Chapter 3. Reversibility and Entropy: Initial State Final State
Chapter 3. Reversibility and Entropy: Initial State Final State
Final state
The
last
two
of
these
examples
(sugar
dissolving
in
water,
but
oil
separating
from
water)
illustrate
that
it
is
not
always
obvious
which
direction
(mixing
or
de-
mixing)
corresponds
to
spontaneous
change.
However,
once
the
spontaneous
change
direction
has
been
established,
it
is
impossible
to
convert
a
system
in
the
final
state
column
back
to
the
initial
state
without
the
action
of
an
external
agent.
For
example,
sugar
crystals
will
not
precipitate
out
of
solution
unless
the
water
is
evaporated.
Material
from
Essential
Thermodynamics,
Drios
Press
(2011),
A.Z.
Panagiotopoulos
36
3.1 Reversibility
37
3.1
Reversibility
Clearly,
all
processes
observed
naturally
are
spontaneous
and
thus
irreversi-
ble.
Spontaneous
changes
define
the
direction
of
the
arrow
of
time
and
are
rigor-
ously
analyzed
through
the
Second
Law
of
thermodynamics,
which
is
formally
in-
troduced
in
3.2.
By
eliminating
friction
and
all
gradients
of
temperature
or
pres-
sure,
and
by
performing
changes
at
an
infinitesimally
slow
rate,
one
can
approxi-
mate
an
idealized
reversible
process.
A
process
in
a
system
going
from
an
initial
to
a
final
state
is
formally
defined
as
reversible
if
the
system
can
be
brought
back
to
its
initial
state
from
the
final
state
with
no
change
to
any
part
of
the
universe.
Re-
versibility
is
an
idealized
abstraction
that
can
be
approximated
in
real
processes,
if
care
is
taken
to
avoid
friction,
internal
or
external
gradients
of
temperature,
pres-
sure,
or
composition,
as
well
as
any
conversion
of
mechanical
work
into
heat.
In
reversible
processes,
forces
across
any
boundary
exact-
ly
balance
at
all
times.
Pro-
cesses
take
an
infinitely
long
time
to
complete,
be-
cause
rates
of
heat
transfer,
macroscopic
flow
of
mate-
rial,
and
component
diffu-
sion
are,
respectively,
pro-
Figure
3.1
Rupture
of
a
partition
in
an
insulated
con-
portional
to
gradients
of
tainer.
temperature,
pressure,
and
chemical
potentials
(the
latter
defined
in
Chapter
5).
Consider
the
process
schematically
illustrated
in
Fig.
3.1.
A
thin
wall
separates
two
sides
of
an
insulated
container
in
the
initial
state
(A);
the
left-hand
side
con-
tains
a
gas
and
the
right-hand
side
is
evacuated.
The
wall
is
removed
and
the
gas
expands
to
fill
all
available
space.
After
some
time,
the
gas
reaches
a
new
equilibri-
um
state,
(B).
A
First
Law
balance
on
the
total
contents
of
the
container
gives
U
=
Q
/
+
W
/
=
0.
If
the
gas
is
ideal,
its
energy
depends
only
on
the
temperature,
and
T
=
0,
but
this
is
not
an
essential
characteristic
of
the
process;
for
real
gases,
the
tem-
perature
of
state
B
can
be
lower
or
higher
than
that
of
state
A.
We
can
return
the
gas
to
its
original
state
A
by
using
a
piston
to
compress
it
back
to
the
original
volume,
as
shown
in
Fig.
3.2.
For
this
reverse
process,
the
change
of
en-
Figure
3.2
Reversing
the
effect
of
expansion.
ergy
of
the
gas
is
the
same
38
as
previously,
U
=
0
=
Q
+
W
Q
=
W
;
since
we
clearly
need
to
provide
work
to
compress
the
gas,
the
re-
verse
process
is
only
pos-
sible
if
we
remove
heat
from
the
system.
If
some-
how
we
could
convert
all
Figure
3.3
Reversible
expansion.
of
the
heat
removed
into
work,
then
the
overall
pro-
cess
has
no
net
effect
on
the
environment
and
would
have
been
reversible
accord-
ing
to
the
definition
above.
However,
countless
experiments
have
shown
that
complete
conversion
of
heat
into
work
is
impossible;
we
thus
conclude
that
the
original
process
!A B
was
indeed
irreversible.
We
now
consider
a
different
process
(Fig.
3.3)
starting
from
the
same
initial
state
A
as
previously,
with
final
state
C
of
the
same
volume
as
B.
However,
we
now
perform
an
adiabatic
process
(!Q = 0 ),
using
a
well-lubricated,
frictionless
piston
to
obtain
work
from
the
expanding
gas.
The
amount
of
work
produced
by
the
gas
can
be
calculated
from:
V
WAC = C P dV
VA
!
Gases
generally
cool
as
they
expand
adiabatically,
so
that
the
final
tempera-
ture
will
be
TC
<
TA.
For
the
reverse
process
of
adiabatic
compression,
we
need
to
input
work,
which
in
the
absence
of
friction
will
be
equal
in
magnitude
and
oppo-
site
in
sign,
WCA
=
WA C.
Thus,
there
is
no
overall
net
effect
of
the
process
ACA
on
either
system
or
its
environment.
This
process
is
reversible.
This,
however,
is
not
true
for
all
substances.
3.1 Reversibility
39
The
Second
Law
can
be
stated
in
a
variety
of
equivalent
ways;
in
the
following,
we
use
a
traditional
approach
that
expresses
it
in
terms
of
heat
fluxes
around
heat
engines.
Heat
engines
are
devices
that
exchange
heat
and
work
with
their
envi-
ronment
in
processes
that
leave
no
net
effects
on
the
engines.
An
internal
combus-
tion
engine
undergoing
a
full
cycle
of
compression-ignition-expansion
is
a
classic
example
of
such
a
device.
However,
living
cells,
photovoltaic
arrays,
and
distilla-
tion
columns
can
also
be
considered
as
heat
engines,
provided
that
no
net
changes
accumulate
within
the
devices
over
the
period
of
interest.
Analysis
of
heat
engines
becomes
particularly
simple
if
they
exchange
heat
with
heat
reservoirs
large
enough
so
that
their
temperature
can
be
considered
con-
stant,
irrespective
of
the
amount
of
heat
exchanged
with
the
engines.
In
essence,
this
implies
that
the
amount
of
energy
exchanged
is
small
relative
to
the
total
heat
capacity
of
the
reservoirs.
Practical
approximations
of
heat
reservoirs
include
the
atmosphere,
rivers,
or
the
sea,
when
considered
over
short
enough
periods
of
time
so
that
their
temperature
does
not
vary
significantly.
Electrical
power
plants
are
usually
built
near
large
bodies
of
water
precisely
so
that
they
can
use
them
as
heat
reservoirs.
We
will
assume
that
heat
reservoirs
do
not
perform,
or
require,
any
work
in
the
process
of
interest.
The
Kelvin-Planck
postulate
(statement
of
the
Second
Law)
is
that:
It
is
not
possible
for
a
heat
engine
that
interacts
with
a
single
heat
reservoir
to
convert
all
the
heat
transferred
from
the
reservoir
into
work.
In
other
words,
heat
cannot
be
completely
converted
into
work.
However,
the
re-
verse
of
this
process,
converting
work
entirely
into
heat,
is
perfectly
possible.
Fig.
3.4
depicts
a
process
that
is
impossible
according
to
the
Kelvin-Planck
statement
of
the
Second
Law,
assum-
ing
that
the
signs
of
the
flows
of
heat
Q
and
work
W
are
as
indicated
by
the
arrows.
If
|Q|
=
|W|,
such
a
device
does
not
violate
the
First
Law,
as
a
trivial
balance
around
the
en-
gine
demonstrates.
No
such
device
has
ever
been
con- Figure
3.4
An
impossible
process.
structed,
despite
efforts
by
many
people
since
the
dawn
of
technological
civilization.
The
practical
value
of
being
able
to
extract
useful
en-
ergy
in
the
form
of
electricity
or
mechanical
work
by
cooling
the
sea
or
the
atmos-
phere
would
be
enormous;
fossil
fuel
use
could
then
be
reduced
to
zero
and
a
prac-
tically
inexhaustible
supply
of
energy
would
become
available
to
humanity.
Na-
ture,
however,
does
not
permit
such
a
device
ever
to
function.
Even
in
microscopic
systems,
where
spontaneous
fluctuations
occur
that
seem
to
result
in
mechanical
work
being
produced
at
the
expense
of
the
thermal
energy
of
a
reservoir
(e.g.
Brownian
motion
of
small
particles),
the
Second
Law
is
found
to
hold
when
the
av-
erage
behavior
of
a
system
is
determined
over
long
times.
Devices
that
violate
the
Kelvin-Planck
statement
of
the
Second
Law
40
First
or
Second
Laws
which
thus
can
never
be
constructed
are
called
perpetual
motion
machines
of
the
first
or
second
kind,
respectively.
Q = QCB
! CA
This
is
the
case
since
we
can
always
adjust
the
size
of
the
heat
engine,
or
how
many
engine
cycles
are
performed
per
unit
of
time.
First
Law
balance
around
the
system
composed
of
the
engines
A+B
then
gives
the
net
work
input
as:
The
net
heat
input
is:
W = WB WA
!
41
Q = QHA QHB = W
!
If
W
<
0,
then
Net
work
is
being
produced
by
the
two
engines
by
removing
heat
from
the
hot
res-
ervoir.
This
is
equivalent
to
a
perpetual
motion
machine
of
the
second
kind,
violat-
ing
the
Kelvin-Plank
postulate,
so
it
is
an
impossibility.
Therefore,
we
must
have:
W 0 Q 0 QHA QHB
!
for
any
two
heat
engines
operating
between
two
specific
temperatures
H
and
C
.
The
arguments
of
the
previous
paragraph
also
apply
to
the
special
case
of
re-
versible
heat
engines,
known
as
Carnot
engines.
For
reversible
engines
we
can
simply
switch
the
role
of
A
and
B
at
will,
which
gives:
rev
rev
rev
rev
QHA
QHB
!!and!! QHB
QHA
rev
rev
QHA
= QHB
This
implies
that
for
any
reversible
heat
engine
that
operates
between
H
and
C
the
ratio
of
heat
fluxes
is
a
universal
function
of
the
two
temperatures:
QHrev
QCrev
= f (H ,C )
!
The
specific
form
of
the
function
in
Eq.
3.1
can
now
be
determined,
by
consider-
ing
a
cascade
of
heat
engines
operating
be-
tween
a
high
temperature
H,
an
interme-
diate
temperature
M
and
a
low
tempera-
ture
C,
as
shown
in
Fig.
3.6.
On
the
left
side,
two
Carnot
engines,
1
and
2,
are
used
between
H and
M
and
between
M
and
C
,
respectively.
On
the
right
side,
a
single
engine
3
operates
directly
between
H
and
C.
We
can
adjust
the
heat
flows
for
en-
gines
1
and
2
so
that
the
same
amount
of
heat
is
taken
and
removed
from
the
in-
termediate-temperature
reservoir
at
M,
and
we
can
also
adjust
engine
3
so
that
the
same
amount
of
heat
is
removed
from
the
hot
reservoir
as
for
engine
1.
Since
these
are
Carnot
(reversible)
engines,
we
must
have
that
|W1|
+
|W2|
=
|W3|.
Therefore,
the
(3.1)
Figure
3.6
Thermal
engines
operating
between
three
heat
reservoirs.
42
same
amount
of
heat
is
dumped
to
the
cold
reservoir
on
the
two
sides
of
the
cas-
cade:
QC = QC
QM / f (M ,C ) = QH / f (H ,C )
QH
QH
f (H ,M ) f (M ,C ) = f (H ,C )
f (M ,C ) f (H ,M ) f (H ,C )
!
Since
this
relationship
is
valid
for
any
temperatures
H,
M,
and
C,
the
func-
tional
form
of
f
must
be:
!
g(H )
f (H ,C ) =
g(C )
(3.2)
The
function
g()
is
universal
for
all
Carnot
engines.
Its
form
can
be
obtained
from
analysis
of
the
operation
of
any
reversible
heat
engine.
When
this
analysis
is
performed
for
engines
that
have
ideal
gases
as
working
fluids
(see
4.1),
we
ob-
tain
a
particularly
simple
relationship:
g()
=
T,
where
T
is
the
temperature
that
was
defined
through
the
ideal-gas
equation
of
state
in
2.4.
This
remarkable
prop-
erty
provides
a
connection
between
the
efficiency
of
reversible
engines
and
the
ideal-gas
temperature
scale.
The
absolute
temperature
scale
T
is
of
fundamental
importance
in
thermodynamics.
Given
that
f (H,C)
=
TH/TC,
we
can
now
show
that
reversible
heat
flows
occur-
ring
to
and
from
constant-temperature
reservoirs
are
linked
in
a
particularly
sim-
ple
way.
The
heat
flows
for
the
cold
and
hot
reservoirs
are
of
opposite
signs,
so
Eq.
3.1
can
be
expressed
as:
QHrev
QCrev
TH
TC
QHrev
TH
QCrev
TC
= 0
(3.3)
The
efficiency
of
a
Carnot
engine
that
draws
heat
from
a
hot
reservoir
and
produces
work
(left
side
of
Fig.
3.5)
is
defined
as
the
fraction
of
heat
removed
from
the
hot
reservoir
that
is
obtained
from
the
device
as
work.
From
a
First
Law
bal-
ance
around
a
reversible
engine,
we
have:
Carnot
Engine
efficiency
T
QHrev + QCrev +W = 0 QHrev C QHrev = W
TH
!
rev
!
W
QHrev
TH TC
TH
(3.4)
43
The
efficiency
is
between
0
and
1,
the
latter
value
being
a
theoretical
limit
that
can
only
be
asymptotically
approached
if
TC0
or
TH+.
Real
engines,
of
course,
operate
with
efficiencies
lower
than
those
of
reversible
engines,
since
oth-
erwise
an
irreversible
engine
could
be
combined
with
a
Carnot
engine
operating
in
reverse,
resulting
in
a
violation
of
the
Second
Law.
The
performance
of
real
en-
gines
operating
between
reservoirs
of
given
temperatures
is
not
the
same
for
all
irreversible
engines
it
varies
(sometimes
greatly),
depending
on
their
design
and
internal
losses.
The
reversible
engine
efficiency
provides
a
common
upper
limit
for
all
real
engines.
Example
3.1
Efficiency
of
geothermal
power
production
In
many
parts
of
the
world,
especially
near
edges
of
tectonic
plates,
relatively
high
temperatures
can
be
reached
by
drilling
to
moderate
depths.
Taking
advantage
of
these
high
temperatures
has
been
proposed
as
one
possible
technology
for
energy
generation
without
production
of
greenhouse
gases.
Assuming
that
heat
can
be
withdrawn
from
hot
rock
at
H
=
200
C
and
that
cooling
is
available
at
C
=
50
C,
what
is
the
maximum
possible
fraction
of
heat
removed
that
can
be
converted
to
electricity?
The
maximum
possible
fraction
of
heat
conversion
into
work
takes
place
using
a
reversible
Carnot
engine,
which
has
efficiency:
T T
200 50
rev = H C =
= 32%
TH
200 + 273
!
Note
that
only
absolute
temperatures
[in
K]
can
be
used
in
the
expression
for
;
however,
the
difference
between
two
temperatures
in
C
is
the
same
as
the
corre-
sponding
absolute
temperature
difference
in
K,
so
the
thermometric
temperature
values
can
be
used
in
the
numerator.
For
engines
operating
as
refrigeration
cycles
(right
side
of
Fig.
3.5,
p.
40),
with
heat
removed
from
the
cold
reservoir
through
the
net
input
of
work,
a
measure
of
performance
different
from
is
appropriate.
In
such
cases,
we
are
interested
in
the
amount
of
heat
removed
from
the
cold
side
(the
interior
of
the
refrigerator,
or
the
inside
of
a
building
in
the
case
of
air
conditioning)
per
unit
of
work
input.
The
coefficient
of
performance,
,
is:
! = !
!
QC
W
QC
QC QH
rev !=
QCrev
QCrev
T
+ H QCrev
TC
TC
TH TC
(3.5)
44
outside
air.
In
this
case,
the
coefficient
of
performance
is
defined
as
the
ratio
of
heat
output
(into
the
building)
over
the
work
input:
!=!
QH
W
QH
QC QH
rev =
QHrev
T
C QHrev + QHrev
TH
TH
TH TC
(3.6)
The
two
coefficients
of
performance
defined
in
Eqs.
3.5
and
3.6
can
be
greater
than
1,
if
the
difference
between
hot
and
cold
temperatures
is
smaller
than
the
ab-
solute
value
of
the
cold
or
hot
temperature,
respectively.
Practical
power
and
re-
frigeration
cycles
are
discussed
in
Chapter
4.
Example
3.2
Air
conditioner
theoretical
efficiency
Calculate
the
maximum
possible
coefficient
of
performance
for
an
air
conditioning
unit
operating
between
an
indoor
temperature
of
68
F
and
outdoor
temperature
of
104
F.
We
first
need
to
convert
thermometric
to
absolute
temperatures:
C
=
68
F
C
=
293
K;
C
=
104
F
TH
=
313
K.
The
maximum
possible
coefficient
of
performance
is:
rev
!=!
QCrev
W
TC
TH TC
293
= 14.6
313 293
Q rev
S
(3.7)
T
!
For
a
differential
change
of
state
during
a
reversible
process,
the
temperature
of
the
system
is
effectively
constant,
so
we
can
write:
Q rev
dS =
T
!
(3.8)
45
The
overall
entropy
change
for
a
general
process
that
involves
temperature
changes
along
its
path
is:
definition
of
entropy
rev
B Q
S = SB S A =
A T
!
(3.9)
irr
U U A = WAD
! D
Adding
these
two
expressions
we
obtain
rev
irr
T(S S )+WDA
+WAD
= 0
! A D
46
irr
rev
rev
+WDA
< 0 ,
then
T(S A SD ) = QDA
> 0 ;
the
overall
cycle
has
received
If
WAD
!
!
!
heat
input
from
a
single
reservoir
at
T
and
has
produced
net
work.
This
is
a
viola-
tion
of
the
Kelvin-Planck
postulate
and
therefore
impossible.
The
case
rev
W irr +WDA
= 0 implies
that
T(S A SD ) = Q rev = 0 and
the
final
state
could
be
re-
! AD
!
turned
to
the
initial
state
with
no
net
effect
on
the
environment;
this
contradicts
the
original
statement
that
the
process
AD
was
irreversible.
Therefore,
we
must
have,
for
any
irreversible
process
in
an
isolated
closed
system
from
state
AD,
T(S A SD ) < 0 ,
or
equivalently:
(3.10)
irr
rev
irr
rev
+WDA
> 0 WAD
> WDA
In
addition,
we
must
have
WAD
.
By
changing
the
!
direction
of
the
reversible
process
from
DA
to
AD
we
then
obtain:
rev
W irr > WAD
!!
! AD
(3.11)
Since
the
universe
can
be
considered
a
closed
isolated
system,
Eq.
3.10
is
the
mathematical
equivalent
of
the
Clausius
statement
of
the
Second
Law,
the
entropy
of
the
universe
tends
to
a
maximum.
Eq.
3.11
states
that
the
algebraic
work
amount
is
always
greater
for
an
irreversible
process.
If
the
reversible
process
re-
rev
!>!0! )
then
the
irreversible
process
requires
more
work
input;
quires
work
( WAD
!
rev
!<!0! ),
Eq.
3.11
suggests
that
the
ir-
if
the
reversible
process
produces
work
( WAD
!
reversible
process
will
produce
less
work
it
may
even
require
work
input!
Re-
versible
processes
are
the
best
of
all
possible
processes
in
achieving
a
given
task
with
the
least
expenditure
of
useful
work
and
in
extracting
the
maximum
possible
amount
of
useful
work
out
of
a
given
change
of
state.
Entropy
has
been
just
derived
from
analysis
of
heat
and
work
flows
in
reversi-
ble
heat
engines;
however,
once
it
has
been
established
that
entropy
is
a
proper
thermodynamic
function,
it
can
be
expressed
for
any
equilibrium
state
in
terms
of
any
convenient
thermodynamic
variables.
This
provides
the
starting
point
for
de-
velopment
of
thermodynamic
identities
through
the
formal
approach
described
in
Chapter
5.
Let
us
take
a
look
again
at
the
differential
form
of
the
First
Law
of
ther-
modynamics,
written
for
a
closed
system
undergoing
a
reversible
process:
rev
rev
!dU = Q + W
(3.12)
47
(3.13)
Eq.
3.13
has
only
proper
thermodynamic
state
functions
on
both
sides,
contain-
ing
no
inexact
differentials
involving
heat
or
work
amounts.
Changes
in
state
func-
tions
are
independent
of
the
path,
so
the
equation
is
valid
for
all
processes,
re-
versible
or
irreversible.
In
irreversible
processes,
the
first
term
(TdS )
is
not
equal
to
the
amount
of
heat,
and
the
second
term,
(PdV )
does
not
equal
the
amount
of
work;
but
their
sum
still
gives
the
change
in
system
energy.
Example
3.3
Entropy
change
for
an
ideal
gas
10
mol
of
an
ideal
gas
with
CV
=
20.8
J/mol
at
T0
=
300
K
and
P0
=
0.3
MPa
occupy
the
left
half
of
an
insulated
vessel,
as
shown
in
Fig.
3.8.
The
other
half
is
evacuated.
At
time
t
=
0,
a
1
kW
electrical
heating
element
is
turned
on.
After
30
s,
the
parti-
tion
dividing
the
vessel
ruptures
and
the
heating
element
is
turned
off.
Calculate
(a)
the
final
temperature
Tf
and
pressure
Pf
of
the
gas
in
the
vessel
and
(b)
the
en-
tropy
change
of
the
gas
during
this
process.
The
final
temperature
of
the
gas
can
be
obtained
from
a
First
Law
balance
on
the
contents
of
the
vessel:
U = NCV T = Q + W Tf = T0 +
Q
NCV
30!s! !1000!J/s
Tf = 300!K! +
= 444!K
10!mol! 20.8!J/(mol!K)
!
Pf Vf
RTf
P0V0
RT0
Pf = P0
V0Tf
Vf T0
444!K
Pf = 0.3!MPa
= !0.222!MPa
2! !300!K
!
The
entropy
change
cannot
be
directly
obtained
from
the
definition
(Eq.
3.9),
as
this
is
not
a
reversible
pro-
cess.
Instead,
it
can
be
obtained
from
Eq.
3.13:
Figure
3.8
Schematic
of
pro-
cess
for
Example
3.3.
1
P
dU = TdS PdV dS = dU + dV
T
T
!
NCV
C
T
V
NR
S
R
dS =
dT +
dV
= V dT + dV = CV ln f + Rln f
T
V
N
T
V
T0
V0
!
Valid
for
any
process
in
a
closed
system
48
S
444
J
J
= 20.8ln
+ 8.314ln2 !
= (8.16 +5.76)!
N
300
mol!K
mol!K
J
J
S = 10!mol! 13.9
S = 139!
mol!K
K
!
!
The
entropy
change
is,
of
course,
greater
than
zero
during
this
irreversible
pro-
cess.
Using
the
same
approach
as
in
Example
3.3,
it
is
easy
to
prove
that
the
general
relationship
for
the
entropy
change
of
an
ideal
gas
with
temperature-independent
heat
capacities
during
a
process
that
takes
it
from
(T0 ,P0 ,V 0 ) (Tf ,Pf ,V f ) is:
Entropy
change
for
an
ideal
gas
S
!
IG
= CV ln
Tf
T0
+ Rln
Vf
V0
= C P ln
Tf
T0
Rln
Pf
P0
(3.14)
Eq.
3.14
is
of
general
applicability
to
changes
of
state
for
ideal
gases
the
pro-
cess
does
not
have
to
be
reversible,
at
constant
temperature
or
at
constant
pres-
sure.
Example
3.4
Forging
A
common
process
in
metallurgy
is
to
immerse
a
red-hot
item
(e.g.
a
blade
being
forged)
in
water
to
harden
it.
Let
us
consider
a
process
in
which
a
1
kg
steel
blade
at
1
=
800
C
is
immersed
in
a
large
vessel
filled
with
water
at
2
=
25
C
and
imme-
diately
quenched.
Assuming
that
steel
has
heat
capacity
CV
=
460
J/(kg
K),
inde-
pendent
of
temperature,
calculate
the
entropy
changes
during
this
process
of
(a)
the
steel
blade,
(b)
the
water,
and
(c)
the
universe.
Assume
that
there
is
enough
water
in
the
vessel
so
that
its
temperature
does
not
increase
appreciably
during
the
process
of
immersion.
The
entropy
change
of
the
steel
blade
in
this
irreversible
process
can
be
calculated
from
Eq.
3.13,
ignoring
the
small
volume
change
of
the
solid
as
it
cools
down:
dU = TdS PdV
!
NC dT
1
dS = dU = V
T
T
C
T
Sblade = N V dT = NCV ln f
T
T0
!
J
273+ 25
J
Sblade = 1!kg! !460!
!ln
= 589!
kg!K 273+ 800
K
!
49
Even
though
this
is
an
irreversible
process,
the
blades
entropy
goes
down
the
blade
is
not
an
isolated
system,
so
Eq.
3.10
does
not
apply.
For
the
water,
we
are
not
given
enough
information
to
calculate
its
temperature
change;
since
the
process
is
clearly
irreversible,
it
would
seem
that
we
cannot
use
the
definition
of
entropy
change
(Eq.
3.9)
however,
this
is
not
true!
Even
though
the
overall
process
is
irreversible
because
of
the
large
temperature
difference
be-
tween
the
blade
and
the
water,
we
can
devise
a
thought
experiment
in
which
the
heat
transfer
to
the
water
is
done
in
a
reversible
manner.
The
amount
of
heat
transferred
is:
J
Q = U blade = NCV T = 1!kg 460!
(25 800)!K!=!356!kJ
kg!K
!
The
entropy
change
for
the
water
in
a
reversible
process
with
the
same
Q
is:
Q rev
356!kJ
J
Swater =
=
= 1196!
T
(273+ 25)!K
K
!
The
entropy
change
of
the
universe
is:
J
J
Suniverse = Swater + Sblade = (589+1196) = +607
K
K
!
Once
again,
the
entropy
change
of
the
universe
is
positive,
as
it
should
be
for
an
overall
irreversible
process.
leaving
streams
Nout S out
entering
streams
Nin S in 0 (3.15)
Why
are
the
terms
for
the
entering
and
leaving
streams
in
Eq.
3.15
of
opposite
sign
relative
to
Eqs.
2.16
or
2.19
(p.
18),
the
First
Law
balance
for
open
systems?
50
Eqs.
2.16
and
2.19
are
written
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
system,
which
gains
the
streams
that
enter
and
loses
the
streams
that
leave.
By
contrast,
Eq.
3.15
rep-
resents
a
balance
for
the
entropy
of
the
universe.
For
the
universe,
streams
enter-
ing
the
system
are
lost
and
streams
exiting
the
system
are
gained.
A
similar
re-
lationship
can
also
be
written
as
a
differential
(rate
of
change):
leaving
streams
N out S out
entering
streams
N in S in 0
(3.16)
For
reversible
processes,
Eqs.
3.15-3.16
become
equalities,
with
their
right-
hand
side
equal
to
zero.
For
other
special
cases,
specific
terms
can
be
set
to
zero,
significantly
simplifying
the
equations.
For
example,
the
term
Ssystem
is
zero
at
steady
state,
as
there
is
no
net
change
in
the
system.
Another
example
of
simplifi-
cation
is
for
an
adiabatic
process,
for
which
we
can
set
Senv =
0,
since
no
heat
flows
into
the
environment.
The
fact
that
entropy
generation
is
non-negative
for
all
feasible
processes
im-
poses
significant
constraints
on
the
amount
of
work
that
can
be
produced
from
(or
is
required
for)
specific
processes.
When
performing
a
thermodynamic
analysis,
a
typical
approach
is
to
apply
in
turn
a
First
Law
balance
followed
by
a
Second
Law
balance,
as
illustrated
in
the
examples
that
follow.
Example
3.5
Feasibility
of
a
process
An
inventor
is
proposing
a
black
box
device
for
producing
electrical
power
that
operates
on
a
stream
of
compressed
air
at
P1
=
4
bar,
T1
=
300
K.
The
input
stream
is
split
into
two
equal
flows
of
P2
=
P3
=
1
bar
at
T2
=
280
K
and
T3
=
260
K,
respectively.
The
claim
is
made
that
power
is
produced
at
a
steady-state
rate
of
W
=
3.4
kJ/mol
of
air
flowing
through
the
device.
Assuming
that
unlimited
heat
exchange
with
the
environment
at
Tenv
=
300
K
is
allowed,
you
are
asked
to
provide
an
analysis
of
the
thermodynamic
feasibility
of
such
a
device.
Assume
that
air
can
be
approximated
as
an
ideal
gas
with
CP
=
29.1
J
/(mol
K),
independent
of
temperature.
First,
we
apply
an
integral
First
Law
balance
on
this
open
system
over
the
pe-
riod
of
time
it
takes
for
1
mol
of
air
to
flow
through
the
device,
which
is
as-
sumed
to
be
at
steady
state.
The
flow
of
streams
2
and
3
is
half
the
flow
of
stream
1.
We
use
a
refer-
ence
state
for
the
enthalpy
51
such that H = C PT .
U
= 0 = Q +W + NH 1
!steady!state
T +T
N
N
H 2 H 3 Q = W NC P T1 2 3
2
2
2
J
260+ 280
Q = (3400)!J! 1!mol!
!
!29.1!
300
K != 2527!J
mol!K
2
!
Since
the
heat
calculated
from
the
systems
point
of
view
is
positive,
heat
flows
from
the
environment
to
the
system
during
this
process.
We
must
now
check
whether
the
entropy
generation
rate
for
the
universe
is
non-negative.
We
use
Eq.
3.14
(p.
48)
to
calculate
the
entropy
change
of
the
ideal
gas
streams
and
take
into
account
that
the
flow
of
heat
into
the
environment
is
the
opposite
of
the
value
cal-
culated
from
First
Law
balance
on
the
system:
Suniverse =
leaving!
entering!
steady!state
!
= !
streams
streams
Q N
N
Q N
+ S 2 + S 3 N S1 =
+ (S 2 S 1 + S 3 S 1 )
Tenv 2
2
Tenv 2
TT
PP
Q N
+ C P ln 2 3 Rln 2 3 =
Tenv 2
T12
P12
2527!J 1!mol
J
260 280
J
1
!+!
29.1!
ln
8.314
ln 2 =
2
300!K
2
mol!K
mol!K 4
300
J
J
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8.42 3.09!+11.53 ! = +0.02!
K
K
!
The
entropy
change
of
the
universe
is
positive,
so
operation
of
the
device
is
possi-
ble
as
described.
However,
since
the
entropy
change
is
small
relative
to
the
terms
of
which
it
consists,
the
device
is
operating
near
the
thermodynamic
limit
for
re-
versible
processes.
Example
3.6
Solar
power
generation
Solar
collectors
are
used
to
heat,
continuously
and
at
steady
state,
a
molten
salt
stream
from
200
C
to
600
C
at
a
flow
rate
of
12
kg/s.
The
hot
stream
generates
electrical
power
by
a
complex
process
and
then
returns
to
the
solar
collectors.
What
is
the
maximum
amount
of
power
that
can
be
produced?
Assume
that
the
environment
is
at
20
C.
The
heat
capacity
of
the
molten
salt
at
constant
pressure
is
CP
=
0.8
kJ/(kg
K),
independent
of
temperature.
52
The
system
of
interest
is
the
power
plant
that
uses
the
salt
stream.
We
label
the
hot
stream
H
and
the
cold
one
C.
An
open-system
First
Law
balance
for
this
sys-
tem
gives:
dU
=0
dt
H HC )
= Q + W + N(H
steady!state
W = Q + NC P (TC TH )
!
The
maximum
amount
of
work
is
produced
in
a
reversible
process,
for
which
Suniverse = 0 =
leaving!
entering!
steady!state
streams
streams
T C
T
Q
ln C
+ N(S C SH ) Q = Tenv N C P dT = Tenv NC
P
T
Tenv
TH
H T
T
T ln H +T T
W = NC
P
env
C
H
TC
273+ 600
kg
kJ
W = 12 0.8
293!ln
+ 200 600 K!!= 2.12!MW
s
kg!K
273+ 200
!
The
power
is
negative
because
it
is
being
produced
by
the
power
plant.
53
For
reversible
operation
of
the
steam
turbine,
we
must
have:
reversible!process
steady!state
adiabatic
The
properties
of
steam
at
the
entrance
of
the
turbine
(T1
=
900
K
and
P1
=
8
MPa)
can
be
obtained
from
the
NIST
WebBook
as
follows:
kJ
kJ
H 1 = 3707! !!!!!S 1 = 7.095
kg
kg!K
!
We
now
need
to
find
the
pressure
for
which
S2
=
S1
=
7.095
kJ/(kg
K)
at
T2
=
430
K.
With
a
bit
of
trial-and-error
with
respect
to
the
pressure
range,
we
can
obtain
from
the
NIST
WebBook
P2
=
0.31
MPa,
H2
=
2775
kJ/kg.
A
First
Law
balance
on
the
tur-
bine
now
gives:
dU
= 0 = Q + W + N(H
1 H2 )
dT
!steady!state
W
103 !kJ/s
N =
=
H 2 H 1 (2775 3707)!!kJ/kg
!
Example
3.8
Work
for
evacuating
a
tank
kg
N = 1.073
s
!
54
V1
V
! 0
P1
P0
N1
N0
The
instantaneous
pressure
difference
across
the
piston
is
P
P0,
where
P
is
the
pressure
within
the
expanding
volume
on
the
left
side.
The
total
work
required
to
move
the
piston
to
the
right
is:
V
V0 N RT
1
V1
V1
W = 0 (P P0 )dV =
dV + P0(V0 V1 ) = N1RT ln
V1
V0
+ P0(V0 V1 )
V PV PV
P V
W N1
=
RT ln 1 + 0 0 0 1 = RT ln + RT 0 1 = RT ln + RT RT
N0 N0
V0 N0
N0
N1
W
W
=
= ln +1
RTN0 P0V0
55
W
W
=
= 1 W = P0V0
for
complete
evacuation.
!
N0RT P0V0
!
In
other
words,
the
minimum
work
for
complete
evacuation
is
the
work
to
push
back
the
atmosphere
by
a
volume
equal
to
the
original
tank
volume.
n
the
case
of
pressurization,
a
more
meaningful
measure
than
the
work
per
mole
initially
in
the
tank
is
the
work
per
mole
of
compressed
air,
obtained
by
dividing
the
full
expression
above
by
=
N1/N0,
W
W
1
=
= ln + 1
RTN1 P1V0
For
=
10,
this
equation
gives
W/(RTN1)
=
1.403.
The
work
required
is
positive
(work
input
to
the
system)
for
both
lowering
and
increasing
the
tank
pressure
to
a
value
different
than
atmospheric.
(b)
Adiabatic
operation
Here,
we
will
use
the
expressions
obtained
in
2.4
for
adiabatic
compression
and
expansion
of
an
ideal
gas.
Even
though
we
did
not
state
so
at
the
time,
adiabatic
operation
(Q
=
0)
at
internal
equilibrium
implies
also
a
reversible
operation,
since
the
entropy
change
of
the
universe
for
such
a
process
is
zero.
As
previously,
we
find
V1
so
that
P1
=
P0
after
expansion.
From
Eq.
2.31,
with
ini-
tial
volume
and
pressure
V1
and
P0
and
final
values
V0
and
P1
:
V
== 0
P
V1
! 0
P1
V1
V0
= 1/ =
CV /C P
P
R/C
= 1 = P
T
P
! 0 0
The
work
performed
on
the
gas
during
the
expansion
is,
from
Eq.
2.32:
T1
T
R/C
Ugas = Q +Wgas Wgas = N1CV T = N1CV (T1 T0 ) = N1T1CV 1 0 = N1T1CV 1 P
T1
!
The
net
work
required
is
the
sum
of
the
work
performed
on
the
gas
and
the
work
to
push
back
the
atmosphere,
56
R/C P
) + P (V V )
0
N1T1CV
PV
PV
PV C
W
R/C P
=
1
+ 0 0 0 1 = 1 0 V
N0RT0
N0RT0
N0RT0 N0RT0
P0V0R
W
W
1/
=
=
+1 1/
RT0N0 P0V0
1
V
1 +1 1
V0
For
air,
=7/5=1.4,
so
that
for
=
0.1
we
obtain
W/(RTN0)
=
0.574.
A
little
less
work
is
required
for
adiabatic
evacuation
than
for
isothermal
one.
At
the
limit
0,
this
expression
also
gives
W
=
P0V0,
as
for
the
isothermal
case.
For
adiabatic
pressurization,
the
work
per
mole
of
compressed
air
is:
1/
W
W V0 W
W
11/ 1
1/
=
=
=
+11/
=
+ 1/ 1
RT N
1
RT N P V V1 RT0N0
1
! 0 1
! 0 1 1 0
For
=
10,
this
expression
gives
W
/
(RTN1)
=
1.520,
a
little
more
than
in
the
iso-
thermal
case.
S = kB ln (N ,V ,U )
!
(3.17)
57
N
N!
N (N 1)(N M +1)
(3.18)
= M!(N M)! =
12M
M
!
There
is
only
1
state
with
internal
energy
U
=
0.
States
with
U
=
1
have
one
ball
at
level
+1
and
the
others
at
level
0,
so
for
N
=
10,
there
are
10
such
states.
States
with
energy
U
=
2
may
have
1
ball
at
+2
and
the
others
at
0,
or
2
balls
at
+1,
so
there
are:
10
+10 = 55
2
!
such
states.
We
can
similarly
obtain
(3 )= 220;
(4 )= 715,
(5 )= 2002,
and
so
on.
Note
that
the
number
of
microstates
increases
rapidly
with
the
total
energy
of
the
system.
This
is
generally
the
case
for
most
systems.
Now
we
are
in
a
position
to
show
that
S
defined
microscopically
from
Eq.
3.17
has
the
two
key
properties
associated
with
the
entropy
of
classical
thermodynam-
ics:
1.
58
59
Fig.
3.14
shows
the
number
of
configurations
for
a
square-lattice
chain
of
5
beads.
Without
loss
of
generality,
we
have
fixed
the
configuration
of
the
first
two
beads
of
the
chain
to
be
in
the
horizontal
direction,
with
the
second
bead
to
the
right
of
the
first.
This
reduces
the
total
number
of
configurations
by
a
factor
of
4;
such
a
multi-
plicative
factor
simply
shifts
the
value
of
S
obtained
from
Eq.
3.17
by
a
constant
factor,
akin
to
the
reference
state
for
the
entropy.
The
last
bond
is
shown
in
multi-
ple
configurations
(arrows),
along
with
their
number
and
energy:
!2(1)
for
the
top
left
image
means
there
are
2
configurations,
each
of
energy
1.
Overall,
counting
configurations
of
the
same
energy:
(U=0)
=
3+2+2+3+2+2+3=17
;
(U=1)
=
2+1+1+1+1+2=8
The
number
of
microscopic
configurations
and
energy
levels
increases
rapidly
with
chain
length.
Theoretical
and
Monte
Carlo
computer
simulation
techniques
are
used
for
determining
the
properties
of
models
of
this
type
for
longer
chains.
Figure
3.14
Configurations
for
a
two-dimensional
chain
of
5
beads
60
The
basic
postulate
of
statistical
mechanics
implies
that
the
probability
of
any
microstate
,
P ,
is
the
same
as
that
of
any
other
microstate
in
the
constant
N ,V ,U
ensemble:
1
P =
at
constant
N,
V
and
U
(3.19)
!
From
this
postulate,
we
can
now
simply
derive
another
famous
expression,
the
Gibbs
entropy
formula,
by
substituting
Eq.
3.19
into
Eq.
3.17:
Gibbs
entropy
formula
S = kB
!
P lnP
(3.20)
all!micro+
states!
The
Gibbs
entropy
formula
can
be
shown
to
be
valid
even
for
systems
not
at
constant
energy
U,
volume
V,
and
number
of
particles
N.
This
is
in
contrast
to
Eq.
3.17,
which
is
only
valid
at
constant
for
microstates
at
constant
U
V
and
N.
For
ex-
ample,
in
5.6
we
prove
Eq.
3.20
for
systems
at
constant
N,
V,
and
T.