What is wronge with this picture?

  • Thread starter Longstreet
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Picture
In summary, the thermal radiation power off a surface can be calculated using P=\sigma AT^4. In a thought experiment, two cylinders of equal height but different radius are stacked on top of each other inside of two cones stacked on top of each other. The power off the two cylinders can be calculated using 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. To achieve P_2<P_1, the radius
  • #1
Longstreet
98
1
So, the thermal radiation power off a surface is [tex]P=\sigma AT^4[/tex].

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:

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

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

I know this is extreamly idealized, but what is causing [tex]P_2 \geq P_1[/tex].
 

Attachments

  • heatpump.png
    heatpump.png
    8.8 KB · Views: 341
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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: 351
Last edited:
  • #3
Longstreet said:
So, the thermal radiation power off a surface is [tex]P=\sigma AT^4[/tex].

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:

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

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

I know this is extreamly idealized, but what is causing [tex]P_2 \geq P_1[/tex].
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:
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
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
 

1. What is wrong with this picture?

The most common question when looking at a picture is what is wrong with it. This can refer to any number of issues such as incorrect colors, missing objects, or distorted proportions.

2. How do you identify what is wrong with a picture?

To identify what is wrong with a picture, a careful analysis must be done. This includes looking for any inconsistencies, comparing it to a reference image, or using tools like color filters or rulers to check for errors.

3. Can you fix what is wrong with a picture?

In many cases, yes, the issues with a picture can be fixed. This can involve editing the image digitally, adjusting the lighting or composition, or even physically altering the picture itself.

4. How do errors in a picture affect its credibility?

Errors in a picture can greatly impact its credibility, especially in fields such as scientific research. A picture that contains incorrect information or manipulated elements can completely change the interpretation of the data it represents.

5. What can be considered "wrong" in a picture?

Anything that deviates from the intended or expected representation can be considered "wrong" in a picture. This can include technical errors, misleading information, or intentional manipulation.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
832
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
769
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
25
Views
465
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Back
Top