I Thermal Expansion of A Square Shaped Object

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the thermal expansion of a square object, analyzing the relationship between initial and final lengths, temperatures, and areas. It highlights a mistake in the algebraic manipulation of the area expansion coefficient, specifically the incorrect assumption that the final and initial lengths are equal, leading to a conclusion of no expansion. The correct relationship for the area expansion coefficient is established as β = (1 + L2/L1)α, which simplifies to β = 2α only when L2 equals L1. Additionally, the conversation emphasizes the importance of using precise calculations versus approximations in thermal expansion, noting that mixing the two can lead to errors. Overall, understanding these principles is crucial for accurate thermal expansion analysis.
Sunny007
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Suppose a square shaped object has an initial length of L1 and final length (after thermal expansion) of L2. Initial temperature is T1 and final temperature is T2. Suppose it has an area of A. So initial area is A1 and final area is A2 (after thermal expansion). Here A1 = (L1)^2 and A2 = (L2)^2 . Now area expansion coefficient B(beta) = (A2-A1)/A1*(T2-T1). or, B = (L2^2 - L1^2)/ L1*L1*(T2-T1) or, B = (L2-L1)(L2+L1)/ L1*L1*(T2-T1) or B = (L2-L1)*a/ L1 [ suppose alpha = a and we know that alpha = (L2-L1)/L1(T2-T1) ] or, 2a = (L2-L1)*a/ L1 or 2 = (L2-L1)/ L1 [ cancelling alpha from both sides) or, 2L1 = L2-L1 or L1= L2. So now does that mean that it has no expansion as Final length and initial length is equal?

Here is an image of the calculation.

[Mentor Note -- Image rotated to fix sideways orientation]
Rotated whiteboard fixed.jpg
246722556_414046500224663_2492331187577312016_n.jpg
246722556_414046500224663_2492331187577312016_n.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Sunny007 said:
So now does that mean that it has no expansion as Final length and initial length is equal?
It means you made a mistake. In your 2nd equation (handwritten, please use LaTeX in the future) you have ##2\alpha = \beta## which is only true if ##L_2=L_1##.

In general $$\beta =\left(1+\frac{L_2}{L_1} \right) \alpha$$ which again only reduces to ##\beta=2\alpha## in the special case ##L_2=L_1##. So since you effectively assume that in your second equation it is no surprise that is what you get in the end when you simplify.

Edit: see below for a physical analysis by @kuruman. This post was purely an analysis of the posted algebra
 
Last edited:
  • Skeptical
  • Like
Likes hutchphd and kuruman
Dale said:
It means you made a mistake. In your 2nd equation (handwritten, please use LaTeX in the future) you have ##2\alpha = \beta## which is only true if ##L_2=L_1##.

In general $$\beta =\left(1+\frac{L_2}{L_1} \right) \alpha$$ which again only reduces to ##\beta=2\alpha## in the special case ##L_2=L_1##. So since you effectively assume that in your second equation it is no surprise that is what you get in the end when you simplify.
Thank you so much sir for explaining this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You have to understand that the expression for linear thermal expansion is only an approximation because the change in length is proportional to the initial length and the ratio (or linear expansion coefficient) ##\alpha = \Delta L/ L_0## is of order 10-5. Thus, anything will melt or catch fire before expanding to an appreciable fraction of its initial length.

The exact expression for the length ##L## of an object at temperature ##T## when its length is ##L_0## at ##T_0## is given by $$L(T)=L_0e^{\alpha (T-T_0)}.$$If that is expanded in power series, one gets$$L(T) =L_0\left[1+\alpha \Delta T+\frac{1}{2}(\alpha \Delta T)^2+\dots \right]$$We then note that each term in the expansion is about 10-5 times smaller than the previous one, so we keep only the zeroth and the first order terms and write $$L(T) =L_0(1+\alpha \Delta T).$$ Now you can do either an exact calculation or an approximate calculation of the area but not mix the two.

Here is the exact calculation. We start with a ##L_{01}\times L_{02}## rectangle and write $$A(T)=L_{01}e^{\alpha \Delta T}\times L_{02}e^{\alpha \Delta T}=L_{01} L_{02}e^{\alpha \Delta T}e^{\alpha \Delta T}=A_0e^{2\alpha \Delta T}.$$If you want to write this as ##A(T)=A_0e^{\beta \Delta T}##, then you need to define ##\beta\equiv 2\alpha##.

For the approximate expression, you just expand the exact expression to first order as before to get $$A(T)\approx A_0 (1+\beta \Delta T)=A_0 (1+2\alpha \Delta T).$$If you mix exact and approximate expressions, as you seem to have done, then you need to be careful. If you call the expanded area the product of the two approximate sides, you have $$A(T)\approx L_{01}(1+\alpha \Delta T)\times L_{02}(1+\alpha \Delta T)=A_0\left[1+2\alpha \Delta T+(\alpha \Delta T)^2\right].$$ To first order, this reduces to the approximation obtained from the exact expression.

As you can see, you can always set ##L_{01}=L_{02}## anywhere in the exact or approximate calculations without any problem.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, Sunny007, berkeman and 1 other person
@Sunny007 note that @kuruman has actually analyzed the underlying physics for you, which I had seen decades ago but forgotten. My post just dealt with the algebra that you presented. I would recommend spending more time on his than on mine.
 
  • Like
Likes Sunny007 and kuruman
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top