Depth of Water and Energy Required to Boil

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the energy required to boil sap in different depths, specifically comparing a deep pan versus a shallow one. It is clarified that while the energy needed to evaporate water per volume remains constant, a deeper pan loses more heat to the environment, complicating the boiling process. The heat loss and convection currents play significant roles, as deeper sap can lead to overheating at the bottom and hinder steam bubble escape. Additionally, boiling at higher pressures requires more energy, but effective convection can mitigate some of these issues. Ultimately, the energy dynamics differ significantly between shallow and deep sap, affecting the boiling efficiency.
tempuser1
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I have been out of college for more than 20 years and my basic physics knowledge has become quite rusty. Someone made a statement today related to making maple syrup. They stated the energy required to boil a pan of sap 2' wide x 3' long x 6" deep was the same as the energy required to boil 1" of sap in the same pan. Am I correct in thinking the energy required to boil the shallower sap would be less? Wouldn't it take more energy for the air bubbles to pass through a deeper column of sap? Thanks for the input! -John
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I suppose your friends meant the amount of energy per volume of sap, and they did not mean it would take the same energy to boil off six times as much sap.

The bulk of the energy needed, is to evaporate the water in the sap, and that will be the same for a shallow pan and for a deep pan, however:
A deep pan will leak more heat through the environment through the sides.

The energy lost by the bubbles isn't a factor, because any friction would be converted to heat, but when the syrup becomes thick, overheating the bottom of a deep pan
becomes a problem, because heat loss by convection becomes harder, and it also becomes harder for the steam bubbles to get out of the area.
To prevent this you need to reduce the heat, and the heat available for evaportation wil then become less, while the heat lost to the air around the pan will remain the same, because the pan is still at boiling temperature.
 
tempuser1 said:
I have been out of college for more than 20 years and my basic physics knowledge has become quite rusty. Someone made a statement today related to making maple syrup. They stated the energy required to boil a pan of sap 2' wide x 3' long x 6" deep was the same as the energy required to boil 1" of sap in the same pan. Am I correct in thinking the energy required to boil the shallower sap would be less? Wouldn't it take more energy for the air bubbles to pass through a deeper column of sap? Thanks for the input! -John

It's true that, boiling water in a higher pressure requires more energy. But, to my knowledge, the heat in the bottom causes convection currents of water and brings heated water to the surface. I haven't seen it, but i think the water bubbles in the surface finally not at the button, unless the heating rate is so much that the convection currents can't transfer it effectively. Industrial boilers are made of an upper thank connected to a lower tank via two bunches of tubes one on each sides. They form loops of water current. The flame heats the pipes on one side more than the other side, this makes the water to go up via tubes on the more heated side and return back to the lower tank via the less heated side. The circulation is continuous and the evaporation takes place in the upper thank because the pressure is lower there.
 
I built a device designed to brake angular velocity which seems to work based on below, i used a flexible shaft that could bow up and down so i could visually see what was happening for the prototypes. If you spin two wheels in opposite directions each with a magnitude of angular momentum L on a rigid shaft (equal magnitude opposite directions), then rotate the shaft at 90 degrees to the momentum vectors at constant angular velocity omega, then the resulting torques oppose each other...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
19K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
22K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
43K