Ok this is a physical one.
Temperature is just the total speed of molecule vibrations in an object.
Vibrations are movement. Movement needs energy. All things thrive to be in an energy neutral state, energy always disperses, disbalances are always balanced out.
This means that the natural state of objects is 0°K, the lowest temperature possible, no movement.
That is why you should fill up your fridge and freezer! The only energy you need is for removing heat that comes into the thing and would in turn transfer to cooler objects and warm them up.
But keeping things cool itself doesnt need any energy 🤯
And if you heat it up then less air comes in, and the incoming air will be cooled down faster (energy balanced out between low density air and high density things). So the overall temperature doesnt spike as much and less needs to be transported off.
Yes, over a long enough timeline this is true. Usually people are interested in cooling things sooner than the death of the Sun.
I got time
Depending on how cold you want it, the heat death if the universe is just another 10^101 years away ¯_(ツ)_/¯
So faster than a microwave? Works for me
Neat trick for when you want to cool something for free:
Just wait until the heat death of the universe.
“Utility companies hate this one trick!”
Only if “Big Freeze” turns out to be more accurate than the “Big Crunch”
I feel like this is technically true, but in reality it only works like this in the void of space.
The energy I’m spending is to counter the molecule vibration transfer that’s being done (against my food’s will) by the sun and everything else in the space around my fridge.
I am ready for some physicist to pop out of the tall grass and explain how wrong I am.
You’re not wrong in this context.
If ambient temperature was say…21 C, then it’d take no energy to keep things that cold.
So in space, once you do cool something down enough, and place it far from any stars, it’ll stay cold for free.
No, it is not, your premise is false (in our real world. TM.) but your reasoning is good.
Energy does not vanish, you need a process to remove energy of a system.
Think in the planets orbiting the sun or the energy contained in a damm with millions liters of water. The energy is not dissipating itself, it is constant, forever.
So as long as the system is not disturbed, keeping the system in the same state is energy free because you only need energy to alter the system. Even of the energy distributions is not evenly balanced through it.
Why would you assume the natural state of a ‘object’ is absolute zero?
Because then it doesnt move and there is no energy it can give to the surrouding. Actually there is, stored in molecular bounds. But no molecular movement, just atoms I guess
So you propose that all matter naturally has zero volume because its at absolute zero by nature.
Objects at zero Kelvin are not zero Volume?
I guess my physics books were wrong then. Nah.
Wait until you hear about the theory of the “heat death” of the universe then
Atoms are surprisingly bad at removing heat. Being hit with slower atoms and transferring that energy ((like newton’s cradle with mismatched swings opposing each other) transfers energy much, much faster than what happens naturally in the vacuum of space. Most spacecraft have more of issue with overheating than freezing. The rate at which radiation is emitted is very low when you get to sub-human temperatures. There’s also tons of heat sources around us in space, so the last few degrees are so, so hard to shed.
Keeping a fridge stocked increases the thermal capacity of the coldness. Air falls out quickly and is subject to rapid temperature change when the door is open. Keeping a bunch of solid/sealed masses in there will bank the lack of heat. You’ll likely lose more air and the falling not-so-cool air will impart heat into your 24 pack of beer, but you’ll have a bunch of distirbuted cold objects to re-cool the air once the door is closed instead of relying on air circulation alone. Instead of raising the air temp by, say, 5 degrees once settled, it’ll only go up maybe 2 degrees - much better for food storage. But the fridge will still have to re-cool those beers, too.
It’s good that you think about this stuff. It is a sign of an inquisitive mind. And you are so close to the truth.
But… You literally have the ability to look this stuff up in seconds.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
It’s often good to have a conversation on the topic as well as the basic info.
But keeping things cool itself doesnt need any energy
My electric bill disproves this statement. Otherwise, why would we need electrical devices that remove heat from things?
Ugly physics
We figured out the issue: moving energy against a naturally occuring gradient. Like heat away from a cold area, or focussing heat somewhere where the surrounding is cool
Well, “fill your fridge/freezer so there’s less cold air inside that can be replaced by warm air when opening it, then it does need less energy to cool down again after opening” is true, but the reasoning… No isolation is perfect (and certainly not that of affordable household fridges) so there’ll always be warmth getting in that has to be moved out again. Cooling only doesn’t require energy if surrounded by equal coolness.
Cooling only doesn’t require energy if surrounded by equal coolness.
Okay I guess that is true. Heating also doesnt require energy if the surrounding is just as hot.
Moving stuff takes energy, and you either need to focus heat or disperse it.
