Talk:Volumetric heat capacity
|WikiProject Physics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Chemistry||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Fluids in the range 1.3 to 1.9MJ/kg.K?
That is clearly wrong as water is 4.2kJ/kg.K and about 1000kg/m^3 giving about 4.2MJ/m^3.K and water is a fluid. --njh 03:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The figures for the quantity variation seem wrong
Just like the discrepancy noted above for liquids, the range for solids and the claim that it's a constant 1 kj/m^3.K would need references. In fact, I hope someone could add a table with various materials' volumetric heat capacity, or extend the table in Specific heat capacity --188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
for contant pressure or volume?
Thermal inertia - mechanics analogy
According to this article an analogy between heat transfer and mechanics is implied as follows:
- Thermal inertia = mass
- Rate of change in temperature = acceleration
- Heat transfer = applied force
Now if this is the case I can understand why heat capacity and density would be positively proportional to the root of the thermal inertia in the given equation ( I=sqrt(kρc) ) but thermal conductivity should be negatively/inversely correlated/proportional as a material with a high thermal conductivity undergoes a quicker change in temperature than one with a lower thermal conductivity (i.e. an insulator).
Therefore I would suspect that either the explanation/implication or the equation given here are incorrect or maybe there is something lacking in my understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The article does not actually say that dT/dt = acceleration or that heat transfer = force applied.
Analogies like any other heuristic tool is not the place to search for fundamental understanding. However the explanation provided of the analogy might be causing more confusion than clarity. The explanation says high heat capacity would result in a longer time to reach equilibrium, but that isn't necessarily the case. It does mean more heat needs to be transfered for a similar change in temperature as compared to something with a lower heat capacity, but unless the remainder of the system with which it is to attain equilibrium has much greater thermal mass, the result could just be less change in temperature. Thermal conductivity and of course shape (surface area to volume and maximum depth from a surface) have much more influence on time to equilibrium for systems where the substance and that with which it is to reach equillibrium are of similar thermal mass. Comparisons otherwise are not considering equivalent amounts of heat transfered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGriffin (talk • contribs) 05:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
|List of VHC
- There's [list] that's linked from this page. You could ad to that. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This page is counterproductive: It should be folded into Heat Capacity.....
Volumetric concerns are so tightly coupled to what is covered in Heat Capacity that I find it a little confusing to have an additional wikipedia entry dedicated to it. Having it stand alone like this requires a duplication of information in order to have it make any relative sense to Heat Capacity in general. I suggest we terse this down and subsume it back to Heat Capacity.Tgm1024 (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)