Gauss' divergence theorem and thermoelectricity contradiction

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
1 reply · 1K views
fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,934
Reaction score
286
I get a nonsensical result. I am unable to understand where I go wrong.
Let's consider a material with a temperature independent Seebeck coefficient, thermal conductivity and electrochemical potential to keep things simple. Let's assume that this material is sandwiched between 2 other materials with vanishing Seebeck coefficients (this simplifies things further). Now both a thermal gradient and electrical currents are passing through this material.
Using thermodynamics relations, one has that the energy flux is worth ##\vec J_U = (ST+\mu)\vec J - \kappa \nabla T##, where ##\vec J## is the electric current, ##\kappa## is the thermal conductivity, and so on.
In steady state, ##\nabla \cdot \vec J_U=0##, which physically mean that the energy flux entering the material must equal the one that leaves it, i.e. there is no accumulation of energy. Great, when I compute this quantity I get a heat equation containing a Joule term, a Thomson term (only in the case where ##S## depends on temperature, which is fine) and a Fourier conduction term, all is fine.
However, this should imply that the energy flux entering a side must equal to the one that leaves at the other side. But when I compute that quantity, I get that it differs, which is impossible.

Indeed, even though the terms ##\mu \vec J## and ##\kappa \nabla T## are the same at the extremities of the material, the Peltier heat ##ST\vec J## differs, solely because the absolute temperature differs, according to which ends we are calculating. This is not consistent with ##\nabla \cdot \vec J_U=0##, but I do not see where I go wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok I think I have solved the mystery. So, even though the Peltier heats are going to be different, the magnitude of the thermal gradients are also going to be different. In fact, this thermal gradient will adjust so as to make ##\vec J_U## constant through the material. Problem solved.

Edit: I don't think it's that easy at all, now. ##\vec J_U## needs not be constant through the material/chunk of material. I am quite confused.
 
Last edited: