The discussion revolves around the measurement of temperature change in a thermal physics context, specifically questioning the intuitiveness of a rate of 100 K/s as a measure of temperature change.
The discussion is active, with participants raising questions about the validity of results and assumptions made in calculations. Some guidance has been offered regarding the interpretation of units and the implications of the heating rate, but no consensus has been reached.
Participants note the significance of units such as kilowatts for power input and kilograms for mass, which are crucial for understanding the calculations involved. There is also mention of potential oversight in computations that could lead to the perceived high rate of temperature change.
Correct approach. Incorrect result.Bolter said:
Why is it an incorrect result?Bystander said:
I think your answer is correct. I hope I'm not overlooking something trivial.Bolter said:
Note that the power input is given in kilowatts.Bystander said:
..., and mass in kilograms.TSny said:
Yes. From m and c you can see that it takes about 100 J to raise T by 1 K. Heat is going in at about 10,000 J each second. So T will increase about 100 K each second.Bystander said:
. Looking at the faint decimal point in "nine point eight one" and figuring he'd missed that in his computation; wasn't paying attention...100K/s? Intuitively offensive, but...Yes. That rate of heating would not last long.Bystander said:
