Hot Objects Don't Always Accelerate - Puzzling Physics Explained

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a video on thermodynamics where a professor states that "hot objects don't always accelerate," which confuses the viewer. The viewer struggles to understand this concept and questions its context, noting that if hot objects did accelerate, a stove would need to chase a pot to boil water. Another participant clarifies that work is defined as force times distance, not acceleration, emphasizing that work can occur without acceleration if opposing forces, like friction, balance out. The viewer ultimately realizes that heat can flow at a constant rate, resolving their confusion. This highlights the complexities of thermodynamics and the relationship between heat, work, and motion.
CarrotHole
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
was just watching this video(The joy of science) on thermodynamics, and the proffesor of the video said "hot objects don't always accelerate." this went against what i previously thought. tried googling it but couldn't find an answer. i don't know how to picture this. how?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
not sure if i put his statement out of context, but after he mentioned it he went to go on and explain work = acceleration x distance.
 
That is a strange quote, of course hot objects don't always accelerate. If they did then your stove would have to chase your pot in order to boil water. I don't know what they were trying to express.

By the way, work=force.distance not acceleration. If you push a box along the ground you do work, but if the friction force is equal to your pushing force there will be no acceleration despite all the work you do.
 
ok thanks i just realized what a dumb question that was, because the heat can go at a constant flow. thanks
 

Thread 'Off resonance driving of a MW/RF cavity'

Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Same old question, I still don't get it: E=1/2mv^2 - more E with V?
Replies
41
Views
4K
B Normal force in case of inclined plane and banked turn
Replies
3
Views
2K
Monkey accelerating up and down a rope
Replies
38
Views
4K
I Does the color of an object change as it gets hotter?
Replies
9
Views
2K
I Intuition for why linear algebra is needed in quantum physics
Replies
7
Views
2K
I Non-Inertial Relativistic Dynamics
Replies
18
Views
1K
How can an object move in a straight line?
Replies
16
Views
5K
Dive effect of sliding objects
Replies
4
Views
3K
Mind-spinner 1: When (do/don't) action/reaction force pairs cancel out?
Replies
10
Views
5K
Considering Switching from Physics to Computer Engineering
Replies
7
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top