The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-23-2003, 01:45 PM
MortonC MortonC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Can Magnifying Glass Boil any Water?

Can any amount of water be heated enough to cause evaporation or possibly to boiling point by using a magnifying glass?

How big would a magnifying glass have to be in proportion to the amount of water?

If a glass container were used, would the water simply diffuse the effect of the lense or would a metal sphere do better?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 08-23-2003, 05:30 PM
samclem samclem is offline
graphite is a great moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 21,559
To answer the first question you asked--

As a kid I used a cheap manifying glass(probably 5x or less) and caught a piece of paper on fire. That is 451F. Water boils at 212 F. so you COULD boil water. I'm not the one to tell you how MUCH water you could boil using a standard lens.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-23-2003, 05:54 PM
Q.E.D. Q.E.D. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 22,536
Well, let's take a generously large 5" diameter magnifying glass. Give the approximate solar power density at the Earth's surface is about 1.4 kW/m2, the lens, with an area of .0126 m2 can gather about 17.7 W of power. Assuming the container can absorb 100% of the incident light, that works out to 59 minutes to boil one cubic centimeter of water, assuming zero losses, if I've done my math right.
__________________
SnUgGLypuPpY -- TakE BaCk tHe PiT!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-23-2003, 05:58 PM
Q.E.D. Q.E.D. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 22,536
Hmmm...that seems long. Redoing calculations, I get 9.44 minutes, which sounds more correct to me. Anyone care to check me?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-23-2003, 06:17 PM
Omphaloskeptic Omphaloskeptic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Q.E.D.:Your second number is in the same ballpark as what I get, although you've used a more optimistic solar constant than I have. (At Earth's surface I think the values are more like 700-1000 W/m2; the value of 1400 W/m2 is for just outside Earth's atmosphere.)

Note that over a few minutes the water will probably transfer a lot of its heat to the container and the atmosphere, so I doubt if you could really boil 1 mL of water with a lens this small. But you could probably boil a droplet of water (~0.01mL) this way. You probably want to put the droplet on a dark heat-insulating surface (black garbage bag?) because water is pretty transparent.

Maybe I'll try this next time I get out my Fresnel lens.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-23-2003, 06:17 PM
Q.E.D. Q.E.D. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 22,536
I left out a critical piece of information: The starting temperature I used was 20 oC. And to save anyone who wants to double-check the trouble, it takes 1 calorie to raise the temperature of water 1 oC and 1 watt = .24 calories/sec.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-23-2003, 06:55 PM
kanicbird kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Now as the water heats it will start evaporation and that will remove that heat. You moght need a very large MG to actually get water boiling.

That said there are power plants that use mirrors to focus the sun's energy to boilwater under pressure (higher temp then 212F).


I'm sure it is possible but could take somewhat longer the the 9.x minutes
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-23-2003, 07:24 PM
Trigonal Planar Trigonal Planar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
What's the reflective index (is that the right term?) of water? Certainly its not perfectly translucent; it must reflect some percentage of the incoming light back out.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-23-2003, 08:41 PM
Omphaloskeptic Omphaloskeptic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
The fraction of energy reflected when light is incident normally on an interface is [(n1 - n2)/(n1 + n2)]2. For an air-water interface n1 = 1.00 and n2 = 1.33, so about 2% of the energy is reflected.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-23-2003, 09:58 PM
VernWinterbottom VernWinterbottom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Not to be a killjoy to all you calculating math types out there, but couldn't any of you just have taken a lens and some water out to the porch and try the thing out?

Just as an aside here, it's a lot easier to boil water with a 1920s-style death ray.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-23-2003, 10:24 PM
Ring Ring is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Quote:
Just as an aside here, it's a lot easier to boil water with a 1920s-style death ray.
Was it Dogface who started this horror? If so is he aware of the absolute catastrophe he has visited on this board? Will it ever end? Or does all your base are belong to us?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-23-2003, 10:39 PM
Achernar Achernar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by Omphaloskeptic
Q.E.D.:Your second number is in the same ballpark as what I get, although you've used a more optimistic solar constant than I have. (At Earth's surface I think the values are more like 700-1000 W/m2; the value of 1400 W/m2 is for just outside Earth's atmosphere.)
It seems to me that on a clear day you'd be okay using the extra-atmospheric value to a good approximation. Does anyone know of a cite one way or the other?

Of course, for something flat on the ground, you'd multiply by the sine of the sun's elevation, which could give you a value like 700-1000 for mid-latitudes. Is this what you had in mind?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-23-2003, 10:53 PM
Q.E.D. Q.E.D. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 22,536
Quote:
Originally posted by Achernar
It seems to me that on a clear day you'd be okay using the extra-atmospheric value to a good approximation. Does anyone know of a cite one way or the other?
Of course I do.
Quote:
The sun is the source of heat and energy for the earth. The solar output on the earth is called the power density. The power density of the sun's radiation on the surface of the earth is approximately 1.4 kW/m2. This value varies slightly throughout the year but by no more than 0.1 percent. One reason for this variation is the changing earth-sun distance. This distance varies by about six percent throughout the year, causing the power density to range from about 1.308 kW/m2 to 1.398 kW/m2.
From this site.




Bolding mine.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-24-2003, 01:17 PM
spingears spingears is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Boiling Water

It is alleged that Thomas Edison asked one of his employees to find the volume of a glass vessel, more specifically an ordinary light bulb.
the assistan/employee set about measuring and calculating, and sovering several sheets of paper with the operation

Edison's approach was to simply fill the vessel with water and measure the volume in a standard graduated cylinder.

???
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-24-2003, 04:46 PM
Omphaloskeptic Omphaloskeptic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
I don't think I believe that cite, Q.E.D. All of the quotes in the cite seem to refer to the solar constant (about 1370 W/m2), which is the value outside Earth's atmosphere; it's just the text below it that mentions the surface of the Earth. Here are some sites that talk about average absorption and reflection by atmosphere and clouds: Earth's Radiation Budget and Solar Radiation. This site mentions values of 800-1100 W/m2 at the surface, but doesn't provide any references or other info. I've seen that range mentioned before, and that's what I was using, but I don't know if that assumes a sunny day or not. I haven't found any really authoritative answers though.

The two sites above give -8% to absorption and reflection by the atmosphere and another -23% by clouds, so maybe on a very sunny day you can get about 1200 W/m2. I don't know how much power gets reflected by different kinds of clouds, so I don't know how likely "very sunny" days are.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-24-2003, 05:51 PM
rowrrbazzle rowrrbazzle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
You can buy a foot-square Fresnel lens from Edmund Scientific for about $5. Not only does it boil water, it melts solder. If you focus the noon sun on the side of small black-painted can of water, you can hear the water at the focus boiling almost immediately. It does take a while to bring all the water to a boil, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-24-2003, 06:06 PM
Sunspace Sunspace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Back in the GT eeehhhh...
Posts: 26,386
Dammit, I was going to mention the Giant Fresnel Lenses!!! And how, when you buy the 4'x8' size at EfstonScience in Toronto (affiliated with Edmund Scientific), you had to keep it covered when you took them across the parking lot or it'd melt the asphalt...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-24-2003, 08:28 PM
Omphaloskeptic Omphaloskeptic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
I found a better reference for solar power density at the surface of the Earth. (It doesn't seem to be online, though.) From the second edition of Physics Vade Mecum (published by AIP), §11.08A (Table: Intensity of Solar Radiation):
Quote:
Solar constant (average normal intensity above atmosphere): 1367 W/m2
Peak normal intensity in U.S. southwest: ~1000 W/m2
Average annual intensity for continental U.S.: ~200 W/m2
The actual table lists average intensities for several U.S. cities. Unsurprisingly, Seattle's is lowest; El Paso has the highest year-round average (303 W/m2).

As an aside, this is a truly excellent book for finding random physical constants. If anyone knows of an online version I'd love to know about it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-24-2003, 11:06 PM
NinjaChick NinjaChick is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by Sunspace
Dammit, I was going to mention the Giant Fresnel Lenses!!! And how, when you buy the 4'x8' size at EfstonScience in Toronto (affiliated with Edmund Scientific), you had to keep it covered when you took them across the parking lot or it'd melt the asphalt...
Now that sounds like a good way to spend the afternoon...melting a parking lot...
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-27-2003, 07:02 AM
spingears spingears is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Edison Type Trial Results

For what it's worth, if anything:
A machined aluminum cup 1/2" OD x 29/64" ID x 1/2" high was blackened with 'Magic Marker,' filled with tap water, suspended between 1/32" sstl. wires over a mirror and a 5" magnifying glass oriented to focus the image of the sun on the bottom. Result: hot water.
Made cups from thin aluminum food wrap by coating dull side with Magic Marker, cut dime and quarter sized circles and formed cups, with the black inside, using a pencil and cap from a pen.
Nucleate boiling occured on the black surface in both cups but water mass remained just below boiling point. Regret lack of a micro thermocouple to measure temperatures.
Will have to get a Fresnel Lens!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-27-2003, 07:20 AM
CalMeacham CalMeacham is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
spingears has mentioned something that I was going to bring up -- you should probably blacken the container you are using, because the water itself, or a white or transparent container isn't going to absorb a lot of sunlight. KLarge areas of the salt flats in the Utah desert are perpetually moist because the white salt keeps reflecting the sunlight back.

I've no doubt that you can boil water by concentrating enough sunlight on a container. There's a huge solar mirror in France that can, I understand, melt metals at its focus. I'll bet you don't even have to blacken the container.
__________________
"My name is Michael Jackson, King of Pop
Look on my works, Ye Mighty, and Despair!"
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-27-2003, 07:24 AM
spogga spogga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Never mind a 1920s style death ray, has nobody seen Capt. James T. Kirk boil water with a stardate 2471.9 phaser?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-27-2003, 08:16 AM
Rhum Runner Rhum Runner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Let's not forget about the solar furnaces, which are pretty much the same as a magnifying glass.

http://hep.uchicago.edu/solar/NIoptics.html
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.