Trenberth's Energy Budget

[gslack]

thought experiments using basic principles are the best way to understand anything without getting bogged down in extraneous complexities.

why do you consider it a failed experiment?

It was a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A poster named Gord, among others, disproved spencer's claims and one couldn't help but notice that spencer didn't attempt a rebuttal. In the end, he was unable to adequately defend his experiment. Also, the experiment takes place in a perfect vaccum (as opposed to the open atmosphere) and that, in and of itself takes it out of the realm of reality and makes it a pointless exercise.

As A non-scientist. I see one problem.. Maybe its my nature to notice the obvious... But the second plate shouldn't cause the first plate to get hotter, the heat source sets the temperature of it. The second plate is an insulator forcing more heat retention in the first.. The first plate will get hotter because less or slower heat loss causing a build up of heat energy. But if the first plate is at maximum temperature the heat source produces it will not get hotter than its source.

its a logic test... he is associating heat retention due to an added insulator with an increase in heat energy. Maybe I dont have all the terms or scientific jargon to give this a proper explanation, but in essence this is a logic test. All he did was switch a concept and use misleading terms to confound the simplicity of it all. Everyone was arguing his methods and convection, etc. but no one asked the simple thing..

The temp of the first plate will not go beyond that allowed by its heat source. Adding the second plate slows the heat loss, but that does not constitute more heat due to the second plate.

WTH? is it really that easy to distract smart people?

 

[IanC]

thought experiments using basic principles are the best way to understand anything without getting bogged down in extraneous complexities.

why do you consider it a failed experiment?

It was a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A poster named Gord, among others, disproved spencer's claims and one couldn't help but notice that spencer didn't attempt a rebuttal. In the end, he was unable to adequately defend his experiment. Also, the experiment takes place in a perfect vaccum (as opposed to the open atmosphere) and that, in and of itself takes it out of the realm of reality and makes it a pointless exercise.

As A non-scientist. I see one problem.. Maybe its my nature to notice the obvious... But the second plate shouldn't cause the first plate to get hotter, the heat source sets the temperature of it. The second plate is an insulator forcing more heat retention in the first.. The first plate will get hotter because less or slower heat loss causing a build up of heat energy. But if the first plate is at maximum temperature the heat source produces it will not get hotter than its source.

its a logic test... he is associating heat retention due to an added insulator with an increase in heat energy. Maybe I dont have all the terms or scientific jargon to give this a proper explanation, but in essence this is a logic test. All he did was switch a concept and use misleading terms to confound the simplicity of it all. Everyone was arguing his methods and convection, etc. but no one asked the simple thing..

The temp of the first plate will not go beyond that allowed by its heat source. Adding the second plate slows the heat loss, but that does not constitute more heat due to the second plate.

WTH? is it really that easy to distract smart people?

well, you are right that the experiment is a test of analytical skills. unfortunately you fail again.

the conditions are that the bars are in a cooled thermos with a vacuum to represent outer space. the bars arent touching so there is no conduction, there is no air so there is no convection. that leaves only radiation. heat loss through radiation is proportional to difference in temperature between the radiator and the absorber.

both bars will be warmer than if only one bar was present. the extra heat comes from the area of radiation blocked from escaping to 'outer space' from both bars. so in reality 'outer space is cooler by the same amount that is retained by the bars.


the earth's surface and atmosphere are much more complicated, with conduction convection and water-based effects coming into play. so what? the question was 'can something cooler make a warm thing warmer'. the answer to that is yes, depending on the conditions.

 

[IanC]

while I appreciate the need to be as accurate as possible in calculating how much energy is coming in, what real difference does it make? the energy in must match the energy out. surely no one actually thinks the estimates for the various pathways in and out are fixed in stone, they are just a model to get a better understanding of what may be going on.

That budget is not based on anything even remotely resembling reality. How then, do you suppose it represents anything even resembling reality? As has been pointed out, if the earth is modeled as a rotating sphere being irradiated across 180 degrees of its surface, and dark across 180 degrees of its surface, a fictitious greenhouse effect is not necessary to account for the observed temperatures on the earth. That is a pretty "real" difference if you ask me.

And what sort of understanding do you suppose is to be gleaned from a model that doesn't even approach reality?

well, I dont really disagree with you. but most of the inputs and outputs are still there even if you dont agree with the actual figures for them. I am all for better models but I cant see just throwing out the existing model until it is supplanted with a better one.

 

[wirebender]

thought experiments using basic principles are the best way to understand anything without getting bogged down in extraneous complexities.

why do you consider it a failed experiment?

It was a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A poster named Gord, among others, disproved spencer's claims and one couldn't help but notice that spencer didn't attempt a rebuttal. In the end, he was unable to adequately defend his experiment. Also, the experiment takes place in a perfect vaccum (as opposed to the open atmosphere) and that, in and of itself takes it out of the realm of reality and makes it a pointless exercise.

As A non-scientist. I see one problem.. Maybe its my nature to notice the obvious... But the second plate shouldn't cause the first plate to get hotter, the heat source sets the temperature of it. The second plate is an insulator forcing more heat retention in the first.. The first plate will get hotter because less or slower heat loss causing a build up of heat energy. But if the first plate is at maximum temperature the heat source produces it will not get hotter than its source.

its a logic test... he is associating heat retention due to an added insulator with an increase in heat energy. Maybe I dont have all the terms or scientific jargon to give this a proper explanation, but in essence this is a logic test. All he did was switch a concept and use misleading terms to confound the simplicity of it all. Everyone was arguing his methods and convection, etc. but no one asked the simple thing..

The temp of the first plate will not go beyond that allowed by its heat source. Adding the second plate slows the heat loss, but that does not constitute more heat due to the second plate.

WTH? is it really that easy to distract smart people?

Precisely. The energy input to the heated plate establishes the maximum temperature and to get even the smallest fraction of one degree above that is to create energy and that simply can not happen.

 

[wirebender]

well, you are right that the experiment is a test of analytical skills. unfortunately you fail again.

Well someone failed, unfortunately for you, since you believe yourself to be the smartest guy in the room you don't realize that it was you.

the conditions are that the bars are in a cooled thermos with a vacuum to represent outer space. the bars arent touching so there is no conduction, there is no air so there is no convection. that leaves only radiation. heat loss through radiation is proportional to difference in temperature between the radiator and the absorber.

It doesn't matter whether it was in a vaccum or not Ian. The second law and the law of conservation of energy are laws of nature, not laws of systems or laws of vacuums, or laws of anything else you care to name. They apply everywhere.

both bars will be warmer than if only one bar was present. the extra heat comes from the area of radiation blocked from escaping to 'outer space' from both bars. so in reality 'outer space is cooler by the same amount that is retained by the bars.

The electrical energy coming into the heated bar establishes the maximum temperature. It can not go higher than that because to do so would be to create energy. You were shown mathematically that it can not happen and instead of grasping what you saw, you reverted to your faith that cool objects can heat warmer objects.

Here is the proof that was shown to you Ian. What precisely do you find to be wrong with the math?

Re: Vacuum Chamber with plates.

First, identify the ONLY energy source in the Vacuum Chamber with an electric heater.

The ONLY energy source is the ELECTRIC HEATER that heats a plate with electricity to a temperature of 150 deg F or 338.56 K.

Asuume an emissivity = 1 and a surface Area for the plate = 1 m^2

Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the Watts provided by the Electric Heater is:

P = e*BC*A*T^4

Where P = net radiated power (Watts), e = emissivity, BC = Stefan’s constant 5.67 X 10^-8, A = area and T = temperature of radiator in K

P = (5.67X10^-8) X 1m^2 X (338.56 K)^4 = 744.95 Watts

(***That’s ALL the Energy Available and cannot be exceeded without CREATING ENERGY***)

The EM field produced by the plate is 744.95 Watts/ 1 m^2 = 744.95 w/m^2
——–
If another identical “non-heated” and colder plate is inserted into the Vacuum Chamber next to the heated Plate then:

The 2nd Plate also has an emissivity = 1 and a surface Area for the 2nd plate = 1 m^2

We can easily determine the equilibrium temperature of both plates by using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and The Law of Conservation of Energy.

The TOTAL amount of energy available is 744.95 Watts and both plates will have the same temperature at equilibrium, so they can be considered to be a single radiating body with double the radiating surface area.

The area of both plates = 2 m^2 so the Radiation emitted by both plates at equilibrium = 744.95 Watts / 2 m^2 = 372.48 w/m^2

And the equilibrium temperature for both plates will be 284.69 K or 53 deg F.
————-
NOTE:

This is simple effect is demonstrated every day and is happening in your Computer right now.

It’s called a “Heat Sink” and is used to cool the microprocessor in your computer by increasing the radiating surface area of the microprocessor.

Here was the mathematical proof that in order for the heated bar to reach a temperature of 160, additional energy would have to be created.

PROOF:
160 deg F = 344.11 K and that means it would require:
P = (5.67X10^-8) X 1m^2 X (344.11 K)^4 = 795 Watts!

795 Watts exceeds the TOTAL Energy available which is 744.95 Watts.

An obvious violation of The Law of Conservation of Energy.

You were shown that in order to get the heated plate to 160 degrees, an additional 50.05 watts above and beyond what is available is required. Where do you believe that additional energy came from? The plate that had no power source? Well of course you believe that is where it came from because you also beleive that the atmosphere, which is not an energy source, provides energy to the surface of the earth.

the earth's surface and atmosphere are much more complicated, with conduction convection and water-based effects coming into play. so what?

Hell yeah it is more complicated but you are fooled by a very simple thought experiment in which it is claimed that by placing a non powered bar next to a powered bar you can somehow coax 6.7 more watts out of the system than is going in. If that is possible, why aren't we doing it on a large scale and making use of that excess energy? Someone should be making billions off of the process.

The question was 'can something cooler make a warm thing warmer'. the answer to that is yes, depending on the conditions

The answer is no Ian. You accept that it can happen on faith, not on the basis of any physical law and there is no condition that we can create in which the second law of thermodynamics or the law of conservation of energy is violated. Hell Ian, that experiment violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics even if you throw in the fictitious "net" energy flow allowing energy from cool objects to be absorbed by warm objects but the net result is that more energy is radiated to the cooler object because the net result of that experiment was that the heated bar actually got hotter.

 

[wirebender]

well, I dont really disagree with you. but most of the inputs and outputs are still there even if you dont agree with the actual figures for them. I am all for better models but I cant see just throwing out the existing model until it is supplanted with a better one.

The inputs are there, but the outputs are the result of a falsehood. They are based on something other than reality so why on earth should they be used for anything other than perhaps a bird cage liner?

Why keep a model that is patently and obviously wrong simply because the climate change community won't accept a more realistic model? We both know the answer to that question Ian. It is because a more realistic model doesn't require an ad hoc greenhouse effect to explain the temperature of the earth and without an ad hoc greenhouse effect, there is no climate alarmism and without climate alarmism, the grant money will dry up faster than a puddle of piss in Death Valley.

 

[IanC]

well, you are right that the experiment is a test of analytical skills. unfortunately you fail again.

Well someone failed, unfortunately for you, since you believe yourself to be the smartest guy in the room you don't realize that it was you.

the conditions are that the bars are in a cooled thermos with a vacuum to represent outer space. the bars arent touching so there is no conduction, there is no air so there is no convection. that leaves only radiation. heat loss through radiation is proportional to difference in temperature between the radiator and the absorber.

It doesn't matter whether it was in a vaccum or not Ian. The second law and the law of conservation of energy are laws of nature, not laws of systems or laws of vacuums, or laws of anything else you care to name. They apply everywhere.



The electrical energy coming into the heated bar establishes the maximum temperature. It can not go higher than that because to do so would be to create energy. You were shown mathematically that it can not happen and instead of grasping what you saw, you reverted to your faith that cool objects can heat warmer objects.

Here is the proof that was shown to you Ian. What precisely do you find to be wrong with the math?

Re: Vacuum Chamber with plates.

First, identify the ONLY energy source in the Vacuum Chamber with an electric heater.

The ONLY energy source is the ELECTRIC HEATER that heats a plate with electricity to a temperature of 150 deg F or 338.56 K.

Asuume an emissivity = 1 and a surface Area for the plate = 1 m^2

Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the Watts provided by the Electric Heater is:

P = e*BC*A*T^4

Where P = net radiated power (Watts), e = emissivity, BC = Stefan’s constant 5.67 X 10^-8, A = area and T = temperature of radiator in K

P = (5.67X10^-8) X 1m^2 X (338.56 K)^4 = 744.95 Watts

(***That’s ALL the Energy Available and cannot be exceeded without CREATING ENERGY***)

The EM field produced by the plate is 744.95 Watts/ 1 m^2 = 744.95 w/m^2
——–
If another identical “non-heated” and colder plate is inserted into the Vacuum Chamber next to the heated Plate then:

The 2nd Plate also has an emissivity = 1 and a surface Area for the 2nd plate = 1 m^2

We can easily determine the equilibrium temperature of both plates by using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and The Law of Conservation of Energy.

The TOTAL amount of energy available is 744.95 Watts and both plates will have the same temperature at equilibrium, so they can be considered to be a single radiating body with double the radiating surface area.

The area of both plates = 2 m^2 so the Radiation emitted by both plates at equilibrium = 744.95 Watts / 2 m^2 = 372.48 w/m^2

And the equilibrium temperature for both plates will be 284.69 K or 53 deg F.
————-
NOTE:

This is simple effect is demonstrated every day and is happening in your Computer right now.

It’s called a “Heat Sink” and is used to cool the microprocessor in your computer by increasing the radiating surface area of the microprocessor.

Here was the mathematical proof that in order for the heated bar to reach a temperature of 160, additional energy would have to be created.

PROOF:
160 deg F = 344.11 K and that means it would require:
P = (5.67X10^-8) X 1m^2 X (344.11 K)^4 = 795 Watts!

795 Watts exceeds the TOTAL Energy available which is 744.95 Watts.

An obvious violation of The Law of Conservation of Energy.

You were shown that in order to get the heated plate to 160 degrees, an additional 50.05 watts above and beyond what is available is required. Where do you believe that additional energy came from? The plate that had no power source? Well of course you believe that is where it came from because you also beleive that the atmosphere, which is not an energy source, provides energy to the surface of the earth.

the earth's surface and atmosphere are much more complicated, with conduction convection and water-based effects coming into play. so what?

Hell yeah it is more complicated but you are fooled by a very simple thought experiment in which it is claimed that by placing a non powered bar next to a powered bar you can somehow coax 6.7 more watts out of the system than is going in. If that is possible, why aren't we doing it on a large scale and making use of that excess energy? Someone should be making billions off of the process.

The question was 'can something cooler make a warm thing warmer'. the answer to that is yes, depending on the conditions

The answer is no Ian. You accept that it can happen on faith, not on the basis of any physical law and there is no condition that we can create in which the second law of thermodynamics or the law of conservation of energy is violated. Hell Ian, that experiment violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics even if you throw in the fictitious "net" energy flow allowing energy from cool objects to be absorbed by warm objects but the net result is that more energy is radiated to the cooler object because the net result of that experiment was that the heated bar actually got hotter.

I just went back and looked at Spencer's article again. assuming has made an ass out of me. I assumed that the second bar was also heated but to a lower temp. I cannot believe Spencer could make such a fundemental error. perhaps edthecynic is right about him.

yah what a goof that Spencer is!!!! now if he had said the second bar totally enveloped the first bar it would be obvious that the inside bar would be warmer because of the thermal impedance of the outer bar which would be much cooler than 150 degrees because of the greater surface area to radiate from. the inside heating element would be hotter too because of the insulating property of the outside bar not allowing it to shed heat as quickly as before.

if there was a hole in the outside bar the inside bar would radiate out at a more powerful intensity because the inside was hotter but soon would cool a bit because of the extra radiation allowed to escape. and the outside bar would be a little cooler because some of the heat didnt have to travel through it to escape.

and if you made the hole a little bigger more heat would escape but the inside block would still be hotter than 150 degrees because of the insulating property of the outside bar.

hey! wait a minute!!! if you keep shrinking the outside bar until it only insulates on one side of the inside bar it still adds thermal impedance and causes the heated bar to be warmer!

the heated bar has less surface area available to transfer heat to the cold outer space therefore the remaining surface area is hotter to shed the same amount of available heat.


wirebender dont quit your day job because you wouldnt make it as a physicist. retard, did you really think a noted scientist and physicist would make stupid mistakes and leave them uncorrected?

 

[wirebender]

I just went back and looked at Spencer's article again. assuming has made an ass out of me. I assumed that the second bar was also heated but to a lower temp. I cannot believe Spencer could make such a fundemental error. perhaps edthecynic is right about him.

It goes much deeper than that Ian. The entire climate change community, right down to the textbooks used to teach climate science are using a form of the Stefan-Boltzman Law that allows two way energy exchange between warm and cool objects. The version of SB that they are using is not, and never has been used or supported in the physics literature. As I said, "net" is a concoction. It is another example of ad hoc pseudoscience by the climate science community to address an inconvenient fact.

yah what a goof that Spencer is!!!! now if he had said the second bar totally enveloped the first bar it would be obvious that the inside bar would be warmer because of the thermal impedance of the outer bar which would be much cooler than 150 degrees because of the greater surface area to radiate from. the inside heating element would be hotter too because of the insulating property of the outside bar not allowing it to shed heat as quickly as before.

Insulation can not make a thing get hotter Ian. Insulation can only slow down the rate at which it cools. The amount of power going into the heated bar establishes the maximum temperature possible. You can not coax even the tiniest fraction of a watt beyond that no matter how much you reflect, insultate, or surround. To do so would be a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

and if you made the hole a little bigger more heat would escape but the inside block would still be hotter than 150 degrees because of the insulating property of the outside bar.

You could never get that heated bar above 150 unless you bring in more electricity.

Look again Ian:

P = e*BC*A*T^4

Where P = net radiated power (Watts), e = emissivity, BC = Stefan’s constant 5.67 X 10^-8, A = area and T = temperature of radiator in K

P = (5.67X10^-8) X 1m^2 X (338.56 K)^4 = 744.95 Watts

hey! wait a minute!!! if you keep shrinking the outside bar until it only insulates on one side of the inside bar it still adds thermal impedance and causes the heated bar to be warmer!

The only way to make the heated bar warmer than 150 is to either add more electricity or reduce the size of the heated bar.

the heated bar has less surface area available to transfer heat to the cold outer space therefore the remaining surface area is hotter to shed the same amount of available heat.

No Ian, if you reduce the size of the non heated bar, the only thing you will achieve is to reach equilibrium faster at which point, the two can be considered to be a single radiating unit.

wirebender dont quit your day job because you wouldnt make it as a physicist. retard, did you really think a noted scientist and physicist would make stupid mistakes and leave them uncorrected?

His whole exercise is flawed Ian because he is assuming wrongly that a cool object can radiate energy to a warmer object in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I asked before, what is wrong with the math that proves the experiment wrong. I note that neither Dr. Spencer, nor you have any answer.

By the way, noted physicists make stupid mistakes and leave them uncorrected all the time. It would be nothing new.

 

[gslack]

It was a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A poster named Gord, among others, disproved spencer's claims and one couldn't help but notice that spencer didn't attempt a rebuttal. In the end, he was unable to adequately defend his experiment. Also, the experiment takes place in a perfect vaccum (as opposed to the open atmosphere) and that, in and of itself takes it out of the realm of reality and makes it a pointless exercise.

As A non-scientist. I see one problem.. Maybe its my nature to notice the obvious... But the second plate shouldn't cause the first plate to get hotter, the heat source sets the temperature of it. The second plate is an insulator forcing more heat retention in the first.. The first plate will get hotter because less or slower heat loss causing a build up of heat energy. But if the first plate is at maximum temperature the heat source produces it will not get hotter than its source.

its a logic test... he is associating heat retention due to an added insulator with an increase in heat energy. Maybe I dont have all the terms or scientific jargon to give this a proper explanation, but in essence this is a logic test. All he did was switch a concept and use misleading terms to confound the simplicity of it all. Everyone was arguing his methods and convection, etc. but no one asked the simple thing..

The temp of the first plate will not go beyond that allowed by its heat source. Adding the second plate slows the heat loss, but that does not constitute more heat due to the second plate.

WTH? is it really that easy to distract smart people?

well, you are right that the experiment is a test of analytical skills. unfortunately you fail again.

the conditions are that the bars are in a cooled thermos with a vacuum to represent outer space. the bars arent touching so there is no conduction, there is no air so there is no convection. that leaves only radiation. heat loss through radiation is proportional to difference in temperature between the radiator and the absorber.

both bars will be warmer than if only one bar was present. the extra heat comes from the area of radiation blocked from escaping to 'outer space' from both bars. so in reality 'outer space is cooler by the same amount that is retained by the bars.


the earth's surface and atmosphere are much more complicated, with conduction convection and water-based effects coming into play. so what? the question was 'can something cooler make a warm thing warmer'. the answer to that is yes, depending on the conditions.

Ian I have been as tolerant as I am going to be with you lately considering your behavior and showing not only your true lack of understanding scientifically, but also your complete and total inability to see just how obvious your bullshit has become lately... Do not condescend on me, you lack the ability to do so...

Ian in all of your BULLSHIT above how does that change anything I said? The point still remains the first plate nearest the heat source cannot reach a temperature above that of the heat source. Be it in a vacuum or anywhere else, the point will still remain the same..

Also why add a second bar? We only have one sun...

See Ian I know you can't grasp this but what he did was over-complicate the system with variables and factors that do nothing to further the original concept. All they do is confound it and draw otherwise highly intelligent people into arguing over the variables instead of noticing the simple thing staring them in the face...

The second plate does not make the first plate warmer than its source will allow. That would be creating energy from nothing, but what it DOES do is slow the heat loss of the first plate, allowing for more build up of energy in the first plate. That first plate CANNOT and WILL NOT reach a temperature higher than that of its source without more work applied to it somehow. If the plate were flammable and caught fire then it could get warmer than its original source, but than again that would change the source from the original element to the damn fire consuming it, and that rule would still apply but to the new source.

Now you want to prove that there is energy creation by adding that second plate in his thought experiment please be my guest. But try not to get bogged down in all the extra inconsequential variables he added.. it makes you look like a google scientist with a thesaurus and a "how to sound like you know what you are talking about even if you don't" book....

 

[konradv]

Forget the trolls, Ian. You and I may not agree, but at least we live on the same planet.

 

[gslack]

Forget the trolls, Ian. You and I may not agree, but at least we live on the same planet.

And thats Melmack right???

 

[IanC]

man you are dense.

the heating coil inside the bar is hotter than 150 degrees. insulating any part of the heated bar subtracts part of the surface area that can radiate heat away at the full 150-(-273) difference. the bar will be different temperatures on different parts but the overall outside temperature average will be higher. your exaggeratedly accurate calculation does not take temperature gradients of the bar or surface area x temperature differential differences into account. as usual you either emphasize extraneous details or ignore important ones. get a brain, or at least use the one you have

 

[IanC]

As A non-scientist. I see one problem.. Maybe its my nature to notice the obvious... But the second plate shouldn't cause the first plate to get hotter, the heat source sets the temperature of it. The second plate is an insulator forcing more heat retention in the first.. The first plate will get hotter because less or slower heat loss causing a build up of heat energy. But if the first plate is at maximum temperature the heat source produces it will not get hotter than its source.

its a logic test... he is associating heat retention due to an added insulator with an increase in heat energy. Maybe I dont have all the terms or scientific jargon to give this a proper explanation, but in essence this is a logic test. All he did was switch a concept and use misleading terms to confound the simplicity of it all. Everyone was arguing his methods and convection, etc. but no one asked the simple thing..

The temp of the first plate will not go beyond that allowed by its heat source. Adding the second plate slows the heat loss, but that does not constitute more heat due to the second plate.

WTH? is it really that easy to distract smart people?

well, you are right that the experiment is a test of analytical skills. unfortunately you fail again.

the conditions are that the bars are in a cooled thermos with a vacuum to represent outer space. the bars arent touching so there is no conduction, there is no air so there is no convection. that leaves only radiation. heat loss through radiation is proportional to difference in temperature between the radiator and the absorber.

both bars will be warmer than if only one bar was present. the extra heat comes from the area of radiation blocked from escaping to 'outer space' from both bars. so in reality 'outer space is cooler by the same amount that is retained by the bars.


the earth's surface and atmosphere are much more complicated, with conduction convection and water-based effects coming into play. so what? the question was 'can something cooler make a warm thing warmer'. the answer to that is yes, depending on the conditions.

Ian I have been as tolerant as I am going to be with you lately considering your behavior and showing not only your true lack of understanding scientifically, but also your complete and total inability to see just how obvious your bullshit has become lately... Do not condescend on me, you lack the ability to do so...

Ian in all of your BULLSHIT above how does that change anything I said? The point still remains the first plate nearest the heat source cannot reach a temperature above that of the heat source. Be it in a vacuum or anywhere else, the point will still remain the same..

Also why add a second bar? We only have one sun...

See Ian I know you can't grasp this but what he did was over-complicate the system with variables and factors that do nothing to further the original concept. All they do is confound it and draw otherwise highly intelligent people into arguing over the variables instead of noticing the simple thing staring them in the face...

The second plate does not make the first plate warmer than its source will allow. That would be creating energy from nothing, but what it DOES do is slow the heat loss of the first plate, allowing for more build up of energy in the first plate. That first plate CANNOT and WILL NOT reach a temperature higher than that of its source without more work applied to it somehow. If the plate were flammable and caught fire then it could get warmer than its original source, but than again that would change the source from the original element to the damn fire consuming it, and that rule would still apply but to the new source.

Now you want to prove that there is energy creation by adding that second plate in his thought experiment please be my guest. But try not to get bogged down in all the extra inconsequential variables he added.. it makes you look like a google scientist with a thesaurus and a "how to sound like you know what you are talking about even if you don't" book....

as usual you dont have a clue. what temperature do you think the heating coil is at if the outside of the bar is only 150 degrees while it is radiating heat away as fast as it can?

dont you guys ever try to think things through?

 

[gslack]

man you are dense.

the heating coil inside the bar is hotter than 150 degrees. insulating any part of the heated bar subtracts part of the surface area that can radiate heat away at the full 150-(-273) difference. the bar will be different temperatures on different parts but the overall outside temperature average will be higher. your exaggeratedly accurate calculation does not take temperature gradients of the bar or surface area x temperature differential differences into account. as usual you either emphasize extraneous details or ignore important ones. get a brain, or at least use the one you have

I didn't say anything about insulating the bar Ian... I said the second plate acts as an insulator for the first plate... Once again you try and make an obtuse argument and imply I said something I did not...

If you cannot debate honestly, then just ignore my posts...

 

[gslack]

well, you are right that the experiment is a test of analytical skills. unfortunately you fail again.

the conditions are that the bars are in a cooled thermos with a vacuum to represent outer space. the bars arent touching so there is no conduction, there is no air so there is no convection. that leaves only radiation. heat loss through radiation is proportional to difference in temperature between the radiator and the absorber.

both bars will be warmer than if only one bar was present. the extra heat comes from the area of radiation blocked from escaping to 'outer space' from both bars. so in reality 'outer space is cooler by the same amount that is retained by the bars.


the earth's surface and atmosphere are much more complicated, with conduction convection and water-based effects coming into play. so what? the question was 'can something cooler make a warm thing warmer'. the answer to that is yes, depending on the conditions.

Ian I have been as tolerant as I am going to be with you lately considering your behavior and showing not only your true lack of understanding scientifically, but also your complete and total inability to see just how obvious your bullshit has become lately... Do not condescend on me, you lack the ability to do so...

Ian in all of your BULLSHIT above how does that change anything I said? The point still remains the first plate nearest the heat source cannot reach a temperature above that of the heat source. Be it in a vacuum or anywhere else, the point will still remain the same..

Also why add a second bar? We only have one sun...

See Ian I know you can't grasp this but what he did was over-complicate the system with variables and factors that do nothing to further the original concept. All they do is confound it and draw otherwise highly intelligent people into arguing over the variables instead of noticing the simple thing staring them in the face...

The second plate does not make the first plate warmer than its source will allow. That would be creating energy from nothing, but what it DOES do is slow the heat loss of the first plate, allowing for more build up of energy in the first plate. That first plate CANNOT and WILL NOT reach a temperature higher than that of its source without more work applied to it somehow. If the plate were flammable and caught fire then it could get warmer than its original source, but than again that would change the source from the original element to the damn fire consuming it, and that rule would still apply but to the new source.

Now you want to prove that there is energy creation by adding that second plate in his thought experiment please be my guest. But try not to get bogged down in all the extra inconsequential variables he added.. it makes you look like a google scientist with a thesaurus and a "how to sound like you know what you are talking about even if you don't" book....

as usual you dont have a clue. what temperature do you think the heating coil is at if the outside of the bar is only 150 degrees while it is radiating heat away as fast as it can?

dont you guys ever try to think things through?

There ya go Ian confound it to cover your bullshit again...

Stop focusing on the bar, you and I both know what I said was the second plate acts as an insulator for the first plate.. Not the bar or heat source, but the first plate that receives the radiant heat from the heat source... Now if his experiment only uses the heat source and one plate, than it is even more ridiculous because it does not show anything that remotely relates to his point.. Using his example the sun should get hotter simply because our planet is orbiting it...

Your continued pretense and obfuscation shows once again that you cannot argue what i said... Fact is you know I am right, but rather than admit anybody is right besides yourself, you have to try and make the argument something else...

Now argue my point as it is, or ignore me.. But deliberate obfuscation will not hide you backed the wrong horse again...

 

[wirebender]

man you are dense.

You are the one that is dense Ian.

the heating coil inside the bar is hotter than 150 degrees. insulating any part of the heated bar subtracts part of the surface area that can radiate heat away at the full 150-(-273) difference. the bar will be different temperatures on different parts but the overall outside temperature average will be higher. your exaggeratedly accurate calculation does not take temperature gradients of the bar or surface area x temperature differential differences into account. as usual you either emphasize extraneous details or ignore important ones. get a brain, or at least use the one you have

Sorry Ian, but you were given the equations that showed how much energy was required to raise the temperature of the bar to X degrees. Adding another bar doesn't change that. Adding 50 bars won't change that. You have been fooled and just don't have the intellectual wattage to see it. Sorry.

 

[wirebender]

I didn't say anything about insulating the bar Ian... I said the second plate acts as an insulator for the first plate... Once again you try and make an obtuse argument and imply I said something I did not...

If you cannot debate honestly, then just ignore my posts...

Actually gslack, the second plate acts as a heat sink for the first plate. When they reach equilibrium, they act as a single radiating source at a lower temperature than the heated bar alone would be. As with all heat sinks, it doesn't serve to make the powered radiating source hotter, but to allow it to bleed off energy more quickly. It can radiate energy faster, and by doing so, will never reach a higher temperature. Ian is so concerned with being right that he can't see the observable proof in the real world that the system described doesn't act as he imagines it.

Ian apparently beleives that the heat sinks in his computer serve to heat up his processor rather than cool it down.

 

[IanC]

wirebender thinks computers are cooled by radiation rather than conduction and convection.

 

[gslack]

I didn't say anything about insulating the bar Ian... I said the second plate acts as an insulator for the first plate... Once again you try and make an obtuse argument and imply I said something I did not...

If you cannot debate honestly, then just ignore my posts...

Actually gslack, the second plate acts as a heat sink for the first plate. When they reach equilibrium, they act as a single radiating source at a lower temperature than the heated bar alone would be. As with all heat sinks, it doesn't serve to make the powered radiating source hotter, but to allow it to bleed off energy more quickly. It can radiate energy faster, and by doing so, will never reach a higher temperature. Ian is so concerned with being right that he can't see the observable proof in the real world that the system described doesn't act as he imagines it.

Ian apparently beleives that the heat sinks in his computer serve to heat up his processor rather than cool it down.

Thank You! I didn't get the heat sink connection at the time, but YES exactly. Ironic I just had to replace a GPU fan and heatsink on this very PC I am using just the other day.

Either way as you said, it will not serve the purposes of generating energy (in this instance heat) out of nothing.

If this concept worked as he described we could power the world with a simple heat engine. And if the photonic-vibrational ? energy generation properties of CO2 worked as claimed we could slap a tank of CO2 onto a light bulb make a 200% effective machine...

 

[gslack]

wirebender thinks computers are cooled by radiation rather than conduction and convection.

Why don't you for once actually debate what he said? What are you that afraid of him or that afraid of being wrong? Seriously, you know what he said and what he meant, why not for once show some integrity and address his points honestly?

He did not argue the way computer processors (computers are entire device) or chips are cooled using heat sinks.. He simply stated how the bar in the experiment acts like one.

the heat sink allows heat from a small, hot, perhaps less heat conductive surface or object, to dissipate and spread out over a broader often more heat conductive object or surface.

And actually cooling a CPU or chip uses conduction, convection, and radiation Ian...

Conduction happens when heat sink is in physical contact with the CPU.

Convection occurs when the air inside the computer case interacts with the heat sink.

Radiation when the heat dissipates up from the cpu across the fins of the heat sink and radiates out into the air.

The primary would be convection in cases of higher temperatures, and a mixture of the other two in the case of lower temps. Good rule of thumb for cooling a chip, given a choice between a bigger fan or a bigger heat sink, go with the heat sink, its cheaper and requires no energy to do its job...

Now please debate HIS points as they are and not what you try and make them out to be..