Is system boundary part of the system or the environment or neither?
$begingroup$
The book says:
As an example, imagine a force applied to an object in empty space. We can define the object as the system and its surface as the system boundary.
Okay, if the surface of that object gained some energy, is the system who gained? or the environment or neither?
classical-mechanics energy
asked Nov 23 '18 at 13:46
MasonMason
6318
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The book says:
As an example, imagine a force applied to an object in empty space. We can define the object as the system and its surface as the system boundary.
Okay, if the surface of that object gained some energy, is the system who gained? or the environment or neither?
classical-mechanics energy
asked Nov 23 '18 at 13:46
MasonMason
6318
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Which book says?
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
Nov 23 '18 at 18:34
$begingroup$
@Qmechanic Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics - Serway and Jewett - Ninth edition - Page 178
$endgroup$
– Mason
Nov 23 '18 at 23:30
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The book says:
As an example, imagine a force applied to an object in empty space. We can define the object as the system and its surface as the system boundary.
Okay, if the surface of that object gained some energy, is the system who gained? or the environment or neither?
classical-mechanics energy
asked Nov 23 '18 at 13:46
MasonMason
6318
$endgroup$
The book says:
As an example, imagine a force applied to an object in empty space. We can define the object as the system and its surface as the system boundary.
Okay, if the surface of that object gained some energy, is the system who gained? or the environment or neither?
classical-mechanics energy
classical-mechanics energy
asked Nov 23 '18 at 13:46
MasonMason
6318
asked Nov 23 '18 at 13:46
MasonMason
6318
asked Nov 23 '18 at 13:46
MasonMason
6318
asked Nov 23 '18 at 13:46
MasonMason
6318
asked Nov 23 '18 at 13:46
MasonMason
6318
6318
$begingroup$
Which book says?
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
Nov 23 '18 at 18:34
$begingroup$
@Qmechanic Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics - Serway and Jewett - Ninth edition - Page 178
$endgroup$
– Mason
Nov 23 '18 at 23:30
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Which book says?
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
Nov 23 '18 at 18:34
$begingroup$
@Qmechanic Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics - Serway and Jewett - Ninth edition - Page 178
$endgroup$
– Mason
Nov 23 '18 at 23:30
$begingroup$
Which book says?
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
Nov 23 '18 at 18:34
$begingroup$
Which book says?
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
Nov 23 '18 at 18:34
$begingroup$
@Qmechanic Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics - Serway and Jewett - Ninth edition - Page 178
$endgroup$
– Mason
Nov 23 '18 at 23:30
$begingroup$
@Qmechanic Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics - Serway and Jewett - Ninth edition - Page 178
$endgroup$
– Mason
Nov 23 '18 at 23:30
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Often it does not matter, because surface is so thin its energy is negligible. For example, gas in a thin walled metal cylinder has energy that is orders of magnitude higher than energy of the metal cylinder.
In case energy of the surface is important, one has to decide if it counts towards the system, or the environment, or if one wants to count it separately. There is no hard rule, one can choose. For example, surface tension energy of liquid droplets is usually counted as part of energy of the liquid. But if one wants, one can count the surface layer as a separate body and its energy as separate quantity, or one can count the surface layer as part of the environment and its energy as part of environment's energy.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 14:49
Ján LalinskýJán Lalinský
15.8k1439
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Okay, if the surface of that object gained some energy, is the system who gained? or the environment or neither?
When applying these concepts in thermodynamics, generally speaking the boundary between a system and its surroundings provides the mechanism for transferring work and/or heat between the system and its surroundings. So for that purpose you can think of the surface as separate entity, but it is simply a geometrical concept to differentiate your object (the system) from its surroundings (you and everything else not part of the object) and to facilitate the exchange of energy between the system and its environment.
For example, suppose your object (the system) is a sponge ball. So in this case the boundary of your system (geometric surface of the ball) is able to expand or contract. That allows for the possibility of work transfer. An example would be you squeezing the sponge ball. You are the surroundings for the system (sponge ball). You, the surroundings, do work on the sponge ball increasing its internal energy (perhaps its temperature rises if you squeeze it vigorously enough).
For this example, the environment (you) lost energy and the system (sponge ball including its surface) gained the energy, and the boundary (surface of the sponge ball) facilitated the transfer.
Hope this helps.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 15:20
Bob DBob D
4,7252318
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The most fitting answer would be that it belongs to neither the system nor the environment. As used in sentences like the one you cite, it is a mathematical abstraction representing an endlessly thin 2D object. The physical properties of a mechanical system (and its environment) are defined for 3D objects, made up of particles. So, when using this meaning, it is impossible for the surface to gain energy, or "do" something else that the system would do. It is an imaginary mathematical concept, not an object in the real world.
This does not contradict Ján Lalinskýs answer, which tells you you can decide on your own if it belongs to the system or the environment. In that answer, the definition of the surface is somewhat different - for that, you pick a very thin (but still 3D) part of the world where the system and the environment meet, and call it "the surface (layer)". But from the language in your book, it is very likely it talks about the other, abstract meaning of "surface".
answered Nov 23 '18 at 15:24
rumtschorumtscho
1469
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f442743%2fis-system-boundary-part-of-the-system-or-the-environment-or-neither%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Often it does not matter, because surface is so thin its energy is negligible. For example, gas in a thin walled metal cylinder has energy that is orders of magnitude higher than energy of the metal cylinder.
In case energy of the surface is important, one has to decide if it counts towards the system, or the environment, or if one wants to count it separately. There is no hard rule, one can choose. For example, surface tension energy of liquid droplets is usually counted as part of energy of the liquid. But if one wants, one can count the surface layer as a separate body and its energy as separate quantity, or one can count the surface layer as part of the environment and its energy as part of environment's energy.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 14:49
Ján LalinskýJán Lalinský
15.8k1439
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Often it does not matter, because surface is so thin its energy is negligible. For example, gas in a thin walled metal cylinder has energy that is orders of magnitude higher than energy of the metal cylinder.
In case energy of the surface is important, one has to decide if it counts towards the system, or the environment, or if one wants to count it separately. There is no hard rule, one can choose. For example, surface tension energy of liquid droplets is usually counted as part of energy of the liquid. But if one wants, one can count the surface layer as a separate body and its energy as separate quantity, or one can count the surface layer as part of the environment and its energy as part of environment's energy.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 14:49
Ján LalinskýJán Lalinský
15.8k1439
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Often it does not matter, because surface is so thin its energy is negligible. For example, gas in a thin walled metal cylinder has energy that is orders of magnitude higher than energy of the metal cylinder.
In case energy of the surface is important, one has to decide if it counts towards the system, or the environment, or if one wants to count it separately. There is no hard rule, one can choose. For example, surface tension energy of liquid droplets is usually counted as part of energy of the liquid. But if one wants, one can count the surface layer as a separate body and its energy as separate quantity, or one can count the surface layer as part of the environment and its energy as part of environment's energy.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 14:49
Ján LalinskýJán Lalinský
15.8k1439
$endgroup$
Often it does not matter, because surface is so thin its energy is negligible. For example, gas in a thin walled metal cylinder has energy that is orders of magnitude higher than energy of the metal cylinder.
In case energy of the surface is important, one has to decide if it counts towards the system, or the environment, or if one wants to count it separately. There is no hard rule, one can choose. For example, surface tension energy of liquid droplets is usually counted as part of energy of the liquid. But if one wants, one can count the surface layer as a separate body and its energy as separate quantity, or one can count the surface layer as part of the environment and its energy as part of environment's energy.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 14:49
Ján LalinskýJán Lalinský
15.8k1439
answered Nov 23 '18 at 14:49
Ján LalinskýJán Lalinský
15.8k1439
answered Nov 23 '18 at 14:49
Ján LalinskýJán Lalinský
15.8k1439
answered Nov 23 '18 at 14:49
Ján LalinskýJán Lalinský
15.8k1439
15.8k1439
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Okay, if the surface of that object gained some energy, is the system who gained? or the environment or neither?
When applying these concepts in thermodynamics, generally speaking the boundary between a system and its surroundings provides the mechanism for transferring work and/or heat between the system and its surroundings. So for that purpose you can think of the surface as separate entity, but it is simply a geometrical concept to differentiate your object (the system) from its surroundings (you and everything else not part of the object) and to facilitate the exchange of energy between the system and its environment.
For example, suppose your object (the system) is a sponge ball. So in this case the boundary of your system (geometric surface of the ball) is able to expand or contract. That allows for the possibility of work transfer. An example would be you squeezing the sponge ball. You are the surroundings for the system (sponge ball). You, the surroundings, do work on the sponge ball increasing its internal energy (perhaps its temperature rises if you squeeze it vigorously enough).
For this example, the environment (you) lost energy and the system (sponge ball including its surface) gained the energy, and the boundary (surface of the sponge ball) facilitated the transfer.
Hope this helps.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 15:20
Bob DBob D
4,7252318
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Okay, if the surface of that object gained some energy, is the system who gained? or the environment or neither?
When applying these concepts in thermodynamics, generally speaking the boundary between a system and its surroundings provides the mechanism for transferring work and/or heat between the system and its surroundings. So for that purpose you can think of the surface as separate entity, but it is simply a geometrical concept to differentiate your object (the system) from its surroundings (you and everything else not part of the object) and to facilitate the exchange of energy between the system and its environment.
For example, suppose your object (the system) is a sponge ball. So in this case the boundary of your system (geometric surface of the ball) is able to expand or contract. That allows for the possibility of work transfer. An example would be you squeezing the sponge ball. You are the surroundings for the system (sponge ball). You, the surroundings, do work on the sponge ball increasing its internal energy (perhaps its temperature rises if you squeeze it vigorously enough).
For this example, the environment (you) lost energy and the system (sponge ball including its surface) gained the energy, and the boundary (surface of the sponge ball) facilitated the transfer.
Hope this helps.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 15:20
Bob DBob D
4,7252318
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Okay, if the surface of that object gained some energy, is the system who gained? or the environment or neither?
When applying these concepts in thermodynamics, generally speaking the boundary between a system and its surroundings provides the mechanism for transferring work and/or heat between the system and its surroundings. So for that purpose you can think of the surface as separate entity, but it is simply a geometrical concept to differentiate your object (the system) from its surroundings (you and everything else not part of the object) and to facilitate the exchange of energy between the system and its environment.
For example, suppose your object (the system) is a sponge ball. So in this case the boundary of your system (geometric surface of the ball) is able to expand or contract. That allows for the possibility of work transfer. An example would be you squeezing the sponge ball. You are the surroundings for the system (sponge ball). You, the surroundings, do work on the sponge ball increasing its internal energy (perhaps its temperature rises if you squeeze it vigorously enough).
For this example, the environment (you) lost energy and the system (sponge ball including its surface) gained the energy, and the boundary (surface of the sponge ball) facilitated the transfer.
Hope this helps.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 15:20
Bob DBob D
4,7252318
$endgroup$
Okay, if the surface of that object gained some energy, is the system who gained? or the environment or neither?
When applying these concepts in thermodynamics, generally speaking the boundary between a system and its surroundings provides the mechanism for transferring work and/or heat between the system and its surroundings. So for that purpose you can think of the surface as separate entity, but it is simply a geometrical concept to differentiate your object (the system) from its surroundings (you and everything else not part of the object) and to facilitate the exchange of energy between the system and its environment.
For example, suppose your object (the system) is a sponge ball. So in this case the boundary of your system (geometric surface of the ball) is able to expand or contract. That allows for the possibility of work transfer. An example would be you squeezing the sponge ball. You are the surroundings for the system (sponge ball). You, the surroundings, do work on the sponge ball increasing its internal energy (perhaps its temperature rises if you squeeze it vigorously enough).
For this example, the environment (you) lost energy and the system (sponge ball including its surface) gained the energy, and the boundary (surface of the sponge ball) facilitated the transfer.
Hope this helps.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 15:20
Bob DBob D
4,7252318
answered Nov 23 '18 at 15:20
Bob DBob D
4,7252318
answered Nov 23 '18 at 15:20
Bob DBob D
4,7252318
answered Nov 23 '18 at 15:20
Bob DBob D
4,7252318
4,7252318
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The most fitting answer would be that it belongs to neither the system nor the environment. As used in sentences like the one you cite, it is a mathematical abstraction representing an endlessly thin 2D object. The physical properties of a mechanical system (and its environment) are defined for 3D objects, made up of particles. So, when using this meaning, it is impossible for the surface to gain energy, or "do" something else that the system would do. It is an imaginary mathematical concept, not an object in the real world.
This does not contradict Ján Lalinskýs answer, which tells you you can decide on your own if it belongs to the system or the environment. In that answer, the definition of the surface is somewhat different - for that, you pick a very thin (but still 3D) part of the world where the system and the environment meet, and call it "the surface (layer)". But from the language in your book, it is very likely it talks about the other, abstract meaning of "surface".
answered Nov 23 '18 at 15:24
rumtschorumtscho
1469
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The most fitting answer would be that it belongs to neither the system nor the environment. As used in sentences like the one you cite, it is a mathematical abstraction representing an endlessly thin 2D object. The physical properties of a mechanical system (and its environment) are defined for 3D objects, made up of particles. So, when using this meaning, it is impossible for the surface to gain energy, or "do" something else that the system would do. It is an imaginary mathematical concept, not an object in the real world.
This does not contradict Ján Lalinskýs answer, which tells you you can decide on your own if it belongs to the system or the environment. In that answer, the definition of the surface is somewhat different - for that, you pick a very thin (but still 3D) part of the world where the system and the environment meet, and call it "the surface (layer)". But from the language in your book, it is very likely it talks about the other, abstract meaning of "surface".
answered Nov 23 '18 at 15:24
rumtschorumtscho
1469
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The most fitting answer would be that it belongs to neither the system nor the environment. As used in sentences like the one you cite, it is a mathematical abstraction representing an endlessly thin 2D object. The physical properties of a mechanical system (and its environment) are defined for 3D objects, made up of particles. So, when using this meaning, it is impossible for the surface to gain energy, or "do" something else that the system would do. It is an imaginary mathematical concept, not an object in the real world.
This does not contradict Ján Lalinskýs answer, which tells you you can decide on your own if it belongs to the system or the environment. In that answer, the definition of the surface is somewhat different - for that, you pick a very thin (but still 3D) part of the world where the system and the environment meet, and call it "the surface (layer)". But from the language in your book, it is very likely it talks about the other, abstract meaning of "surface".
answered Nov 23 '18 at 15:24
rumtschorumtscho
1469
$endgroup$
The most fitting answer would be that it belongs to neither the system nor the environment. As used in sentences like the one you cite, it is a mathematical abstraction representing an endlessly thin 2D object. The physical properties of a mechanical system (and its environment) are defined for 3D objects, made up of particles. So, when using this meaning, it is impossible for the surface to gain energy, or "do" something else that the system would do. It is an imaginary mathematical concept, not an object in the real world.
This does not contradict Ján Lalinskýs answer, which tells you you can decide on your own if it belongs to the system or the environment. In that answer, the definition of the surface is somewhat different - for that, you pick a very thin (but still 3D) part of the world where the system and the environment meet, and call it "the surface (layer)". But from the language in your book, it is very likely it talks about the other, abstract meaning of "surface".
answered Nov 23 '18 at 15:24
rumtschorumtscho
1469
answered Nov 23 '18 at 15:24
rumtschorumtscho
1469
answered Nov 23 '18 at 15:24
rumtschorumtscho
1469
answered Nov 23 '18 at 15:24
rumtschorumtscho
1469
1469
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f442743%2fis-system-boundary-part-of-the-system-or-the-environment-or-neither%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Which book says?
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
Nov 23 '18 at 18:34
$begingroup$
@Qmechanic Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics - Serway and Jewett - Ninth edition - Page 178
$endgroup$
– Mason
Nov 23 '18 at 23:30