Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 1 of 6123>>>
NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.28-08-2019 13:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)

You are: Temp ~ 91F/33C/306K, Surface area ~ 1.5m2 of skin, Emissivity ~ 0.97

How you lose thermal energy(ref):

1- Radiance emission primarily (why you glow in infra-red goggles).
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)306K^4=-723W

2- Evaporation/sweating when "hot" / excercising

3- Conduction with the air around you a bit

How you gain thermal energy:

1- Radiance absorbtion primarily. In a 70F/22C/295K room there is a radiance which is absorbed: .__________P(in)=σeA(T2^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)295K^4=+624W

2- Digestion of food . A 2000 Calorie diet, 7/8th of a pizza, creates about 100 watts ( 1 Calorie = 4180 Joules, 8,360,000 J / 86,400 seconds a day ~ 100)

3- Conduction with the air and objects around you. Remember there is no such thing as cold, only less warm.

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.

Great reference combining the equations (click to see EXAMPLE 1.13):
University Physics Volume 2
Stefan-Boltzmann equation needs only slight refinement to deal with...absorption of radiation from its surroundings.P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)

You notice the differences, warmer/colder, but even in 70F you are gushing thermal energy and having it pour into you from radiance. Just as you don't notice gravity or air pressure.

What if you suddenly couldn't lose energy

This would be some impossible Harry Potter stuff but you would increase in temperature continuously, gaining 624W from the walls radiance and 100W from your insides (while you lived). (ref)

You only need to go up 3C, from 37C to 40C, to die, so you'll be a goner after just 15 minutes! (Specific heat is 3470 so it's 3470*3*62kg=645420=891s=15min)

What if you suddenly couldn't absorb energy

This is actually the same scenario as being in deep space where there is no ambient radiance to absorb. It's been calculated you'd freeze solid in 11 hours

But what if you really worked out to generate more heat, and ate a lot! You better be hungry. 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!


Why is the relevant to climate-debate.com?

See the topic here: greenhouse-gases-do-not-violate-the-stefan-boltzmann-law

The false statement is made that a warmer body can't absorb radiation from a cooler body, that this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics because thermal energy always flows from hot to cold (as in it would be impossible for you to absorb the 624 watts radiated to you from the room, the freezing in deep space scenario). Basically there are some who believe a "net flow" of thermal energy is impossible. This belief contradicts the text books and common sense, as it leaves no answer for how a person in a room manages to not freeze to death.
Edited on 28-08-2019 13:37
28-08-2019 15:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:

You are: Temp ~

... but what is the surface temp? Clearly that is not 98.1. The surface temperature is much closer to the ambient temperature.

... but what is the thermal coefficient presuming I want to consider conduction as well?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
28-08-2019 21:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:

You are: Temp ~ 91F/33C/306K, Surface area ~ 1.5m2 of skin, Emissivity ~ 0.97

How you lose thermal energy(ref):

1- Radiance emission primarily (why you glow in infra-red goggles).
Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)306K^4=-723W

2- Evaporation/sweating when "hot" / excercising

3- Conduction with the air around you a bit

How you gain thermal energy:

1- Radiance absorbtion primarily.

WRONG. You are completely ignoring conduction. You cannot make heat flow backwards. Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
In a 70F/22C/295K room there is a radiance which is absorbed: .__________P(in)=σeA(T2^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)295K^4=+624W
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
2- Digestion of food . A 2000 Calorie diet, 7/8th of a pizza, creates about 100 watts ( 1 Calorie = 4180 Joules, 8,360,000 J / 86,400 seconds a day ~ 100)

I have already pointed out these math errors. Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
3- Conduction with the air and objects around you. Remember there is no such thing as cold, only less warm.

^^^^^ READ THIS AGAIN ^^^^^
tmiddles wrote:
Does it balance at 70F ? YES

Hey! Look at that! The test subject's skin temperature is the same as the room! The only heat is to heat the air in the room. You are ignoring conduction completely.
tmiddles wrote:
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.

I'll ignore these math errors again. I've already told you about them.
tmiddles wrote:
Great reference combining the equations (click to see EXAMPLE 1.13):
University Physics Volume 2
Stefan-Boltzmann equation needs only slight refinement to deal with...absorption of radiation from its surroundings.P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)

* You cannot make heat flow backwards. You cannot change the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
tmiddles wrote:
You notice the differences, warmer/colder, but even in 70F you are gushing thermal energy and having it pour into you from radiance.

Guess what? So is the room!
tmiddles wrote:
Just as you don't notice gravity or air pressure.

I do notice gravity. I notice air pressure as well. Aircraft could not fly without either.
tmiddles wrote:
What if you suddenly couldn't lose energy

This would be some impossible Harry Potter stuff but you would increase in temperature continuously, gaining 624W from the walls radiance and 100W from your insides (while you lived). (ref)

You only need to go up 3C, from 37C to 40C, to die, so you'll be a goner after just 15 minutes! (Specific heat is 3470 so it's 3470*3*62kg=645420=891s=15min)

You cannot make heat flow backwards.
tmiddles wrote:
What if you suddenly couldn't absorb energy

This is actually the same scenario as being in deep space where there is no ambient radiance to absorb. It's been calculated you'd freeze solid in 11 hours
WRONG. Nothing would happen. It is NOT like being in space.
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
But what if you really worked out to generate more heat, and ate a lot! You better be hungry. 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!

Math errors ignored again. Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Why is the relevant to climate-debate.com?

See the topic here: greenhouse-gases-do-not-violate-the-stefan-boltzmann-law

You cannot make heat flow backwards.
tmiddles wrote:
The false statement is made that a warmer body can't absorb radiation from a cooler body,

Is not a false statement. You just want to ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics AND the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
tmiddles wrote:
that this violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics because thermal energy always flows from hot to cold

It does.
tmiddles wrote:
(as in it would be impossible for you to absorb the 624 watts radiated to you from the room, the freezing in deep space scenario).

You cannot make heat flow backwards. You are ignoring conduction completely, and you are ignoring the fact that the subject's skin temperature is the SAME AS THE ROOM. He is only heating the air in the room.
tmiddles wrote:
Basically there are some who believe a "net flow" of thermal energy is impossible.

There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat. Heat flows in only one direction.
tmiddles wrote:
This belief contradicts the text books

Void argument fallacy. Which text books?
tmiddles wrote:
and common sense,

Void argument fallacy. Define 'common sense'. Describe how you can use it to falsify the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
tmiddles wrote:
as it leaves no answer for how a person in a room manages to not freeze to death.

CONDUCTION.
CONDUCTION.
CONDUCTION.


The Parrot Killer
RE: No answers offered29-08-2019 00:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
As you can see there are no alternative explanations offered.
29-08-2019 01:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
As you can see there are no alternative explanations offered.


CONDUCTION.
CONDUCTION.
CONDUCTION.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 04:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
As you can see there are no alternative explanations offered.


CONDUCTION.
CONDUCTION.
CONDUCTION.


Very impressive calculation.

So you're saying that a person loses over 700 watts through radiance but makes is up by gaining energy through conduction? From a cooler environment?

Yeah.... You got nothing.
29-08-2019 05:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:As you can see there are no alternative explanations offered.

Of course there can be no alternative to your explanation to which you will listen. You are, after all, struggling to defend your religious faith. You are here to preach, not to courageously face ideas that rile your religious sensitivities.

Naturally you are free to believe what you wish. If Global Warming affords you comfort then believe away.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
29-08-2019 05:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
Of course there can be no alternative to your explanation...

Well not so far. I'm all ears.

And nothing stops you from explaining how your theory a warmer body cannot absorb energy from a cooler one is possible.

My example disproves it. You have been resoundingly debunked, fraudsters.
29-08-2019 05:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:Well not so far. I'm all ears.

No you're not.

You are in total ignore mode.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
29-08-2019 05:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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 _______________________________.
29-08-2019 13:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
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.

Why? (rhetorical question)

You think no one knows why, but I do.

I, for one, am perfectly content to let you believe whatever you want to believe. You, on the other hand, cannot tolerate others not believing as you believe. Not only are religiously opposed to learning lest you believe as others do, you are compelled to keep badgering others to believe in your violations of physics until they submit to your beliefs.

So, you and I are in and endless loop. Every time you bring up this example, I will simply copy-paste the following:

"And your repeatable instance of any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body is _______________________________?"

... and I encourage everyone else to do the same until you meet your burden to support your claim, per the scientific method.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
29-08-2019 13:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:you are compelled to keep badgering others

"And your repeatable instance of any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body is _______________________________?"

You always start to make psychology criticisms when you have no case. All you have to do is explain how a human being can stand in a 70F room and not freeze to death, since Stefan-Boltzman tells us they radiate over 700 watts. Well this being YOU, you'd have to do that and somehow argue they cannot absorb the radiance of the walls, so good luck!

The repeated instance is our absorption of the radiance from the environment of our cozy homes. YES we are able to absorb it. NO it does not have a higher temperature than our skin.

It is repeated where you are right now and where I am right now and everywhere anyone reading this is.

Or do you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and claim we are radiating less than 700 watts and somehow survive without absorbing that cozy radiance from the walls around us?

And by all means please try to argue conduction helps. You and ITN have been clear that no thermal flow can come to the rescue there either.

You guys just painted yourself into a corner on this.
29-08-2019 14:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:You always start to make psychology criticisms when you have no case.

You always pout when I hit close to home. It's so cute.

So, how about that specific, repeatable instance of
any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer?

... and I encourage everyone else to ask the same until you meet your burden to support your claim, per the scientific method.

.
29-08-2019 14:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
So, how about that specific, repeatable instance of
any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer?


What was your calculation on the radiance of a person?
29-08-2019 14:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
So, how about that specific, repeatable instance of
any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer?


What was your calculation on the radiance of a person?
29-08-2019 14:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
So, how about that specific, repeatable instance of
any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer?


What was your calculation on the radiance of a person?


I'm sorry, your repeatable instance of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body got garbled somehow when you posted, ... it would be _______________________________?"


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
29-08-2019 18:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
As you can see there are no alternative explanations offered.


CONDUCTION.
CONDUCTION.
CONDUCTION.


Very impressive calculation.

So you're saying that a person loses over 700 watts through radiance but makes is up by gaining energy through conduction? From a cooler environment?

Yeah.... You got nothing.

Argument from randU fallacy.
A person helps to heat a room, unless the room is warmer then the person. Only then does the room heat the person. Heat only flows from hot to cold.

* You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You cannot reduce entropy in any system.
* You cannot just change the Stefan-Boltzmann law and still call it the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 18:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Of course there can be no alternative to your explanation...

Well not so far. I'm all ears.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
And nothing stops you from explaining how your theory a warmer body cannot absorb energy from a cooler one is possible.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote:
My example disproves it.

No it doesn't. Your example is contrived.
tmiddles wrote:
You have been resoundingly debunked, fraudsters.

Lie.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 18:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:you are compelled to keep badgering others

"And your repeatable instance of any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body is _______________________________?"

You always start to make psychology criticisms when you have no case.

No, he's dead right. You keep asking and ignoring, asking and ignoring,. You will not accept any answer that disturbs your faith in the Church of Global Warming.
tmiddles wrote:
All you have to do is explain how a human being can stand in a 70F room and not freeze to death, since Stefan-Boltzman tells us they radiate over 700 watts.

Asking and ignoring again.
tmiddles wrote:
Well this being YOU, you'd have to do that and somehow argue they cannot absorb the radiance of the walls, so good luck!

Asking and ignoring again.
tmiddles wrote:
The repeated instance is our absorption of the radiance from the environment of our cozy homes. YES we are able to absorb it. NO it does not have a higher temperature than our skin.

Asking and ignoring again.
tmiddles wrote:
It is repeated where you are right now and where I am right now and everywhere anyone reading this is.

Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. You are asking and ignoring.
tmiddles wrote:
Or do you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and claim we are radiating less than 700 watts and somehow survive without absorbing that cozy radiance from the walls around us?

Repetition fallacy. Lie. Argument from randU fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
And by all means please try to argue conduction helps. You and ITN have been clear that no thermal flow can come to the rescue there either.

Asking and ignoring. Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
You guys just painted yourself into a corner on this.

Lie.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 18:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
So, how about that specific, repeatable instance of
any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer?


What was your calculation on the radiance of a person?


Already done using your randU values. You are asking and ignoring again.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 18:56
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:you are compelled to keep badgering others

"And your repeatable instance of any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body is _______________________________?"

You always start to make psychology criticisms when you have no case. All you have to do is explain how a human being can stand in a 70F room and not freeze to death, since Stefan-Boltzman tells us they radiate over 700 watts. Well this being YOU, you'd have to do that and somehow argue they cannot absorb the radiance of the walls, so good luck!

The repeated instance is our absorption of the radiance from the environment of our cozy homes. YES we are able to absorb it. NO it does not have a higher temperature than our skin.

It is repeated where you are right now and where I am right now and everywhere anyone reading this is.

Or do you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and claim we are radiating less than 700 watts and somehow survive without absorbing that cozy radiance from the walls around us?

And by all means please try to argue conduction helps. You and ITN have been clear that no thermal flow can come to the rescue there either.

You guys just painted yourself into a corner on this.


How much man-made CO2 is in the room? 400 ppm has a powerful warming effect on the planet, maybe it does the same to people...

I still think your skin, and that layer of fat under, has a lot to do with keeping your internal temperature stable. Are you sure you're use that Stefan-Boltzmann law correctly? 700 watts seems like a very large number. My drip coffee maker is 800 watts. My Microwave is 1000 watts, both boil water pretty quick.

The skin surface warms and cools with the ambient temperature. In the winter time, when someone who just came in from outdoors, their skin is cold, not 98.6F. Shove a thermometer in their mouth, it'll still read 98.6F though.
29-08-2019 20:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:you are compelled to keep badgering others

"And your repeatable instance of any thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body is _______________________________?"

You always start to make psychology criticisms when you have no case. All you have to do is explain how a human being can stand in a 70F room and not freeze to death, since Stefan-Boltzman tells us they radiate over 700 watts. Well this being YOU, you'd have to do that and somehow argue they cannot absorb the radiance of the walls, so good luck!

The repeated instance is our absorption of the radiance from the environment of our cozy homes. YES we are able to absorb it. NO it does not have a higher temperature than our skin.

It is repeated where you are right now and where I am right now and everywhere anyone reading this is.

Or do you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and claim we are radiating less than 700 watts and somehow survive without absorbing that cozy radiance from the walls around us?

And by all means please try to argue conduction helps. You and ITN have been clear that no thermal flow can come to the rescue there either.

You guys just painted yourself into a corner on this.


How much man-made CO2 is in the room? 400 ppm has a powerful warming effect on the planet, maybe it does the same to people...

I still think your skin, and that layer of fat under, has a lot to do with keeping your internal temperature stable.

Exactly.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Are you sure you're use that Stefan-Boltzmann law correctly?

No. He's trying to change it to something else and still call it the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
HarveyH55 wrote:
700 watts seems like a very large number.

It's actually a pretty small number under that law.
HarveyH55 wrote:
My drip coffee maker is 800 watts. My Microwave is 1000 watts, both boil water pretty quick.

Watts does not have be in thermal energy. Light is energy too, but it has no temperature. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is about conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy (light) and nothing else.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The skin surface warms and cools with the ambient temperature. In the winter time, when someone who just came in from outdoors, their skin is cold, not 98.6F. Shove a thermometer in their mouth, it'll still read 98.6F though.

Exactly.

What tmiddles is trying to do is to use the Stefan-Boltzmann for absorption and to try to prove the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been falsified. He is trying to say the room is what heats you.

Walking into a warmer room simply means you don't have to heat it as much as a colder room. You don't have to work as hard to heat the warmer air, which you are heating primarily by conduction.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 21:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
HarveyH55 wrote:
[Are you sure you're use that Stefan-Boltzmann law correctly? 700 watts seems like a very large number.


Harvey you'd agree that ITN and IBdaMann regard themselves as being experts on applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law right?

Notice neither dare do this calculation.

It is actually over 700 watts yes.

Since the room you're in is also radiating you notice the difference.

CO2 doesn't factor in.

Into the Night wrote:
Walking into a warmer room simply means you don't have to heat it as much as a colder room.


And according to ITN's theory the only source of energy we have to offset the 700watt loss is from food ~ 100watts

Keep in mind there is not a textbook in existence with this truly bazaar take on the 2nd law of thermodynamics
Edited on 29-08-2019 21:47
29-08-2019 21:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
[Are you sure you're use that Stefan-Boltzmann law correctly? 700 watts seems like a very large number.


Harvey you'd agree that ITN and IBdaMann regard themselves as being experts on applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law right?

We are.

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

tmiddles wrote:
Notice neither dare do this calculation.

Not using YOUR equation, which is NOT the Stefan-Boltzmann law, no. There is no point.
tmiddles wrote:
It is actually over 700 watts yes.

Argument from randU fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Since the room you're in is also radiating you notice the difference.

You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-08-2019 21:50
29-08-2019 21:49
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Notice neither dare do this calculation.

Not using YOUR equation, which is NOT the Stefan-Boltzmann law, no. There is no point.


Use the right equation. Do it properly.

I know you can't but I'm not stopping you.
29-08-2019 21:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Notice neither dare do this calculation.

Not using YOUR equation, which is NOT the Stefan-Boltzmann law, no. There is no point.


Use the right equation. Do it properly.

I know you can't but I'm not stopping you.


Already did, using your randU numbers. You are asking and ignoring again. Repetition fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-08-2019 21:52
29-08-2019 21:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
Already did, using your randU numbers. You are asking and ignoring again.


You definitely did not but go ahead a copy paste or quote. Easy to do.
29-08-2019 22:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Already did, using your randU numbers. You are asking and ignoring again.


You definitely did not but go ahead a copy paste or quote. Easy to do.

Lie. Already did, using your randU numbers. I was already nice to do that for you once. No more. Go fish in the previous posts for yourself.

Repetition fallacy. Lie. Argument of the stone fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 22:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
Lie. Already did


Nope
29-08-2019 23:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Lie. Already did


Nope

Lie. Already did.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 23:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
Lie. Already did.


And the answer was?
29-08-2019 23:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Lie. Already did.


And the answer was?


Go look it up. I am through patronizing your repetitive question and your denial of what you talked about.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2019 23:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
Go look it up. I am through patronizing your repetitive question and your denial of what you talked about.


Yeah it's clear you don't have the time to kill or the energy to cut and paste your mythical answer and prove me wrong.

Lame!

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What part of radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
eludes you?


Let's see. Did I do it right?:

For: Temp ~ 91F/33C/306K, Surface area ~ 1.5m2 of skin, Emissivity ~ 0.97

Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)306K^4=-723W
29-08-2019 23:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Go look it up. I am through patronizing your repetitive question and your denial of what you talked about.


Yeah it's clear you don't have the time to kill or the energy to cut and paste your mythical answer and prove me wrong.

Lame!

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What part of radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
eludes you?


Let's see. Did I do it right?:

For: Temp ~ 91F/33C/306K, Surface area ~ 1.5m2 of skin, Emissivity ~ 0.97

Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4)
(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)306K^4=-723W

Duplication ignored. Answered in the other thread.


The Parrot Killer
30-08-2019 03:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
Duplication ignored. Answered in the other thread.

And it was! Thank you:

Bringing the discussion here to keep things better organized.
Your post there: other topic
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
...723W


Math error. It is +723W, not -723W. Otherwise, it looks correct for the randU numbers you used. Of course, since you used randU numbers, the answer is also randU.


It's as much randU as saying a person who is 5' 8" and 150lbs though right? It's in a normal range. All the values used are.

So that's a 723 watt loss of energy from emitted radiance correct?

With the understanding that the 723W is a randU number, yes.
tmiddles wrote:
Again this was from the textbook:
tmiddles wrote:
University Physics Volume 2
1.6 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer
"EXAMPLE 1.13
Calculating the Net Heat Transfer of a Person
What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of 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 and a surface area of 1.50m2. The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place


This book is in error.

* Emissivity has no frequency.
* Radiance doesn't take place in a single band.
* There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Heat only flows in one direction.
* There is no such thing as 'heat transfer'. Heat IS transfer of thermal energy.
* The emissivity of human skin is unknown.
* Conductive and convective heat are being utterly ignored.
* There is no such thing as 'greenhouse effect' in the atmosphere. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You cannot decrease entropy in any system.
* You cannot hold or trap heat.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. It always flows in one direction.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

This book ignores all of these things. It denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


My response here:

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So that's a 723 watt loss of energy from emitted radiance correct?

With the understanding that the 723W is a randU number, yes.
tmiddles wrote:
Again this was from the textbook:
University Physics Volume 2

This book is in error.


Well I don't want to make as though I came up with this on my own. I'm being a consensus thinker on this I will admit that up front. It's consistent that you'd find the book made errors since this hinges on their teaching "Net Flow" for radiant energy.

So we agree that there is a 723W loss with the numbers supplied (random numbers in the sense that they are just picked from the common range).

The real question is how the thermal energy of a person balances out. We do generate our own energy and it becomes thermal energy. I have that at 2000 calories a day giving a person about 100 watts to work with.

So where do you see the missing 623 watts coming from?
30-08-2019 05:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Duplication ignored. Answered in the other thread.

And it was! Thank you:

Bringing the discussion here to keep things better organized.
Your post there: other topic
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
...723W


Math error. It is +723W, not -723W. Otherwise, it looks correct for the randU numbers you used. Of course, since you used randU numbers, the answer is also randU.


It's as much randU as saying a person who is 5' 8" and 150lbs though right? It's in a normal range. All the values used are.

So that's a 723 watt loss of energy from emitted radiance correct?

With the understanding that the 723W is a randU number, yes.
tmiddles wrote:
Again this was from the textbook:
tmiddles wrote:
University Physics Volume 2
1.6 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer
"EXAMPLE 1.13
Calculating the Net Heat Transfer of a Person
What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of 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 and a surface area of 1.50m2. The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place


This book is in error.

* Emissivity has no frequency.
* Radiance doesn't take place in a single band.
* There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Heat only flows in one direction.
* There is no such thing as 'heat transfer'. Heat IS transfer of thermal energy.
* The emissivity of human skin is unknown.
* Conductive and convective heat are being utterly ignored.
* There is no such thing as 'greenhouse effect' in the atmosphere. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You cannot decrease entropy in any system.
* You cannot hold or trap heat.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. It always flows in one direction.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

This book ignores all of these things. It denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


My response here:

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So that's a 723 watt loss of energy from emitted radiance correct?

With the understanding that the 723W is a randU number, yes.
tmiddles wrote:
Again this was from the textbook:
University Physics Volume 2

This book is in error.


Well I don't want to make as though I came up with this on my own.

I know you didn't. People told you this stuff. It's wrong, but they told it to you anyway. They are trying to get as many as they can to believe in the Church of Global Warming, which stems from the Church of Karl Marx. There is a political goal at stake here.

tmiddles wrote:
I'm being a consensus thinker on this I will admit that up front.

Unfortunately, this means you have generally lost the ability to think for yourself. No, this is not an insult. It's what happens when you are constantly grabbing the arguments of others as your own argument. You lose practice. It takes practice to learn to think for yourself.

Because of it that leaves you wide open for some authority sounding figure or organization to put whatever they want in your head. They have successfully done so. It is time to break out of the mold they put you into and learn to think and reason for yourself.

This is actually what philosophy is really all about.

tmiddles wrote:
It's consistent that you'd find the book made errors since this hinges on their teaching "Net Flow" for radiant energy.

Yes it is. This book also goes on to teach about 'greenhouse effect' as 'science'. It winds up making one egregious error after another.

Unfortunately, textbooks like this are often used in schools, and students soak this crap up like it was gospel truth. When they get out into the world and get confronted by theories of science, they choke on it, just like you did and to a certain extent still do. It's like feeding a baby a steak.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way out. It's scary to leave a religion like that. I admit. I have seen it done though. I hope you are one of them.

tmiddles wrote:
So we agree that there is a 723W loss with the numbers supplied (random numbers in the sense that they are just picked from the common range).

They are not picked from a common range. We don't even know what the 'range' is!

For example, I have seen people claim anywhere from 12.5 to 98.0 for the emissivity of human skin.

tmiddles wrote:
The real question is how the thermal energy of a person balances out. We do generate our own energy and it becomes thermal energy. I have that at 2000 calories a day giving a person about 100 watts to work with.

The food we eat becomes much more than just thermal energy (although the bulk of it does). It allows us to move, to act, etc.
tmiddles wrote:
So where do you see the missing 623 watts coming from?

Argument from randU fallacy. Remember you are stemming that number from a randU number.


The Parrot Killer
30-08-2019 05:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So we agree that there is a 723W loss with the numbers supplied (random numbers in the sense that they are just picked from the common range).

They are not picked from a common range. We don't even know what the 'range' is!
For example, I have seen people claim anywhere from 12.5 to 98.0 for the emissivity of human skin.


I actually linked to all my sources. Do you dispute that there are people with?:
Skin temp ~ 91F/33C/306K, Surface area ~ 1.5m2 of skin, Emissivity ~ 0.97

Since it's safe to say you can measure emissivity for someones skin, you can take the temperature of their skin and you can measure their surface area of their skin isn't it true we can calculate their radiance? It's not "unknowable" at all.

How about to within +/- 25% ?

I calculated a 724 watt loss (the book did), and calculated 100 watts from food on a 2000 calorie diet (maximum). So the problem of the missing energy is still there even if I'd calculated 1/2 that wattage of radiance and twice the wattage of caloric energy.
Edited on 30-08-2019 05:59
30-08-2019 06:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So we agree that there is a 723W loss with the numbers supplied (random numbers in the sense that they are just picked from the common range).

They are not picked from a common range. We don't even know what the 'range' is!
For example, I have seen people claim anywhere from 12.5 to 98.0 for the emissivity of human skin.


I actually linked to all my sources.

A link is not a proof.
tmiddles wrote:
Do you dispute that there are people with?:
Skin temp ~ 91F/33C/306K,

Yes. Not all people have the same skin temperature. The skin temperature of a person is not constant.
tmiddles wrote:
Surface area ~ 1.5m2 of skin,

Yes. The surface area of a human varies, even from day to day.
tmiddles wrote:
Emissivity ~ 0.97

Yes. The emissivity of human skin is unknown, and can vary from minute to minute.
tmiddles wrote:
Since it's safe to say you can measure emissivity for someones skin, you can take the temperature of their skin and you can measure their surface area of their skin isn't it true we can calculate their radiance? It's not "unknowable" at all.

Yes it is.
tmiddles wrote:
How about to within +/- 25% ?

I am not here to deal or to negotiate an 'acceptable' tolerance of random numbers.
tmiddles wrote:
I calculated a 724 watt loss (the book did),

Argument from randU fallacy. You calculated it from randU numbers.
tmiddles wrote:
and calculated 100 watts from food on a 2000 calorie diet (maximum).

Math error. Incompatible units.
tmiddles wrote:
So the problem of the missing energy is still there even if I'd calculated 1/2 that wattage of radiance and twice the wattage of caloric energy.

Nope. Math error and argument from randU fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
30-08-2019 09:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:...
Yes. Not all people have the same skin temperature.
Yes. The surface area of a human varies, even from day to day...
The emissivity of human skin is unknown
I am not here to deal or to negotiate an 'acceptable' tolerance of random numbers.

No one can force you to think about these things.

I've asked you and IBdaMann in the past to provide an example of knowledge gained and applied properly and you've always refused.
from CO2 topic
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...it's pointed out that the reliability/accuracy/integrity of our ability to gather data do analysis ect. is inadequate and we have "NO CLUE"......So you should give an example of "Doing it right"...
... because you have limited the discussions to things we can't know and can't measure.
Why don't you try discussing something that *can* be measured/known?

I have two very simple questions for you ITN and IBdaMann:
Can human height be known?
Can human weight be known?

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?
30-08-2019 10:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...
Yes. Not all people have the same skin temperature.
Yes. The surface area of a human varies, even from day to day...
The emissivity of human skin is unknown
I am not here to deal or to negotiate an 'acceptable' tolerance of random numbers.

No one can force you to think about these things.

I've asked you and IBdaMann in the past to provide an example of knowledge gained and applied properly and you've always refused.
tmiddles wrote:
from CO2 topic
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:...it's pointed out that the reliability/accuracy/integrity of our ability to gather data do analysis ect. is inadequate and we have "NO CLUE"......So you should give an example of "Doing it right"...
... because you have limited the discussions to things we can't know and can't measure.
Why don't you try discussing something that *can* be measured/known?

I have two very simple questions for you ITN and IBdaMann:
Can human height be known?

If you measure it.
tmiddles wrote:
Can human weight be known?

If you measure it.
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.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 6123>>>





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 Heat321-09-2019 19:23
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