Home  5  Books  5  Magazines  5  News  5  GreenPro  5  HelpDesk  5  Your Cart  5  Register  5  Green Living Forum
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



green Building Press Book offers
Free UK delivery on all our books...

 Ecohouse 2 by Sue Roaf
Just £26.98

Ecohouse 2 by Sue Roaf


 Building With Cob
Just £25.00

building with cob


More great priced ecobuilding books here





Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2012
     
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2012
     
    Posted By: CleanEnergiesSHC changes depending on the temperature of the water also, so I always presumed it was because the weight could remain a constant, whereas the volume was a variable?

    No. SHC is defined in terms of the mass (pedantically, not weight) of the material, not the volume. Neither the mass specific heat capacity or the volumetric heat capacity of liquid water remains constant over the range 0°C to 100°C:

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html

    The density starts low at 0°C, increases to a maximum around 4°C then decreases steadily up to 100°C whereas the SHC starts high, drops to minimum around 35°C then increases again.

    (I always smirk slightly when I see people confidently quote the SHC for water to four significant figures without saying what temperature they're talking about. For most purposes 4.2 or 4.19 or 4.18 kJ/kg is plenty accurate enough and avoids potentially misleading excess accuracy.)

    For many purposes the volumetric heat capacity is more interesting. E.g., deciding whether to put water or gravel in your thermal store.
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2012
     
    Posted By: CleanEnergiesI see what you are saying Ed Davies, and am aware of the facts you outlined above albeit not in as much detail as you have provided.:bigsmile:" alt=":bigsmile:" src="http:///forum114/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/bigsmile.gif" >

    When I said; 'so I always presumed it was because the weight COULD remain a constant' I was implying and presuming as stated, that if we are talking about a mass of water in a vessel (sealed for e.g) as the temperature rises the volume will increase (taken up by expansion vessel for example) whereas the weight would remain the same (weight decreases but volume increases?) so a kg of water would be greater than 1 litre but the overall weight of the mass in question (within the sealed vessel) would remain the same?

    Or am I wrong (and perfectly happy to accept that) and the mass in question would physically weigh less than the same mass at a lower temperature in such test conditions?

    I am interested to hear the answer as you say, normally you have to apply some kind of benchmark to work off, particularly in my line of work were the effects are negligible in reality.

    Thanks, Sam
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2012 edited
     
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2012
     
    First of all, there's no point in involving weight in this discussion at all. Apart from stopping water floating out of a vented system and very slightly compressing nearly-incompressible water it makes no difference at all. We might as well just think about masses (measured in kg) and ignore weight (measured in newtons, it's a force).

    A fixed mass of water, say 1 kg, will always have the same weight in a fixed gravitational field. E.g., on Earth near the equator it'll have a weight of about 9.78 newtons whereas near the poles it'll weigh about 9.832 N. Heating it up will increase its volume (hence reduce its density) but will not affect its weight.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Latitude

    Secondly we have to be consistent about what we're keeping constant. We can think about a fixed mass of water. For example, we can think about the water in the tank to start off with. As we warm it (above 4°C) it expands (volume increases and density decreases) and some of it flows out into the expansion vessel. If we consider the water that's flowed out to still be in the game then we're thinking about a fixed mass.

    On the other hand, if we only ever consider the water in the vessel so that which has flowed out into the expansion vessel has retired from the game then we're considering a fixed volume. In that case, warming the water reduces not just the density but also the mass (and, incidentally, the weight even if the gravitational field has remained constant in the mean time).

    Whatever, we're agreed that the specific heat capacity (i.e., the heat capacity per unit mass) varies over the temperature range. CleanEnergies' original comment (first quote in my posts above) sort of speculates that maybe it's the volumetric heat capacity that remains constant. I tried to show qualitatively that this couldn't be right (because density and specific heat capacity have different minimum points) so let's try it quantitatively. From:

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html

    at 20°C water has a specific heat capacity of 4.183 kJ/(kg·K) and density of 998.3 kg/m³. Therefore it has a volumetric heat capacity of the product of these values: 4175.8889 kJ/m³ (4.175'888'9 kJ/litre).

    At 80°C the SHC is 4.203 kJ/(kg·K) and density 972 kg/m³ so the volumetric heat capacity is 4085.316 kJ/m³ (4.085'316 kJ/l).

    So, nope, the change in specific heat capacity with temperature is not just “compensation” for a fixed volumetric heat capacity as the density changes.
    • CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: Ed DaviesAs we warm it (above 4°C) it expands (volume increases and density decreases) and some of it flows out into the expansion vessel. If we consider the water that's flowed out to still be in the game then we're thinking about a fixed mass.

    Don't forget the water that's evaporated :bigsmile: :devil:
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2012
     
    Posted By: CWattersWater is strange stuff..
    http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/explan4.html" >http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/explan4.html
    doesn't mention that water actually gets denser (a sample shrinks in volume) as its temp rises to 4C (the 'anomaly point'); above 4C it gets less dense (expands)with increasing temp, like 'normal' substances.

    Plus lots more on the wacky side, which I won't mention just now - except ... Schauberger!
  1.  
    Hi,

    Actually water is fantastic stuff, apart from drinking it, you would have to specify a designer fluid to what it does for us.

    Thats my take on it, mind you only drink it in beer format - tastes better.

    Cheers, Mike up North
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeApr 21st 2012 edited
     
    Is the specific heat capacity of the water greater at the bottom or the top of my thermal store :-)
    •  
      CommentAuthorJSHarris
    • CommentTimeApr 21st 2012
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: CWatters</cite>Is the specific heat capacity of the water greater at the bottom or the top of my thermal store :-)</blockquote>

    And does it really matter?

    Given the wide variation in heating demand we have to deal with, due to factors like unusually warm or cold seasons, there's no merit in getting overly precise with heating or energy storage calculations . I'd argue that getting within 10% is plenty good enough for thermal storage calculations.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeApr 21st 2012
     
    Funny you should mention that Jeremy, just been doing some stats to explain 'degrees of freedom'. It is where the 10% is located that makes a difference. At the lower temperature/energy bins it makes little difference, at the higher ones it makes a lot. But guess that is why we use STP as the baseline and work from there.
    We can blame Newton for this.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeApr 21st 2012
     
    Mike, you got it in one: it's specific GRAVITY that's important. :thumbup:
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeApr 21st 2012
     
    Posted By: JSHarris
    Posted By: CWattersIs the specific heat capacity of the water greater at the bottom or the top of my thermal store :-)


    And does it really matter?

    Given the wide variation in heating demand we have to deal with, due to factors like unusually warm or cold seasons, there's no merit in getting overly precise with heating or energy storage calculations . I'd argue that getting within 10% is plenty good enough for thermal storage calculations.


    Exactly.
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press