Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 2 of 6<1234>>>
30-08-2019 10:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
If I say that a person who is 5' 8" and 150lbs is the subject of a calculation would you call that "Unknowable" and randU?

RandU.


So if a did a calculation with a person who was 5' 8" and 150 lbs you just wouldn't accept that?

If so why not?

Would you be disputing that people who are 5' 8" and 150lbs exist?

Also you are the only one calling an approximate number "randU". I looked that up and it was a random number generator tool famous for being bad at being random. So calling things an "randU" number is just confusing. If you're saying it's random use the world random. In this case random is not at all the best way to describe a number which is an average or a common value within a range.
Edited on 30-08-2019 11:25
30-08-2019 14:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5238)
tmiddles wrote:Harvey you'd agree that ITN and IBdaMann regard themselves as being experts on applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law right?

@Harvey - you'd agree that anyone capable of performing arithmetic is capable of "applying" Stefan-Boltzmann right?

@Harvey - did you notice how tmiddles is talking about Stefan-Boltzmann? In fact, he won't leave the topic of Stefan-Boltzmann even for a moment to return to the topic at hand, i.e. providing a repeatable instance of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote:CO2 doesn't factor in.

@tmiddles, you claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't apply. Great. Could you support that with one, just one, repeatable instance of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Coincidentally I am in a cool room right now and I'd like to repeat that instance you have in mind.

tmiddles wrote:Keep in mind there is not a textbook in existence with this truly bazaar take on the 2nd law of thermodynamics

What "take" is that exactly? Are you capable of expressing that in words?

I see that you are returning to claiming that the unknown is "what we know." Now you are speaking on behalf of "all existence." That's quite a feat.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
30-08-2019 20:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
If I say that a person who is 5' 8" and 150lbs is the subject of a calculation would you call that "Unknowable" and randU?

RandU.


So if a did a calculation with a person who was 5' 8" and 150 lbs you just wouldn't accept that?

I would accept it as the randU answer that it is.
tmiddles wrote:
If so why not?

I saw this question on a federal form once. I thought only the feds could ask a question that stupid.
tmiddles wrote:
Would you be disputing that people who are 5' 8" and 150lbs exist?

No.
tmiddles wrote:
Also you are the only one calling an approximate number "randU".

No, I am not.
tmiddles wrote:
I looked that up and it was a random number generator tool famous for being bad at being random.

Guess you forgot that too. I explained what randU was. I'll go over it again just because I feel like it. Pay attention this time. This comes from random number mathematics.

There are three types of random numbers: randR, randN, and randU.
randR is the type of random number you get from dice. It has no memory. The number can repeat any number of times or never even come up at all.

randN is the tpe of random number you get from cards. It has a memory. Once a card is pulled, you cannot pull it again, until a reset event occurs (such as a shuffle).

randU is the 'predictable' random number. This is the kind of number that comes out of someone's head, or the algorithm for such a number. Any time you just make up a number out of your head, that's a randU.
tmiddles wrote:
So calling things an "randU" number is just confusing.

Nope. It's now been explained for you AGAIN. Pay attention.
tmiddles wrote:
If you're saying it's random use the world random.

What is 'random'? What makes a number 'random'? Because it looks 'random'? Just how 'random' is it?

Imagine a person rolling a single die on a craps table.

You could, theoretically calculate the position of the die when it's picked up, the size of his hand, how sweaty it is, how fast and how high he throws it, where it contacts the felt and at what speed, where it snags on the felt and begins to roll, where off the back wall it bounces, and where it lands, and what face will be showing when it stops. This calculation will require incorporating many large values and variables, all to generate a number from one to six.

In other words, you need to calculate something of very high resolution to get a very low resolution number.

So, what is 'random' and how 'random' is it?
It is a number generated by a difference of resolutions. That difference can be expressed as a ratio, and directly indicates just how 'random' our random number is.

This works for randR and randN, but what about randU?

People also make up numbers. If you consider all the possible synapses that can fire to create some number, it IS random, but those synapses are generating that number for a particular purpose (usually to embellish an argument). Thus, this random number is 'predictable'. It is what computer scientists call the 'psuedo-random' number.

It occurs anytime you think of a number to use. It occurs anytime you use words like 'all', 'everyone', 'none', 'most', 'few', 'some'; or if you use numbers to indicate such concepts.

tmiddles wrote:
In this case random is not at all the best way to describe a number which is an average or a common value within a range.

You are not using an average. There is no data. You are just picking a number out of your own mind (or someone else is picking a number out of their own mind and you're just copying it).

The concept of 'average' is often just a randU as well, since the dataset is not specified and no average is run. Remember, the dataset MUST be closed to generate an average. If you try to use an open dataset 'average', the 'average' itself is a randU.

To attempt to use a randU as data is the argument from randU fallacy. Random numbers are not data.

Now pay attention to this. Write it down. Copy this note into your files. I will not repeat it again for you.

This is a branch of mathematics that is rarely discussed. For some reason they don't teach it much in schools either, not even computer science programs.

The use of random numbers in any other branch or Domain of mathematics renders that branch incapable of the power of prediction, normally inherent in a closed system like mathematics. Probability math and statistical math are among those so affected.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 30-08-2019 20:05
30-08-2019 20:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
IBdaMann wrote:
... just one, repeatable instance of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body.
tmiddles wrote:Keep in mind there is not a textbook in existence with this truly bazaar take on the 2nd law of thermodynamics

What "take" is that exactly? Are you capable of expressing that in words?

The repeatable instance is the first post of this topic. A person in a 70F room. You have yet to address it and explain how or if you disagree with what I've presented from the book.

My take is that the 2nd LTR always applies but to net flow of thermal energy. Your take is that net flow violates the 2nd LTR. Your take is that I radiate in to the room and it's absorbed but the room radiates back at me and it's mysteriously not absorbed. No explanation from you on that key bit. Reflected? Transmitted?

From greenhouse-gases-do-not-violate-the-stefan-boltzmann-law
IBdaMann wrote:...
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.

It's a very weird theory you cannot support with anything empirical.
30-08-2019 20:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
Into the Night wrote:
The use of random numbers in any other branch or Domain of mathematics renders that branch incapable of the power of prediction,


So this means my demonstration that your theory leaves over 600 watts missing doesn't bother you?
30-08-2019 22:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... just one, repeatable instance of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body.
tmiddles wrote:Keep in mind there is not a textbook in existence with this truly bazaar take on the 2nd law of thermodynamics

What "take" is that exactly? Are you capable of expressing that in words?

The repeatable instance is the first post of this topic. A person in a 70F room. You have yet to address it and explain how or if you disagree with what I've presented from the book.

Argument by repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. He has already answered your question.
tmiddles wrote:
My take is that the 2nd LTR always applies but to net flow of thermal energy.

There is no such thing as 'net flow'. Heat only flows in one direction.
tmiddles wrote:
Your take is that net flow violates the 2nd LTR.

It does.
tmiddles wrote:
Your take is that I radiate in to the room and it's absorbed but the room radiates back at me and it's mysteriously not absorbed.

Nothing mysterious about it. It is not absorbed.
tmiddles wrote:
No explanation from you on that key bit. Reflected? Transmitted?

Reflected, refracted, or it just passes right on by, like it's transparent. This has also been explained to you.

No molecule will absorb a photon of less energy then the molecule itself already has.
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:...
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.

tmiddles wrote:
It's a very weird theory you cannot support with anything empirical.

The periodic table is made up of empirical observations. It's pattern has much to do with this very uncertainty. See the work of Rutherford, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, etc.


The Parrot Killer
30-08-2019 22:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The use of random numbers in any other branch or Domain of mathematics renders that branch incapable of the power of prediction,


So this means my demonstration that your theory leaves over 600 watts missing doesn't bother you?


Argument from randU fallacy. You 'demonstration' is not a demonstration. It is simply generating random numbers. Now you are attempting to use them as data.


The Parrot Killer
30-08-2019 22:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net flow'. Heat only flows in one direction.

Radiance does not only flow in one direction. If that's your theory it is exotic and unsubstantiated. You both offer nothing other than a circular definition of your own creation.

I have proven it wrong with the first post of this topic.

Neither of you have even offered an explanation as to how we aren't all freezing to death right now. Go ahead by the way, no one can stop you.

To be clear on the crux of the issue:
Your revolutionary claim that radiance from a cooler object, when it strikes a hotter object, is not absorbed, is disproven by my example. By the example of all of us right now sitting in rooms cooler than we are, radiating over 700 watts, and yet not freezing to death.

That you both actually know I'm right is clear from the lack of any attempt at an explanation of your own.
30-08-2019 23:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The use of random numbers in any other branch or Domain of mathematics renders that branch incapable of the power of prediction,


So this means my demonstration that your theory leaves over 600 watts missing doesn't bother you?


Argument from randU fallacy. You 'demonstration' is not a demonstration. It is simply generating random numbers. Now you are attempting to use them as data.


Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to values known to be in the range of what we find among people is a fallacy? How is that?

Also are you able to explain anything. Anything at all. Pick one thing related to thermodynamics that's actually occurring in the world around us and give us your explanation with calculations to back it up.

If you're argument is basically that we can't know anything about anything, well you should really open with that to save people time.
Edited on 30-08-2019 23:12
30-08-2019 23:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5238)
tmiddles wrote:The repeatable instance is the first post of this topic.

Incorrect. You have too many unknowns (and even just one is too many).

Try again. Give me an example in which I can exactly repeat.


tmiddles wrote:My take is that the 2nd LTR always applies but to net flow of thermal energy.

You can't be mincing words. You need to state clearly that your belief is that some thermal energy flows from a cooler body to a warmer body.

tmiddles wrote: Your take is that net flow violates the 2nd LTR.

Wrong wording. Please use my wording for my positions.

Additionally, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is science, not my opinion.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that all thermal energy moves from higher temperature to lower temperature.

Your "take" is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not always hold, but that it holds most of the time so as to create a "net flow" (your term) from warmer to cooler.

So once you agree to the wording of your position, we should be able to take another step in the right direction.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
31-08-2019 00:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
IBdaMann wrote:

Try again. Give me an example in which I can exactly repeat.



I think you and ITN have been playing a game on here all along where NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN according to you. So you give me one example of anything in thermodynamics, and not a definition or a platitude but an actual repeating event, that you know, and back it up with the calculation.

That's what I've already done.

You're turn

You say I did it wrong? Than you do one right.
RE: Emissivity study data31-08-2019 00:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
So! Temp ~ 91F/33C/306K, Surface area ~ 1.5m2 of skin, Emissivity ~ 0.97

The mean surface temperature of the skin is approximately Temp ~ 91F/33C/306K, but there are variation all of which are heavily studied. One exmple: facts_about_skin


The surface area is determined using the Mosteller calculation


Here is the raw data, method of determination, for emissivity of skin measurements from 40 subjects here:
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biomedical-optics/volume-14/issue-02/024006/Novel-approach-to-assess-the-emissivity-of-the-human-skin/10.1117/1.3086612.full?SSO=1

Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity
1 0.996 11 0.998 21 0.994 31 0.998
2 0.994 12 0.996 22 0.998 32 0.999
3 0.998 13 0.991 23 0.997 33 0.997
4 0.999 14 0.998 24 0.997 34 0.999
5 0.998 15 0.992 25 0.995 35 0.995
6 0.998 16 0.992 26 0.999 36 0.992
7 0.996 17 0.997 27 0.990 37 0.998
8 0.996 18 0.995 28 0.993 38 0.998
9 0.992 19 0.998 29 0.999 39 0.994
10 0.998 20 0.997 30 0.997 40 0.995

That's 40 subjects with emissivity all over 0.95

Now your exotic claim about a cooler objects radiance not being absorbed by a warmer body is debunked by my example based on the loss from radiance be too great for food energy alone to replace. (as in a person in a room would freeze to death if they couldn't absorb the radiance of the room).

So there is a range for all three of the above parameters.
Temp: 77-99F
Area: 1-2M
Emissivity: 0.992-0.998

All three correlate with the temp loss so the lower they are, the lower the temp loss.

So let's pick a very very ill person, who's whole body is as cold as someones feet at 77F, the skin area of a small child at 1.0m2, and the low end of emissivity at 0.992. But they are still eating a robust 2000 calorie diet.

Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)298K^4=-723W
0.0000000567*0.992*1.0*7886150416=443.56 Watts

So that's 443 Watts out from radiance as per Stefan-Boltzmann for our small child sized, deaths door they are so cold, adult diet eating test subject.

With 100 Watts max from the food digestion, explain the missing 343 Watts. [hint, it's absorbed radiance from the room, because you're debunked]

DEBUNKED!!
Edited on 31-08-2019 00:35
31-08-2019 01:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5238)
[/quote]You say I did it wrong? Than you do one right.[/quote]
You've been doing an awful lot of mistating my position while strictly avoiding clearly stating your position.

tmiddles wrote:You're turn

Nope. The ball is still in your court. You need to respond to the post of mine that you ignored (which doesn't narrow it down any).

IBdaMann wrote:Try again. Give me an example in which I can exactly repeat.


IBdaMann wrote:You can't be mincing words. You need to state clearly that your belief is that some thermal energy flows from a cooler body to a warmer body.


IBdaMann wrote: So once you agree to the wording of your position, we should be able to take another step in the right direction.


I realize you are in total "Glorify Global Warming" preach mode and you don't want to answer any questions that bother you, all while demanding answers to your questions regarding a totally ambiguous, non-repeatable event ...

... I get it.

Let me know when you want to move forward. Until then, I'm happy to let you practice your faith (without mistating my positions).

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
31-08-2019 01:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)

IBdaMann wrote:Let me know when you want to move forward.

With your crazy train? I'll pass.

I can't force you or ITN to respond. You choose not too. Out of my control.
Edited on 31-08-2019 01:37
31-08-2019 01:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Try again. Give me an example in which I can exactly repeat.



I think you and ITN have been playing a game on here all along where NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN according to you.

Sure it can. You just keep trying to bring up unknowns as knowns.
tmiddles wrote:
So you give me one example of anything in thermodynamics, and not a definition or a platitude but an actual repeating event, that you know, and back it up with the calculation.

Sure. I'll give you several. For each I will use the equation: e(t+1)>=e(t) (the 2nd law of thermodynamics).
* Have an iced tea. Watch the ice melt. e(t+1) > e(t)
* Start your car. Watch it warm up. e(t+1) > e(t)
* Make some Smore's. Watch 'em cool off after you remove them from the fire. e(t+1) > e(t)
* Watch a rainstorm. e(t+1)>e(t)
* Go down to the State fair and watch the little kids try to eat their ice cream before they melt. e(t+1)>e(t)
* Go see a fireworks show. e(t+1)>e(t)

It is not possible to decrease entropy in any system. Entropy always increases or stays the same in any system.

tmiddles wrote:
That's what I've already done.

Nope. You denied the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote:
You're turn

You haven't completed your turn.
tmiddles wrote:
You say I did it wrong? Than you do one right.

Already did.


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2019 01:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
tmiddles wrote:
So! Temp ~ 91F/33C/306K, Surface area ~ 1.5m2 of skin, Emissivity ~ 0.97

The mean surface temperature of the skin is approximately Temp ~ 91F/33C/306K, but there are variation all of which are heavily studied. One exmple: facts_about_skin


The surface area is determined using the Mosteller calculation


Here is the raw data, method of determination, for emissivity of skin measurements from 40 subjects here:
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biomedical-optics/volume-14/issue-02/024006/Novel-approach-to-assess-the-emissivity-of-the-human-skin/10.1117/1.3086612.full?SSO=1

Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity
1 0.996 11 0.998 21 0.994 31 0.998
2 0.994 12 0.996 22 0.998 32 0.999
3 0.998 13 0.991 23 0.997 33 0.997
4 0.999 14 0.998 24 0.997 34 0.999
5 0.998 15 0.992 25 0.995 35 0.995
6 0.998 16 0.992 26 0.999 36 0.992
7 0.996 17 0.997 27 0.990 37 0.998
8 0.996 18 0.995 28 0.993 38 0.998
9 0.992 19 0.998 29 0.999 39 0.994
10 0.998 20 0.997 30 0.997 40 0.995

That's 40 subjects with emissivity all over 0.95

Meh. RandU. How was it measured?
tmiddles wrote:
Now your exotic claim about a cooler objects radiance not being absorbed by a warmer body is debunked by my example based on the loss from radiance be too great for food energy alone to replace. (as in a person in a room would freeze to death if they couldn't absorb the radiance of the room).

* you cannot decrease entropy in any system
* you cannot make heat flow from cold to hot
tmiddles wrote:
So there is a range for all three of the above parameters.
Temp: 77-99F
Area: 1-2M
Emissivity: 0.992-0.998
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
All three correlate with the temp loss so the lower they are, the lower the temp loss.

So let's pick a very very ill person, who's whole body is as cold as someones feet at 77F, the skin area of a small child at 1.0m2, and the low end of emissivity at 0.992. But they are still eating a robust 2000 calorie diet.

Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)298K^4=-723W
0.0000000567*0.992*1.0*7886150416=443.56 Watts

randU answer as a result of randU values in the equation.
tmiddles wrote:
So that's 443 Watts out from radiance as per Stefan-Boltzmann for our small child sized, deaths door they are so cold, adult diet eating test subject.

With 100 Watts max from the food digestion, explain the missing 343 Watts. [hint, it's absorbed radiance from the room, because you're debunked]

DEBUNKED!!


Nope. You are again completely ignoring conductive heat.

You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2019 01:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Let me know when you want to move forward.

With your crazy train? I'll pass.

I can't force you or ITN to respond. You choose not too. Out of my control.


We have both responded. We have both answered your question. You are asking and ignoring again.

Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2019 02:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
Into the Night wrote:
* Have an iced tea. Watch the ice melt. e(t+1) > e(t)

As usually you just spout formulas. Do a real calculation. Or even just find one you consider "NOT randU"

I'd like to see you explain how two bodies reach temperature equilibrium! Ha ha, that'd be pretty funny given your exotic take on the the 2nd LTD.

You and IBdaMann consistently play this game where NOTHING CAN REALLY BE KNOWN ABOUT ANYTHING.

Am I wrong? Prove it. One real example. Not just spouting formulas.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
You say I did it wrong? Than you do one right.

Already did.

And you both consistently play the game of saying you answered something or did something you never did and act like it's just too much energy to quote it.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Here is the raw data, method of determination, for emissivity of skin measurements from 40 subjects here:
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biomedical-optics/volume-14/issue-02/024006/Novel-approach-to-assess-the-emissivity-of-the-human-skin/10.1117/1.3086612.full?SSO=1

Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity
1 0.996 11 0.998 21 0.994 31 0.998
2 0.994 12 0.996 22 0.998 32 0.999
3 0.998 13 0.991 23 0.997 33 0.997
4 0.999 14 0.998 24 0.997 34 0.999
5 0.998 15 0.992 25 0.995 35 0.995
6 0.998 16 0.992 26 0.999 36 0.992
7 0.996 17 0.997 27 0.990 37 0.998
8 0.996 18 0.995 28 0.993 38 0.998
9 0.992 19 0.998 29 0.999 39 0.994
10 0.998 20 0.997 30 0.997 40 0.995

That's 40 subjects with emissivity all over 0.95

Meh. RandU. How was it measured?

WOW!!! Way to give away what a sham you've been running! You are not only debunking your crazy notion of the 2nd LTD you're debunking your whole approach.

Look it up yourself lazy. That is a very solid study, all the methods are given and there is your raw data. Link provided.

You guys are FULL OF IT!!!

Into the Night wrote:
* you cannot make heat flow from cold to hot

Prove whatever it is you are saying. Don't just spout off.

How are you maintaining body temperature right now when you lose far more energy from radiance than your caloric intake can replace?

Into the Night wrote:Nope. You are again completely ignoring conductive heat.

And why are you choosing to also ignore it? Enlighten us ITN. What role does conductive heat play?

How are you maintaining body temperature right now when you lose far more energy from radiance than your caloric intake can replace?

[hint: you absorb radiance from your cooler surroundings! Because you're DEBUNKED!]
Edited on 31-08-2019 02:17
31-08-2019 02:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
* Have an iced tea. Watch the ice melt. e(t+1) > e(t)

As usually you just spout formulas. Do a real calculation. Or even just find one you consider "NOT randU"

As usual, you deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I guess none of these examples of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action impresses you.
tmiddles wrote:
I'd like to see you explain how two bodies reach temperature equilibrium! Ha ha, that'd be pretty funny given your exotic take on the the 2nd LTD.

Simple. At equilibrium there is no heat.
tmiddles wrote:
You and IBdaMann consistently play this game where NOTHING CAN REALLY BE KNOWN ABOUT ANYTHING.

Do you deny that ice cream melts in the hot sun at the fairground? Oh well, that's YOUR problem.
tmiddles wrote:
Am I wrong? Prove it. One real example. Not just spouting formulas.

I already gave you several.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
You say I did it wrong? Than you do one right.

Already did.

And you both consistently play the game of saying you answered something or did something you never did and act like it's just too much energy to quote it.

We are not here to answer the same question for you over and over and over and over and over.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Here is the raw data, method of determination, for emissivity of skin measurements from 40 subjects here:
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-biomedical-optics/volume-14/issue-02/024006/Novel-approach-to-assess-the-emissivity-of-the-human-skin/10.1117/1.3086612.full?SSO=1

Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity Subject Emissivity
1 0.996 11 0.998 21 0.994 31 0.998
2 0.994 12 0.996 22 0.998 32 0.999
3 0.998 13 0.991 23 0.997 33 0.997
4 0.999 14 0.998 24 0.997 34 0.999
5 0.998 15 0.992 25 0.995 35 0.995
6 0.998 16 0.992 26 0.999 36 0.992
7 0.996 17 0.997 27 0.990 37 0.998
8 0.996 18 0.995 28 0.993 38 0.998
9 0.992 19 0.998 29 0.999 39 0.994
10 0.998 20 0.997 30 0.997 40 0.995

That's 40 subjects with emissivity all over 0.95

Meh. RandU. How was it measured?

WOW!!! Way to give away what a sham you've been running! You are not only debunking your crazy notion of the 2nd LTD you're debunking your whole approach.

Look it up yourself lazy. That is a very solid study, all the methods are given and there is your raw data. Link provided.

You guys are FULL OF IT!!!

Into the Night wrote:
* you cannot make heat flow from cold to hot

Prove whatever it is you are saying. Don't just spout off.

How are you maintaining body temperature right now when you lose far more energy from radiance than your caloric intake can replace?

Into the Night wrote:Nope. You are again completely ignoring conductive heat.

And why are you choosing to also ignore it?

I didn't. I brought it up (yet again). It is YOU that is ignoring it.
tmiddles wrote:
Enlighten us ITN. What role does conductive heat play?

The air is warm enough to reduce the subject's need to heat it. The air is not heating the subject. Heat does not flow from cold to hot.
tmiddles wrote:
How are you maintaining body temperature right now when you lose far more energy from radiance than your caloric intake can replace?

He isn't.
tmiddles wrote:
[hint: you absorb radiance from your cooler surroundings! Because you're DEBUNKED!]

* You cannot reduce entropy in any system.
* You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.
* There is no 'net heat'.


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2019 03:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
Into the Night wrote:I guess none of these examples of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action impresses you.

Spouting formulas is not an example of how thermal energy moves around. Do it with real quantities. Explain how with any of those the energy is transferred till eventually equilibrium is reached. Letting a glass of iced tea go warm too hard for you?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I'd like to see you explain how two bodies reach temperature equilibrium! Ha ha, that'd be pretty funny given your exotic take on the the 2nd LTD.

Simple. At equilibrium there is no heat.

Is there no radiance?

You know I never thought to ask a question about your coo coo theory:
Do two objects at the same temperature absorb each other's radiance?

Into the Night wrote:
Do you deny that ice cream melts in the hot sun at the fairground? Oh well, that's YOUR problem.

Do the calculation. I dare you. Show how that can be "known" and relied upon as true.

You guys are the ones saying the observable isn't unknowable not me.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...What role does conductive heat play?

The air is warm enough to reduce the subject's need to heat it. The air is not heating the subject. Heat does not flow from cold to hot.

So again: How are you maintaining body temperature right now when you lose far more energy from radiance than your caloric intake can replace?

If you lose too much energy from radiance alone how does conduction, which you describe as a smaller loss, but still a loss, of energy help you at all?
Conduction does not reduce radiance!
Edited on 31-08-2019 03:13
31-08-2019 04:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5238)
tmiddles wrote:With your crazy train? I'll pass.

That is your option ... and your choice.

I can't force you to move forward. Out of my control. We can"t play while you keep the ball in your court.



I will presume that you have chosen to close out this topic.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
31-08-2019 05:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
I did a complete calculation debunking your take on the 2nd LTD, showing we DO absorb radiance from a cooler environment, and you've had NOTHING to say:

IBdaMann wrote:
... but what is the surface temp?...what is the thermal coefficient...

IBdaMann wrote:
...struggling to defend your religious faith....

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Well not so far. I'm all ears.
No you're not. You are in total ignore mode.
And your explanation for how an ordinary person in an ordinary room maintains body temperature is ____.
You keep asking and ignoring, asking and ignoring, ad infinitum...... religiously opposed to learning...."And your repeatable instance of any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body is ____?"

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
What was your calculation on the radiance of a person?
I'm sorry, your repeatable instance ... it would be _______?"

IBdaMann wrote:
...Coincidentally I am in a cool room right now and I'd like to repeat that instance you have in mind....

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:The repeatable instance is the first post of this topic.
Incorrect. You have too many unknowns (and even just one is too many).
Try again...
tmiddles wrote:My take is that the 2nd LTR always applies but to net flow of thermal energy.
You can't be mincing words. You need to state clearly that your belief is that some thermal energy flows from a cooler body to a warmer body.
tmiddles wrote: Your take is that net flow violates the 2nd LTR.
Wrong wording. ...
The 2nd law of thermodynamics states ....Your "take" is ...
tmiddles wrote:You say I did it wrong? Than you do one right.
You've been doing an awful lot of mistating my position while strictly avoiding clearly stating your position.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Your turn
Nope. The ball is still in your court.

IBdaMann wrote:Try again...

IBdaMann wrote:You can't be mincing words....

IBdaMann wrote: ... agree to the wording of your position,...

IBdaMann wrote:
I realize you are in total "Glorify Global Warming" preach mode...

IBdaMann wrote:We can"t play while you keep the ball in your court.

That's all of it! Note the lack of ANYTHING resembling a response or rebuttal.
I'd just like to reiterate I don't have super powers:

I CAN'T STOP YOU FROM CALCULATING IT CORRECTLY

No voodoo doll in a MAGA cap over here with tied hands I swear.
You just have no answer because you're wrong.


Edited on 31-08-2019 06:11
31-08-2019 07:47
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1535)
I don't know anything about your equation, but I do know that the answer to your "freezing to death" in a 70 degree room has everything to do with conduction.

Skin will conduct very little heat to air at 70 degrees, but sit in a tank of 70 degree water for an hour and you're going to find yourself in trouble.

It's about the coupling for conduction. Air is a poor coupling.

Beer in the freezer will get cold. Beer in ice water will get cold FAST. This is repeatable and I have done it SO many times.

Edited on 31-08-2019 08:31
31-08-2019 08:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
GasGuzzler wrote:
...has everything to do with conduction....


Are you saying that the air,which is cooler than you are, would warm you? That it would make up for the energy lost through radiance?

Bringing conduction into it is not a problem. According to the theory that ITN and IBdaMann have on the 2nd LTD there is no way that a person who is warmer than the room they can gain any energy from either radiance or conduction. Basically you can only be cooled off by the room.

So to be clear: If a cooler body (includes the walls and air of the room) cannot contribute any energy to a warmer body (your body) you can only lose energy through conduction.

That's why I ignored it in this post. It only makes the problem of accounting for the lost energy from radiance worse.

According to ITN and IBdaMann the air, which is cooler than you, cannot "give you" any energy, only take it.

So if you believe in the Stefan-Boltzman law then you lose that energy. If you believe in ITN and IBdaMann's version of the 2nd LTD then you could not calculate a way to maintain body temperature outside of a 14,000 calorie diet.
31-08-2019 08:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Skin will conduct very little heat to air at 70 degrees, but sit in a tank of 70 degree water for an hour and you're going to find yourself in trouble.


And of course we don't actually freeze to death : )

Because they are dead wrong.
31-08-2019 08:30
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1535)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
...has everything to do with conduction....


Are you saying that the air,which is cooler than you are, would warm you? That it would make up for the energy lost through radiance?

Bringing conduction into it is not a problem. According to the theory that ITN and IBdaMann have on the 2nd LTD there is no way that a person who is warmer than the room they can gain any energy from either radiance or conduction. Basically you can only be cooled off by the room.

So to be clear: If a cooler body (includes the walls and air of the room) cannot contribute any energy to a warmer body (your body) you can only lose energy through conduction.

That's why I ignored it in this post. It only makes the problem of accounting for the lost energy from radiance worse.

According to ITN and IBdaMann the air, which is cooler than you, cannot "give you" any energy, only take it.

So if you believe in the Stefan-Boltzman law then you lose that energy. If you believe in ITN and IBdaMann's version of the 2nd LTD then you could not calculate a way to maintain body temperature outside of a 14,000 calorie diet.


If you reduce the current in a river does some of the water flow upstream?


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
31-08-2019 08:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
GasGuzzler wrote:
If you reduce the current in a river does some of the water flow upstream?

Can you reduce radiance?

Would less cold air cause someone's radiance to be reduced?
Would colder air increase their radiance?

No.

What does happen is simple. We absorb the radiance from the room. We only notice the difference between our radiance and the radiance of the room (just like with conduction). We are not magically immune from absorbing it.

tmiddles wrote:Does it balance at 70F ? YES
You don't sweat or shiver in a 70F / 22C room. Thermal energy balances with radiant emission -723 watts and radiant absorption +624 watts and your metabolism digesting food +100 watts.

It's just not like one flowing river. It's two rivers that are able to pass through each other. Not even ITN and IBdaMann suggest that radiance from a cooler body is prevented from moving from the cooler body all the way to the hotter body, which would be your "up stream", they just have this bazaar idea it's somehow rejected when it gets there.

This is what radiance between two bodies looks like (link):

Radiation Heat Transfer - The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Fifth Edition)
Edited on 31-08-2019 09:31
31-08-2019 15:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5238)
tmiddles wrote:Can you reduce radiance?

Absolutely. Temperature and Radiance move in the same direction. If Temperature decreases then Radiance decreases.

Let's take an example of a man in a cool room. By conduction, the cool air causes the man's skin to approach the room temperature, thus reducing the man's radiance.

Also, the adjustment in human skin as it cools also happens to have the effect of reducing its emissivity and its thermal coefficient which reduces its radiance and conduction.


tmiddles wrote: We absorb the radiance from the room.

Warmizombies are forever claiming that physics applies to everything but the earth, and now you are claiming that the second law of thermodynamics applies to everything but humans.

Are there any other objects that receive thermal energy from their cooler surroundings?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
31-08-2019 20:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:I guess none of these examples of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action impresses you.

Spouting formulas is not an example of how thermal energy moves around. Do it with real quantities. Explain how with any of those the energy is transferred till eventually equilibrium is reached. Letting a glass of iced tea go warm too hard for you?

Entropy simply increases or stays the same.
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I'd like to see you explain how two bodies reach temperature equilibrium! Ha ha, that'd be pretty funny given your exotic take on the the 2nd LTD.

Simple. At equilibrium there is no heat.

Is there no radiance?[/quote]
Yes. There is the radiance of the body, the radiance of the air in the room, the radiance of the walls, the radiance of the air outside the room, etc.
tmiddles wrote:
You know I never thought to ask a question about your coo coo theory:
Do two objects at the same temperature absorb each other's radiance?

No.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Do you deny that ice cream melts in the hot sun at the fairground? Oh well, that's YOUR problem.

Do the calculation. I dare you. Show how that can be "known" and relied upon as true.

You guys are the ones saying the observable isn't unknowable not me.

Correct. The observable is knowable (removing double negative). Everything you observe, you know you've observed it. Observation is evidence. It is not a proof. You can know things that are not proofs.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...What role does conductive heat play?

The air is warm enough to reduce the subject's need to heat it. The air is not heating the subject. Heat does not flow from cold to hot.

So again: How are you maintaining body temperature right now when you lose far more energy from radiance than your caloric intake can replace?

Argument from randU fallacy. You are assuming your made numbers again as data.
tmiddles wrote:
If you lose too much energy from radiance alone how does conduction, which you describe as a smaller loss, but still a loss, of energy help you at all?

Anything colder becomes warmer until equilibrium. Anything warmer becomes colder until equilibrium.
tmiddles wrote:
Conduction does not reduce radiance!

Conduction is not a body, nor does it affect radiance at all.


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2019 20:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
tmiddles wrote:
I did a complete calculation debunking your take on the 2nd LTD, showing we DO absorb radiance from a cooler environment, and you've had NOTHING to say:

IBdaMann wrote:
... but what is the surface temp?...what is the thermal coefficient...

IBdaMann wrote:
...struggling to defend your religious faith....

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Well not so far. I'm all ears.
No you're not. You are in total ignore mode.
And your explanation for how an ordinary person in an ordinary room maintains body temperature is ____.
You keep asking and ignoring, asking and ignoring, ad infinitum...... religiously opposed to learning...."And your repeatable instance of any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body is ____?"

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
What was your calculation on the radiance of a person?
I'm sorry, your repeatable instance ... it would be _______?"

IBdaMann wrote:
...Coincidentally I am in a cool room right now and I'd like to repeat that instance you have in mind....

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:The repeatable instance is the first post of this topic.
Incorrect. You have too many unknowns (and even just one is too many).
Try again...
tmiddles wrote:My take is that the 2nd LTR always applies but to net flow of thermal energy.
You can't be mincing words. You need to state clearly that your belief is that some thermal energy flows from a cooler body to a warmer body.
tmiddles wrote: Your take is that net flow violates the 2nd LTR.
Wrong wording. ...
The 2nd law of thermodynamics states ....Your "take" is ...
tmiddles wrote:You say I did it wrong? Than you do one right.
You've been doing an awful lot of mistating my position while strictly avoiding clearly stating your position.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Your turn
Nope. The ball is still in your court.

IBdaMann wrote:Try again...

IBdaMann wrote:You can't be mincing words....

IBdaMann wrote: ... agree to the wording of your position,...

IBdaMann wrote:
I realize you are in total "Glorify Global Warming" preach mode...

IBdaMann wrote:We can"t play while you keep the ball in your court.

That's all of it! Note the lack of ANYTHING resembling a response or rebuttal.
I'd just like to reiterate I don't have super powers:

I CAN'T STOP YOU FROM CALCULATING IT CORRECTLY

No voodoo doll in a MAGA cap over here with tied hands I swear.
You just have no answer because you're wrong.


Cherry picking fallacy. You did not show all of his responses.

He already answered your questions. He posed one to you, which you still haven't answered.

Until you decide to move on from this, I really don't blame him for giving up on you. Your religion is denying science. YOU are denying science.


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2019 20:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
...has everything to do with conduction....


Are you saying that the air,which is cooler than you are, would warm you?

No. You are just closer to equilibrium.
tmiddles wrote:
That it would make up for the energy lost through radiance?

You lose energy due to radiance. So does the room. So does the air. So does the air beyond the walls. So does the whole planet. Anything that is cooler than something else will absorb some of that radiance. Nothing that is warmer than something else will absorb any radiance.

Now, what, in your opinion, has greater radiance than the whole Earth?
tmiddles wrote:
Bringing conduction into it is not a problem.

What is heating the air in the room?
tmiddles wrote:
According to the theory that ITN and IBdaMann have on the 2nd LTD there is no way that a person who is warmer than the room they can gain any energy from either radiance or conduction. Basically you can only be cooled off by the room.

So you must eat.
tmiddles wrote:
So to be clear: If a cooler body (includes the walls and air of the room) cannot contribute any energy to a warmer body (your body) you can only lose energy through conduction.

So you must eat.
tmiddles wrote:
That's why I ignored it in this post. It only makes the problem of accounting for the lost energy from radiance worse.

No, it's a major factor.
tmiddles wrote:
According to ITN and IBdaMann the air, which is cooler than you, cannot "give you" any energy, only take it.

You are forgetting something very large, very important, and very significant in the sky. It is the source of heating the air in the room.
tmiddles wrote:
So if you believe in the Stefan-Boltzman law then you lose that energy.

Yes, you lose energy. Just as the room does. Just as everything else on Earth does.
tmiddles wrote:
If you believe in ITN and IBdaMann's version of the 2nd LTD

Thanks for the credit, but neither of us wrote that law.
tmiddles wrote:
then you could not calculate a way to maintain body temperature outside of a 14,000 calorie diet.

Argument from randU. You are using made numbers as data.


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2019 20:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Skin will conduct very little heat to air at 70 degrees, but sit in a tank of 70 degree water for an hour and you're going to find yourself in trouble.


And of course we don't actually freeze to death : )

Because they are dead wrong.


You are again forgetting something very large, very hot, and very significant. It's up in the sky.


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2019 20:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
...has everything to do with conduction....


Are you saying that the air,which is cooler than you are, would warm you? That it would make up for the energy lost through radiance?

Bringing conduction into it is not a problem. According to the theory that ITN and IBdaMann have on the 2nd LTD there is no way that a person who is warmer than the room they can gain any energy from either radiance or conduction. Basically you can only be cooled off by the room.

So to be clear: If a cooler body (includes the walls and air of the room) cannot contribute any energy to a warmer body (your body) you can only lose energy through conduction.

That's why I ignored it in this post. It only makes the problem of accounting for the lost energy from radiance worse.

According to ITN and IBdaMann the air, which is cooler than you, cannot "give you" any energy, only take it.

So if you believe in the Stefan-Boltzman law then you lose that energy. If you believe in ITN and IBdaMann's version of the 2nd LTD then you could not calculate a way to maintain body temperature outside of a 14,000 calorie diet.


If you reduce the current in a river does some of the water flow upstream?

Bingo.


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2019 20:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
If you reduce the current in a river does some of the water flow upstream?

Can you reduce radiance?

Would less cold air cause someone's radiance to be reduced?
Would colder air increase their radiance?

No.

What does happen is simple. We absorb the radiance from the room. We only notice the difference between our radiance and the radiance of the room (just like with conduction). We are not magically immune from absorbing it.

It's not magick. No molecule will absorb a photon that has less energy than the molecule already has.
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Does it balance at 70F ? YES
You don't sweat or shiver in a 70F / 22C room. Thermal energy balances with radiant emission -723 watts and radiant absorption +624 watts and your metabolism digesting food +100 watts.

It's just not like one flowing river. It's two rivers that are able to pass through each other. Not even ITN and IBdaMann suggest that radiance from a cooler body is prevented from moving from the cooler body all the way to the hotter body, which would be your "up stream", they just have this bazaar idea it's somehow rejected when it gets there.


Rivers don't pass through each other. You really ARE reaching now.

You are close to a thought experiment that has much to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Say you have a water wheel.

Now hook the shaft of this wheel to another identical wheel, and use that wheel to pump the water back up to power the first one.

Can you power the wheels forever this way?


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2019 23:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
IBdaMann wrote:
Let's take an example of a man in a cool room. By conduction, the cool air causes the man's skin to approach the room temperature, thus reducing the man's radiance.

Would you be willing to do a calculation? What temperature would you say human skin is at in a 70F room and based on what data? (I have backed up the 91F temp).

A persons temperature will reach 70F in a room of course upon their death.

IBdaMann wrote:
Also, the adjustment in human skin as it cools also happens to have the effect of reducing its emissivity and its thermal coefficient which reduces its radiance and conduction.

What change would that be? It it's normally 0.98 in a climate controlled room what would it change to?

Just making stuff up?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: We absorb the radiance from the room.

Warmizombies are forever claiming that physics applies to everything...

Why don't you just do the calculation properly IBD? Enlighten us.
Edited on 31-08-2019 23:35
31-08-2019 23:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
You know I never thought to ask a question about your coo coo theory:
Do two objects at the same temperature absorb each other's radiance?

No.

Um you realize that's an insane theory right?

If I have a book at 70F, it radiates. If I have a box at 70F it radiates. If I put the book inside the box, according to you, the entire radiance of the book and the radiance of the box would be emitted and then become permanently homless inside the box, building and building, unable to be abosrbed by anything.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
If you lose too much energy from radiance alone how does conduction, which you describe as a smaller loss, but still a loss, of energy help you at all?

Anything colder becomes warmer until equilibrium. Anything warmer becomes colder until equilibrium.

You completely dodged the question. Again.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Try again...
...
That's all of it! Note the lack of ANYTHING resembling a response or rebuttal.

Cherry picking fallacy. You did not show all of his responses.

And once again the truly disrespectfully long quoting and replying from ITN, the false claim that something was said, but the refusal to quote that.

Into the Night wrote:
Now, what, in your opinion, has greater radiance than the whole Earth?
The sun. Get on with it. And you guys are insane, so stop trying to play teacher.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
According to the theory that ITN and IBdaMann have on the 2nd LTD there is no way that a person who is warmer than the room they can gain any energy from either radiance or conduction. Basically you can only be cooled off by the room.

So you must eat.

How much? Calculate it. I did.
tmiddles wrote:Since 2000 calories, 7/8 of a pizza, gives you 100 watts of heat you'll need 14,000 calories, and eat 6 large pizzas a day, working it all of, just to maintain body temperature!



Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
If you believe in ITN and IBdaMann's version of the 2nd LTD

Thanks for the credit, but neither of us wrote that law.

Oh no you did. Your version of a 2nd LTD where radiance is magically unabsorbable by hotter objects cannot be found anywhere else.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:t's just not like one flowing river. It's two rivers that are able to pass through each other.

Rivers don't pass through each other. You really ARE reaching now....

You really don't read carefully. Gasguzzler said it was like a river I said it wasn't. Radiance CAN pass through radiance.
Edited on 31-08-2019 23:38
31-08-2019 23:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
Skin will conduct very little heat to air at 70 degrees, but sit in a tank of 70 degree water for an hour and you're going to find yourself in trouble.

You are again forgetting something very large, very hot, and very significant. It's up in the sky.

Do the calculation ITN I dare you.

Sun warms planet and the building/room from the outside. The room is still cooler than the person inside. The person radiates over 700 watts. And ________?
Edited on 31-08-2019 23:46
01-09-2019 00:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5238)
tmiddles wrote:Do the calculation ITN I dare you.

Stay on topic. I dare you.

Give me one repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I dare you.

It can even be in a cool room.

I dare you.



The ball is still in your court. If you are going to make a claim then you need to support it, no matter how many questions you ignore.

If you claim science is false then great, have a repeatable example ready for those who want one.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
01-09-2019 00:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1590)
IBdaMann wrote:
Give me one repeatable example

OK: net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference
Edited on 01-09-2019 00:39
01-09-2019 00:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5238)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Give me one repeatable example

OK: net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Sorry, you know the rules. There can't be any unknowns. It has to be exactly repeatable. I can't just be making up stuff because then you could very well claim that I did not make up the right stuff.

Give me a repeatable instance, with a heavy focus on the word "repeatable." You only need one.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
Page 2 of 6<1234>>>





Join the debate NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat3227-09-2019 02:43
Black body radiation2919-08-2019 09:11
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Radiation saturation510-08-2019 07:16
O'Rourke releases plan to fight climate change with $5 trillion investment and net-zero emissions by 029-04-2019 18:46
▲ 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