I don't understand q = mc delta T

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nhmllr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Delta Delta t
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of a graph related to the equation q = mc∆T, specifically addressing the appropriateness of using "time" as an independent variable versus "added heat." The context includes conceptual clarification regarding phase changes and the relationship between heat, temperature, and time.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about a graph where the X-axis is labeled "time," arguing that time should not be an independent variable since it is not included in the relevant equations.
  • Another participant suggests that if heat is added at a constant rate, the graphs of temperature versus time and temperature versus added heat would appear similar, differing only in scale.
  • A third participant notes that time can still be a valid variable even if heat is not added at a constant rate, although a constant rate is necessary for the graphs to qualitatively match.
  • One participant reiterates that the relationship between heat and time can be expressed as heat = constant x time, supporting the use of time as an independent variable on the graph.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether time is an appropriate independent variable for the graph. There are competing views regarding the validity of using time versus added heat.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights assumptions about the conditions under which time can be considered an independent variable, as well as the implications of constant versus variable rates of heat addition.

nhmllr
Messages
183
Reaction score
1
Well, I understand q = mc∆T, along with q = mHv and q = mHf

What I don't understand is this graph:
http://dinosaurtheory.com/phase_change.jpg

Well, I mean, I understand THAT graph.

Here's what I don't understand:
Today in chemistry, we received a very similar graph, but the X-axis was labeled "time" instead of "added heat" as it is in the one I linked to.

I raised my hand and pointed out that the independent variable should not be "time" because nowhere in our equations were we even given "time" as a variable! "Time" actually has nothing to do with temperature. I could leave an ice cube on my table and it won't necessarily melt, then vaporize. Or, alternatively, I could throw it into the sun and it would vaporize very quickly. Also, over time I could have water vapor condense into water, then freeze into ice.

The way I see it, "time" has no right to be and independent variable on such a graph.
My chemistry teacher told me that "time" is often an independent variable in graphs, and that energy had to be calculated (meaning that added energy could not be the independent variable if we had to calculate it after the fact). But I could not get over the fact that nowhere in any equation was "time" mentioned, and I couldn't get over that.

My Question: Is time supposed to be the independent variable on this graph? Or is my thought process right in that the X-axis should be labeled "added energy?"

(I understand that time can be the X-axis with the given condition that we're heating something up over time, such that heat = constant x time, but nowhere were we given such a condition.)
 
Science news on Phys.org
If heat is added to the system at a constant rate (calories per second or joules per second), then a graph of temperature versus time looks the same as a graph of temperature versus added heat, except for the horizontal scale.
 
It wouldn't even have to be a constant rate for time to be a valid variable on that axis. It would still need to be constant rate to qualitatively match the graph, of course.
 
nhmllr said:
heat = constant x time
This equation says it all. Plotting time instead of heat added will give you the same shape of graph. Don't worry about your teacher not mentioning it. You clearly understand what's going on.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K