Why Did My Calculation of the Heat Transfer Rate in Thermal Physics Go Wrong?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a calculation involving the heat transfer rate in thermal physics, specifically related to the vaporization of liquid nitrogen. The original poster presents a problem where the mass of liquid nitrogen decreases over a set period, and they attempt to calculate the heat transfer rate using the specific latent heat of vaporization.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to calculate the heat transfer rate but expresses confusion about the manipulation of the equation. They question the correctness of dividing by time and seek clarification on the derivation of the ideal gas law.

Discussion Status

Participants are engaging in clarifying the original poster's misunderstanding regarding the equation manipulation. Some provide insights into unit consistency and the relationship between heat, mass, and time. The discussion also touches on the derivation of the ideal gas law, indicating a broader inquiry into related concepts.

Contextual Notes

The original poster is working under the constraints of a homework assignment, which may limit the information they can provide or seek. There is an emphasis on understanding the underlying principles rather than simply obtaining a solution.

Peter G.
Messages
439
Reaction score
0
Hi

The mass of liquid nitrogen in an open beaker is found to have decreased by 46.3 g in 10 minutes. If the S.L.H of vaporization of nitrogen at is boiling point is 1.99 x 105 J/Kg, at what rate were the surroundings heating the beaker?

This is what I did:

Q / 600 = 0.0463 / 600 x 1.99 x 105

I then got: Q / 600 = 15.35616667

But I got the answer wrong because I passed the 600 to the other side multiplying.

I am confused as to why I can't do so...

My best thought so far is that at the beginning I should do:

P = 0.0463 / 600 x 1.99 x 105

But can anyone explain why?

Thanks,
Peter G.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why would you "pass the 600 to the other side multiplying"?

Q/600 is presumably meant to reflect the total heat Q divided by the time in seconds, which would give you the rate that heat is absorbed. You've shown the 600 on the right hand side of your expression:

Q / 600 = 0.0463 / 600 x 1.99 x 105

That right hand side *is* the calculation for the rate, P = Q/600s.
 
Oh, ok, I get it, but the 600 dividing by the mass is correct, right?

And if you could help me with one other thing...

How do I derive the equation PV = nRT?

Well, to be more specific, how do we get PV / T combining all the laws: (Boyle's, Gas...)

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Peter G. said:
Oh, ok, I get it, but the 600 dividing by the mass is correct, right?

One way to verify that you're formula is correct is to keep the units with the values and make sure that the units work out as expected.

You know that you're looking for the rate of heating. Heat is specified in Joules, time is in seconds, so the rate is Joules per second (which are the units for Power, and J/s = Watts).

You first calculated the heat (Joules) by multiplying the mass (kg) by the heat of vaporization (Joules/kg). Then you divided by the time (seconds), yielding

kg x J/kg /s = J/s = W

So the units work out as expected and you can have confidence in your calculation.

And if you could help me with one other thing...

How do I derive the equation PV = nRT?

Well, to be more specific, how do we get PV / T combining all the laws: (Boyle's, Gas...)

Thanks

Take a look at the Wikipedia article for the combined gas law and the one for the ideal gas law.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_gas_law>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K