| 20-07-2017 02:29 |
James_★★★★★
(2211) |
@Into the Night,
It is well known that electrons flow from the anode to the cathode. I take it your not familiar with CRT's.
As far as my experiment goes I've known for a long time how it needs to be tried. I do have another project that I am working on and it will probably be that one that sets everything in motion for me.
If my experiment does work then it might be considered that our atmosphere works differently than how. It's considered to work now.
Then the emissivity of our atmosphere might be looked at a little differently. One thing to be mindful of is I don't think they've been monitoring the lowest temperature throughout both the night and day time for the tropopause and it's elevation. That's something that could indicate that our atmosphere has more kinetic energy. |
| 20-07-2017 03:09 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
@Into the Night,
It is well known that electrons flow from the anode to the cathode. I take it your not familiar with CRT's.
Electrons do not flow from anode to cathode. I am familiar with vacuum tubes (including CRTs). I used to design circuits with them. Only the cathode is heated. Only the cathode is capable of providing the electrons that flow.
James_ wrote:
As far as my experiment goes I've known for a long time how it needs to be tried. I do have another project that I am working on and it will probably be that one that sets everything in motion for me.
Why don't you DO instead of pipe dream?
James_ wrote:
If my experiment does work then it might be considered that our atmosphere works differently than how. It's considered to work now.
You would have to show how and why the conflicting laws of physics would need to be discarded.
James_ wrote:
Then the emissivity of our atmosphere might be looked at a little differently.
The emissivity of our atmosphere is a constant for the purposes of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is a measured value.
James_ wrote:
One thing to be mindful of is I don't think they've been monitoring the lowest temperature throughout both the night and day time for the tropopause and it's elevation.
You are correct.
James_ wrote:
That's something that could indicate that our atmosphere has more kinetic energy.
Than what?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 20-07-2017 04:46 |
James_★★★★★
(2211) |
Into the night,
I think with electronics they're just trying to complicate it. If electrons are the charge then why would they flow in the opposite direction ? In many processes the electrons have to flow from the anode to the cathode. The plating process is one example. If not then parts would be deconstructed as they lost electrons that bind the part together. That doesn't happen. |
| 20-07-2017 04:55 |
James_★★★★★
(2211) |
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
@Into the Night,
It is well known that electrons flow from the anode to the cathode. I take it your not familiar with CRT's.
Electrons do not flow from anode to cathode. I am familiar with vacuum tubes (including CRTs). I used to design circuits with them. Only the cathode is heated. Only the cathode is capable of providing the electrons that flow.
James_ wrote:
As far as my experiment goes I've known for a long time how it needs to be tried. I do have another project that I am working on and it will probably be that one that sets everything in motion for me.
Why don't you DO instead of pipe dream?
James_ wrote:
If my experiment does work then it might be considered that our atmosphere works differently than how. It's considered to work now.
You would have to show how and why the conflicting laws of physics would need to be discarded.
James_ wrote:
Then the emissivity of our atmosphere might be looked at a little differently.
The emissivity of our atmosphere is a constant for the purposes of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is a measured value.
James_ wrote:
One thing to be mindful of is I don't think they've been monitoring the lowest temperature throughout both the night and day time for the tropopause and it's elevation.
You are correct.
James_ wrote:
That's something that could indicate that our atmosphere has more kinetic energy.
Than what?
As far as my experiment goes it won't show any conflicting laws of physics as you wrongly claim.
Also I did say I have another project that I am working on. And as you have shown you only like what supports you. Every reason why scientists will ignore my experiment given the opportunity.
With this forum I just think of it as fine tuning my thoughts. After all you do claim that Newton's Theory of Gravity was falsified. You do not support the concept of expanding upon other people's work. It limits you and yet you like universal truths when you can't allow for more than your own thoughts.
p.s., I think you're only looking for an argument. And as I mentioned, unlike you I am pursuing something that might allow how our atmosphere works to be better understood. And at the same time it will not show any contradictions in physics like they have in electronics. I guess the wave/particle duality of an electron is something they don't ujderstand, not my problem. I don't work with electronics. :-D
Edited on 20-07-2017 05:24 |
| 20-07-2017 21:14 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
@Into the Night,
It is well known that electrons flow from the anode to the cathode. I take it your not familiar with CRT's.
Electrons do not flow from anode to cathode. I am familiar with vacuum tubes (including CRTs). I used to design circuits with them. Only the cathode is heated. Only the cathode is capable of providing the electrons that flow.
James_ wrote:
As far as my experiment goes I've known for a long time how it needs to be tried. I do have another project that I am working on and it will probably be that one that sets everything in motion for me.
Why don't you DO instead of pipe dream?
James_ wrote:
If my experiment does work then it might be considered that our atmosphere works differently than how. It's considered to work now.
You would have to show how and why the conflicting laws of physics would need to be discarded.
James_ wrote:
Then the emissivity of our atmosphere might be looked at a little differently.
The emissivity of our atmosphere is a constant for the purposes of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is a measured value.
James_ wrote:
One thing to be mindful of is I don't think they've been monitoring the lowest temperature throughout both the night and day time for the tropopause and it's elevation.
You are correct.
James_ wrote:
That's something that could indicate that our atmosphere has more kinetic energy.
Than what?
As far as my experiment goes it won't show any conflicting laws of physics as you wrongly claim. It does demand a change in chemical reactions that have already been observed in the laboratory...specifically the production of formaldehyde.
James_ wrote:
Also I did say I have another project that I am working on. And as you have shown you only like what supports you. Who doesn't? I don't support anything that I don't like. I support those things I like. What is wrong with this?
James_ wrote:
Every reason why scientists will ignore my experiment given the opportunity. Every theory is going to get questioned. It should get questioned. You might as well get used to that.
James_ wrote:
With this forum I just think of it as fine tuning my thoughts. Works for me.
James_ wrote:
After all you do claim that Newton's Theory of Gravity was falsified. Newton's Theory of Gravity was not falsified. It is still in force today. Einstein uses that theory in his extension of it.
James_ wrote:
You do not support the concept of expanding upon other people's work. Practically everything expands on other people's work. I have never said otherwise.
James_ wrote:
It limits you and yet you like universal truths when you can't allow for more than your own thoughts. There is no universal truth.
James_ wrote:
p.s., I think you're only looking for an argument. Since an argument is merely any statement that makes any kind of point, why is that a problem. I prefer conversations made up statements that make a point. It sure beats the pointless conversations that a lot of people make.
James_ wrote:
And as I mentioned, unlike you I am pursuing something that might allow how our atmosphere works to be better understood. I have no problem with that. My only contention is that you keep talking about this experiment and all the great things it's going to show instead of performing it.
James_ wrote:
And at the same time it will not show any contradictions in physics like they have in electronics. Electronics does not violate physics.
James_ wrote:
I guess the wave/particle duality of an electron is something they don't ujderstand, Actually, they do, and pretty well.
James_ wrote:
not my problem. Then why did you bring it up?
James_ wrote:
I don't work with electronics.
I already know this. You have demonstrated your lack of understanding how components in electronics work.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| 20-07-2017 21:25 |
James_★★★★★
(2211) |
Into the Dark Ages,
I think you're an idiot. Is all you have is taunting someone ? It seems to me that's all you have. After all, you are willing to be reasonable as long as you are the reason. |
| 20-07-2017 21:49 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
Into the Dark Ages,
I think you're an idiot. Is all you have is taunting someone ? It seems to me that's all you have. After all, you are willing to be reasonable as long as you are the reason.
You seem rather paranoid.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 20-07-2017 22:32 |
James_★★★★★
(2211) |
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Dark Ages,
I think you're an idiot. Is all you have is taunting someone ? It seems to me that's all you have. After all, you are willing to be reasonable as long as you are the reason.
You seem rather paranoid.
Of what ? You ? I have more important concerns. |
| 20-07-2017 23:12 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Dark Ages,
I think you're an idiot. Is all you have is taunting someone ? It seems to me that's all you have. After all, you are willing to be reasonable as long as you are the reason.
You seem rather paranoid.
Of what ? You ? I have more important concerns.
No, in general.
You seem overly afraid of what other scientists might say.
You seem overly afraid that I am 'out to make trouble'.
You seem overly afraid that your experiment will either show nothing or be inconclusive (the more likely result with your present design and theory). I seems you are having difficulty on stating exactly what your theory IS.
You seem overly afraid that your concerns are not important.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 21-07-2017 04:41 |
James_★★★★★
(2211) |
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Dark Ages,
I think you're an idiot. Is all you have is taunting someone ? It seems to me that's all you have. After all, you are willing to be reasonable as long as you are the reason.
You seem rather paranoid.
Of what ? You ? I have more important concerns.
No, in general.
You seem overly afraid of what other scientists might say.
You seem overly afraid that I am 'out to make trouble'.
You seem overly afraid that your experiment will either show nothing or be inconclusive (the more likely result with your present design and theory). I seems you are having difficulty on stating exactly what your theory IS.
You seem overly afraid that your concerns are not important.
Into the Night,
I'm disappointed. I was hoping you could do better than that. I was starting to think of you as a friend who was helping me prepare for a test.
My other project will probably be finished in September. With my experiment scientists would reject it for one reason. They do not believe that the Van Allen Radiation Belts expand our atmosphere. This is what would allow my experiment to work.
This is because the upper troposphere into the tropopause would be colder because of linear momentum being conserved as angular momentum.
The physics is pretty straight forward. And I guess as far as that goes because of the lack of background radiation what can act as an oxidizer changes.
And if you consider what's around a hydrothermal vent, no solar radiation is required. |
| 21-07-2017 05:35 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Dark Ages,
I think you're an idiot. Is all you have is taunting someone ? It seems to me that's all you have. After all, you are willing to be reasonable as long as you are the reason.
You seem rather paranoid.
Of what ? You ? I have more important concerns.
No, in general.
You seem overly afraid of what other scientists might say.
You seem overly afraid that I am 'out to make trouble'.
You seem overly afraid that your experiment will either show nothing or be inconclusive (the more likely result with your present design and theory). I seems you are having difficulty on stating exactly what your theory IS.
You seem overly afraid that your concerns are not important.
Into the Night,
I'm disappointed. I was hoping you could do better than that. I was starting to think of you as a friend who was helping me prepare for a test.
The experiment is planned. All you have to do is execute it.
James_ wrote:
My other project will probably be finished in September.
I don't know what this other project is.
James_ wrote:
With my experiment scientists would reject it for one reason. They do not believe that the Van Allen Radiation Belts expand our atmosphere.
The Van Allen belts are no in our atmosphere. Neither do they affect it.
James_ wrote:
This is what would allow my experiment to work.
You haven't described this experiment.
James_ wrote:
This is because the upper troposphere into the tropopause would be colder because of linear momentum being conserved as angular momentum.
We already know why the tropopause is the coldest part of the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with angular momentum or linear momentum.
James_ wrote:
The physics is pretty straight forward.
What you are describing isn't.
James_ wrote:
And I guess as far as that goes because of the lack of background radiation what can act as an oxidizer changes.
The only thing that can act as an oxidizer is oxygen.
James_ wrote:
And if you consider what's around a hydrothermal vent,
Already have.
James_ wrote:
no solar radiation is required.
True. Such vents are energy from within the Earth itself, generated as a fission reaction at the core.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 21-07-2017 14:56 |
James_★★★★★
(2211) |
Into the Night wrote:
The experiment is planned. All you have to do is execute it.
James_ wrote:
My other project will probably be finished in September.
I don't know what this other project is.
]James_ wrote:
This is because the upper troposphere into the tropopause would be colder because of linear momentum being conserved as angular momentum.
We already know why the tropopause is the coldest part of the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with angular momentum or linear momentum.
[James_ wrote:
And if you consider what's around a hydrothermal vent,
Already have.
James_ wrote:
no solar radiation is required.
True. Such vents are energy from within the Earth itself, generated as a fission reaction at the core.
We'll need to slow down. You are showing one problem with a new idea, you're not taking the time to consider it. I haven't said what my other project is and have no need to. But because it is a part of German history it might get someone in Germany interested in trying my experiment.
One thing I am mindful of is over 1,400 people have died in Kentucky because of drugs. It could be that pursuing interests where I live is frowned upon when there are easier alternatives.
Since it will take into September for me to finish my other project we could over time discuss how our atmosphere works. As far as Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics goes it's actually a relatively new field in science.
And if you don't have the time to consider something then there really is nothing that can be discussed.
To give you an idea, your comment about angular and linear momentum having nothing to do with the tropopause being so cold (-74 deg. F.).
KE = [1/2mv^2] = 3/2KT
v is linear momentum and is a factor in kinetic energy being converted into temperature. If you notice, angular momentum is not a part of the equation.
Why linear momentum increases temperature is because when gaseous molecules collide they release stored energy. And when gases convert linear momentum to angular momentum there are fewer collisions while gases store more energy.
Into the Night, when you replied to my post about all you did was to come up with a way of saying I am wrong. That doesn't require any actual thought. That is like when you said Einstein's Theory of General Relativity falsified Newton's Theory of Gravity. What you should have said is that Einstein expanded upon it.
Edited on 21-07-2017 15:28 |
| 21-07-2017 16:55 |
James_★★★★★
(2211) |
Here is an example of what happens when someone in America needs for or asks for help.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/apos-oh-just-died-apos-042015634.html
Laughing at someone is better than helping, right ? Just as my pursuing an experiment, it could help but it's better be made fun of. And this sadly is what America is quickly becoming. |
| 21-07-2017 21:05 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The experiment is planned. All you have to do is execute it.
James_ wrote:
My other project will probably be finished in September.
I don't know what this other project is.
]James_ wrote:
This is because the upper troposphere into the tropopause would be colder because of linear momentum being conserved as angular momentum.
We already know why the tropopause is the coldest part of the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with angular momentum or linear momentum.
[James_ wrote:
And if you consider what's around a hydrothermal vent,
Already have.
James_ wrote:
no solar radiation is required.
True. Such vents are energy from within the Earth itself, generated as a fission reaction at the core.
We'll need to slow down. You are showing one problem with a new idea, you're not taking the time to consider it.
I actually do, although it doesn't look like it.
James_ wrote:
I haven't said what my other project is and have no need to.
Fine. Your choice.
James_ wrote:
But because it is a part of German history it might get someone in Germany interested in trying my experiment.
I wouldn't know. You won't talk about it.
James_ wrote:
One thing I am mindful of is over 1,400 people have died in Kentucky because of drugs. It could be that pursuing interests where I live is frowned upon when there are easier alternatives.
Does this new project involve drugs?
James_ wrote:
Since it will take into September for me to finish my other project we could over time discuss how our atmosphere works.
Okay.
James_ wrote:
As far as Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics goes it's actually a relatively new field in science.
Nope. It's as old as meteorology.
James_ wrote:
And if you don't have the time to consider something then there really is nothing that can be discussed.
This is your choice if you want to discuss anything.
James_ wrote:
To give you an idea, your comment about angular and linear momentum having nothing to do with the tropopause being so cold (-74 deg. F.).
KE = [1/2mv^2] = 3/2KT
This equation describes the average kinetic energy of a single molecule will have as relating to a known temperature. It does not calculate temperature. The middle portion describes the kinetic energy of a single molecule as related to its velocity.
All combining the equations does is do what we already know: relate the average velocity of a single molecule to it's temperature.
If temperature is lowered, the average velocity of its molecules is lowered. If the average velocity of a substance molecules is lowered, it is because the temperature is lowered.
Velocity, like momentum, is a relative thing. What is that relative 'stationary' point you are calling zero? What is the reference point?
Remember kinetic energy is not necessarily thermal energy.
James_ wrote:
v is linear momentum and is a factor in kinetic energy being converted into temperature. If you notice, angular momentum is not a part of the equation.
Angular momentum IS part of the equation. It does not matter the type of momentum.
James_ wrote:
Why linear momentum increases temperature is because when gaseous molecules collide they release stored energy.
Gas molecules do not release stored energy. Their movement is the energy itself. If they collide with something, they transfer that kinetic energy to something else according to F=ma.
James_ wrote:
And when gases convert linear momentum to angular momentum there are fewer collisions while gases store more energy.
Type of momentum doesn't matter. Collisions do not 'release' energy.
James_ wrote:
Into the Night, when you replied to my post about all you did was to come up with a way of saying I am wrong.
That's because I am pointing out the physics and the math where you are wrong.
James_ wrote:
That doesn't require any actual thought.
You are now defining 'actual thought' as any thought that disagrees with physics.
James_ wrote:
That is like when you said Einstein's Theory of General Relativity falsified Newton's Theory of Gravity.
I never said Einstein falsified Newton. He didn't.
We still use Newton's gravitational formula. It still works and is still accurate.
James_ wrote:
What you should have said is that Einstein expanded upon it.
Einstein added a new factor to apply when it becomes large enough to become significant. He described how this factor is determined as well. It is just multiplied in with the rest. For most practical cases, this factor is just a one and can be ignored.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 22-07-2017 04:04 |
James_★★★★★
(2211) |
Into the Dark Ages,
I didn't read your post. It seems to me that you feed off of people. I think in your perverse way that if you can deconstruct other people then you are validating your own existence. This is what your responses are designed for.
If you had an actual opinion that would've become known. You have none and because you are a spiritual person there is no self without valudation, right ?
After all you have found nothing interesting about science or about how it relates cause and effect. Have you thought of going to church ? It might do you some good. |
|
| 22-07-2017 19:48 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James_ wrote:
Into the Dark Ages,
I didn't read your post.
Your loss.
James_ wrote:
It seems to me that you feed off of people. How do you know? You didn't read my post!
James_ wrote:
I think in your perverse way that if you can deconstruct other people then you are validating your own existence. This is what your responses are designed for.
No, my responses are designed to correct your misunderstanding of existing theories of science.
James_ wrote:
If you had an actual opinion that would've become known. My opinion is known. That's why you are ignoring it.
James_ wrote:
You have none and because you are a spiritual person there is no self without valudation, right ?
Paradox noted. Welcome to your new paradox.
James_ wrote:
After all you have found nothing interesting about science I find science quite interesting.
James_ wrote:
or about how it relates cause and effect. What left lunch did you get this from?
James_ wrote:
Have you thought of going to church ? I do.
James_ wrote:
It might do you some good.
Apparently not as far as your opinion is concerned.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| RE: Confused10-10-2018 00:49 |
Spysauce☆☆☆☆☆
(3) |
I'm learning Stefan-Boltzmann equation and Planck equation now in school and looked up on the internet how they are related. Planck's equation (radiation emitted as a function of temperature which varies with wavelength) is integrated across all wavelength's to get Stefan Boltzmann's equation (E = εσT^4).
Meanwhile:
- the S-B constant: σ=5.67 x 10-8
- ε: emissivity is 1 for blackbody (ideal gas) or a value between 0 and 1
and some syntax (at least in Computer science):
- constant means it doesn't change
- variable means it changes or is calculated
S-B constant doesn't change, ε is a variable and is calculated.
S-B equation is also equal to P/A, which is power emitted over an area, and power is doing work over time. Radiance is then work done over time over the area (of the body). So, all Stefan-Boltzmann's equation is doing is calculating the area under the Planck curves, right? That is: the total energy radiated. While Planck's curves mean the radiation emitted at certain points. |
| 10-10-2018 01:58 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Spysauce wrote:
I'm learning Stefan-Boltzmann equation and Planck equation now in school and looked up on the internet how they are related. Planck's equation (radiation emitted as a function of temperature which varies with wavelength) is integrated across all wavelength's to get Stefan Boltzmann's equation (E = εσT^4).
Meanwhile:
- the S-B constant: σ=5.67 x 10-8
- ε: emissivity is 1 for blackbody (ideal gas) or a value between 0 and 1
and some syntax (at least in Computer science):
- constant means it doesn't change
- variable means it changes or is calculated
S-B constant doesn't change, ε is a variable and is calculated.
S-B equation is also equal to P/A, which is power emitted over an area, and power is doing work over time. Radiance is then work done over time over the area (of the body). So, all Stefan-Boltzmann's equation is doing is calculating the area under the Planck curves, right? That is: the total energy radiated. While Planck's curves mean the radiation emitted at certain points.
This is correct. The Stefan-Boltzmann law cay be generated by integrating over all frequencies of light in Planck's law. That's why there is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
The total energy radiated is all frequencies combined. The emissivity is also over all frequencies combined. Radiance still follows Planck's curve.
The syntax isn't from computer science. It's from mathematics. Computer science just uses the same syntax.
Emissivity is also a constant. It is a measured constant. It likewise doesn't change.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 10-10-2018 02:06 |
| 10-10-2018 02:07 |
Spysauce☆☆☆☆☆
(3) |
Into the Night wrote:
Spysauce wrote:
I'm learning Stefan-Boltzmann equation and Planck equation now in school and looked up on the internet how they are related. Planck's equation (radiation emitted as a function of temperature which varies with wavelength) is integrated across all wavelength's to get Stefan Boltzmann's equation (E = εσT^4).
Meanwhile:
- the S-B constant: σ=5.67 x 10-8
- ε: emissivity is 1 for blackbody (ideal gas) or a value between 0 and 1
and some syntax (at least in Computer science):
- constant means it doesn't change
- variable means it changes or is calculated
S-B constant doesn't change, ε is a variable and is calculated.
S-B equation is also equal to P/A, which is power emitted over an area, and power is doing work over time. Radiance is then work done over time over the area (of the body). So, all Stefan-Boltzmann's equation is doing is calculating the area under the Planck curves, right? That is: the total energy radiated. While Planck's curves mean the radiation emitted at certain points.
This is correct. The Stefan-Boltzmann law cay be generated by integrating over all frequencies of light in Planck's law. That's why there is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
The total energy radiated is all frequencies combined. The emissivity is also over all frequencies combined. Radiance still follows Planck's curve.
The syntax isn't from computer science. It's from mathematics. Computer science just uses the same syntax.
Emissivity is also a constant. It is a measured constant. It likewise doesn't change.
Could you please define constant?
Also frequency can also be wavelength, as λν=c, where λ is wavelength, ν is frequency, and c is the speed of light.
"emissivity is the proportion of radiation emitted compared with a blackbody, and is also a function of wavelength and direction" - https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/24/planck-stefan-boltzmann-kirchhoff-and-lte/
Edited on 10-10-2018 02:14 |
| 10-10-2018 02:08 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Spysauce wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spysauce wrote:
I'm learning Stefan-Boltzmann equation and Planck equation now in school and looked up on the internet how they are related. Planck's equation (radiation emitted as a function of temperature which varies with wavelength) is integrated across all wavelength's to get Stefan Boltzmann's equation (E = εσT^4).
Meanwhile:
- the S-B constant: σ=5.67 x 10-8
- ε: emissivity is 1 for blackbody (ideal gas) or a value between 0 and 1
and some syntax (at least in Computer science):
- constant means it doesn't change
- variable means it changes or is calculated
S-B constant doesn't change, ε is a variable and is calculated.
S-B equation is also equal to P/A, which is power emitted over an area, and power is doing work over time. Radiance is then work done over time over the area (of the body). So, all Stefan-Boltzmann's equation is doing is calculating the area under the Planck curves, right? That is: the total energy radiated. While Planck's curves mean the radiation emitted at certain points.
This is correct. The Stefan-Boltzmann law cay be generated by integrating over all frequencies of light in Planck's law. That's why there is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
The total energy radiated is all frequencies combined. The emissivity is also over all frequencies combined. Radiance still follows Planck's curve.
The syntax isn't from computer science. It's from mathematics. Computer science just uses the same syntax.
Emissivity is also a constant. It is a measured constant. It likewise doesn't change.
Could you please define constant?
An unchanging value over all independent variable values of the equation.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 10-10-2018 02:11 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Yes. Frequency is also a wavelength. The two are inversions of each other. If you know the frequency and the speed of the wave, you can calculate the wavelength.
In a perfect vacuum the speed of light is a constant of nature. Light can travel slower than that though. It does so when it passes through matter. That is why a lens works.
Edited on 10-10-2018 02:12 |
| 10-10-2018 02:21 |
Spysauce☆☆☆☆☆
(3) |
Into the Night wrote:
Spysauce wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spysauce wrote:
I'm learning Stefan-Boltzmann equation and Planck equation now in school and looked up on the internet how they are related. Planck's equation (radiation emitted as a function of temperature which varies with wavelength) is integrated across all wavelength's to get Stefan Boltzmann's equation (E = εσT^4).
Meanwhile:
- the S-B constant: σ=5.67 x 10-8
- ε: emissivity is 1 for blackbody (ideal gas) or a value between 0 and 1
and some syntax (at least in Computer science):
- constant means it doesn't change
- variable means it changes or is calculated
S-B constant doesn't change, ε is a variable and is calculated.
S-B equation is also equal to P/A, which is power emitted over an area, and power is doing work over time. Radiance is then work done over time over the area (of the body). So, all Stefan-Boltzmann's equation is doing is calculating the area under the Planck curves, right? That is: the total energy radiated. While Planck's curves mean the radiation emitted at certain points.
This is correct. The Stefan-Boltzmann law cay be generated by integrating over all frequencies of light in Planck's law. That's why there is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
The total energy radiated is all frequencies combined. The emissivity is also over all frequencies combined. Radiance still follows Planck's curve.
The syntax isn't from computer science. It's from mathematics. Computer science just uses the same syntax.
Emissivity is also a constant. It is a measured constant. It likewise doesn't change.
Could you please define constant?
An unchanging value over all independent variable values of the equation.
That's what confused me on the first page when everyone was going back and forth on how it is and isn't a constant. |
| 10-10-2018 06:14 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Spysauce wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spysauce wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spysauce wrote:
I'm learning Stefan-Boltzmann equation and Planck equation now in school and looked up on the internet how they are related. Planck's equation (radiation emitted as a function of temperature which varies with wavelength) is integrated across all wavelength's to get Stefan Boltzmann's equation (E = εσT^4).
Meanwhile:
- the S-B constant: σ=5.67 x 10-8
- ε: emissivity is 1 for blackbody (ideal gas) or a value between 0 and 1
and some syntax (at least in Computer science):
- constant means it doesn't change
- variable means it changes or is calculated
S-B constant doesn't change, ε is a variable and is calculated.
S-B equation is also equal to P/A, which is power emitted over an area, and power is doing work over time. Radiance is then work done over time over the area (of the body). So, all Stefan-Boltzmann's equation is doing is calculating the area under the Planck curves, right? That is: the total energy radiated. While Planck's curves mean the radiation emitted at certain points.
This is correct. The Stefan-Boltzmann law cay be generated by integrating over all frequencies of light in Planck's law. That's why there is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
The total energy radiated is all frequencies combined. The emissivity is also over all frequencies combined. Radiance still follows Planck's curve.
The syntax isn't from computer science. It's from mathematics. Computer science just uses the same syntax.
Emissivity is also a constant. It is a measured constant. It likewise doesn't change.
Could you please define constant?
An unchanging value over all independent variable values of the equation.
That's what confused me on the first page when everyone was going back and forth on how it is and isn't a constant.
...The problem is that itn claims that atmospheric gases do not have heat content while the Boltzmann constant quantifies it. I saw where he paraphrased what you said to act like he was teaching you something. After all, it only takes basic math to know when you multiply λν=c that you can divide c by either λ or ν to get the other value. He called it inversion.
..At the same time he'll say that Boltzmann's constant (3/2kt or 3/2Rt) is falsifiable. That a gas cannot have heat content according to Boltzmann's ideal gas law. What kind of reasonable person would claim soemone's work to be fraudulent and then claim that you can trust work that person did? He likes to mess with people.
Edited on 10-10-2018 06:33 |
| 10-10-2018 07:08 |
AK_User☆☆☆☆☆
(25) |
James_ wrote:
I've been told that the Stefan-Boltzmann is all anyone needs to know about climate change. This is it or so I am told (double entendre);
The value of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is approximately 5.67 x 10^-8 watt per meter squared per kelvin to the fourth (W · m^-2 · K^-4 ).
What it's supporters ignore is the Boltzmann Constant. After all since they are applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant to the emissivity of our planet they are then applying it to atmospheric gases. And this means they are treating our atmosphere as a black body that has minimal density.
R ( gas constant )
k = ----
Na ( Avogadro constant )
Myself I do think that our climate (atmospheric gases and how solar radiation or other physical phenomena effects it) can be factored.It is known that pressure changes heat but that a change in it's composition can change radiative forcing as well. And since the Boltzmann Constant is based on an ideal gas it does not take into consideration that gases will be effected differently by the same amount of solar radiation or a change in temperature in Kelvins.
This is because angular momentum will not show as an increase in linear momentum of which is a primary consideration in the Boltzmann Constant while Angular Momentum is not considered at all.
But as Neil deGrasse Tyson said in his video, a scientist's work should be improved upon or expanded because that is the nature of science.
As for myself,I have no need to debate science with people who do not have the time to consider how it is applied. They know who they are because they say I am wrong in trying to understand climate change. It is changing,it's the why it's changing that isn't very well understood in my opinion.
Jim
You have been told incorrectly. The Stefan-Boltzmann equations only apply to an abstract physical model called a "black body." It cannot be applied to any other body. Particularly a real-word object, since there are no naturally occurring black bodies.
Any result you get applying Stefan-Boltzmann in the real-world will be wrong. |
| 10-10-2018 19:16 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James___ wrote:
Spysauce wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spysauce wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spysauce wrote:
I'm learning Stefan-Boltzmann equation and Planck equation now in school and looked up on the internet how they are related. Planck's equation (radiation emitted as a function of temperature which varies with wavelength) is integrated across all wavelength's to get Stefan Boltzmann's equation (E = εσT^4).
Meanwhile:
- the S-B constant: σ=5.67 x 10-8
- ε: emissivity is 1 for blackbody (ideal gas) or a value between 0 and 1
and some syntax (at least in Computer science):
- constant means it doesn't change
- variable means it changes or is calculated
S-B constant doesn't change, ε is a variable and is calculated.
S-B equation is also equal to P/A, which is power emitted over an area, and power is doing work over time. Radiance is then work done over time over the area (of the body). So, all Stefan-Boltzmann's equation is doing is calculating the area under the Planck curves, right? That is: the total energy radiated. While Planck's curves mean the radiation emitted at certain points.
This is correct. The Stefan-Boltzmann law cay be generated by integrating over all frequencies of light in Planck's law. That's why there is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
The total energy radiated is all frequencies combined. The emissivity is also over all frequencies combined. Radiance still follows Planck's curve.
The syntax isn't from computer science. It's from mathematics. Computer science just uses the same syntax.
Emissivity is also a constant. It is a measured constant. It likewise doesn't change.
Could you please define constant?
An unchanging value over all independent variable values of the equation.
That's what confused me on the first page when everyone was going back and forth on how it is and isn't a constant.
...The problem is that itn claims that atmospheric gases do not have heat content
Heat is not a content.
James___ wrote:
while the Boltzmann constant quantifies it.
No, it doesn't.
James___ wrote:
..At the same time he'll say that Boltzmann's constant (3/2kt or 3/2Rt) is falsifiable. No, it's a constant of nature.
James___ wrote:
That a gas cannot have heat content Heat is not a 'content'.
James___ wrote:
according to Boltzmann's ideal gas law. Boltzmann never wrote an ideal gas law.
James___ wrote:
What kind of reasonable person would claim soemone's work to be fraudulent and then claim that you can trust work that person did? He likes to mess with people.
Making stuff is your own problem, dude. Go learn the actual theory.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 10-10-2018 19:18 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
AK_User wrote:
James_ wrote:
I've been told that the Stefan-Boltzmann is all anyone needs to know about climate change. This is it or so I am told (double entendre);
The value of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is approximately 5.67 x 10^-8 watt per meter squared per kelvin to the fourth (W · m^-2 · K^-4 ).
What it's supporters ignore is the Boltzmann Constant. After all since they are applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant to the emissivity of our planet they are then applying it to atmospheric gases. And this means they are treating our atmosphere as a black body that has minimal density.
R ( gas constant )
k = ----
Na ( Avogadro constant )
Myself I do think that our climate (atmospheric gases and how solar radiation or other physical phenomena effects it) can be factored.It is known that pressure changes heat but that a change in it's composition can change radiative forcing as well. And since the Boltzmann Constant is based on an ideal gas it does not take into consideration that gases will be effected differently by the same amount of solar radiation or a change in temperature in Kelvins.
This is because angular momentum will not show as an increase in linear momentum of which is a primary consideration in the Boltzmann Constant while Angular Momentum is not considered at all.
But as Neil deGrasse Tyson said in his video, a scientist's work should be improved upon or expanded because that is the nature of science.
As for myself,I have no need to debate science with people who do not have the time to consider how it is applied. They know who they are because they say I am wrong in trying to understand climate change. It is changing,it's the why it's changing that isn't very well understood in my opinion.
Jim
You have been told incorrectly. The Stefan-Boltzmann equations only apply to an abstract physical model called a "black body." It cannot be applied to any other body. Particularly a real-word object, since there are no naturally occurring black bodies.
Any result you get applying Stefan-Boltzmann in the real-world will be wrong.
WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to ALL bodies. You are trying to remove the emissivity term in the equation again. The ideal black body is a reference point. It is where emissivity equals one. There is also an ideal white body, where emissivity equals zero.
All real bodies are somewhere in between.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 10-10-2018 21:01 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Spysauce wrote:
That's what confused me on the first page when everyone was going back and forth on how it is and isn't a constant.
If you let the kooks on this forum help with your homework the phrase "would you like fries with that?" will feature prominently in your future.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 10-10-2018 22:28 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
spot wrote:
Spysauce wrote:
That's what confused me on the first page when everyone was going back and forth on how it is and isn't a constant.
If you let the kooks on this forum help with your homework the phrase "would you like fries with that?" will feature prominently in your future.
This from the cell phone salesman.
Hey, any job worth doing is worth doing well, right? |
| 10-10-2018 22:41 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
Spysauce wrote:
That's what confused me on the first page when everyone was going back and forth on how it is and isn't a constant.
If you let the kooks on this forum help with your homework the phrase "would you like fries with that?" will feature prominently in your future.
This from the cell phone salesman.
Hey, any job worth doing is worth doing well, right?
Repair man not sales man, and its a con once you start poking them they are never as good as new, get a new on if your able, Mobile phone sales is much more interesting you get to meet interesting people but I digress the job taught me enough to spot someone lying about his expertise in physics instantly so it has that going for it.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 11-10-2018 00:50 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
Spysauce wrote:
That's what confused me on the first page when everyone was going back and forth on how it is and isn't a constant.
If you let the kooks on this forum help with your homework the phrase "would you like fries with that?" will feature prominently in your future.
This from the cell phone salesman.
Hey, any job worth doing is worth doing well, right?
Repair man not sales man, and its a con once you start poking them they are never as good as new, get a new on if your able, Mobile phone sales is much more interesting you get to meet interesting people but I digress the job taught me enough to spot someone lying about his expertise in physics instantly so it has that going for it.
..Air is a body. That's what the troposphere is. I guess IBdaMann didn't think about that. |
|
| 11-10-2018 00:59 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to ALL bodies. You are trying to remove the emissivity term in the equation again. The ideal black body is a reference point. It is where emissivity equals one. There is also an ideal white body, where emissivity equals zero.
All real bodies are somewhere in between.
...Is that why Planck used steel in his experiments? You don't seem to understand what his work was about. For as much as you try to make it seem so simple there is a lot of research that's done. If people followed your logic then we wouldn't have alloys or bimetallic materials. They don't fit Planck's work because other variables need to be considered. |
| 11-10-2018 01:07 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
Spysauce wrote:
That's what confused me on the first page when everyone was going back and forth on how it is and isn't a constant.
If you let the kooks on this forum help with your homework the phrase "would you like fries with that?" will feature prominently in your future.
This from the cell phone salesman.
Hey, any job worth doing is worth doing well, right?
Repair man not sales man, and its a con once you start poking them they are never as good as new, get a new on if your able, Mobile phone sales is much more interesting you get to meet interesting people but I digress the job taught me enough to spot someone lying about his expertise in physics instantly so it has that going for it.
..Air is a body. That's what the troposphere is. I guess IBdaMann didn't think about that.
He did. Spot just misquotes him.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 11-10-2018 01:08 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to ALL bodies. You are trying to remove the emissivity term in the equation again. The ideal black body is a reference point. It is where emissivity equals one. There is also an ideal white body, where emissivity equals zero.
All real bodies are somewhere in between.
...Is that why Planck used steel in his experiments? You don't seem to understand what his work was about. For as much as you try to make it seem so simple there is a lot of research that's done. If people followed your logic then we wouldn't have alloys or bimetallic materials. They don't fit Planck's work because other variables need to be considered.
More random statements. No other variables need be considered.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 11-10-2018 15:26 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to ALL bodies. You are trying to remove the emissivity term in the equation again. The ideal black body is a reference point. It is where emissivity equals one. There is also an ideal white body, where emissivity equals zero.
All real bodies are somewhere in between.
...Is that why Planck used steel in his experiments? You don't seem to understand what his work was about. For as much as you try to make it seem so simple there is a lot of research that's done. If people followed your logic then we wouldn't have alloys or bimetallic materials. They don't fit Planck's work because other variables need to be considered.
More random statements. No other variables need be considered.
...This is what I'm talking about itn. You can't consider that when alloys are coated that it changes the ability of that alloy to heat. It seems all you can say is if you strike a match that sulfur burns or if you use a prism it refracts light while a magnifying glass concentrates it.
...This is where science differentiates itself from philosophy, ie., your exercises in logic.
..Steel's density is 8.05 g/cm^3 while aluminum's is 2.7 kg/cm^3.
Can you show where their emissivity is proportional to their density? That's your claim. If you can't show it then the Stefan-Boltzmann constant concerns a black body of a given density. Prove me wrong. Otherwise you are refusing to support your own claim. |
| 11-10-2018 16:10 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Spysauce wrote:
That's what confused me on the first page when everyone was going back and forth on how it is and isn't a constant.
...This is where you might see if the Stefamann-Boltzmann is a constant among different metals where it's value is 5.67 x 10^-8 watt per meter squared per kelvin to the fourth (W · m^-2 · K^-4 ) or is proportional. If not then this simply means that different metals have different properties and that the preceding calculations might actually be for steel. The reason I say steel is that is what Planck used for his experiments and it seems what most people use to explore black body radiation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_xHPp-10NU |
| 11-10-2018 18:29 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
...With Planck's constant h = 6.6262 x 10-34 Joule⋅second. This came from his work in black body radiation using steel. This is if anyone gets into the history of physics. h is the potential (E) of a photon emitted by a black body. |
| 11-10-2018 22:21 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to ALL bodies. You are trying to remove the emissivity term in the equation again. The ideal black body is a reference point. It is where emissivity equals one. There is also an ideal white body, where emissivity equals zero.
All real bodies are somewhere in between.
...Is that why Planck used steel in his experiments? You don't seem to understand what his work was about. For as much as you try to make it seem so simple there is a lot of research that's done. If people followed your logic then we wouldn't have alloys or bimetallic materials. They don't fit Planck's work because other variables need to be considered.
More random statements. No other variables need be considered.
...This is what I'm talking about itn. You can't consider that when alloys are coated that it changes the ability of that alloy to heat.
It does not change anything in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There are other forms of heat besides radiance.
James___ wrote:
It seems all you can say is if you strike a match that sulfur burns
There is no sulfur in matches. There is a sulfide salt, that's it. The sulfide is not what burns in a match.
James___ wrote:
or if you use a prism it refracts light while a magnifying glass concentrates it. They both refract light.
James___ wrote:
...This is where science differentiates itself from philosophy,ie., your exercises in logic.
No, you're just ranting.
James___ wrote:
..Steel's density is 8.05 g/cm^3 while aluminum's is 2.7 kg/cm^3. Which is why aluminum is a better material for building airframes.
James___ wrote:
Can you show where their emissivity is proportional to their density? It isn't. It is proportional to temperature.
James___ wrote:
That's your claim. No, it isn't.
James___ wrote:
If you can't show it then the Stefan-Boltzmann constant concerns a black body of a given density. No, it does not.
James___ wrote:
Prove me wrong. Otherwise you are refusing to support your own claim.
radiance=SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
where:
radiance is in watts/sq m of surface area
SBconstant is a constant of nature
emissivity is a measured constant
temperature is in deg K
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 11-10-2018 22:38 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James___ wrote:
Spysauce wrote:
That's what confused me on the first page when everyone was going back and forth on how it is and isn't a constant.
...This is where you might see if the Stefamann-Boltzmann is a constant among different metals It is a constant of nature. It is independent of the material composition.
James___ wrote:
where it's value is 5.67 x 10^-8 watt per meter squared per kelvin to the fourth (W · m^-2 · K^-4 ) or is proportional. A constant is not proportional to anything. You are converting it's units into an equation. It is not.
James___ wrote:
If not then this simply means that different metals have different properties and that the preceding calculations might actually be for steel. It is for all bodies regardless of their composition.
James___ wrote:
The reason I say steel is that is what Planck used for his experiments and it seems what most people use to explore black body radiation.
...deleted unrelated video...
Try videos on the Stefan-Boltzmann law, not Planck's law.
Or you could actually learn the Stefan-Boltzmann law in the first place and how it can be derived from Planck's law.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 11-10-2018 22:39 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
James___ wrote:
...With Planck's constant h = 6.6262 x 10-34 Joule⋅second. This came from his work in black body radiation using steel. This is if anyone gets into the history of physics. h is the potential (E) of a photon emitted by a black body.
Works for any material, not just steel. Composition of the material does not appear in Planck's law either.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 11-10-2018 23:09 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...With Planck's constant h = 6.6262 x 10-34 Joule⋅second. This came from his work in black body radiation using steel. This is if anyone gets into the history of physics. h is the potential (E) of a photon emitted by a black body.
Works for any material, not just steel. Composition of the material does not appear in Planck's law either.
...It's the same thing with gasguzzler, all we have is your word for it. Makes your words hollow and empty like the night. |