Remember me
▼ Content

Stefan-Boltzmann and the Botlzmann Constant



Page 1 of 212>
Stefan-Boltzmann and the Botlzmann Constant16-07-2017 18:41
James_
★★★☆☆
(637)
I've been told that the Stefan-Boltzmann is all anyone needs to know about climate change. This is it or so I am told (double entendre);
The value of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is approximately 5.67 x 10^-8 watt per meter squared per kelvin to the fourth (W · m^-2 · K^-4 ).
What it's supporters ignore is the Boltzmann Constant. After all since they are applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant to the emissivity of our planet they are then applying it to atmospheric gases. And this means they are treating our atmosphere as a black body that has minimal density.

R ( gas constant )
k = ----
Na ( Avogadro constant )

Myself I do think that our climate (atmospheric gases and how solar radiation or other physical phenomena effects it) can be factored.It is known that pressure changes heat but that a change in it's composition can change radiative forcing as well. And since the Boltzmann Constant is based on an ideal gas it does not take into consideration that gases will be effected differently by the same amount of solar radiation or a change in temperature in Kelvins.
This is because angular momentum will not show as an increase in linear momentum of which is a primary consideration in the Boltzmann Constant while Angular Momentum is not considered at all.
But as Neil deGrasse Tyson said in his video, a scientist's work should be improved upon or expanded because that is the nature of science.
As for myself,I have no need to debate science with people who do not have the time to consider how it is applied. They know who they are because they say I am wrong in trying to understand climate change. It is changing,it's the why it's changing that isn't very well understood in my opinion.


Jim
Edited on 16-07-2017 18:43
16-07-2017 19:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
James_ wrote:
I've been told that the Stefan-Boltzmann is all anyone needs to know about climate change. This is it or so I am told (double entendre);
The value of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is approximately 5.67 x 10^-8 watt per meter squared per kelvin to the fourth (W · m^-2 · K^-4 ).
What it's supporters ignore is the Boltzmann Constant. After all since they are applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant to the emissivity of our planet they are then applying it to atmospheric gases. And this means they are treating our atmosphere as a black body that has minimal density.


The S-B constant is a universal constant of nature. It converts the equation to our units of measurement. It never changes unless you change our units of measurement.

The emissivity constant is a measured value. Gases have an emissivity just as any mass does. It does not matter the state of matter.

For the purposes of Stefan-Boltzmann, the entire Earth is considered. That includes the atmosphere.

For the purposes of global warming, if does not define whether the entire Earth is considered, just the surface, just the atmosphere, whether the oceans are included, how deep that goes, whether anything underground is considered, or how deep, and the starting and ending points of the so-called measurement.

Fortunately, Kirchoff's laws helps us here. If you assume 'global warming' only concerns the surface (including land and ocean surface) then you can assume the use of Stefan-Boltzmann to determine behavior can be the same also. If you consider the same nodes of energy flow in both cases, you have a similar comparison.

If 'global warming' involves the atmosphere also, then the Stefan-Boltzmann law also applies to the atmosphere.

We don't know the emissivity of the surface, the atmosphere, or of the Earth. We have no way to measure it.

If temperature increases, then radiance must increase also. The 'greenhouse effect' limits the outflow of infrared light (by 'trapping' it somehow). This means a reduced radiance. This effect is then used to produce an increase in temperature, in violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This is true whether you consider only the surface, the surface plus atmosphere, or the Earth as a whole.

Since the Stefan-Boltzmann law has never been falsified, it is a scientific theory. Since it has been formalized into:
radiance = S-B constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4,
it can be used to predict the radiance for a given temperature and emissivity.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2017 04:09
James_
★★★☆☆
(637)
It is wrong if you consider aluminum, cast iron or various alloys. It seems all you can say is falsified or not falsified. Waste of time.
17-07-2017 06:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
James_ wrote:
It is wrong if you consider aluminum, cast iron or various alloys. It seems all you can say is falsified or not falsified. Waste of time.


The Stefan-Boltzmann law works for all of these materials.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2017 07:24
James_
★★★☆☆
(637)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
It is wrong if you consider aluminum, cast iron or various alloys. It seems all you can say is falsified or not falsified. Waste of time.


The Stefan-Boltzmann law works for all of these materials.


If you check my first post the Stefan-Boltzmann constant has specific relationships which are not the same in those materials. You never took the time to learn about the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant. It seems that you only learned it's basic relationship and not how it's factored.
You like comparing oranges and apples, right ? And if an apple isn't an orange then it's not a fruit, it's falsified, right ?
That's your logic in a nutshell.
17-07-2017 18:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
It is wrong if you consider aluminum, cast iron or various alloys. It seems all you can say is falsified or not falsified. Waste of time.


The Stefan-Boltzmann law works for all of these materials.


If you check my first post the Stefan-Boltzmann constant has specific relationships which are not the same in those materials.

The S-B constant is the same for all materials. It doesn't change by material or by state of matter.
James_ wrote:
You never took the time to learn about the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant. It seems that you only learned it's basic relationship and not how it's factored.

I know how the constant is derived.
James_ wrote:
You like comparing oranges and apples, right ? And if an apple isn't an orange then it's not a fruit, it's falsified, right ?

False equivalence.
James_ wrote:
That's your logic in a nutshell.

A nut is a fruit also.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2017 18:31
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
It is wrong if you consider aluminum, cast iron or various alloys. It seems all you can say is falsified or not falsified. Waste of time.


The Stefan-Boltzmann law works for all of these materials.


If you check my first post the Stefan-Boltzmann constant has specific relationships which are not the same in those materials.

The S-B constant is the same for all materials. It doesn't change by material or by state of matter.
James_ wrote:
You never took the time to learn about the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant. It seems that you only learned it's basic relationship and not how it's factored.

I know how the constant is derived.
James_ wrote:
You like comparing oranges and apples, right ? And if an apple isn't an orange then it's not a fruit, it's falsified, right ?

False equivalence.
James_ wrote:
That's your logic in a nutshell.

A nut is a fruit also.


Why are you arguing about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and how it pertains to the Earth? Why do you not understand how it works for grey bodies and how that is different from black bodies?

The fact is that while you both make correct points you are both incorrect in your understanding of the equation. The Earth absorbs energy during the daylight hours and emits energy 24 hours a day. This means that there is a distinct cooling for 12 hours or so per day which changes the frequency of the radiation from the Earth's mass.

If as you say, you understand the S-B equation you would know why this occurs and that it isn't "the same for all materials".
17-07-2017 20:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
It is wrong if you consider aluminum, cast iron or various alloys. It seems all you can say is falsified or not falsified. Waste of time.


The Stefan-Boltzmann law works for all of these materials.


If you check my first post the Stefan-Boltzmann constant has specific relationships which are not the same in those materials.

The S-B constant is the same for all materials. It doesn't change by material or by state of matter.
James_ wrote:
You never took the time to learn about the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant. It seems that you only learned it's basic relationship and not how it's factored.

I know how the constant is derived.
James_ wrote:
You like comparing oranges and apples, right ? And if an apple isn't an orange then it's not a fruit, it's falsified, right ?

False equivalence.
James_ wrote:
That's your logic in a nutshell.

A nut is a fruit also.


Why are you arguing about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and how it pertains to the Earth?
Because you brought it up.
Wake wrote:
Why do you not understand how it works for grey bodies and how that is different from black bodies?
The equation does not change for grey or ideally black bodies (which don't exist in nature).
Wake wrote:
The fact is that while you both make correct points you are both incorrect in your understanding of the equation.
You seem to be attempting to modify the S-B equation by removing the emissivity term.
Wake wrote:
The Earth absorbs energy during the daylight hours and emits energy 24 hours a day. This means that there is a distinct cooling for 12 hours or so per day which changes the frequency of the radiation from the Earth's mass.
Undefined. Parts of the surface are changing in temperature (either up or down). The temperature of the Earth's mass does not change at all in this case, assuming the Sun remains at constant output and distance.

Planck radiance does not have 'a' frequency. It is a band of frequencies. The peak frequency of that band will shift with temperature according to Wiens' law.
Wake wrote:
If as you say, you understand the S-B equation you would know why this occurs and that it isn't "the same for all materials".

Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.
Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for material.

The S-B is color-blind. It has no term for frequency. Both radiance and emissivity is over all frequencies combined. It can be derived by integrating Planck's law over all frequencies.

The S-B law does not change with material or state of matter. It is the same for all cases.


The Parrot Killer
17-07-2017 20:48
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote: The S-B constant is the same for all materials. It doesn't change by material or by state of matter.

I know how the constant is derived.

False equivalence.

The equation does not change for grey or ideally black bodies (which don't exist in nature).

You seem to be attempting to modify the S-B equation by removing the emissivity term.

Undefined. Parts of the surface are changing in temperature (either up or down). The temperature of the Earth's mass does not change at all in this case, assuming the Sun remains at constant output and distance.

Planck radiance does not have 'a' frequency. It is a band of frequencies. The peak frequency of that band will shift with temperature according to Wiens' law.

Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.
Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for material.

The S-B is color-blind. It has no term for frequency. Both radiance and emissivity is over all frequencies combined. It can be derived by integrating Planck's law over all frequencies.

The S-B law does not change with material or state of matter. It is the same for all cases.


1. The term (E) emissivity in fact is in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation BECAUSE all materials are different. All combinations of materials are different.

2. You continue to prove that you don't understand the Stefan-Boltzmann equation while telling us that we don't know it and that Wikipedia doesn't know it and that the Science Dictionary doesn't know it. I must say that your ego certainly knows no bounds.

3. Exactly WHY are you first saying that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is the same for all materials and then telling US that we're removing the emissivity term?

4. Why are you saying that Planck's constant doesn't have a frequency when THAT IS WHAT IT DESCRIBES??? E=hf - exactly WHAT do you think "f" means?

5. Then you tell us again that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is color blind when in fact color is what it describes.

You are getting more and more pitiful by the moment.
17-07-2017 22:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: The S-B constant is the same for all materials. It doesn't change by material or by state of matter.

I know how the constant is derived.

False equivalence.

The equation does not change for grey or ideally black bodies (which don't exist in nature).

You seem to be attempting to modify the S-B equation by removing the emissivity term.

Undefined. Parts of the surface are changing in temperature (either up or down). The temperature of the Earth's mass does not change at all in this case, assuming the Sun remains at constant output and distance.

Planck radiance does not have 'a' frequency. It is a band of frequencies. The peak frequency of that band will shift with temperature according to Wiens' law.

Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.
Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for material.

The S-B is color-blind. It has no term for frequency. Both radiance and emissivity is over all frequencies combined. It can be derived by integrating Planck's law over all frequencies.

The S-B law does not change with material or state of matter. It is the same for all cases.


1. The term (E) emissivity in fact is in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation BECAUSE all materials are different. All combinations of materials are different.
Emissivity is a measured value. It is a constant. You must know the temperature of the surface being measured to measure it.
Wake wrote:
2. You continue to prove that you don't understand the Stefan-Boltzmann equation while telling us that we don't know it and that Wikipedia doesn't know it and that the Science Dictionary doesn't know it. I must say that your ego certainly knows no bounds.

You are free to look up the Stefan-Boltzmann equation anytime you want to.

I'll make it easier for you:

radiance = S-B constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

Wake wrote:
3. Exactly WHY are you first saying that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is the same for all materials and then telling US that we're removing the emissivity term?

Because you are trying to use a separate form of the equation for black bodies as opposed to gray bodies.
Wake wrote:
4. Why are you saying that Planck's constant doesn't have a frequency when THAT IS WHAT IT DESCRIBES??? E=hf - exactly WHAT do you think "f" means?
We aren't talking about that constant.

The S-B law is the integration of Planck's law over all frequencies.
Wake wrote:
5. Then you tell us again that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is color blind when in fact color is what it describes.
Color is not what the S-B law describes. There is no term for frequency anywhere in the equation. The S-B is the combined radiance of all frequencies. The emissivity is the combined emissivity over all frequencies.
Wake wrote:
You are getting more and more pitiful by the moment.

Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


The Parrot Killer
18-07-2017 14:38
James_
★★★☆☆
(637)
Into the Night
emissivity is not a constant. If you consider the Boltzmann Constant then you are refering to an ideal gas. There are gases that clearly violate Boltzmann's constant yet no one says his work has been falsified.
And as Al Gore said, this is a debate. It should be a discussion but it's not. You yourself treat this as a debate. And as for me, I do have specific work that I am pursuing. If successful I will be saying more research is needed.
18-07-2017 15:19
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.
18-07-2017 18:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night
emissivity is not a constant.
Emissivity is a constant. It is a measured value.
James_ wrote:
If you consider the Boltzmann Constant then you are refering to an ideal gas.
The S-B constant doesn't consider the state of matter. It works for 'ideal' gases just it does for any material or state of matter.
James_ wrote:
There are gases that clearly violate Boltzmann's constant yet no one says his work has been falsified.
None violate Boltzmann's constant, since that constant does not even apply to a material at all.
James_ wrote:
And as Al Gore said, this is a debate.
To Al Gore, this is a not a debate. It's a foregone conclusion with him in charge cleaning up on you the ignorance of people in the Church of Global Warming.
James_ wrote:
It should be a discussion but it's not.
Guess climate-debate.com doesn't exist then, eh?
James_ wrote:
You yourself treat this as a debate.
I treat it as trying to deprogram as many from this cult as I can. I despise State religions.
James_ wrote:
And as for me, I do have specific work that I am pursuing. If successful I will be saying more research is needed.

Your experiment seems simpler to conduct than you are probably thinking.


The Parrot Killer
18-07-2017 18:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.


Radiance is not frequency. It is power...specifically the power emitted in all frequencies combined. You don't measure a 100w light bulb by frequency.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-07-2017 18:46
18-07-2017 19:26
James_
★★★☆☆
(637)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night
emissivity is not a constant.

Emissivity is a constant. It is a measured value.


Into the Night,
You seem to be caught up in either yourself or your own belief of self. In my first post I wrote >> The value of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is approximately 5.67 x 10^-8 watt per meter squared per kelvin to the fourth (W · m^-2 · K^-4 ). <<

Now you're telling me that it is a measured value ? Can you show at what point I was not aware of that ? You can't. Yet you act like I didn't know it. This is what you are debating, right ? I have just shown that you are falsified. This means no one can trust what you post because you will discredit someone when they are not wrong or in the wrong.
I could explain to you what the Stefan-Boltzmann as well as Planck's Constants are referring to but have no need to debate science. With you, you don't seem to grasp how principals in physics are used.

@Wake,
If all the frequencies of Planck's Constant are calculated as a single emission from a black body then that is Boltzmann's Constant. Everyone knows and I hope you do as well that with black body radiation that more than one frequency is emitted.
18-07-2017 19:42
James_
★★★☆☆
(637)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.


Radiance is not frequency. It is power...specifically the power emitted in all frequencies combined. You don't measure a 100w light bulb by frequency.


In the U.S. it's 60 Hz and in Europe it's 50 Hz. Also most of Central and South America might be 50 Hz as well. This is how power is calculated.

The electric power P is equal to the energy consumption E divided by the consumption time t:
------E
P = ---
------t

P is the electric power in watt (W).
E is the energy consumption in joule (J).
t is the time in seconds (s).

simplified, 1 joule for 1 second equals 1 watt of power. A 100 watt light bulb consumes 100 joules of energy for every 1 second that it is on.

And to get Hz the generator rotates at a specific rpm. An example is 60 Hz A.C. has a generator rotating at 3,600 rpm. Then converters are used to determine line voltage and amperage.
Maybe you could rephrase your statement ? I don't get it myself.
You see, by combining all of the frequencies a light bulb emits then it can be calculated as the Boltzmann Constant because the filament could be consider a black body. It does radiate energy, right ?
Edited on 18-07-2017 19:45
18-07-2017 20:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night
emissivity is not a constant.

Emissivity is a constant. It is a measured value.


Into the Night,
You seem to be caught up in either yourself or your own belief of self. In my first post I wrote >> The value of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is approximately 5.67 x 10^-8 watt per meter squared per kelvin to the fourth (W · m^-2 · K^-4 ). <<

Now you're telling me that it is a measured value ?

The S-B constant is a universal constant of nature. It is not measured. Emissivity is another constant. It is measured. You seem to have a lot of trouble confusing the two.
James_ wrote:
Can you show at what point I was not aware of that ?

The moment you confused the two.
James_ wrote:
You can't.

I can and I just did.
James_ wrote:
Yet you act like I didn't know it. This is what you are debating, right ? I have just shown that you are falsified.

You can't falsify a person. I still exist.
James_ wrote:
This means no one can trust what you post

I am not asking them to. Go look it up yourself. I encourage it.
James_ wrote:
because you will discredit someone when they are not wrong or in the wrong.

I do not discredit anyone. They do that to themselves.
James_ wrote:
I could explain to you what the Stefan-Boltzmann as well as Planck's Constants are referring to but have no need to debate science.

Apparently you can't. You don't seem to understand what either constant is about.
James_ wrote:
With you, you don't seem to grasp how principals in physics are used.

They are used by formalizing a theory of science into a closed system, then using that closed system to predict.
James_ wrote:
@Wake,
If all the frequencies of Planck's Constant are calculated as a single emission from a black body then that is Boltzmann's Constant.

Wrong. That is the Stefan-Boltzmann law assuming an emissivity of 1.
James_ wrote:
Everyone knows and I hope you do as well that with black body radiation that more than one frequency is emitted.

Wake can't seem to get a grip on that concept.


The Parrot Killer
18-07-2017 20:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.


Radiance is not frequency. It is power...specifically the power emitted in all frequencies combined. You don't measure a 100w light bulb by frequency.


...deleted lengthy discussion of power grids...
Maybe you could rephrase your statement ?
I don't get it myself.
Probably because power is more than just electrical power.
James_ wrote:
You see, by combining all of the frequencies a light bulb emits then it can be calculated as the Boltzmann Constant

No. It is the radiance that comes as a result of the S-B equation. It is not the constant itself.
James_ wrote:
because the filament could be consider a black body.
Gray, actually. There is no such thing as an ideally black body. That does not exist in nature. It is a reference point only, just as an ideally white body is one. Natural bodies are all gray.
James_ wrote:
It does radiate energy, right ?

Yes. It radiates electromagnetic energy according to the Stefan-Boltzmann and Wien's laws. It also emits thermal energy according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The bulb is hot. It heats the surrounding air because the surrounding air is cooler. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Entropy is increasing.

The bulb is producing a visible light (a yellow-white). This is according to results of Wien's law.

The bulb is putting out electromagnetic radiance on a wide band of frequencies (it's bright...not only on the visible wavelengths, but on others as well). The power of that energy is described according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
18-07-2017 22:21
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.


Radiance is not frequency. It is power...specifically the power emitted in all frequencies combined. You don't measure a 100w light bulb by frequency.


By knowing irradiance and total area you know the temperature and therefore the frequency. You know - that silly transposition of terms in a math problem?
18-07-2017 22:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.


Radiance is not frequency. It is power...specifically the power emitted in all frequencies combined. You don't measure a 100w light bulb by frequency.


By knowing irradiance and total area you know the temperature and therefore the frequency. You know - that silly transposition of terms in a math problem?

I suspect you may be confusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which simply tells you how much power is radiated as a function of temperature, with Planck's law, which gives the frequency distribution of the radiation emitted as a function of temperature.
18-07-2017 23:10
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.


Radiance is not frequency. It is power...specifically the power emitted in all frequencies combined. You don't measure a 100w light bulb by frequency.


By knowing irradiance and total area you know the temperature and therefore the frequency. You know - that silly transposition of terms in a math problem?

I suspect you may be confusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which simply tells you how much power is radiated as a function of temperature, with Planck's law, which gives the frequency distribution of the radiation emitted as a function of temperature.


There you go again with your high school chemistry.
18-07-2017 23:55
James_
★★★☆☆
(637)
Wake,
Either Into the Dark Ages is in this forum to disrupt it or is here to teach spirituality.
They have no interest in climate change or science.
18-07-2017 23:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.


Radiance is not frequency. It is power...specifically the power emitted in all frequencies combined. You don't measure a 100w light bulb by frequency.


By knowing irradiance and total area you know the temperature and therefore the frequency. You know - that silly transposition of terms in a math problem?

I suspect you may be confusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which simply tells you how much power is radiated as a function of temperature, with Planck's law, which gives the frequency distribution of the radiation emitted as a function of temperature.


There you go again with your high school chemistry.

The radiation laws are usually considered to be a field of physics.
19-07-2017 00:08
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
James_ wrote:
Wake,
Either Into the Dark Ages is in this forum to disrupt it or is here to teach spirituality. They have no interest in climate change or science.


I simply have a problem with someone talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and then acting as if Plank's Constant is something else when it is the basis upon what the S-B is founded. The S-B constant is calculated from the Plank Constant.

Exactly how much do you have to know that given the irradiance and the specific emissivity constant of a specific material you can calculate the exact temperature and hence the exact wavelength?

Instead the dead-head thinks that the emissivity constant is the same for all materials??? He is even unaware that the original Stefan-Boltzmann equation was modified to account for the fact that there are no true blackbodies by adding emissivity constant which is only a constant for a specific case.

It's like talking to a robot. He hasn't the ability for rational thought.
19-07-2017 00:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.


Radiance is not frequency. It is power...specifically the power emitted in all frequencies combined. You don't measure a 100w light bulb by frequency.


By knowing irradiance and total area you know the temperature and therefore the frequency. You know - that silly transposition of terms in a math problem?


No, you don't. It is not possible to determine the temperature knowing the radiance. This is because the light from an object doesn't all come from the temperature of an object. It is impossible to determine which is which if you don't know the temperature in the first place (which is why emissivity is a measured value).

Frequency is still not a factor.


The Parrot Killer
19-07-2017 00:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.


Radiance is not frequency. It is power...specifically the power emitted in all frequencies combined. You don't measure a 100w light bulb by frequency.


By knowing irradiance and total area you know the temperature and therefore the frequency. You know - that silly transposition of terms in a math problem?

I suspect you may be confusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which simply tells you how much power is radiated as a function of temperature, with Planck's law, which gives the frequency distribution of the radiation emitted as a function of temperature.

Planck's law does not give you the frequency of distribution of radiation emitted as a function of temperature. You are thinking of Wien's law.

Planck's law gives you the energy emitted at a single given frequency and a known temperature. Both Wien's law and Planck's law are over the domain of the substance emitting.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn't care about the substance domain.


The Parrot Killer
19-07-2017 00:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.


Radiance is not frequency. It is power...specifically the power emitted in all frequencies combined. You don't measure a 100w light bulb by frequency.


By knowing irradiance and total area you know the temperature and therefore the frequency. You know - that silly transposition of terms in a math problem?

I suspect you may be confusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which simply tells you how much power is radiated as a function of temperature, with Planck's law, which gives the frequency distribution of the radiation emitted as a function of temperature.


There you go again with your high school chemistry.


There's another pot calling the kettle black.


The Parrot Killer
19-07-2017 00:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.


Radiance is not frequency. It is power...specifically the power emitted in all frequencies combined. You don't measure a 100w light bulb by frequency.


By knowing irradiance and total area you know the temperature and therefore the frequency. You know - that silly transposition of terms in a math problem?

I suspect you may be confusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which simply tells you how much power is radiated as a function of temperature, with Planck's law, which gives the frequency distribution of the radiation emitted as a function of temperature.


There you go again with your high school chemistry.

The radiation laws are usually considered to be a field of physics.

So is chemistry.


The Parrot Killer
19-07-2017 00:15
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.


Radiance is not frequency. It is power...specifically the power emitted in all frequencies combined. You don't measure a 100w light bulb by frequency.


By knowing irradiance and total area you know the temperature and therefore the frequency. You know - that silly transposition of terms in a math problem?

I suspect you may be confusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which simply tells you how much power is radiated as a function of temperature, with Planck's law, which gives the frequency distribution of the radiation emitted as a function of temperature.

Planck's law does not give you the frequency of distribution of radiation emitted as a function of temperature. You are thinking of Wien's law.

Planck's law gives you the energy emitted at a single given frequency and a known temperature. Both Wien's law and Planck's law are over the domain of the substance emitting.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn't care about the substance domain.


Then what is the e in the formula?
19-07-2017 00:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.


Radiance is not frequency. It is power...specifically the power emitted in all frequencies combined. You don't measure a 100w light bulb by frequency.


By knowing irradiance and total area you know the temperature and therefore the frequency. You know - that silly transposition of terms in a math problem?

I suspect you may be confusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which simply tells you how much power is radiated as a function of temperature, with Planck's law, which gives the frequency distribution of the radiation emitted as a function of temperature.

Planck's law does not give you the frequency of distribution of radiation emitted as a function of temperature. You are thinking of Wien's law.

Planck's law gives you the energy emitted at a single given frequency and a known temperature. Both Wien's law and Planck's law are over the domain of the substance emitting.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn't care about the substance domain.


Then what is the e in the formula?

Emissivity...a constant that is a measured value over all frequencies combined.


The Parrot Killer
19-07-2017 00:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.


Radiance is not frequency. It is power...specifically the power emitted in all frequencies combined. You don't measure a 100w light bulb by frequency.


By knowing irradiance and total area you know the temperature and therefore the frequency. You know - that silly transposition of terms in a math problem?

I suspect you may be confusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which simply tells you how much power is radiated as a function of temperature, with Planck's law, which gives the frequency distribution of the radiation emitted as a function of temperature.

Planck's law does not give you the frequency of distribution of radiation emitted as a function of temperature. You are thinking of Wien's law.

No, I'm not. Wien's (displacement) law gives you the frequency of peak emission as a function of temperature. Planck's law does indeed give you the frequency of distribution of radiation emitted as a function of temperature, or if you prefer, the spectral density of the emitted radiation. That is the same as saying that it gives the radiance as a function of temperature and frequency (or wavelength).
19-07-2017 00:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.


Radiance is not frequency. It is power...specifically the power emitted in all frequencies combined. You don't measure a 100w light bulb by frequency.


By knowing irradiance and total area you know the temperature and therefore the frequency. You know - that silly transposition of terms in a math problem?

I suspect you may be confusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which simply tells you how much power is radiated as a function of temperature, with Planck's law, which gives the frequency distribution of the radiation emitted as a function of temperature.

Planck's law does not give you the frequency of distribution of radiation emitted as a function of temperature. You are thinking of Wien's law.

No, I'm not. Wien's (displacement) law gives you the frequency of peak emission as a function of temperature. Planck's law does indeed give you the frequency of distribution of radiation emitted as a function of temperature, or if you prefer, the spectral density of the emitted radiation. That is the same as saying that it gives the radiance as a function of temperature and frequency (or wavelength).

Nope. It gives you the radiance from a given temperature and frequency.

You must iterate the equation over each frequency to produce a plot.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 19-07-2017 00:49
19-07-2017 09:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.


Radiance is not frequency. It is power...specifically the power emitted in all frequencies combined. You don't measure a 100w light bulb by frequency.


By knowing irradiance and total area you know the temperature and therefore the frequency. You know - that silly transposition of terms in a math problem?

I suspect you may be confusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which simply tells you how much power is radiated as a function of temperature, with Planck's law, which gives the frequency distribution of the radiation emitted as a function of temperature.

Planck's law does not give you the frequency of distribution of radiation emitted as a function of temperature. You are thinking of Wien's law.

No, I'm not. Wien's (displacement) law gives you the frequency of peak emission as a function of temperature. Planck's law does indeed give you the frequency of distribution of radiation emitted as a function of temperature, or if you prefer, the spectral density of the emitted radiation. That is the same as saying that it gives the radiance as a function of temperature and frequency (or wavelength).

Nope. It gives you the radiance from a given temperature and frequency.

You must iterate the equation over each frequency to produce a plot.

It's just a different way of saying the same thing. Just as you can say, for example, that Ohm's law gives you the current through a resistor for a particular voltage, or that Ohm's law gives you the current characteristic for a resistor.

In the case of Planck's law, it makes more sense to describe it as giving the frequency distribution of radiation emitted as a function of temperature because you typically have an object at a particular temperature emitting radiation over a range of frequencies. You specify the temperature and then choose the frequency or frequencies that you are interested in.
19-07-2017 17:34
James_
★★★☆☆
(637)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
Either Into the Dark Ages is in this forum to disrupt it or is here to teach spirituality. They have no interest in climate change or science.


I simply have a problem with someone talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and then acting as if Plank's Constant is something else when it is the basis upon what the S-B is founded. The S-B constant is calculated from the Plank Constant.

Exactly how much do you have to know that given the irradiance and the specific emissivity constant of a specific material you can calculate the exact temperature and hence the exact wavelength?

Instead the dead-head thinks that the emissivity constant is the same for all materials??? He is even unaware that the original Stefan-Boltzmann equation was modified to account for the fact that there are no true blackbodies by adding emissivity constant which is only a constant for a specific case.

It's like talking to a robot. He hasn't the ability for rational thought.


It's when they go into vague universal concepts that bothers me. It's like an escape mechanism. What everyone seems to be missing on is why Stefan-Boltzmann and the Boltzmann Constants mattered. Nothing personal but it seems that nobody knows what black body they are talking about.
It's a piece of steel. With Planck's work he tested his theories by heating a steel bar in a blast furnace. That's what led to his constant.
With steel a particular thought comes to mind, cathodes in a CRT. It's emission into a vacuum can be controlled by using magnetic fields. With an anode the field would have much energy radiated into it. With a cathode the energy has to be pulled from the cathode. This allows it's frequency to be controlled and directed towards a phosphor screen.
Although with the work Boltzmann was involved in it seems better suited to heat exchangers. After all, with the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant a black body first needs to absorb energy before it can emit it, right ? That's what a heat exchanger does. Then with the Boltzmann Constant, the kinetic energy of an ideal gas works in vacuum tubes, CRT tubes, light bulbs etc.
Without commercialization there wouldn't have been much investment in research.

@Into the Night,
My experiment is quite simple but the science behind it might not be. I think a lot of scientists would be upset to find out they missed something significant. And now that climate change is a $ Billion industry, who knows. If it has no practical commercial value then outside of improving the understanding of how our atmosphere works there might be no money in it.
Edited on 19-07-2017 17:36
19-07-2017 17:49
Wake
★★★★★
(2586)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
Either Into the Dark Ages is in this forum to disrupt it or is here to teach spirituality. They have no interest in climate change or science.


I simply have a problem with someone talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and then acting as if Plank's Constant is something else when it is the basis upon what the S-B is founded. The S-B constant is calculated from the Plank Constant.

Exactly how much do you have to know that given the irradiance and the specific emissivity constant of a specific material you can calculate the exact temperature and hence the exact wavelength?

Instead the dead-head thinks that the emissivity constant is the same for all materials??? He is even unaware that the original Stefan-Boltzmann equation was modified to account for the fact that there are no true blackbodies by adding emissivity constant which is only a constant for a specific case.

It's like talking to a robot. He hasn't the ability for rational thought.


It's when they go into vague universal concepts that bothers me. It's like an escape mechanism. What everyone seems to be missing on is why Stefan-Boltzmann and the Boltzmann Constants mattered. Nothing personal but it seems that nobody knows what black body they are talking about.
It's a piece of steel. With Planck's work he tested his theories by heating a steel bar in a blast furnace. That's what led to his constant.
With steel a particular thought comes to mind, cathodes in a CRT. It's emission into a vacuum can be controlled by using magnetic fields. With an anode the field would have much energy radiated into it. With a cathode the energy has to be pulled from the cathode. This allows it's frequency to be controlled and directed towards a phosphor screen.
Although with the work Boltzmann was involved in it seems better suited to heat exchangers. After all, with the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant a black body first needs to absorb energy before it can emit it, right ? That's what a heat exchanger does. Then with the Boltzmann Constant, the kinetic energy of an ideal gas works in vacuum tubes, CRT tubes, light bulbs etc.
Without commercialization there wouldn't have been much investment in research.

@Into the Night,
My experiment is quite simple but the science behind it might not be. I think a lot of scientists would be upset to find out they missed something significant. And now that climate change is a $ Billion industry, who knows. If it has no practical commercial value then outside of improving the understanding of how our atmosphere works there might be no money in it.


The evil four here that are arguing things they don't understand, somehow believe that scientific advances always came as they do now - through government funded research projects with no practical direction. In such cases you can make any stupid statements you like without getting fired.

But the real advances still are being made by private companies without shouting it out like some AGW True Believer who isn't even aware that there is more than their own opinions.
Edited on 19-07-2017 18:08
19-07-2017 18:51
James_
★★★☆☆
(637)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
Either Into the Dark Ages is in this forum to disrupt it or is here to teach spirituality. They have no interest in climate change or science.


I simply have a problem with someone talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and then acting as if Plank's Constant is something else when it is the basis upon what the S-B is founded. The S-B constant is calculated from the Plank Constant.

Exactly how much do you have to know that given the irradiance and the specific emissivity constant of a specific material you can calculate the exact temperature and hence the exact wavelength?

Instead the dead-head thinks that the emissivity constant is the same for all materials??? He is even unaware that the original Stefan-Boltzmann equation was modified to account for the fact that there are no true blackbodies by adding emissivity constant which is only a constant for a specific case.

It's like talking to a robot. He hasn't the ability for rational thought.


It's when they go into vague universal concepts that bothers me. It's like an escape mechanism. What everyone seems to be missing on is why Stefan-Boltzmann and the Boltzmann Constants mattered. Nothing personal but it seems that nobody knows what black body they are talking about.
It's a piece of steel. With Planck's work he tested his theories by heating a steel bar in a blast furnace. That's what led to his constant.
With steel a particular thought comes to mind, cathodes in a CRT. It's emission into a vacuum can be controlled by using magnetic fields. With an anode the field would have much energy radiated into it. With a cathode the energy has to be pulled from the cathode. This allows it's frequency to be controlled and directed towards a phosphor screen.
Although with the work Boltzmann was involved in it seems better suited to heat exchangers. After all, with the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant a black body first needs to absorb energy before it can emit it, right ? That's what a heat exchanger does. Then with the Boltzmann Constant, the kinetic energy of an ideal gas works in vacuum tubes, CRT tubes, light bulbs etc.
Without commercialization there wouldn't have been much investment in research.

@Into the Night,
My experiment is quite simple but the science behind it might not be. I think a lot of scientists would be upset to find out they missed something significant. And now that climate change is a $ Billion industry, who knows. If it has no practical commercial value then outside of improving the understanding of how our atmosphere works there might be no money in it.


The evil four here that are arguing things they don't understand, somehow believe that scientific advances always came as they do now - through government funded research projects with no practical direction. In such cases you can make any stupid statements you like without getting fired.

But the real advances still are being made by private companies without shouting it out like some AGW True Believer who isn't even aware that there is more than their own opinions.


Most private advances are with the military. There is a law that patents realized from government grants is supposed to be manufactured in the US. That law is not enforced.
I have been told in many physics forums that if my experiment works that it would not be fiscally feasible and because of that would have little value in the scientific community.
19-07-2017 21:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for frequency.


Successful stupidity by not knowing that irradiance is frequency.


Radiance is not frequency. It is power...specifically the power emitted in all frequencies combined. You don't measure a 100w light bulb by frequency.


By knowing irradiance and total area you know the temperature and therefore the frequency. You know - that silly transposition of terms in a math problem?

I suspect you may be confusing the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which simply tells you how much power is radiated as a function of temperature, with Planck's law, which gives the frequency distribution of the radiation emitted as a function of temperature.

Planck's law does not give you the frequency of distribution of radiation emitted as a function of temperature. You are thinking of Wien's law.

No, I'm not. Wien's (displacement) law gives you the frequency of peak emission as a function of temperature. Planck's law does indeed give you the frequency of distribution of radiation emitted as a function of temperature, or if you prefer, the spectral density of the emitted radiation. That is the same as saying that it gives the radiance as a function of temperature and frequency (or wavelength).

Nope. It gives you the radiance from a given temperature and frequency.

You must iterate the equation over each frequency to produce a plot.

It's just a different way of saying the same thing. Just as you can say, for example, that Ohm's law gives you the current through a resistor for a particular voltage, or that Ohm's law gives you the current characteristic for a resistor.

In the case of Planck's law, it makes more sense to describe it as giving the frequency distribution of radiation emitted as a function of temperature because you typically have an object at a particular temperature emitting radiation over a range of frequencies. You specify the temperature and then choose the frequency or frequencies that you are interested in.


No, it is NOT a different way of saying it. It is saying something completely different. I am glad, however, that you seem to be coming around to agreeing with me.


The Parrot Killer
19-07-2017 21:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
Either Into the Dark Ages is in this forum to disrupt it or is here to teach spirituality. They have no interest in climate change or science.


I simply have a problem with someone talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and then acting as if Plank's Constant is something else when it is the basis upon what the S-B is founded. The S-B constant is calculated from the Plank Constant.

Exactly how much do you have to know that given the irradiance and the specific emissivity constant of a specific material you can calculate the exact temperature and hence the exact wavelength?

Instead the dead-head thinks that the emissivity constant is the same for all materials??? He is even unaware that the original Stefan-Boltzmann equation was modified to account for the fact that there are no true blackbodies by adding emissivity constant which is only a constant for a specific case.

It's like talking to a robot. He hasn't the ability for rational thought.


It's when they go into vague universal concepts that bothers me.

You mean like the definition of science or the definition of 'climate change'? Perhaps you are bothered by philosophy and formal logic?
James_ wrote:
It's like an escape mechanism.
No, it's philosophy and formal logic.
James_ wrote:
What everyone seems to be missing on is why Stefan-Boltzmann and the Boltzmann Constants mattered. Nothing personal but it seems that nobody knows what black body they are talking about.
The ideal black body is described in the paper concerning the theory. It is a reference point. It is an ideal. It does not exist in nature. The same is true for the ideal white body.
James_ wrote:
It's a piece of steel.
A piece of steel if a grey body.
James_ wrote:
With Planck's work he tested his theories by heating a steel bar in a blast furnace. That's what led to his constant.
He heated a lot of things. Steel, carbon, glass, limestone, etc.

It is ironic that we have been making steel and other alloys of iron for a long time without any understanding of it. Alchemy in it's truest sense. Thanks to Max Planck and a few others, we know a lot more about steel now.

James_ wrote:
With steel a particular thought comes to mind, cathodes in a CRT.
There is no steel in a CRT or any other vacuum tube.
James_ wrote:
It's emission into a vacuum can be controlled by using magnetic fields.

Vacuum tubes do not emit steel. The cathode emits electrons. Magnetic fields to not control this emission. Electrostatic fields do that.
James_ wrote:
With an anode the field would have much energy radiated into it.
Anodes are usually positive. They are attractive to electrons. That's why electrons go to them. If an anode is not positive with respect to the cathode, the electron won't go to it.
James_ wrote:
With a cathode the energy has to be pulled from the cathode.
No energy is pulled from the cathode. Cathodes are heated. That's why they emit electrons.
James_ wrote:
This allows it's frequency
Electrons have no frequency.
James_ wrote:
to be controlled and directed towards a phosphor screen.

When the electron strikes a phosphor, it introduces energy into the phosphor. When the electron leaves again (to wander toward the anode), the phosphor loses energy. That loss of energy results in the emission of a photon in the visible range. A photon has a frequency.
James_ wrote:
Although with the work Boltzmann was involved in it seems better suited to heat exchangers.
You might try studying the laws of thermodynamics to understand heat exchangers.
James_ wrote:
After all, with the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant a black body first needs to absorb energy before it can emit it, right ?
No. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is a constant. It is not the equation. This constant converts the equation into our units of measure.
James_ wrote:
That's what a heat exchanger does.
It is not what a heat exchanger does.

A heat exchanger allows a hot fluid and a cold fluid to exchange thermal energy (which has no frequency) so they are close to the same temperature (near the average of the two temperatures), when they leave the heat exchanger.

A heat exchanger is the 2nd law of thermodynamics across a well coupled system.

James_ wrote:
Then with the Boltzmann Constant, the kinetic energy of an ideal gas works in vacuum tubes, CRT tubes, light bulbs etc.
Incompatible units problem. Technobabble.
James_ wrote:
Without commercialization there wouldn't have been much investment in research.
Not quite true. Most research money comes from the government...along with all the strings attached. Remember, science isn't research programs.
James_ wrote:
@Into the Night,
My experiment is quite simple but the science behind it might not be.
Science is simple. Think up a theory, then arrange to test it to see if its wrong. See if it conflicts with any other theory of science. If it does, one or both theories must be destroyed. If the theory survives, tell the world. Tell it your theory and how you tested it.
James_ wrote:
I think a lot of scientists would be upset to find out they missed something significant.
Whiners.
James_ wrote:
And now that climate change is a $ Billion industry, who knows.
All of it government money. Who cares about it? It is not a factor to inspire a new theory or to test it to see if it's wrong.
James_ wrote:
If it has no practical commercial value then outside of improving the understanding of how our atmosphere works there might be no money in it.

Science isn't money either. Don't worry about it.


The Parrot Killer
19-07-2017 22:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
Either Into the Dark Ages is in this forum to disrupt it or is here to teach spirituality. They have no interest in climate change or science.


I simply have a problem with someone talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and then acting as if Plank's Constant is something else when it is the basis upon what the S-B is founded. The S-B constant is calculated from the Plank Constant.

Exactly how much do you have to know that given the irradiance and the specific emissivity constant of a specific material you can calculate the exact temperature and hence the exact wavelength?

Instead the dead-head thinks that the emissivity constant is the same for all materials??? He is even unaware that the original Stefan-Boltzmann equation was modified to account for the fact that there are no true blackbodies by adding emissivity constant which is only a constant for a specific case.

It's like talking to a robot. He hasn't the ability for rational thought.


It's when they go into vague universal concepts that bothers me. It's like an escape mechanism. What everyone seems to be missing on is why Stefan-Boltzmann and the Boltzmann Constants mattered. Nothing personal but it seems that nobody knows what black body they are talking about.
It's a piece of steel. With Planck's work he tested his theories by heating a steel bar in a blast furnace. That's what led to his constant.
With steel a particular thought comes to mind, cathodes in a CRT. It's emission into a vacuum can be controlled by using magnetic fields. With an anode the field would have much energy radiated into it. With a cathode the energy has to be pulled from the cathode. This allows it's frequency to be controlled and directed towards a phosphor screen.
Although with the work Boltzmann was involved in it seems better suited to heat exchangers. After all, with the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant a black body first needs to absorb energy before it can emit it, right ? That's what a heat exchanger does. Then with the Boltzmann Constant, the kinetic energy of an ideal gas works in vacuum tubes, CRT tubes, light bulbs etc.
Without commercialization there wouldn't have been much investment in research.

@Into the Night,
My experiment is quite simple but the science behind it might not be. I think a lot of scientists would be upset to find out they missed something significant. And now that climate change is a $ Billion industry, who knows. If it has no practical commercial value then outside of improving the understanding of how our atmosphere works there might be no money in it.


The evil four here that are arguing things they don't understand, somehow believe that scientific advances always came as they do now - through government funded research projects with no practical direction. In such cases you can make any stupid statements you like without getting fired.

Government funded research has a practical direction: to push forward the government agenda.
Wake wrote:
But the real advances still are being made by private companies without shouting it out like some AGW True Believer who isn't even aware that there is more than their own opinions.

Private researches are paid to help their employer make money.

This can be research into new ways to use oil, more efficient ways to burn gasoline, new plastics, develop instrumentation, finding new resources, creating healthier forests, feed more people with the same acreage and water use, develop new and safer ways to control pests, improve reactor safety, and on...and on...and on.


The Parrot Killer
19-07-2017 22:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4319)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
Either Into the Dark Ages is in this forum to disrupt it or is here to teach spirituality. They have no interest in climate change or science.


I simply have a problem with someone talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and then acting as if Plank's Constant is something else when it is the basis upon what the S-B is founded. The S-B constant is calculated from the Plank Constant.

Exactly how much do you have to know that given the irradiance and the specific emissivity constant of a specific material you can calculate the exact temperature and hence the exact wavelength?

Instead the dead-head thinks that the emissivity constant is the same for all materials??? He is even unaware that the original Stefan-Boltzmann equation was modified to account for the fact that there are no true blackbodies by adding emissivity constant which is only a constant for a specific case.

It's like talking to a robot. He hasn't the ability for rational thought.


It's when they go into vague universal concepts that bothers me. It's like an escape mechanism. What everyone seems to be missing on is why Stefan-Boltzmann and the Boltzmann Constants mattered. Nothing personal but it seems that nobody knows what black body they are talking about.
It's a piece of steel. With Planck's work he tested his theories by heating a steel bar in a blast furnace. That's what led to his constant.
With steel a particular thought comes to mind, cathodes in a CRT. It's emission into a vacuum can be controlled by using magnetic fields. With an anode the field would have much energy radiated into it. With a cathode the energy has to be pulled from the cathode. This allows it's frequency to be controlled and directed towards a phosphor screen.
Although with the work Boltzmann was involved in it seems better suited to heat exchangers. After all, with the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant a black body first needs to absorb energy before it can emit it, right ? That's what a heat exchanger does. Then with the Boltzmann Constant, the kinetic energy of an ideal gas works in vacuum tubes, CRT tubes, light bulbs etc.
Without commercialization there wouldn't have been much investment in research.

@Into the Night,
My experiment is quite simple but the science behind it might not be. I think a lot of scientists would be upset to find out they missed something significant. And now that climate change is a $ Billion industry, who knows. If it has no practical commercial value then outside of improving the understanding of how our atmosphere works there might be no money in it.


The evil four here that are arguing things they don't understand, somehow believe that scientific advances always came as they do now - through government funded research projects with no practical direction. In such cases you can make any stupid statements you like without getting fired.

But the real advances still are being made by private companies without shouting it out like some AGW True Believer who isn't even aware that there is more than their own opinions.


Most private advances are with the military.

Most private advances are in industry, not the military. While a fair bit of military research is private, the bulk of it is government. Private research develops a new explosive material, but government research develops that in to a weapon.
James_ wrote:
There is a law that patents realized from government grants is supposed to be manufactured in the US. That law is not enforced.
That law also specifies that all military suppliers must be of U.S. manufacture. The reason it's not enforced is because we have no electronics industry in the United States. Resistors, capacitors, inductors, transistors, and most chips must be imported. All displays must be imported. All solar cells are imported. Heck...the U.S. is having trouble making copper wire. Most lithography and assembly is done offshore.
James_ wrote:
I have been told in many physics forums that if my experiment works that it would not be fiscally feasible and because of that would have little value in the scientific community.

Irrelevant factor. I'm sure that somewhere you can find somebody somewhere to buy a few weather balloons and materials to construct an instrument package.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Stefan-Boltzmann and the Botlzmann Constant:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law12928-09-2017 22:25
Black Body Radiation and Stefan-Boltzmann5426-05-2017 23:35
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact