Is the Negative Sign Correct in Freezing Lake Fourier's Law Application?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the application of Fourier's Law in the context of freezing lake ice. The original poster attempted to derive a differential equation related to the thickness of ice over time but encountered difficulties in solving it. A key point raised is the need to correctly interpret the negative sign in the energy loss equation, which reflects the phase change of water to ice. The consensus is that the negative sign is appropriate, as it indicates energy loss from the water. Ultimately, the poster successfully derived the final equation after addressing the negative sign issue.
WWCY
Messages
476
Reaction score
14

Homework Statement



Screen Shot 2017-08-27 at 2.20.28 AM.png

Homework Equations


dQ/dt = -kA(dT/dx)

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried to use Fourier's law of Conduction on this one. I subbed dT for (Θ0 - Θ1), and l(t) (function for thickness of ice against time) for dx, reason being that the sheet of ice should get thicker.

I then substituted dQ = dmLf = ρALfdl (reason being that the infinitesimal energy dQ lost from the water should cause it to change phase / freeze by a volume of A(area) x dl) before arriving at:

dl/dt = -k/(ρLf) x (Θ0 - Θ1) / l(t) and getting stuck,

help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Exactly what about the differential equation are you stuck with? It is separable so solving it should be a simple matter of integration.
 
I agree with Orodruin. You have already correctly completed the hard part of correctly formulating the differential equation. Solving the differential equation is supposed to be the easy part. If you can't figure out how to solve the differential equation, take their answer and differentiate it with respect to time; then compare the result with your own differential equation.
 
I managed to get the final equation after some work.

However I realized that i had to change dQ = dmLf = ρALfdl to dQ = -dmLf = -ρALfdl

I rationalised that this negative sign was down to the infinitesimal volume losing energy, is this the right way to think about it?

Thank you both for your responses.
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Back
Top