Cooling faster in space, or in Antarctica?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Blahness
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cooling Space
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the heat loss of a heated object in space compared to a similar object in Antarctica. Participants explore the mechanisms of heat transfer, including conduction, convection, and radiation, and consider how these processes differ in the two environments. The conversation includes theoretical aspects and potential calculations related to the problem.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the heat loss in space may be greater due to radiation, particularly if the object's temperature is significantly high.
  • Others argue that the comparison requires more information about the object's temperature, geometry, and the thermal properties of the surrounding environment.
  • One participant notes that space has a temperature of around 3 Kelvin, which influences heat loss through radiation.
  • Participants discuss Stefan's Law as a means to model radiation heat loss, while also acknowledging the need to estimate heat loss due to conduction and convection for the object in Antarctica.
  • There is a suggestion that the heat loss due to conduction could be approximated using dimensional analysis, considering the thermal resistance at the boundary between the object and the snow.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the constants needed for convection calculations and the complexity of the problem, particularly regarding the half-buried object's heat loss dynamics.
  • One participant emphasizes that the dominance of radiation heat loss increases with the object's temperature, referencing the T^4 relationship in radiation transfer.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that multiple factors influence heat loss in both environments, but there is no consensus on which object would lose heat faster without additional information. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific conditions and calculations needed to reach a definitive answer.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of specific temperature values for the heated objects, uncertainties in the thermal properties of materials involved, and the complexity of applying heat transfer equations to the described scenarios.

Blahness
Messages
113
Reaction score
0
Here's the situation:

A heated object is in space, with no close proximity to any star. It is simply in one position, motionless.

Another object of equal heat is in Antarctica, in the dead of night, laying half-inside the snow. Temperature at -100 Degrees Celsius.


Which would lose heat faster?
 
Science news on Phys.org
Hint: Stefan's Law
"[URL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But does space have a temperature, since it has so little matter in it?

I'm thinking a vaccum, like how a Thermos works. Is space like a Thermos?
 
space is not like a thermos flask. And space does have a temperature, (around 3 Kelvin I think)

Perhaps this makes me a poor experimental physicist, (true) but I've never broken a thermos flask to see how it works. However I think a thermos flask works in two ways, cuts down the heat loss in the body due to convection and conduction via the glass vacuum casing, and reduces heat loss due to radiation via reflection of infrared by the reflective material which the casing employs. Space cuts down on convection and conduction almost completely, I think, but it hardly provides any impediment to radiation loss. So comparing a perfect thermos to a perfect vacuum.. well the thermos is an infinitely better insulator.

As far as the original question goes, (antarctica vs. space), Stefan's law will help you compare radiation heat loss in the two cases, but you would still need to find a way of at least estimating the heat loss in antarctica due to convection and conduction. I can't think how to do this, but I strongly suspect I'd freeze faster in deep space than in antartica deep winter time... heh
 
Last edited:
alfredblase said:
I strongly suspect I'd freeze faster in deep space than in antartica deep winter time... heh
I'd tend to agree, but the answer really depends on how hot this object is and what it's geometry is.

The hotter the object, Blahness, the bigger role radiation plays.
 
Blahness said:
Here's the situation:
A heated object is in space, with no close proximity to any star. It is simply in one position, motionless.
Another object of equal heat is in Antarctica, in the dead of night, laying half-inside the snow. Temperature at -100 Degrees Celsius.
Which would lose heat faster?

I think we need some more information.

The object will lose heat due to conduction, convection, and radiation. The radiation law has already been given which will model the heat loss due to radiation. The object half-buried in the snow will only be able to radiate over half the sphere, however.

We now need to know the heat loss of the buried object due to conduction and convection. To compute the heat loss due to conduction we need to know the temperature of the object, the temperature of the snow, and some information about the thermal resistance of the object as calculated from its geometry and conductivity

i.e. heat flow = (thermal conductivity) * (area / length) * (delta-T)

To calculate the heat loss of the buried object due to convection, we need similar information to apply "Newton's law of cooling"

heat flow = (area) * (constant) * (delta-T)
 
So the hotter the object is, the more that radiation plays a role in it?

Got it.
 
Blahness said:
So the hotter the object is, the more that radiation plays a role in it?

Got it.
I should probably be a little more specific (thorough): The http://www.technifab.com/heat-trans-inter2.htm" shows that heat transfer via radiation increases by a power of four of temperature (T^4, ie, double the temperature difference, and heat transfer increases by a factor of 16), whereas heat transfer via conduction or convection is a simple direct proportion (double the temperature difference and heat transfer doubles).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmm the question still hasnt been answered properly I don't think. Pervect gave us big clues, without giving any indication as to how his formulas could be applied. The one for conduction he gave I think can only be directly aplied to a case such as two bodies conected by a wire. In the case of a sphere half buried in snow, the "wire" is actually the boundary between the sphere and the snow. Also pervect didnt give the constant needed for the convection formula. In fact determining the constant I think is rather tricky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection) .

Neverheless in the case of conduction the solution can easily be approximated, I think, by a bit of dimensional analysis:

The heat flow at the instant we half bury a sphere in thermal equilibrium in snow is a function of the temperature difference between the sphere and the ice, the thermal conductivity of the boundary and the radius of the sphere. Since we are dealing with only half the surface area buried we can assume it is best to stick a 2pi infront of the function:

Q = 2pi f(deltaT, r, thermal conductivity of boundary)

Now I'm not completely sure but my intuition tells me that the thermal conductivity of the boundary would be the average of the sphere and the snow conductivity as they both contribute equally to the boudary. So Blahness gives us the material and size of the sphere and we can estimate the heat flow due to conduction.

As far as the convection, the problem seems very yucky and unatractive to me, and I'd rather not tackle it for the moment. Maybe later if people continue to show interest in the thread I would give it a bash.

In conclusion and about the radiation dominance:

After considering Russ Watts post, if T_object is of order 10^3 Kelvin or more (and I suspect although I'm not familiar enough with the coductivity and convection constants that that applies if the temperature of order 10^2 Kelvin or more) then there is no contest in that the object will loose heat faster in space. In fact all heat flows due to the three types of loss depend upon area so in comparson, the only factors to worry about are the temperature of the object and the constants of emmisivity, conductivity and convection! Find me those for whichever spherical object you wish and gives us a temperature for it and I will give you a definite answer =) But if you don't want to go to the trouble let's set all the constants to one, after its no big deal hehe, then simply if the temperature of the object is above a certain limit, (if you really want I'll calculate it) then the object in space will loose heat faster! =)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K