Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

Here is another conundrum for people who don't believe in the accepted form of the SLoT. I asked this once before, but SSDD declined to answer.

Suppose a cold gas is next to a warm solid surface. The molecules of the cold gas must hit the warm surface. This is an example of energy moving from a colder substance to a warmer substance.

Of course more thermal energy goes from the surface toward the gas than the gas to the surface, thus preserving the well understood form of the SloT.

If for some idiotic reason the molecules of the cold gas are forbidden from moving toward the warm surface, how will the surface lose thermal energy to the gas?

The accepted form of the second law is the one that I keep posting for you wack jobs..if a form of the second law which said that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm were accepted, then that is what the 2nd law would say.

That is a vague answer. The science requires that molecules of a cold gas must be able to hit a warm surface.

Are you saying that molecules of a cold gas must not hit an adjacent warm surface?
A yes or no answer will suffice.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Does evidence cause you pain?

Haven’t seen any. Where’s that blue breath from the girl? Hahahaha loser no observation no evidence!! Check mate

Haven’t seen any.

Of course not. What do the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors know about sensors compared
to SSDD and jc456?

DURR.

I guess that cold doesn't radiate at warm and they don't know how their own product works? I can't answer for them since I am not them. I know what I see, and when the girl breathes out there is no blue cloud out of her mouth basically voiding the fact that the device is measuring cold photons whatever those are, but I'll use your language for ease of discussion. Yet again, no observation has been achieved. Again, the sensor is reading the energy flowing from the device to the cold. Warm to cold as it is written and observed.

I guess that cold doesn't radiate at warm

You guess wrong.

I can't answer for them since I am not them.

You think they're wrong. Send them an email.
Explain your reasoning. When they admit their error, post it here.

I know what I see, and when the girl breathes out there is no blue cloud out of her mouth

Send the manufacturer of that camera an email. Ask them why?
Post their response here.

Again, the sensor is reading the energy flowing from the device to the cold.

Again, as you posted earlier, energy flows in both directions.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux

Again, as you posted earlier, energy flows in both directions.

yep positive energy in and negative energy flux for the out Ohms law. your magical photons are not coming from the ice cream

Yup. Like I said, "Sometimes JC says something that completely disagrees with SSDD's idiocy
and needs to have his face rubbed in the contradiction before he notices and reverts to agreeing"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, the sensor observes the net thermal flux.
They wrote an entire book about the sensors that observe.
Is English your second language?

“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell. It is the mathematical difference between influx and efflux. Net flux = Influx − Efflux. Similar to influx and efflux, net flux is reported as a rate.Jan 3, 2014”

I gave my explanation as this relates to.

Net flux = Influx − Efflux

You don't have to tell me, you have to explain to SSDD that he's wrong.

“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell.

In or out. Doesn’t say in and out. Just saying. Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.

Net flux = Influx − Efflux.

I agree.

Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.

Quick, notify the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors, Third Edition, that their picture on page 106
shows energy moving back and forth between the sensor and the object.
Tell them your feelings about the lack of evidence.
Please post their response.

And isn’t observed. provide an actual snap shot rather than a drawing?

And isn’t observed.

Right, the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors have never observed what they illustrated.

DERP!

Let me know their response to your emailed correction. THANKS!!

 

[jc456]

Haven’t seen any. Where’s that blue breath from the girl? Hahahaha loser no observation no evidence!! Check mate

Haven’t seen any.

Of course not. What do the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors know about sensors compared
to SSDD and jc456?

DURR.

I guess that cold doesn't radiate at warm and they don't know how their own product works? I can't answer for them since I am not them. I know what I see, and when the girl breathes out there is no blue cloud out of her mouth basically voiding the fact that the device is measuring cold photons whatever those are, but I'll use your language for ease of discussion. Yet again, no observation has been achieved. Again, the sensor is reading the energy flowing from the device to the cold. Warm to cold as it is written and observed.

I guess that cold doesn't radiate at warm

You guess wrong.

I can't answer for them since I am not them.

You think they're wrong. Send them an email.
Explain your reasoning. When they admit their error, post it here.

I know what I see, and when the girl breathes out there is no blue cloud out of her mouth

Send the manufacturer of that camera an email. Ask them why?
Post their response here.

Again, the sensor is reading the energy flowing from the device to the cold.

Again, as you posted earlier, energy flows in both directions.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux

Again, as you posted earlier, energy flows in both directions.

yep positive energy in and negative energy flux for the out Ohms law. your magical photons are not coming from the ice cream

Yup. Like I said, "Sometimes JC says something that completely disagrees with SSDD's idiocy
and needs to have his face rubbed in the contradiction before he notices and reverts to agreeing"

nope

 

[jc456]

“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell. It is the mathematical difference between influx and efflux. Net flux = Influx − Efflux. Similar to influx and efflux, net flux is reported as a rate.Jan 3, 2014”

I gave my explanation as this relates to.

Net flux = Influx − Efflux

You don't have to tell me, you have to explain to SSDD that he's wrong.

“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell.

In or out. Doesn’t say in and out. Just saying. Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.

Net flux = Influx − Efflux.

I agree.

Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.

Quick, notify the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors, Third Edition, that their picture on page 106
shows energy moving back and forth between the sensor and the object.
Tell them your feelings about the lack of evidence.
Please post their response.

And isn’t observed. provide an actual snap shot rather than a drawing?

And isn’t observed.

Right, the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors have never observed what they illustrated.

DERP!

Let me know their response to your emailed correction. THANKS!!

not what you think that is for sure.

 

[jc456]

“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell. It is the mathematical difference between influx and efflux. Net flux = Influx − Efflux. Similar to influx and efflux, net flux is reported as a rate.Jan 3, 2014”

I gave my explanation as this relates to.

Net flux = Influx − Efflux

You don't have to tell me, you have to explain to SSDD that he's wrong.

“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell.

In or out. Doesn’t say in and out. Just saying. Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.

Net flux = Influx − Efflux.

I agree.

Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.

Quick, notify the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors, Third Edition, that their picture on page 106
shows energy moving back and forth between the sensor and the object.
Tell them your feelings about the lack of evidence.
Please post their response.

And isn’t observed. provide an actual snap shot rather than a drawing?

And isn’t observed.

Right, the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors have never observed what they illustrated.

DERP!

Let me know their response to your emailed correction. THANKS!!

here from their document,

http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

"For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object)."

yo yo bubba, from their own paper. you call em and tell them they are wrong.

 

[jc456]

Haven’t seen any. Where’s that blue breath from the girl? Hahahaha loser no observation no evidence!! Check mate

Haven’t seen any.

Of course not. What do the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors know about sensors compared
to SSDD and jc456?

DURR.

I guess that cold doesn't radiate at warm and they don't know how their own product works? I can't answer for them since I am not them. I know what I see, and when the girl breathes out there is no blue cloud out of her mouth basically voiding the fact that the device is measuring cold photons whatever those are, but I'll use your language for ease of discussion. Yet again, no observation has been achieved. Again, the sensor is reading the energy flowing from the device to the cold. Warm to cold as it is written and observed.

I guess that cold doesn't radiate at warm

You guess wrong.

I can't answer for them since I am not them.

You think they're wrong. Send them an email.
Explain your reasoning. When they admit their error, post it here.

I know what I see, and when the girl breathes out there is no blue cloud out of her mouth

Send the manufacturer of that camera an email. Ask them why?
Post their response here.

Again, the sensor is reading the energy flowing from the device to the cold.

Again, as you posted earlier, energy flows in both directions.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux

Again, as you posted earlier, energy flows in both directions.

yep positive energy in and negative energy flux for the out Ohms law. your magical photons are not coming from the ice cream

Yup. Like I said, "Sometimes JC says something that completely disagrees with SSDD's idiocy
and needs to have his face rubbed in the contradiction before he notices and reverts to agreeing"

LOL magic photons is all you got.

http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

"The term sensor should be distinguished from transducer. The latter is a converter of any one type of energy into another, whereas the former converts any type of energy into electrical energy. An example of a transducer is a loudspeaker, which converts an electrical signal into a variable magnetic field and, subsequently, into acoustic waves.2 This is nothing to do with perception or sensing. Transducers may be used as actuators in various systems. An actuator may be described as an opposite to a sensor; it converts electrical signal into generally nonelectrical energy. For example, an electric motor is an actuator; it converts electric energy into mechanical action. Another example is a pneumatic actuator that is enabled by an electric signal."

 

[jc456]

And finally:
http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

"Finally, photon flux is detected by a photodiode and converted into electric current. In this chapter, we discuss the overall sensor characteristics, regardless of a physical nature or steps that are required to make energy conversions. Here, we consider a sensor as a “black box” where we concern only with relationships between its output electrical signal and input stimulus. Also, we will discuss the key point of sensing: computation of the input stimulus value from a measured sensor’s electric output."

So it looks like this company agrees with SSDD.

 

[jc456]

or even this paragraph: Just like SSDD stated again.

http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

"A pilot (excitation) light is generated by a light emitting diode (LED), transmitted via an optical fiber to the object and reflected from its surface. The reflected photon flux enters the receiving optical fiber and propagates toward a photodiode where it produces an electric current representing the distance from the fiber optic end to the object. We see that such a sensor involves transformation of electrical current into photons, propagation of photons through some refractive media, reflection, and conversion back into electric current. Therefore, such a sensing process includes two energy conversion steps and a manipulation of the optical signal as well. There are sever"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Net flux = Influx − Efflux

You don't have to tell me, you have to explain to SSDD that he's wrong.

“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell.

In or out. Doesn’t say in and out. Just saying. Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.

Net flux = Influx − Efflux.

I agree.

Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.

Quick, notify the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors, Third Edition, that their picture on page 106
shows energy moving back and forth between the sensor and the object.
Tell them your feelings about the lack of evidence.
Please post their response.

And isn’t observed. provide an actual snap shot rather than a drawing?

And isn’t observed.

Right, the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors have never observed what they illustrated.

DERP!

Let me know their response to your emailed correction. THANKS!!

here from their document,

http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

"For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object)."

yo yo bubba, from their own paper. you call em and tell them they are wrong.

Thanks for the link.

Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy. Of course, one should not be confused by an obvious fact that transmission of energy can flow both ways – it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object. A special case is when the net energy flow is zero, which also carries information about existence of that particular case. For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object). When both the sensor and the object are at the same temperature, the flux is zero and the output voltage is zero. This carries a message that the temperatures are the same.

^
Here's the complete paragraph.

The bolded portions disagree with SSDD, and you, I guess.
He claims energy can only flow one way.
He also claims there is never "net energy flow".

Keep trying. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Haven’t seen any.

Of course not. What do the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors know about sensors compared
to SSDD and jc456?

DURR.

I guess that cold doesn't radiate at warm and they don't know how their own product works? I can't answer for them since I am not them. I know what I see, and when the girl breathes out there is no blue cloud out of her mouth basically voiding the fact that the device is measuring cold photons whatever those are, but I'll use your language for ease of discussion. Yet again, no observation has been achieved. Again, the sensor is reading the energy flowing from the device to the cold. Warm to cold as it is written and observed.

I guess that cold doesn't radiate at warm

You guess wrong.

I can't answer for them since I am not them.

You think they're wrong. Send them an email.
Explain your reasoning. When they admit their error, post it here.

I know what I see, and when the girl breathes out there is no blue cloud out of her mouth

Send the manufacturer of that camera an email. Ask them why?
Post their response here.

Again, the sensor is reading the energy flowing from the device to the cold.

Again, as you posted earlier, energy flows in both directions.
Net flux = Influx − Efflux

Again, as you posted earlier, energy flows in both directions.

yep positive energy in and negative energy flux for the out Ohms law. your magical photons are not coming from the ice cream

Yup. Like I said, "Sometimes JC says something that completely disagrees with SSDD's idiocy
and needs to have his face rubbed in the contradiction before he notices and reverts to agreeing"

LOL magic photons is all you got.

http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

"The term sensor should be distinguished from transducer. The latter is a converter of any one type of energy into another, whereas the former converts any type of energy into electrical energy. An example of a transducer is a loudspeaker, which converts an electrical signal into a variable magnetic field and, subsequently, into acoustic waves.2 This is nothing to do with perception or sensing. Transducers may be used as actuators in various systems. An actuator may be described as an opposite to a sensor; it converts electrical signal into generally nonelectrical energy. For example, an electric motor is an actuator; it converts electric energy into mechanical action. Another example is a pneumatic actuator that is enabled by an electric signal."

You'll have to show me where I ever made a claim about transducers.

 

[jillian]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

where is the link to your purported source?

feel free to learn from actual scientists.

warmers?

there isn't any cure for stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And finally:
http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

"Finally, photon flux is detected by a photodiode and converted into electric current. In this chapter, we discuss the overall sensor characteristics, regardless of a physical nature or steps that are required to make energy conversions. Here, we consider a sensor as a “black box” where we concern only with relationships between its output electrical signal and input stimulus. Also, we will discuss the key point of sensing: computation of the input stimulus value from a measured sensor’s electric output."

So it looks like this company agrees with SSDD.

You'll have to show me his post that is somehow backed up by this passage.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

or even this paragraph: Just like SSDD stated again.

http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

"A pilot (excitation) light is generated by a light emitting diode (LED), transmitted via an optical fiber to the object and reflected from its surface. The reflected photon flux enters the receiving optical fiber and propagates toward a photodiode where it produces an electric current representing the distance from the fiber optic end to the object. We see that such a sensor involves transformation of electrical current into photons, propagation of photons through some refractive media, reflection, and conversion back into electric current. Therefore, such a sensing process includes two energy conversion steps and a manipulation of the optical signal as well. There are sever"

The reflected photon flux enters the receiving optical fiber

You'll have to show me where anyone was discussing reflected photons.

 

[jc456]

“Definition: Net flux represents the amount of substance moved in or out of the cell.

In or out. Doesn’t say in and out. Just saying. Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.

Net flux = Influx − Efflux.

I agree.

Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.

Quick, notify the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors, Third Edition, that their picture on page 106
shows energy moving back and forth between the sensor and the object.
Tell them your feelings about the lack of evidence.
Please post their response.

And isn’t observed. provide an actual snap shot rather than a drawing?

And isn’t observed.

Right, the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors have never observed what they illustrated.

DERP!

Let me know their response to your emailed correction. THANKS!!

here from their document,

http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

"For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object)."

yo yo bubba, from their own paper. you call em and tell them they are wrong.

Thanks for the link.

Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy. Of course, one should not be confused by an obvious fact that transmission of energy can flow both ways – it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object. A special case is when the net energy flow is zero, which also carries information about existence of that particular case. For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object). When both the sensor and the object are at the same temperature, the flux is zero and the output voltage is zero. This carries a message that the temperatures are the same.

^
Here's the complete paragraph.

The bolded portions disagree with SSDD, and you, I guess.
He claims energy can only flow one way.
He also claims there is never "net energy flow".

Keep trying. LOL!

yep, it's a good link, you should read better on the two way energy flow as that sentence continues...
"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object." This is exactly what I'm saying and SSDD, he can chime in here if he's interested..
and then there is this.... I thought all things emit all the time even if at the same temperature, well?

"When both the sensor and the object are at the same temperature, the flux is zero and the output voltage is zero. This carries a message that the temperatures are the same."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Net flux = Influx − Efflux.

I agree.

Still waiting on observation. Pictures aren’t evidence.

Quick, notify the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors, Third Edition, that their picture on page 106
shows energy moving back and forth between the sensor and the object.
Tell them your feelings about the lack of evidence.
Please post their response.

And isn’t observed. provide an actual snap shot rather than a drawing?

And isn’t observed.

Right, the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors have never observed what they illustrated.

DERP!

Let me know their response to your emailed correction. THANKS!!

here from their document,

http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

"For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object)."

yo yo bubba, from their own paper. you call em and tell them they are wrong.

Thanks for the link.

Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy. Of course, one should not be confused by an obvious fact that transmission of energy can flow both ways – it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object. A special case is when the net energy flow is zero, which also carries information about existence of that particular case. For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object). When both the sensor and the object are at the same temperature, the flux is zero and the output voltage is zero. This carries a message that the temperatures are the same.

^
Here's the complete paragraph.

The bolded portions disagree with SSDD, and you, I guess.
He claims energy can only flow one way.
He also claims there is never "net energy flow".

Keep trying. LOL!

yep, it's a good link, you should read better on the two way energy flow as that sentence continues...
"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object." This is exactly what I'm saying and SSDD, he can chime in here if he's interested..
and then there is this.... I thought all things emit all the time even if at the same temperature, well?

"When both the sensor and the object are at the same temperature, the flux is zero and the output voltage is zero. This carries a message that the temperatures are the same."

When they're discussing flux, they're discussing net flow.


From page 129.....

The Stefan-Boltzmann law specifies the radiant power (flux) that would be emanated from a surface of temperature, T, toward an infinitely cold space (at absolute zero). When thermal radiation is detected by a thermal sensor, the opposite flowing radiation from the sensor toward the object must also be accounted for. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

Keep trying!!

 

[jc456]

And isn’t observed. provide an actual snap shot rather than a drawing?

And isn’t observed.

Right, the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors have never observed what they illustrated.

DERP!

Let me know their response to your emailed correction. THANKS!!

here from their document,

http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

"For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object)."

yo yo bubba, from their own paper. you call em and tell them they are wrong.

Thanks for the link.

Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy. Of course, one should not be confused by an obvious fact that transmission of energy can flow both ways – it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object. A special case is when the net energy flow is zero, which also carries information about existence of that particular case. For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object). When both the sensor and the object are at the same temperature, the flux is zero and the output voltage is zero. This carries a message that the temperatures are the same.

^
Here's the complete paragraph.

The bolded portions disagree with SSDD, and you, I guess.
He claims energy can only flow one way.
He also claims there is never "net energy flow".

Keep trying. LOL!

yep, it's a good link, you should read better on the two way energy flow as that sentence continues...
"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object." This is exactly what I'm saying and SSDD, he can chime in here if he's interested..
and then there is this.... I thought all things emit all the time even if at the same temperature, well?

"When both the sensor and the object are at the same temperature, the flux is zero and the output voltage is zero. This carries a message that the temperatures are the same."

When they're discussing flux, they're discussing net flow.


From page 129.....

The Stefan-Boltzmann law specifies the radiant power (flux) that would be emanated from a surface of temperature, T, toward an infinitely cold space (at absolute zero). When thermal radiation is detected by a thermal sensor, the opposite flowing radiation from the sensor toward the object must also be accounted for. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

Keep trying!!

Funny, but you need to reread it

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And isn’t observed.

Right, the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors have never observed what they illustrated.

DERP!

Let me know their response to your emailed correction. THANKS!!

here from their document,

http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

"For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object)."

yo yo bubba, from their own paper. you call em and tell them they are wrong.

Thanks for the link.

Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy. Of course, one should not be confused by an obvious fact that transmission of energy can flow both ways – it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object. A special case is when the net energy flow is zero, which also carries information about existence of that particular case. For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object). When both the sensor and the object are at the same temperature, the flux is zero and the output voltage is zero. This carries a message that the temperatures are the same.

^
Here's the complete paragraph.

The bolded portions disagree with SSDD, and you, I guess.
He claims energy can only flow one way.
He also claims there is never "net energy flow".

Keep trying. LOL!

yep, it's a good link, you should read better on the two way energy flow as that sentence continues...
"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object." This is exactly what I'm saying and SSDD, he can chime in here if he's interested..
and then there is this.... I thought all things emit all the time even if at the same temperature, well?

"When both the sensor and the object are at the same temperature, the flux is zero and the output voltage is zero. This carries a message that the temperatures are the same."

When they're discussing flux, they're discussing net flow.


From page 129.....

The Stefan-Boltzmann law specifies the radiant power (flux) that would be emanated from a surface of temperature, T, toward an infinitely cold space (at absolute zero). When thermal radiation is detected by a thermal sensor, the opposite flowing radiation from the sensor toward the object must also be accounted for. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

Keep trying!!

Funny, but you need to reread it

OK.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

 

[jc456]

here from their document,

http://www.realtechsupport.org/UB/SR/sensors/Fraden_Sensors_2010.pdf

"For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object)."

yo yo bubba, from their own paper. you call em and tell them they are wrong.

Thanks for the link.

Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy. Of course, one should not be confused by an obvious fact that transmission of energy can flow both ways – it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object. A special case is when the net energy flow is zero, which also carries information about existence of that particular case. For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object). When both the sensor and the object are at the same temperature, the flux is zero and the output voltage is zero. This carries a message that the temperatures are the same.

^
Here's the complete paragraph.

The bolded portions disagree with SSDD, and you, I guess.
He claims energy can only flow one way.
He also claims there is never "net energy flow".

Keep trying. LOL!

yep, it's a good link, you should read better on the two way energy flow as that sentence continues...
"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object." This is exactly what I'm saying and SSDD, he can chime in here if he's interested..
and then there is this.... I thought all things emit all the time even if at the same temperature, well?

"When both the sensor and the object are at the same temperature, the flux is zero and the output voltage is zero. This carries a message that the temperatures are the same."

When they're discussing flux, they're discussing net flow.


From page 129.....

The Stefan-Boltzmann law specifies the radiant power (flux) that would be emanated from a surface of temperature, T, toward an infinitely cold space (at absolute zero). When thermal radiation is detected by a thermal sensor, the opposite flowing radiation from the sensor toward the object must also be accounted for. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

Keep trying!!

Funny, but you need to reread it

OK.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

yes, so?

"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks for the link.

Any sensor is an energy converter. No matter what you try to measure, you always deal with energy transfer from the object of measurement to the sensor. The process of sensing is a particular case of information transfer, and any transmission of information requires transmission of energy. Of course, one should not be confused by an obvious fact that transmission of energy can flow both ways – it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object. A special case is when the net energy flow is zero, which also carries information about existence of that particular case. For example, a thermopile infrared radiation sensor will produce a positive voltage when the object is warmer than the sensor (infrared flux is flowing to the sensor) or the voltage is negative when the object is cooler than the sensor (infrared flux flows from the sensor to the object). When both the sensor and the object are at the same temperature, the flux is zero and the output voltage is zero. This carries a message that the temperatures are the same.

^
Here's the complete paragraph.

The bolded portions disagree with SSDD, and you, I guess.
He claims energy can only flow one way.
He also claims there is never "net energy flow".

Keep trying. LOL!

yep, it's a good link, you should read better on the two way energy flow as that sentence continues...
"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object." This is exactly what I'm saying and SSDD, he can chime in here if he's interested..
and then there is this.... I thought all things emit all the time even if at the same temperature, well?

"When both the sensor and the object are at the same temperature, the flux is zero and the output voltage is zero. This carries a message that the temperatures are the same."

When they're discussing flux, they're discussing net flow.


From page 129.....

The Stefan-Boltzmann law specifies the radiant power (flux) that would be emanated from a surface of temperature, T, toward an infinitely cold space (at absolute zero). When thermal radiation is detected by a thermal sensor, the opposite flowing radiation from the sensor toward the object must also be accounted for. A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

Keep trying!!

Funny, but you need to reread it

OK.

A thermal sensor is capable of responding only to a net thermal flux, i.e., flux from the object minus flux from itself toward the object.

yes, so?

"it may be with a positive sign as well as with a negative sign; that is, energy can flow either from an object to the sensor or from the sensor to the object."

Yup. Net to or away.