12.07.2015 Views

Page 1 PROBLEM 3.1 KNOWN: One-dimensional, plane wall ...

Page 1 PROBLEM 3.1 KNOWN: One-dimensional, plane wall ...

Page 1 PROBLEM 3.1 KNOWN: One-dimensional, plane wall ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>PROBLEM</strong> 3.6 (Cont.)If conduction, radiation, or conduction and radiation are neglected, the corresponding values of h and thepercentage errors are 18.5 W/m 2 ⋅K (27.6%), 16 W/m 2 ⋅K (10.3%), and 20 W/m 2 ⋅K (37.9%).(c) For a fixed value of T s = 27°C, the conduction loss remains at q′′ cond = 8 W/m 2 , which is also thefixed difference between P′′ elec and q′′ conv . Although this difference is not clearly shown in the plot for10 ≤ h ≤ 1000 W/m 2 ⋅K, it is revealed in the subplot for 10 ≤ 100 W/m 2 ⋅K.2000200Power dissipation, P''elec(W/m^2)1600120080040000 200 400 600 800 1000Power dissipation, P''elec(W/m^2)160120804000 20 40 60 80 100Convection coefficient, h(W/m^2.K)Convection coefficient, h(W/m^2.K)No conductionWith conductionNo conductionWith conductionErrors associated with neglecting conduction decrease with increasing h from values which aresignificant for small h (h < 100 W/m 2 ⋅K) to values which are negligible for large h.COMMENTS: In liquids (large h), it is an excellent approximation to neglect conduction and assumethat all of the dissipated power is transferred to the fluid.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!