NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.
| 11-08-2022 23:24 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14389) |
James_ wrote:Heat is usually the flow of electromagnetic radiation Nope. Heat is always the flow of thermal energy, from one body of matter to another. ... which means heat is never photons or particles. James_ wrote: I just checked. All heat is electromagnetic. I just checked. You're being a moron. All heat is a flow of thermal energy from one body of matter to another. Period. You should be focusing on getting your Bessler wheel to not oscillate back and forth like a pendulum. . |
| 13-08-2022 02:35 | |
| James_★★★★★ (2215) |
IBdaMann wrote:James_ wrote:Heat is usually the flow of electromagnetic radiation And thermal energy is electromagnetic. With Bessler's Wheel, I got a lot of work done today. I'm making a lot of little parts. I need to make my own oil seals. Just not a lot of fun. Since this room is a kindergarten for adults I'll explain it, okay? When electromotive radiation changes the kinetic energy of its environment, it is heat. Because it is either a photon or particle it will be moving. When it moves it is considered to be a flow. You need to remember that photons have no rest mass while electrons and protons/neutrons do. And I think when they say "rest mass" they're referring to it moving in a mass spectrometer. |
| 27-01-2023 02:12 | |
| kent5915☆☆☆☆☆ (11) |
point 1: Heat flows from hot to cold and from cold to hot. It is just that the net flow is always from hot to cold point 2: Heat flows by 1)the exchange of kinematic energy (energy associated with molecules) 2) the exchange of radiation energy when you sit in a room you exchange both energies with that room. Radiation is emitted by your body as blackbody radiation And blackbody radiation in the room is absorbed by your body Our understanding of radiation absorption is poor. This is due to errors made in part based upon infrared spectrometry A prime example if one absorbing radiation is to stand in the Sun. The excess heat you feel versus sitting in the shade is the Sun's radiation (primarily in the visible spectrum). The light that reflects of of your body gives you color that you can see, while the light that is absorbed by your body is actually heating your body. |
| 27-01-2023 04:04 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21582) |
James_ wrote:IBdaMann wrote:James_ wrote:Heat is usually the flow of electromagnetic radiation Thermal energy is not electromagnetic energy. Redefinition fallacy. James_ wrote: How many baby seals does it take to make one Bessler wheel? James_ wrote: There is no such thing as electromotive radiation. James_ wrote: Heat is not photons or particles. James_ wrote: Heat is not photons or particles. James_ wrote: Photons have mass. James_ wrote: Not the definition of mass or rest mass. Buzzword fallacies. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 27-01-2023 04:05 |
| 27-01-2023 04:21 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
kent5915 wrote: Heat never flows from cold to hot. There is no such thing as 'net heat'. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. kent5915 wrote: Nope. Heat is always the flow of thermal energy. Nothing else. kent5915 wrote: You cannot heat a warmer body using a colder one. kent5915 wrote: Nothing to do with heat. Buzzword fallacy. kent5915 wrote: Define 'excess heat'. kent5915 wrote: Visible light does not convert to thermal energy upon absorption. kent5915 wrote: Visible light does not convert to thermal energy upon absorption. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 27-01-2023 16:28 | |
| James_★★★★★ (2215) |
Into the Night wrote:James_ wrote: When something "is", it is electromagnetic radiation. Some scientists do consider plasma as possibly being the 5th state of matter. When heat "is" as a flow of energy, it is because heat was "trapped" (actually conserved) What is interesting is that surface and air testing and use of atomic and thermonuclear bombs might've stabilized the Earth's global temperature. In the attached graph where the Earth's global warming wasn't happening, atomic and nuclear testing was being done. After 1978 the graph agrees with things like deforestation and ozone depletion. With the ozone layer, heat is moved from cold (-60º F.) to warm (0º F.). With fewer oxygen molecules (O2) in the Chapman cycle, the less UV radiation that can be absorbed when O2 + O + h > O3. Then O3 - h > O2 + O. The energy in the solar flow of heat is enough to account for global warming because global "heat" is a flow of "heat that is" in our atmosphere. |
| 27-01-2023 16:45 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
kent5915 wrote:point 1: Heat flows from hot to cold and from cold to hot. It is just that the net flow is always from hot to cold Incorrect. Electromagnetic radiation (which is not thermal energy) can certainly flow from a cold object to a hot object, but thermal energy only flows from hot to cold, never from cold to hot. Ergo, heat is a flow of thermal energy exclusively from higher temperature to lower temperature. kent5915 wrote:point 2: Heat flows by Poor wording. Thermal energy flows from higher temperature to lower temperature in two ways: 1. conduction (which includes convection) via physical contact 2. thermal radiation and absorption (see Planck's law and Stefan-Boltzmann) kent5915 wrote:when you sit in a [relatively cooler] room you exchange both energies with that room. Radiation is emitted by your body as blackbody radiation This statement is inaccurate. You can't say exactly what electromagnetic energy is absorbed by a warmer object from a cooler object without considering quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Please refer to your own statement below concerning our poor understanding in this area. The bottom line is that electromagnetic radiation is not thermal energy and any conflation of the two will lead to erroneous conclusions of thermal energy somehow flowing from cold to hot. The "net flow" argument is bogus and simply not supported by the body of science. Any claim that involves a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is summarily discarded, not celebrated. kent5915 wrote:Our understanding of radiation absorption is poor. This is due to errors made in part based upon infrared spectrometry Actually, our inability to fully understand radiation absorption is explained by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the inability to directly observe the quantum realm and our inability to isolate photons. Perhaps you would care to explain this to Swan who has been convinced that not only is this possible, but that Google and others are already writing digital values to individual photons ... that happen to travel at a million times the speed of light ... oh, nevermind. kent5915 wrote:A prime example if one absorbing radiation is to stand in the Sun. The excess heat you feel versus sitting in the shade is the Sun's radiation (primarily in the visible spectrum). The light that reflects of of your body gives you color that you can see, while the light that is absorbed by your body is actually heating your body. You didn't finish your scenario. When you are sitting in the sun, how much of your energy is absorbed by the sun? . |
| 27-01-2023 19:33 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
James_ wrote:Into the Night wrote:James_ wrote: Electromagnetic energy is not 'radiation'. It is not thermal energy. It is not all mass. James_ wrote: Heat is not a state of matter. Heat cannot be trapped. James_ wrote: Why do you think Earth's temperature is 'unstable'? Define this 'instability'. James_ wrote: The temperature of the Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured. James_ wrote: The ozone is not and has not been depleted. There are currently more trees than ever on Earth. James_ wrote: You cannot heat a colder object with a warm one. James_ wrote: Not the Chapman cycle. Try again. James_ wrote: Heat is not contained in anything. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Heat has no temperature. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 27-01-2023 19:44 | |
| James_★★★★★ (2215) |
Into the Night wrote: Whenever you're taking a hit on your bong you are trapping heat in your lungs. And we know warm air causes things to get higher. Into the Night wrote: Natural climate variance. Into the Night wrote: We don't need to know the exact temperature. What we need to know is what to expect so economies can be adapted. Darwin said that's why we survive, because we can adapt. |
| 28-01-2023 06:39 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
James_ wrote:Into the Night wrote: Heat cannot be trapped. James_ wrote: It doesn't. James_ wrote:Into the Night wrote: Climate has no variable associated with it. What is varying? James_ wrote:Into the Night wrote: Random phrases. No apparent coherency. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-01-2023 01:47 | |
| James_★★★★★ (2215) |
Into the Night wrote:James_ wrote:Into the Night wrote: You are saying that warm air does not cause things to become higher? Your bong says otherwise. It's legal in California. |
| 29-01-2023 05:25 | |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★(5196) |
kent5915 wrote: There is no actual 'blackbody'. It's a philosophical, 'ideal' state for reference purposes. |
| 29-01-2023 07:37 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
HarveyH55 wrote:There is no actual 'blackbody'. It's a philosophical, 'ideal' state for reference purposes. All matter objects are black bodies. The term comes from the idea that thermal radiation is mostly infrared, and thus is below the visible spectrum, making it radiate "black" "Ideal" black bodies are the theoretical limit of EMISSIVITY= 1.0, making it both a perfect absorber and perfect emitter. Ideal black bodies do not exist, however. the universe is chock full of regular, ordinary black bodies, i.e. 0.0 < EMISSIVITY < 1.0 |
| 29-01-2023 15:59 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196) |
IBdaMann wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:There is no actual 'blackbody'. It's a philosophical, 'ideal' state for reference purposes. Just sounds offensively racist... |
| 29-01-2023 16:41 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
HarveyH55 wrote:IBdaMann wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:There is no actual 'blackbody'. It's a philosophical, 'ideal' state for reference purposes. I explained to a particular dark-skinned girl why she should claim that her emissivity is 1.0. She liked the idea of having science supporting her claims of being an ideal black body. |
| 29-01-2023 17:51 | |
| kent5915☆☆☆☆☆ (11) |
kent5915 wrote: point 1: Heat flows from both hot to cold and from cold to hot. It is just that the net flow is always from hot to cold IBdamann Incorrect. Electromagnetic radiation (which is not thermal energy) can certainly flow from a cold object to a hot object, but thermal energy only flows from hot to cold, never from cold to hot. Ergo, heat is a flow of thermal energy exclusively from higher temperature to lower temperature. Inbadann can you not understand that the net means that more energy flows from hot to cold than flows from cold to to hot. Just look at Pictet's experiment. No matter I am not hereto argue semantics Heat is about both kinematics and radiation. The issue lay in statistical thermodynamics and the fact that it places it places all of a system's energy in terms of that systems kinematics. Kinematics being translational, rotational and vibrational energy In other words statistical thermo does not consider the radiation that exists between gas molecules. This is valid when considering the total energy of most systems. For most systems the total energy associated with kinematics >>>>>>>> total energy associated with radiation. Hence statistical thermodynamics is a valid approximation for most systems. It must be emphasized that the distributions used in statistical thermodynamics considers gas molecules as dimensionless point particles, Something that they are not. So this also means that statistical thermodynamics can at best be an approximation for the total energy of a gaseous system However the energy associated with radiation is a function of temp to the fourth (as described by stefan-Boltzmann. On the other hand kinematic energies increase as a linear function temperature Obviously for really hot systems (e.g., blast furnaces) one cannot simply ignore the association associated with radiation It should be further stated that photons travel at the speed of light while gas molecules travel at much slower speeds. Therefore, although radiation's total energy can be minute when compared to a systems kinematic energy, the fact that photons velocity >>>>> gas velocity, then radiation can play a significant role in heat transfer and it is this radiation that I call thermal radiation. thermal radiation is predominately infrared centered blackbody radiation but it extends into other frequencies such as visible. When visible light hits an object object it is either reflected or absorbed. Reflected is what we see as color , while absorbed becomes heat in that object If you do not believe me consider two cars parked in the sun's light. The black car absorbs most of the visible light while the white care reflects most of it. Which, car is hotter, the black one of course The difference between the black white car is not how may gas molecules hit it (kinematic energy). It is purely a result of how much visible radiation is reflected versus absorbed So for those whose tone-deaf indoctrinated prevents them from acknowledging thermal radiation go sit in a black car on a hot sunny day with your windows rolled up and learn The reality is that thermal radiation is ignored is in part because people take statistical thermodynamics too literally. It is a friggen approximation of reality that is limited to systems where total radiation energy <<<<<<<< too kinematic energy. Okay statistical thermodynamics is also limited to sufficiently-dilute gases in closed systems e.g. experimental systems but that would take too long to explain in a forum like this The issue is not limited to statistical thermodynamics. Infrared spectrometry is taken to explain which molecules do and which ones do not absorb infrared photons. This too is blunderous because before one takes a measurement they evacuate the spectrometer and measure the blackbody radiation. They then place the gas in question in the spectrometer and take a measurement. They then subtract the blackbody radiation. And this allows them to identify the gas If they did not subtract the blackbody radiation then they would not be able to identify the gas because the blackbody spectrum is the dominate spectrum. unfortunately the blackbody radiation is the thermal signature of both the gas molecules and the system when they are in thermal equilibrium If you cannot understand then think of it this way. An object exchanges both kinematic and radiation energy with its surroundings. In thermal equilibrium the total thermal energy absorbed equals the total thermal energy given to the surroundings. What is blackbody radiation. It is energy radiated by an object above absolute zero. If an object radiates infrared centered blackbody radiation, then it also absorbs radiation. A fool may try and claim that the object only absorbs the kinematic energy bestowed upon it by its surroundings. If so the fool to consider an object in a vacuum. It still radiates blackbody energy, so how does it remain in thermal equilibrium if it does not absorb radiation The truth is this, thermodynamics is filled with silly conjecture like thermal photons (or thermal radiation) does not exist. Fools fail to realize reality and have them sit in a black car in the Sun until they boil or wisen up If you want to better understand thermal radiation, read my paper: New thermodynamics: Wave-particle Duality in Radiative Heat Transfer (Hadronic Journal) Kent |
| 29-01-2023 21:19 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
kent5915 wrote:Inbadann can you not understand that the net means that more energy flows from hot to cold than flows from cold to to hot. Kent, can you not understand that zero thermal energy flows from cold to hot? Can you not understand that therefore, there is no such thing as a "net flow" of thermal energy? kent5915 wrote:No matter I am not hereto argue semantics This is a forum of ideas. If your semantics don't matter, you are babbling gibberish. Please mean what you write and write what you mean. kent5915 wrote:Heat is about both kinematics and radiation. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, nothing more. Only matter can have associated thermal energy, ergo heat is necessarily the flow of thermal energy from one body of matter to another. The 2nd law of thermodynamics completes the model and establishes heat as the flow of thermal energy from a higher temperature body of matter to one of lower temperature. Heat does not flow between bodies of the same temperature. Thermal energy is not electromagnetic energy. kent5915 wrote:The issue lay in statistical thermodynamics What is the issue? kent5915 wrote:In other words statistical thermo does not consider the radiation that exists between gas molecules. I wouldn't worry about it. There is no "statistical thermo" in science anyway. kent5915 wrote:Hence statistical thermodynamics is a valid approximation for most systems. I am unaware of any commercial process that finds this useful. kent5915 wrote: On the other hand kinematic energies increase as a linear function temperature Incorrect. "Conduction" is the correct term (not " kinematic energies") is based on temperature difference. This becomes logarithmic as the temperature difference decrease over time. kent5915 wrote:Therefore, although radiation's total energy can be minute when compared to a systems kinematic energy, Your understanding of heat suffers from a fundamental error. You think of heat in terms of "total energy" (see your quote above) and not as a power rating. This represents an irreconcilable mismatch of units of measure. Heat is not energy just as power is not energy. kent5915 wrote:the fact that photons velocity We don't speak in terms of a photon's velocity; we speak in terms of a photon's speed. They are not the same and velocity is inappropriate in the scenario you presented. kent5915 wrote:while absorbed becomes heat in that object This is a huge error right here. When absorbed it becomes thermal energy, not heat. Heat is not a quantity of energy but rather a flow of thermal energy from one body to another. This is why heat is a measure of power, not of energy. kent5915 wrote: ...but that would take too long to explain in a forum like this This forum differs from most other forums. The posters here know that time is not an issue in explaining something, and they are smart enought to understand. Even Swan has his moments. However, if you use that as an excuse to not explain what needs to be explained or to not properly define your terms, posters here are likely to dismiss your arguments. You can presume that most posters on this site agree with you that all substances absorb and emit infrared electromagnetic, but have differing signatures. I'm still trying to access your papers. |
| 29-01-2023 21:54 | |
| kent5915☆☆☆☆☆ (11) |
Consider two objects are in thermal contact. one is hot and the other is cold The molecules in the hot object hit the cold object. and the molecules in the cold object hit the hot object Ditto the blackbody radiation from the hot object hit the cold and the blackbody radiation from the cold hit the hot This heat is exchanged both ways. What you do not seem to understand is that the net flow of heat (thermal energy) is always from hot to cold The exchange of energy associated with kinematics of molecules and radiation (blackbody) is what thermal energy is - sorry I have written over 40 papers in several different peer reviewed journals on this subject Statistical thermodynamics is misguided - many think it is a very precise science. It is not it is an approximation that describes (often very well) what one witnesses in a sufficiently-dilute closed system of gas, such as those that are often used in experiments I repeat it only considers a system's kinematic energies (molecules translational, vibrational and rotational energy) It does not include the energy associated with photons/radiation that exist between/amongst the gas molecules What part of this do you not understand? Anyhow I cannot go into more detail because I currently have a paper in peer review concerning this For f**k sake The energy of matter is defined (in statistical physics) by some factor times kT/2 with k being boltzmann's constant the energy of radiation is afunction of temp to the 4th power The rate of heat transfer is logarithmic, As the temperature of two systems approach each other the rate of heat transfer decreases logarithmically. Rate of energy exchange is not the same thing as total energy photons' speed is really no diff than velocity. velocity is a vector with direction, speed is the magnitude thereof, you are splitting hairs rather than thinking. hope you are proud heat and thermal energy - agian you are technically right nut heat can be taken as a layman's perspective for thermal energy - something that you have no idea what it is I am sorry if I use a layman's term in a layman's forum - hope you are proud Sorry that you cannpot access my papers in academia, Members of academia can The issue becomes that you cannot post such things in this forum. My last paper is 32 meg and this site limits one to 2 megs |
| 30-01-2023 02:18 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
kent5915 wrote:Consider two objects are in thermal contact. Is there a difference between thermal contact and regular, ordinary contact? kent5915 wrote: one is hot and the other is cold Is it sufficient in this case to simply presume there is a difference in temperature or does the human perception of "hot" and "cold" bear importance in this scenario? Why am I considering this scenario in the first place? You never explained what point you were trying to make ... or do you have no point. If you were proficient in science to any degree, you would begin with your hypothesis. Those who do not are presumed to not have one. The usual word for this is "rambling." kent5915 wrote:The molecules in the hot object hit the cold object. and the molecules in the cold object hit the hot object I see another problem. Your scenario should be discussing the touching surfaces, not pretending to mix classical physics with quantum mechanics. The moment you shift focus from the macro-level "objects" to the quantum level elementary particles, you become guilty of model switching and of inserting a blatant disconnect in your explanation that gets it discarded. The fix is easy. Just talk about the surfaces that are in contact and you're home free. kent5915 wrote:Ditto the blackbody radiation from the hot object hit the cold and the blackbody radiation from the cold hit the hot Pro Tip: The proper wording for electromagnetic energy that hits an object is "incident to". For example, only a certain amount of sunlight is incident to earth. Of that amount, a percentage is absorbed (emissivity). kent5915 wrote:This heat is exchanged both ways. What you do not seem to understand is that the net flow of heat (thermal energy) is always from hot to cold Nope. Apparently, you understand neither thermal energy nor heat. I have tried to explain them both to you but you are refusing to learn. You are insisting on vomitting egregious errors. So be it. kent5915 wrote: The exchange of energy associated with kinematics of molecules and radiation (blackbody) is what thermal energy is - sorry I have written over 40 papers in several different peer reviewed journals on this subject I will now explain why you are a total moron. 1. No quantity of error-filled papers somehow transforms any of them into being correct/accurate just because of their sheer numbers. Strangely you think there is some magical quantity that nonetheless accomplishes this. To make this comedy even more comical, you think this number is less than 40. 2. You think that "peer reviewed" means "science" whereas it has nothing to do with science. It is a publishing term. All articles/papers need to be peer reviewed in order to be published. It is a publisher's rerequisite to be published and applies to all topics. Saying that you published peer reviewed papers is redundant. 3. Laughibly, you believe that science is determined by published papers. You should rent a freeway bilboard that reads "I have never heard of the scientific method." 4. Lastly, I would like to give you an opportunity to completely pull the rug out from under your own rhetoric. Please explain how, to the best of your understanding, anything that I wrote is erroneous ... or issue an apology to everyone for wasting time and bandwidth while you appreciate having learned something valuable. kent5915 wrote:Statistical thermodynamics is misguided There is no such thing. Why are you wasting time and bandwidth talking about it. kent5915 wrote:What part of this do you not understand? Anyhow I cannot go into more detail because I currently have a paper in peer review concerning this You would do yourself an immense favor by having this site review your papers. We'll actually tell you when you are full of chits. kent5915 wrote:For f**k sake The energy of matter is defined (in statistical physics) by some factor times kT/2 with k being boltzmann's constant I suppose that when I was explaining why you are a moron, I should have read ahead and included this. The energy of matter is mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. How do you not know this? (James__, I apologize for stealing your line but you express it so well) kent5915 wrote:photons' speed is really no diff than velocity. You are an idiot. I just finished telling you that they are not the same thing. Are you really too stupid to learn? On your freeway billboard, also write "I am scientifically illiterate." Do you have any idea why it's always "the speed of light" and never "the velocity of light"? kent5915 wrote:... you are splitting hairs rather than thinking. hope you are proud You are a whining excuse-maker who refuses to say what he means and to mean what he says. You feel threatened when someone who knows more than you offers to help you. You have made yourself too stupid to learn. kent5915 wrote:I am sorry if I use a layman's term in a layman's forum - hope you are proud You don't know what you are talking about. You are scientifically illiterate and you don't know what the correct terms are. OK, you have convinced me. You aren't interested in mutually respectful conversation. You are only interested in beating down others with gibber-babble as your only means of making yourself feel relevant. I think I'll have some fun with you, since you won't discuss the topics. Bring it on. . |
| 30-01-2023 03:14 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
HarveyH55 wrote:IBdaMann wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:There is no actual 'blackbody'. It's a philosophical, 'ideal' state for reference purposes. According to the Democrats: * I wear Hawaiian shirts, therefore I am racist. * I own a tractor, therefore I am racist. * I own a gun (actually several), therefore I am racist. * I own my own home (actually several), therefore I am racist. * I drive a car, therefore I am racist. * I own and use computers, therefore I am racist. * I support the Constitution of the United States, therefore I am racist. * I'm a conservative, therefore I am racist. * I don't own or want an electric vehicle, therefore I am racist. * I don't support affirmative action programs (racism to prevent racism), therefore I am racist. * I own a truck, therefore I am racist. * I own my own company, therefore I am racist. * I own an airplane (actually several), therefore I am racist. * I condemn censorship, therefore I am racist. * I don't support the Church of Global Warming, therefore I am racist. (That apparently makes me a Nazi, a mental case, a child, a planet destroyer, and Satan himself as well!). * I own and use a machine shop, therefore I am racist. * I fix my own cars, therefore I am racist. * I enjoy and use fireworks, therefore I am racist. * I've eaten bacon and eggs, therefore I am racist. * I don't believe what the Fake News is telling me, therefore I am racist. * I use colors in sentences, including 'black', 'white', 'red', 'yellow', etc., therefore I am racist. Democrats are just plain weird. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 30-01-2023 03:15 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
IBdaMann wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:IBdaMann wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:There is no actual 'blackbody'. It's a philosophical, 'ideal' state for reference purposes. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 30-01-2023 03:46 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
kent5915 wrote: There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Heat never flows from cold to hot. kent5915 wrote: You are doing exactly that...arguing semantics. kent5915 wrote: Nope. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Nothing else. kent5915 wrote: No such thing. Buzzword fallacy. kent5915 wrote: So throwing a baseball is thermodynamics...gotit. kent5915 wrote: How much does a baseball thrown by a professional pitcher translate, rotate, or vibrate? What is it's temperature? kent5915 wrote: No radiation between gas molecules. kent5915 wrote: A thrown baseball radiates from the pitcher's hand toward home plate. What is it's radiation? What is it's temperature? kent5915 wrote: There is no such thing as 'statistical thermodynamics'. Buzzword fallacy. kent5915 wrote: ()) The Stefan-Boltzmann law isn't about radiation. kent5915 wrote: Blast furnaces have no radiation. They are quite safe to be around. kent5915 wrote: Heat does not transfer. Heat is not radiation. Heat is not light. Heat is not a thrown baseball, which has kinetic energy. kent5915 wrote: No such thing. Buzzword fallacy. kent5915 wrote: Visible light does not convert to heat when absorbed. Heat is not a form of energy. kent5915 wrote: Any car (regardless of exterior paint) is hotter inside because of reduced heat. kent5915 wrote: Radiation is not visible. Any car in the Sun with the windows rolled up get hot because they reduce heat. kent5915 wrote: There is no such thing as 'thermal radiation'. Buzzword fallacy. kent5915 wrote: There is no such thing as 'thermal radiation' or 'statistical thermodynamics'. Buzzword fallacies. kent5915 wrote: Radiation is nor a form of energy. kent5915 wrote: There is no such thing as 'statistical thermodynamics'. A closed system is not experimental. kent5915 wrote: Gobbledegook. Too many buzzwords. kent5915 wrote: Blackbody radiance is not a signature. kent5915 wrote: Apparently you are unaware the methods of heating. kent5915 wrote: There is no such thing as a 'thermal photon'. kent5915 wrote: It's sunny outside today, sitting in my black car doesn't make me boil. It's 30 deg F outside. I have to wear my coat. kent5915 wrote: Your papers are inaccessible. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 30-01-2023 04:40 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
kent5915 wrote: What is 'thermal contact'? Do you mean two objects that are touching and one heating the other by conductive heat? kent5915 wrote: So? That's not heat. kent5915 wrote: So? That's not heat. kent5915 wrote: There is no such thing as 'net heat'. kent5915 wrote: And if they are denying science and using buzzwords like this they are wrong. Consider this a peer review. kent5915 wrote: There is no such thing as 'stastical thermodynamics'. kent5915 wrote: Still can't handle that baseball comin' at ya, eh? Maybe you have better duck. kent5915 wrote: There is no radiation between gas molecules. They are quite safe to be around and even to breath them in. kent5915 wrote: If your paper denies science like this and is using these buzzwords, it is wrong. Consider this a peer review. kent5915 wrote: There is no such thing as statistical physics. The energy of matter is not temperature or heat. kent5915 wrote: The Stefan-Boltzmann law isn't about radiation or total energy. kent5915 wrote: Heat doesn't transfer. kent5915 wrote: Heat doesn't transfer. kent5915 wrote: Heat is not 'energy exchange' nor total energy. kent5915 wrote: You are describing yourself. kent5915 wrote: He does. You don't. You don't know what thermal energy is, what heat is, or what light is. You have so far discarded the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Planck's law, Wien's law, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, Heisenberg's law, and quantum mechanics. kent5915 wrote: No, you simply have no concept of heat, thermal energy, light, or any of the laws of physics you have discarded. You also seem to have no concept of thermodynamics and what it is, or of physics or what it is. kent5915 wrote: Irrelevance fallacy. kent5915 wrote: So? kent5915 wrote: So? You are papers are inaccessible. This is YOUR problem. You cannot reference something that is inaccessible. That is a void reference fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
Join the debate NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| The Van Allen radiation belts and the Tropopause | 5 | 06-01-2024 23:46 |
| The government now wants everyone to ALWAYYS use their real name when using the net | 20 | 18-11-2023 22:35 |
| Anyone explain how does N2 and O2 don't absorb electromagnetic radiation? | 49 | 02-02-2023 01:23 |
| Under Dorsey the FBI literally determined everything that Twitter was allowed to put on the net | 3 | 03-01-2023 19:25 |
| Net Metering | 7 | 10-12-2020 14:37 |