What is the difference between adding heat and adding cold?

[dreimd]

EDIT: We are looking for someone to clear things up for us!

An engineer friend of mine and I are having a debate about heat vs cold. Basically I am saying you can't 'add cold' to a system you can only add or take away heat and for some reason he is disagreeing. Chat of Gchat/AIM

****: 'adding heat' or 'adding cold' are two ways of looking at the same exact thing
'temperature' is simply the vibration of atoms
whether or not you increase or decrease it is irrelevant

me: right but you can't really add cold
you can only take away heat

****: sure you can
its just another way of looking at it
'taking away heat' is the same thing as 'adding cold'

me: but what is atcually happneing
on the molecular level

me: you can keep adding heat to a system
you can't keeep adding cold

****: uhu
sure you can
ull just never hit absolute 0

me: so does heat have a theoritical limit

****: i don't know, heat turns to gama rays
or some ****

me: you can keep adding heat to a system

****: i don't know that

me: yeah well you can't get to abosulte zero. that's the limit. tehre is no heat limit

****: i guess you'll approach a level where it takes an infinaite amount of energy to increase the heat of osmething same way as you can't approach that, you can't approach abs
anyway i have a 200x003 to cool down, fortunately only to -54c

me: you mean, let the air around it heat up

me: adding cold is the retarded way of saying transfering heat away
which is what's actaully happening

****: right and vice versa
no bro

****: what's actually happening is what's actually happening
the way we choose to describe it
is a separate story

me: energy is passed from higher states to lower states

****: huh
no
if you're talking about electrons and valence leveels and **** that not heat
yu're talkikgn about atomic vibrations, simple

me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold

****: granted one causes the other

me: Cooling refers to the process of becoming cold, or lowering in temperature. This could be accomplished by removing heat from a system not 'adding cool'

****: Cold (the opposite of hot) refers to the condition or subjective perception of having low temperature; it is the absence of heat or warmth.
'subjective perception'
exactly
i couldn't have szidf it better myself

me: no the subjective part is what you consider cold vs what i consider cold

****: but 'cold' has as much of a reality as 'heat'
please
cold is 'negative haet'
'evil' is the absense of 'good' and 'good' is the absense of 'evil'
one thing, different descriptions, don't be dumb

 

[lennybogzy]

your friend sounds like a smart guy and a good philospher. The only thing I dissagree with is when he talks about valence levels and gamma rays. Heat doesn't 'TURN' to gamma rays, heat gives off gamma rays.

 

[dreimd]

your friend sounds like a smart guy and a good philospher

Note, this is the OP in the convo...

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with your engineer friend. You could analyze a system flipping all the energy transfers around and still come up with the same answers.

 

[dreimd]

I agree with your engineer friend. You could analyze a system flipping all the energy transfers around and still come up with the same answers.

Hey thanks for finally being the one to help us out with this one.

By the way, I went to your site and couldn't help but notice you looked familiar.

Then I remembered Link deleted too much info
Keep Gazin!

 

[Andy Resnick]

"adding cold" may be a useful mental conceit in some circumstances, but it's unphysical. It's like saying absorbing light is 'adding dark'.

 

[lennybogzy]

what is 'physical'? how is 'adding heat' any more physical? either way we're adding or subtracting energy. Heat or lack of heat is merely the effect.

What about current flow in electrical circuits? by your reasoning that is completetly unphysical too as it relies on the 'absense' of electrons (electron holes) rather than the electrons themselves.

 

[russ_watters]

Electricity is another good example of where the convention doesn't really matter. But let me give a real-world example that I see every day at work for the heating/cooling question from the OP. Consider the following statements:

A heater does 1080 BTU of heating.
An air conditioner does 1080 BTU of cooling.

Both statements contain a positive value of heat transfer, but the heat is actually flowing in opposite directions. In the first example, heat into (a house, airstream, whatever) is positive, in the second, "cold in" is positive. Mathematically, the first might look like this:

500 CFM of air rises from 70 to 90F. The thumb-rule conversion factor for CFM to BTU is 1.08 BTU/CFM*T
So 500*(90-70)*1.08 = 1080 BTU

For cooling, room temperature air is cooled from 75 to 55F. So 500*(75-55)*1.08 = 1080 BTU.

Perhaps a physicist would cringe at the fact that both are positive, but it works fine for an engineer.

 

[Andy Resnick]

what is 'physical'?

Seriously?

 

[Andy Resnick]

onsider the following statements:

A heater does 1080 BTU of heating.
An air conditioner does 1080 BTU of cooling.

I realize I am picking a nit here, but 'heating' and 'cooling' are processes, 'heat' is a quantity of energy.

 

[lennybogzy]

Seriously?

no, not seriously. you got me.

Andy my point is simply that heat transfer, via conduction convection or radiation is just as physical or 'real' as a concept such as 'cold transfer' in the opposite direction. It's a matter of perception.

 

[Mapes]

I realize I am picking a nit here, but 'heating' and 'cooling' are processes, 'heat' is a quantity of energy.

Seconding Andy here. In the context of physics (not necessarily everyday speech), "heat" and "cool" should really be restricted to verbs (cf. "Heat is not a noun," American Journal of Physics 69:2 (2001)). If we only speak of [thermal] energy, which can be added or removed from a system, then I think the confusion and debate largely disappears.

 

[lennybogzy]

Seconding Andy here. In the context of physics (not necessarily everyday speech), "heat" and "cool" should really be restricted to verbs (cf. "Heat is not a noun," American Journal of Physics 69:2 (2001)). If we only speak of [thermal] energy, which can be added or removed from a system, then I think the confusion and debate largely disappears.

well I second you, and you second Andy, which means I second Andy, but I DON'T second Andy so I don't think you second Andy.

The only "reality" is thermal energy. The only difference between the verbs 'cool' and 'heat' is the direction of energy transfer. None is more real than the other.

'heat' is a quantity of energy.

Seriously? The temperature of a body is the quantification of its energy. Hot or Cold are subjective perceptions.

Perhaps 'heat' is convention due to the fact that it increases with temperature and is hence positive. But it is certainly no more 'physical' than cold.

 

[RonL]

Electricity is another good example of where the convention doesn't really matter. But let me give a real-world example that I see every day at work for the heating/cooling question from the OP. Consider the following statements:

A heater does 1080 BTU of heating.
An air conditioner does 1080 BTU of cooling.

Both statements contain a positive value of heat transfer, but the heat is actually flowing in opposite directions. In the first example, heat into (a house, airstream, whatever) is positive, in the second, "cold in" is positive. Mathematically, the first might look like this:

500 CFM of air rises from 70 to 90F. The thumb-rule conversion factor for CFM to BTU is 1.08 BTU/CFM*T
So 500*(90-70)*1.08 = 1080 BTU

For cooling, room temperature air is cooled from 75 to 55F. So 500*(75-55)*1.08 = 1080 BTU.

Perhaps a physicist would cringe at the fact that both are positive, but it works fine for an engineer.

I'm glad to see this post from you, adding heat or cold is simply a play on words and any motion (no matter how small) produces an exact,equal change in both terms. So to me it becomes a simple matter of how it is said and either one should be correct.

I have made mention of multiple positives on many occasions and yet it seems no one can see the net affect that I have tried to imply. So until I see something better than "it's impossible because no one has ever been able to do it" I will continue to work my brain (such that it is).

I'm going to excuse myself from the forum for a while and maybe come back with a drawing or two at some point in the future.
Can you check into why my account does not allow an upload option.

Thanks Russ with all my respect.

Ron

 

[lennybogzy]

I'm glad to see this post from you, adding heat or cold is simply a play on words and any motion (no matter how small) produces an exact,equal change in both terms. So to me it becomes a simple matter of how it is said and either one should be correct.

I have made mention of multiple positives on many occasions and yet it seems no one can see the net affect that I have tried to imply. So until I see something better than "it's impossible because no one has ever been able to do it" I will continue to work my brain (such that it is).

I'm going to excuse myself from the forum for a while and maybe come back with a drawing or two at some point in the future.
Can you check into why my account does not allow an upload option.

Thanks Russ with all my respect.

Ron

ron, private message russ next time.

 

[dreimd]

Right I understand that on paper adding heat is like adding negative cold. But I am referring to what's actually happening on the physical level, in which case heat transfer can only happen from a warmer body to a colder one as energy is passed from one to the other. This is why I'm insisting you can't 'add cold' to a system, you can only add heat or let heat escape.

 

[lennybogzy]

Right I understand that on paper adding heat is like adding negative cold. But I am referring to what's actually happening on the physical level, in which case heat transfer can only happen from a warmer body to a colder one as energy is passed from one to the other. This is why I'm insisting you can't 'add cold' to a system, you can only add heat or let heat escape.

adding cold is subtracting heat. if you "add cold" to a system you are "subtracting heat"

 

[dreimd]

The only "reality" is thermal energy. The only difference between the verbs 'cool' and 'heat' is the direction of energy transfer. None is more real than the other.

In the physical world, heat transfer only happens in one direction. Always. From a hotter body to a colder body.

Seriously? The temperature of a body is the quantification of its energy. Hot or Cold are subjective perceptions.

Perhaps 'heat' is convention due to the fact that it increases with temperature and is hence positive. But it is certainly no more 'physical' than cold.

As far as I understand, heat is also a measure of energy. So any object can have a certain level of heat there is no such measurement for cool.

 

[lennybogzy]

In the physical world, heat transfer only happens in one direction. Always. From a hotter body to a colder body.

Matter of perception, dreimd. Thermal energy is exchanged yet the total energy of the system is conserved. (First law thermodynamics)
Therefore in a closed system where one hot body conducts its thermal energy to a cooler one, the cooler one gains as much energy as the hot one loses. The system is seeking equilibrium. Hence, it can be just as realistically stated that its actually the cold that’s conducted in the opposite direction. The cool one has actually "cooled down" the hot one.

As far as I understand, heat is also a measure of energy. So any object can have a certain level of heat there is no such measurement for cool.

The word "heat" is used synonymously with the word "energy". Heat, the way you mean it, isn’t a measure of temperature its simply an easy way to talk about temperature when we're dealing with systems. In the same way "cold" can just as easily be referred to as "negative heat".

The only reason we use the word heat when talking about energy is because it has the same sign, as opposed to cold. It's more convenient.

 

[pallidin]

Yeah I have to agree with the posters.
It is NOT possible to cool anything without removing heat.
As such, removing heat is the dominant factor and "adding cold" has no meaning in and of itself without removing heat.

 

[lennybogzy]

Yeah I have to agree with the posters.
It is NOT possible to cool anything without removing heat.
As such, removing heat is the dominant factor and "adding cold" has no meaning in and of itself without removing heat.

I completely agree. It is not possible to cool anything without removing heat. It is also not possible to heat anything without 'removing cool'. Yes, I'm aware of how that sounds, and I know it's not convention but it has just as much of a place in the physical world as anything else.

The problem is you're using heat as a name for thermal energy and it simply is not. Heat is a verb in our context, not a noun.

As a system approaches equalibrium there is an exchange of energy and neither 'heating' nor 'cooling' is the dominant physical process. Both are nothing but generic names for the direction of energy transfer.

 

[pallidin]

As a system approaches equalibrium there is an exchange of energy and neither 'heating' nor 'cooling' is the dominant physical process. Both are nothing but generic names for the direction of energy transfer.

A thermal state change requires direct and specific alterations in that thermal environment.
Remember, if you will, that even 1 degree above zero-degree kelvin can be considered "hot"

 

[lennybogzy]

A thermal state change requires direct and specific alterations in that thermal environment.
Remember, if you will, that even 1 degree above zero-degree kelvin can be considered "hot"

direct and specific alterations. Such as a bombardment of an atom with photons to "cool" it from the blisteringly hot temperature of 1K.

And of course it can considered hot. Hot or cold are simply subjective perceptions of temperature which is the real measruement of energy.

 

[DaveC426913]

direct and specific alterations. Such as a bombardment of an atom with photons to "cool" it from the blisteringly hot temperature of 1K.

I find it amusing that you put 'cool' in quotes. You won't admit it but you did it because you know it is a nisnomer.

Anyway...

In many circumstances one can consider heat and cold as opposites. It is a useful way of dealing with them.

But the devil is in the details. The reason there is a lower limit to temperature and not an upper limit is because heat and cold are not opposites. If it were, 0K could be considered "an infinite amount of cold". It isn't. You cannot "continue to add an arbitrary amount of cold" to a substance at 0K.

You cannot "add an arbitrary amount of cold" to an evacuated volume of space. Empty space (empty of heat) is empty; it is not filled with an infinite number of "coldons".

There are many cases where the heat/cold thing can be shown to be asymmetrical, those are just two.


In a nutshell: you and your friend have to decide in what context you are speaking. As an HVAC consultant, your friend is perfectly fine talking about heat versus cold. But if you and your frind want to get into the details, it really is asymmetical - there really is only heat.

The analogy to "light being the opposite of darkness" is perfectly apt.

 

[lennybogzy]

You cannot "add an arbitrary amount of cold" to an evacuated volume of space. Empty space (empty of heat) is empty; it is not filled with an infinite number of "coldons".

I'm a little confused as to how you can "add an arbitrary amount of heat" to an evacuated volume of space

[/I] - there really is only heat.

there really is only thermal energy. Heating or cooling are terms for addition or subtaction of this energy.

 

[alphawolf50]

I'm a little confused as to how you can "add an arbitrary amount of heat" to an evacuated volume of space

Simple, you add any amount of particles that are above 0K, and you've added an arbitrary amount of thermal energy to the space. On the other hand, if you fill that space with particles at 0K, it has the same thermal energy as it did before.

there really is only thermal energy. Heating or cooling are terms for addition or subtaction of this energy.

"Heat" is a noun synonymous with thermal energy. "Heat" is also a verb relating to the transfer of heat. Using one definition of a word in an earlier context does not preclude the use of another of its valid definitions in a later context, as you seem to be implying. However, I would agree with avoiding the use of "heat" as a noun as a matter of convention for the purpose of avoiding ambiguity.

Anyway, I agree with DaveC. To "add" the absence of something is meaningless. As thermal energy is expressed as a magnitude, negative thermal energies do not exist. Cold is the relative absence of thermal energy, the coldest being 0 magnitude -- and you can add 0 to any quantity all day and achieve nothing. The flow of thermal energy can be expressed as a vector, wherein negative values would be allowed -- but the minus sign indicates direction, not magnitude. Thus, "cooling" (negative vector) is meaningful, but "adding cold" (+0) is not. Since "heat" is synonymous with "thermal energy" in the English language, "adding heat" remains meaningful.

 

[lennybogzy]

To "add" the absence of something is meaningless. .

what about electrical current which relies on the abesence of electrons. is it unconceptual and meaningless?

if we call heat thermal energy then I agree - but I believe this is a misconception.

"In re-defining "heat" to refer to an energy concept, modern science creates an unnecessarily awkward and confusing presentation of thermal physics." [http://www.girep.org/proceedings/conference2004/Friedrich_Herrmann_-_Entropy_from_the_Beginning.pdf]

 

[DaveC426913]

what about electrical current which relies on the abesence of electrons. is it unconceptual and meaningless?

Electrical current can only be seen as the absence of electrons in the contrived context of a charged-yet-neutral medium of positive and negative charges (such as a copper wire).

i.e. an absense of electrons in an evacuated volume of space does not constitute a presence of an infinite number of "positive holes". An isolated electron is source of negative charge. The isolated "absense of an electron" is simply no charge at all.

There is no such default place by which "heat and cold" can be considered equal imbalances. The default state is 0K. The only deviation is to add heat.


P.S. I am proud of you lenny.

 

[lennybogzy]

Electrical current can only be seen as the absence of electrons in the contrived context of a charged-yet-neutral medium of positive and negative charges (such as a copper wire).

i.e. an absense of electrons in an evacuated volume of space does not constitute a presence of an infinite number of "positive holes". An isolated electron is source of negative charge. The isolated "absense of an electron" is simply no charge at all.

There is no such default place by which "heat and cold" can be considered equal imbalances. The default state is 0K. The only deviation is to add heat.


P.S. I am proud of you lenny.

Thanks Dave, I'm proud of me too.

I think we have confusion regarding the definition of the word heat. I insist that heat, when treated as a noun, does not refer to thermal energy but rather the subjective assesment of temperature. Therefore I propose that we only deal with heating and cooling as verbs. If you insist that heat is the exact same thing as thermal energy we can not even agree on the ground rules to even have a conversation.

As far as the contrived context for electrical flow, there is an equal contrived context for thermal exchange, atomic structure. As soon as that medium appears it can have energy added or subtracted from it. Heating and cooling are both physical actions on a system with equal place in thermodynamic discussions.

 

[dreimd]

I think we have confusion regarding the definition of the word heat.

No actually it's just you.

I insist that heat, when treated as a noun, does not refer to thermal energy.

No the agreed upon definition in physics is that heat is thermal energy.

but rather the subjective assesment of temperature.

No that's temperature.

Therefore I propose that we only deal with heating and cooling as verbs.

No you can't purpose we drop this accepted meaning because you were unaware of it.

If you insist that heat is the exact same thing as thermal energy

No we don't insist, we are just using the agreed upon definition.

we can not even agree on the ground rules to even have a conversation.

No this whole conversation was about you defending your misunderstanding and demanding people take your view.

I think we can wrap things up here now.

 

[DaveC426913]

Also:

...there is an equal contrived context for thermal exchange, atomic structure. As soon as that medium appears it can have energy added or subtracted from it. Heating and cooling are both physical actions on a system with equal place in thermodynamic discussions.

Heat exists quite happily independent of atomic structure. Heat radiates through a vacuum, no contrived context needed.

 

[lennybogzy]

No the agreed upon definition in physics is that heat is thermal energy.

debatable, please see the multiple links I’ve posted illustrating that this is layman’s definition

No that's temperature.

no 'hot' temperature or 'cold' temperature is the subjective interpretation of temperature

No we don't insist, we are just using the agreed upon definition.

who is 'we'? you and dave? the definition is debatable and you can find many sources stating that heat should not be equated to thermal energy. What’s more the conversation started off with both of us assuming heat was not a thermal energy but a process. If that’s the case it’s equivalent in every sense with cold as a process.

No this whole conversation was about you defending your misunderstanding and demanding people take your view.

This conversation was about getting at the truth. The more we debate preexisting notions the closer we get to the truth.

I think we can wrap things up here now.

by all means, we can wrap things up any time. If you have any more questions please feel free to PM me.

 

[lennybogzy]

Also:

Heat exists quite happily independent of atomic structure. Heat radiates through a vacuum, no contrived context needed.

come on, Dave. Heat emmits radiation, heat is not radiation. (assuming heat is thermal energy)

I'm not proud of you.

 

[D H]

Heat emmits radiation, heat is not radiation. (assuming heat is thermal energy)

Bad assumption, lenny. Heat is not thermal energy. Thermal energy is a state variable. Objects do not contain heat, anymore than they contain work. That objects contain heat is the essence of the discarded caloric theory of heat. Objects do contain thermal energy, measured by temperature. Heating, like work, is a process. That objects do not contain heat is easily shown by taking a system from some initial state to a final state. The heat transfer, along with the amount of work performed, during the transition, is path dependent.

 

[lennybogzy]

Bad assumption, lenny. Heat is not thermal energy. Thermal energy is a state variable. Objects do not contain heat, anymore than they contain work. That objects contain heat is the essence of the discarded caloric theory of heat. Objects do contain thermal energy, measured by temperature. Heating, like work, is a process. That objects do not contain heat is easily shown by taking a system from some initial state to a final state. The heat transfer, along with the amount of work performed, during the transition, is path dependent.

I agree full heartedly D H. Heat is not thermal energy. Heat is a process, a verb, a shift of energy. Thank you for correcting me, you are 100% right.