| Author |
Message
|
| markfh11q |
 Posted: 05/11/2008 6:41 AM Post subject: Is My Logic Correct Here? |
 |
|
Magic Dust Man
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 1387
273.60 Spud Bux
|
Simple chemistry problem, but for some strange reason I cannot, for the life of me, "double check" to make sure my logic is correct before continuing.
You have two tanks at two different pressures and two different volumes, with a ball valve between the two, then, you open the ball valve and allow the pressures to equalize.
To solve for this pressure, this is the method I use:
I realize that P*V is equal a constant for a sample of gas. Therefore, I assume that P1*V1 + P2*V2 = Pf*V(1+2) and then solve for Pf.
Is this logic correct and accurate? I have no earthly clue why, but for some reason I cannot verify this on either the internet or in my AP Chem study book thingo I bought last year.
Here's some sample problems.
I have a 60mL tank at 3 atm and a 1200 mL tank at 5 atm. Final equalized pressure would be ~4.9 atm?
I have a 1000 mL tank at 4 atm and another 1000 mL tank at 4 atm. Final equalized pressure is 4 atm (both logically and calculated).
EDIT: if this logic is correct then I may have a simple solution to hybrid fueling woes.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
| jrrdw |
| Posted: 05/11/2008 9:42 AM Post subject: |
|
|
Donating Moderator
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 3149
4888.01 Spud Bux
|
| "Logic" as I understand it, tells me the 2 tanks have no other physical characteristic but being equal if a hose/connection allowing contents/pressure to transfer freely between the 2. It can only be equal if free transfer is introduced in the described situation.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| markfh11q |
| Posted: 05/11/2008 9:57 AM Post subject: |
|
|
Magic Dust Man
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 1387
273.60 Spud Bux
|
| jrrdw, the only physical characteristics of the two tanks I'm working with are the pressures because they're connected and, yes, free transfer is allowed. The important part of this situation is knowing the final pressure in the entire system if the tanks are connected (ball valve opened), with the tanks having different initial pressures.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jrrdw |
| Posted: 05/11/2008 10:10 AM Post subject: |
|
|
Donating Moderator
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 3149
4888.01 Spud Bux
|
| Ok, I see the difference now. You do have gauges on the tanks? They should be accurate enough to check your math, a good comparison. Unless your worried about one tank being pushed over the pressure rating limit, baring that open the valve and watch what happens.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| D_Hall |
| Posted: 05/11/2008 10:41 AM Post subject: |
|
|
Donating Member
Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 482
1151.82 Spud Bux
|
| Assuming ideal gases and all that jazz, yes, your logic is correct.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Velocity |
| Posted: 05/11/2008 10:43 AM Post subject: |
|
|
Brigadier General
Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 948
25.24 Spud Bux
|
| I don't see anything wrong with your prediction...it certainly makes sense intuitively. Granted, I have not taken AP Chemistry.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| markfh11q |
| Posted: 05/11/2008 10:46 AM Post subject: |
|
|
Magic Dust Man
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 1387
273.60 Spud Bux
|
Actually, this is for a set of hybrid fueling formulas I'm working on. The above equation in my post is part of a two-equation system which is used to derive meter pipe and chamber pressures to achieve a good, clean, stoichiometric burn.
There's gonna be a gauge on the chamber and one on the meter. So far I've set up a BASIC program to do all the calculations for me, and rounding the answers to the nearest whole percentage only yields around a 0.1% error in fueling, typically.
BUT, of course, ALL of this methodology hangs on the assumption that my logic outlined in the first post of this thread holds true.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
35.17 KB |
| Viewed: |
115 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| dongfang |
| Posted: 05/11/2008 15:30 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Lieutenant Colonel
Joined: 27 Aug 2006
Posts: 446
1656.71 Spud Bux
|
Hi,
Yes your formula is correct, although the notation is a little strange:
| Quote: | | P1*V1 + P2*V2 = Pf*V(1+2) |
which is:
P1*V1 + P2*V2 = Pf*V3
Surely you mean:
P1*V1 + P2*V2 = Pf*(V1 + V2)
BTW, I am working on the same program, just in JavaScript. When done, I will have it hosted somewhere (here, hopefully), and u can all use it.
Regards
Soren
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| LikimysCrotchus5 |
| Posted: 05/11/2008 19:18 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Brigadier General
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 976
2288.98 Spud Bux
|
I am working with programs as well but its java rather than javascript (I take java class at my school). I have created a couple of GUI programs but still need to improve. Once i can learn how to make the programs applets, then i will put then on the internet.
Sorry to hijack by the way.
I am learning about this kindof stuff in chemistry now, and im pretty sure your correct, sounds logical.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| markfh11q |
| Posted: 05/11/2008 20:48 PM Post subject: |
|
|
Magic Dust Man
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 1387
273.60 Spud Bux
|
Thank you dongfang. The notation is a little strange, I'll admit, but the equation is equivalent to yours.
This is a good thing. I'm now off to another thread to do a write up on the formulas I derived using this logic.
Thanks again.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
