What is wronge with this picture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Longstreet
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Picture
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a thought experiment involving two stacked cylinders of different radii, where thermal radiation from one cylinder is intended to be reflected into the other. The equations for thermal power, based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law, indicate that to achieve a situation where the power from the second cylinder (P2) is less than that from the first (P1), the radius of the second cylinder must be sufficiently small. However, the conversation highlights that the randomness of thermal radiation means not all emitted energy from the first cylinder will reach the second, leading to potential violations of the second law of thermodynamics if P2 exceeds P1. The participants conclude that effective radiation concentration and surface area considerations are crucial for the intended energy transfer to occur without violating thermodynamic principles. Ultimately, the ability to concentrate thermal radiation effectively is essential to avoid contradictions in the proposed scenario.
Longstreet
Messages
98
Reaction score
1
So, the thermal radiation power off a surface is P=\sigma AT^4.

Here I have two cylinders of equal height but different radius. They are stacked on top of each other inside of two cones stacked on top of each other. The idea is that the thermal radiation off of one cyclinder is reflected into the other one.

With this information I know the power off the two cylinders is:

P_1 = \sigma(2{\pi}r_1h/2)T_1^4
and
P_2 = \sigma(2{\pi}r_2h/2)T_2^4

Where P is the power, h is the height of the stack, r is the radius of each cylinder, and T is their temperature.

So say I want P_2<P_1. All I need to do is make r_2 small enough. Solving I get the simple relation r_2<\frac{T_1^4}{T_2^4}r_1.

I know this is extreamly idealized, but what is causing P_2 \geq P_1.
 

Attachments

  • heatpump.png
    heatpump.png
    8.8 KB · Views: 379
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
This is not a homework question. It is a thought experiment that I had that I couldn't resolve. This obveously violates the second law. I'm not seeing where the flow of energy from hot to cold overwhelms the flow from cold to hot. What twisted professor would assign such a problem anyway. In my example it would probably be better to use a cylindrical ellipse with the pipes at the two foci.

I guess it's my assumption that all the energy from one will hit the other. Since they aren't point objects the randomness of the radiation will cause a significant fraction to miss and come back.
 

Attachments

  • heatpump2.png
    heatpump2.png
    4.4 KB · Views: 392
Last edited:
Longstreet said:
So, the thermal radiation power off a surface is P=\sigma AT^4.

Here I have two cylinders of equal height but different radius. They are stacked on top of each other inside of two cones stacked on top of each other. The idea is that the thermal radiation off of one cyclinder is reflected into the other one.

With this information I know the power off the two cylinders is:

P_1 = \sigma(2{\pi}r_1h/2)T_1^4
and
P_2 = \sigma(2{\pi}r_2h/2)T_2^4

Where P is the power, h is the height of the stack, r is the radius of each cylinder, and T is their temperature.

So say I want P_2<P_1. All I need to do is make r_2 small enough. Solving I get the simple relation r_2<\frac{T_1^4}{T_2^4}r_1.

I know this is extreamly idealized, but what is causing P_2 \geq P_1.
My earlier post was in error. P is the total radiated power. But P is a function of temperature and area (radius). So if you decrease the area (radius) but do not decrease the power, the temperature must increase. In otherwords, the only way you can have more power going from 2 to 1 is to have T2>T1.

AM
 
Last edited:
Well, the congecture is that energy would flow from 1 to 2, which would violate the 2nd law if 2 is hotter than 1. My problem was the radiation coming off of 1 is random at the surface (at r1). So it will not necessarily be focused into 2. Some will miss and come back to 1. My assumption was that because of the elliptical nature, all P1 would go into P2, no matter what the sizes of the pipes.

Now, if there was some way to make the radiation emmit more radially from the surface that argument isn't as strong.
 
The cold one needs a larger surface Area for your scheme to work
(even initially, even with perfect equipment ... like correct focusing,
and including a perfect reflector-insulator in between them).
So the cold one's radiation will be not-so-well focused as the hot one's
(which will make the hot one not receive quite as much P as you'd like)
and the extra Area of the cold one will absorb more of the stray radiation
(which means, for A_cold = A_hot (T_h/T_c)^4 , cold warms up).

I'm thinking about spheres at the foci of an internally-reflecting ellipsiod.
If there's NO reflector between them the hot one's DIRECT radiation
will tip the balance ; if the reflector shuts off too much radiation,
each side becomes essentially a black body radiating thru the opening.
 
lightgrav said:
The cold one needs a larger surface Area for your scheme to work
(even initially, even with perfect equipment ... like correct focusing,
and including a perfect reflector-insulator in between them).
So the cold one's radiation will be not-so-well focused as the hot one's
(which will make the hot one not receive quite as much P as you'd like)
and the extra Area of the cold one will absorb more of the stray radiation
(which means, for A_cold = A_hot (T_h/T_c)^4 , cold warms up).

I'm thinking about spheres at the foci of an internally-reflecting ellipsiod.
If there's NO reflector between them the hot one's DIRECT radiation
will tip the balance ; if the reflector shuts off too much radiation,
each side becomes essentially a black body radiating thru the opening.
I agree. You can ignore my previous post which missed the point.

The issue here is the ability to concentrate the radiation from the larger cylinder onto the smaller cylinder. It is analogous to trying to use a solar concentrator to achieve a higher temperature than the surface of the sun. It cannot be done. See, for example: http://www.ee.ucla.edu/labs/photon/pubs/ey1990sem2123.pdf

AM
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Calculation of Tensile Forces in Piston-Type Water-Lifting Devices at Elevated Locations'
Figure 1 Overall Structure Diagram Figure 2: Top view of the piston when it is cylindrical A circular opening is created at a height of 5 meters above the water surface. Inside this opening is a sleeve-type piston with a cross-sectional area of 1 square meter. The piston is pulled to the right at a constant speed. The pulling force is(Figure 2): F = ρshg = 1000 × 1 × 5 × 10 = 50,000 N. Figure 3: Modifying the structure to incorporate a fixed internal piston When I modify the piston...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top