No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

[Crick]

??????

your own expert witness says that a vacuum is not necessary!

How blind are you ian...vacuum is not necessary if you happen to put the radiator into a place where the temperature is 0 degrees K....Where might that be? But you believe what you want...hell, write a paper...point out that S-B's ideal black body was a two dimensional object radiating in only two dimensions....clearly you would rather make an abject fool out of yourself rather than admit that you were wrong at the fundamental level on the S-B law.

This looks to be one of those cases where someone accuses others of doing precisely what they themselves are doing. You're the fool here SID.

 

[SSDD]

??????

your own expert witness says that a vacuum is not necessary!

How blind are you ian...vacuum is not necessary if you happen to put the radiator into a place where the temperature is 0 degrees K....Where might that be? But you believe what you want...hell, write a paper...point out that S-B's ideal black body was a two dimensional object radiating in only two dimensions....clearly you would rather make an abject fool out of yourself rather than admit that you were wrong at the fundamental level on the S-B law.

This looks to be one of those cases where someone accuses others of doing precisely what they themselves are doing. You're the fool here SID.

Sorry crick...the adults were talking...did you say something?

 

[IanC]

Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.

Not nearly as arrogant as you...as evidenced by this post.

Your insistence that the single term S-B equation must be imbedded in a perfect vacuum made me think a little deeper, which always brings along further insights.

Not my insistence...simply the way it is.

I knew that the single term S-B equation was simple, and that the two term S-B equation was horribly complex but I didn't quite understand the simple reason why that is so.

Both terms are incredibly simple... One describes a radiator in a vacuum radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator not in a vacuum radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings.....

The single term S-B equation is a two dimensional object. It is not imbedded in three dimensions.

Do S&B know about this breakthrough? The certainly don't mention it anywhere in their writings...and according to you, the radiator is radiating in all directions...not possible for a two dimensional object.

The two term S-B equation is a comparison of 2 two dimensional objects in a three dimensional volume. With all the extra complications of distance, angles and outside interference.

You jut get goofier and goofier all the time. The level of your arrogance is astounding...rather than just admit that you were wrong about the first equation representing a black body in a vacuum, you have now invented a great mound of bullshit that will undoubtedly become law in your mind.

I reject your insistence of adding a third dimension to a defined two dimensional object. The number produced by the single term S-B equation holds true at all times and is inserted whole into the two term S-B equation.

I really don't care what you reject...your rejection doesn't alter the fact that I am right and you are wrong.

The version of the two term S-B equation that you post up is ultra simplified to emphasis the basic principle. Any real calculation would have to take distance and angles into account. Most importantly, the reason why each object would have to be calculated separately is because they would, in most cases, have different emissivity coefficients.

And yet, that second equation is sufficient for any physicist on earth...only you require something else because since you already know everything, you find that you must invent new stuff to know..

Again, thank you for prodding me into thinking more deeply into the topic.

Clearly, thinking isn't your best thing...all you managed to do was further cloud the issue in your mind. Rather than simply accept the simple truth, you invent an even more elaborate fiction. I took a few minutes yesterday and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe. I admit that I played your part (the part of the simpleton who doesn't understand such a basic concept) rather than get them involved, by default, into this stupid discussion.

The text of my note went as follows:

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

xxxxxxxxx



I got a couple of responses over night and will post more when and if they come.

The first was from Dr Adrian Melott. His was the first note I sent and I only sent the first equation. I modified the note after sending his to add the second statement regarding the second equation.

Here is Dr. Melott's web page with the University of Kansas.

Adrian L. Melott at the University of Kansas

He states :

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."


The second response was from Dr. Eric Poisson. He received the note above (as did all the rest that I sent) in its entirety.

Here is Dr. Poisson's web page from the University of Guelph

Eric Poisson

He states:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

I see his reasoning regarding the addition of a medium at 0K for the first equation, since it would not alter P by adding it as Tcˆ4 in the second equation....although I think the addition is mostly meaningless....and perhaps just a bit of his own musing.

In any case, there are a couple of top shelf physicists who state clearly that the first equation applies in a vacuum...and not just any old radiator radiating any old where.

But I suppose I have wasted my time since you have this whole new cockamamie two dimensional object radiating in 3 dimensions insanity to think about now and proclaim as truth. Tell me, what color is the sky in your delusory world?

Perhaps we are getting muddled in our expectations of what the S-B equations are measuring.

You now seem to be saying that it is only useful for a single object embedded in an environment. The first equation being simplified by making the environment 0K, vacuum or not.

In the expanded second equation, the environment is given a single temperature. Is this realistic? More importantly, is it useful?

A satellite above Earth's atmosphere is sitting in a near perfect vacuum but depending on the direction it is receiving either Cosmic Background Radiation, earth radiation or solar radiation. What is the temperature to be inserted into the equation?

 

[jc456]

Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

Do you think that supports SSDD's nonsensical contention?

Nice deflection. but doesn't answer my question.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick

You misspelled the underlined word.

I-G-N-O-R-A-N-T

Ignorant, if it applied (which it doesn't) can be remedied...stupid...which applies to you can't.

Ignorant, if it applied (which it doesn't) can be remedied

Many have tried and tried, but you're still ignorant.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.

Not nearly as arrogant as you...as evidenced by this post.

Your insistence that the single term S-B equation must be imbedded in a perfect vacuum made me think a little deeper, which always brings along further insights.

Not my insistence...simply the way it is.

I knew that the single term S-B equation was simple, and that the two term S-B equation was horribly complex but I didn't quite understand the simple reason why that is so.

Both terms are incredibly simple... One describes a radiator in a vacuum radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator not in a vacuum radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings.....

The single term S-B equation is a two dimensional object. It is not imbedded in three dimensions.

Do S&B know about this breakthrough? The certainly don't mention it anywhere in their writings...and according to you, the radiator is radiating in all directions...not possible for a two dimensional object.

The two term S-B equation is a comparison of 2 two dimensional objects in a three dimensional volume. With all the extra complications of distance, angles and outside interference.

You jut get goofier and goofier all the time. The level of your arrogance is astounding...rather than just admit that you were wrong about the first equation representing a black body in a vacuum, you have now invented a great mound of bullshit that will undoubtedly become law in your mind.

I reject your insistence of adding a third dimension to a defined two dimensional object. The number produced by the single term S-B equation holds true at all times and is inserted whole into the two term S-B equation.

I really don't care what you reject...your rejection doesn't alter the fact that I am right and you are wrong.

The version of the two term S-B equation that you post up is ultra simplified to emphasis the basic principle. Any real calculation would have to take distance and angles into account. Most importantly, the reason why each object would have to be calculated separately is because they would, in most cases, have different emissivity coefficients.

And yet, that second equation is sufficient for any physicist on earth...only you require something else because since you already know everything, you find that you must invent new stuff to know..

Again, thank you for prodding me into thinking more deeply into the topic.

Clearly, thinking isn't your best thing...all you managed to do was further cloud the issue in your mind. Rather than simply accept the simple truth, you invent an even more elaborate fiction. I took a few minutes yesterday and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe. I admit that I played your part (the part of the simpleton who doesn't understand such a basic concept) rather than get them involved, by default, into this stupid discussion.

The text of my note went as follows:

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

xxxxxxxxx



I got a couple of responses over night and will post more when and if they come.

The first was from Dr Adrian Melott. His was the first note I sent and I only sent the first equation. I modified the note after sending his to add the second statement regarding the second equation.

Here is Dr. Melott's web page with the University of Kansas.

Adrian L. Melott at the University of Kansas

He states :

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."


The second response was from Dr. Eric Poisson. He received the note above (as did all the rest that I sent) in its entirety.

Here is Dr. Poisson's web page from the University of Guelph

Eric Poisson

He states:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

I see his reasoning regarding the addition of a medium at 0K for the first equation, since it would not alter P by adding it as Tcˆ4 in the second equation....although I think the addition is mostly meaningless....and perhaps just a bit of his own musing.

In any case, there are a couple of top shelf physicists who state clearly that the first equation applies in a vacuum...and not just any old radiator radiating any old where.

But I suppose I have wasted my time since you have this whole new cockamamie two dimensional object radiating in 3 dimensions insanity to think about now and proclaim as truth. Tell me, what color is the sky in your delusory world?

What, in these responses, do you think supports your position and refutes ours? We have always insisted the issue was net transfer. Why don't you write these people back and ask them the REAL question. "Does cold matter still radiate even it if is towards warmer matter?" I'm quite certain you didn't because you're afraid of the answer.

Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

What radiates less IR toward the six pack, the interior of the fridge or the interior of the freezer? Why?

 

[jc456]

Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.

Not nearly as arrogant as you...as evidenced by this post.

Your insistence that the single term S-B equation must be imbedded in a perfect vacuum made me think a little deeper, which always brings along further insights.

Not my insistence...simply the way it is.

I knew that the single term S-B equation was simple, and that the two term S-B equation was horribly complex but I didn't quite understand the simple reason why that is so.

Both terms are incredibly simple... One describes a radiator in a vacuum radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator not in a vacuum radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings.....

The single term S-B equation is a two dimensional object. It is not imbedded in three dimensions.

Do S&B know about this breakthrough? The certainly don't mention it anywhere in their writings...and according to you, the radiator is radiating in all directions...not possible for a two dimensional object.

The two term S-B equation is a comparison of 2 two dimensional objects in a three dimensional volume. With all the extra complications of distance, angles and outside interference.

You jut get goofier and goofier all the time. The level of your arrogance is astounding...rather than just admit that you were wrong about the first equation representing a black body in a vacuum, you have now invented a great mound of bullshit that will undoubtedly become law in your mind.

I reject your insistence of adding a third dimension to a defined two dimensional object. The number produced by the single term S-B equation holds true at all times and is inserted whole into the two term S-B equation.

I really don't care what you reject...your rejection doesn't alter the fact that I am right and you are wrong.

The version of the two term S-B equation that you post up is ultra simplified to emphasis the basic principle. Any real calculation would have to take distance and angles into account. Most importantly, the reason why each object would have to be calculated separately is because they would, in most cases, have different emissivity coefficients.

And yet, that second equation is sufficient for any physicist on earth...only you require something else because since you already know everything, you find that you must invent new stuff to know..

Again, thank you for prodding me into thinking more deeply into the topic.

Clearly, thinking isn't your best thing...all you managed to do was further cloud the issue in your mind. Rather than simply accept the simple truth, you invent an even more elaborate fiction. I took a few minutes yesterday and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe. I admit that I played your part (the part of the simpleton who doesn't understand such a basic concept) rather than get them involved, by default, into this stupid discussion.

The text of my note went as follows:

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

xxxxxxxxx



I got a couple of responses over night and will post more when and if they come.

The first was from Dr Adrian Melott. His was the first note I sent and I only sent the first equation. I modified the note after sending his to add the second statement regarding the second equation.

Here is Dr. Melott's web page with the University of Kansas.

Adrian L. Melott at the University of Kansas

He states :

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."


The second response was from Dr. Eric Poisson. He received the note above (as did all the rest that I sent) in its entirety.

Here is Dr. Poisson's web page from the University of Guelph

Eric Poisson

He states:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

I see his reasoning regarding the addition of a medium at 0K for the first equation, since it would not alter P by adding it as Tcˆ4 in the second equation....although I think the addition is mostly meaningless....and perhaps just a bit of his own musing.

In any case, there are a couple of top shelf physicists who state clearly that the first equation applies in a vacuum...and not just any old radiator radiating any old where.

But I suppose I have wasted my time since you have this whole new cockamamie two dimensional object radiating in 3 dimensions insanity to think about now and proclaim as truth. Tell me, what color is the sky in your delusory world?

What, in these responses, do you think supports your position and refutes ours? We have always insisted the issue was net transfer. Why don't you write these people back and ask them the REAL question. "Does cold matter still radiate even it if is towards warmer matter?" I'm quite certain you didn't because you're afraid of the answer.

Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

What radiates less IR toward the six pack, the interior of the fridge or the interior of the freezer? Why?

so you won't answer, go figure. When something like this throws your magic to its knees.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.

Not nearly as arrogant as you...as evidenced by this post.

Your insistence that the single term S-B equation must be imbedded in a perfect vacuum made me think a little deeper, which always brings along further insights.

Not my insistence...simply the way it is.

I knew that the single term S-B equation was simple, and that the two term S-B equation was horribly complex but I didn't quite understand the simple reason why that is so.

Both terms are incredibly simple... One describes a radiator in a vacuum radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator not in a vacuum radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings.....

The single term S-B equation is a two dimensional object. It is not imbedded in three dimensions.

Do S&B know about this breakthrough? The certainly don't mention it anywhere in their writings...and according to you, the radiator is radiating in all directions...not possible for a two dimensional object.

The two term S-B equation is a comparison of 2 two dimensional objects in a three dimensional volume. With all the extra complications of distance, angles and outside interference.

You jut get goofier and goofier all the time. The level of your arrogance is astounding...rather than just admit that you were wrong about the first equation representing a black body in a vacuum, you have now invented a great mound of bullshit that will undoubtedly become law in your mind.

I reject your insistence of adding a third dimension to a defined two dimensional object. The number produced by the single term S-B equation holds true at all times and is inserted whole into the two term S-B equation.

I really don't care what you reject...your rejection doesn't alter the fact that I am right and you are wrong.

The version of the two term S-B equation that you post up is ultra simplified to emphasis the basic principle. Any real calculation would have to take distance and angles into account. Most importantly, the reason why each object would have to be calculated separately is because they would, in most cases, have different emissivity coefficients.

And yet, that second equation is sufficient for any physicist on earth...only you require something else because since you already know everything, you find that you must invent new stuff to know..

Again, thank you for prodding me into thinking more deeply into the topic.

Clearly, thinking isn't your best thing...all you managed to do was further cloud the issue in your mind. Rather than simply accept the simple truth, you invent an even more elaborate fiction. I took a few minutes yesterday and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe. I admit that I played your part (the part of the simpleton who doesn't understand such a basic concept) rather than get them involved, by default, into this stupid discussion.

The text of my note went as follows:

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

xxxxxxxxx



I got a couple of responses over night and will post more when and if they come.

The first was from Dr Adrian Melott. His was the first note I sent and I only sent the first equation. I modified the note after sending his to add the second statement regarding the second equation.

Here is Dr. Melott's web page with the University of Kansas.

Adrian L. Melott at the University of Kansas

He states :

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."


The second response was from Dr. Eric Poisson. He received the note above (as did all the rest that I sent) in its entirety.

Here is Dr. Poisson's web page from the University of Guelph

Eric Poisson

He states:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

I see his reasoning regarding the addition of a medium at 0K for the first equation, since it would not alter P by adding it as Tcˆ4 in the second equation....although I think the addition is mostly meaningless....and perhaps just a bit of his own musing.

In any case, there are a couple of top shelf physicists who state clearly that the first equation applies in a vacuum...and not just any old radiator radiating any old where.

But I suppose I have wasted my time since you have this whole new cockamamie two dimensional object radiating in 3 dimensions insanity to think about now and proclaim as truth. Tell me, what color is the sky in your delusory world?

What, in these responses, do you think supports your position and refutes ours? We have always insisted the issue was net transfer. Why don't you write these people back and ask them the REAL question. "Does cold matter still radiate even it if is towards warmer matter?" I'm quite certain you didn't because you're afraid of the answer.

Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

What radiates less IR toward the six pack, the interior of the fridge or the interior of the freezer? Why?

so you won't answer, go figure. When something like this throws your magic to its knees.

I will answer, right after you do.

 

[IanC]

Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.

Not nearly as arrogant as you...as evidenced by this post.

Your insistence that the single term S-B equation must be imbedded in a perfect vacuum made me think a little deeper, which always brings along further insights.

Not my insistence...simply the way it is.

I knew that the single term S-B equation was simple, and that the two term S-B equation was horribly complex but I didn't quite understand the simple reason why that is so.

Both terms are incredibly simple... One describes a radiator in a vacuum radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator not in a vacuum radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings.....

The single term S-B equation is a two dimensional object. It is not imbedded in three dimensions.

Do S&B know about this breakthrough? The certainly don't mention it anywhere in their writings...and according to you, the radiator is radiating in all directions...not possible for a two dimensional object.

The two term S-B equation is a comparison of 2 two dimensional objects in a three dimensional volume. With all the extra complications of distance, angles and outside interference.

You jut get goofier and goofier all the time. The level of your arrogance is astounding...rather than just admit that you were wrong about the first equation representing a black body in a vacuum, you have now invented a great mound of bullshit that will undoubtedly become law in your mind.

I reject your insistence of adding a third dimension to a defined two dimensional object. The number produced by the single term S-B equation holds true at all times and is inserted whole into the two term S-B equation.

I really don't care what you reject...your rejection doesn't alter the fact that I am right and you are wrong.

The version of the two term S-B equation that you post up is ultra simplified to emphasis the basic principle. Any real calculation would have to take distance and angles into account. Most importantly, the reason why each object would have to be calculated separately is because they would, in most cases, have different emissivity coefficients.

And yet, that second equation is sufficient for any physicist on earth...only you require something else because since you already know everything, you find that you must invent new stuff to know..

Again, thank you for prodding me into thinking more deeply into the topic.

Clearly, thinking isn't your best thing...all you managed to do was further cloud the issue in your mind. Rather than simply accept the simple truth, you invent an even more elaborate fiction. I took a few minutes yesterday and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe. I admit that I played your part (the part of the simpleton who doesn't understand such a basic concept) rather than get them involved, by default, into this stupid discussion.

The text of my note went as follows:

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

xxxxxxxxx



I got a couple of responses over night and will post more when and if they come.

The first was from Dr Adrian Melott. His was the first note I sent and I only sent the first equation. I modified the note after sending his to add the second statement regarding the second equation.

Here is Dr. Melott's web page with the University of Kansas.

Adrian L. Melott at the University of Kansas

He states :

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."


The second response was from Dr. Eric Poisson. He received the note above (as did all the rest that I sent) in its entirety.

Here is Dr. Poisson's web page from the University of Guelph

Eric Poisson

He states:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

I see his reasoning regarding the addition of a medium at 0K for the first equation, since it would not alter P by adding it as Tcˆ4 in the second equation....although I think the addition is mostly meaningless....and perhaps just a bit of his own musing.

In any case, there are a couple of top shelf physicists who state clearly that the first equation applies in a vacuum...and not just any old radiator radiating any old where.

But I suppose I have wasted my time since you have this whole new cockamamie two dimensional object radiating in 3 dimensions insanity to think about now and proclaim as truth. Tell me, what color is the sky in your delusory world?

What, in these responses, do you think supports your position and refutes ours? We have always insisted the issue was net transfer. Why don't you write these people back and ask them the REAL question. "Does cold matter still radiate even it if is towards warmer matter?" I'm quite certain you didn't because you're afraid of the answer.

Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

What radiates less IR toward the six pack, the interior of the fridge or the interior of the freezer? Why?

SSDD says there is no IR in the fridge or freezer, unless you put something warmer or cooler in it.

He doesn't quite grasp the concept that heat flow is a NET balance derived by subtracting the radiation from one object from the radiation of the second. Likewise there is no radiation in an oven.

 

[IanC]

Yah know SSDD, you may be an arrogant prick but I do appreciate that you make me think.

Not nearly as arrogant as you...as evidenced by this post.

Your insistence that the single term S-B equation must be imbedded in a perfect vacuum made me think a little deeper, which always brings along further insights.

Not my insistence...simply the way it is.

I knew that the single term S-B equation was simple, and that the two term S-B equation was horribly complex but I didn't quite understand the simple reason why that is so.

Both terms are incredibly simple... One describes a radiator in a vacuum radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator not in a vacuum radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings.....

The single term S-B equation is a two dimensional object. It is not imbedded in three dimensions.

Do S&B know about this breakthrough? The certainly don't mention it anywhere in their writings...and according to you, the radiator is radiating in all directions...not possible for a two dimensional object.

The two term S-B equation is a comparison of 2 two dimensional objects in a three dimensional volume. With all the extra complications of distance, angles and outside interference.

You jut get goofier and goofier all the time. The level of your arrogance is astounding...rather than just admit that you were wrong about the first equation representing a black body in a vacuum, you have now invented a great mound of bullshit that will undoubtedly become law in your mind.

I reject your insistence of adding a third dimension to a defined two dimensional object. The number produced by the single term S-B equation holds true at all times and is inserted whole into the two term S-B equation.

I really don't care what you reject...your rejection doesn't alter the fact that I am right and you are wrong.

The version of the two term S-B equation that you post up is ultra simplified to emphasis the basic principle. Any real calculation would have to take distance and angles into account. Most importantly, the reason why each object would have to be calculated separately is because they would, in most cases, have different emissivity coefficients.

And yet, that second equation is sufficient for any physicist on earth...only you require something else because since you already know everything, you find that you must invent new stuff to know..

Again, thank you for prodding me into thinking more deeply into the topic.

Clearly, thinking isn't your best thing...all you managed to do was further cloud the issue in your mind. Rather than simply accept the simple truth, you invent an even more elaborate fiction. I took a few minutes yesterday and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe. I admit that I played your part (the part of the simpleton who doesn't understand such a basic concept) rather than get them involved, by default, into this stupid discussion.

The text of my note went as follows:

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

xxxxxxxxx



I got a couple of responses over night and will post more when and if they come.

The first was from Dr Adrian Melott. His was the first note I sent and I only sent the first equation. I modified the note after sending his to add the second statement regarding the second equation.

Here is Dr. Melott's web page with the University of Kansas.

Adrian L. Melott at the University of Kansas

He states :

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."


The second response was from Dr. Eric Poisson. He received the note above (as did all the rest that I sent) in its entirety.

Here is Dr. Poisson's web page from the University of Guelph

Eric Poisson

He states:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

I see his reasoning regarding the addition of a medium at 0K for the first equation, since it would not alter P by adding it as Tcˆ4 in the second equation....although I think the addition is mostly meaningless....and perhaps just a bit of his own musing.

In any case, there are a couple of top shelf physicists who state clearly that the first equation applies in a vacuum...and not just any old radiator radiating any old where.

But I suppose I have wasted my time since you have this whole new cockamamie two dimensional object radiating in 3 dimensions insanity to think about now and proclaim as truth. Tell me, what color is the sky in your delusory world?

What, in these responses, do you think supports your position and refutes ours? We have always insisted the issue was net transfer. Why don't you write these people back and ask them the REAL question. "Does cold matter still radiate even it if is towards warmer matter?" I'm quite certain you didn't because you're afraid of the answer.

Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

What radiates less IR toward the six pack, the interior of the fridge or the interior of the freezer? Why?

so you won't answer, go figure. When something like this throws your magic to its knees.

He did answer, you moron. You're just too stupid to realize it.

 

[jc456]

Not nearly as arrogant as you...as evidenced by this post.

Not my insistence...simply the way it is.

Both terms are incredibly simple... One describes a radiator in a vacuum radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator not in a vacuum radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings.....

Do S&B know about this breakthrough? The certainly don't mention it anywhere in their writings...and according to you, the radiator is radiating in all directions...not possible for a two dimensional object.

You jut get goofier and goofier all the time. The level of your arrogance is astounding...rather than just admit that you were wrong about the first equation representing a black body in a vacuum, you have now invented a great mound of bullshit that will undoubtedly become law in your mind.

I really don't care what you reject...your rejection doesn't alter the fact that I am right and you are wrong.

And yet, that second equation is sufficient for any physicist on earth...only you require something else because since you already know everything, you find that you must invent new stuff to know..

Clearly, thinking isn't your best thing...all you managed to do was further cloud the issue in your mind. Rather than simply accept the simple truth, you invent an even more elaborate fiction. I took a few minutes yesterday and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe. I admit that I played your part (the part of the simpleton who doesn't understand such a basic concept) rather than get them involved, by default, into this stupid discussion.

The text of my note went as follows:

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

xxxxxxxxx



I got a couple of responses over night and will post more when and if they come.

The first was from Dr Adrian Melott. His was the first note I sent and I only sent the first equation. I modified the note after sending his to add the second statement regarding the second equation.

Here is Dr. Melott's web page with the University of Kansas.

Adrian L. Melott at the University of Kansas

He states :

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."


The second response was from Dr. Eric Poisson. He received the note above (as did all the rest that I sent) in its entirety.

Here is Dr. Poisson's web page from the University of Guelph

Eric Poisson

He states:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

I see his reasoning regarding the addition of a medium at 0K for the first equation, since it would not alter P by adding it as Tcˆ4 in the second equation....although I think the addition is mostly meaningless....and perhaps just a bit of his own musing.

In any case, there are a couple of top shelf physicists who state clearly that the first equation applies in a vacuum...and not just any old radiator radiating any old where.

But I suppose I have wasted my time since you have this whole new cockamamie two dimensional object radiating in 3 dimensions insanity to think about now and proclaim as truth. Tell me, what color is the sky in your delusory world?

What, in these responses, do you think supports your position and refutes ours? We have always insisted the issue was net transfer. Why don't you write these people back and ask them the REAL question. "Does cold matter still radiate even it if is towards warmer matter?" I'm quite certain you didn't because you're afraid of the answer.

Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

What radiates less IR toward the six pack, the interior of the fridge or the interior of the freezer? Why?

so you won't answer, go figure. When something like this throws your magic to its knees.

I will answer, right after you do.

why I asked first. you answer first bubba.

 

[jc456]

Not nearly as arrogant as you...as evidenced by this post.

Not my insistence...simply the way it is.

Both terms are incredibly simple... One describes a radiator in a vacuum radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator not in a vacuum radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings.....

Do S&B know about this breakthrough? The certainly don't mention it anywhere in their writings...and according to you, the radiator is radiating in all directions...not possible for a two dimensional object.

You jut get goofier and goofier all the time. The level of your arrogance is astounding...rather than just admit that you were wrong about the first equation representing a black body in a vacuum, you have now invented a great mound of bullshit that will undoubtedly become law in your mind.

I really don't care what you reject...your rejection doesn't alter the fact that I am right and you are wrong.

And yet, that second equation is sufficient for any physicist on earth...only you require something else because since you already know everything, you find that you must invent new stuff to know..

Clearly, thinking isn't your best thing...all you managed to do was further cloud the issue in your mind. Rather than simply accept the simple truth, you invent an even more elaborate fiction. I took a few minutes yesterday and wrote a note to a few top shelf scientists scattered across the globe. I admit that I played your part (the part of the simpleton who doesn't understand such a basic concept) rather than get them involved, by default, into this stupid discussion.

The text of my note went as follows:

Greetings Dr. XXXX

I am terribly sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I am curious, but unable to find a satisfactory answer on the internet and would like an answer from a scientist of some stature if possible regarding the Stefan-Boltzman law. Does the following equation describe a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum, or just any radiator radiating anywhere?

I was under the impression that if the radiator was not in a vacuum (in the presence of any other matter) that the following form of the Stefan Boltzman law must be applied.

Again, sorry to bother you with such a basic question, but I really would appreciate a short answer if possible.

Thank You,

xxxxxxxxx



I got a couple of responses over night and will post more when and if they come.

The first was from Dr Adrian Melott. His was the first note I sent and I only sent the first equation. I modified the note after sending his to add the second statement regarding the second equation.

Here is Dr. Melott's web page with the University of Kansas.

Adrian L. Melott at the University of Kansas

He states :

" If it were not in a vacuum, some modifications might be needed."


The second response was from Dr. Eric Poisson. He received the note above (as did all the rest that I sent) in its entirety.

Here is Dr. Poisson's web page from the University of Guelph

Eric Poisson

He states:

" Hi,
the second formula applies only when the radiator is immersed in a thermal bath at temperature Tc. The first formula applies in vacuum, but it also applies when the radiator is immersed in a medium that happens to be cold (Tc = 0K).
Cheers!
Eric

I see his reasoning regarding the addition of a medium at 0K for the first equation, since it would not alter P by adding it as Tcˆ4 in the second equation....although I think the addition is mostly meaningless....and perhaps just a bit of his own musing.

In any case, there are a couple of top shelf physicists who state clearly that the first equation applies in a vacuum...and not just any old radiator radiating any old where.

But I suppose I have wasted my time since you have this whole new cockamamie two dimensional object radiating in 3 dimensions insanity to think about now and proclaim as truth. Tell me, what color is the sky in your delusory world?

What, in these responses, do you think supports your position and refutes ours? We have always insisted the issue was net transfer. Why don't you write these people back and ask them the REAL question. "Does cold matter still radiate even it if is towards warmer matter?" I'm quite certain you didn't because you're afraid of the answer.

Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

What radiates less IR toward the six pack, the interior of the fridge or the interior of the freezer? Why?

so you won't answer, go figure. When something like this throws your magic to its knees.

He did answer, you moron. You're just too stupid to realize it.

ugh, nope.

 

[IanC]

Okay. I'll give estimates. The freezer is radiating 300w, the fridge is radiating 350w, the room temp beer is radiating 400w.

The beer loses 100w to the freezer (400w out and 300w in), or 50w to the fridge (400w out and 350w in). It cools off twice as fast in the freezer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What, in these responses, do you think supports your position and refutes ours? We have always insisted the issue was net transfer. Why don't you write these people back and ask them the REAL question. "Does cold matter still radiate even it if is towards warmer matter?" I'm quite certain you didn't because you're afraid of the answer.

Crick, does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

does a six pack of beer cool faster in a freezer vs the fridge?

What radiates less IR toward the six pack, the interior of the fridge or the interior of the freezer? Why?

so you won't answer, go figure. When something like this throws your magic to its knees.

I will answer, right after you do.

why I asked first. you answer first bubba.

Okay, the beer cools faster in the freezer.


What radiates less IR toward the six pack, the interior of the fridge or the interior of the freezer? Why?

 

[SSDD]

He doesn't quite grasp the concept that heat flow is a NET balance derived by subtracting the radiation from one object from the radiation of the second. Likewise there is no radiation in an oven.

What you don't seem to grasp is that neither the laws of thermodynamics, nor the SB laws mention anything at all about net energy flows...net is a term based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and yet, you seem to believe that they are fact...why is that ian, considering every observation ever made suggests the contrary?

 

[Crick]

Th-Tc is NET, fool.

 

[SSDD]

Th-Tc is NET, fool.

I am afraid that you are the fool crick...any X-Y equation is a gross change....additional terms are required to describe net...the more you talk, the more clear it becomes that you are a f'ing liar when you claim to be an engineer...hell, even a custodial engineer knows that X-Y describes a gross change...not net.

 

[Crick]

If you were hoping to baffle someone with your bullshit, you failed.

 

[SSDD]

If you were hoping to baffle someone with your bullshit, you failed.

You never know when to stop do you?...that is part and parcel of being stupid.

7-5=2 Now mr wizard, tell us how that describes a "net" change rather than a "gross" change.

Just to be sure that you actually know what the terms gross and net mean (which is questionable after your claim that Th-Tc represented a net change) allow me to give you a general definition of the term.

Gross - The term gross refers to the total amount gained or lost as a result of some activity.

Net - Net refers to the gross amount minus deductions.

You are a fan of wind and solar so perhaps you will grasp an example that uses those terms...

Suppose you have a solar panel on top of your house...Net metering measures how much energy you take from the grid as well as how much energy your solar system puts back in and charges or pays you accordingly (depending on whether you have used more or less energy that your panels generated). Clearly you can't perform that calculation with a two term equation... X amount of Kw shown on your power meter at the beginning of the month....Y amount of energy shown on your power meter at the end of the month....minus the amount of energy provided by your solar panel = the net power you took from the grid.......net power usage..

Gross power use however only deals with the amount of power you draw from the grid...X amount of Kw shown on your meter at the beginning of the month....amount of Kw shown on your power meter at the end of the month....gross power usage.



That being the case, a two term problem such as P=( X-Y) can only represent a gross change. In order to describe net mathematically, one must have additional terms...ie P=(X-Y)-Z

But I am always interested in how people's minds work...it gives insight into what makes them what they are...so by all means, proceed....tell us how a two term equation like P=(X-Y) describes a net change rather than a gross change.

 

[IanC]

The gross flow out of an object is described by the single term first S-B equation and is proportional to its temperature.

If you add a second object then you reapply the single term S-B equation.

You now have two objects with two individual values. If you want to find out what the net amount of radiation is being transferred between the two objects you have to define the volume of space between the two objects, define the areas of the two objects that are radiating, calculate the intersecting radiation from one area to the other after going through the volume of space, and finally subtract the amounts going in opposite directions to give a final net amount.