Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 3 of 6<12345>>>
01-09-2019 00:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
IBdaMann wrote:
Sorry, you know the rules. There can't be any unknowns.

Those are knowns and I provided the source.

But you clearly don't even know your own rules.

What is an example of what you're talking about? Give one example of, well, anything that follows your made up rules.

You and ITN never give real examples just platitudes. No data, no calculations, no backup.

Go ahead. Show me how it's done mystery man.
01-09-2019 01:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Sorry, you know the rules. There can't be any unknowns.

Those are knowns and I provided the source.

You don't include your test results as the "knowns" that I must repeat.

Just give me an test setup and I'll do the measurements and report the results.

.


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 01:05
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
tmiddles wrote:
What is an example of what you're talking about? Give one example of, well, anything that follows your made up rules.


Nothing?

Well you and ITN haven never once had a real example on this board so not surprising.
01-09-2019 01:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
IBdaMann wrote:
Just give me an test setup and I'll do the measurements and report the results.
.

You just play the game of disqualifying everything. Which is why you have never once had an example of your own.
01-09-2019 01:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Just give me an test setup and I'll do the measurements and report the results.
.

... Which is why you have never once had an example of your own.

Because I have never experienced thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You presumably have, and will end all question on this matter by providing that repeatable instance.

.


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 01:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
IBdaMann wrote:
Sorry, you know the rules. There can't be any unknowns.


You won't give an example because nothing is qualified by you as the judge.

We've talked about this many times.

According to you and ITN nothing can ever be known.

So what's an example? You got nothing.
Edited on 01-09-2019 01:18
01-09-2019 01:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
tmiddles wrote:We've talked about this many times.

According to you and ITN nothing can ever be known.

We talked about it many times, yes, and you are well aware that is not my position whatsoever. Once again you are misstating my position and then attacking me on the basis of your misstatements.

Both Into the Night and I each on multiple occasions took the time to explain to you how we can know things.

Clearly explaining something to you is a waste of time.

.


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 01:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:We've talked about this many times.
According to you and ITN nothing can ever be known.

We talked about it many times, yes,


Why is it so hard to simply say: "Here, now this is how you should do it:"

Not one example of something being proven properly?
01-09-2019 02:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
tmiddles wrote:Why is it so hard to simply say: "Here, now this is how you should do it:"

We've been over this. It cannot be done with the unknowns you inject into the scenario as well as your insistence on errors. You subsequently ignore any and all attempts to straighten it out ...

... because you can't support the only claim in all this, which was made by you, that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is false.

Not one instance of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

So, I totally understand why. You should be happy to leave it go at that.

.


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 06:59
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)

The law is:
radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


Still think there is some error in the calculations... How do you calculate the SBconstant for the human? The emissivity? I don't know the math involved for either. Think there is some difference between a solid inanimate body, and a living, breathing one. Which makes one wonder why no one considered that if the human expired, while in the room, would he still be warming from the cool surface? Of course not, and the police could use the ambient temperature of the room, and the internal body temperature to estimate the time of death.

I don't know where the 700 watts, or 2000 calories come from either. Both seem kind of high. 70F is considered comfortable for many, little cool for my tastes, but not uncomfortable with it. From frequent experience here in Florida, 98.6 F isn't comfortable at all, might be the humidity that goes with it, here anyway. We don't need to work that hard to maintain internal body temperature. Pretty sure the equations fail, when applied to living things, instead of solid objects.
01-09-2019 14:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Why is it so hard to simply say: "Here, now this is how you should do it:"

...It cannot be done...

What you fail to realize is that this isn't about the 2nd law of thermodynamics or about "global warming" it's about insanity, yours.

How can people manufacture a false reality and live in a world that constantly contradicts it?

You and ITN play a game where NOTHING QUALIFIES AS BEING ACCEPTABLE and you are selective about applying this to things you don't like.

YOU HAVE NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED ANY INFORMATION IS LEGITIMATE aside from spouting platitudes without supporting them. Because you're crazy, not stupid, and you know if you allow something to qualify as legitimate anything else meeting the same standard makes the grade and living a lie will no longer be possible.

This is why you won't give an example now of any work that's been done "properly" according to you.

I don't need to debunk a crack pot made up version of the 2nd LTD, my interest is in understanding the psychosis that people like you suffer from. You are a threat to a world based on real information:
The Civil War had nothing to do with Slavery
TRUMP never tried to keep Muslims out of the Country
The greenhouse effect defies the laws of physics
And real information is Fake News or otherwise illegitimate.

Every singe exchange we've had on this board has been on topic for me.
Edited on 01-09-2019 14:53
01-09-2019 14:49
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
HarveyH55 wrote:
How do you calculate the SBconstant for the human? The emissivity? I don't know the math involved for either.

Harvey do you think this fundamental level of thermodynamics is wrong in every text book as ITN and IBdaMann do? EVERY TEXTBOOK mind you. ALL OF THEM.

Note: I'm not saying we freeze to death. I'm agreeing with the text books that we absorb radiance from a cooler environment.

The SBconstant is the same always. It's 0.0000000567
Emmissivity for human skin was gathered here. "Infrared images were acquired with a SATIR infrared camera, model S280 " on 40 volunteers and had a range from 0.991 to 0.999.

Your temperature and your surface area need to be in the calculation too. A good guess would be 1.75m^2 of surface area and 91F.

The math is easy:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.992)(1.75m2)306K^4=-863W
0.0000000567*0.992*1.75*8767700496=863 Watts

HarveyH55 wrote:
Think there is some difference between a solid inanimate body, and a living, breathing one. Which makes one wonder why no one considered that if the human expired, while in the room, would he still be warming from the cool surface? Of course not,...

A living human being will actively do things to achieve the desired temperature: sweating, shivering
So you do have a point there. But the radiance out would only change if their temperature changed.

A dead body would still absorb radiance. Why wouldn't it?

Radiance will do one of three things: be reflected, absorbed or transmitted (pass through).
Edited on 01-09-2019 15:00
01-09-2019 17:29
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How do you calculate the SBconstant for the human? The emissivity? I don't know the math involved for either.

Harvey do you think this fundamental level of thermodynamics is wrong in every text book as ITN and IBdaMann do? EVERY TEXTBOOK mind you. ALL OF THEM.

Note: I'm not saying we freeze to death. I'm agreeing with the text books that we absorb radiance from a cooler environment.

The SBconstant is the same always. It's 0.0000000567
Emmissivity for human skin was gathered here. "Infrared images were acquired with a SATIR infrared camera, model S280 " on 40 volunteers and had a range from 0.991 to 0.999.

Your temperature and your surface area need to be in the calculation too. A good guess would be 1.75m^2 of surface area and 91F.

The math is easy:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.992)(1.75m2)306K^4=-863W
0.0000000567*0.992*1.75*8767700496=863 Watts

HarveyH55 wrote:
Think there is some difference between a solid inanimate body, and a living, breathing one. Which makes one wonder why no one considered that if the human expired, while in the room, would he still be warming from the cool surface? Of course not,...

A living human being will actively do things to achieve the desired temperature: sweating, shivering
So you do have a point there. But the radiance out would only change if their temperature changed.

A dead body would still absorb radiance. Why wouldn't it?

Radiance will do one of three things: be reflected, absorbed or transmitted (pass through).


The SBconstant is the same always. It's 0.0000000567


But, how do you calculate the SBconstant? It had to be derived from something, or was it just picked randomly? I've never needed this level of math for anything, nor real see much use for it, beyond this discussion, which is why I tend to stay out of it.

Being warm blood, means being cold tolerant. We hold onto heat, as well as produce our own. But, all animals produce heat from activity. It's the skin, the layer of fat under it, and how the blood vessels are routed, that hold and regulate temperature for us.

Emmissivity for human skin was gathered here. "Infrared images were acquired with a SATIR infrared camera, model S280 " on 40 volunteers and had a range from 0.991 to 0.999.


I've only seen a few IR cameras used, so not real familiar. Not something I've had a need to know. It tend to learn things I need to use. Pretty sure though, it's thermal imagery. How would the readings been effected, if some of the volunteers had been more physically active, before the reading? Race or gender?

I've only heard of Stefan-Boltzmann here, on this forum, so figure it's real world application is sort of limited. Which leads me to believe, it's not applied to everything for a reason. I work with electronics, as a hobby, and keep up with the technology. I don't read everything about all things though, would have time to actually build anything. But if something catches my interest, or I see some potential for a project, I'll look into it. Stefan-Boltzmann should have come up once or twice, in something.

P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)


Greek letters are shorthand for a page or two of math (exaggerating), but it's additional calculations. Only familiar with 2 or three of the Greek letters, in relation to electronics, the rest I have no idea. The shorthand, usually tells me it isn't quite as simple as it looks though.

I only had a half year of Physics, in high school, over 40 years ago... So, really can't draw on that much, barely an introduction. It was a whole lot more fun and interesting, than Metaphysics in college.
01-09-2019 19:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Sorry, you know the rules. There can't be any unknowns.

Those are knowns and I provided the source.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
But you clearly don't even know your own rules.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
What is an example of what you're talking about? Give one example of, well, anything that follows your made up rules.

Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. We already have, multiple times.
tmiddles wrote:
You and ITN never give real examples just platitudes. No data, no calculations, no backup.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
Go ahead. Show me how it's done mystery man.

Already did, liar.


The Parrot Killer
01-09-2019 19:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
What is an example of what you're talking about? Give one example of, well, anything that follows your made up rules.


Nothing?

Well you and ITN haven never once had a real example on this board so not surprising.


Inversion fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
01-09-2019 19:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Just give me an test setup and I'll do the measurements and report the results.
.

You just play the game of disqualifying everything. Which is why you have never once had an example of your own.


Bulverism fallacy.

He (and I) have pointed out the equations and the theories of science you are choosing to ignore.
We have both given examples of these laws in operation.

YOU just keep using random numbers.


The Parrot Killer
01-09-2019 19:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Why is it so hard to simply say: "Here, now this is how you should do it:"

...It cannot be done...

What you fail to realize is that this isn't about the 2nd law of thermodynamics or about "global warming" it's about insanity, yours.

How can people manufacture a false reality and live in a world that constantly contradicts it?

You and ITN play a game where NOTHING QUALIFIES AS BEING ACCEPTABLE and you are selective about applying this to things you don't like.

YOU HAVE NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED ANY INFORMATION IS LEGITIMATE aside from spouting platitudes without supporting them. Because you're crazy, not stupid, and you know if you allow something to qualify as legitimate anything else meeting the same standard makes the grade and living a lie will no longer be possible.

This is why you won't give an example now of any work that's been done "properly" according to you.


I don't need to debunk a crack pot made up version of the 2nd LTD, my interest is in understanding the psychosis that people like you suffer from. You are a threat to a world based on real information:
The Civil War had nothing to do with Slavery
TRUMP never tried to keep Muslims out of the Country
The greenhouse effect defies the laws of physics
And real information is Fake News or otherwise illegitimate.

Every singe exchange we've had on this board has been on topic for me.[/quote]

You just wandered across four topics in this post alone.


The Parrot Killer
01-09-2019 19:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How do you calculate the SBconstant for the human? The emissivity? I don't know the math involved for either.

Harvey do you think this fundamental level of thermodynamics is wrong in every text book as ITN and IBdaMann do? EVERY TEXTBOOK mind you. ALL OF THEM.

Note: I'm not saying we freeze to death. I'm agreeing with the text books that we absorb radiance from a cooler environment.

The SBconstant is the same always. It's 0.0000000567
Emmissivity for human skin was gathered here. "Infrared images were acquired with a SATIR infrared camera, model S280 " on 40 volunteers and had a range from 0.991 to 0.999.

Your temperature and your surface area need to be in the calculation too. A good guess would be 1.75m^2 of surface area and 91F.

The math is easy:
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.992)(1.75m2)306K^4=-863W
0.0000000567*0.992*1.75*8767700496=863 Watts

HarveyH55 wrote:
Think there is some difference between a solid inanimate body, and a living, breathing one. Which makes one wonder why no one considered that if the human expired, while in the room, would he still be warming from the cool surface? Of course not,...

A living human being will actively do things to achieve the desired temperature: sweating, shivering
So you do have a point there. But the radiance out would only change if their temperature changed.

A dead body would still absorb radiance. Why wouldn't it?

Radiance will do one of three things: be reflected, absorbed or transmitted (pass through).

Argument from randU fallacy.

You are conflating radiance with light. They are not the same thing. You are also conflating radiance with heat. They are not the same thing.


The Parrot Killer
01-09-2019 21:31
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
The laws of thermodynamics, physic in general, have always proven to be pretty solid, least the ones that apply to the physical world. I avoid the metaphysical, it's mostly just arguing and debate, not so useful or productive.

If the laws of physics weren't solid, why no perpetual motion machines, or free energy devices? Thousands of people try, and there have been many clever attempts. Perpetual motion has been an interest of mine, since childhood. Though, it was never the belief that it was ever going to happen. It was more like a magic show. You know that magic isn't real, it's a trick, an illusion, but still entertaining. Think that there is actually some value in a few of these illusions, since they require a high level of efficiency. I seldom look at perpetual motion schemes any more, since it became a highly profitable fraud. The devices being developed, are intended to be misrepresented, and sold. It's not about trying to break the laws of physics, just break the laws in general, and get rich off it
02-09-2019 04:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
Into the Night wrote:
We have both given examples of these laws in operation.

Where?! Oh wait, you're too tired to quote or link right?

What's great is you guys are so consistently pathetic I can say with confidence you've never given an example of anything on here! EVER in any topic on any subject.
Edited on 02-09-2019 04:53
02-09-2019 04:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
HarveyH55 wrote:SBconstant? It had to be derived from something

A bit out of my league! I love derivation but at a HS level. This link might work: Derivation_of_Stefan_Boltzmann_Law

But maybe "why is it true" is the more the question. Everything is shining/radiating, from infra-red (us) up to ultra-violet. SB Law simply calculates how much based on temp. It stands to be proven wrong daily as experiments and work are done using it. So it's very well tested.

So you didn't answer:
tmiddles wrote:
Harvey do you think this fundamental level of thermodynamics is wrong in every text book as ITN and IBdaMann do?

Keep in mind you don't have an example from ITN or IBD to critiqu because they've never had one.

Don't you think it's reasonable there would be one textbook in the world that teaches radiative heat transfer properly?
Edited on 02-09-2019 05:00
02-09-2019 09:59
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:SBconstant? It had to be derived from something

A bit out of my league! I love derivation but at a HS level. This link might work: Derivation_of_Stefan_Boltzmann_Law

But maybe "why is it true" is the more the question. Everything is shining/radiating, from infra-red (us) up to ultra-violet. SB Law simply calculates how much based on temp. It stands to be proven wrong daily as experiments and work are done using it. So it's very well tested.

So you didn't answer:
tmiddles wrote:
Harvey do you think this fundamental level of thermodynamics is wrong in every text book as ITN and IBdaMann do?

Keep in mind you don't have an example from ITN or IBD to critiqu because they've never had one.

Don't you think it's reasonable there would be one textbook in the world that teaches radiative heat transfer properly?


I really never studied enough physics to know. All the light/heat stuff is outside my fields of interest. Most of the heat I've dealt with, is in electronics. I don't generally work with parts that generate a lot of heat, unless driven too hard, or incorrectly. There are some that generally require a heat sink, and don't really require math. I'm pretty sure that if common physics, an the laws of thermodynamics were proven wrong/flawed, it would have been big news. I've only had one textbook for physics, and it was a very long time ago. Could have been before the Stefan Boltzmann Law was invented, or Karl Popper redefined science. Most of my formal education ended in the mid 1980s, Karl Popper died 1994, so was probably taught science wrong, metaphysically speaking... I never look it up, but guessing the Stefan and Boltzmann were also philosophers, as was Karl Popper.

Mostly, it seems Stefan Boltzmann Law applies to thermal imaging, and maybe that was the intended use, and it works well. The problem seems to be when it's applied in other ways. Works fine displaying information on a screen, and maybe useful deriving temperatures from an image capture with a camera (likely stretching it a little).
02-09-2019 11:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm pretty sure that if common physics, an the laws of thermodynamics were proven wrong/flawed, it would have been big news.

Very well said. I think that is the most glaring fact in this whole thing! EVERY TEXTBOOK according to IBD and ITN is wrong. 12 references are below:

#1 - Body Physics: Motion to Metabolism
Author: Lawrence Davis:NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE


#2 -University Physics Volume 2: Net Heat Transfer of a Person

#3 -Radiation Heat Transfer - The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Fifth Edition) by Singiresu S.Rao

#4 -MCB3033-HEAT TRANSFER Heat Transfer Mechanism
Dr. Aklilu Tesfamichael aklilu.baheta@utp.edu.my


#5 -HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER(link)
FUNDAMENTALS & APPLICATIONS
ISBN 978-0-07-339818-1 Page 29

#6 -engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Stefan-Boltzmann heat between two objects σ((T2)^4-(T1)^4)

#7 -The Organic Chemistry Tutor at 20:50: youtu.be/LR5bYxC4syI
Hotter ball in a cooler room "Heat leaves the sphere but also enters the sphere"


#8 -Quora"net heat loss by radiation does depend on the surrounding temperature."

#9 -Madsci.org"some heat will also be absorbed from the
surroundings"


#10 -Thermal Radiation
Qt=eσA(T^4skin−T^4ambient)

#11 -LearnChemE - Properties of Radiative Heat Transfer 7 min
https://youtu.be/epioKYRRpPI

#12 -AK Lecturefundamental explanation of radiative heat transfer:
youtu.be/93-_JhGNn1Y "any object that radiates energy also absorbs"

EVERY ONE TEACHING P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)

Yet ITN and IBD insist they all got it wrong. That the calculation on a person in a room, this topic, all wrong (with no explanation how).

So the real story here is about delusion.
Edited on 02-09-2019 12:02
02-09-2019 15:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
tmiddles wrote:So the real story here is about delusion.

I realize that you ignore virtually everything I write, but did you read any of the material you referenced?

They don't say what you're saying.

(Yes, yes, you copy-pasted an equation but if you had bothered to read the material you would be saying "never mind!")


.


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
02-09-2019 15:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
IBdaMann wrote:
They don't say what you're saying.

Aren't you an ITN both tired of the pretense of "There's some stuff I could quote here but you need to go look for it". It's just lame. People might actually read this and you waste not only my time but theirs. If you want to refer to something quote it and stop playing hide the ball.

I am very familiar with every one of the 12 and they all teach net radiative heat transfer consistently. All of them show that:

WARMER BODIES ABSORB RADIANCE FROM COOLER BODIES

I've also read everything you wrote and there is nothing there at all. A big empty box. (I collected all of it to be sure here) Prove me wrong!
Edited on 02-09-2019 15:55
02-09-2019 16:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
They don't say what you're saying.

Aren't you an ITN both tired of the pretense of "There's some stuff I could quote here but you need to go look for it".

This is your shtick. You ignore, ignore, ignore, ignore, ... until others finally give up. Then you dishonestly try turn it around by asking something to the effect of "Aren't you tired of the pretense of 'There's some stuff I could quote here but you need to go look for it'."

The answer is yes, you need to go back and find it. Especially in this case because you cited the material and you presumably have read it.



.


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
02-09-2019 19:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
We have both given examples of these laws in operation.

Where?! Oh wait, you're too tired to quote or link right?

No need for a link. We have quoted you the equations you are ignoring.
tmiddles wrote:
What's great is you guys are so consistently pathetic I can say with confidence you've never given an example of anything on here!
EVER
in any topic on any subject.

Lie. Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Repetition fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
02-09-2019 23:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
tmiddles wrote:
WARMER BODIES ABSORB RADIANCE FROM COOLER BODIES

1. The initial presumption of any reasonable person is that you are lying.

2. The question that comes to mind to any reasonable person is why you don't cite the textbook and page number that has that exact text.

3. Any reasonable person will quickly realize that you have no answer to question #2 just like you have no example of any cooler body whose radiance is absorbed by a warmer body.

Total time elapsed: 5.3 seconds


.


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
02-09-2019 23:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
IBdaMann wrote:
The answer is yes, you need to go back and find it.

It's not there. I just checked. : )

Into the Night wrote:
No need for a link. We have quoted you the equations you are ignoring.

Yes you do quote equations. That's not an example.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
WARMER BODIES ABSORB RADIANCE FROM COOLER BODIES

1. The initial presumption of any reasonable person is that you are lying.
2. The question that comes to mind to any reasonable person is why you don't cite the textbook and page number that has that exact text.

Just lame. All 12 examples are cited above.

A reasonable person would expect an answer ast to why someone would believe every text book ever written is wrong.
03-09-2019 04:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
WARMER BODIES ABSORB RADIANCE FROM COOLER BODIES

1. The initial presumption of any reasonable person is that you are lying.
2. The question that comes to mind to any reasonable person is why you don't cite the textbook and page number that has that exact text.


tmiddles wrote: Just lame. All 12 examples are cited above.


Exceptionally lame. I checked the first two and found that text was nowhere in them. I then realized, yep, I was right, you are lying again. So I stopped wasting my time. Any reasonable person would assume that none of those references state "warmer bodies absorb radiance from cooler bodies" and that you are just preaching your fanatical religion of hatred and intolerance. It explains why you are such an ashsole who cowers in fear from ideas that threaten your WACKY dogma of scientific illiteracy.


.


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
03-09-2019 12:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
IBdaMann wrote:I checked the first two and found that text was nowhere in them. ...none of those references state "warmer bodies absorb radiance from cooler bodies"

I know you're a goofball and trying to pretend I said they all used that exact wording. Go ahead. I said they all show it and they do. Every one of them.

#1 - Body Physics: Motion to Metabolism
Author: Lawrence Davis:NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE


"NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE
Subtracting the emitted radiation power from the absorbed radiation power we can determine the net radiation power to the object: P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)
Notice that when the object is warmer than its environment, P_{net} will be negative because more radiation will be leaving the object than is absorbed."

#2 -University Physics Volume 2: Net Heat Transfer of a Person

Has example EXAMPLE 1.13, the subject of this topic. "The Stefan-Boltzmann equation needs only slight refinement to deal with a simple case of an object's absorption of radiation from its surroundings. Assuming that an object with a temperature T1 is surrounded by an environment with uniform temperature T2, the net rate of heat transfer by radiation is P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)...an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C"
Edited on 03-09-2019 12:10
03-09-2019 20:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
We have both given examples of these laws in operation.

Where?! Oh wait, you're too tired to quote or link right?

What's great is you guys are so consistently pathetic I can say with confidence you've never given an example of anything on here! EVER in any topic on any subject.


Lie. Bulverism fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2019 20:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:SBconstant? It had to be derived from something

A bit out of my league! I love derivation but at a HS level. This link might work: Derivation_of_Stefan_Boltzmann_Law

But maybe "why is it true" is the more the question. Everything is shining/radiating, from infra-red (us) up to ultra-violet. SB Law simply calculates how much based on temp. It stands to be proven wrong daily as experiments and work are done using it. So it's very well tested.

So you didn't answer:
tmiddles wrote:
Harvey do you think this fundamental level of thermodynamics is wrong in every text book as ITN and IBdaMann do?

Keep in mind you don't have an example from ITN or IBD to critiqu because they've never had one.

Don't you think it's reasonable there would be one textbook in the world that teaches radiative heat transfer properly?


Radiance is not absorption. You are assuming it is.


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2019 20:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
They don't say what you're saying.

Aren't you an ITN both tired of the pretense of "There's some stuff I could quote here but you need to go look for it". It's just lame.

If you don't want to learn, we understand. It would go against your religion.
tmiddles wrote:
People might actually read this and you waste not only my time but theirs.

You consider learning a waste of time. Your problem.
tmiddles wrote:
If you want to refer to something quote it and stop playing hide the ball.

The 'ball' is right in front of you.
tmiddles wrote:
I am very familiar with every one of the 12 and they all teach net radiative heat transfer consistently.

No, they don't. Go read them.
tmiddles wrote:
All of them show that:

WARMER BODIES ABSORB RADIANCE FROM COOLER BODIES

No, they don't. Go read them.
tmiddles wrote:
I've also read everything you wrote and there is nothing there at all. A big empty box. (I collected all of it to be sure here) Prove me wrong!

2nd law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2019 20:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I checked the first two and found that text was nowhere in them. ...none of those references state "warmer bodies absorb radiance from cooler bodies"

I know you're a goofball and trying to pretend I said they all used that exact wording. Go ahead. I said they all show it and they do. Every one of them.

#1 - Body Physics: Motion to Metabolism
Author: Lawrence Davis:NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE


"NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE
Subtracting the emitted radiation power from the absorbed radiation power we can determine the net radiation power to the object: P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)
Notice that when the object is warmer than its environment, P_{net} will be negative because more radiation will be leaving the object than is absorbed."

#2 -University Physics Volume 2: Net Heat Transfer of a Person

Has example EXAMPLE 1.13, the subject of this topic. "The Stefan-Boltzmann equation needs only slight refinement to deal with a simple case of an object's absorption of radiation from its surroundings. Assuming that an object with a temperature T1 is surrounded by an environment with uniform temperature T2, the net rate of heat transfer by radiation is P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)...an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C"


You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot. Heat only flows one direction. You cannot reduce entropy in any system.


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2019 20:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
tmiddles wrote: I know you're a goofball and trying to pretend I said they all used that exact wording. Go ahead. I said they all show it and they do. Every one of them.

In both online fora and textbooks, words are all we have. You are a liar. You don't say what you mean and you don't mean what you say. First you claim that all textbooks had that exact text and then when it is shown that none, in fact, do you then claim that you didn't mean what you wrote and that it was my fault.

So, we're right back to the point of your references not saying what you claim they say and you don't want to discuss the matter.

... and we still don't have a repeatable instance of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Ooops, too much time wasted on this already. Gotta go.

.


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
04-09-2019 05:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
Into the Night wrote:
Radiance is not absorption. You are assuming it is.

What were you even responding to?

Into the Night wrote:
If you don't want to learn, we understand.

I'm just curious. How do you two learn??? You don't trust any sources so you just learn from each other? Is it all based on IBD's lab work, after someone tells him about something in the oral tradition of Physics he apparently is a part of?

IBdaMann wrote: you claim that all textbooks had that exact text

I said:
tmiddles wrote:
I am very familiar with every one of the 12 and they all teach net radiative heat transfer consistently. All of them show that:

WARMER BODIES ABSORB RADIANCE FROM COOLER BODIES

And I have quoted them proving that.

But what are you saying?

Nothing. Once again.

A big empty box of nothing at all.
04-09-2019 07:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Radiance is not absorption. You are assuming it is.

What were you even responding to?
You and your assumption that radiance is absorption.

tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
If you don't want to learn, we understand.

I'm just curious. How do you two learn??? You don't trust any sources so you just learn from each other? Is it all based on IBD's lab work, after someone tells him about something in the oral tradition of Physics he apparently is a part of?

Since you refuse to read up on the scientists that came up with the theory, and you simply deny the theory, this is YOUR problem.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: you claim that all textbooks had that exact text

I said:
tmiddles wrote:
I am very familiar with every one of the 12 and they all teach net radiative heat transfer consistently. All of them show that:

WARMER BODIES ABSORB RADIANCE FROM COOLER BODIES

And I have quoted them proving that.

A textbook is not a proof. You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.
tmiddles wrote:
But what are you saying?

You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.
tmiddles wrote:
Nothing. Once again.

You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.
tmiddles wrote:
A big empty box of nothing at all.

You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2019 09:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.

Awe how you wish that was what I was saying.

You can have radiance from a cooler body absorbed by a hotter body. Net radiance will always be from hotter to colder.
04-09-2019 16:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.

Awe how you wish that was what I was saying.

You can have radiance from a cooler body absorbed by a hotter body. Net radiance will always be from hotter to colder.

Sorry, you contradict yourself here.

If you are saying that "some" heat flows from cold to hot, just less than that which is flowing from hot to cold, then you are acknowledging that some heat flows from cold to hot, i.e. exactly what Into the Night said. Your response should have been "Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, and here's the simple repeatable experiment that so demonstrates this principle."

So, devise a repeatable demonstration that focuses on heat flowing from cold to hot and I'll do it.

.


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 3 of 6<12345>>>





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