tank fire

>>8277107
Depends on how well the tank radiates heat. If its a perfect insulator then there is no limit on how hot it can get inside

>>8277129

For this experiment the tank is a perfect insulator.


So even though the heat of the flame will stay at 1000 degrees the heat in the tank can rise above that?

>>8277169
Yes of course. The heat will never stop rising

>>8277194
It will until it consumes the insulation cap
>inb4 inb4

A water filled tank that has a opening will not get hotter than 100C° until the water has evapurated

so a tank filled with liquid air will not get hotter than -196C° until the air has "evaporated"
(based on nitrogen -269C° if we count helium)

>>8277107

It will not. You could model it as a convection system which is

Heat flux = Convection constant x (Temperature air (fire) - Temperature of tank)

Heat flux is basically the measure of how much thermal energy is transferred of a certain area. Think of Joules/m^2, BTU/hr, etc. Since the rate of heat flux is dependent of temperature difference, it can only approach 1000 degrees.

Now, this is just a very simple system. If you had infrared sources of energy (think of the sun, heat lamp, or center of a fire) and the absorption/emissivity properties of the tank material are such it wants to absorb infrared energy and not release energy, then you could theoretically do it.

Fire does not have a single temperature. Fire converts chemical energy to heat energy. Heat energy and temperature are not the same thing.

If you forget the fire part and just say the tank is surrounded by gas at 1000 degrees, then eventually the temperature of the system will equilibrate and if there is a lot of gas compared to the volume of the tank then the equilibrium temperature will be very close to 1000 degrees.

>>8277107
This whole fucking thread...
You know people pretty much throw out thermodynamics and heat transfer books right? You hardly pay anything if you know where to look.
Or just read Wikipedia! Heat transfer basics are not rocket science!

>>8277107
implying you mean the hottest part of the fire reads 1000C, no, there is no way for the tank to go beyond that.
if the inside is perfectly insulated then it will never get hot in the first place, if the whole system is insulted there is no way to keep the fire at constant 1000C

It depends on what exactly you mean.

If the fire is an isothermal heat source, controlled by some kind of thermostat, then the tank won't rise above 1000C.

If it's actually a constant power source, with an adiabatic flame temperature of 1000C, then the tank will heat up until the thermal input balances the transfer of heat to the ambient air (or the pressure in the vessel causes a rupture).

>What is the second law of thermodynamics

why was cold war era food such shit
cookbooks from around the cold war are full of this shit

File: smallguysubtlereaction.webm (29KB, 128x150px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 128x150px

>>8277194

>>8278804
>>8278874
You guys are only thinking about heat transfer via convection and conduction (i.e. heat transfers follow temperature gradients).

A fire has irradiates heat as well (hence we can see the fire). Depending on other factors, it is possible for the tank to get hotter.

If you think irradiative sources don't matter, how hot do you think industrial cutting lasers get compared to the amount of energy they transfer onto their targets?

>>8281063
Other guy here. I understand that radiative heat transfer is an extremely important factor when it comes to fire, but I dont think it could heat up the tank to something over the temperatur of the fire

>>8277129
If it is a perfect insulator, the fire won't heat it up at all.

>>8281063
>You guys are only thinking about heat transfer via convection and conduction (i.e. heat transfers follow temperature gradients).
>A fire has irradiates heat as well (hence we can see the fire)
Radiation also follows heat gradients. Hot objects throw off more radiation than cold objects.

>Depending on other factors, it is possible for the tank to get hotter.
No, it isn't.

>If you think irradiative sources don't matter, how hot do you think industrial cutting lasers get compared to the amount of energy they transfer onto their targets?
Lasers don't work by conventional heat transfer.