Skip to main content
Best answer by ttokoro

The reference plot is wrong. It plots 0.1*alpha*t

image.pngimage.png

1 reply

ttokoro
21-Topaz I
ttokoro21-Topaz IAnswer
21-Topaz I
January 1, 2025

The reference plot is wrong. It plots 0.1*alpha*t

image.pngimage.png

t.t.
Cornel19-TanzaniteAuthor
19-Tanzanite
January 1, 2025

Ok.

@Werner_E 
In terms of units degree C or Kelvin, how is better to stick with for future calculation? Like  Cornel_3-1735721793700.pngor Cornel_4-1735721808344.png? I obtained with both the same result, but I find easier to understand writing in degrees C than converting degrees C to Kelvin and working further with Kelvin. 

 

Cornel_0-1735721586638.png

Cornel_2-1735721719630.png

Cornel_1-1735721647240.png

 

25-Diamond I
January 1, 2025

Using temperatures can be tricky and usually you are best off using Kelvin throughout.

Your version1 works, but in general when you subtract temperatures you have to use Delta °C and not just °C.

Werner_E_0-1735728452869.png

But then you can't divide a temperature in degree not just by ! K or 1 °C or 1 Delta °C to get rid of the unit

Werner_E_1-1735728647073.png

To strip the unit you first have to subtract 0 °C and then divide by 1 Delta °C = 1 K (NOT by 1 °C).

Werner_E_6-1735729557011.png

 

Basically these conversions are the reason why your short and at first sight intuitively looking version works.

Your version works because, while

Werner_E_7-1735729703780.png

this also means that

Werner_E_8-1735729727831.png

and if you divide that by (1)K you get the necessary value.

 

Using the correct(??) Delta °C would make the expression more bloated.

You may strip the temp unit from the result of the subtraction

Werner_E_2-1735729180760.png
or just from the parameter T and subtract the simple scalar 20

Werner_E_4-1735729222859.png

If you really understand whats going on you sure can stay with something like your version 1

Werner_E_5-1735729261170.png

as its the shortest and the subtraction of 20 °C  looks correct at first sight to the innocent reader 😉

Of course you can always do like ttokoro  did and omit the temp units altogether 😉

 

According the plot difference I agree with ttokoro 

The author seems to have used 0.000393 instead of 0.00393 when creating the plot.