Calculating Heat Loss via Radiation Transfer

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating heat loss from a body through radiation transfer, specifically using Stefan's Boltzmann equation. Participants explore the appropriate temperature to use for the surroundings, considering factors such as weather conditions and emissivity of materials.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether to use the temperature of the air or the temperature of space for calculations, suggesting it depends on weather conditions.
  • Another participant provides an analogy about parking a car in winter to illustrate how heat loss varies based on surroundings, noting that clear nights lead to more heat loss to the sky.
  • Concerns are raised about the assumption of uniform emissivity in Stefan's law, with a suggestion to integrate Planck's law over wavelength for more accurate results.
  • A participant mentions calculating radiation heat loss from a steel plate and seeks clarification on what temperature to assume for the sky.
  • One participant suggests a rough approximation of assuming the sky temperature as 0K, arguing that the error would be less significant than assuming uniform emissivity.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about the calculations, noting a discrepancy between the calculated heat flux from the sun and the heat lost to surroundings, questioning if part of the heat could be assumed to go to air at 30°C and the rest to 0K.
  • Concerns are raised about the complexity of integrating Planck's law, with a preference for simpler approaches unless necessary.
  • A participant challenges the intuition that steel absorbs less from the sun than it emits, suggesting that steel typically heats up faster than other materials in sunlight.
  • It is noted that modeling heat flow accurately is complex and that experimental approaches are often used to determine practical values.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate temperature to use for the surroundings and the implications of emissivity on calculations. There is no consensus on the best approach to take for the calculations, and multiple competing views remain.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the assumptions of uniform emissivity and the complexity of accurately modeling heat transfer, particularly in varying environmental conditions.

chetanladha
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Hi.

I want to calculate the heat which will be lost from a body at temperature 't' to the atmosphere through radiation heat transfer. I can use Stephen's Boltzmann equation, but what should i take the temperature of surroundings as?

Should it be the temperature of air or space?

Thanks.
 
Science news on Phys.org


chetanladha said:
Should it be the temperature of air or space?
It depends on weather conditions and surroundings.
Have you ever parked your car wintertime (clear night) on the open area or under tree or under open sched? It gets more frosted on the open area, as it loses heat to the sky, while under sched you should take the temperatur of sched roof.
Similar effect you may find comparing temperature on clear and cloudy nights - clear nights are much colder, because you lose heat to the sky, why on cloudy nights most of the radiation is reflected.

BTW - using Stefan's law - be careful - most of the objects cannot be treated as black-body. Even if some object is visually black, don't believe it is also 'black' outside visual spectrum.
 


That was a good description.
I am giving the value of emmissivity in Stefan's law, so i guess that shouldn't be a problem.

I am calculating the radiation heat loss from a steel plate in open atmosphere clear sky. So, now what should i take the temperature of sky as?
 


chetanladha said:
I am giving the value of emmissivity in Stefan's law, so i guess that shouldn't be a problem.
Not be that sure. For most substances emissivity depends on a wavelength. So you should rather integrate Planck's law over wavelength, than assuming it is uniform. For many materials results may dramatically differ. Snow is a perfect example - having very small emissivity in visual spectrum, while pretty large in infrared - that's why the weather changes to much colder as soon as first snow covers ground.

I am calculating the radiation heat loss from a steel plate in open atmosphere clear sky. So, now what should i take the temperature of sky as?
As the rough approximation you may just forget about sky temp and assume it is 0K. Error you make will be still much less probably than by assuming uniform emissivity of of your plate.
 


xts said:
Not be that sure. For most substances emissivity depends on a wavelength. So you should rather integrate Planck's law over wavelength, than assuming it is uniform. For many materials results may dramatically differ. Snow is a perfect example - having very small emissivity in visual spectrum, while pretty large in infrared - that's why the weather changes to much colder as soon as first snow covers ground.

Thanks a lot. It was really helpful.
 


Hey.. Sorry but 1 more small q.

I calculated the heat flux from sun on my plate to be around 51kW. (assuming solar intensity 1000kW/m2).
The stephen law gives me heat lost to the surroundings in order of 72kW (using constant value of emissivity).

Apart of not using constant value of emissivity, can i assume part of heat is going to air at 30 C and rest to 0 K.
Also m really afraid of integrating Plank's law, unless its a must..

What do u think..??
 


Oh, I see you must live in some place in the world where my examples with car getting frosted in the night and snow emissivity are not so common experience :redface:

Probably your steel has lower emissivity in infrared than in visual spectrum. Your result is against my intuition: it absorbs less from Sun than emits. It would mean it is getting colder than surroundings. My intuition tells me that steel (maybe except very shiny polished acidproof steels) gets hot in the sunlight faster than soil, concrete, bricks, etc., so something had to be wrong in your calculations.

Anyway - it is not that easy to model the heatflow with reasonable accuracy. Even if you integrate Planck's law over whole spectrum...
In most cases the experimental approach is used to determine the values used for practical calculations.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
9K