What is the difference between adding heat and adding cold?

[DaveC426913]

Also:

...there is an equal contrived context for thermal exchange, atomic structure. As soon as that medium appears it can have energy added or subtracted from it. Heating and cooling are both physical actions on a system with equal place in thermodynamic discussions.

Heat exists quite happily independent of atomic structure. Heat radiates through a vacuum, no contrived context needed.

 

[lennybogzy]

No the agreed upon definition in physics is that heat is thermal energy.

debatable, please see the multiple links I’ve posted illustrating that this is layman’s definition

No that's temperature.

no 'hot' temperature or 'cold' temperature is the subjective interpretation of temperature

No we don't insist, we are just using the agreed upon definition.

who is 'we'? you and dave? the definition is debatable and you can find many sources stating that heat should not be equated to thermal energy. What’s more the conversation started off with both of us assuming heat was not a thermal energy but a process. If that’s the case it’s equivalent in every sense with cold as a process.

No this whole conversation was about you defending your misunderstanding and demanding people take your view.

This conversation was about getting at the truth. The more we debate preexisting notions the closer we get to the truth.

I think we can wrap things up here now.

by all means, we can wrap things up any time. If you have any more questions please feel free to PM me.

 

[lennybogzy]

Also:

Heat exists quite happily independent of atomic structure. Heat radiates through a vacuum, no contrived context needed.

come on, Dave. Heat emmits radiation, heat is not radiation. (assuming heat is thermal energy)

I'm not proud of you.

 

[D H]

Heat emmits radiation, heat is not radiation. (assuming heat is thermal energy)

Bad assumption, lenny. Heat is not thermal energy. Thermal energy is a state variable. Objects do not contain heat, anymore than they contain work. That objects contain heat is the essence of the discarded caloric theory of heat. Objects do contain thermal energy, measured by temperature. Heating, like work, is a process. That objects do not contain heat is easily shown by taking a system from some initial state to a final state. The heat transfer, along with the amount of work performed, during the transition, is path dependent.

 

[lennybogzy]

Bad assumption, lenny. Heat is not thermal energy. Thermal energy is a state variable. Objects do not contain heat, anymore than they contain work. That objects contain heat is the essence of the discarded caloric theory of heat. Objects do contain thermal energy, measured by temperature. Heating, like work, is a process. That objects do not contain heat is easily shown by taking a system from some initial state to a final state. The heat transfer, along with the amount of work performed, during the transition, is path dependent.

I agree full heartedly D H. Heat is not thermal energy. Heat is a process, a verb, a shift of energy. Thank you for correcting me, you are 100% right.

 

[dreimd]

I hate to see posts go back and forth just quoting each other as it gets petty, hard to read and discourages others from contributing so I will keep it minimal.

debatable, please see the multiple links I’ve posted illustrating that this is layman’s definition

What? You actually haven't linked anything. The one thing you tried to was broken. When I fixed it, I got a paper on how we should augment our teaching of heat with entropy.

What’s more the conversation started off with both of us assuming heat was not a thermal energy but a process. If that’s the case it’s equivalent in every sense with cold as a process.

Actually this convo started out with you saying 'adding heat' or 'adding cold' are two ways of looking at the same exact thing' so even there, you're using heat as a noun.

But fine even only taking heat in the context of a process, my original point is that there is no actual physical process cold transfer, you are always heating something. Right you could look at it as cooling, but it would be like saying someone who grew 2 inches actually shrunk negative 2 inches. You'd get the same results, but that's not what's actually happening in the physical world.

 

[D H]

You are playing semantic games, dreimd. The purpose of an air conditioner or a refrigerator is to cool things off. What happens to the external environment is a side-effect. Heating is heat transfer with a positive sign, cooling is heat transfer with a negative sign. Objects don't contain heat. They transfer heat as a process. We call it that process heat transfer, positive or negative, by convention.

 

[lennybogzy]

but that's not what's actually happening in the physical world.

Dreimd you love to talk about 'what's happening in the physical world' but have yet to explain to me how heating in the process of the physical world is any different from cooling.

When you have thermal energy transfer from one object to another, one undergoes heating and the other undergoes a cooling. Both processes take place at the same time and are just as "physically valid". (sorry about the quotes, dave)

Can we "wrap things up here now"?

 

[D H]

The decision to "wrap things up now" is not yours to make, lennybogzy. We generally leave threads open for continued discussion. So please do drop that line.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are playing semantic games, dreimd. The purpose of an air conditioner or a refrigerator is to cool things off. What happens to the external environment is a side-effect. Heating is heat transfer with a positive sign, cooling is heat transfer with a negative sign. Objects don't contain heat. They transfer heat as a process. We call it that process heat transfer, positive or negative, by convention.

Not no one is arguing that, by convention we can use them as opposites. There's certainly lots of places that's done.

But that convention will break down because it's not how the nuts and bolts actually work.

That is what the OP discussion is about.

A: Hot and cold are exactly opposite.
B: Well, they can be considered opposite in a great many conventions, but they are not exactly.
A: No, they are, in reality, exactly opposite.

The decision to "wrap things up now" is not yours to make, lennybogzy. We generally leave threads open for continued discussion. So please do drop that line.

Actually, lenny was simply parroting the OP (dreimd) from post 30 after lenny sort of went off the rails.

No this whole conversation was about you defending your misunderstanding and demanding people take your view.

I think we can wrap things up here now.

 

[dreimd]

IS THERE NO ONE WITH A THERMODYNAMIC BACKGROUND THAT CAN PUT THIS ALL IN TO CONTEXT

As far as what actually happens in the physical world, I'll get back to you but ironically I think the answer is in the http://www.girep.org/proceedings/conference2004/Friedrich_Herrmann_-_Entropy_from_the_Beginning.pdf"

 

[D H]

dreimd, you have a number of misperceptions here.

No the agreed upon definition in physics is that heat is thermal energy.

That is incorrect. Pick up any physics text, from freshman physics to thermodynamics to statistical physics, and they will all inevitably point out that heat is not thermal energy. Thermal energy is an extensive state property. Temperature is an intensive state property closely allied with thermal energy. Heat is not a state property, period.

heat transfer can only happen from a warmer body to a colder one as energy is passed from one to the other.

In the physical world, heat transfer only happens in one direction. Always. From a hotter body to a colder body.

Wrong. You are referencing Clausius statement on entropy, "Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature." You have dropped both "generally" and "spontaneously" from Clausius' statement. The "spontaneously" catch-word is particularly important. Take that away and Clausius' statement would be false. Heat can flow the other way with the help of work.

The word "generally" turned out to be rather important, too, after the fact. Heat can spontaneously flow from cooler bodies to warmer ones if the two bodies are microscopically small. The second law of thermodynamics is a probabilistic statement rather than an absolute truth.

 

[D H]

I think the answer is in the http://www.girep.org/proceedings/conference2004/Friedrich_Herrmann_-_Entropy_from_the_Beginning.pdf"

Herrmann is advocating a marked departure from the standard meaning of heat, which is embodied by the equation

\Delta U = Q - W

Here \Delta U is change in internal energy in some system of interest, W is work done by that system, and Q is the heat transferred to the system.

Energy is a state variable while work is path dependent, so it should come as no surprise that heat is also path dependent. Objects don't contain work any more than they contain heat.

Why switch the meaning of a word ("heat") from a concept that is (a) measurable and (b) extremely useful to some other meaning when a very nice word ("entropy") already exists to describe that meaning?

 

[dreimd]

Cool thank you for clearing that up some more.

My question at this point is still though what is there physical reality of heat transfer. In the case of heat flowing from a colder object to a hotter object, it is still heat transfer vs cool transfer.

Likewise, why is there a limit to how much we can cool an object but not the other way around.

 

[D H]

My question at this point is still though what is there physical reality of heat transfer. In the case of heat flowing from a colder object to a hotter object, it is still heat transfer vs cool transfer.

It's really just semantics, dreimd. A similar bit of semantics exists with the term "acceleration". Physicists tend to eschew the term "deceleration". Slowing down, speeding up, it's all acceleration to a physicist.

 

[DaveC426913]

The word "generally" turned out to be rather important, too, after the fact. Heat can spontaneously flow from warmer bodies to cooler ones if the two bodies are microscopically small. The second law of thermodynamics is a probabilistic statement rather than an absolute truth.

Did you mean cooler to warmer?

 

[D H]

Yes. I corrected the post, thanks. Violations of the second law of thermodynamics (Clausius' statement) have been detected in small systems over small time spans.

G.M. Wang et. al, "Experimental demonstration of violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for small systems and short time scales". Physical Review Letters 89:050601 (2002).

 

[pallidin]

Hmmm... wonder why there is the demand on small systems and short time scales.
Will have to read that letter. Thanks for sharing.

 

[chronon]

The following might be of interest:

Hasok Chang: Rumford and the Reflection of Radiant Cold: Historical Reflections and Metaphysical Reflexes
(http://www.springerlink.com/content/mqjl7dn3hk5nvlkc/)

In this paper I examine the debate regarding the positive reality of cold: whether it is merely an absence of heat, or a quality or entity in its own right.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hmmm... wonder why there is the demand on small systems and short time scales.

Because it's averaging, which works better on larger systems and longer time scales.

 

[D H]

Hmmm... wonder why there is the demand on small systems and short time scales.

The reason is that the second law of thermodynamics is a probabilistic statement.

A simple example: Imagine a gas chamber that contains a certain number of gas molecules. Finding that all of the molecules are in one half of the chamber should not be all that surprising if the number of molecules is small. It would be incredibly surprising (never happens) if the chamber contains a mole of molecules.

There are lots of other examples where something is essentially impossible statistically purely by virtue of the large number of molecules / large number of interactions. Those essentially impossible events are the basis of the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[dreimd]

In this paper I examine the debate regarding the positive reality of cold: whether it is merely an absence of heat, or a quality or entity in its own right.

Our entire debate..

 

[alphawolf50]

From the link:

Marc-Auguste Pictet stimulated this debate by showing that radiation from a cold object apparently could be focused by concave mirrors to cool another object some distance away from it.

This baffles me -- how can radiation from a cold object cool another object? I'm familiar with laser cooling, but this sounds like a different animal.

I haven't seen the setup, but I would venture to say they've got the causality reversed. IE, the mirrors are isolating the system somewhat, and the warm object is radiating energy, which gets absorbed by the cold object. The cold object naturally radiates less energy, so the warm object absorbs less energy than it is radiating. Eventually the two should reach equilibrium. Just my take.

 

[Drakkith]

So what I am getting from this thread is:

Heating = adding thermal energy.
Cooling = Removing thermal energy.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Whats the problem? Adding cold is removing heat and vice versa. Obviously you cannot add a million degrees of Cold to something that didnt already have at least a million degrees of heat already.

Do i have all this right?

 

[D H]

No. "Adding cold" sounds even worse than "adding heat". The term "adding heat" is a bit of a throwback to the old and falsified caloric theory. Objects do not contain heat.

The temperature of an object can increase (or decrease) with zero heat transfer. Think of a stellar nursery, a relatively high concentration (high compared to interstellar space) of hydrogen and other other atoms/molecules in space. Temperatures in such nurseries are often quite cool, 10 K or so. As the cloud collapses to form a protostar gravitational collapse makes the protostar increase in temperature to millions of Kelvins. There is no heat transfer here. The heating is solely from conversion of gravitational energy to kinetic energy.Addendum
Since "adding heat" is a bit of a misnomer, it is best not to complicate things by adding the even uglier phrase "adding cool" to the mix. Yech.

 

[Drakkith]

No. "Adding cold" sounds even worse than "adding heat". The term "adding heat" is a bit of a throwback to the old and falsified caloric theory. Objects do not contain heat.

The temperature of an object can increase (or decrease) with zero heat transfer. Think of a stellar nursery, a relatively high concentration (high compared to interstellar space) of hydrogen and other other atoms/molecules in space. Temperatures in such nurseries are often quite cool, 10 K or so. As the cloud collapses to form a protostar gravitational collapse makes the protostar increase in temperature to millions of Kelvins. There is no heat transfer here. The heating is solely from conversion of gravitational energy to kinetic energy.


Addendum
Since "adding heat" is a bit of a misnomer, it is best not to complicate things by adding the even uglier phrase "adding cool" to the mix. Yech.

I'm not 100% sure of the mechanics of a gas, but arent you are either adding heat through gravity, or you are compressing the gas and its heat into a smaller space, raising the temperature but not adding any heat? (Not sure which one)

Edit: Also, adding Heat is adding energy to something, isn't it? I realize that it might be a bit questionable to say heat = thermal energy, but everything I've read has used the 2 terms interchangeably. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[Drakkith]

From the wikipedia article on heat:
Heat is also loosely referred to as thermal energy, although many definitions require this thermal energy to be in transfer between two systems to be technically called heat, otherwise, many sources prefer to continue to refer to the internal quantity as thermal energy.

 

[russ_watters]

No. "Adding cold" sounds even worse than "adding heat". The term "adding heat" is a bit of a throwback to the old and falsified caloric theory. Objects do not contain heat.

The temperature of an object can increase (or decrease) with zero heat transfer.

This looks to me like two separate issues assumed to be connected in this thread but not actually being what the OP was driving at. Yes, the temperature of an object can change without heat transfer or heat transfer can occur without the temperature of an object changing - but I don't see that as being part of the issue here. Temperature isn't heat or energy. The question is regarding the heat transfer itself.

"adding heat" is just another way of saying "adding energy". Heat is a form of energy - at least that's how the word is used.

I see the issue raised by the OP as simply being whether you can have negative heat transfer. Not heat in (positive) or heat out (negative) but negative heat in or negative heat out. Whether it is physically possible to have a negative BTU of energy (it isn't), it is treated that way both colloquially and mathematically by engineers and it works fine.

 

[russ_watters]

You are playing semantic games, dreimd. The purpose of an air conditioner or a refrigerator is to cool things off. What happens to the external environment is a side-effect. Heating is heat transfer with a positive sign, cooling is heat transfer with a negative sign. Objects don't contain heat. They transfer heat as a process. We call it that process heat transfer, positive or negative, by convention.

I get into this argument a lot with physicists because I'm somewhat as a grammar Nazi. Earlier it was stated several times that in physics, heat is not a noun, but grammatically, heat is a noun. In the sentence "They transfer heat as a process", heat is a noun. You could replace the word "heat" with "thermal energy" - or "apples", for that matter - and the sentence is still gramatically correct. Same goes for the next sentence: Replace "heat" with "thermal energy" and the sentence works the same: "We call [] that process thermal energy transfer..."

The way it looks to me, physicists get very picky about "heat" being a verb, but still use it as a noun! If people want to call it "work" when it is mechanical and in motion, "heat" when it is non-mechanical and in motion, and "energy" when it is stationary, that's fine, but it is still just different forms of the same thing. A BTU or kWh can be any of the three.

Note also the term "heat pump", where "heat" replaces "water". "Heat" is a noun, a quantity that can be containerized and moved around.

But again, I don't think arguing over definitions was the point of the OP. I think the point of the OP was to ask if there is such a thing as a negative BTU.

 

[D H]

I'm not 100% sure of the mechanics of a gas, but arent you are either adding heat through gravity, or you are compressing the gas and its heat into a smaller space, raising the temperature but not adding any heat? (Not sure which one)

The latter.

Edit: Also, adding Heat is adding energy to something, isn't it? I realize that it might be a bit questionable to say heat = thermal energy, but everything I've read has used the 2 terms interchangeably. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

To a physicist, heat is the quantity Q in \Delta U = Q - W (or in terms of derivatives, dU/dt = \partial Q/\partial t - \partial W/\partial t). Heat (Q) and internal energy (U) are not the same thing. Internal energy is not even the same as temperature; temperature is but a component of the internal energy of some system.

Changes in temperature can result from

• Heat transfer (non-zero Q or \partial Q/\partial t),
• Work (non-zero W or \partial W/\partial t) or
• Changes in the components of internal energy itself.

Star collapse is an example of temperature change in which neither heat transfer nor work is involved. Here's another example: Suppose we have a very sturdy, thermally insulated gas chamber outfitted with a spark plug. Obviously closing the circuit on the spark plug will transfer heat to the gas in the chamber, but we can make this heat transfer quite negligible by making the time interval over which the circuit is closed very small.

Now fill the chamber with O₂ and close the circuit briefly. Not much happens. The O₂ gas will increase in temperature by a tiny amount due to the spark. But at least we have quantified how much heat transfer is involved with triggering the spark. Now empty the chamber and fill it with H₂. Once again, not much happens when the circuit is closed. Now add some O₂ to the H₂ already in the chamber such that there is one molecule of O₂ for every two H₂ molecules in the chamber. Now close the circuit.

Kaboom! This time there is a large change in temperature. We've just quantified how much energy the spark adds (not much). The chamber is thermally isolated, so except for that tiny amount of transfer from the spark the chamber is essentially adiabatic. The chamber is very sturdy and rigid, so no work is involved. The temperature has changed solely because of the conversion of chemical potential energy to thermal energy.