0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
No multiplication by zero is involved.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 21/04/2022 11:35:07Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/04/2022 08:48:09I already told you twice.Which one?Quote from: Bored chemist on 16/04/2022 11:33:56Yes there is.That is why I provided it.Did you somehow miss this bit?Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/04/2022 23:07:45A xenon arc lamp gives a fairly good approximation to thermal spectrum- unless you look near the emission lines at the right hand endhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_arc_lamp#/media/File:Xenon_arc_lamp_profile.pngThe visible radiation from the sun is close enough to a thermal spectrum to let us estimate the temperature of the sun's surface.But the emission lines were what allowed someone to demonstrate the existence of helium
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/04/2022 08:48:09I already told you twice.Which one?
I already told you twice.
Yes there is.That is why I provided it.Did you somehow miss this bit?Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/04/2022 23:07:45A xenon arc lamp gives a fairly good approximation to thermal spectrum- unless you look near the emission lines at the right hand endhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_arc_lamp#/media/File:Xenon_arc_lamp_profile.pngThe visible radiation from the sun is close enough to a thermal spectrum to let us estimate the temperature of the sun's surface.But the emission lines were what allowed someone to demonstrate the existence of helium
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 21/04/2022 13:36:19 No multiplication by zero is involved.Nobody said it was.
Your view is like saying that the top of a hill is flat and the bottom of the hill is flat so you can calculate the potential energy of an object at the top of the hill by multiplying the weight by zero.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/04/2022 13:37:21Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 21/04/2022 13:36:19 No multiplication by zero is involved.Nobody said it was.Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/04/2022 12:54:26Your view is like saying that the top of a hill is flat and the bottom of the hill is flat so you can calculate the potential energy of an object at the top of the hill by multiplying the weight by zero.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/04/2022 13:23:10Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 21/04/2022 11:35:07Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/04/2022 08:48:09I already told you twice.Which one?Quote from: Bored chemist on 16/04/2022 11:33:56Yes there is.That is why I provided it.Did you somehow miss this bit?Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/04/2022 23:07:45A xenon arc lamp gives a fairly good approximation to thermal spectrum- unless you look near the emission lines at the right hand endhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_arc_lamp#/media/File:Xenon_arc_lamp_profile.pngThe visible radiation from the sun is close enough to a thermal spectrum to let us estimate the temperature of the sun's surface.But the emission lines were what allowed someone to demonstrate the existence of heliumI think that something should be a noun.
As a nod to other pedants, yes, if you know S is a function of T you must integrate ∫SdT rather than just multiply by the final temperature.
Quote from: alancalverd on 19/04/2022 19:55:15Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/04/2022 09:39:07 I should say that objects with higher temperature are some times treated like they have higher potential energy compared to the same/similar objects but at lower temperature.Same object, yes. Similar object, no. The thermal energy (i.e. heat content) of a body of mass M, specific heat capacity S and temperature T is MST.Except that S varies with T.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/04/2022 09:39:07 I should say that objects with higher temperature are some times treated like they have higher potential energy compared to the same/similar objects but at lower temperature.Same object, yes. Similar object, no. The thermal energy (i.e. heat content) of a body of mass M, specific heat capacity S and temperature T is MST.
I should say that objects with higher temperature are some times treated like they have higher potential energy compared to the same/similar objects but at lower temperature.
At 175K the (constant pressure) heat capacity of 1 Kg of H2 is 13.12 KJ per kelvin
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/04/2022 13:19:47At 175K the (constant pressure) heat capacity of 1 Kg of H2 is 13.12 KJ per kelvinWhich, multiplied by 175, gives you (to a first approximation) 2310 kJ, not 0. Just because 175K is a bit chilly doesn't mean you can't extract some heat energy from your kilogram of hydrogen. You could get about 1300 kJ from it by constructing a Stirling engine with a liquid nitrogen cold source - practicable if pointless.
then add the 2450 that Alan talked about
It can't be a very good attempt; it shows the solid as full of springs, and then it ignores potential energy.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/05/2022 08:31:51It can't be a very good attempt; it shows the solid as full of springs, and then it ignores potential energy.Perhaps the potential energy isn't counted as (doesn't contribute to) temperature.
Perhaps the potential energy isn't counted as (doesn't contribute to) temperature.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 06/05/2022 11:10:07Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/05/2022 08:31:51It can't be a very good attempt; it shows the solid as full of springs, and then it ignores potential energy.Perhaps the potential energy isn't counted as (doesn't contribute to) temperature.It is counted and does contribute.Why choose to be wrong about that?
What's to explain? The caption statement is almost correct: the definition of temperature is the average internal kinetic energy of a body. You can't explain a definition!
Hi.Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 06/05/2022 11:10:07Perhaps the potential energy isn't counted as (doesn't contribute to) temperature. Do you mean you haven't actually spent your ( @hamdani yusuf ) own time watching those videos? Their answer is in the video.Best Wishes.