Ranking of the properties of these things?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the thermal conductivity properties of various kitchen items. It asserts that the handle of a frying pan should have low thermal conductivity to prevent heat transfer, while the pan itself should have high thermal conductivity for effective cooking. A coffee cup is suggested to have low thermal conductivity to maintain beverage temperature. There is confusion regarding the thermal conductivity of the frying pan handle, with some arguing it should be low to avoid heat retention. The conversation highlights discrepancies between personal reasoning and textbook answers regarding these properties.
pivoxa15
Messages
2,250
Reaction score
1
Is the following correct?

Handle of frying pan should have high thermal conductivity while the pan should have low thermal conducitivty.

Coffee cup should have low thermal conductivity.

Covering for Electrical wiring should have low electrical conductivity
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
No. Yes. Yes.
 
So the handle should have low thermal conductivity. While the pan should have high thermal conductivity.

With the former, what if the handle becomes very hot for some reason than it would take a long time for the handle to cool down again.

With the latter, it would mean food in a pan without a heat source will tend to cool faster. But that isn't a problem is it? As the pan is only designed for heating in mind.

It is surprising that the answers in my book had Yes, No, No. (Although the question about the actual cooking pan's thermal conductivity wasn't included) Which all seems to contradict your answers. But I can't see any good reason for the book's answers.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top