The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[SSDD]

'NET' is ALWAYS USED WHEN 'WORK' IS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM. It refers to the amount of energy removed by WORK!

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Human skin is doing work to remove heat from the walls of the room?

Try again Todd...

Now your conflating masses of differing sizes to doing work.. AND yes the human heart is doing work... But again you conflate the two... into an unrecognizable jumble...

Now your conflating masses of differing sizes to doing work.

You're the one claiming work has to be done for matter above 0K to emit.

AND yes the human heart is doing work

Excellent. So why are the walls radiating?

Your running in circles Todd... enjoy you're run...

Bob said, as he ran away.

You can not accept basic principals. Until you actually understand them it is pointless to continue...

If they accept basic principles, their religion becomes worthless....they are far to emotionally and intellectually (if you want to apply that word to either of them) invested to risk that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

'NET' is ALWAYS USED WHEN 'WORK' IS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM. It refers to the amount of energy removed by WORK!

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Human skin is doing work to remove heat from the walls of the room?

Try again Todd...

Now your conflating masses of differing sizes to doing work.. AND yes the human heart is doing work... But again you conflate the two... into an unrecognizable jumble...

Now your conflating masses of differing sizes to doing work.

You're the one claiming work has to be done for matter above 0K to emit.

AND yes the human heart is doing work

Excellent. So why are the walls radiating?

Your running in circles Todd... enjoy you're run...

Bob said, as he ran away.

You can not accept basic principals. Until you actually understand them it is pointless to continue...

The basic principals, as well as Science 24 May 1963, say that the walls of the room radiate
toward the warmer human. You agreed in post #570.

So what do I "not accept"?

 

[westwall]

The fact remains that nothing connected to a power source is a spontaneous process....and anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the basics of physics..

Nope, you disagree with the definition of spontaneous process. It is spontaneous if there is no external energy source. And there is none in a penlight.

You are proof that you can't fix stupid....or dishonesty.

There are no external power inputs to a penlight. Look at this and tell me where you see an external power source.
penlight at DuckDuckGo

There aren't? LED's need no power source.....like maybe an EXTERNAL battery? Sure you want to go down that road?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

As the sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons all this is seeing is the photons emitted from all matter above 0K. What it is not doing is warming from that lower temperature and lower energy photon from striking the sensor.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.. Now what can a more energized mass do with a lesser energized photon? Does it reflect it? Absorb it? or does it cool the object it strikes by taking on the energy of the higher energetic state (this is called dampening) IF the photon is now taking on more energy to be re-emitted, then it is cooling the mass.

So what is your magical photon doing?

sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons

I agree. Two way flow. Tell SSDD.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.

Which disproves SSDD's claims.

Sorry guy, that sensor can detect two things.,,itself warming or itself cooling. If it is pointed at something warmer than itself, it gains energy...if it is pointed at something cooler than itself, it loses energy to the cooler object...it converts the amount of, and rate of change across the sensor to a mathematical formula and produces a picture.

Your drawing is of a model...not any actual observed measured effect.

Your drawing is of a model...not any actual observed measured effect.

You should contact the authors and explain that they were wrong to say "net".

Actually, you should provide an observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy flow and prove me wrong...of course we both know that you can't do that so your infantile, impotent mewling juvenile responses are all that is left to you. Have fun with it.

There have been many, many, many sources posted that agree all matter radiates.
Many, many, many posted that agree that at equilibrium, objects emit and absorb at the same time.

You've provided zero sources that back up your claim about one-way only flows.
You've provided zero sources that back up your claim about radiation ceasing at equilibrium.

Go ahead, ask one of the Professors you've emailed directly if radiation ceases at equilibrium.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Try again Todd...

Now your conflating masses of differing sizes to doing work.. AND yes the human heart is doing work... But again you conflate the two... into an unrecognizable jumble...

Now your conflating masses of differing sizes to doing work.

You're the one claiming work has to be done for matter above 0K to emit.

AND yes the human heart is doing work

Excellent. So why are the walls radiating?

Your running in circles Todd... enjoy you're run...

Bob said, as he ran away.

You can not accept basic principals. Until you actually understand them it is pointless to continue...

If they accept basic principles, their religion becomes worthless....they are far to emotionally and intellectually (if you want to apply that word to either of them) invested to risk that.

If they accept basic principles, their religion becomes worthless....

Religion? LOL!

I don't believe a dollar should be spent to save us from "man-made" global warming.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

bolding mine

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.

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

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

As the sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons all this is seeing is the photons emitted from all matter above 0K. What it is not doing is warming from that lower temperature and lower energy photon from striking the sensor.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.. Now what can a more energized mass do with a lesser energized photon? Does it reflect it? Absorb it? or does it cool the object it strikes by taking on the energy of the higher energetic state (this is called dampening) IF the photon is now taking on more energy to be re-emitted, then it is cooling the mass.

So what is your magical photon doing?

sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons

I agree. Two way flow. Tell SSDD.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.

Which disproves SSDD's claims.

Sorry guy, that sensor can detect two things.,,itself warming or itself cooling. If it is pointed at something warmer than itself, it gains energy...if it is pointed at something cooler than itself, it loses energy to the cooler object...it converts the amount of, and rate of change across the sensor to a mathematical formula and produces a picture.

Your drawing is of a model...not any actual observed measured effect.

Interesting that this proves the dampening effect of lower excitement photons. it is a rather unexpected outcome.. but there it is!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

bolding mine

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.

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

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

As the sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons all this is seeing is the photons emitted from all matter above 0K. What it is not doing is warming from that lower temperature and lower energy photon from striking the sensor.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.. Now what can a more energized mass do with a lesser energized photon? Does it reflect it? Absorb it? or does it cool the object it strikes by taking on the energy of the higher energetic state (this is called dampening) IF the photon is now taking on more energy to be re-emitted, then it is cooling the mass.

So what is your magical photon doing?

sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons

I agree. Two way flow. Tell SSDD.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.

Which disproves SSDD's claims.

Sorry guy, that sensor can detect two things.,,itself warming or itself cooling. If it is pointed at something warmer than itself, it gains energy...if it is pointed at something cooler than itself, it loses energy to the cooler object...it converts the amount of, and rate of change across the sensor to a mathematical formula and produces a picture.

Your drawing is of a model...not any actual observed measured effect.

Interesting that this proves the dampening effect of lower excitement photons. it is a rather unexpected outcome.. but there it is!

Interesting that this proves the dampening effect of lower excitement photons.

That's funny.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The fact remains that nothing connected to a power source is a spontaneous process....and anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the basics of physics..

Nope, you disagree with the definition of spontaneous process. It is spontaneous if there is no external energy source. And there is none in a penlight.

You are proof that you can't fix stupid....or dishonesty.

There are no external power inputs to a penlight. Look at this and tell me where you see an external power source.
penlight at DuckDuckGo

Why would you need an "external" power source when batteries are INSIDE of it?

From your own link:

Batteries are DC, which means the energy flow is one way into the lightbulb.

 

[SSDD]

The fact remains that nothing connected to a power source is a spontaneous process....and anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the basics of physics..

Nope, you disagree with the definition of spontaneous process. It is spontaneous if there is no external energy source. And there is none in a penlight.

You are proof that you can't fix stupid....or dishonesty.

There are no external power inputs to a penlight. Look at this and tell me where you see an external power source.
penlight at DuckDuckGo

There aren't? LED's need no power source.....like maybe an EXTERNAL battery? Sure you want to go down that road?

He thinks that so long as they are all in the same box, that the LED must be lighting up spontaneously...he also thinks that since all the components of an airplane are in the same package that an airplane flies spontaneously, and that battery powered refrigerators cool spontaneously, and that cars spontaneously roll up mountains...as long as it is all in the same box....whatever it produces is spontaneous.

 

[SSDD]

The fact remains that nothing connected to a power source is a spontaneous process....and anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the basics of physics..

Nope, you disagree with the definition of spontaneous process. It is spontaneous if there is no external energy source. And there is none in a penlight.

You are proof that you can't fix stupid....or dishonesty.

There are no external power inputs to a penlight. Look at this and tell me where you see an external power source.
penlight at DuckDuckGo

Why would you need an "external" power source when batteries are INSIDE of it?

From your own link:

View attachment 206267

Batteries are DC, which means the energy flow is one way into the lightbulb.

The batteries are in the same package so whatever it produces must be spontaneous according to him. I, and a physics professor pointed out to him that the simple act of pushing a button makes it a non spontaneous process so he suggested taping the button down as if taping a button down were somehow a spontaneous act.

 

[SSDD]

Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

bolding mine

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.

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

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

As the sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons all this is seeing is the photons emitted from all matter above 0K. What it is not doing is warming from that lower temperature and lower energy photon from striking the sensor.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.. Now what can a more energized mass do with a lesser energized photon? Does it reflect it? Absorb it? or does it cool the object it strikes by taking on the energy of the higher energetic state (this is called dampening) IF the photon is now taking on more energy to be re-emitted, then it is cooling the mass.

So what is your magical photon doing?

sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons

I agree. Two way flow. Tell SSDD.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.

Which disproves SSDD's claims.

Sorry guy, that sensor can detect two things.,,itself warming or itself cooling. If it is pointed at something warmer than itself, it gains energy...if it is pointed at something cooler than itself, it loses energy to the cooler object...it converts the amount of, and rate of change across the sensor to a mathematical formula and produces a picture.

Your drawing is of a model...not any actual observed measured effect.

Interesting that this proves the dampening effect of lower excitement photons. it is a rather unexpected outcome.. but there it is!

These guys are very easily fooled by instrumentation. They imagine that instruments are observing, and measuring all sorts of things that they aren't. They really believe that the sensor in a camera pointed at an object colder than the camera is absorbing cold radiation from that object. Of course, what would you expect from someone who is fooled by an LED penlight?

 

[Wuwei]

Why would you need an "external" power source when batteries are INSIDE of it?

Thank you. I agree. That is exactly the point I'm making to SSDD.

 

[Wuwei]

Nope, you need to press a button. Nothing spontaneous about that.

Look at the penlight posted in #588. That has a single push on push off power button. If you follow the thought of your professor, just push the button on, then leave it. It is spontaneous after that.

You are still having trouble understanding spontaneous chemical processes.

Student Resource Glossary
galvanic cell: a device in which chemical energy from a spontaneous redox reaction is changed to electrical energy that can be used to do work

http://www.distributionaccess.com/new/pdf/P52096-001.pdf
Spontaneous chemical reactions that liberate electrical energy are part of a class of reactions known as oxidation-reduction or REDOX reactions.

Electrolytic Cells
Voltaic cells are driven by a spontaneous chemical reaction that produces an electric current through an outside circuit.

What is a Galvanic Cell? - Definition from Corrosionpedia
A galvanic cell is an electrochemical cell that uses the transfer of electrons in redox reactions to supply an electric current. This cell is driven by a spontaneous chemical reaction that produces an electric current through an outside circuit.

The LED is an outside circuit which is a necessary part of the spontaneous process. Otherwise there is no spontaneous chemical reaction. Both the galvanic-cell and LED are enclosed in the penlight system and needs no outside energy. The system is doing work using the spontaneously generated electricity totally inside the penlight.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Wuwei writes,

"Look at the penlight posted in #588. That has a single push on push off power button. If you follow the thought of your professor, just push the button on, then leave it. It is spontaneous after that."

spontaneous

"coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: "

"(of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting."

Pushing the button on, destroys your spontaneous claim. It can't be spontaneous if it required a prior simulation (push button on) for it to work.

Please stop with your tortured explanations...….

 

[Wuwei]

Wuwei writes,

"Look at the penlight posted in #588. That has a single push on push off power button. If you follow the thought of your professor, just push the button on, then leave it. It is spontaneous after that."

spontaneous

"coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: "

"(of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting."

Pushing the button on, destroys your spontaneous claim. It can't be spontaneous if it required a prior simulation (push button on) for it to work.

Please stop with your tortured explanations...….

I'm using the thermodynamic definition of spontaneous. You are not.

 

[polarbear]

Photons don't move spontaneously from cool to warm....but if you feel like you can provide an example that violates the second law, by all means do show it...

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net. If you like, do feel free to show me an observed, measured instance of energy flowing spontaneously in two directions. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible, and the second law has not been changed to reflect net energy flow....it it still describes one way gross energy movement from a more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a less organized state to a more organized state...according to the second law, that isn't possible.

What you are stating as if it were fact, is nothing more than what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model predicts based on yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model....not much substance there to be stating it as if it were real.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

bolding mine

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.

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

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

Great, you even highlighted it, saving me the trouble of doing it.
"A thermal sensor is capable only to a net thermal flux from the object minus flux from itself"
So why did you side with the warmers when SSDD said that a thermal sensor which is as warm (-or warmer) as (-than) the source is not capable to detect the heat coming from the source ? Still looking for a way to actually detect these photons? Good luck !
They do exist, but they are incapable of performing work on the warmer object, meaning a rise in temperature not just a slower cooling of the warmer object.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net. If you like, do feel free to show me an observed, measured instance of energy flowing spontaneously in two directions. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible, and the second law has not been changed to reflect net energy flow....it it still describes one way gross energy movement from a more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a less organized state to a more organized state...according to the second law, that isn't possible.

What you are stating as if it were fact, is nothing more than what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model predicts based on yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model....not much substance there to be stating it as if it were real.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

bolding mine

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.

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

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

Great, you even highlighted it, saving me the trouble of doing it.
"A thermal sensor is capable only to a net thermal flux from the object minus flux from itself"
So why did you side with the warmers when SSDD said that a thermal sensor which is as warm (-or warmer) as (-than) the source is not capable to detect the heat coming from the source ? Still looking for a way to actually detect these photons? Good luck !
They do exist, but they are incapable of performing work on the warmer object, meaning a rise in temperature not just a slower cooling of the warmer object.

So why did you side with the warmers

I'm siding with the people who understand that matter above 0K radiates in all directions, whether warmer matter is nearby or not.

 

[SSDD]

Why would you need an "external" power source when batteries are INSIDE of it?

Thank you. I agree. That is exactly the point I'm making to SSDD.

What a dishonest person...

Yet another professor in physics says that you are quite wrong.

To my question, she replies:

This is a definitional question. I would not describe light emission by an LED as spontaneous, because it requires an input of energy from the power source.

Laurie E. McNeil
Bernard Gray Distinguished Professor
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
CB #3255
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255
mcneil@physics.unc.edu
(919) 962-0963
https://users.physics.unc.edu/~mcneil/home.htm

Face it...you are wrong...and wrong because you simply don't have any grasp of physics at all.

 

[SSDD]

[ QUOTE="SSDD, post: 20414241, member: 40906"]Nope, you need to press a button. Nothing spontaneous about that.

Look at the penlight posted in #588. That has a single push on push off power button. If you follow the thought of your professor, just push the button on, then leave it. It is spontaneous after that.[/quote]

No it isn't...it is powered after that and when the battery dies, the reaction stops..becasue it is a powered reaction, not a spontaneous reaction.

You are still having trouble understanding spontaneous chemical processes.

No...I understand perfectly...and all these college professors in physics are agreeing with me...you on the other hand are quite wrong.


You really should let it go rather than continuing to dig...the more you dig, the more obvious it becomes that you are just a poser who has no education in science...much less physics.

Let me remind you of this: It doesn't get much more clear and yet, you continue to fail to grasp what it is saying. It speaks volumes about you that you can't understand this.

"When we say spontaneous, just remember, we're going to say a reaction that requires no outside energy source is classified as a natural process. Think about it. Let's think of a boulder, a huge rock, rolling down a hill. We're going to say that huge boulder doesn't require any type of energy to roll down that hill. It's using its own momentum in order to do that. We're going to say that since it doesn't require any type of energy for it to happen, then it's a spontaneous reaction. On the flip side, let's say we have a reaction where we have to continuously feed it energy in order for it to occur. If you're supplying a continuous amount of energy to something, we're going to classify it as a non-spontaneous reaction. We're going to say non-spontaneous reactions are unnatural. They constantly need energy for them to occur. Let's say we want to run our car. Our car cannot spontaneously run itself without any type of energy. We have to give it a battery, we have to give it gasoline. Without these sources of energy, the car can’t ignite and start off and move on its own. Just remember, the movement of a car will be classified as a non-spontaneous reaction."

 

[SSDD]

Wuwei writes,

"Look at the penlight posted in #588. That has a single push on push off power button. If you follow the thought of your professor, just push the button on, then leave it. It is spontaneous after that."

spontaneous

"coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: "

"(of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting."

Pushing the button on, destroys your spontaneous claim. It can't be spontaneous if it required a prior simulation (push button on) for it to work.

Please stop with your tortured explanations...….

I'm using the thermodynamic definition of spontaneous. You are not.

Oddly enough, in thermodynamics, spontaneous means the same thing...just one more example of you not knowing what the hell you are talking about...

I have to say though...it is entertaining to watch the mental gyrations and gymnastics you are performing in a failing effort to be right...it indicates some damned interesting psychology at work in that twisted mind of yours.