S
Sylvia Else
Guest
On 08-Nov-22 12:43 am, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
In any case, it\'s definitely proportional to time.
One could take this to an extreme and provide so little power that by
the time the kettle reaches half-way to boiling, its losing all the
input power to the surroundings. The water will then never boil no
matter how long one waits.
Sylvia.
On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 8:48:13 PM UTC+11, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2022-11-07 10:00, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 07-Nov-22 8:47 am, David Wade wrote:
On 06/11/2022 20:55, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2022 20:23:04 -0000, Mark Lloyd <not....@all.invalid> wrote:
On 11/6/22 09:06, Commander Kinsey wrote:
[snip]
The thing is, the rate of heat loss is proportional to the temperature. \\
Not always.
Heat loss by conduction is proportional to the temperature difference.
Heat loss by natural convection is proportional to the temperature difference squared, and the rate goes up quite a bit when the convection currents become turbulent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_number
Heat loss by radiation rises as the fourth power of the absolute temperature of the radiator, which is even worse.
In any case, it\'s definitely proportional to time.
One could take this to an extreme and provide so little power that by
the time the kettle reaches half-way to boiling, its losing all the
input power to the surroundings. The water will then never boil no
matter how long one waits.
Sylvia.