Thermodynamics - Thermal Expansion

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the principles of thermal expansion as outlined in "Physics" by Halliday, Resnick & Krane, specifically addressing the relationship between the lengths of two rods made of different materials and their coefficients of linear expansion. It establishes that if the lengths of the rods are inversely proportional to their coefficients of linear expansion, the difference in length remains constant across all temperatures. The calculations provided demonstrate that for a steel and brass rod to maintain a length difference of 0.30 m at 0 degrees Celsius, the lengths must be 71 cm and 41 cm, respectively. The conversation also highlights the challenges of using LaTeX for mathematical expressions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear expansion and coefficients of linear expansion
  • Familiarity with basic thermodynamic principles
  • Proficiency in mathematical manipulation of equations
  • Experience with LaTeX for typesetting equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the coefficient of linear expansion in detail
  • Explore the applications of thermal expansion in engineering materials
  • Learn advanced LaTeX techniques for scientific documentation
  • Investigate the implications of thermal expansion in real-world scenarios, such as bridge design
USEFUL FOR

Students studying physics, engineers working with materials subject to thermal expansion, and anyone involved in scientific documentation requiring precise mathematical representation.

Kelvin
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
The following questions are extracted from "Physics" Halliday Resnick & Krane Chapter 21 problem

7.
(a) Show that if the lengths of two rods of different solids are inversely proportional to their respective coefficients of linear expansion at the same initial temperature, the difference in length between them will be constant at all temperature.​

(b) What should be the lengths of a steel and a brass rod at 0 degree celsius so that all temperatures their difference in length is 0.30 m ?​

My attempt to this question is:

The definition of the coefficient of linear expansion is
[tex] \begin{equation}<br /> \begin{split}<br /> \alpha &= \frac{\Delta L_1}{\Delta T} \frac{1}{L_1}\\<br /> \beta &= \frac{\Delta L_2}{\Delta T} \frac{1}{L_2}\\<br /> \\<br /> \frac{\alpha}{\beta} &= \frac{\Delta L_1}{\Delta L_2} \frac{L_2}{L_1}\\<br /> \end{split}<br /> \end{equation}<br /> <br /> \begin{equation}<br /> \begin{split}<br /> \frac{\alpha L_1}{\beta L_2} &= \frac{\Delta L_1}{\Delta L_2} \equiv K\\<br /> \end{split}<br /> \end{equation}[/tex]

Where [tex]K[/tex] is a dimensionless constant since the length is inversly proportional to the coefficient of linear expansion.

Suppose [tex]L_1'[/tex] and [tex]L_2'[/tex] are the length after the temperature change [tex]\Delta T[/tex]. The difference in length is
[tex]\begin{equation}<br /> \begin{split}<br /> \Delta L \equiv L_1' - L_2' &= L_1 + \Delta L_1 - \left( L_2 + \Delta L_2 \right) \\<br /> &= L_1 - L_2 + \left( \Delta L_1 - \Delta L_2 \right)<br /> \end{split}<br /> \end{equation}[/tex]​

What I think is that the given condition is not sufficient, but necessary. One more condition required such that "the difference in length between them will be constant at all temperature" is
[tex]K \equiv 1[/tex]​
If this condition is imposed,

[tex]\alpha L_1 = \beta L_2[/tex]
[tex]\Delta L_1 = \Delta L_2[/tex]
[tex]\Delta L = L_1 - L_2[/tex]

which depends on the intial length of two rods only.

(b) We want
[tex]\Delta L = 0.30 \hbox{ m}[/tex]​
for all temperature. We have the following equations:

[tex] \begin{equation}<br /> \begin{split}<br /> \alpha L_1 = \beta L_2 \\<br /> \Delta L = L_1 - L_2 = 0.30 \hbox{ m}\\<br /> <br /> <br /> \alpha \left( \Delta L + L_2 \right) &= \beta L_2 \\<br /> \\<br /> L_2 &= \frac{\alpha \Delta L}{\beta - \alpha}\\<br /> &= \frac{11 \times 10^{-6} K^{-1} \times 0.30 \hbox{ m}}{\left(19 - 11\right) \times 10^{-6} K^{-1}}\\<br /> &= 41 \hbox{ cm}\\<br /> L_1 &= \Delta L + L_2\\<br /> &= 41 \hbox{ cm} + 30 \hbox{ cm}\\<br /> &= 71 \hbox{ cm}<br /> \end{split}<br /> \end{equation}<br /> [/tex]​

The part (b) result agree with the given answer. I wonder whether the part(a) question is wrong or I am wrong?

Wow, lateX is so difficult to use. It took me more than an hour to type out the equations nicely. Now I am typing the second question.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The first part is wrong.Check the division in the passing from the eq.(1) to eq.(2)

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
The first part is wrong.Check the division in the passing from the eq.(1) to eq.(2)

Daniel.


Thank you
I have corrected that
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
32K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K