Remember me
▼ Content

Energy source: evaporation - condensation (continuation)



Page 5 of 5<<<345
01-02-2022 04:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:There is a higher and a lower emissivity.

Not until you specify such.
Why is that necessary?

If you are proposing a scenario, you have to specify everything about the scenario.


And I have. Higher and Lower.

But if you like: 0.9 and 0.1

What's your next objection to actually getting to the thermodynamics involved?
01-02-2022 05:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14377)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:There is a higher and a lower emissivity.
Not until you specify such.
Why is that necessary?
If you are proposing a scenario, you have to specify everything about the scenario.
And I have.

You had not. You specified a higher and lower absorptivity for the visible light and nothing for any of the other wavelengths.

You need to specify an emissivity value for the body, i.e. for the spaceship.

tmiddles wrote:But if you like: 0.9 and 0.1

You're getting closer.

What is the spaceship's emissivity in orientation A and what is the spaceship's emissivity in orientation B? You have two different objects in question, one for each orientation.

tmiddles wrote:What's your next objection to actually getting to the thermodynamics involved?

... that you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics ... and that you can't specify your scenario ... or you don't want to so as to maintain maximum semantic wiggle room so you can achieve peak performance in your word games.

However, if you can get through the mandatory prerequisites, I'll be more than happy to teach you what you need to know.
01-02-2022 07:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
IBdaMann wrote:
You need to specify an emissivity value for the body, i.e. for the spaceship.
... in orientation A and what is the spaceship's emissivity in orientation B?.
this thread it was a rectangle but same scenario as a ship. In this case the overall emissivty doesnt change. Its the emissivity of the portion exposed to sunlight as it is rotated.

So 0.9 for the black side and 0.1 for the white side.

The object heats up, experiences warming, and reaches a higher equilibrium temp when the black, 0.9 side is in the sun.
01-02-2022 08:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14377)
tmiddles wrote:In this case the overall emissivty doesnt change.

The emissivity for neither object changes, of course.

What is the emissivity for Object A and what is the emissivity for Object B.

Pay attention, I won't explain it again. If you are gauging different orientations that have different eissivities, you have two different objects, A and B. If you are postulating that they have different emissivities then you need to specify the emissivity of Object A (which is a body in one particular orientation) and then the different emissivity for Object B (which may very well be the same body in a different particular orientation).

So start specifying.


tmiddles wrote: So 0.9 for the black side and 0.1 for the white side.

Nope.

What is the emissivity for Object A and what is the emissivity for Object B (again, the difference between these objects might only be the orientations of the same body).
01-02-2022 09:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
IBdaMann wrote:
What is the emissivity for Object A and what is the emissivity for Object B.


There is a rectangular object, white on one side, 0.1, black on the other, 0.9. It is rotating in the sunlight out in space.

It is warmer while the black, 0.9, side is in the sunlight than when the white 0.1 side is.

I realize you know you're stuck, again, being dead wrong about thermodynamics but I can't save you.

The object, going from white to black, experiences warming, it's mean temp increases, solely due to the increased emissivity of what is in sunlight.
01-02-2022 09:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14377)
tmiddles wrote:There is a rectangular object, white on one side, 0.1, black on the other, 0.9. It is rotating in the sunlight out in space.

Let me know when you're going to pay attention. We'll resume the discussion at such time.
01-02-2022 09:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:There is a rectangular object, white on one side, 0.1, black on the other, 0.9. It is rotating in the sunlight out in space.

Let me know when you're going to pay attention. We'll resume the discussion at such time.


So you refuse to answer?

Does the higher emissivity result in a warmer temperature? Yes or No?
01-02-2022 09:44
Nobi
☆☆☆☆☆
(29)
I would imagine that an object with 2 surfaces of different colors will have 1 emissivity.

Let's say i have a steel ball. In a practical world, it has different roughness at any point on its surface. It reflects and absorb light differently at any part of its surface too. That would mean it has infinite emissivities. That doesn't make sense to me. I would imagine that we would treat it as one object with 1 emissivity.
01-02-2022 09:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
Nobi wrote:
I would imagine that an object with 2 surfaces of different colors will have 1 emissivity.
I would agree, an average emissivity for the whole object. But each part with have it's own emissivity.

Nobi wrote:...it has infinite emissivities.
It has uneven emissivity.

Since sunlight only comes in one direction it would be a fraction of the ball that would be receiving the sun's radiance.

The total/average emissivity is all going to be part of the objects emitting radiance. But only the fraction exposed to the sun will be primarily a part of the absorbing.

This is why real space ships are able to work with white and black:


Heat is a problem on re-entry so they make the bottom out of black tiles because a high emissivity material is the best emitter/releaser of heat. The upper portion is white to allow them to reflect away the sun's 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
Edited on 01-02-2022 09:57
01-02-2022 10:02
Nobi
☆☆☆☆☆
(29)
tmiddles wrote:

Nobi wrote:...it has infinite emissivities.
It has uneven emissivity.

Now Sunlight only comes in one direction so it would be a fraction of the ball that would be receiving the sun's radiance.

The total/average emissivity is all going to be part of the objects emitting radiance. But only the fraction exposed to the sun will be primarily a part of the absorbing.


But the steel ball will reach a certain temperature when it reaches thermal equilibirum correct?
Now if i slightly turn the ball, and wait for a while, or immediately, i would assume that it will be the same temperature?
01-02-2022 10:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
Nobi wrote:...if i slightly turn the ball, and wait for a while, or immediately, i would assume that it will be the same temperature?


Probably not.

The only way that it reaches thermal equilibrium is when input and output are in balance.

So it matters what radiance is reaching the ball and how it's being absorbed or reflected.

So if as you turn the ball the emissivity of the portion of the ball which is in sunlight changes, then so does the input energy from the sun.

The emitting emissivity, it's ability to radiate outward, would not change, since it would come from all sides all the time.

So for example, let's say there is a shiny patch on the ball, and you rotate it so that that shiny patch, which was in shadow, is now in full sun. If it's reflecting better than what was in full sun before, then the absorbing emissivity of the ball in sunlight has dropped, and the balls equilibrium temp will be lower than it was.

The ball will cool down.
Edited on 01-02-2022 10:17
01-02-2022 10:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 25f...25b...20a1...20b2...10k...


RQAA. Stop asking the same question over and over like a moron. It's already been answered.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-02-2022 10:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 20a1...20b2...25f...25b2...39j...39o...


RQAA. Stop asking the same question over and over like a moron.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-02-2022 10:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:There is a rectangular object, white on one side, 0.1, black on the other, 0.9. It is rotating in the sunlight out in space.

Let me know when you're going to pay attention. We'll resume the discussion at such time.


So you refuse to answer?

Does the higher emissivity result in a warmer temperature? Yes or No?


RQAA. Stop asking the same question over and over like a moron. It's already been answered.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-02-2022 10:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
tmiddles wrote:
Nobi wrote:
I would imagine that an object with 2 surfaces of different colors will have 1 emissivity.
I would agree, an average emissivity for the whole object. But each part with have it's own emissivity.

Nobi wrote:...it has infinite emissivities.
It has uneven emissivity.

Mantras 20a5...26b2...20p...20q1...20q5...20v...25b2...25f...
tmiddles wrote:
Since sunlight only comes in one direction it would be a fraction of the ball that would be receiving the sun's radiance.

Radiance is not 'received'. Mantras 20q1...20q5...20b3...
tmiddles wrote:
The total/average emissivity is all going to be part of the objects emitting radiance.

Emissivity is not radiance. Mantra 20b...10b...20b4...
tmiddles wrote:
But only the fraction exposed to the sun will be primarily a part of the absorbing.

Absorption is not temperature. Mantra 20b2...20a4...20a1...
tmiddles wrote:
This is why real space ships are able to work with white and black:
Heat is a problem on re-entry so they make the bottom out of black tiles because a high emissivity material is the best emitter/releaser of heat. The upper portion is white to allow them to reflect away the sun's radiance.

Doesn't work. The shuttle orbits with it's cargo doors open.
Color is not emissivity.
Mantras 20b2...20a1...20a4...20q5...20q1...


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-02-2022 10:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
tmiddles wrote:
Nobi wrote:...if i slightly turn the ball, and wait for a while, or immediately, i would assume that it will be the same temperature?


Probably not.

The only way that it reaches thermal equilibrium is when input and output are in balance.

There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Mantras 10b...20a4...20b2...20q1...20q5...25f...25l...25b...
The emitting emissivity, it's ability to radiate outward, would not change, since it would come from all sides all the time.[/quote]
Mantras 25l...25j...25k...10k...10f...

Sorry dude. You cannot conflate two systems as if they were the same system.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Page 5 of 5<<<345





Join the debate Energy source: evaporation - condensation (continuation):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
WHEN IS OPEN SOURCE AI NOT OPEN SOURCE AI?4226-07-2023 02:56
GENERATING ENTANGLED QUBITS AND QUDITS WITH FULLY ON-CHIP PHOTONIC QUANTUM SOURCE1703-05-2023 23:06
The source of energy is evaporation-condensation9614-09-2022 18:30
The Savior Last Gift: Will Reveal The Secret Of Life, The Source Of All Creation With Worthy Beings519-06-2021 02:49
The Ultimate Purpose Of Living Is Know Who You Are & The Source Of All Creation713-06-2021 09:55
▲ 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