Remember me
▼ Content

2nd law



Page 2 of 3<123>
13-02-2020 00:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Scenario: An 8x8x3 meter room ....5cm diameter steel ball .


Not factoring in air in the room and conduction convection, both the ball and the walls will, as they have thermal energy and a temperature, radiate out. The radiance leaving the walls and ball results in a loss of thermal energy.

Both the walls and the ball are also hit by radiance.

For the ball it is hit by some of the radiance from the walls and this is absorbed and converted to thermal energy.

The walls will be hit by radiance from the walls and the ball and absorb that radiance.

The walls will see a net increase in thermal energy as the ball gives more radiant energy than it absorbs. The ball will see a net decrease as it gives more than it gets.


I wanted to focus on thermal energy and I asked you as much four times. I have greyed out the parts where you nonetheless decided to erroneously discuss photons.

I asked to focus on thermal energy because you don't have any clue about quantum mechanics and can only flail away with unhelpful macro world terms.

Could you elaborate on the above, focusing on the just the thermal energy? If not, just say so and we can close this out.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-02-2020 00:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...
The walls will see a net increase in thermal energy ... The ball will see a net decrease...

I wanted...
Could you elaborate on the above, focusing on the just the thermal energy? ...

And I say again:
tmiddles wrote:
So IBD are we once again playing the game where you ignore my questions and only ask your own?

Oh and you still haven't responded here: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right-help-from-an-expert-please-d10-e2720-s160.php#post_52389

As for the thermal exchange between the ball and walls the only thing that matters is the surface area of the ball. The walls will swap some radiance but it would be in equilibrium. Also this does not factor in any air in the room and assumes a vacuum.

I will assume black body emissivity of 1.0 which for infra red radiance at these low temps is about right.

A 5cm diameter ball has a surface area of 78.54cm. With a temperature of 42C the ball will lose thermal energy, through radiance, as per Stefan-Boltzmann:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(1.00)(.007854m2)315.15K^4=-0.4393W
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = -0.4393W

As the room basically provides an ambient radiance at 18C the absorption by the ball, and conversion to thermal energy, will be using the same surface area.
__________P(in)=σeA(T2^4), 291.15K
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 715668499.46 = +0.3187W

So the difference in this net radiative transfer is a loss of 0.1206 Watts by the ball and a gain of that same amount by the room. That's what happens with the thermal energy.
Edited on 13-02-2020 01:11
13-02-2020 04:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote:Oh and you still haven't responded here:

First things first.

tmiddles wrote: So the difference in this net radiative transfer


I'll jump to the chase. At the quantum level, some of those photons are not "absorbed" (whatever you believe you mean by that). In your previous example of thermal energy being like a cup with a hole in the bottom, you asked:

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
...., water entering the cup has to enter through the hole..
ok, is that important?


Yes. Just as in the macro world some water would be blocked from entering the hole by water flowing out of the hole, in the quantum world, some photons are simply not absorbed and thermal energy flows in only one direction. As I have tried on many occasions to explain, no one knows the how or why. Our quantum model doesn't explain it, nor does it explain the process of "absorption". Yes, photons fly in all directions. Thermal energy does not; it only flows from warmer to cooler.

Try to forget the photons. Just imagine the ball, the walls and the thermal energy. Forget the photons. Just imagine the thermal energy decreasing in the ball and increasing in the walls, as you described. That's all you have to know. Trying to make photons fit your macro world perceptions will just throw you off.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-02-2020 05:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:Just imagine the ball, the walls and the thermal energy.


So do you also get 0.1206 Watts ?

I mean this isn't about imagination and our limited ability to visualize these things, it's about calculating the thermal energy changes. It's the results that matter.
Edited on 13-02-2020 05:16
13-02-2020 21:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Just imagine the ball, the walls and the thermal energy.


So do you also get 0.1206 Watts ?

... of what? ...photons?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-02-2020 00:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Just imagine the ball, the walls and the thermal energy.
So do you also get 0.1206 Watts ?
... of what? ...photons?
That's the rate at which the ball is dropping in thermal energy content and the walls are increasing in thermal energy content. As calculated above.

You don't get the same result?
14-02-2020 02:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote:That's the rate at which the ball is dropping in thermal energy content and the walls are increasing in thermal energy content.


No, I didn't do the calculation but that's really immaterial. You are not discussing any sort of "net" flow ... you are discussing "the" flow. There is no flow of thermal energy from the walls to body/ball.

Yes, there are photons flying all about, and they don't enter the "thermal energy flow" picture.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-02-2020 02:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
No, I didn't do the calculation but that's really immaterial.
It's hardly immaterial it's everything. It is "what happens", it is the resulting change in thermal energy.

IBdaMann wrote:
You are not discussing...
I have discussed the rate of change of thermal energy in the setup you proposed. I am asking you to discuss my findings.

Are you willing and/or able to calculate the thermal energy change for your own example?

Do you find that I did it correctly?

tmiddles wrote:

A 5cm diameter ball has a surface area of 78.54cm. With a temperature of 42C the ball will lose thermal energy, through radiance, as per Stefan-Boltzmann:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(1.00)(.007854m2)315.15K^4=-0.4393W
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = -0.4393W

As the room basically provides an ambient radiance at 18C the absorption by the ball, and conversion to thermal energy, will be using the same surface area.
__________P(in)=σeA(T2^4), 291.15K
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 715668499.46 = +0.3187W

So the difference in this net radiative transfer is a loss of 0.1206 Watts by the ball and a gain of that same amount by the room. That's what happens with the thermal energy.
14-02-2020 03:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote: It is "what happens", it is the resulting change in thermal energy.

Nope. You described the "what happens." That was the whole point.




tmiddles wrote: Do you find that I did it correctly?

How did I get roped into doing arithmetic? I normally turn that over to someone else. Supposing I turn it over to you and go with what you computed. Does it somehow change what you describe as having happened?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-02-2020 03:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Do you find that I did it correctly?
...Supposing I turn it over to you and go with what you computed. Does it somehow change what you describe as having happened?


It's may calculation so why would it change anything for me?

I show two things are happening:
1- The ball loses thermal energy that is gained by the walls -0.4393W
2- The walls lose thermal energy that is gained by the ball +0.3187W

The "flow" is the difference between the two. -0.1206 Watts
14-02-2020 04:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote:I show two things are happening:
1- The ball loses thermal energy that is gained by the walls -0.4393W
2- The walls lose thermal energy that is gained by the ball +0.3187W

You do not.

You show only a flow of thermal energy from the ball to the walls. You got your balls to the wall, man.

You do not show any thermal energy flowing to the ball.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-02-2020 14:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
Semantics aside let's look at three scenarios.
A: Room is 18C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.1206 Watts
B: Room is 30C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.0632 Watts
C: Room is 42C there is not change in the thermal energy of the ball or the room

A
tmiddles wrote:
A 5cm diameter ball has a surface area of 78.54cm. With a temperature of 42C the ball will lose thermal energy, through radiance, as per Stefan-Boltzmann:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(1.00)(.007854m2)315.15K^4=-0.4393W
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = -0.4393W

As the room basically provides an ambient radiance at 18C the absorption by the ball, and conversion to thermal energy, will be using the same surface area.
__________P(in)=σeA(T2^4), 291.15K
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 715668499.46 = +0.3187W

So the difference in this net radiative transfer is a loss of 0.1206 Watts by the ball and a gain of that same amount by the room.


B
tmiddles wrote:
A 5cm diameter ball has a surface area of 78.54cm. With a temperature of 42C the ball will lose thermal energy, through radiance, as per Stefan-Boltzmann:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(1.00)(.007854m2)315.15K^4=-0.4393W
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = -0.4393W

As the room basically provides an ambient radiance at 30C the absorption by the ball, and conversion to thermal energy, will be using the same surface area.
__________P(in)=σeA(T2^4), 303.15K
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 8445595755.5 = +0.3761W

So the difference in this net radiative transfer is a loss of 0.0632 Watts by the ball and a gain of that same amount by the room.


C
tmiddles wrote:
A 5cm diameter ball has a surface area of 78.54cm. With a temperature of 42C the ball will lose thermal energy, through radiance, as per Stefan-Boltzmann:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(1.00)(.007854m2)315.15K^4=-0.4393W
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = -0.4393W

As the room basically provides an ambient radiance at 42C the absorption by the ball, and conversion to thermal energy, will be using the same surface area.
__________P(in)=σeA(T2^4), 315.15K
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = +0.4393W

So the difference in this net radiative transfer is 0.00 Watts by the ball and a gain of that same amount by the room. There is an equilibrium

Edited on 14-02-2020 14:30
16-02-2020 10:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
tmiddles wrote:
Semantics aside let's look at three scenarios.
A: Room is 18C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.1206 Watts
B: Room is 30C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.0632 Watts
C: Room is 42C there is not change in the thermal energy of the ball or the room

Still waiting....
16-02-2020 21:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Semantics aside let's look at three scenarios.
A: Room is 18C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.1206 Watts
B: Room is 30C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.0632 Watts
C: Room is 42C there is not change in the thermal energy of the ball or the room

Still waiting....


I don't understand your scenarios. I get as far as the word "net" and I get confused. I thought we had reached an understanding that you have shown no "net" anything; just a flow of thermal energy from the ball to the wall. You have shown no thermal energy flowing from the walls to the ball. None. In fact, we're now on eight months of "still waiting" for you to provide a repeatable demonstration of thermal energy flowing from cold to warm. Again, I acknowledge that if we completely shift contexts and move into the quantum world in which we are talking about photons, yes, photons are flying all over the place, but I don't buy your explanation of "absorption."

Yet every one of your scenarios is premised on a "net flow" and I can't get past it. It's like we are supposed to completely ignore everything to which we had just agreed.

The word "net" implies SOME themal energy flows from cold to warm. This is your affirmative assumption. For us to move forward assuming your model we need to first demonstrate it. This brings us back to your requirement to provide a repeatable example whereby we can show thermal energy, not photons, flowing from cold to warm. I don't care how little it is, just that you show it.

Note: I don't care if there is a subtraction operation in your calculation. I don't know if you have ever taken calculus but all integrals for finding the area under a curve involve a subtraction. The derivation of Stefan-Boltzmann involved quite a few subtractions. The end result is the flow, not any "net" flow, but the entire flow, of thermal energy from warm to cold. Just like water flowing downhill is not somehow a "net" considering all the water flowing uphill. There is no water flowing uphill. There is no thermal energy flowing from cold to warm. There is no "net" to be considered.

So ... we are back at the starting gate awaiting your emergence with your repeatable example of SOME thermal energy flowing from cold to warm.



Still waiting.





.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-02-2020 14:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
I don't understand your scenarios. .

Please let me know if I've departed in any way from your scenario.
IBdaMann wrote:
Scenario: An 8x8x3 meter room with steel panel walls, roof and floor, all with uniform 18 degrees Celsius initial temperature, inside and out. Suspended in the exact middle/center of the room by a powerful repelling magnet in the floor is a 5cm diameter steel ball (the "body") with initial uniform temperature of 42 degrees Celsius.
Discussion: What happens exactly with thermal energy of the body (steel ball) and that of the room (i.e. the air+walls+roof+floor) as photons fly about every which way.
[note: because you are apt to misread, I am asking you to describe the thermal energy, not the photons]

Let's stay focused on that as it's an excellent scenario to work with.

I've presented a more concise and focused solution to your senario below. Have I found the correct solutions?
Do you have a problem with my adding two variations in wall temperature?

A: Room is 18C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.1206 Watts
B: Room is 30C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.0632 Watts
C: Room is 42C there is not change in the thermal energy of the ball or the room

A

A 5cm diameter ball has a surface area of 78.54cm. With a temperature of 42C the ball will lose thermal energy:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(1.00)(.007854m2)315.15K^4=-0.4393W
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = -0.4393W

The room provides an ambient radiance at 18C the absorption by the ball, and conversion to thermal energy, will be using the same surface area.
__________P(in)=σeA(T2^4), 291.15K
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 715668499.46 = +0.3187W

There is a loss of 0.1206 Watts by the ball and a gain of that same amount by the room.

B
A 5cm diameter ball at 42C, the ball will lose thermal energy:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(1.00)(.007854m2)315.15K^4=-0.4393W
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = -0.4393W

The room at 30C:
__________P(in)=σeA(T2^4), 303.15K
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 8445595755.5 = +0.3761W

There is a loss of 0.0632 Watts by the ball and a gain of that same amount by the room.

C
A 5cm diameter ball at 42C, the ball will lose thermal energy:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(1.00)(.007854m2)315.15K^4=-0.4393W
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = -0.4393W

The room at 42C:
__________P(in)=σeA(T2^4), 315.15K
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = +0.4393W

A loss of 0.00 Watts by the ball and a gain of that same amount by the room.

Edited on 17-02-2020 14:37
20-02-2020 19:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I don't understand your scenarios. .

Please let me know if I've departed in any way from your scenario.
IBdaMann wrote:
Scenario: An 8x8x3 meter room with steel panel walls, roof and floor, all with uniform 18 degrees Celsius initial temperature, inside and out. Suspended in the exact middle/center of the room by a powerful repelling magnet in the floor is a 5cm diameter steel ball (the "body") with initial uniform temperature of 42 degrees Celsius.
Discussion: What happens exactly with thermal energy of the body (steel ball) and that of the room (i.e. the air+walls+roof+floor) as photons fly about every which way.
[note: because you are apt to misread, I am asking you to describe the thermal energy, not the photons]

Let's stay focused on that as it's an excellent scenario to work with.

I've presented a more concise and focused solution to your senario below. Have I found the correct solutions?
Do you have a problem with my adding two variations in wall temperature?

A: Room is 18C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.1206 Watts
B: Room is 30C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.0632 Watts
C: Room is 42C there is not change in the thermal energy of the ball or the room

A

A 5cm diameter ball has a surface area of 78.54cm. With a temperature of 42C the ball will lose thermal energy:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(1.00)(.007854m2)315.15K^4=-0.4393W
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = -0.4393W

The room provides an ambient radiance at 18C the absorption by the ball, and conversion to thermal energy, will be using the same surface area.
__________P(in)=σeA(T2^4), 291.15K
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 715668499.46 = +0.3187W

There is a loss of 0.1206 Watts by the ball and a gain of that same amount by the room.

B
A 5cm diameter ball at 42C, the ball will lose thermal energy:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(1.00)(.007854m2)315.15K^4=-0.4393W
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = -0.4393W

The room at 30C:
__________P(in)=σeA(T2^4), 303.15K
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 8445595755.5 = +0.3761W

There is a loss of 0.0632 Watts by the ball and a gain of that same amount by the room.

C
A 5cm diameter ball at 42C, the ball will lose thermal energy:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(1.00)(.007854m2)315.15K^4=-0.4393W
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = -0.4393W

The room at 42C:
__________P(in)=σeA(T2^4), 315.15K
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = +0.4393W

A loss of 0.00 Watts by the ball and a gain of that same amount by the room.


RQAA. He just answered your questions, and you ask them again and again. Photons are not thermal energy.

Mantras 10 (electromagnetic energy<->thermal energy)...31...33...25...26...20a2...15


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
21-02-2020 08:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
Into the Night wrote:Photons are not thermal energy.
Where do you see me use the word "photons" in my solutions? My answers are in watts.

Do you have a solution to these problems ITN?

Are you saying these are the wrong answers?
tmiddles wrote:
A: Room is 18C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.1206 Watts
B: Room is 30C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.0632 Watts
C: Room is 42C there is not change in the thermal energy of the ball or the room

And no IBD did not comment on if I'd gotten the correct answers at all. He said simply:
IBdaMann wrote:
I don't understand your scenarios. I get as far as the word "net" and I get confused.

So I represented the problems with a focus on the equations used and answers without any troubling vocabulary.

Keep in mind this is IBD's scenario I've solved for. No one else, including you, has presented a solution.

Thanks for bumping the thread though I was about to remind IBD.
Edited on 21-02-2020 08:58
21-02-2020 21:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Photons are not thermal energy.
Where do you see me use the word "photons" in my solutions? My answers are in watts.

You are trying to describe thermal energy in terms of radiance, dumbass. Mantra 15.
tmiddles wrote:
Do you have a solution to these problems ITN?

These aren't problems. Mantra 25
tmiddles wrote:
Are you saying these are the wrong answers?

These aren't answers. Mantra 25
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
A: Room is 18C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.1206 Watts
B: Room is 30C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.0632 Watts
C: Room is 42C there is not change in the thermal energy of the ball or the room

And no IBD did not comment on if I'd gotten the correct answers at all. He said simply:
IBdaMann wrote:
I don't understand your scenarios. I get as far as the word "net" and I get confused.

So I represented the problems with a focus on the equations used and answers without any troubling vocabulary.

Making up random numbers as data is a fallacy. Contriving 'problems' to be solved and using that as some kind of proof is the same fallacy. Mantra 25. There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
tmiddles wrote:
Keep in mind this is IBD's scenario I've solved for. No one else, including you, has presented a solution.

There is no problem to solve. Mantra 25.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 21-02-2020 21:06
22-02-2020 02:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
Into the Night wrote:
You are trying to describe thermal energy in terms of radiance...

Where do you see the word "radiance"? My answer is in watts:
tmiddles wrote:
A: Room is 18C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.1206 Watts
B: Room is 30C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.0632 Watts
C: Room is 42C there is not change in the thermal energy of the ball or the room

Do you not know how to solve for this? What is your solution?

Into the Night wrote:Making up random numbers as data is a fallacy.
Well this was IBD's scenario so take it up with him.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
22-02-2020 05:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote: Well this was IBD's scenario so take it up with him.


@ Into the Night, we really need to capture this tactic and get it into the list. This is such a beautiful example that we can't let this go. I'd like to get your thoughts on the optimal wording.

Step 1) tmiddles argues a violation of physics as an angle to show Global Warming, in this case, that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer.

Step 2) somebody politely points out that he is violating physics, in this case the 2nd LoT.

Step 3) tmiddles protests with a vague scenario that he claims demonstrates that he is not violating physics.

step 4) someone politely points out that he is still violating physics.

step 5) tmiddles asks a flurry of specific and irrelevant questions demanding that they all be explained.

step 6) a detailed scenario is proposed as an illustration.

step 7) tmiddles performs some irrelevant arithmetic and demands confirmation that his number crunching is correct.

step 8) when asked to refocus on the physics violation, he bows out, in this case he tells you to talk to me because *I* was the one who tried to address his requests for specificity.


This was a big waste of time.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-02-2020 07:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
step 6) a detailed scenario is proposed as an illustration.
step 7) tmiddles performs some irrelevant arithmetic and demands confirmation that his number crunching is correct.


IBD you asked what happens with the thermal energy. I have answered you, in watts. What were you asking for if not that?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
22-02-2020 07:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote: IBD you asked what happens with the thermal energy. I have answered you, in watts. What were you asking for if not that?


Not any units of measure. None are needed.

You and I are stuck on a point which is your affirmative claim that some thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer. For months I have asked for a repeatable example of your claim. In the scenario I detailed, you show thermal energy flowing only in one direction (warmer to cooler). You successfully show photons going in the other direction (cooler to warmer) but we agree that we aren't interested in photons, only in thermal energy, but you can't show any thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer, only photons.

If I suggest that at the quantum level that some photons are not absorbed as you understand the term, you go apoplectic. I devised the scenario to help you out, to give you an opportunity to show some non-zero thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer but you instead asked me to check some irrelevant math.

I think it's time you started demonstrating your claim.



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-02-2020 09:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
....
Not any units of measure. None are needed.
....
In the scenario I detailed, you show thermal energy flowing only in one direction (warmer to cooler). .


So did I get the correct result for all three scenarios? Why is that so hard for you to answer?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 22-02-2020 09:29
22-02-2020 17:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
....
Not any units of measure. None are needed.
....
In the scenario I detailed, you show thermal energy flowing only in one direction (warmer to cooler). .


So did I get the correct result for all three scenarios? Why is that so hard for you to answer?

You did not answer the problem. I needed to see the correct final answer which is your observation that thermal energy only flows in one direction. This problem did not involve showing your work for extra credit.



,.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-02-2020 18:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
You did not answer the problem. I needed to see the correct final answer which is your observation ...

This may be where your bookless education in the oral tradition falters IBD. You see thermodynamics is an applied science. There is an actual answer, in watts, to the scenario. How can you deny that?

You also continue to dodge the very simple question:
did I calculate the correct answers?

Your personal, private vocabulary, which you so often refuse to define, makes your answers in English a mystery so lets get some numbers on the table.

Do you not know how to solve for your own scenario?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
22-02-2020 18:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote: ... so lets get some numbers on the table.

Do you not know how to solve for your own scenario?


I see why you chose art over a technical field. Didn't I just give you the correct answer? (hint: yes)



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-02-2020 19:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
. Didn't I just give you the correct answer? (hint: yes).
Answer to what?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN[
22-02-2020 20:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
. Didn't I just give you the correct answer? (hint: yes).
Answer to what?

Refresh my memory. What were we talking about?



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-02-2020 21:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
....deleted duplication of previous message...Mantra 29


No argument presetnted. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
22-02-2020 21:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Well this was IBD's scenario so take it up with him.


@ Into the Night, we really need to capture this tactic and get it into the list. This is such a beautiful example that we can't let this go. I'd like to get your thoughts on the optimal wording.

Step 1) tmiddles argues a violation of physics as an angle to show Global Warming, in this case, that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer.

Step 2) somebody politely points out that he is violating physics, in this case the 2nd LoT.

Step 3) tmiddles protests with a vague scenario that he claims demonstrates that he is not violating physics.

step 4) someone politely points out that he is still violating physics.

step 5) tmiddles asks a flurry of specific and irrelevant questions demanding that they all be explained.

step 6) a detailed scenario is proposed as an illustration.

step 7) tmiddles performs some irrelevant arithmetic and demands confirmation that his number crunching is correct.

step 8) when asked to refocus on the physics violation, he bows out, in this case he tells you to talk to me because *I* was the one who tried to address his requests for specificity.


This was a big waste of time.


.


This wording is good. I will call it TM sequence A. At this time I do not think it should be in the general list, since those are for individual statements and not sequences.

I have also added a step 9:
retreats into demanding for sources of the laws of thermodynamics and making vague claims that the theories of thermodynamics were never published.

Notation follows the form: TMS<letter><step> such as TMSa9, where he seems to be right about now.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
22-02-2020 21:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted TMSa7...



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
22-02-2020 21:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted TMSa7...

No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
22-02-2020 21:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted TMSa7...Mantra 22...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
23-02-2020 01:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
. Didn't I just give you the correct answer? (hint: yes).
Answer to what?

Refresh my memory. What were we talking about?.

I don't know what you were talking about.

I'll say again thermodynamics is an applied science. Real answers, in watts, can and should be calculated. You and ITN have ducked this for 5 years. The reason is in part incompitence but mainly because you can't get the right answer without using net radiance.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
23-02-2020 03:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
. Didn't I just give you the correct answer? (hint: yes).
Answer to what?

Refresh my memory. What were we talking about?.

I don't know what you were talking about.

I'll say again thermodynamics is an applied science.

Yes, I gave you the correct answer to that.

tmiddles wrote: The reason is in part incompitence but mainly because you can't get the right answer without using net radiance.

The incompetence surrounds your need to conflate photons and electromagnetic radiation with thermal energy.

Let me know when you can get by that.



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-02-2020 03:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
Yes, I gave you the correct answer to that.
.
no clue what you are talking about.

IBD are you able to solve a thermodynamic problem? Do you know how? Is the solution not in watts?

Why do you continue to dodge any applied work?
Because you'll be proven wrong.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 23-02-2020 03:58
23-02-2020 04:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Didn't I just give you the correct answer? (hint: yes).

Answer to what?

Refresh my memory. What were we talking about?

I don't know what you were talking about. I'll say again thermodynamics is an applied science.

Yes, I gave you the correct answer to that.

no clue what you are talking about.

Refresh my memory then. What were we talking about?

tmiddles wrote: IBD are you able to solve a thermodynamic problem? Do you know how? Is the solution not in watts?

Yes. Yes. No.


[ ... general chuckling at the rest of your post deleted ...]



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-02-2020 05:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
Refresh my memory then. What were we talking about?

I don't know what you were talking about.

I'll say again thermodynamics is an applied science. Real answers, in watts, can and should be calculated. You and ITN have ducked this for 5 years. The reason is in part incompetence but mainly because you can't get the right answer without using net radiance.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ...a thermodynamic problem...Is the solution not in watts?

... No.
What is it in then?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
23-02-2020 08:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
Didn't I just give you the correct answer? (hint: yes).

Answer to what?

Refresh my memory. What were we talking about?

I don't know what you were talking about. I'll say again thermodynamics is an applied science.

Yes, I gave you the correct answer to that.

no clue what you are talking about.

Refresh my memory then. What were we talking about?

I don't know what you were talking about. I'll say again thermodynamics is an applied science. Real answers, in watts, can and should be calculated.

The correct answer is not in Watts. I gave you the correct answer.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ...a thermodynamic problem...Is the solution not in watts?

... No.
What is it in then?

It depends on the problem.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-02-2020 09:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:I gave you the correct answer.
To what? when? I never saw an answer for any thermodynamic problem from you. In, well, ever.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ...a thermodynamic problem...Is the solution not in watts?
... No.
What is it in then?
It depends on the problem.

OK here are variation on the same problem, from your own scenario. Do they all have the same solution and what is the form of that solution? Is there any difference between the three?

A: Room is 18C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.1206 Watts
B: Room is 30C the ball loses thermal energy to the room at 0.0632 Watts
C: Room is 42C there is not change in the thermal energy of the ball or the room

A
tmiddles wrote:
A 5cm diameter ball has a surface area of 78.54cm. With a temperature of 42C the ball will lose thermal energy, through radiance, as per Stefan-Boltzmann:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(1.00)(.007854m2)315.15K^4=-0.4393W
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = -0.4393W

As the room basically provides an ambient radiance at 18C the absorption by the ball, and conversion to thermal energy, will be using the same surface area.
__________P(in)=σeA(T2^4), 291.15K
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 715668499.46 = +0.3187W

So the difference in this net radiative transfer is a loss of 0.1206 Watts by the ball and a gain of that same amount by the room.


B
tmiddles wrote:
A 5cm diameter ball has a surface area of 78.54cm. With a temperature of 42C the ball will lose thermal energy, through radiance, as per Stefan-Boltzmann:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(1.00)(.007854m2)315.15K^4=-0.4393W
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = -0.4393W

As the room basically provides an ambient radiance at 30C the absorption by the ball, and conversion to thermal energy, will be using the same surface area.
__________P(in)=σeA(T2^4), 303.15K
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 8445595755.5 = +0.3761W

So the difference in this net radiative transfer is a loss of 0.0632 Watts by the ball and a gain of that same amount by the room.


C
tmiddles wrote:
A 5cm diameter ball has a surface area of 78.54cm. With a temperature of 42C the ball will lose thermal energy, through radiance, as per Stefan-Boltzmann:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(1.00)(.007854m2)315.15K^4=-0.4393W
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = -0.4393W

As the room basically provides an ambient radiance at 42C the absorption by the ball, and conversion to thermal energy, will be using the same surface area.
__________P(in)=σeA(T2^4), 315.15K
0.0000000567 * 1.00 * .007854 * 986436754.6 = +0.4393W

So the difference in this net radiative transfer is 0.00 Watts by the ball and a gain of that same amount by the room. There is an equilibrium


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate 2nd law:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Brandolini's Law- Applicable to Climate Change Hoax028-06-2020 15:26
1st law, 2nd law, stefan boltzman, plank1711-06-2020 16:22
BREAKING NEWS! April 2020 - 2nd Warmest April on record.9705-06-2020 19:21
Open vs closed/ 2nd law5424-02-2020 22:09
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law74322-11-2019 04:54
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact