Specific heat/equilibrium in three component system (Thermo)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving a thermodynamics problem involving the equilibrium temperature of a three-component system. The user initially struggles with the lack of mass values but is advised to express all masses and specific heats in terms of one reference mass and specific heat. It is clarified that numerical values are not necessary for the solution, as the equation can be simplified without them. Additionally, temperatures can remain in Celsius instead of converting to Kelvin, as only temperature differences are relevant. The user acknowledges the guidance and recognizes the oversight in their approach.
RadiumBlue
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Rather than retyping the problem, I've uploaded a screenshot here >> http://imgur.com/EB5MrtP

Homework Equations


Q_1 + Q_2 + Q_3 ... = 0
mc \Delta T = Q

The Attempt at a Solution


a. Q_{tea} + Q_{met} + Q_{cr} = 0

I converted the temperatures to K, so T_{cr} and T_{met} = 293.15K, while T_{tea} = 373.15K

Constructing the equation, I got:

0 = (m_{met} * c_{met}* (T_{equil}-293.15)) + (m_{cr} * c_{cr} * (T_{equil}-293.15)) + (m_{tea} * c_{tea} * (T_{equil} - 373.15))

I'm stuck here now, because the problem doesn't give any of the masses, it only relates them to each other. The specific heats I can find because the specific heat of water is a known value, but I'm stuck on the masses. What am I missing?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe the problem is asking you to express the equilibrium temperature in terms of the symbols for the masses and specific heats. If so, you do not need to plug in numerical values for these quantities.
 
TSny said:
I believe the problem is asking you to express the equilibrium temperature in terms of the symbols for the masses and specific heats. If so, you do not need to plug in numerical values for these quantities.

Oh, there's a small part at the bottom that got cropped out, it specifically asks for a numerical value. It also mentions something about using a binomial expansion to solve it, which I didn't understand how it applied to this problem. I've amended the link in the OP with the fixed version.
 
OK. Sorry, I did not see part (c) when I first looked at the problem.

Try expressing all masses in terms of one of the masses, say ##m_{met}##. Likewise, express all specific heats in terms of one of the specific heats, say ##c_{met}##.

You will then find that the equation simplifies such that you do not need any numerical values for the masses or specific heats.

Also, you do not need to express the temperatures in K. You can keep them in oC because you are dealing with temperature differences here.
 
Oh, duh, I see it now. Thank you! I probably should have tried that first, but I just didn't think of it.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .

Similar threads

Back
Top