@5:00 for anyone who is confused as to why dTehta/dt = dT/dt, the reason is that T_infinite (i.e. surround temperature) does not change and is a constant, so dT_infinite/dt =0, so dTheta/dt= dT/dt + dT_infinite/dt -> dTheta/dt = dT/dt +0. It is very poorly explained here.
Yes, there is an example screencast: ua-cam.com/video/_Kpoae8Umx0/v-deo.html. Per your other question, yes, if Ti were to equal T,infinity, then there would be a zero in the denominator, but that is rarely the case.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Wow, you just cleared 3 hours of confusing lectures in 7 min!
Nicely done! Very thorough and easy to follow. Thank you. :]
@5:00 for anyone who is confused as to why dTehta/dt = dT/dt, the reason is that T_infinite (i.e. surround temperature) does not change and is a constant, so dT_infinite/dt =0, so dTheta/dt= dT/dt + dT_infinite/dt -> dTheta/dt = dT/dt +0. It is very poorly explained here.
Perfectly explained. Thank you so much.
Is there a worked out example? Also, in the final equation, if Ti=T,infinity, don't we get 0 in the denominator? Thanks!
Yes, there is an example screencast: ua-cam.com/video/_Kpoae8Umx0/v-deo.html. Per your other question, yes, if Ti were to equal T,infinity, then there would be a zero in the denominator, but that is rarely the case.
Shouldn't the integral at 5:37 be from 0 to time t, instead of characteristic length L?
+Tamy Guimarães Yes, it most certainly should. Thank you for finding that error; we will fix it asap.
Wow Thank you soo much This will definitely help me in my test!!
thanks a lot, very clear explanations
at 6:12 it should be ln((theta i)/(theta))
+shylildude Thank you for your note. It is intended to be shown that way in the screencast. I agree that it could be clearer if parentheses were used.
Shouldn't it be ln(theta/theta_i)?