Interpreting Weird Results: J_u, P_1 and T_1

In summary, the two equations are:## e_1 \sigma_B T_1^4 + \left( 1 - e_1 \right) \sigma_B T_2^4 = \sigma_B T_2^4 #### e_1 \sigma_B T_1^4 = e_1 \sigma_B T_2^4
  • #1
baseballfan_ny
92
23
Homework Statement
A sheet (“sheet 1”) of area A having emissivity ##e_1## is held at temperature ##T_1## so that it emits a total power ##P_1## to the right (i.e., energy per unit time). Let σB be the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and neglect all edge effects.

a. In terms of ##P_1##, calculate temperature ##T_1## of sheet 1.

Two additional black sheets, each of area A and having emissivities ##e_2## = 1 and ##e_3## = 1, are now added to the right of sheet 1. (See figure below) The spacings between the pairs of sheets is d, such that ##d^2## is much less than A . The temperature ##T_2## of the middle sheet (2) is allowed to vary and the right-hand sheet (3) is held at a fixed temperature ##T_3## = 0.

b. Assume that sheet 2 reaches a steady state temperature ##T_2##. What is the power flow ##P_{23}## (total power, not power per unit area) emitted by sheet 2 to the right-hand sheet, i.e., from sheet 2 to sheet 3? Your answer should be given in terms of in terms of ##T_2##, A, d, ##\sigma_B##, and ##e_1## only. [Note: Not all of these parameters should appear in your answer.]

c. Determine ##T_2## in terms of ##T_1##, A, d, ##\sigma_B## and ##e_1## only.
Relevant Equations
Stefan-Boltzmann
## J_u = e \sigma_B T^4 ##
I need someone to check my work, because I'm getting weird results that I'm not able to interpret physically for parts b and c. Thanks in advance.

For part a...

##J_u = e_1 \sigma_B T^4##
##P_1 = AJ_u = e_1 \sigma_B AT_1^4##
## T_1 = \left( \frac {P_1} {e_1 \sigma_B A} \right)^{\frac 1 4} ##

For part b...
pf_hw6_1.jpg

I'm using the idea that energy emitted by sheet 2 = energy absorbed by sheet 2

## \sigma_B T_2^4 + \frac {P_{23}} {A} = e_1 \sigma_B T_1^4 + (1 - e_1) \sigma_B T_2^4 ##
## \frac {P_{23}} {A} = e_1 \sigma_B \left( T_1^4 - T_2^4 \right) ##
## P_{23} = A e_1 \sigma_B \left( T_1^4 - T_2^4 \right) ##

For part c...
pf_hw6_2.jpg

I'm using the idea that energy emitted by sheet 1 = energy absorbed by sheet 1

## e_1 \sigma_B T_1^4 + \left( 1 - e_1 \right) \sigma_B T_2^4 = \sigma_B T_2^4 ##
## e_1 \sigma_B T_1^4 = e_1 \sigma_B T_2^4 ##
## T_1 = T_2##

Now this has been bothering me, because if ##T_1 = T_2##, then ##P_{23} = 0##? I can't seem to make sense of that.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
baseballfan_ny said:
For part b...
View attachment 291135
I'm using the idea that energy emitted by sheet 2 = energy absorbed by sheet 2

## \sigma_B T_2^4 + \frac {P_{23}} {A} = e_1 \sigma_B T_1^4 + (1 - e_1) \sigma_B T_2^4 ##
I don't see how you get this equation. Surely emissions from the third sheet are part of the middle sheet's energy balance. And can't you immediately write down how ##P_{23}## depends on ##T_2## without reference to the other sheets?
 
  • #3
haruspex said:
Surely emissions from the third sheet are part of the middle sheet's energy balance.
But ##T_3## = 0, so it doesn't emit any energy, right? I suppose it can absorb energy emitted by ##P_{23}##.

haruspex said:
And can't you immediately write down how P23 depends on T2 without reference to the other sheets?
I had thought that originally ... that ##P_{23} = A\sigma_B T_2^4##, but I think there has to be equilibrium maintained? So that's why applied those conditions.

I just don't think it makes sense for ##P_{23} = 0##.
 
  • #4
baseballfan_ny said:
But T3 = 0
Sorry, I missed that.
baseballfan_ny said:
I had thought that originally ... that ##P_{23} = A\sigma_B T_2^4##, but I think there has to be equilibrium maintained?
That equation is a valid answer whether or not equilibrium is maintained. The answer you gave includes T1, which is not allowed.

baseballfan_ny said:
I'm using the idea that energy emitted by sheet 1 = energy absorbed by sheet 1

## e_1 \sigma_B T_1^4 + \left( 1 - e_1 \right) \sigma_B T_2^4 = \sigma_B T_2^4 ##
Please explain how you get that equation.
One thing I am not clear on is whether you are supposed to assume all arriving energy is absorbed, or whether in each case absorptivity equals emissivity, so (1-e) would be reflected (much complicating matters).
 
  • #5
haruspex said:
Please explain how you get that equation.
My idea was that the total amount of energy emitted by sheet 1 = total amount of energy "delivered" to sheet 1 (I realized I wrote "absorbed" instead of "delivered" in Post 1 so that was probably confusing). The first term is the energy emitted by sheet 1, since it has absorptivity = emissivity = ##e_1##. The 2nd term was the amount of energy (originating from sheet 2) reflected by sheet 1. The right hand side is the amount of energy delivered to sheet 1 from sheet 2.
haruspex said:
One thing I am not clear on is whether you are supposed to assume all arriving energy is absorbed, or whether in each case absorptivity equals emissivity, so (1-e) would be reflected (much complicating matters).
I believe I'm supposed to take ##a = e## by Kirchoff's Law.

haruspex said:
That equation is a valid answer whether or not equilibrium is maintained. The answer you gave includes T1, which is not allowed.
Ok so I'm getting something new. I think I'm supposed to say sheet 2 emits ##J = \sigma_B T_2^4## and then enforce equilibrium.

So then my answer to part b would just be...
## P_{23} = A \sigma_B T_2^4 ##.

Then for part c I would enforce equilibrium on sheet 2... that however much is absorbed by it is emitted...

##(1 - e_1)\sigma_B T_2^4 + e_1 \sigma_B T_1^4 = \sigma_B T_2^4 ##

where the first term is the amount reflected by sheet 1 and reabsorbed by sheet 2, the second term is the amount emitted by sheet 1 and absorbed by sheet 2, and the right hand side term is the amount emitted by sheet 2.

So...

## \sigma_B T_2^4 - e_1\sigma_B T_2^4 + e_1\sigma_B T_1^4 = \sigma_B T_2^4 ##

##- e_1\sigma_B T_2^4 + e_1\sigma_B T_1^4 = 0 ##

##T_1 = T_2##, but as you pointed out, ##P_{23} = A \sigma_B T_2^4## and should not be in terms of ##T_1## so I no longer have ##P_{23} = 0##
 
  • #6
baseballfan_ny said:
My idea was that the total amount of energy emitted by sheet 1 = total amount of energy "delivered" to sheet 1
You cannot assume the emissions and absorptions of sheet 1 are in balance. There will surely be a net flow of energy from 1 to 3, even though 2 is at a constant temperature.
baseballfan_ny said:
The 2nd term was the amount of energy (originating from sheet 2) reflected by sheet 1
If you have to allow for reflections then there are in principle infinitely many.
Create unknowns for the total flow from 1 to 2 and 2 to 1 and write equations relating these to the emissions and absorptions.
 

FAQ: Interpreting Weird Results: J_u, P_1 and T_1

What do the variables J_u, P_1, and T_1 represent in the context of interpreting weird results?

J_u, P_1, and T_1 are variables commonly used in statistical analysis to represent different factors or conditions that may affect the results of an experiment or study. J_u typically represents the sample size, P_1 represents the probability of a certain outcome, and T_1 represents the treatment or intervention being studied.

How can the values of J_u, P_1, and T_1 impact the interpretation of results?

The values of J_u, P_1, and T_1 can greatly impact the interpretation of results. For example, a larger sample size (J_u) can increase the reliability and generalizability of the results, while a lower probability (P_1) may suggest that the observed effect is not statistically significant. The treatment (T_1) being studied can also greatly influence the results and should be carefully considered when interpreting them.

What should be done if the values of J_u, P_1, and T_1 are unexpected or unusual?

If the values of J_u, P_1, and T_1 are unexpected or unusual, it is important to carefully examine the data and methodology used in the study. It may be necessary to conduct further analyses or experiments to better understand the results and determine if they are valid and reliable.

How can the interpretation of weird results be affected by other variables or factors?

The interpretation of weird results can be affected by a variety of other variables or factors, such as confounding variables, measurement error, or sampling bias. It is important to carefully control for these factors and consider their potential impact on the results when interpreting them.

What are some strategies for effectively interpreting weird results?

Some strategies for effectively interpreting weird results include carefully examining the data and methodology used, considering other variables or factors that may have influenced the results, and seeking input from other experts in the field. It is also important to remain open-minded and consider alternative explanations for the results before drawing conclusions.

Back
Top