Help a HS teacher understand uniform motion?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a common misconception that an object at rest is not in uniform motion, with the argument that constant zero velocity qualifies as a constant velocity. Participants emphasize that velocity is a relational concept, dependent on the observer's reference frame, and that zero velocity should not be treated as a unique state. They suggest using the principle of relativity to illustrate that an object at rest in one frame can be in motion in another, reinforcing that zero velocity is not special. The conversation also highlights the importance of addressing this misunderstanding, as it could lead to significant misconceptions in teaching physics. Ultimately, the need for clarity in fundamental physics concepts is deemed essential for effective education.
  • #51
Chestermiller said:
With a blanket of snow, would it at least be correct to say that the temperature at the ground surface would never get above 0C (since, if the snow at the surface were melting, ice water would be produced at the surface at 0 C)?

Interesting and complicated thermo problem. Bottom line, I think your mother in laws observation can be backed up with solid physics but not here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Spinnor said:
Interesting and complicated thermo problem. Bottom line, I think your mother in laws observation can be backed up with solid physics but not here.
It doesn’t seem very complicated to me. My background is in thermodynamics and heat transfer. Would you like me to show you how to analyze it?

Are you saying that my mother-in-law is correct about the blanket of snow helping the crocuses emerge earlier (even, as we know, the surface temperature can't be more than 0 C with snow present on the surface)?
 
Last edited:
  • #53
Chestermiller said:
It doesn’t seem very complicated to me. My background is in thermodynamics and heat transfer.

I am on someone's clock. My hunch is you are wrong on this.
 
  • #54
Spinnor said:
I am on someone's clock. My hunch is you are wrong on this.
There is a big difference between a hunch and actual physical analysis. So I offer again: would you like me to show you how to analyze this (with proper heat transfer equations)?

And you haven't answered my question about the crocuses.
 
  • #55
Chestermiller said:
With a blanket of snow, would it at least be correct to say that the temperature at the ground surface would never get above 0C (since, if the snow at the surface were melting, ice water would be produced at the surface at 0 C)?
Yes, that statement I can agree with.
 
  • Like
Likes Chestermiller
  • #56
Chestermiller said:
So, are you saying that a blanket of snow causes the crocuses to come up early, and, in years when we don't have any snow whatsoever, the crocuses come up late?

I am saying that a blanket of snow eliminates most radiative heat loss from the soil, and slows (assuming an air temperature below 0C) conductive heat loss. As a result, the soil under the snow will often be warmer than it would be without the snow. What effect that has on crocuses I cannot say.

Fundamentally, the layer of snow on the ground is no different than a layer of fiberglass insulation on the ground, with the exception of the fact that the snow melts at a lower temperature than the fiberglass. So long as the temperatures involved are such that the "insulating stuff", whatever it is, doesn't melt, it functions as an insulator and decreases thermal flux across it. Given that the Earth beneath the snow provides a practically infinite reservoir of heat energy, during periods when that thermal flux would generally be "out of the soil", putting an insulator in the way results in the soil being warmer than in the absence of the insulator.
 
  • Like
Likes nitsuj
  • #57
William Ray said:
I am saying that a blanket of snow eliminates most radiative heat loss from the soil, and slows (assuming an air temperature below 0C) conductive heat loss. As a result, the soil under the snow will often be warmer than it would be without the snow. What effect that has on crocuses I cannot say.

Fundamentally, the layer of snow on the ground is no different than a layer of fiberglass insulation on the ground, with the exception of the fact that the snow melts at a lower temperature than the fiberglass. So long as the temperatures involved are such that the "insulating stuff", whatever it is, doesn't melt, it functions as an insulator and decreases thermal flux across it. Given that the Earth beneath the snow provides a practically infinite reservoir of heat energy, during periods when that thermal flux would generally be "out of the soil", putting an insulator in the way results in the soil being warmer than in the absence of the insulator.

In addition a clear cool night sky radiates less heat towards the ground then snow at zero. ? The snow actually radiates more heat towards the ground then a clear cool sky. ?

I remember in a post to sci.physics that an infrared thermometer I pointed towards a clear summer sky show a temp well below freezing.
 
  • #58
William Ray said:
I am saying that a blanket of snow eliminates most radiative heat loss from the soil, and slows (assuming an air temperature below 0C) conductive heat loss. As a result, the soil under the snow will often be warmer than it would be without the snow. What effect that has on crocuses I cannot say.

Fundamentally, the layer of snow on the ground is no different than a layer of fiberglass insulation on the ground, with the exception of the fact that the snow melts at a lower temperature than the fiberglass. So long as the temperatures involved are such that the "insulating stuff", whatever it is, doesn't melt, it functions as an insulator and decreases thermal flux across it. Given that the Earth beneath the snow provides a practically infinite reservoir of heat energy, during periods when that thermal flux would generally be "out of the soil", putting an insulator in the way results in the soil being warmer than in the absence of the insulator.
When water melts at 0C, the water formed is also at 0C. This would happen at the ground surface. The water formed would seep into the pores of the snow above. As long as there is any snow left at the ground surface, the water and snow would have to be at thermal equilibrium at 0 C. So, with snow on the ground, the temperature at the ground surface could never get higher than 0 C. I stand by this, and @jbriggs444 seems to agree with me.

Here is a heat balance at the surface of the ground that captures the mechanisms you discussed above. Let q(t) be the upward heat flux from the ground surface and let ##\lambda## be the heat of melting (334 J/gm) of snow. The heat balance is:
$$-\rho \lambda \frac{d\delta}{dt}=q(t)-k\frac{(0-T_{air})}{\delta}$$where k is the thermal conductivity of the snow layer (typically, 0.045W/m.C for dry snow), ##\rho## is the bulk density of the snow (typically 100 kg/m^3 for dry snow). The second term on the right hand side represents the rate at which heat is conducted away from the interface through the snow layer to the surrounding air above. The overall right hand side represents the net upward flux of heat into the interface. It is equal to the rate at which ice melts to form water at the surface times the heat of melting (the left hand side). The melting causes the snow layer to decrease in thickness (from below), as captured by the minus sign on the left hand side..

Even if the heat conduction through the snow layer were zero (k = 0), the above equation would reduce to $$-\rho \lambda \frac{d\delta}{dt}=q(t)$$ Under these circumstances, the temperature at the surface would remain at 0 C while the snow is melting (from below), and the melting rate would be given by: $$\frac{d\delta}{dt}=-\frac{q}{\rho \lambda}$$ Back to the original equation, if the air temperature above the layer were below 0C, the melting rate would slow down.

Melting would stop all together if the air temperature were low enough. The air temperature for this to happen would be
$$T_{air}=-\frac{q\delta}{k}$$ If the air temperature dropped below this value, the temperature at the surface would actually drop below 0C, and would be given by
$$T_{surface}=T_{air}+\frac{q\delta}{k}<0$$
 
Last edited:
  • #59
Chestermiller said:
If the air temperature is minus 20C, the snow temperature will cool down to -20 too.

Given enough time, yes. But suppose it goes to -20 °C for just a few hours at night, and warms back up each day. Any form of insulation will moderate the temperature of whatever's underneath the insulation. And just a few feet below the surface the ground stays above 0 °C all winter long. The frost layer (layer of frozen earth) may not be as thick because of the snow, bringing the Spring (soil) thaw earlier in the year than it otherwise would have.

Chestermiller said:
So, with snow on the ground, the temperature at the ground surface could never get higher than 0 C.

Not an issue. The ground is already frozen solid anyway, and will stay that way as long as the air temperature stays below water's freezing point. What happens, though, when the air gets even colder? The ground will get colder and freeze deeper. A blanket of snow will hinder this process. Call a local funeral home and ask them why burials are more expensive in the winter. To save money many if not most families will wait until after the Spring thaw for the burial service.
 
  • Like
Likes Chestermiller
  • #60
Mister T said:
Given enough time, yes. But suppose it goes to -20 °C for just a few hours at night, and warms back up each day. Any form of insulation will moderate the temperature of whatever's underneath the insulation. And just a few feet below the surface the ground stays above 0 °C all winter long. The frost layer (layer of frozen earth) may not be as thick because of the snow, bringing the Spring (soil) thaw earlier in the year than it otherwise would have.
Not an issue. The ground is already frozen solid anyway, and will stay that way as long as the air temperature stays below water's freezing point. What happens, though, when the air gets even colder? The ground will get colder and freeze deeper. A blanket of snow will hinder this process. Call a local funeral home and ask them why burials are more expensive in the winter. To save money many if not most families will wait until after the Spring thaw for the burial service.
Thanks. I agree. Apparently William Ray and Spinnor don't get the idea that, if you put a thermometer in a bucket of ice water, the temperature you measure will be 0C.
 
  • #61
Chestermiller said:
Thanks. I agree. Apparently William Ray and Spinnor don't get the idea that, if you put a thermometer in a bucket of ice water, the temperature you measure will be 0C.

[edited]
I'm not sure where you get the impression that I don't get that idea. I don't believe anyone's disagreeing with you that the surface of the ground will not exceed 0C. I also don't see why you think this is relevant to the question you asked. You are aware that the temperature of the air, (as well as the black-body temperature of the night sky, though it seems we're mostly ignoring radiation here), are significantly below 0C for much of the winter, in many parts of the world?

If you can find anything in what I've said that suggests that there is not an upper limit to the temperature that the sub-snow ground can attain, I'll eat my shorts. Otherwise I believe you're off base here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #62
William Ray said:
[edited]
I'm not sure where you get the impression that I don't get that idea. I don't believe anyone's disagreeing with you that the surface of the ground will not exceed 0C. I also don't see why you think this is relevant to the question you asked. You are aware that the temperature of the air, (as well as the black-body temperature of the night sky, though it seems we're mostly ignoring radiation here), are significantly below 0C for much of the winter, in many parts of the world?

If you can find anything in what I've said that suggests that there is not an upper limit to the temperature that the sub-snow ground can attain, I'll eat my shorts. Otherwise I believe you're off base here.
I'm very sorry. Please forgive me. This is all my misinterpretation of what you were saying.

Chet
 
  • Like
Likes William Ray
  • #63
Chestermiller said:
I'm very sorry. Please forgive me. This is all my misinterpretation of what you were saying.

Chet

Delighted to hear it! I'd hate to think that one or the other of us had gone insane :-)
 
  • #64
lol what of the blanket of snow keeping the ground cold,

Given "mother in laws" reasoning a thicker blanket would maintain the delta in temps better. I'm sure Canadian golf courses have plenty to say about snow blankets.

I would also imagine the average ground temp has a huge influence on this. I think it might be called "frost depth". The ground where I live is probably only frozen a couple of meters down at it's peak...now does the blanket maintain the frost or protect it from going deeper?
 
  • #65
I’m confused. Is the snow blanket at rest, uniform motion, or non-uniform motion? o0)
 
Back
Top