?
 
It's just part of the chapter. Not an example nor passage.

The chapter is "Heat and Work". The paragraph is under the title "Heat Engine". The particular portion i'm confused about is the #1.
 
Oh I think I know what you're talking about now. I think they worded it in a confusing way. The "heat is absorbed by the gas" is the reason why the piston can do work. In a heat engine, heat is converted into work (PV work, if i'm not mistaken). For example, in a combustion engine the explosion of gasoline creates heat in the system, thus increasing the kinetic energy of the gas in the system. An increase in gas KE within a closed system eventually results in some form of energy transfer.

In chemistry lab this often means a beaker or flask exploding because someone left the stopper on while heating it. In the case of the heat engine, however, the gas expansion leads to the expansion of the container via the movement of a piston. When the piston moves, the heat energy is converted into the mechanical energy that powers whatever your heat engine is connected to.

So to go back to your original post.

work is done by the piston on the surroundings; and heat is absorbed by the gas. In a combustion engine, it is the explosion of the gasoline that generates this heat.

They kind of wrote it out of order. Heat from the combustion of gasoline is absorbed by the gas within the heat engine/chamber/system. Since it is a closed system, the heat can't just dissipate or diffuse away (a camp fire or a fire in a metal trash can would be heat leaving an open system). So what happens? The gas in the system absorbs it, expands and pushes the piston up, thus creating work (force required to expand (displace) the piston). So you input gasoline, the system explodes it, then harnesses that heat to create the work which is then exerted on the surroundings.

Edit: Post 2000!
 
Last edited:
Oh I think I know what you're talking about now. I think they worded it in a confusing way. The "heat is absorbed by the gas" is the reason why the piston can do work. In a heat engine, heat is converted into work (PV work, if i'm not mistaken). For example, in a combustion engine the explosion of gasoline creates heat in the system, thus increasing the kinetic energy of the gas in the system. An increase in gas KE within a closed system eventually results in some form of energy transfer.

In chemistry lab this often means a beaker or flask exploding because someone left the stopper on while heating it. In the case of the heat engine, however, the gas expansion leads to the expansion of the container via the movement of a piston. When the piston moves, the heat energy is converted into the mechanical energy that powers whatever your heat engine is connected to.

So to go back to your original post.



They kind of wrote it out of order. Heat from the combustion of gasoline is absorbed by the gas within the heat engine/chamber/system. Since it is a closed system, the heat can't just dissipate or diffuse away (a camp fire or a fire in a metal trash can would be heat leaving an open system). So what happens? The gas in the system absorbs it, expands and pushes the piston up, thus creating work (force required to expand (displace) the piston). So you input gasoline, the system explodes it, then harnesses that heat to create the work which is then exerted on the surroundings.

Edit: Post 2000!

That makes so much more sense. thanks very much for your help.

lol. congratulations! take a break.
 
Top