Remember me
▼ Content

How a cooler body heats a warmer body.



Page 1 of 3123>
How a cooler body heats a warmer body.14-05-2020 18:04
keepit
★★★★☆
(1757)
Every object above absolute zero gives off em radiation. That radiation comes off in all wavelengths regardless of the temperature of the cooler body. Certain of those wavelengths are compatible with the atomic structure of the warmer body and are therefore absorbed by the warmer body, thereby heating it.
That is how a cooler body heats a warmer body.
14-05-2020 18:55
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
If I wanted to nitpick I would say that the cooler body doesn't "heat" the warmer body but that the cooler body prevents the warmer body from cooling itself as effectively as it would without the cooler body present.
Also the radiation doesn't come off in all wavelengths. The wavelengths that are being emitted depend on the temperature of the object. That's why objects only slowly start glowing red and eventually white if you heat them to several hundred degrees Celsius and higher. Objects at room temp don't have enough energy to radiate in the visible region of the EM spectrum and beyond. This realization became known as the "ultraviolet catastrophy" and was in fact how we eventually discovered quantum menchanics.

The frequency with the highest intensity within that thermal emission spectrum is indeed a measure of the objects temperature according to Wien's law.

Otherwise yes, that's how it works.

There exists a pretty simple and almost cute visualization in in two parts online.
Edited on 14-05-2020 19:01
14-05-2020 19:07
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1325)
Still batting 0.000 I see........
14-05-2020 20:21
keepit
★★★★☆
(1757)
Jack Fou,
As i understand it from wikipedia the temp of an object determines how much of a given wavelength is emitted but that all wavelengths are emitted, albeit in small quantities (brightness) for some wavelengths.
Quote from Wiki, "Plank radiation is said to be thermal radiation, such that the higher the temp of a body, the more radiation it emits at every wavelength."
Edited on 14-05-2020 21:04
14-05-2020 22:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13823)
keepit wrote:
Every object above absolute zero gives off em radiation. That radiation comes off in all wavelengths regardless of the temperature of the cooler body.
No, it doesn't. See Planck's law and Wien's law. Mantras 20v...29.
keepit wrote:
Certain of those wavelengths are compatible with the atomic structure of the warmer body and are therefore absorbed by the warmer body, thereby heating it.

No atom or molecule will absorb any energy that is less than it already has. Not all photons are absorbed. Absorption does not necessarily cause conversion to thermal energy. Mantra 20q2...20a2...39g
keepit wrote:
That is how a cooler body heats a warmer body.

Mantra 20a2..39d.


No argument presented. Invalid proof. 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
14-05-2020 22:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13823)
JackFou wrote:
If I wanted to nitpick I would say that the cooler body doesn't "heat" the warmer body but that the cooler body prevents the warmer body from cooling itself as effectively as it would without the cooler body present.
Also the radiation doesn't come off in all wavelengths. The wavelengths that are being emitted depend on the temperature of the object. That's why objects only slowly start glowing red and eventually white if you heat them to several hundred degrees Celsius and higher. Objects at room temp don't have enough energy to radiate in the visible region of the EM spectrum and beyond. This realization became known as the "ultraviolet catastrophy" and was in fact how we eventually discovered quantum menchanics.

The frequency with the highest intensity within that thermal emission spectrum is indeed a measure of the objects temperature according to Wien's law.

Get your information from someplace besides Wikipedia. It's wrong again. Mantras 4a...20x..20d...25b...
JackFou wrote:
Otherwise yes, that's how it works.

Mantra 39i
JackFou wrote:
There exists a pretty simple and almost cute visualization in in two parts online.

Mantra 4a

No argument presented. Attempt to use Wikipedia as science. Invalid proof.


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
14-05-2020 22:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13823)
keepit wrote:
Jack Fou,
As i understand it from wikipedia the temp of an object determines how much of a given wavelength is emitted but that all wavelengths are emitted, albeit in small quantities (brightness) for some wavelengths.
Quote from Wiki, "Plank radiation is said to be thermal radiation, such that the higher the temp of a body, the more radiation it emits at every wavelength."


Not true. Wikipedia is wrong.


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
15-05-2020 03:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
gfm7175 wrote: Still batting 0.000 I see........

Actually, mark the time, mark the date.

keepit is actually correct, irrespective of Wikipedia being his source.

keepit got something right so we need to acknowledge it.

His batting average is now 0.013
His player card is going to have to be updated.

Planck's law specifies the power of a specific wavelength emitted by a given body of a given temperature. The vast bulk of wavelengths get very, very close to zero, but no wavelength actually achieves an emission power of zero.

Of course, Kirchoff's law tells us that a body's absorptivity at a given wavelength will equal its radiativity at that wavelength and will reduce radiativity by a certain fraction (percentage) strictly between 0.0 and 1.0 ... but no wavelength can have a radiativity of zero, ergo no wavelength can ever have an emission power of zero.

keepit was correct, that all wavelengths are emitted and the temperature of the body determines how much of each wavelength, and that none are zero.


.


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
Edited on 15-05-2020 03:41
15-05-2020 04:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3489)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit is actually correct,

About this too?:
keepit wrote:...Certain of those wavelengths are compatible with the atomic structure of the warmer body and are therefore absorbed by the warmer body,....

Trying to see how this jives with:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.


JackFou wrote:
If I wanted to nitpick I would say that the cooler body doesn't "heat" the warmer body but that the cooler body prevents the warmer body from cooling itself as effectively as it would without the cooler body present.
I'd go simpler still and simply say that some radiance from the cooler body can be absorbed by the warmer body and converted to thermal energy. To put it in slightly different words:
Photons from a lower temperature object can be absorbed by a higher temperature object.

"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 15-05-2020 04:48
15-05-2020 05:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13823)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 20a2...

No argument presented.


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
15-05-2020 05:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote: I'd go simpler still and simply say that some radiance from the cooler body can be absorbed by the warmer body and converted to thermal energy.

... but would you go so far as to demonstrate this?

You have DODGED and EVADED all relevant discussion up to this point and you have been on tap since Augist to demonstrate this, which you proclaim with certainty is trivially simple.

So, it's about time for you to ... you know ... give us the demonstration.


.


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
15-05-2020 13:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3489)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I'd go simpler still and simply say that some radiance from the cooler body can be absorbed by the warmer body and converted to thermal energy.

... but would you go so far as to demonstrate this?


As you know IBD I consider the situation we are both in now to be a perfect example of this. Our bodies are radiating ~700 watts out into the cooler room. We absorb ~600 watts from that cooler room.

Now true this is a simple textbook example (Body Physics: Motion to Metabolism by Lawrence Davis) of thermal radiation passing between two bodies, one cooler and on warmer, and I can't take credit for it:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

My question to you, ITN, GG, GFM and the whole crew is this:
What do you think happens to the radiance from the walls around you when it reaches your skin?

You have never answered that simple question.

I can tell you it is absorbed because the emissivity of human skin in the infrared is measured at over 0.9

Also this:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
is a weird fabrication on your part found nowhere else. It's not found in a single reference anywhere online (Google reachable that is).

"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 15-05-2020 13:29
15-05-2020 17:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote: As you know IBD I consider the situation we are both in now to be a perfect example of this.

... because it switches the topic right back to electromagentic radiation and away from thermal radiation. It is what you consider to be "the right DODGE to do."

In an effort to get us back on track, how were you thinking of either demonstrating thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer or admitting as a predicate for discussion that it isn't possible?

tmiddles wrote: Now true this is a simple textbook example of thermal radiation passing between two bodies, ...

Your wording gives you away. Thermal energy flows between bodies because thermal energy exists within matter and transfers between bodies. Thermal radiation, i.e. electromagnetic radiation, is an emission, is not associated with matter so does not "transfer" and is not the topic of discussion.

tmiddles wrote: My question to you, ITN, GG, GFM and the whole crew is this:What do you think happens to the radiance from the walls around you when it reaches your skin?

If I am not mistaken, they too are pulling up chairs in expectation of your fascinating and quite frankly historic demonstration of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. I really don't think they are even remotely interested in any further thrashing over the topic of electromagnetic energy ... but I suppose it couldn't hurt to could ask them

tmiddles wrote: You have never answered that simple question.

I have answered your question countless times, and you ignore my responses in an effort to EVADE either demonstrating thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer or admitting as a predicate for discussion that it is impossible. You have been on tap since August. We just need your unequivocal non-WEASEL-worded recognition that it is impossible for thermal energy to flow from cooler to warmer, that's all. Once you do that, we can get "unstuck" from this point and move onto the next point which I have ready for just that moment.

tmiddles wrote: I can tell you it is absorbed

No you cannot, ... not until you can demonstrate that conclusion via a demonstrated increase in temperature in the warmer body. Either that or an acknowledgement of the impossibility of thermal energy violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


.
Attached image:

15-05-2020 20:02
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1325)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: Still batting 0.000 I see........

Actually, mark the time, mark the date.

keepit is actually correct, irrespective of Wikipedia being his source.

keepit got something right so we need to acknowledge it.

His batting average is now 0.013
His player card is going to have to be updated.

Planck's law specifies the power of a specific wavelength emitted by a given body of a given temperature. The vast bulk of wavelengths get very, very close to zero, but no wavelength actually achieves an emission power of zero.

Of course, Kirchoff's law tells us that a body's absorptivity at a given wavelength will equal its radiativity at that wavelength and will reduce radiativity by a certain fraction (percentage) strictly between 0.0 and 1.0 ... but no wavelength can have a radiativity of zero, ergo no wavelength can ever have an emission power of zero.

keepit was correct, that all wavelengths are emitted and the temperature of the body determines how much of each wavelength, and that none are zero.


.

Well, I'll be damned, he did slip a little nugget in there. Shit... 0.000 was fun while it lasted...
15-05-2020 21:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13823)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I'd go simpler still and simply say that some radiance from the cooler body can be absorbed by the warmer body and converted to thermal energy.

... but would you go so far as to demonstrate this?


As you know IBD I consider the situation we are both in now to be a perfect example of this. Our bodies are radiating ~700 watts out into the cooler room. We absorb ~600 watts from that cooler room.

This is not a demonstration. It is a contrivance. You are simply making up numbers, jumping to conclusions, conflating forms of energy, and attempting to prove this as a falsification of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Mantras 20a2...20g...20e2...20v...20w3...25g...39o...39g...
tmiddles wrote:
Now true this is a simple textbook example (Body Physics: Motion to Metabolism by Lawrence Davis) of thermal radiation passing between two bodies, one cooler and on warmer, and I can't take credit for it:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Mantras 4c...4b....4a...30...29...20a2...20g...20e2...20v...20w3...25g...39o...39g..10f...
tmiddles wrote:
My question to you, ITN, GG, GFM and the whole crew is this:
What do you think happens to the radiance from the walls around you when it reaches your skin?

Nothing. Mantra 29.
tmiddles wrote:
You have never answered that simple question.

Lie. Mantra 29.
tmiddles wrote:
I can tell you it is absorbed because the emissivity of human skin in the infrared is measured at over 0.9

Mantra 25g. The emissivity of human skin is unknown. Void measurement. Bigotry. Mantras 20w3...25g...25f...31...30...29...10f...
tmiddles wrote:
Also this:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
is a weird fabrication on your part found nowhere else. It's not found in a single reference anywhere online (Google reachable that is).

2nd law of thermodynamics. 1st law of thermodynamics. Quantum physics. Google is not a science book or a theory of science. You have evaded AGAIN and failed to show a cooler object warming a warmer one.

Mantras 4a...28...39n...39g...

No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science. Bigotry. Lies. Evasion.


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
16-05-2020 02:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3489)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: My question to you, ITN, GG, GFM and the whole crew is this:What do you think happens to the radiance from the walls around you when it reaches your skin?

If I am not mistaken, they too are pulling up chairs in expectation of your fascinating and quite frankly historic demonstration of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. I really don't think they are even remotely interested in any further thrashing over the topic of electromagnetic energy ... but I suppose it couldn't hurt to could ask them
Oh the "You" there was you IBD. I'm asking you. You still haven't answered.
16-05-2020 02:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3489)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
My question to you, ITN, GG, GFM and the whole crew is this:
What do you think happens to the radiance from the walls around you when it reaches your skin?

Nothing.
What does that even mean? It ceases to exist?

I was operating on the assumption radiance can only do the following when it encounters matter:
1- Reflect
2- Absorb
3- Transmit
4- A combination of the above

So what is "Nothing"?
16-05-2020 03:01
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(732)
If I put warm cans of beer at 30 degrees C in ice slurry that is -4 degrees the thermal energy transfers and the beer becomes cooler and the ice melts as it absorbs the thermal energy from the cans.Most eskys are around 60 litre with 40 litre of ice slurry so I can only realistically put abou 6-10 375 mm cans in which is 2.25 - 3 litres before the ice is now warm water and has lost the ability to make my beer at the temperature I wish to have it.Store bought bag ice is -2-3 degrees at best my homemade ice can be as low as -21 so lots more energy fortunately I am a bush pig and will drink warm beer if stuck somewhere.Is this not an example of thermal energy transfer from one body to another.
16-05-2020 03:07
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(732)
If the esky has one tiny piece of ice in it it is below zero often I see people tip the water out and put new ice bags in without chilling the cans first.If you have an esky with cold water in it why not drop all your cans in it and turn it to warm water and pull some heat out of the cans.Can someone explain why warm water takes longer to boil than cold water with the same energy input.
16-05-2020 03:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
duncan61 wrote: If the esky has one tiny piece of ice in it it is below zero often I see people tip the water out and put new ice bags in without chilling the cans first.If you have an esky with cold water in it why not drop all your cans in it and turn it to warm water and pull some heat out of the cans.Can someone explain why warm water takes longer to boil than cold water with the same energy input.


Warm water does not take longer to boil by conduction than cold water.

Cold water does not take longer to freeze by conduction than warm water.

Ice does imply a sub-zero temperature. Temperature is not the only factor in boiling and freezing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4BGV7-1lhs


.


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
16-05-2020 03:59
James___
★★★★★
(3446)
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote: If the esky has one tiny piece of ice in it it is below zero often I see people tip the water out and put new ice bags in without chilling the cans first.If you have an esky with cold water in it why not drop all your cans in it and turn it to warm water and pull some heat out of the cans.Can someone explain why warm water takes longer to boil than cold water with the same energy input.


Warm water does not take longer to boil by conduction than cold water.

Cold water does not take longer to freeze by conduction than warm water.

Ice does imply a sub-zero temperature. Temperature is not the only factor in boiling and freezing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4BGV7-1lhs


.



This is where you show the ignorance of anyone posting in this forum. There are those who will try to reason with you but this post is your bait.
16-05-2020 04:31
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3489)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: My question to you, ITN, GG, GFM and the whole crew is this:What do you think happens to the radiance from the walls around you when it reaches your skin?

If I am not mistaken, they too are pulling up chairs in expectation of your fascinating and quite frankly historic demonstration of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. I really don't think they are even remotely interested in any further thrashing over the topic of electromagnetic energy ... but I suppose it couldn't hurt to could ask them
Oh the "You" there was you IBD. I'm asking you. You still haven't answered.

Is there some reason you refuse to answer this question IBD?
16-05-2020 04:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote: Is there some reason you refuse to answer this question IBD?

I believe we have thoroughly exhausted all angles of why you need to either demonstrate thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body or accept as a predicate for discussion that it is impossible, in order to move forward.

So, without further ado ... which one is it?


.


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
16-05-2020 04:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
James___ wrote: This is where you show the ignorance of anyone posting in this forum. There are those who will try to reason with you but this post is your bait.

James__, I'm sure you intended to make a powerful point ... but I can't figure out what that would be. Could I possibly get you to rephrase?


.


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
16-05-2020 06:29
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(732)
James I also am not sure if you meant me or Big Bad IBDM.Is the esky example not thermal energy transfer if there is a big fancy word for it I would like to know so I can look cool when I am with my stoner friends
16-05-2020 11:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3489)
IBdaMann wrote:... you need to either demonstrate thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body or accept as a predicate for discussion that it is impossible, in order to move forward.
Accepted! If EM is defined as not being thermal energy then I do not now nor have I ever believed this statement: "thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body", is possible. I have only ever said that radiance from a cooler body was absorbed by a warmer body and as you define the terms "thermal energy" and "flow" that is not the same thing. So in your vocabulary I accept your predicate.

Why don't we just clear this up and you can answer this very simple question to see if we actually disagree:
tmiddles wrote: My question to you, [IBD] is this:What do you think happens to the radiance from the walls around you when it reaches your skin?
16-05-2020 21:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13823)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: My question to you, ITN, GG, GFM and the whole crew is this:What do you think happens to the radiance from the walls around you when it reaches your skin?

If I am not mistaken, they too are pulling up chairs in expectation of your fascinating and quite frankly historic demonstration of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. I really don't think they are even remotely interested in any further thrashing over the topic of electromagnetic energy ... but I suppose it couldn't hurt to could ask them
Oh the "You" there was you IBD. I'm asking you. You still haven't answered.

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
16-05-2020 21:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13823)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
My question to you, ITN, GG, GFM and the whole crew is this:
What do you think happens to the radiance from the walls around you when it reaches your skin?

Nothing.
What does that even mean? It ceases to exist?

I was operating on the assumption radiance can only do the following when it encounters matter:
1- Reflect
2- Absorb
3- Transmit
4- A combination of the above

So what is "Nothing"?

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
16-05-2020 21:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13823)
duncan61 wrote:
If I put warm cans of beer at 30 degrees C in ice slurry that is -4 degrees the thermal energy transfers and the beer becomes cooler and the ice melts as it absorbs the thermal energy from the cans.Most eskys are around 60 litre with 40 litre of ice slurry so I can only realistically put abou 6-10 375 mm cans in which is 2.25 - 3 litres before the ice is now warm water and has lost the ability to make my beer at the temperature I wish to have it.Store bought bag ice is -2-3 degrees at best my homemade ice can be as low as -21 so lots more energy fortunately I am a bush pig and will drink warm beer if stuck somewhere.Is this not an example of thermal energy transfer from one body to another.

Yes. This is called 'heat'.


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
16-05-2020 21:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13823)
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: My question to you, ITN, GG, GFM and the whole crew is this:What do you think happens to the radiance from the walls around you when it reaches your skin?

If I am not mistaken, they too are pulling up chairs in expectation of your fascinating and quite frankly historic demonstration of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. I really don't think they are even remotely interested in any further thrashing over the topic of electromagnetic energy ... but I suppose it couldn't hurt to could ask them
Oh the "You" there was you IBD. I'm asking you. You still haven't answered.

Is there some reason you refuse to answer this question IBD?

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
16-05-2020 22:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13823)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:... you need to either demonstrate thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body or accept as a predicate for discussion that it is impossible, in order to move forward.
Accepted! If EM is defined as not being thermal energy then I do not now nor have I ever believed this statement: "thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body", is possible. I have only ever said that radiance from a cooler body was absorbed by a warmer body and as you define the terms "thermal energy" and "flow" that is not the same thing. So in your vocabulary I accept your predicate.

Why don't we just clear this up and you can answer this very simple question to see if we actually disagree:
tmiddles wrote: My question to you, [IBD] is this:What do you think happens to the radiance from the walls around you when it reaches your skin?

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
16-05-2020 22:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote: Accepted![/b]

Great, but you used a few double or triple negatives in there, you placed certain vague conditions and you were somewhat unclear despite SOUNDING like you were agreeing with me.

Could you please write out a simple statement of your position, with no multiple negatives, no "if"s and no rhetorical conditions?

I promise, once we arrive at a mutually agreeable position then I'll jump over to talking about photons and your "man in a cool room." I realize you are chomping at the bit to talk about those things, and we can ... but I want to avoid repeating what you did last time. I am poised to move onto those other topics when we have established that

1. Thermal energy flows strictly from a warmer body to a cooler body.
2. Thermal energy does not flow between bodies of the same temperature.
3. Because of 1 & 2 above, since the thermal energy flow is not the difference between two separate energy flows moving in opposite directions, the flow is just that, a flow, and not a "net flow."

Once we have that, we will be golden and will have the green light to move forward.

.


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
17-05-2020 12:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3489)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...What do you think happens...

Nothing.
What does that even mean? It ceases to exist? ...
So what is "Nothing"?

RQAA
Yes IBD you answered. With "Nothing" as your answer. I don't understand what you mean by "Nothing" as a description of what happens to radiance when it reaches solid matter.

So what did you mean by "Nothing"?

IBdaMann wrote:
1. Thermal energy flows strictly from a warmer body to a cooler body.
2. Thermal energy does not flow between bodies of the same temperature.
3. Because of 1 & 2 above, since the thermal energy flow is not the difference between two separate energy flows moving in opposite directions, the flow is just that, a flow, and not a "net flow."

Once we have that, we will be golden and will have the green light to move forward.

OK here you go:
If "Thermal energy" is defined as not including "radiance" then I do not believe, and have no reason to believe that the following statements are false. It is my personal assumption that they are true:
1. Thermal energy flows strictly from a warmer body to a cooler body.
2. Thermal energy does not flow between bodies of the same temperature.
3. Because of 1 & 2 above, since the thermal energy flow is not the difference between two separate energy flows moving in opposite directions, the flow is just that, a flow, and not a "net flow."

Completely agreed to. "net flow" is ONLY something that came up due to radiance being considered. If at any point you thought I meant conduction or convection it was a miscommunication entirely.

Now do keep in mind this is your rule for the definition of "Thermal energy" and not mine. But that is all quite clear as we've written it out.
Edited on 17-05-2020 12:14
17-05-2020 12:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote:
If "Thermal energy" is defined as not including "radiance" then I do not believe, and have no reason to believe that the following statements are false.

We are soooooo close, ... but I did ask you to NOT present your statement in the form of a conditional or an "if" and I explained why, ... and I think we're seeing why we need to insist on it.

Let's just knock this out. How does your position differ from the following:

1. Thermal energy flows strictly from a warmer body to a cooler body.
2. Thermal energy does not flow between bodies of the same temperature.
3. Because of 1 & 2 above, since the thermal energy flow is not the difference between two separate energy flows moving in opposite directions, the flow is just that, a flow, and not a "net flow."


[hint: if it differs not then we are golden. If there are conditions we need to first iron out then we need to iron those out before we can move forward]

tmiddles wrote: Now do keep in mind this is your rule for the definition of "Thermal energy" and not mine.

... which means your position has not changed and that you are still arguing a "net flow" which means you are arguing that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer ... obligating you to demonstrate this.


Either you are all in or you are not.


.


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
17-05-2020 13:26
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3489)
IBdaMann wrote:... but I did ask you to NOT present your statement in the form of a conditional or an "if" and I explained why, ...
You and I define "thermal energy" differently IBD.

Your definition actually has no precedent and is just that, yours.

However I do consider it to be clear and understand what you are describing so I don't see a problem.

And you asked that there be no "ifs" but you did not explain why.
Edited on 17-05-2020 13:28
17-05-2020 14:35
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
Every object above absolute zero gives off em radiation. That radiation comes off in all wavelengths regardless of the temperature of the cooler body.
No, it doesn't. See Planck's law and Wien's law. Mantras 20v...29.


Sorry - wrong

Planks laws states that the spectral irradiance = 2hc^2/ [(lambda)^5 * f(lambda)]

as 2hc^2 can never be zero then that says any black body will emit radiation over the complete EM spectrum, just the division by the wavelength to the 5th power means that the probability of emission gets very small very quickly but never is zero.

Wein's law mere says where that probability distribution will peak and so is irrelevant to this point.

Example: if you heat a volume of hydrogen gas to high temperatures, it will emit a set of emission line spectra corresponding to the various quantum levels of the hydrogen atom. Also it will emit a continuum spectrum from the interaction ("collisions") of the free electrons and protons.
17-05-2020 16:02
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2713)
In order to heat something, energy is transferred. One body warms, the other cools, until they are equal. The cooler of the two bodies, doesn't create more energy, so it can warm a warmer body, so, it must be getting cooler, in order to warm anything. The warmer body cools, as it transfers energy to cooler bodies. This is why 'global warming' is not possible. The thermal energy primarily comes from the sun, reasonably consistently. How much makes it to the surface, varies. CO2 does not create additional energy. Metaphysics, metamathematics, and metasciences only exist on paper, and in the mind.
17-05-2020 20:09
keepit
★★★★☆
(1757)
Harvey,
Did you time travel to the 13th century to get that point of view?
Could i borrow your time machine? I'd like to get out of here.
17-05-2020 22:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote:And you asked that there be no "ifs" but you did not explain why.

It's the "Dishonesty Clause."

At your convenience, you announce that everything discussed thus far hinges on that "if" ... and that you are no longer agreeing with that being the case ... so we are right back at square one having wasted a lot of time, as was the intent.

Frankly, you are clinging to this silly notion of "we define thermal energy differently" as though that has any relevance, just so you can pretend to be in agreement ... so you can later claim that you were never in agreement.

I'm making a concerted effort to be more efficient and to use Into the Night's list more frequently instead of rehashing common explanations that are already well documented. You are preparing a preemptive 39p:

39) Invalid proof
p) proof by irrelevance, i.e. presumed refutation is immaterial or unrelated, e.g. "you posted this at an odd hour," "I was right last time," etc..


If our respective definitions of "thermal energy" were of any import, you could have clarified how that matters regarding the three points I laid out, which would then lead to another discussion altogether, i.e. one of highlighting various physics violations that you would rather not be scrutinized.

So, let's take a step back. Based on your misunderstanding of thermal energy how does your position differ from the following:

1. Thermal energy flows strictly from a warmer body to a cooler body.
2. Thermal energy does not flow between bodies of the same temperature.
3. Because of 1 & 2 above, since the thermal energy flow is not the difference between two separate energy flows moving in opposite directions, the flow is just that, a flow, and not a "net flow."

tmiddles wrote:Your definition actually has no precedent and is just that, yours.

Marxist propaganda does not work on me. I cannot be bullied into rejecting science under the claim that "my view" is somehow in the minority. This is a straight #35:

35) Claiming Opponent Holds a Minority View or Argumentum ad Populum


I will admit that your level of ignorance is certainy in the majority, but it is wrong nonetheless. I suppose that next you'll be crediting me for having invented the term "thermal energy."

I'll tell you what. Let's focus on temperature then. You accept the concept of temperature, yes? You accept that only matter has temperature and that it can be measured, yes?

Given two bodies of different temperatures, show me a warmer body whose temperature increases by a cooler body. That'll work for me, and we won't have to worry about "thermal energy" or any photons. We'll keep it simple and just focus on temperature ... and you can define "thermal energy" any way that would make Karl Marx proud.


.


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
17-05-2020 22:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3489)
HarveyH55 wrote:...The thermal energy primarily comes from the sun, reasonably consistently. How much makes it to the surface, varies. CO2 does not create additional energy....
The logic is sound Harvey.

There is a specific amount of energy coming from the sun. The logic you are following, as I understand you, is that without that quantity of energy increasing it's not possible for something to have a higher temperature.

Also it would make sense, would it not, that the maximum temperature possible would match the amount of energy which is coming from the sun. The sun sheds light on an objects per square meter based on how far it is from the sun correct? The farther away you are the less you get.

If a surface that is receiving that light absorbs all of it that would be the maximum amount of energy it could get right?

Now if that surface were to emit back all of what it's getting it would be in equilibrium. Same energy in as out.

That value is called the Equilibrium Temperatures of Planets

The ground level (bottom of the atmosphere) of Earth is estimated at 14 C. The Equilibrium temperature of Earth however is estimated at -18 C.

But maybe someone will say wait up, they don't know the temp so precisely. First of all we do know the equilibrium temp as precisely as we know how bright the sun is. That value is a calculation based only on the intensity of the sun and the emissivity of the planet. If you doubt the emissivity of the planet is known you can use the maximum of 1.0 and this proof holds up fine.

So if the 32 degree difference found on Earth is too narrow a margin for you there is Venus.

Venus is slightly closer to the Sun, at 0.72 times the distance.

If Venus absorbed ALL of the suns energy, if it was a perfect black body with emissivity of 1.0 (it is not but assuming the max means we can set asside quibbling about what the emissivity is) it's equilibrium temp would be 55C (link). The ground level (bottom of the atmosphere) of Venus is estimated at 467C. So that is 412 degrees hotter than the sun light shining on Venus.

Before we even wonder "how can that be!" there remains the issue that it is. It is true that the bottom of the atmosphere of Venus is much much hotter than the sunlight shining on the planet.

Even ITN's gotta recognize:
Into the Night wrote:...the high temperatures of Venus.
from the DATA MINE

So your logic is clearly not working here based on that alone.

Now it is important to note that the "surface" is not the ground of a planet necessarily. On the moon or mercury it happens to be. On Venus it's almost entirely the atmosphere. On Earth the ground does represent a fraction of our "surface" with emitts radiance out into space.

So the "surface" can be in perfect equilibrium with the Sun while the bottom of the atmosphere is much hotter.



"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 17-05-2020 22:37
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate How a cooler body heats a warmer body.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Corona Virus NCOV Is Harmless If You Body Is Clean Healthy But Dangerous If Your Body Is Dirty Toxic031-07-2020 12:09
a cooler world is a deadly world502-04-2020 00:31
It's Getting Cooler In Some Places2630-09-2019 03:31
Black body radiation2919-08-2019 09:11
What makes IPCC scientists sure warmer air hundreds of millions of years ago due to7106-06-2019 23:39
▲ 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