1
$\begingroup$

My problem: A thin-walled tube (length $L$, diameter $D$ and wall thickness $t \ll D$) is in a vacuum. It is held on one end (at $x=0$) by a heat source at constant temperature $T(0)=T_0$. The only way it can dissipates heat is radiatively. I am assuming emission only occurs from the outer surface of the tube. The conductivity of the tube is $k$ in $[W/mK]$ and the emissivity $\epsilon$. What is the equilibrium temperature profile $T(x)$ in the tube? (a numerical approximation will do).

My attempt:

In a steady state, \begin{equation} Q_{in} = Q_{out} \end{equation}

From Fourier's law of thermal conduction, the heat entering through the end section is \begin{equation} Q_{in} = -k \frac{dT}{dx}\Big|_{x=0} \times \pi Dt \end{equation}

From the Stefan-Boltzmann law of Black-body radiation, the heat dissipated through the outer surface of the tube is given by \begin{equation} Q_{out} = \int_0^L \epsilon \sigma T^4 \mathrm{d}x \times \pi D \end{equation}

Equating the two, the problem becomes \begin{equation} -\frac{kt}{\epsilon \sigma} \frac{dT}{dx}\Big|_{x=0} = \int_0^L T^4 \mathrm{d}x,\ \ \ T(0) = T_0 \end{equation}

Trying to solve this in Mathematica is hopeless. Am I doing something wrong? How can I find a local differential form of the equation? Can I simplify it further?

Thanks for your help.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

You need to do a differential heat balance on a small segment of the tube between x and x + $\Delta x$.

Heat in at x = $-\pi Dtk\left(\frac{\partial T}{\partial x}\right)_x$

Heat in at x + $\Delta x$ = $+\pi Dtk\left(\frac{\partial T}{\partial x}\right)_{x+\Delta x}$

Heat lost due to radiation = $\pi D\Delta x\epsilon \sigma T^4$

Heat balance equation:$$+\pi Dtk\left(\frac{\partial T}{\partial x}\right)_{x+\Delta x}-\pi Dtk\left(\frac{\partial T}{\partial x}\right)_x=\pi D\Delta x\epsilon \sigma T^4$$

Dividing by $\Delta x$ and taking the limit as $\Delta x$ approaches zero gives: $$kt\frac{\partial^2T}{\partial x^2}=\epsilon \sigma T^4$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Which in effect is just differentiating the original equation and being more careful with signs? $\endgroup$ – Farcher Mar 8 '16 at 17:00
  • $\begingroup$ Exact forms for the solution to this equation probably don't exist, but for physical intuition, this will be equivalent to a particle moving under the influence of a potential $U(x) \propto -x^5$. $\endgroup$ – Michael Seifert Mar 8 '16 at 17:22
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks @Farcher . I edited the words heat out to read heat in at x + $\Delta x$. I believe this was the only sign issue. I stand by the rest of the signs in the equations. $\endgroup$ – Chet Miller Mar 8 '16 at 18:17
  • $\begingroup$ @ChesterMiller In no way was I criticising your derivation. All I was pointing out was the original derivation has a sign difference from yours. $\endgroup$ – Farcher Mar 8 '16 at 18:31
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelSeifert my intuition seems to be a bit rusty, can you explain that a little more (how a particle's trajecory in U(x) = -ax^5 potential is equivalent to the solution?) Thanks $\endgroup$ – uhoh Mar 8 '16 at 18:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.