Cooling things in water vs air

AI Thread Summary
Cooling a pressure cooker in water initially absorbs heat effectively, but as the water warms, its cooling efficiency decreases. Removing the cooker from the water may allow it to cool faster due to increased evaporation and exposure to cooler air. The cooling rate is influenced by factors such as air temperature, water temperature, and the surface area-to-volume ratio of the pot. If the cooker and sink reach thermal equilibrium, the cooling process will slow down significantly. Ultimately, while both methods have their merits, the specific conditions will determine which is more effective for cooling.
Darkmisc
Messages
222
Reaction score
31
Hi everyone

After I've cooked beans in a pressure cooker, I put the cooker (with beans inside) into a sink full of water to help it cool down. After a while, the water heats up. At this point, would the cooker cool faster if I left it in the sink or if I took it out again?

I'm guessing it would be the latter because the air would be cooler than the water (the water feels lukewarm after it's absorbed heat from the cooker).

Is this correct, or am I looking at things too simply?

I'm just interested in the theory behind it. I pretty much leave the cooker out all day to cool. Either way will probably make little difference. Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If after the initial cooling in water, you remove the cooker from the water, it will then cool by evaporation until the surface dries. Each time you splash water on the cooker it will cool again.

Running a slow steady stream of cold water over the cooker, and then down the drain, will probably give the maximum cooling rate.

For the same temperature difference, the transfer of heat to air will probably not be as fast as the transfer of heat to water, but the temperature difference equilibrium point is going to be hard to calculate.
 
  • Like
Likes Darkmisc and russ_watters
If when you want to remove the pot it has the same temperature as the sink, (thermal balance), then leaving it inside will have a time that depends on how the water in the sink evaporates and how the sink is isolated from the environment. But if you remove it, only the water around the pot evaporates and the cooling speed of the place where you place it will depend, the lower the air temperature the faster the pot will cool. Without more data on the insulation of the sink, we will only be guessing, if it is the same environment, whose air is renewed, if the water in the sink is not renewed, then the cooling speed will depend on the surface-volume ratio for both the pot and the for the sink and the possibility of convective air currents forming around it. Everything would indicate that it would most likely cool faster out of the sink, but this depends on many experimental factors that are not established, to be able to say exactly.
 
Richard R Richard said:
the surface-volume ratio for both the pot and the for the sink
Theoretically, that is the main point.
Volume increase faster than surface area.
Within the sink the thermal mass that has to decrease in temperature is that of the pot and the water in the sink.
Out of the sink, the thermal mass is just that of the pot.
Having a greater surface area/ volume, the pot on its own should cool faster after having being cooled down from being placed with the sink.

As you say though, about experimental factors ...
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top