Remember me
▼ Content

2nd law



Page 2 of 2<12
13-02-2020 00:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
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.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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★★★★★
(2265)
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★★★★★
(5955)
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.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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★★★★★
(2265)
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★★★★★
(5955)
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?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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★★★★★
(2265)
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★★★★★
(5955)
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.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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★★★★★
(2265)
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★★★★★
(5955)
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?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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★★★★★
(2265)
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★★★★★
(5955)
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.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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★★★★★
(2265)
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★★★★★
(2265)
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★★★★★
(5955)
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.





.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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★★★★★
(2265)
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
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate 2nd law:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law74322-11-2019 04:54
Stefan-Boltzmann Law At A Non-Vacuum Interface2020-10-2019 23:41
Election Law3208-10-2019 13:02
Democrat Debates - the 2nd Ten901-07-2019 19:24
Greenhouse gas hypothesis violates Law of Conservation of Energy218-03-2019 18:56
▲ 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