GAS LAW EXPERIMENT DESIGN LAB

EAS 3810C: Design of Aerospace Engineering Experiments

Experiment 1

February 9, 2018

Lab Section 0013

Friday, 4:30 PM
Spring 2018
Lab TA: Ryan Debevec

Group 1
Matthew Avny
Sean Kelly
Christopher Opificius
Pedro Saldarriaga
I. Abstract
The experiment performed in the lab focused on gas laws and on the potential of heat to
perform work on a body, in this case the heat-engine cylinder lifting various masses. The
aforementioned work would be recorded through the construction of multiple pressure-volume
(P-V) diagrams with readings taken at various stages of the heat-engine cycle.
The experiment was started by first calibrating the pressure transducer the researchers
used by relating the output voltage from the pressure transducer and a known pressure value - a
reading generated through the use of a fluid manometer. A linear relationship was then derived
and used to calibrate the transducer using LabVIEW software.
For the main body of the experiment, two beakers were filled, one with cold water and
the other with hot water. Before the expansion, weights (50g, 100g, and 150g) were placed on
top of the heat-engine cylinder and the position of the cylinder was noted. One end of the engine
was placed into the hot water to allow the piston to expand. Through the entire four stage cycle,
measurements were taken of the piston’s vertical height, weight used, water temperature, and
pressure readings.
The stages of the cycle were as follows: (1) Cold air and no mass on top of the cylinder,
(2) Mass being placed on top of the cylinder, (3) The other end of the heat-engine being placed
into the hot water, (4) The mass being removed from the cylinder.
In detail, the calculated pressure was derived by multiplying the volume within the heat-
engine cylinder and the pressure from the transducer, after converting the voltage to a pressure
reading at each stage of the cycle. Work was calculated by finding the area within the shape
drawn out by the P-V diagrams for each of the masses tested. For the 50g mass, the net work was
calculated to be 0.00497 J and 0.004614 J with relative uncertainties of 0.00111 J and 0.00107 J
respectively for the two trials. The 100g mass saw net works of 0.009633 J and 0.009386 with
relative uncertainties of 0.00192 J and 0.00182 J. Finally, the 150g mass had net work of
0.011855 J and 0.013117 J, and relative uncertainties of 0.00260 J and 0.00227 J.
Work done by the system increased as the masses used also increased in number. In
addition, the difference between the mechanical work and net work done by the system
decreased as more weight was used - from about a 72% difference to 51%. Although there were
some variations and hiccups in the experimental procedure, expectations remained fairly close to
the actual numbers taken from the lab.

II. Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………2

2
 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..4

Methods……………………………………………………………………………………………4

Results and Discussions…………………………………………………………………………...6

Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………..8

References………………………………………………………………………………………....9

Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………….....10

III. Introduction
The goal of this experiment was to calculate the work done by a system at an
“engineering firm” in which the system was given to an intern. The system largely resembled a
heat engine, so the methods used for a heat engine were applied to this experiment. To calculate

3
 the work done by the system, large changes in temperature were needed to move the piston in the
heat engine. Also, different weights were used on top of the heat engine piston to gather
important data for the work done by the system. Once the data was acquired, the intern created a
pressure-volume (P-V) diagram for the system. This diagram would be of great importance to the
company because the efficiency could then be calculated from it. A detailed description of the
experiment performed are in the following section (IV. Methods).

IV. Methods
List of Items Used:
● National Instruments NI USB-6008 DAQ
● Ashcroft CXL Pressure Transducer
● Dwyer Instruments Manometer
● Kitchen Gourmet Hot Plate
● 2 800ml Pyrex Beakers
● Thermometer
● LabView Software
● 50g, 100g weights
● Pasco TD-8572 Heat Engine
● BNC Cable
● TI HY3003 DC Power Supply

To gather accurate information from the heat engine experiment, first the labview
software was configured to read the pressure transducer from the DAQ Assistant. The sampling
rate was set to 1000 and the number of samples was set at 1001. The data was then run through
the formula box to produce gauge pressure and mean pressure voltage.See (Figure A) below for
the setup of the LabVIEW software. Once the labview software was set up, a calibration of the
pressure transducer was done to ensure consistent results.

Figure 1 - LabVIEW VI Setup

4
 To calibrate the pressure transducer, a manometer was connected to it. The water in the
manometer was set to a height of 5 inches. The pressure from the manometer created a voltage
reading from the pressure transducer which could then be converted to a pressure value. A
voltage reading was recorded for every half inch until the water from the manometer was at a
height of zero. The slope of the linear equation from the calibration data points was then used to
convert all subsequent voltage readings into pressure values.
After calibration of the pressure transducer, the heat engine experiment was started. The
goal of this experiment was to recreate the pressure-volume diagrams that come from the heat
engine cycle. This was done through placing the air-filled cylinder into the beakers filled with
hot and cold water. The height of the heat engine piston was measured for each temperature and
with and without the weights added to the piston. The height of the piston in the cylinder could
then be used to calculate the volume by multiplying it by the area of the piston. See Figure B for
a schematic of the heat engine.

Figure 2 - Heat Engine Schematic

The detailed process that was done is as follows: First the air filled cylinder was placed
into the cold water and the height of the piston was measured. The pressure was then recorded
and the volume was calculated. Then the 50g mass was added to the top of the piston and the
volume and pressure readings were recorded. Once the readings were taken for the cold water,
the air filled cylinder was placed into the warm water beaker which was being heated by the hot
plate. Once the piston stopped moving upwards due to the expanding air in the cylinder, the
pressure and volume were recorded without the 50g weight. After the measurements were taken
without the weight, the 50g mass was added and the measurements were repeated. The four data
points that were recorded for each of the weights would then be used to plot the PV diagram.
These steps were repeated twice for each of the 50g, 100g, and 150g weights.

V. Results and Discussion

The main purpose of this experiment was to take pressure and volume measurements
(Table 6) of an engine and then calculate the work done. In an ideal case, both thermodynamic
and mechanical work (Equation 11) should have produced the same result, but Table 1 shows us
that this is not the case in the real world. While a difference was expected between the two, the
results of the experiment were higher than originally anticipated. Upon further inspection one

5
can see that despite there being a larger than anticipated difference, the experiment was at least
consistent. With three weights of increasing mass being used throughout the six trial runs, it is
easy to see that runs with the same mass produced very similar results.

Table 1 - Analysis of Energy, Heat, and Work between states of each trial

Before continuing it is important to specify that each trial consists of four positions where
measurements were taken. Step 1 is the process of changing from position 1 to position 2. Step 2
is the process of changing from position 2 to position 3. Step 3 is the process of changing from
position 3 to position 4. Step 4 is the process of changing from position 4 to position 1.
The first source of error to be anticipated is due to the assumptions made in calculations.
To make the calculations much simpler it is assumed that the system in step 1 and 3 undergoes
an isothermal compression and expansion respectively. This of course is not true in the lab
because the ambient temperature is different than that of the air inside the cylinder causing a
continuous change in internal energy and temperature. Then in steps 2 and 4 it is assumed that
the system expands and contracts isobarically. Again it is unrealistic to think that there is no
change in pressure for steps 2 and 4. There is not a perfect seal around the piston and cylinder,
which means that air is always leaking out of the system. It is expected that the more weight that
is added to the piston the faster this leak will be. Both assumption are idealistic and do not hold

6
true in the lab, but they are close approximations. Using the ideal gas equation (Equation 1) to
calculate temperature, Table 2 illustrates this point.

Table 2 - The left four columns show the measured and calculated data for each position in the
first trial. The right three columns show the percent change of certain parameters. Some values
are left out intentionally because they hold no bearing in proving if the process was isobaric or
isothermal.

Another form of loss in the system is from friction. The piston, made of graphite, and
cylinder, pyrex, for the heat engine are both made to fit snugly together to reduce leakage and
friction (Pasco). Despite this there will always be friction between two moving objects in contact
with each other and this contributes to the differences in work shown in Table 1.
Work is not the only useful information to collect on an engine. Thermal efficiency
(Equation 9) is useful in determining if investments should be made in improving an engine. The
carnot cycle efficiency (Equation 8) is the theoretical maximum efficiency for any system and
one goal in engine design is to get close to this theoretical maximum.

Table 3 - Efficiencies and Carnot Efficiencies per Trial

Since the carnot efficiency is based upon the temperatures of the hot and cold reservoirs
(Table 5), and the recorded temperature values for the water beakers is fairly consistent, it makes
sense that the carnot efficiencies are all very similar. As before, it is important to note that the
efficiency values are similar for trial runs that use the same weight, and that as the weight used is
increased the thermal efficiency also increases. The question is why the calculated efficiency of
the heat engine in higher than the theoretical maximum and why does the efficiency increase as

7
 the weight is increased? Equations 1, 10, 6 show how the changes in heat (Q), internal energy
(U), and work (W) are calculated for each step of the cycle. The change in heat calculated in step
2 is the Q value used to calculate thermal efficiency. This equation relies on the fact that the
system is undergoing an isobaric expansion. This is as previously mentioned not the case in the
real world. This changing pressure alters the values for P-V-T in positions 3 and 4 causing the
efficiency to be higher.
In addition to the sources of error presented, the power source used in the lab likely
introduced a good amount of unaccounted error. At the beginning of the lab the power source
was set to 23.5 V and varied roughly 0.1 V throughout. Near the end of data collection the power
source suddenly refused to output more than 18 V and a new power source was required in order
to maintain the original 23.5 V. It is very possible that the original power source was faulty and
introduced more error than anticipated even from the calibration of the pressure transducer.
The uncertainty in the calculated net work values for each trial run are presented in Table
4.
Table 4 - Net Work Relative Uncertainty per Trial

VI. Summary
In summary, the work done by the system increased as weights were added to the piston.
The experiment was performed with a heat engine by creating a cycle using hot and cold water.
To obtain accurate data, first the pressure transducer was calibrated using a manometer. Then
once a slope was calculated from the calibration and was used for the rest of the voltage readings
from the pressure transducer. These voltages were then converted into pressure readings. To
calculate the work done by the heat engine, the air filled cylinder was placed into hot and cold
water. Pressure readings were taken and the height of each configuration was also recorded and
volume was calculated. These recordings were done first without the weights and then with the
weights placed on top. The experiment was repeated for the 50g, 100g, and 150g masses. Once
data was acquired for each of the weights, a PV diagram was created for each of the experiments.
These diagrams can be found in the Results and Discussion section as well as in the Appendices.
For the first trial of the 50g weight, the net work was calculated to be .00497 J and the
mechanical work was calculated to be .017511 J. This yielded a % difference of 71.63%. The net
work uncertainty was calculated to be .1674 and the carnot efficiency was 14.57%. For the 150g
weight, the net work calculated was .009633 J and the mechanical work was calculated to be
.022514. This yielded a % difference of 57.21% and a net work uncertainty of .0972 J and a

8
 carnot efficiency of 14.78%. For the 150g weight, the net work was .0939 J and the mechanical
work was .02548 J. This yielded a % difference of 53.34% and a net work uncertainty of .00259
J and a carnot efficiency of 13.41%.
A few changes could be made to improve this experiment for future interns. The first
would be a device that could keep the cold water at a constant temperature. As this experiment
was performed, the cold water kept increasing in temperature thus changing the outcomes of the
experiment. Another change for the future would be to supply multiple thermometers to keep
track of the hot and cold water simultaneously. Lastly, longer tubing from the heat engine
cylinder would help when transferring the cylinder between the hot and cold water.

VII. References
[1] - Figiola, Richard S. And Donald E. Beasley, Theory and Design for Mechanical
Measurements, 5th ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Chap 5. Print.

[2] - Instruction Manual and Experiment Guide for the PASCO scientific Model TD-8592.
(2018). [ebook] Pasco. Available at:
ftp://ftp.pasco.com/support/Documents/English/TD/TD-8592/012-08375A.pdf
[Accessed 8 Feb. 2018].

VIII. Appendices
Equation 1 - Ideal Gas Law 𝑃𝑃 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
Equation 2 - Pressure/Volume Work Done 𝑃 = ∫𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃

Equation 3 - Isothermal Work Done 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃ℎ𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 =

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃(𝑃 )
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃

Equation 4 - Isobaric Work Done 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑃(𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 −

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 )

Equation 5 - Net Work Done in a Cycle 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑃1,2 + 𝑃2,3 + 𝑃3,4 + 𝑃4,1

Equation 6 - Isobaric Heat 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃

𝑃(𝑃) 𝑃(𝑃) 2 𝑃(𝑃) 2

Equation 7 - Relative Uncertainty = √( ) +( )
𝑃 𝑃 𝑃

9
 𝑃
Equation 8 - Carnot Efficiency 𝜂 = 1 − 𝑃𝑃
𝑃

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
Equation 9 - Heat Engine Efficiency 𝜂= 𝑃𝑃𝑃
Equation 10 - Internal Energy 𝑃=𝑃−𝑃
Equation 11 - Mechanical Work 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃ℎ𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃ℎ

Table 5 - Measured temperature values of the water in both reservoirs for each trial run.

Measured height values for each position of the engine cycle for each trial run.

Table 6 - Measured pressure values for each position of the engine cycle for each trial.
Calculated volume measurements based on height measurements for each position of the engine

cycle.

10
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Figure 3 - Images (a)-(f) are the P-V diagrams for each trial run

11
Sample Calculations (Using values from first trial)

The process for calculating work in steps 1 and 3 are identical and are as follows:
Isothermal process - Equation 3
𝑃2 −6 3 8.296 ∗ 10−6 𝑃3
𝑃 1 = 𝑃1 𝑃1 ∗ 𝑃𝑃( ) = (242.8 𝑃𝑃)(9.955 ∗ 10 𝑃 ) ∗ 𝑃𝑃( )
𝑃1 9.955 ∗ 10−6 𝑃3
= −0.000441 𝑃
Using the same process, the work for step 3 is 𝑃3 = 0.00142 𝑃

The process for calculating work in steps 2 and 4 are identical and are as follows:
Isobaric process - Equation 4
𝑃2 = 𝑃2 (𝑃3 − 𝑃2 ) = (538.7 𝑃𝑃) ∗ (2.572 ∗ 10−5 𝑃3 − 8.296 ∗ 10−6 𝑃3 ) =
0.00939 𝑃
Using the same process, the work for step 4 is 𝑃4 = −0.0540 𝑃

The net work is calculated using Equation 5:

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑃1 + 𝑃2 + 𝑃3 + 𝑃4 = −0.000441 𝑃 + 0.00939 𝑃 + 0.00142 𝑃 + −0.0540 𝑃
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 0.00497 𝑃

In order to calculate the thermal efficiency, the Q value (Equation 6) for step 2 (positions 2-3) is
used in Equation 9. The efficiency of a carnot engine is given by Equation 8 and uses the
temperatures of the water reservoirs given in Table 5.
7
𝑃2 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 for diatomic gases, 𝑃𝑃 = (2)𝑃
7
𝑃2 = 𝑃(2)𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃 → 𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
7
𝑃2 = ( )𝑃𝑃𝑃
2
7 7
𝑃2 = ( )𝑃2 = ( ) 0.00939 𝑃 = 0.0329 𝑃
2 2

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 0.00497 𝑃
𝜂= = = 0.151 = 15.1%
𝑃2 0.0329 𝑃
𝑃𝑃 293 𝑃
𝜂𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 =1− = 1−( ) = 0.146 = 14.6%
𝑃𝑃 343 𝑃

Uncertainty Analysis (Using values from first trial)

The uncertainty in volume is calculated by the following process:

𝑃
Volume equation 𝑃 = 4 𝑃2 ℎ

12
Uncertainty in diameter 𝑃𝑃 = 0.0001 𝑃 (Pasco)
1
Uncertainty in height 𝑃ℎ = ± 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 0.0005 𝑃
2
𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 𝑃 𝑃
𝑃𝑃 = √( 𝑃ℎ 𝑃ℎ )2 + (𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 )2 = √( 4 (0.0005)(𝑃2 ))2 + ( 2 (0.0001)𝑃ℎ)2

The uncertainty in pressure is calculated by the following process:

Calibration equation 𝑃 = 185.83(𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃) + 271.55
𝑃𝑃 = 0.005564 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝑃(0.005564) = 185.83(0.005564) + 271.55 = 1.03399 𝑃𝑃
𝑃𝑃 = 1.03399 𝑃𝑃

Using Equation 7 the relative uncertainty in work can be calculated. The process is the same for
Steps 1 and 3.
𝑃
Equation for work 𝑃1 = 𝑃1 𝑃1 𝑃𝑃(𝑃2)
1

𝑃𝑃1 𝑃𝑃 2 𝑃𝑃 2 𝑃𝑃 2
Relative Uncertainty 𝑃1
= √( 𝑃 1 ) + ( 𝑃 1 ) + ( 𝑃 2 )
1 1 2

Using this equation the relative uncertainty in work for steps 1 and 3 are 0.1058 and 0.0530
respectively.

The process is again the same for steps 2 and 4 and is as follows:
Equation for work 𝑃2 = 𝑃2 (𝑃3 − 𝑃2 )
𝑃𝑃2 𝑃𝑃 2 𝑃𝑃 2 𝑃𝑃 2
Relative Uncertainty 𝑃𝑃
= √( 𝑃 2 ) + ( 𝑃 2 ) + ( 𝑃 3 )
2 2 3

Using this equation the relative uncertainty in work for steps 2 and 4 are 0.0882 and 0.0790
respectively.

Equation 7 is again used to calculate the relative uncertainty in the net work.
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃1 2 𝑃𝑃2 2 𝑃𝑃3 2 𝑃𝑃 2
√
= ( ) +( ) +( ) + ( 4)
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃1 𝑃2 𝑃3 𝑃4

= √(0.1058)2 + (0.0882)2 + (0.0530)2 + (0.0790)2

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
= 0.1674
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃

This entire process is used in each of the six trials to calculate the relative uncertainty in work.
These values are given in Table 4.

13