Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law



Page 8 of 8<<<678
15-08-2019 04:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
tmiddles wrote:I think this is just a model of insulation/reduced heat right?

You get bonus points. You grasped the "insulation = reduced heat." Well done.

Heat is a *flow* of thermal energy. You "heat" something by flowing thermal energy into it. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. If you reduce the flow then you reduce the heat.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
15-08-2019 05:02
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I think this is just a model of insulation/reduced heat right?

You get bonus points. You grasped the "insulation = reduced heat." Well done.

Heat is a *flow* of thermal energy. You "heat" something by flowing thermal energy into it. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. If you reduce the flow then you reduce the heat.


.


OK right on I think I'm on a solid foundation then.

I was think about this too in terms of conduction and reduced heat.

(*) (*) (*)

If you think of three molecules and the first one is moving around violently and knocks into the second that's at rest, it will easily "push it" with no "push back" and then on to the 3rd. Like crocket or pool balls.

((((*)))) (*) (*)
(*) ((((*)))) (*)
(*) (*) ((((*))))


But if the other balls are moving too there will be "Push back" which will mean it doesn't get to send so much over all at once.

((((*)))) (((*))) (((*)))
(((*))) ((((*)))) (((*)))
(((*))) (((*))) ((((*))))

So the "push back" or "hand back" of some thermal energy, a bit of a two steps forward and one step back, is happening with either conduction or radiation of thermal energy.

The net movement is still in the same direction from hotter to colder though.

Sound about right?
15-08-2019 19:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
tmiddles wrote:
(*) (*) (*)

If you think of three molecules and the first one is moving around violently and knocks into the second that's at rest, it will easily "push it" with no "push back" and then on to the 3rd. Like crocket or pool balls.

You get beaucoup credit for the illustrations and you clearly took time to be as clear as possible. Thank you.

I'm going to ask you to rephrase your question using the following proper terminology within the following context.

When molecules collide, they do not suffer dents or "fender benders." They don't get banged up, damaged or deformed. Their collisions are "elastic" Think of billiard balls or sliding one coin into another.

For the brief moment that they collide, some thermal energy flows from the molecule of higher temperature to the molecule of lower temperature. This particular flow of thermal energy is governed by conduction.



Conduction is the physical matter parallel to Radiance of Stefan Boltzmann

Conduction is per a cross-sectional area over a length, Radiance is just per a surface area.
Conduction is modified by a thermal conductivity coefficient, Radiance is modified by an emissivity coefficient.

... the main difference is that Conduction is based on temperature difference, Raidance is based on absolute temperature, but both are driven by a temperature value.

If two molecules rub together, friction causes kinetic energy to be converted to thermal energy based on the coefficient of friction and the contact force. That thermal energy will flow to other molecules of lower temperature in subsequent collisions.

Could I get you to frame your question under this context?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
15-08-2019 23:39
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
IBdaMann wrote:
Could I get you to frame your question under this context?
.


Well that pretty much answers my question.

If I have three objects A and B and C. A has a 100C temperature and B has a 50C temperature and C has a 10C temperature.

If A is to the left of B is to the left of C. If all three are in physical contact then conduction will cause thermal energy to move from A to B to C. This is "heat". If A is in physical contact with C the "heat" would be increased. B reduces the heat if it's in the way.

However the thermal energy wouldn't really move "up stream". You wouldn't actually have thermal energy moving from B to A.

Now if the same three bodies are in a vacuum and only have radiance as a way for thermal energy to leave. A, gap, B, gap, C

A will radiate out and that radiance will create thermal energy in B. B will also radiate out but less than A did. B will have the thermal energy is started with, plus what it's getting from A, but it's not getting everything A is putting out. B's radiance does actually "move upstream" and reach A (the radiances would move past each other in the gap). B's radiance is actually converted to thermal energy by A, but it's less than what A lost.
Thermal energy still has the net movement from A to B to C but there is real movement upstream that could be put into the diagram.

Rally though it's the same deal as with conduction. B reduces the heat between A and C by being in the way in both cases.

Sound about right?
16-08-2019 03:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Could I get you to frame your question under this context?
.


Well that pretty much answers my question.

If I have three objects A and B and C. A has a 100C temperature and B has a 50C temperature and C has a 10C temperature.

If A is to the left of B is to the left of C. If all three are in physical contact then conduction will cause thermal energy to move from A to B to C. This is "heat". If A is in physical contact with C the "heat" would be increased. B reduces the heat if it's in the way.

However the thermal energy wouldn't really move "up stream". You wouldn't actually have thermal energy moving from B to A.

Now if the same three bodies are in a vacuum and only have radiance as a way for thermal energy to leave. A, gap, B, gap, C

A will radiate out and that radiance will create thermal energy in B. B will also radiate out but less than A did. B will have the thermal energy is started with, plus what it's getting from A, but it's not getting everything A is putting out.

You were fine up to this point. Good job.

But now we get to the point that you violate thermodynamics and Planck's. Thermal energy cannot flow from a cooler body to a warmer body, either by conduction or by thermal radiation. Yet you state:

tmiddles wrote: B's radiance does actually "move upstream" and reach A (the radiances would move past each other in the gap). B's radiance is actually converted to thermal energy by A, but it's less than what A lost.

Nope. B is of a lower temperature than A. B cannot increase A's temperature, either by conduction or by thermal radiation.

If you pour cold water into warm coffee, the cold water cannot bring the warm coffee to a boil while the cold water freezes and becomes ice..


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
16-08-2019 03:47
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
IBdaMann wrote:
If you pour cold water into warm coffee, the cold water cannot bring the warm coffee to a boil while the cold water freezes and becomes ice..


I tend to think of people shoving into one another when I think of conduction.

So how's this!

Two sumo wrestlers, the large easy bet to win, and the much smaller sure to lose opponent. The big wrestler pushes the small one, the small one pushes back (flexing leg muscles, really trying). But there is a steady movement of the big guy pushing the little guy off the mat. It matters that the little guy is putting up a fight, it really slows the big guy down, but it never reverses the direction.

The NET flow of energy is in one direction, from hot to cold.

But my question is (going back to our ball shell): Doesn't a big flow of radiant energy move across the gap towards the shell as a small flow of radiant energy moves the other way? Don't they mover right through each other in opposite directions?

Separate question:
Is there anything that prevents a white hot object from getting hotter due to infra-red radiation?

What if the power of the infrared is much greater than that of the white hot object? Couldn't infrared actually get something white hot hotter?
Edited on 16-08-2019 03:50
16-08-2019 16:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
(*) (*) (*)

If you think of three molecules and the first one is moving around violently and knocks into the second that's at rest, it will easily "push it" with no "push back" and then on to the 3rd. Like crocket or pool balls.

You get beaucoup credit for the illustrations and you clearly took time to be as clear as possible. Thank you.

I'm going to ask you to rephrase your question using the following proper terminology within the following context.

When molecules collide, they do not suffer dents or "fender benders." They don't get banged up, damaged or deformed. Their collisions are "elastic" Think of billiard balls or sliding one coin into another.

For the brief moment that they collide, some thermal energy flows from the molecule of higher temperature to the molecule of lower temperature. This particular flow of thermal energy is governed by conduction.



Conduction is the physical matter parallel to Radiance of Stefan Boltzmann

Conduction is per a cross-sectional area over a length, Radiance is just per a surface area.
Conduction is modified by a thermal conductivity coefficient, Radiance is modified by an emissivity coefficient.

... the main difference is that Conduction is based on temperature difference, Raidance is based on absolute temperature, but both are driven by a temperature value.

If two molecules rub together, friction causes kinetic energy to be converted to thermal energy based on the coefficient of friction and the contact force. That thermal energy will flow to other molecules of lower temperature in subsequent collisions.

Could I get you to frame your question under this context?


.


It should be mentioned here that radiant heating ONLY occurs if the light emitted due to blackbody radiance is absorbed and results in thermal energy in some other mass.

Light in and of itself is not heat, although it can be a means of heating.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2019 16:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
If you pour cold water into warm coffee, the cold water cannot bring the warm coffee to a boil while the cold water freezes and becomes ice..


I tend to think of people shoving into one another when I think of conduction.

So how's this!

Two sumo wrestlers, the large easy bet to win, and the much smaller sure to lose opponent.

Bad parallel. The smaller guy actually has a good chance in Sumo. Sorry, I've watched too much Sumo.
tmiddles wrote:
The big wrestler pushes the small one, the small one pushes back (flexing leg muscles, really trying).

Only if the small guy is an idiot. There is much more to Sumo than simply shoving straight into each other.
tmiddles wrote:
But there is a steady movement of the big guy pushing the little guy off the mat. It matters that the little guy is putting up a fight, it really slows the big guy down, but it never reverses the direction.

Nope. The ONLY winning conditions of Sumo are to get your opponent out of the ring. Shoving isn't the only way.
tmiddles wrote:
The NET flow of energy is in one direction, from hot to cold.

There is no net flow of energy. Thermal energy never flows from cold to hot. Not one bit of it. It ONLY flows from hot to cold. It doesn't matter if it's by conduction, convection, or radiance.
tmiddles wrote:
But my question is (going back to our ball shell): Doesn't a big flow of radiant energy move across the gap towards the shell as a small flow of radiant energy moves the other way?

No. This is where absorption comes in again. No molecule will absorb a photon that has less energy then the molecule already has. To that photon, the molecule is 'transparent'.
tmiddles wrote:
Don't they mover right through each other in opposite directions?

No. No molecule will ever absorb any photon that has less energy than the molecule already has.
tmiddles wrote:
Separate question:
Is there anything that prevents a white hot object from getting hotter due to infra-red radiation?

No.
tmiddles wrote:
What if the power of the infrared is much greater than that of the white hot object? Couldn't infrared actually get something white hot hotter?

Yes. If you examine the radiance curve of any white hot object on Earth, the peak is still in the infrared range. What you see as visible light is the edge of the curve intruding into the visible light bands. There are still plenty of infrared photons that could be absorbed and converted into thermal energy (a trait of infrared light) and make the white hot object even hotter.

Even in space, where a star is putting out a brilliant white light and can even have a Wien's law peak of radiance in the visible range, some molecules still have only a little energy (just less of them as a percentage). Those can still absorb infrared light, increasing the overall temperature of the star.

In all cases, a molecule will only absorb a photon that has greater energy than the molecule already has.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2019 16:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
Into the Night wrote:It should be mentioned here that radiant heating ONLY occurs if the light emitted due to blackbody radiance is absorbed and results in thermal energy in some other mass.

Light in and of itself is not heat, although it can be a means of heating.

Great point. I'm posting this to show that it is worth repeating.



Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
16-08-2019 18:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
tmiddles wrote:Two sumo wrestlers, the large easy bet to win, and the much smaller sure to lose opponent.

I really don't recommend a Sumo analogy.

tmiddles wrote: The big wrestler pushes the small one, the small one pushes back (flexing leg muscles, really trying). But there is a steady movement of the big guy pushing the little guy off the mat. It matters that the little guy is putting up a fight, it really slows the big guy down, but it never reverses the direction.

No. Just no. There is no thermal "push-back."

If you open the flood gates on a dam allowing the water to flow into the river below, roughly how much of the water in the river is fighting to flow up into the dam? Water does not struggle to flow upstream like a spawning salmon. Thermal energy does not wrestle to flow from lower temperature to higher temperature.

tmiddles wrote: The NET flow of energy is in one direction, from hot to cold.

Just "the flow" of energy is in one direction. Whenever you see someone squeezing the word "net" in front of "flow" then s/he is implying that some of the flow is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

If you incorporate the term "net flow" within this context, the immediate assumption is that you are regurgitating warmizombie dogma from some source that you are allowing to manipulate you. If you want to discuss thermodynamics and black body science, then you discuss the "flow" of thermal energy. If you want the discussion to take a turn towards the warmizombies who are manipulating you, feel free to start talking about the "net flow" and I'm sure I'm not the only one who will oblige.

tmiddles wrote: But my question is (going back to our ball shell): Doesn't a big flow of radiant energy move across the gap towards the shell as a small flow of radiant energy moves the other way?

Is your question "How is it that physical bodies of matter crash into each other per the Pauli Exclusion Principle whereas non-matter photons do not?"?

tmiddles wrote: Don't they mover right through each other in opposite directions?

Yes. The Pauli Exclusion Principle does not apply to photons.

I'm just guessing but I believe Into the Night would probably like it pointed out that phtons can certainly interact with each other in a variety of ways, but not in the "crash into each other" sense, especially not in the manner of one "pushing" another "off the matt".

tmiddles wrote: Separate question: Is there anything that prevents a white hot object from getting hotter due to infra-red radiation?

Yes ... the infrared thermal radiation coming from a cooler object.

Otherwise, if the infrared is coming from a body of higher temperature, then no, there is nothing preventing absorption and an increase in temperature. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies always and everywhere.

To your point, suppose you had a big chunk of steel packed in a magickal insulation that nullifies all but infrared radiation which it allows to pass through unabated. You then hurl the package towards the sun.

What do you believe will happen to the temperature of the steel? Would you agree that the sun, considering only infrared radiation, makes one hell of a heat lamp? Would the steel eventually become white hot? Would the steel's temperature exceed "white hot"? Would the steel eventually vaporize?

I would like to be clear. The reason this happens is due to the sun's Radiance, not simply due to the specific energy of the photons. I was looking over some of my previous posts and I noticed that I fell into the trap of implying an equivalence between Radiance (power) and individual photon energy and I need to correct that. I will also mention that this is not the first time I have been lax and allowed myself to slip on this matter. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused in doing so.

Photons are simply quanta quantities of energy.

Radiance is power over an area.

Bodies of higher temperature radiate particular wavelengths with greater Radiance (radiativity at that wavelength) than bodies of lower temperature (re: Wein's Displacement law) which causes the radiation of that wavelength to be absorbed, bringing the colder body up to a higher energy state (Re: Planck's)

tmiddles wrote: What if the power of the infrared is much greater than that of the white hot object? Couldn't infrared actually get something white hot hotter?

Absolutely. You got it. Apparently you were not confused.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
16-08-2019 23:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Two sumo wrestlers, the large easy bet to win, and the much smaller sure to lose opponent.

I really don't recommend a Sumo analogy.

tmiddles wrote: The big wrestler pushes the small one, the small one pushes back (flexing leg muscles, really trying). But there is a steady movement of the big guy pushing the little guy off the mat. It matters that the little guy is putting up a fight, it really slows the big guy down, but it never reverses the direction.

No. Just no. There is no thermal "push-back."

If you open the flood gates on a dam allowing the water to flow into the river below, roughly how much of the water in the river is fighting to flow up into the dam? Water does not struggle to flow upstream like a spawning salmon. Thermal energy does not wrestle to flow from lower temperature to higher temperature.

tmiddles wrote: The NET flow of energy is in one direction, from hot to cold.

Just "the flow" of energy is in one direction. Whenever you see someone squeezing the word "net" in front of "flow" then s/he is implying that some of the flow is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

If you incorporate the term "net flow" within this context, the immediate assumption is that you are regurgitating warmizombie dogma from some source that you are allowing to manipulate you. If you want to discuss thermodynamics and black body science, then you discuss the "flow" of thermal energy. If you want the discussion to take a turn towards the warmizombies who are manipulating you, feel free to start talking about the "net flow" and I'm sure I'm not the only one who will oblige.

tmiddles wrote: But my question is (going back to our ball shell): Doesn't a big flow of radiant energy move across the gap towards the shell as a small flow of radiant energy moves the other way?

Is your question "How is it that physical bodies of matter crash into each other per the Pauli Exclusion Principle whereas non-matter photons do not?"?

tmiddles wrote: Don't they mover right through each other in opposite directions?

Yes. The Pauli Exclusion Principle does not apply to photons.

I'm just guessing but I believe Into the Night would probably like it pointed out that phtons can certainly interact with each other in a variety of ways, but not in the "crash into each other" sense, especially not in the manner of one "pushing" another "off the matt".

tmiddles wrote: Separate question: Is there anything that prevents a white hot object from getting hotter due to infra-red radiation?

Yes ... the infrared thermal radiation coming from a cooler object.

Otherwise, if the infrared is coming from a body of higher temperature, then no, there is nothing preventing absorption and an increase in temperature. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies always and everywhere.

To your point, suppose you had a big chunk of steel packed in a magickal insulation that nullifies all but infrared radiation which it allows to pass through unabated. You then hurl the package towards the sun.

What do you believe will happen to the temperature of the steel? Would you agree that the sun, considering only infrared radiation, makes one hell of a heat lamp? Would the steel eventually become white hot? Would the steel's temperature exceed "white hot"? Would the steel eventually vaporize?

I would like to be clear. The reason this happens is due to the sun's Radiance, not simply due to the specific energy of the photons. I was looking over some of my previous posts and I noticed that I fell into the trap of implying an equivalence between Radiance (power) and individual photon energy and I need to correct that. I will also mention that this is not the first time I have been lax and allowed myself to slip on this matter. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused in doing so.

Photons are simply quanta quantities of energy.

Radiance is power over an area.

Bodies of higher temperature radiate particular wavelengths with greater Radiance (radiativity at that wavelength) than bodies of lower temperature (re: Wein's Displacement law) which causes the radiation of that wavelength to be absorbed, bringing the colder body up to a higher energy state (Re: Planck's)

tmiddles wrote: What if the power of the infrared is much greater than that of the white hot object? Couldn't infrared actually get something white hot hotter?

Absolutely. You got it. Apparently you were not confused.


.


You pointed it out. I don't have to.



The Parrot Killer
17-08-2019 04:00
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
OK so the reason for the shoving/sumo visualization is I see molecules girateing around in every direction like a spiragraph(remember those!) and smacking into nearby molecules regardless of the direction they lie in.

What I'm not confused about, from the other post as well is the notion that radiance and conduction are not acting the same way. That an object will radiate and it's temperature change with no influence from objects nearby, or a void, unless the nearby object are hotter?

You might have missed this ITN:

tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...heats the inner ball's temperature to a 475degC equilibrium. It gets red hot and starts really radiating towards the outer shell, ...

So the shell arrangement would be the equivalent of a material that couldn't conduct from it's central mass to it's out mass.


I was thinking more about this. The heated ball with and without a shell and pulses of 100 joules of energy entering into it. Assuming that it will emit 100 joules of energy over a 4 second period.

Without a shell:
Ball emits 100 joules over a 4 second period and they go straight out into space unimpeded.
Ball
1 -25
2 -25
3 -25
4 -25
Total -100

With a shell:
Ball emits 100 joules over a 4 second period, they are transferred to the shell that takes one second to absorb and re-emit a joule. Due to the handing back of 12.5 joules each time it ends up taking 7 seconds for the 100 joules to make their exit.
Ball..................Shell
1 -25................+25
2 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
3 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
4 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
5 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
6 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
7 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
Total -100 (-175+75)

If I feed 100 joules per second into the ball without a shell and it take 4 seconds for that pulse of energy to leave then that's a thermal energy total of 250 joules at any instant.
Example with the pulses lettered and the energy loss shown
Seconds____1____2____3____4____5____6____7
A________ 100__75___50___25____0____100__75
B__________0__100___75___50___25____0___100
C_________25___0___100___75___50___25____0
D_________50___25___0___100___75___50___25
E_________75___50___25____0___100___75___50
Total--------250---250---250---250---250---250---250

If I feed 100 joules per second into the ball and it take 7 seconds for the energy to leave then that's a thermal energy total of 400 joules at any instant.
Seconds____1____2____3____4____5____6____7
A_________100__86___71___57____43___29___14
B__________0___100__86___71____57___43___29
C_________14___0____100__86____71___57___43
D_________29___14____0___100___86___71___57
E_________43___29___14___0____100___86___71
F_________57___43___29___14____0___100___86
G_________71___57___43___29____14____0___100
H_________86___71___57____43___29___14___0
Total--------400---400---400---400---400---400---400

So the ball has a higher temperature with the shell, 400 joules present vs. 250
17-08-2019 10:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
tmiddles wrote:
OK so the reason for the shoving/sumo visualization is I see molecules girateing around in every direction like a spiragraph(remember those!) and smacking into nearby molecules regardless of the direction they lie in.

What I'm not confused about, from the other post as well is the notion that radiance and conduction are not acting the same way. That an object will radiate and it's temperature change with no influence from objects nearby, or a void, unless the nearby object are hotter?

You might have missed this ITN:

tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...heats the inner ball's temperature to a 475degC equilibrium. It gets red hot and starts really radiating towards the outer shell, ...

So the shell arrangement would be the equivalent of a material that couldn't conduct from it's central mass to it's out mass.


I was thinking more about this. The heated ball with and without a shell and pulses of 100 joules of energy entering into it. Assuming that it will emit 100 joules of energy over a 4 second period.

Without a shell:
Ball emits 100 joules over a 4 second period and they go straight out into space unimpeded.
Ball
1 -25
2 -25
3 -25
4 -25
Total -100

With a shell:
Ball emits 100 joules over a 4 second period, they are transferred to the shell that takes one second to absorb and re-emit a joule. Due to the handing back of 12.5 joules each time it ends up taking 7 seconds for the 100 joules to make their exit.
Ball..................Shell
1 -25................+25
2 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
3 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
4 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
5 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
6 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
7 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
Total -100 (-175+75)

If I feed 100 joules per second into the ball without a shell and it take 4 seconds for that pulse of energy to leave then that's a thermal energy total of 250 joules at any instant.
Example with the pulses lettered and the energy loss shown
Seconds____1____2____3____4____5____6____7
A________ 100__75___50___25____0____100__75
B__________0__100___75___50___25____0___100
C_________25___0___100___75___50___25____0
D_________50___25___0___100___75___50___25
E_________75___50___25____0___100___75___50
Total--------250---250---250---250---250---250---250

If I feed 100 joules per second into the ball and it take 7 seconds for the energy to leave then that's a thermal energy total of 400 joules at any instant.
Seconds____1____2____3____4____5____6____7
A_________100__86___71___57____43___29___14
B__________0___100__86___71____57___43___29
C_________14___0____100__86____71___57___43
D_________29___14____0___100___86___71___57
E_________43___29___14___0____100___86___71
F_________57___43___29___14____0___100___86
G_________71___57___43___29____14____0___100
H_________86___71___57____43___29___14___0
Total--------400---400---400---400---400---400---400

So the ball has a higher temperature with the shell, 400 joules present vs. 250

The ball heats the shell until they are the same temperature. Both will be cooler than the ball's original temperature. It's really very simple.


The Parrot Killer
17-08-2019 10:58
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Separate question: Is there anything that prevents a white hot object from getting hotter due to infra-red radiation?

Yes ... the infrared thermal radiation coming from a cooler object.

Otherwise, if the infrared is coming from a body of higher temperature, then no, there is nothing preventing absorption and an increase in temperature. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies always and everywhere.


Alright I'm having a hard time with this so I'm asking for help. I'm thinking I've just misunderstood you guys.

So full disclosure I'm very good at math and have taught it but I went to art school so don't have a solid post HS education in math and science. So I'm trying to learn now.

What I thought you were both saying is that if we're in a vacuum, with convection and conduction out of the picture, and there are two objects, or easier still an object in a room or a shell, that the hotter object does it's thing and the cooler object just accepts the incoming radiation with no ability to radiate to the hotter object and to have that radiation absorbed.

Which I'm visualizing as the hotter object will cool just as fast in a vacuum/space with no shell in the way as it would with a shell there. But in trying to find lessons online I'm not finding that scenario.

"The Stefan-Boltzmann law predicts
the power of the radiative heat exchange between two objects
as σ((T2)^4-(T1)^4) where σ is the Stefan-Bolzmann constant and
T1,T2 are the temperatures of objects"


at 20:50 in this video (poor quality): https://youtu.be/LR5bYxC4syI
Hotter ball in a cooler room "Heat leaves the sphere but also enters the sphere"
151.4 W out, 106.4 W in, for a net of 44.5 W out


Does heat loss by radiation depend on the surrounding temperature?"net heat loss by radiation does depend on the surrounding temperature. Normally objects lose energy to their surroundings and gain energy at the same time. ","The net heat loss (overall heat loss) is equal to radiation emitted - the radiation absorbed. "

"some heat will also be absorbed from the
surroundings, and that will depend on the temperature of objects in the
line of sight of the surface. "


There was this:
No.
This is because the question asks about emission by radiation.... temperature of the surroundings is not a factor when considering emission.


Anyway thought I'd ask before more digging around.
17-08-2019 12:35
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Separate question: Is there anything that prevents a white hot object from getting hotter due to infra-red radiation?

Yes ... the infrared thermal radiation coming from a cooler object.

Otherwise, if the infrared is coming from a body of higher temperature, then no, there is nothing preventing absorption and an increase in temperature. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies always and everywhere.


Alright I'm having a hard time with this so I'm asking for help. I'm thinking I've just misunderstood you guys.

So full disclosure I'm very good at math and have taught it but I went to art school so don't have a solid post HS education in math and science. So I'm trying to learn now.

What I thought you were both saying is that if we're in a vacuum, with convection and conduction out of the picture, and there are two objects, or easier still an object in a room or a shell, that the hotter object does it's thing and the cooler object just accepts the incoming radiation with no ability to radiate to the hotter object and to have that radiation absorbed.

Which I'm visualizing as the hotter object will cool just as fast in a vacuum/space with no shell in the way as it would with a shell there. But in trying to find lessons online I'm not finding that scenario.

"The Stefan-Boltzmann law predicts
the power of the radiative heat exchange between two objects
as σ((T2)^4-(T1)^4) where σ is the Stefan-Bolzmann constant and
T1,T2 are the temperatures of objects"


at 20:50 in this video (poor quality): https://youtu.be/LR5bYxC4syI
Hotter ball in a cooler room "Heat leaves the sphere but also enters the sphere"
151.4 W out, 106.4 W in, for a net of 44.5 W out


Does heat loss by radiation depend on the surrounding temperature?"net heat loss by radiation does depend on the surrounding temperature. Normally objects lose energy to their surroundings and gain energy at the same time. ","The net heat loss (overall heat loss) is equal to radiation emitted - the radiation absorbed. "

"some heat will also be absorbed from the
surroundings, and that will depend on the temperature of objects in the
line of sight of the surface. "


There was this:
No.
This is because the question asks about emission by radiation.... temperature of the surroundings is not a factor when considering emission.


Anyway thought I'd ask before more digging around.


Still digging but hook me up with anything good.
Found: http://www.climate-change-theory.com/evidence.html

Interesting stuff.
17-08-2019 16:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
tmiddles wrote:
Still digging but hook me up with anything good.
Found: http://www.climate-change-theory.com/evidence.html

Interesting stuff.


I have not had a chance to read this so it is not vetted, but read it and we can discuss after I get a chance to look at it.

https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/plancks-quantum-theory-explains-why-low.html


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
18-08-2019 04:42
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
IBdaMann wrote:
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/plancks-quantum-theory-explains-why-low.html


Perfect! Thanks
18-08-2019 07:54
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/plancks-quantum-theory-explains-why-low.html


Perfect! Thanks


So this is an unclear presentation by hockeyshtick in my view. It give 4 pages from a text teaching Planck's constant and the all or nothing quantized energy states. That if EM radiation reaches an object and fails to achieve the necessary energy level it will not be thermalized.

But what happens to it?

If a hot plate A has two cooler plates B on either side: The cool plates thermalize the radiance from A, they are radiating into A and that radiance fails to be thermalized, but what happens to it?

Does it reflect back into B allowing B to re-thermalize it (so that B effectivly only has it's outer surface to shed energy through radiance).

Also would A shed energy through radiance just the same, just as quickly, without the plates B being there? Right up to the point when B has as hot as A?

This would happen too if B could not heat A:

A: 100 -10% on each side, B: 50 -10% on each side


-----[B(50)B]--------------[A(100)A]--------------[B(50)B]-----
<-5-[B(40)B]-5-><--10--[A(080)A]--10--><-5-[B(40)B]-5->
-----[B(50)B]<------5-----[A(080)A]------5----->[B(50)B]-----
-----[B(55)B]--------------[A(080)A]--------------[B(55)B]-----
<-5-[B(45)B]-5-><--10--[A(060)A]--10--><-5-[B(45)B]-5->
-----[B(55)B]<------5-----[A(060)A]------5----->[B(55)B]-----
-----[B(60)B]--------------[A(060)A]--------------[B(60)B]-----EQUAL

Now A and B would I guess thermalize each others EM since they're the same temperature.

Just doesn't seem right that A would behave the exact same way up until that point without B being there.
--------------[A(100)A]--------------
------<--10--[A(080)A]--10-->-----
--------------[A(080)A]--------------
-----<--10--[A(060)A]--10-->-----
--------------[A(060)A]--------------
Edited on 18-08-2019 07:54
18-08-2019 09:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4230)
tmiddles wrote:So this is an unclear presentation by hockeyshtick in my view.

I agree.

tmiddles wrote: That if EM radiation reaches an object and fails to achieve the necessary energy level it will not be thermalized.

That is correct; it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics hardcoded into Planck's

tmiddles wrote:But what happens to it?

You are going to have a difficult time finding a satisfying answer. This is all I can tell you without researching it further:
1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.

Disappointing, eh?

Now don't tell anyone I said this, and I'll deny it if you do ... but as much as I claim to know absolutely everything, there are actually a couple of things I don't know. This is one of them. There might be someone out there who has a model for the activity of thermal photons that are insufficient to be absorbed under Planck's, but I haven't seen it.

tmiddles wrote:Also would A shed energy through radiance just the same, just as quickly, without the plates B being there?

Yes. Radiance is driven by absolute temperature alone.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
18-08-2019 09:59
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:But what happens to it?

You are going to have a difficult time finding a satisfying answer.
tmiddles wrote:Also would A shed energy through radiance just the same, just as quickly, without the plates B being there?

Yes. Radiance is driven by absolute temperature alone.
.


This seems easily proven in the lab in any case. Creating hot plates, cold plates and vacuums is very doable.

Confirming that a hot plate with a cold plate near it cools as quickly as a hot plate with nothing near it also seems easily done.

I'll keep hunting.
18-08-2019 12:28
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(593)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Also would A shed energy through radiance just the same, just as quickly, without the plates B being there?

Yes. Radiance is driven by absolute temperature alone.
.


OK I think that while radiance depends only on temperature that radiant heat loss is effected by the surrounding radiance. A hotter object may be absorbing it or not but it does effect the time it takes for the the energy to be shed by radiance.

I was thinking about how if you're in a vacuum and only the temperature of the object matters then it would be the same as being in deep space. I keep running into this equation:
Thermal Radiation

Qt=eσA(T^4skin−T^4ambient)

Q = heat loss in Joules
t = time in seconds
e = emissivity of skin (≈ 0.95 for human body)
σ = Stefan-Boltzmann constant
A = surface area of human body

And (here)
Net Radiation Loss Rate
If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as

q = ε σ (Th^4 - Tc^4) Ah

where
Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)
Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)
Ah = area of the hot object (m2)

And it's basically what I saw earlier here:
"The Stefan-Boltzmann law predicts
the power of the radiative heat exchange between two objects
as σ((T2)^4-(T1)^4) where σ is the Stefan-Bolzmann constant and
T1,T2 are the temperatures of objects"


So if these equations are correct then the time it takes for a hot object to radiate out is calculated along with the surrounding radiance.

The math come out so radically different that it doesn't seem possible the above equations could be incorrect and that they should disregard the ambient radiance. The temperatures are to the 4th power, if you had a 100 C ball in a 0 C shell you're dealing with 373 Kelvin and 273, so the equation would have (373^4-273^4)= 1.38^10 if incoming radiance matters and just 373^4 if it doesn't, 1.9^10. So the radiant heat loss is 38% greater/faster without the ambient radiance considered.

So I think the shell would slow the balls radiant heat loss.
Edited on 18-08-2019 12:39
Page 8 of 8<<<678





Join the debate Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no greenhouse effect1513-08-2019 23:33
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
City of Toronto staff to explore cost of climate change, legal options for compensation from greenhouse g026-04-2019 15:37
What a Greenhouse is for IBdaMann815-04-2019 00:43
Greenhouse gases, explained224-03-2019 04:43
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact