LWIR FAILS to Warm the Atmosphere by Empirical Experiment.

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmed? Link?

Of course not...the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F, as a result, it emits everything it absorbs trying to reach its equilibrium temperature...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision that is.

Yes. IR which moves in all directions, even back toward the surface.

No..it only moves towards cooler areas...refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

How does a photon know if it was created by work which would allow it to travel toward warmer matter?

 

[IanC]

CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmed? Link?

Of course not...the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F, as a result, it emits everything it absorbs trying to reach its equilibrium temperature...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision that is.

Yes. IR which moves in all directions, even back toward the surface.

No..it only moves towards cooler areas...refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

How does a photon know if it was created by work which would allow it to travel toward warmer matter?

Yup. Every temperature differential was caused by something.

Once warmed, everything tries to cool down to absolute zero. The problem is finding some other 'everything' to take the energy.

 

[Wuwei]

Newsflash...I didn't derive that equation.

You totally did not understand the example Mamooth set up. Here is his question again.

We have a speck of matter at 20C.

Write the heat flow equation for that speck if the environment around it is at 19.999C, and explain how each term corresponds to which physical process.

Write the heat flow equation for that speck if the environment around it is at 20.001C, and explain how each term corresponds to which physical process.

Your first use of the equation correctly shows the heat flow from the "speck".
Your second equation shows absolutely nothing about that heat flow of the speck. But you change the subject to the heat flow of the enclosing box. It is a simple legitimate question, but you miserably failed to understand it and tried a distraction by focusing on the surround instead of the object in question .

.

 

[jc456]

Newsflash...I didn't derive that equation.

You totally did not understand the example Mamooth set up. Here is his question again.

We have a speck of matter at 20C.

Write the heat flow equation for that speck if the environment around it is at 19.999C, and explain how each term corresponds to which physical process.

Write the heat flow equation for that speck if the environment around it is at 20.001C, and explain how each term corresponds to which physical process.

Your first use of the equation correctly shows the heat flow from the "speck".
Your second equation shows absolutely nothing about that heat flow of the speck. But you change the subject to the heat flow of the enclosing box. It is a simple legitimate question, but you miserably failed to understand it and tried a distraction by focusing on the surround instead of the object in question .

.

well again, as SSDD already said about one hundred times in here, T is always greater than Tc and the 'c' is for cold. so explain how, in the box scenario, he got it wrong? the box would radiate since it is warmer than the speck. That is the 2nd law. why would the box know to violate that law?

 

[Crick]

Wow...

 

[jc456]

Wow...

wow squared.

 

[Crick]

the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F

Still wondering what the F this statement is supposed to mean. Can ANYONE here explain to me what an "equilbrium temperature" might be?

 

[mamooth]

Of course you did...if you knew the first thing about the SB law, you would have phrased the question differently...the SB law assumes that T is always warmer than Tc...(the c is for cold)

You and your lackey here are the only humans that I've ever seen who claim such a crazy thing. Here's how the normal people say it works.

Net energy out = A*e*sigma *T1^4 - A*e*sigma T2^4.

The first term is heat radiated out, the second is heat absorbed from the environment. It holds for all combinations of T1 (object temp) and T2 (enviro temp).

Now, since you won't explain your theory in detail, I'm going to take my best attempt at it, based on what you've told us.

If T1 < T2, you say the equation is the same.

If T1 > T2, you say this is the new equation:

Net energy out = A*e*sigma (T1^4 - T2^4) - 0

Where again the first term is energy out, and the second term (the zero) is energy in. It reduces to the same thing as the first equation, but the physical working of the terms is quite different. In your magical system, as soon as the environment temp drops below the object temp, the radiation of the object changes from

A*e*sigma *T1^4

to

A*e*sigma (T1^4 - T2^4)

That is, not only does the environment somehow know not to radiated towards the object, but the object itself makes a very abrupt jump in the way it radiates to the environment, instantly going from radiating strongly to hardly radiating at all.

So, what physical process causes the matter in both the object and in the environment to make such an abrupt change in how they radiate?

Can you think of an experiment to prove your theory is correct? Can you think of an experiment that would disprove it?

Occam's razor says the simplest theory that explains the observed data is most likely to be correct. While you've twisted reality around so that your theory sort of explains the observed data, you version is a far more complicated theory than the mainstream theory. Do you advocate ignoring the razor only in this case?

 

[SSDD]

Newsflash...I didn't derive that equation.

You totally did not understand the example Mamooth set up. Here is his question again.

We have a speck of matter at 20C.

Write the heat flow equation for that speck if the environment around it is at 19.999C, and explain how each term corresponds to which physical process.

Write the heat flow equation for that speck if the environment around it is at 20.001C, and explain how each term corresponds to which physical process.

Your first use of the equation correctly shows the heat flow from the "speck".
Your second equation shows absolutely nothing about that heat flow of the speck. But you change the subject to the heat flow of the enclosing box. It is a simple legitimate question, but you miserably failed to understand it and tried a distraction by focusing on the surround instead of the object in question .

.

That is because there is no heat flow from the speck...The SB law assumes that T is warmer than Tc (here is a clue...the c in Tc is for cold)...If you are going to use the SB equation, to look at energy flow between objects of different temperature, then you are obliged to show energy moving in one direction from a warm object to a cold object...sorry...it doesn't work any other way.

The miserable misunderstanding belongs to you and the hairball...thinking that you can get a two way energy flow out of that equation...the hairball tried doing it with the equation reserved for a radiator radiating into a vacuum...you try to make Tc warmer than T...you really can't read an equation, can you?

 

[SSDD]

Of course you did...if you knew the first thing about the SB law, you would have phrased the question differently...the SB law assumes that T is always warmer than Tc...(the c is for cold)

You and your lackey here are the only humans that I've ever seen who claim such a crazy thing. Here's how the normal people say it works.

Net energy out = A*e*sigma *T1^4 - A*e*sigma T2^4.

There is no "net" energy...and you can't derive it from the SB equation...

Here are the proper forms of the equations related to the SB law:

The thermal energy radiated by a black body radiator per second per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature and is given by

(MY NOTE) This equation describes a perfect black body perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum...in other words...a model that doesn't exist)


For hot objects other than ideal radiators, the law is expressed in the form:

where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form

(MY NOTE) The author states net radiation loss...but there is no expression within that equation, or any of the equations from which net may be derived...it is an opinion, not expressed in either the law, or the associated equations.

The Stefan-Boltzmann relationship is also related to the energy density in the radiation in a given volume of space.

The first term is heat radiated out, the second is heat absorbed from the environment. It holds for all combinations of T1 (object temp) and T2 (enviro temp).

(MY NOTE) The statement above is what I have been trying to explain to you goops....T is the radiator...Tc is the cooler background...There is no expression within the equation wherein the cooler back ground radiates anything...and you note that they don't use the goofy bastardized equation used by alarmist cultist nuts which allows Tc to be set to a higher temperature than T)

Now, since you won't explain your theory in detail, I'm going to take my best attempt at it, based on what you've told us.

I have no theory...I only have the physical law, and the proper use of the equations....you have some nut ball idea that you can somehow set the temperature of Tc to a higher temperature than T and by magic, make energy flow spontaneously in two directions in direct contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics...

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.


And do keep in mind that the SB law is just talking about energy flows...Wuwei likes to pretend that heat is somehow not energy...but with the SB law, heat is not a consideration..it only deals with energy flows...and as the second law says, ENERGY WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERARAURE OBJECT.

That fact is the reason the SB law assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc... The c is for (cool) and unlike you cultists...S-B respect the second law of thermodynamics and never suggest that energy can flow spontaneously from cool to warm.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmed? Link?

Of course not...the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F, as a result, it emits everything it absorbs trying to reach its equilibrium temperature...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision that is.

Yes. IR which moves in all directions, even back toward the surface.

No..it only moves towards cooler areas...refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

How does a photon know if it was created by work which would allow it to travel toward warmer matter?

 

[Wuwei]

That is because there is no heat flow from the speck...

Totally wrong.

The SB law assumes that T is warmer than Tc

Totally wrong.

If you are going to use the SB equation, to look at energy flow between objects of different temperature, then you are obliged to show energy moving in one direction from a warm object to a cold object.

Totally wrong.

The miserable misunderstanding belongs to you and the hairball.

You are essentially saying every physicist has a miserable understanding. You are alone in your fake science .

When I say you are totally wrong. I mean you disagree with every physicist and text book and you promote the violation of many physical laws and observations and experiments. We have been through this many times but you prefer to remain a troll.

.

 

[jc456]

CO2 that absorbs IR isn't warmed? Link?

Of course not...the equilibrium temperature of CO2 is about -80F, as a result, it emits everything it absorbs trying to reach its equilibrium temperature...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision that is.

Yes. IR which moves in all directions, even back toward the surface.

No..it only moves towards cooler areas...refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

refer to the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy will not move SPONTANEOUSLY from a cool area to a warmer area

How does a photon know if it was created by work which would allow it to travel toward warmer matter?

maybe you should ask it.

 

[jc456]

That is because there is no heat flow from the speck...

Totally wrong.

The SB law assumes that T is warmer than Tc

Totally wrong.

If you are going to use the SB equation, to look at energy flow between objects of different temperature, then you are obliged to show energy moving in one direction from a warm object to a cold object.

Totally wrong.

The miserable misunderstanding belongs to you and the hairball.

You are essentially saying every physicist has a miserable understanding. You are alone in your fake science .

When I say you are totally wrong. I mean you disagree with every physicist and text book and you promote the violation of many physical laws and observations and experiments. We have been through this many times but you prefer to remain a troll.

.

every physicist? you asked them all? read them all, even know them all. your exaggerations are spectacular.

 

[Wuwei]

There is no "net" energy...and you can't derive it from the SB equation.

Totally wrong as usual. This is is a typical derivation understood by everyone but you.

(MY NOTE) This equation describes a perfect black body perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum...in other words...a model that doesn't exist)

That is your wishful thinking. A hot object radiates everywhere. You have no scientific source that says otherwise.

I have no theory...I only have the physical law, and the proper use of the equations...

Total BS. You don't understand thermodynamics. Period.

That fact is the reason the SB law assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc.

Nope. Wrong again. See the Dartmouth paper.

.

 

[jc456]

There is no "net" energy...and you can't derive it from the SB equation.

Totally wrong as usual. This is is a typical derivation understood by everyone but you.

(MY NOTE) This equation describes a perfect black body perfectly alone in a perfect vacuum...in other words...a model that doesn't exist)

That is your wishful thinking. A hot object radiates everywhere. You have no scientific source that says otherwise.

I have no theory...I only have the physical law, and the proper use of the equations...

Total BS. You don't understand thermodynamics. Period.

That fact is the reason the SB law assumes that the temperature of T is always greater than Tc.

Nope. Wrong again. See the Dartmouth paper.

.

explain in your words the equation you just posted. why don't you ever explain it? please enlighten us to your point of that picture.

 

[Crick]

JC, Note the second line in the second portion - beneath the dividing bar. What does that equation begin with? Rnet=. This was in response to SSDD's statement that "There is no "net" energy. You cannot derive it from the SB equation."

 

[jc456]

JC, Note the second line in the second portion - beneath the dividing bar. What does that equation begin with? Rnet=. This was in response to SSDD's statement that "There is no "net" energy. You cannot derive it from the SB equation."

there is no net. it is P. the outcome of the equation is to look for P. power. it isn't for Rnet. SB equation has been posted in nausea in here. The equation looks for P. T is the radiator and Tc the cooler object. the second law says that cold can not move toward warm without work. The SB equation can't be used for CO2, since there is no area of CO2. You folks are truly brainwashed fks.

 

[Crick]

Shakes head

 

[jc456]

Shakes head

keep earplugs in, don't want what brain you have to slide out.