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

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Fourier's Law of heat conduction in the context of freezing ice on a lake. The original poster explores the formulation of a differential equation related to the rate of heat transfer and the thickness of the ice over time.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply Fourier's Law by substituting temperature differences and the thickness of ice as variables in their equation. They express uncertainty regarding the negative sign in their energy equation, questioning whether it correctly represents the loss of energy as the ice forms.

Discussion Status

Participants are engaging in a constructive dialogue, with some suggesting that the differential equation is separable and can be solved through integration. Others affirm the original poster's formulation of the equation, indicating that the challenge lies in solving it rather than in the setup.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes considerations about the physical interpretation of the negative sign in the energy equation, with participants reflecting on the implications of energy loss during the phase change from water to ice.

WWCY
Messages
476
Reaction score
15

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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K