3

I'm not a physicist but I majored it at high school (a long time ago) and I study university math.

Me and my roommate discussed whether the performance of a Thermos bottle is influenced by how full it is. So if it is not full do the contents cool down faster, slower or equally?

Thanks.

Dilaton
  • 9,503
htd
  • 133

2 Answers2

5

I don't have a thermos flask to hand, otherwise I'd do the experiment (the only sure way to answer :-). In the absence of experimental data I'd guess that the half full flask will cool faster.

The heat flow will be roughly proportional to the temperature difference between the inside of the flask and the ambient temperature outside. The constant of proportionality is the heat transfer coefficient.

Whether the flask is full or half full won't make a lot of difference to the internal temperature because heat circulation inside the flask will be fast. This is because liquids have a high thermal conductivity, plus you get convection in both the liquid and the gas above it. Evaporation/condensation at the gas-liquid interface will also keep the liquid and gas at similar temperatures.

So the full flask and half full flask will lose heat at the same rate because the interior of the flask is at the same temperature. However the half full flask has only half the specific heat, so for a given heat flow it will reduce temperature twice as fast.

This argument is quite general and would apply to any container as long as the heat flow was slow enough that the interior liquid/gas temperature remained even. At high heat flows the gas above the liquid will cool faster than the liquid because heat transfer is slower in the gas. This complicates the analysis, though I think the half full flask would still cool faster.

John Rennie
  • 355,118
3

I am not a physicist either.

As I understand it, heat can be lost by conduction, by convection and by radiation, The purpose of the bottle is to reduce all three.

If you half the amount of liquid, the question is whether you also half the loss of heat, or do more or less.

Analysis is difficult because the weak part of the bottle is the cork. If it is full, there is hot liquid near the cork that looses heat faster, and then gets conduction and convection heat fron the rest. There is also a lesser problem with the bottom, since it is an additional surface where heat can be lost.

When the bottle is half full, the liquid is further away from the cork. But the air inside will conduct some of the heat (conduction, and convection) to the empty part of the bottle, and radiation may internally add some. If the empty part became as hot as the liquid, the heat loss would be the same as before, for a lesser mass of liquid. hence it would cool faster,

If it does not get as hot, it means that some heat is lost to keep it cooler. If the bottle were homogenous (no cork effect, no bottom effect), that would mean that, in addition to its normal heat loss through the side, the remaining liquid has to provide for the heat loss in the empty space above it. Hence it cools down faster.

The bottom is a disadvantage for the half full bottle, since its loss is the same in both case, and thus contributes comparatively more to cooling when the liquid mass is lower.

Now, I would need more data and/ or knowledge to analyse the effect of the cork. With a very conducting cork, the full bottle would loose heat quickly (assuming the liquid touches it) through convection and conduction in the liquid. With a totally insulating cork, it would at worse balance the effect of the bottom of the bottle, so that the analysis without cork or bottom would be valid.

So with a reasonnably good cork, my conclusion is that a half full bottle will cool faster.

babou
  • 3,798
  • Since you added the license bit (which maybe is in conflict with the usage of this site, but forget about that), I'll take the opportunity to ask you something. "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." Why don't people using such a license actually specify the manner then? – Řídící Jun 26 '13 at 15:47
  • @Gugg Actually, I think "manner" refers to the wording of the attribution. I do not believe that constraints on the means would be in the spirit of the license (see section 4c of the full license text). But if you are really interested, I can ask for confirmation from the horse's mouth. The license bit is not a whim. - By the way, could you tell me what's wrong with my answer ? I thought it more precise and more general, without unneeded hypothesis. – babou Jun 26 '13 at 17:04
  • Well, I am sort of interested, because I had to deal with it with pictures taken from Wikipedia and cartoons. And I don't think it is clear what "the manner specified" and the sentence surrounding it imply if no manner is specified. 2) I don't know enough to have an opinion on your answer.
  • – Řídící Jun 26 '13 at 17:28
  • @Gugg Must run, and this is not the place to discuss this sort of issue. You can write to me at the following address: babou-at-inbox.com. – babou Jun 26 '13 at 17:54
  • 2
    That license is at best redundant, at worst wrongly asserting ownership, cf. the terms of service: "You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange..." –  Jun 26 '13 at 18:21
  • 2
    Any content posted on SE 2.0 is CC-BY-SA, attributed to you (so anyone quoting it must mention your username, et cetera). However, it is licensed to SE, which means that they reserve the right to delete or modify this content (and other rights). – Manishearth Jun 26 '13 at 18:24
  • @ChrisWhite This is exactly as you say. The content that I contribute "is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under a CC BY-SA licence". That is precisely what my licence bit says. It is also licenced to all others who are interested and who have a copy of the document, because that is what CC BY-SA means. So I do not see what is wrong. What do you mean by "wrongly asserting ownership" ? The owner is the only person who can license. Can you explain the problem that you see, and why you are concerned with it ? - – babou Jun 26 '13 at 23:19
  • @Manishearth I am sorry. I think I do not understand what you are saying. Is my comment above making things clearer for you.
          • BTW Could someone tell me what is wrong with my answer, apart from

    the fact that I am not a physicist.

    – babou Jun 26 '13 at 23:24
  • @babou There is no problem, except that the license is redundant. In short, the content is pretty much owned by SE (or licensed to SE), and they control what happens to it. However, if anyone wants to use it, they must attribute you, under CC-BY-SA. – Manishearth Jun 26 '13 at 23:27
  • @Manishearth I think you miss a fine point of CC licenses in general: there is no privileged licensee. No one controls anything. What is there to be controled anyway ? This license does allow derived works. However, the license is not redundant. By making it part of the document, I make sure that it cannot be removed and will hence be better respected. - - - - I really would love to know what is wrong with my answer. Is there a physicist in the room ? – babou Jun 26 '13 at 23:49
  • @babou By "controls", I mean that SE could delete this post (or stop you from deleting it) and it would be within its rights to do so. Why do you think something is wrong with the answer? (Also, about to sleep now, probably will reply tomorrow) – Manishearth Jun 26 '13 at 23:57
  • @Manishearth Regarding my answer, I was only wondering what might justify that a precise analysis and proof would get less votes (actually none) than an incomplete argument with unneeded hypothesis and ignoring the only delicate part of the problem. Actually the slowness the heat flow does not matter, and the properties of gaz matter only for the bottle cap. The difference in answers is mostly the difference between an engineering answer and a scientific answer. Now, what does it mean regarding a site called physics rather than physical engineering. – babou Jun 27 '13 at 22:34
  • @babou Not really sure (stuff like this happens often -- one answer gets an upvote and the voter doesn't have time to read the second answer and the sorting order then makes it get more). Looks OK to me, though I wouldn't have really analysed the cork myself. I personally don't see how the other answer is more "engineering". While it's true that you have discussed most of the nuances, skipping negligible things does not make a post "engineering-y". – Manishearth Jun 27 '13 at 22:55
  • @Manishearth (5 comments up) for future reference, the content is licensed to SE but not owned by SE. – David Z Jul 05 '13 at 19:26
  • @DavidZaslavsky Oh right, I keep making that mistake :S – Manishearth Jul 05 '13 at 20:03