![]() |
|
Thermodynamics and Propulsion | |
15.6 Muddiest points on Chapter 15
MP 15..1
Why is there 3.76
![]()
This is to represent the components other than oxygen that are in
air. From SB&VW, page 525, ``The assumption that air is 21% oxygen
and 79% nitrogen by volume leads to the conclusion that for each
mole of oxygen,
MP 15..2
What is the most effective way to solve for the number of
moles in the reactions?
What we are doing is basically counting atoms on both sides of the
reactants
MP 15..3
Do we always assume 100% complete combustion? How good an
approximation is this?
In the problems we do, we will only consider 100% combustion. It is a good approximation for the range of problems that we address.
MP 15..4
Is the enthalpy of formation equal to the heat transfer out
of the combustion during the formation reaction?
As defined, the enthalpy of formation relates to a process in which
the initial and final states are at the same temperature. If there
is combustion in between, heat will have to be removed for this
condition to occur. The enthalpy of formation is equal to the
negative of the magnitude of the heat outflow. If we consider the
combustion as occurring in a control volume, then per kmole
MP 15..5
Are the enthalpies of
![]() ![]() ![]()
The enthalpies of the elements are taken as zero at
MP 15..6
When doing a cycle analysis, do we have to consider
combustion products and their effect on specific heat ratio
(
![]()
The specific heat ratio does depend on combustion products but the
effect is not large because the fuel air ratio is small. For
example, for conditions of fuel air ratio 0.034, the specific heat
ratio at room temperature is about 1.38. A larger variation
encountered in practice is with temperature; for a temperature of
MP 15..7
Does ``adiabatic flame temperature'' assume 100%
combustion?
Yes. This is the maximum temperature that could be produced. Incomplete combustion will lower the temperature, as will heat transfer out of the combustion region.
MP 15..8
What part of the computation for adiabatic flame temperature
involves iteration?
UnifiedTP
If the specific heat is not a simple analytic function of temperature (i.e., suppose it is known only in tabular form), we cannot get a closed form solution for the adiabatic flame temperature. We can, however, readily solve the enthalpy balance (SFEE) numerically (this is where the iteration comes in) to find at what temperature the products have to come out to have the same enthalpy (including the enthalpy of formation) as the reactants. We did not do this calculation yet, but we will do it to show what the iteration is all about. Remember that the assumption of constant specific heat is just that, an assumption. While this is an excellent assumption for many practical problems, if the precision of the answer needed is very high, or if the range of temperatures is large (see Figure 5.11 in SB&VW), then we cannot assume constant specific heat. |