NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.

tmiddles wrote:But most appropriately the example of this thread PROVES it.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Energy can neither be created or destroyed... So, if the human is absorbing energy from the cooler room, would the room be getting colder? Since humans are double insulated, wouldn't the skin surface show the warming on the camera's screen. I don't recall you stating how long your test subjects were incarcerated in the 70F room, but think 2000 calories would have last a day or few.

I think the flaw is in the camera though. The imagining array would work the same as, any digital camera, only more sensitive to infrared. Cameras traditionally capture reflected light. Black/White bodies only exist in metascience, so the would be some reflections from the human to the walls, and back. The electronics might no be quite as precise as you think, since the goal is to visualize heat patterns. The resolution isn't that great, pretty crappy, compared to a traditional camera. Noticed your test subject was wearing cloths, din't that effect the cameras readings and calculations? Think there is a considerable amount of math going on inside the camera, to translate the sensor's data, into a picture on the screen. They do in regular cameras as well. Is the main concern the image on the screen, or accurate temperature measurements? Basically, you are trying to squeeze a different use from the camera, than what it was designed to do. The numbers you got, might not be the same the you needed, to make your wild claims.

How would you even measure such a claim anyway? Did you monitor the room temperature the whole time, to see if it got any colder in there? Calories burned maintaining body temperature would be tough, everyone's metabolism is a little different, and there are calories be used for many other bodily functions. You don't know if the calories are coming from a recent meal, or stored fat. Stored fat requires energy to be converted to something your body can use.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: ...everything I can find online.

...your unwillingness to perform any research.

tmiddles wrote:
#1 -[/b[b]Body Physics: Motion to Metabolism
Author: Lawrence Davis:NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE
#2 -University Physics Volume 2: Net Heat Transfer of a Person
#3 -Radiation Heat Transfer - The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Fifth Edition) by Singiresu S.Rao
#4 -MCB3033-HEAT TRANSFER Heat Transfer Mechanism
Dr. Aklilu Tesfamichael aklilu.baheta@utp.edu.my
#5 -HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER(link)
FUNDAMENTALS & APPLICATIONS ISBN 978-0-07-339818-1 Page 29
#6 -engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Stefan-Boltzmann heat between two objects σ((T2)^4-(T1)^4)
#7 -The Organic Chemistry Tutor at 20:50: youtu.be/LR5bYxC4syI
Hotter ball in a cooler room "Heat leaves the sphere but also enters the sphere"
#8 -Quora"net heat loss by radiation does depend on the surrounding temperature."
#9 -Madsci.org"some heat will also be absorbed from the
surroundings"
#10 -Thermal Radiation
Qt=eσA(T^4skin−T^4ambient)
#11 -LearnChemE - Properties of Radiative Heat Transfer 7 min
https://youtu.be/epioKYRRpPI
#12 -AK Lecturefundamental explanation of radiative heat transfer:
youtu.be/93-_JhGNn1Y "any object that radiates energy also absorbs"
EVERY ONE TEACHING P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)

IBdaMann wrote:focus on something that would prove these guys wrong:https://www.bpihomeowner.org/blog/technically-speaking-principles-heat-transfer

IBdaMann wrote:
Hello! We are all still waiting for that repeatable example.

HarveyH55 wrote:So, if the human is absorbing energy from the cooler room, would the room be getting colder?

HarveyH55 wrote:
I think the flaw is in the camera though.

HarveyH55 wrote:
...your wild claims.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: ...everything I can find online.

...your unwillingness to perform any research.

tmiddles wrote:
#1 -[/b[b]Body Physics: Motion to Metabolism
Author: Lawrence Davis:NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE
#2 -University Physics Volume 2: Net Heat Transfer of a Person
#3 -Radiation Heat Transfer - The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Fifth Edition) by Singiresu S.Rao
#4 -MCB3033-HEAT TRANSFER Heat Transfer Mechanism
Dr. Aklilu Tesfamichael aklilu.baheta@utp.edu.my
#5 -HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER(link)
FUNDAMENTALS & APPLICATIONS ISBN 978-0-07-339818-1 Page 29
#6 -engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Stefan-Boltzmann heat between two objects σ((T2)^4-(T1)^4)
#7 -The Organic Chemistry Tutor at 20:50: youtu.be/LR5bYxC4syI
Hotter ball in a cooler room "Heat leaves the sphere but also enters the sphere"
#8 -Quora"net heat loss by radiation does depend on the surrounding temperature."
#9 -Madsci.org"some heat will also be absorbed from the
surroundings"
#10 -Thermal Radiation
Qt=eσA(T^4skin−T^4ambient)
#11 -LearnChemE - Properties of Radiative Heat Transfer 7 min
https://youtu.be/epioKYRRpPI
#12 -AK Lecturefundamental explanation of radiative heat transfer:
youtu.be/93-_JhGNn1Y "any object that radiates energy also absorbs"
EVERY ONE TEACHING P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)

IBdaMann wrote:focus on something that would prove these guys wrong:https://www.bpihomeowner.org/blog/technically-speaking-principles-heat-transfer

And what at that link is wrong? They say:
"radiation is the transfer of heat from a warm object through space to a cooler object. " and the net flow of radiant energy is always from warmer to colder. Great link, it backs up the math of this topic: "Radiant heat transfer is generally the culprit for discomfort in a home." Radiance and not conduction is the biggest factor in our personal temperature management. Now how could that be if it doesn't matter what temp our environment is? (and no one hangs out in rooms that are 91F+, according to you radiance from the environment never factors in otherwise.)

IBdaMann wrote:
Hello! We are all still waiting for that repeatable example.

What makes a repeatable example by the IBD rules? Why does the example of this topic not qualify? Does anything you're aware of "qualify" in your view as meeting the standard of being a repeatable example of anything?

A human body, alive, in a 70F room, maintains body temperature only by including absorption of the radiance from the cooler room by the warmer body.

Into the Night wrote:
A human body, alive, in a 70F room, maintains body temperature only by including absorption of the radiance from the cooler room by the warmer body.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Nope. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.

There you go again being vague.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Energy can neither be created or destroyed... So, if the human is absorbing energy from the cooler room, would the room be getting colder? Since humans are double insulated, wouldn't the skin surface show the warming on the camera's screen. I don't recall you stating how long your test subjects were incarcerated in the 70F room, but think 2000 calories would have last a day or few.

I think the flaw is in the camera though. The imagining array would work the same as, any digital camera, only more sensitive to infrared. Cameras traditionally capture reflected light. Black/White bodies only exist in metascience, so the would be some reflections from the human to the walls, and back. The electronics might no be quite as precise as you think, since the goal is to visualize heat patterns. The resolution isn't that great, pretty crappy, compared to a traditional camera. Noticed your test subject was wearing cloths, din't that effect the cameras readings and calculations? Think there is a considerable amount of math going on inside the camera, to translate the sensor's data, into a picture on the screen. They do in regular cameras as well. Is the main concern the image on the screen, or accurate temperature measurements? Basically, you are trying to squeeze a different use from the camera, than what it was designed to do. The numbers you got, might not be the same the you needed, to make your wild claims.

How would you even measure such a claim anyway? Did you monitor the room temperature the whole time, to see if it got any colder in there? Calories burned maintaining body temperature would be tough, everyone's metabolism is a little different, and there are calories be used for many other bodily functions. You don't know if the calories are coming from a recent meal, or stored fat. Stored fat requires energy to be converted to something your body can use.

There is some matrix math in the camera, but basically the thing is a translator from infrared light to visible light. Green show up as blue, red shows up as green, and infrared shows up as reds and yellows.

The math is really a simple bit of math. It's basically transposing B->null, G->B, R->G, and IR->R. This can be done as an analog math (by wiring up the imaging system sideways), or as digital math (the way it's done in modern digital cameras).

The old 'black and white' infrared cameras combined R and IR on the same screen, producing a combined Y signal.


Infrared cameras do not use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to produce their images.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
A human body, alive, in a 70F room, maintains body temperature only by including absorption of the radiance from the cooler room by the warmer body.

Nope. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.

tmiddles wrote:
Why don't you just explain how a human body maintains body temperature and clear this all up?

tmiddles wrote:
With numbers, not platitudes and unsupported claims.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Energy can neither be created or destroyed... So, if the human is absorbing energy from the cooler room, would the room be getting colder? Since humans are double insulated, wouldn't the skin surface show the warming on the camera's screen. I don't recall you stating how long your test subjects were incarcerated in the 70F room, but think 2000 calories would have last a day or few.

I think the flaw is in the camera though. The imagining array would work the same as, any digital camera, only more sensitive to infrared. Cameras traditionally capture reflected light. Black/White bodies only exist in metascience, so the would be some reflections from the human to the walls, and back. The electronics might no be quite as precise as you think, since the goal is to visualize heat patterns. The resolution isn't that great, pretty crappy, compared to a traditional camera. Noticed your test subject was wearing cloths, din't that effect the cameras readings and calculations? Think there is a considerable amount of math going on inside the camera, to translate the sensor's data, into a picture on the screen. They do in regular cameras as well. Is the main concern the image on the screen, or accurate temperature measurements? Basically, you are trying to squeeze a different use from the camera, than what it was designed to do. The numbers you got, might not be the same the you needed, to make your wild claims.

How would you even measure such a claim anyway? Did you monitor the room temperature the whole time, to see if it got any colder in there? Calories burned maintaining body temperature would be tough, everyone's metabolism is a little different, and there are calories be used for many other bodily functions. You don't know if the calories are coming from a recent meal, or stored fat. Stored fat requires energy to be converted to something your body can use.

There is some matrix math in the camera, but basically the thing is a translator from infrared light to visible light. Green show up as blue, red shows up as green, and infrared shows up as reds and yellows.

The math is really a simple bit of math. It's basically transposing B->null, G->B, R->G, and IR->R. This can be done as an analog math (by wiring up the imaging system sideways), or as digital math (the way it's done in modern digital cameras).

The old 'black and white' infrared cameras combined R and IR on the same screen, producing a combined Y signal.


Infrared cameras do not use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to produce their images.

Maybe a long time ago, camera modules are packed full functions these days. Did some shopping last summer for project, turned out to be a whole lot more to using the modules, than hooking up a few pins to a microcontoller, turned out to be 17 pins, for a cheap module with fair resolution.

If you want to do your own post processing, there is a separate, RAW format, otherwise, the camera pretty's it for you, also compresses the image for most other formats. All digital camera modules are sensitive to IR, and usually have a glass cut filter installed, unless intended for night vision. Colors still need to be adjusted/compensated, and is dependent on where you are taking pictures, source of the IR, probably a few other things. A lot of that is built into the module, the rest of the camera gives you options, some just set things in the module, others come after the image is captured.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Energy can neither be created or destroyed... So, if the human is absorbing energy from the cooler room, would the room be getting colder? Since humans are double insulated, wouldn't the skin surface show the warming on the camera's screen. I don't recall you stating how long your test subjects were incarcerated in the 70F room, but think 2000 calories would have last a day or few.

I think the flaw is in the camera though. The imagining array would work the same as, any digital camera, only more sensitive to infrared. Cameras traditionally capture reflected light. Black/White bodies only exist in metascience, so the would be some reflections from the human to the walls, and back. The electronics might no be quite as precise as you think, since the goal is to visualize heat patterns. The resolution isn't that great, pretty crappy, compared to a traditional camera. Noticed your test subject was wearing cloths, din't that effect the cameras readings and calculations? Think there is a considerable amount of math going on inside the camera, to translate the sensor's data, into a picture on the screen. They do in regular cameras as well. Is the main concern the image on the screen, or accurate temperature measurements? Basically, you are trying to squeeze a different use from the camera, than what it was designed to do. The numbers you got, might not be the same the you needed, to make your wild claims.

How would you even measure such a claim anyway? Did you monitor the room temperature the whole time, to see if it got any colder in there? Calories burned maintaining body temperature would be tough, everyone's metabolism is a little different, and there are calories be used for many other bodily functions. You don't know if the calories are coming from a recent meal, or stored fat. Stored fat requires energy to be converted to something your body can use.

There is some matrix math in the camera, but basically the thing is a translator from infrared light to visible light. Green show up as blue, red shows up as green, and infrared shows up as reds and yellows.

The math is really a simple bit of math. It's basically transposing B->null, G->B, R->G, and IR->R. This can be done as an analog math (by wiring up the imaging system sideways), or as digital math (the way it's done in modern digital cameras).

The old 'black and white' infrared cameras combined R and IR on the same screen, producing a combined Y signal.


Infrared cameras do not use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to produce their images.

Maybe a long time ago, camera modules are packed full functions these days. Did some shopping last summer for project, turned out to be a whole lot more to using the modules, than hooking up a few pins to a microcontoller, turned out to be 17 pins, for a cheap module with fair resolution.

If you want to do your own post processing, there is a separate, RAW format, otherwise, the camera pretty's it for you, also compresses the image for most other formats. All digital camera modules are sensitive to IR, and usually have a glass cut filter installed, unless intended for night vision. Colors still need to be adjusted/compensated, and is dependent on where you are taking pictures, source of the IR, probably a few other things. A lot of that is built into the module, the rest of the camera gives you options, some just set things in the module, others come after the image is captured.

It is not the camera that is sensitive to IR, it is the imaging element (these days essentially a dynamic RAM circuit exposed to the light). They are also sensitive to UV, especially UV-A.

Filters for red, green, and blue stop these other colors. They are normally part of any regular camera (or module). Different filters are used for IR cameras or for UV cameras, then software transposes colors.

I do some post processing on my own, but I leave most of that to my son. He's the one that owns a video production company.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Energy can neither be created or destroyed... So, if the human is absorbing energy from the cooler room, would the room be getting colder? Since humans are double insulated, wouldn't the skin surface show the warming on the camera's screen. I don't recall you stating how long your test subjects were incarcerated in the 70F room, but think 2000 calories would have last a day or few.

I think the flaw is in the camera though. The imagining array would work the same as, any digital camera, only more sensitive to infrared. Cameras traditionally capture reflected light. Black/White bodies only exist in metascience, so the would be some reflections from the human to the walls, and back. The electronics might no be quite as precise as you think, since the goal is to visualize heat patterns. The resolution isn't that great, pretty crappy, compared to a traditional camera. Noticed your test subject was wearing cloths, din't that effect the cameras readings and calculations? Think there is a considerable amount of math going on inside the camera, to translate the sensor's data, into a picture on the screen. They do in regular cameras as well. Is the main concern the image on the screen, or accurate temperature measurements? Basically, you are trying to squeeze a different use from the camera, than what it was designed to do. The numbers you got, might not be the same the you needed, to make your wild claims.

How would you even measure such a claim anyway? Did you monitor the room temperature the whole time, to see if it got any colder in there? Calories burned maintaining body temperature would be tough, everyone's metabolism is a little different, and there are calories be used for many other bodily functions. You don't know if the calories are coming from a recent meal, or stored fat. Stored fat requires energy to be converted to something your body can use.

There is some matrix math in the camera, but basically the thing is a translator from infrared light to visible light. Green show up as blue, red shows up as green, and infrared shows up as reds and yellows.

The math is really a simple bit of math. It's basically transposing B->null, G->B, R->G, and IR->R. This can be done as an analog math (by wiring up the imaging system sideways), or as digital math (the way it's done in modern digital cameras).

The old 'black and white' infrared cameras combined R and IR on the same screen, producing a combined Y signal.


Infrared cameras do not use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to produce their images.

Maybe a long time ago, camera modules are packed full functions these days. Did some shopping last summer for project, turned out to be a whole lot more to using the modules, than hooking up a few pins to a microcontoller, turned out to be 17 pins, for a cheap module with fair resolution.

If you want to do your own post processing, there is a separate, RAW format, otherwise, the camera pretty's it for you, also compresses the image for most other formats. All digital camera modules are sensitive to IR, and usually have a glass cut filter installed, unless intended for night vision. Colors still need to be adjusted/compensated, and is dependent on where you are taking pictures, source of the IR, probably a few other things. A lot of that is built into the module, the rest of the camera gives you options, some just set things in the module, others come after the image is captured.

It is not the camera that is sensitive to IR, it is the imaging element (these days essentially a dynamic RAM circuit exposed to the light). They are also sensitive to UV, especially UV-A.

Filters for red, green, and blue stop these other colors. They are normally part of any regular camera (or module). Different filters are used for IR cameras or for UV cameras, then software transposes colors.

I do some post processing on my own, but I leave most of that to my son. He's the one that owns a video production company.

The IR cut filter was the only on installed on the module itself. There are digital filters for the colors, and on the more professional cameras, filters are available, as they were with film cameras. My Q500 drone has a pretty good camera, and never saw a need for buying the optional filters, the digital filters did a fine job, except a little jumpy, when the sun is in the frame. I fly early morning, so not usually an issue.

I'm sure there are places you could by just the array, but I think they would be on the manufacturing scale, still not real common either. The are integrated with the logic to drive them, and retrieve the image. I looked at quite a few.

IBdaMann wrote:
He seemed very clear to me.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Why don't you just explain how a human body maintains body temperature and clear this all up?

Non-sequitur fallacy. Already answered.

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
...your wild claims.

Those may be the "wild claims" of the text book but I will defend them. What do you consider to be my "wild claims"?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
He seemed very clear to me.

Why don't you just explain how a human body maintains body temperature and clear this all up? With numbers, not platitudes and unsupported claims.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Why don't you just explain how a human body maintains body temperature and clear this all up?

Non-sequitur fallacy. Already answered.

With numbers! Where did you ever come close to answering it? copy paste away.

I know you write that because you're on this board to bury what you don't like under mounds of disrespectfully long quoting. You think someone will lose this thread reading that somewhere you answered the question.

You did not. Neither did IBD. Never once, not even remotely.

tmiddles wrote:
Harvey if you're done shopping for a camera:

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
...your wild claims.

Those may be the "wild claims" of the text book but I will defend them. What do you consider to be my "wild claims"?

The uselessly looooong quoting is just an attempt to kill this board. Which has been largely successful.

Into the Night wrote:
Repetitious questions that have already been answered.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
The uselessly looooong quoting...

What quoting? From where?

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:The IR cut filter was the only on installed on the module itself....

Color cameras (or modules) use three filters: red, green, and blue; just as your own eyes do. They are built right into the camera (or module) itself.

tmiddles wrote:PLEASE cut it out unless it's your intention to kill the board.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Repetitious questions that have already been answered.

Liar! You never answered anything. Quote it, link to it.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
The uselessly looooong quoting...

What quoting? From where?

In the forum. You want to say something is a fallacy and you can't be bothered to edit down what you quote so everyone doesn't have to scroll endlessly.

I'm going to give you an example. This is how long your post above could have been:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:The IR cut filter was the only on installed on the module itself....

Color cameras (or modules) use three filters: red, green, and blue; just as your own eyes do. They are built right into the camera (or module) itself.

PLEASE cut it out unless it's your intention to kill the board.

Into the Night wrote:
In case you haven't noticed, moron, the forum is doing just fine.

L8112 wrote:

bootesvoid wrote:What do you do when you can't engage people to discuss climate change?
... I just get blank stares, slight scowls ...

my advice would be to bolt from this forum as there are a group of devoted climate change deniers who will lay to waste any conversations on the topic, and will dismiss any sort of evidence from credible institutions such as NASA, not with counter facts but with non sequitur statements or hand waving. They learned this tactic from their father Blanald Flump- deception, constantly speaking falsehoods, and then lying ad infinitum is how the script goes....

IBdaMann wrote:
[ignore]
On another front, how's that repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body via thermal radiation coming along?
[/ignore]

tmiddles wrote:Also stop trying to cheat. It's radiance from a cooler body being absorbed by a warmer body.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
In case you haven't noticed, moron, the forum is doing just fine.

No you guys did so much damage. Ghost town really (what are there like 4-5 of us active on here?). This sums it up

link

L8112 wrote:

bootesvoid wrote:What do you do when you can't engage people to discuss climate change?
... I just get blank stares, slight scowls ...

my advice would be to bolt from this forum as there are a group of devoted climate change deniers who will lay to waste any conversations on the topic, and will dismiss any sort of evidence from credible institutions such as NASA, not with counter facts but with non sequitur statements or hand waving. They learned this tactic from their father Blanald Flump- deception, constantly speaking falsehoods, and then lying ad infinitum is how the script goes....

This is the forum you dictate:
Post: So what do you all think about this issue?
ITN/IBD: We can't talk about that at all. We will insist that we only talk about how we cannot talk about it.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[ignore]
On another front, how's that repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body via thermal radiation coming along?
[/ignore]

Please don't ignore it!: net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Also stop trying to cheat. It's radiance from a cooler body being absorbed by a warmer body.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Also stop trying to cheat....

So what does that mean? ....

does the absorption of thermal radiation not equate to an increase in thermal energy? ....

does an increase in thermal energy not increase temeprature ...?

Into the Night wrote:The board had about the same number active at the point you quoted.

Into the Night wrote:
* You can't heat a warmer body with a colder one.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Also stop trying to cheat....

So what does that mean? ....

does the absorption of thermal radiation not equate to an increase in thermal energy? ....

does an increase in thermal energy not increase temeprature ...?

This topic was clear and the text book example laid out properly. But I'll review for you.

YES radiance is absorbed by the warmer human body from the colder room: ~625watts are gained

tmiddles wrote:
NO the thermal energy in the human does not increase because ~725watts are lost through radiance and the deficit of ~100watts is supplied by our metabolism.

tmiddles wrote:
Generally speaking temperature increases when the NET EFFECT of all thermodynamic activity is positive.

tmiddles wrote:
If you have a side job making a $100 a week does your net worth increase by $100 a week? Maybe? Really depends on what else is going on doesn't it?

tmiddles wrote:
You know all of this I'm just calling your bluff.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The board had about the same number active at the point you quoted.

You mean that at the point it was being described how you'd already laid waste to the board the damage was done? Yeah that makes sense.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
* You can't heat a warmer body with a colder one.

Cheater! That's not the question.

tmiddles wrote:
ITN: Can you absorb radiance from the walls and air around you if your skin is warmer? If not what happens to it? Reflected?

Into the Night wrote:
* You can't warm a warmer body with a colder one.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
* You can't warm a warmer body with a colder one.

What do you think happens to the radiance of the room when it reaches your body ITN? It's happening right now! Take a stab at it.

tmiddles wrote:
And there is no paradox that a human body maintains a stable temperature.

tmiddles wrote:
We absorb, we emit, we metabolize. Well understood. Probably why the text book used that example to illustrate it.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
* You can't warm a warmer body with a colder one.

What do you think happens to the radiance of the room when it reaches your body ITN? It's happening right now! Take a stab at it.

Repetitious questions already answered.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
* You can't warm a warmer body with a colder one.

What do you think happens to the radiance of the room when it reaches your body ITN? It's happening right now! Take a stab at it.

Repetitious questions already answered.

Come on its easy hint: it's absorbed

Into the Night wrote:
* You can't warm a warmer body with a colder one.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
* You can't warm a warmer body with a colder one.

Come on crazy, go ahead: is it reflected? Is it transmitted? What does happen Mr. Science?

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
what does happen Mr. Science?

...already answered.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
what does happen Mr. Science?

...already answered.

You know you can't yell and the screen and have us hear you right? You have to type in the answer. Which you have not done.

Into the Night wrote:...already answered.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:...already answered.

How about this:
If you were in a room and the walls were 95 F would your skin absorb the radiance?

tmiddles wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:...already answered.

How about this:
If you were in a room and the walls were 95 F would your skin absorb the radiance?

No answer? Now I know I've never asked that before.

IBD? Anyone? Take a crack at it.

IBdaMann wrote:
Life forms adapt to their surroundings, acclimate to their surroundings, adjust to their surroundings, etc.
Is there a way you can remove life forms from your scenario?
.

IBdaMann wrote:
Life forms adapt to their surroundings,
.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Life forms adapt to their surroundings,
.

Why don't you present some explanation on how a human being maintains body temp.

There are the fewest unknowns where a subject is well studied. Human body's are well studied annd that's why the text book used this example.

The thorough study on skin emissivity for example.