Trenberth's Energy Budget

[wirebender]

gslack- the difference is that one block was heated and they werent touching. try again.

They were in a cooled vacuum Ian. Sorry that the implications of that escape you, but then the implications of damned near everything that doesn't jibe with your faith escapes you, or you escape them. Either way, the result is the same.

Here are a couple of hints for you:
Vacuum
Heat sink
Radiating as a single body

 

[wirebender]

Spencer is against CO2 as a major factor in the warming of the earth over the last 200 years by the way. he just isnt willing to discount the real effects that CO2 plays.

CO2 is no factor because it can not radiate IR back to the surface of the earth.

 

[wirebender]

I obviously know about more photon paradoxes than you. both you and wirebender have some strange view of the thermodynamic laws that only hold true for the two of you.

Ian, you clearly don't know the first thing about photons. You were, and apparently remain completely unaware that photons are nothing more than tiny bits of EM energy and forget about wave particle duality, that topic may as well be in another galaxy for you for all your apparent understanding. You picture them as little free agents zipping about the universe and because of that picture that is apparently indellibly scribed in your mind, you will never understand what is happening here. You drag in virtual photons as if they had anything to do with this topic completely unaware that virtual photons are nothing more than a means to describe an energy transfer between electrons and protons or neutrons, two particles that have absolutely nothing to do with EM fiields outside the confines of individual atoms. You are, in short, clueless Ian and pretending that you know something that everyone else is missing just brings your ignorance of the subject into high relief.

 

[wirebender]

just like wirebender declaring to everybody that he provided the proof and did the math. in a past post. that he refuses to show anybody. just like the worst of climate scientists.

You have some math above Ian which is little more than algebra and it is obviously over your head. You look at it and may as well be looking at ancient aramaic for all the sense it makes to you. You claimed that the Stefan-Boltzman equations were far fetched and had no place in an experiment dealing explicitly with blackbody radiation. The math I refered to in the previous thread involved time and distance. Hell Ian, you can't even talk intelligently about math involving nothing more than radiation and you completely failed to even address the proof provided that additional energy would be required to raise the temperature of that heated bar. In short Ian, you are a fake and have proved it beyond any reasonable doubt.

I dont really care, I was just curious. you two guys seem to think huffing and puffing and bluster is the same as describing your side of the story. I cant really judge the merits of your ideas if you refuse to produce them.

In case you haven't noticed, and it is clear that you haven't, it is you, Ian, who is huffing and puffing and blustering. I showed you the math to prove spencer's conclusions wrong and the math that proves that his claims violate the law of conservation of energy. You merely declared that the math was wrong and the Stefan-Boltzman equations which deal explicitly with blackbody radiation are not applicable in an experiment about blackbody radiation. You didn't prove the equations wrong, or offer up what you believe to be corrections of the equations or even suggest a different derivation of the Stefan-Boltzman equation (which would be flawed by the way), you just pronounced them wrong and expected that to mean something. It is you who is all bluster Ian, I laid out the math for you and it meant about as much to you as it would mean to one of my donkeys.

 

[wirebender]

hahaha. as usual you type a lot of words....but no substance.

The substance is in this thread Ian. The math is there. Prove it wrong. Prove that the Stefan-Boltzman equations are inappropriate for an experiment about blackbody radiation. Prove that the law of conservation of energy was not broken in order for the experiment to end as spencer claimed. Prove that the second law of thermodynamics was not broken.

Prove it mathematically Ian. That is where the substance is. You have the math that supports my postion. I have provided substance. Thus far, you have provided notthing but hot air.

 

[wirebender]

One other thing Ian, just to further highlight the inherent weakness of your position. You claim adamantly that the two bars could never reach equilibrium and yet, you believe the cooler bar can somehow make the heated bar hotter. I would ask for an explanation for that bit of magic, but frankly, I am no longer interested in your fantasies.

 

[IanC]

ok, lets describe the situation

I am going to assume that the two bars are separated by the minimum distance that stops conduction but will allow virtually all the radiation from the two inside faces to only pass back and forth between each other. there is no convection in a vacuum.

first bar, heated. assume symetrical with height twice the width and a surface area of 1m2. that means there are 4 faces of 1/5 m2 and two faces 1/10 m2. the heater is symetrically imbedded and we will ignore the differences at the corners. your math says that it radiates 750 W/m2 so I will go with that but drop the units from now on. I will also combine the top and bottom face together and consider them one face for ease of calculating, five equal faces.

original conditions are at 150C with 750W divided by five faces = 150W each

after the second bar is added the heated bar is now 160C and I will make up a figure of 800W for ease of calculation. 800 divided by 5 faces is 160W.

the question is where did the extra 50W come from.

the 50W came back from the second bar. the inside face of the second bar is being heated by the 160W of the inside face of the heated bar but 50W is being radiated back. net power = power emitted - power absorbed. 110W= 160W- 50W. lets go back and add up the heated bar. 160+160+160+(80+80)+110=750W. exactly the power output we expected.

now lets look at the other bar. it has no internal heating, just the 160W radiation from the inside face of the heated bar. unlike the heated bar, the second bar is not the same temperature at all points but has a temperature gradient going from the side receiving radiation to the opposite face. the inside face would be by far the warmest, capable of radiating 50W. the opposite side radiates the least, perhaps 10W. the other faces radiate the remaining 100W, 33W per full face, but starting at 50W and dwindling to 10W at the edge farthest away from the heated bar.

now lets add up the radiation escaping to the cooled vacuum container.

from the heated bar. four full faces (1+1+1+1/2+1/2) x 160W= 640W
the inside face does not escape but goes into the unheated bar

from the unheated bar. three full faces (1+1+1/2+1/2) at 33W= 100W
one face at 10W
the inside face does not escape but goes into the heated bar

grand total of escaping heat is 640W+100W+10W= 750W. the same power going out as the power going in.

the temperature of the heated bar is relatively easy to give a uniform temperature to, indeed we specified that it started at 150C and ended at 160C. the unheated bar is not a uniform temperature. I dont know why Spencer assigned it a temperature of 100C.

this is only my mental picture of what happens in the thought experiment. I am not a physicist so I am likely to be wrong in some places. but dont just say it violates some law, point out where you think my radiation picture is wrong and describe how you think the heat is flowing.

 

[wirebender]

original conditions are at 150C with 750W divided by five faces = 150W each

after the second bar is added the heated bar is now 160C and I will make up a figure of 800W for ease of calculation. 800 divided by 5 faces is 160W.

the question is where did the extra 50W come from.

Hell Ian, why not make it 20 faces, or 200 faces. Maybe you can make it 1000 faces and power a whole damned neighborhood on 750 watts worth of electricity. What is sad is that you actually believe that crap.

You were given the math that reflects the reality of the experiment Ian. Sorry you don't get it. If you believe you can multiply energy by adding more faces to your radiator, then get yourself some investors (surely there are goobs out there who will believe you) and go into the power business. You will make billions and be adored by the masses if it works.

More likely, the goobs you con out of their money will break your kneecaps when they realize that they have been had by a huckster.

 

[IanC]

I think Wirebender is referring to that, and you are most likely referring to after equilibrium is reached. When broken down fully you will find they are two different situations both mathematically and naturally...

No offense gslack, but I am talking about the skin touching the blanket. Because the blanket is in open air and able to bleed off heat into the atmosphere, it will never reach equilibrium with the skin. A couple of Christmases ago, my kids pitched in together and got me a handy dandy infrared imager. This thing has a sensitivity of 0.15 C. I love toys like that.

The first time someone told me that a blanket will cool you down, my first instinct told me that it just wasn't so. Having a handy dandy infrared imager, I put the claim to the test. Sure enough, the skin in contact with the blanket is initially, and remains cooler than the skin not in contact with the blanket. It doesn't matter how long you leave that blanket on, the skin in contact with the blanket remains cooler than the skin not in contact with the blanket.

Those laws of physics are something. And interestingly enough, if you add blankets, the skin in contact with the blanket cools a little bit more. Not a lot, but it does get cooler. More blankets = more absorptivity and you can't generate more heat than you can generate so the skin in contact with the blanket remains cooler than the skin not in contact with the blanket. Lift the blanket and in about 15 - 30 seconds, your skin goes back to its normal temperature. Of course, your skin temperature varies across your body but it goes back to normal.

When you look at the void between you and the bed (the tented area) you can see the radiation spread out and the temperature will eventually get relatively close, but never in equilibrium with your body. Even after hours in the bed, even with two bodies, the air space never gets to body temperature no matter how many blankets you have.

sounds like a cool toy to play with and an interesting experiment.
did you try measuring the temperature of your feet, one under the blanket and one exposed? I wonder how deep in the skin are the body's temp sensors that regulate blood flow and hence temperature control. as you say it is very counterintuative that exposed skin would be warmer while losing more energy than covered skin which loses less heat but is cooler. I suppose it has something to do with the greater ability of conduction to move heat compared to radiation. and the functioning of the body's thermostatic control somehow reacting to heat loss rather than just temperature.

thanks for an interesting topic.

 

[wirebender]

sounds like a cool toy to play with and an interesting experiment.
did you try measuring the temperature of your feet, one under the blanket and one exposed? I wonder how deep in the skin are the body's temp sensors that regulate blood flow and hence temperature control. as you say it is very counterintuative that exposed skin would be warmer while losing more energy than covered skin which loses less heat but is cooler. I suppose it has something to do with the greater ability of conduction to move heat compared to radiation. and the functioning of the body's thermostatic control somehow reacting to heat loss rather than just temperature.

thanks for an interesting topic.

It is a cool toy and I have tried damned near every permutation of heat loss that I can think of. Hell, I even went next door and aimed it at my neighbor's siamese cats. Its true that the dark areas of a siamese cat's body are slightly cooler than the light areas. Just barely within the range of my imager, but cooler none the less. Extremities are cooler than the core of the body.

Another interesting thing is to point it at the items in the refrigerator and the freezer. You get zilch. That tells me that even though the items in the cold are radiating, they are not emitting to the imager which is warmer. I believe I suggested that you try it yourself.

Exposed skin feels cooler than clothed skin because the clothes hold dead air which is warmer than the air outside. When you look at a clothed person with the imager, it is interesting to note how little of a person's clothing actually touches their body. Look at your own clothes, about the only place they touch you is across your shoulders, down your back to a point just below your shoulder blades, your waist, and your thighs. You are warming dead air in more places than you are losing surface heat due to the clothing touching your body. Make yourself aware of that and then go outside and stand still for a while. Without looking you can touch the places where your clothing is touching your body because those areas will be a bit cooler than where your clothing is not touching.

Really Ian, the math doesn't lie while your intuition will lie to you in a new york second.

 

[gslack]

I think Wirebender is referring to that, and you are most likely referring to after equilibrium is reached. When broken down fully you will find they are two different situations both mathematically and naturally...

No offense gslack, but I am talking about the skin touching the blanket. Because the blanket is in open air and able to bleed off heat into the atmosphere, it will never reach equilibrium with the skin. A couple of Christmases ago, my kids pitched in together and got me a handy dandy infrared imager. This thing has a sensitivity of 0.15 C. I love toys like that.

The first time someone told me that a blanket will cool you down, my first instinct told me that it just wasn't so. Having a handy dandy infrared imager, I put the claim to the test. Sure enough, the skin in contact with the blanket is initially, and remains cooler than the skin not in contact with the blanket. It doesn't matter how long you leave that blanket on, the skin in contact with the blanket remains cooler than the skin not in contact with the blanket.

Those laws of physics are something. And interestingly enough, if you add blankets, the skin in contact with the blanket cools a little bit more. Not a lot, but it does get cooler. More blankets = more absorptivity and you can't generate more heat than you can generate so the skin in contact with the blanket remains cooler than the skin not in contact with the blanket. Lift the blanket and in about 15 - 30 seconds, your skin goes back to its normal temperature. Of course, your skin temperature varies across your body but it goes back to normal.

When you look at the void between you and the bed (the tented area) you can see the radiation spread out and the temperature will eventually get relatively close, but never in equilibrium with your body. Even after hours in the bed, even with two bodies, the air space never gets to body temperature no matter how many blankets you have.

Agreed that was what I assumed. When the cooler blanket touches the warm skin it will make the warmer skin cooler for a time.. Sorry if it became fuddled and unclear... After all the back and forth with the little idiot trying to play smart I most likely got it mucked up.. Sorry for that..

I am sorry wirebender but I have run out of patience with that POS posturing fake.. he has no desire to prove anything or show truth, all he cares about is trying to convince others hes not losing and a real science "expert"..

I ask you honestly, can you point to one thing he has put up here of his own creation from his own mind and in his own words, that can give credence to his claim of higher knowledge on this or any other physical science discipline? I have been going over a lot of posts here and frankly all I can find is him sitting there claiming he knows this or that and never once has he been able to back it up when he has been tested..

he is a fake plain and simple, he has shown it over and again, and his lack of knowledge of the very basics of physical science tell me he is not even well read enough to make a good case in his defense. His last action where he obviously couldn't follow my posts contentions, and decided to dismiss it rather than try told me exactly what we were dealing with.. he doesn't think on multiple levels, he doesn't question that which is established, he does not feel he has to read anything he doesn't want to, he already assumes he knows the answer to every possibility, and on top of all of this he reacts like a child when he can't keep up...

he is the worst kind of internet fake.. he pretends neutrality while all the while he views everyone here with disdain. he assumes he is the smartest guy in every room, when in reality he has never tested his own mental abilities.. He is one minute insulting me and dismissing my points as so much nonsense for no good reason, and the next he is trying to pretend he is the peaceful one just here to understand something... he is useless...

There isn't a genuine bone in him. So I am done being decent with the POS.. From now on I treat him as I treat konradv, because as far as I have seen they are two of the same animal...

 

[wirebender]

I ask you honestly, can you point to one thing he has put up here of his own creation from his own mind and in his own words, that can give credence to his claim of higher knowledge on this or any other physical science discipline?

Truthfully? No. I have done the math on this board in public and brought math that I agree with here in defense of my position. To date, he has done nothing but claim that it isn't right, or not appropriate but remains completely unable to say what is wrong. He put himself completely in the barking moonbat camp with is suggestion that you could get more wattage out than is going in if you simply add some sides. Add some sides. Is that, or is that not the craziest thing you ever heard. Hell, lets do the experiment and add a thousand sides, we might be able to add enough sides to get a megawatt out of that initial 750 watts.

If it works, I can buy that 200' super yacht I always wanted. What will you do with your billions? Imagine, changing 750 watts into a megawatt or more, just by adding some more sides. If the laws of nature were that easy to break, it makes you wonder why some genius hasn't already done it. Hell, if you could eek out the 50 watts Ian suggested, you could make a profit. 750 watts in, 800 out. 106.7% efficiency. You could earn a fine living for yourself if it were actually possible. What is the average efficiency of nuclear reactors" Somewhere between 35 and 50%? Maybe Ian should tell them that all they need to do is add some sides and they to can get 106% or more out of those fuel rods.

What gets me is that he stated that you could get the extra 50 watts out with a straight face. He actually believed it because spencer said so. Surely a great physicist like spencer couldn't make a mistake; especially one so basic as to confuse a heat sink with an energy multiplier.

 

[gslack]

I ask you honestly, can you point to one thing he has put up here of his own creation from his own mind and in his own words, that can give credence to his claim of higher knowledge on this or any other physical science discipline?

Truthfully? No. I have done the math on this board in public and brought math that I agree with here in defense of my position. To date, he has done nothing but claim that it isn't right, or not appropriate but remains completely unable to say what is wrong. He put himself completely in the barking moonbat camp with is suggestion that you could get more wattage out than is going in if you simply add some sides. Add some sides. Is that, or is that not the craziest thing you ever heard. Hell, lets do the experiment and add a thousand sides, we might be able to add enough sides to get a megawatt out of that initial 750 watts.

If it works, I can buy that 200' super yacht I always wanted. What will you do with your billions? Imagine, changing 750 watts into a megawatt or more, just by adding some more sides. If the laws of nature were that easy to break, it makes you wonder why some genius hasn't already done it. Hell, if you could eek out the 50 watts Ian suggested, you could make a profit. 750 watts in, 800 out. 106.7% efficiency. You could earn a fine living for yourself if it were actually possible. What is the average efficiency of nuclear reactors" Somewhere between 35 and 50%? Maybe Ian should tell them that all they need to do is add some sides and they to can get 106% or more out of those fuel rods.

What gets me is that he stated that you could get the extra 50 watts out with a straight face. He actually believed it because spencer said so. Surely a great physicist like spencer couldn't make a mistake; especially one so basic as to confuse a heat sink with an energy multiplier.

A couple of years ago I would have considered what spencer did as a mistake, but now? No I think hes doing it deliberately and doing so to get his money out of this.. he has written multiple books on this, and since his admission (under duress) of the data showing less actual warming than they previously thought, I believe he has to either ride it till he can't any longer or confound the science as best he can until it can be salvaged..

Spencer used a commonly referenced thought experiment regarding zeroth law application, removed one of the parameters and used the incidental kinetic energy from the objects proximity to its heat source to try and justify greenhouse theory... he is far too educated and experienced to not know both the original thought experiment, and the often overlooked kinetic energy from a heat source placed in proximity to a warming or warmed object. As they heat up the molecules move more, and that movement is energy too. it has to go somewhere and not all of it is converted to heat as he would have us believe.

Technically the second bar will get a very little bit hotter but thats due to proximity and incidental kinetic energy inherent in two heated stationary solid materials. make those objects gases that move and release their kinetic energy in the process of their movement around a chamber, and then lets see that theory in action... It will fail, and he has to know this..

I think spencer did this and crap just like it to cause mass confusion and confound the discussions in variables and parameters that have no bearing in greenhouse theory.. he has a position, a job, a career, and people who depend on this being right. And add in all those books to sell... he is stuck, and hes milking it for all he can...

And yes, I want to take my idea before about adding a tank of CO2 to an electric generator. We can turn 1 generator into 100...

 

[IanC]

original conditions are at 150C with 750W divided by five faces = 150W each

after the second bar is added the heated bar is now 160C and I will make up a figure of 800W for ease of calculation. 800 divided by 5 faces is 160W.

the question is where did the extra 50W come from.

Hell Ian, why not make it 20 faces, or 200 faces. Maybe you can make it 1000 faces and power a whole damned neighborhood on 750 watts worth of electricity. What is sad is that you actually believe that crap.

You were given the math that reflects the reality of the experiment Ian. Sorry you don't get it. If you believe you can multiply energy by adding more faces to your radiator, then get yourself some investors (surely there are goobs out there who will believe you) and go into the power business. You will make billions and be adored by the masses if it works.

More likely, the goobs you con out of their money will break your kneecaps when they realize that they have been had by a huckster.

are you denying that a rectangular block with height=2, width=1, depth=1 does not have six faces, four equal 2x1 faces and two 1x1 faces(these two half size faces add up to the area of a larger face).

we know only one of the larger faces is interacting with the second bar and all the other sides are interacting with the cooled outside. surely you understood this? from my post-

now lets add up the radiation escaping to the cooled vacuum container.

from the heated bar. four full faces (1+1+1+1/2+1/2) x 160W= 640W
the inside face does not escape but goes into the unheated bar

from the unheated bar. three full faces (1+1+1/2+1/2) at 33W= 100W
one face at 10W
the inside face does not escape but goes into the heated bar

grand total of escaping heat is 640W+100W+10W= 750W. the same power going out as the power going in.

where is the multiplying effect that you are accusing me of?

 

[gslack]

original conditions are at 150C with 750W divided by five faces = 150W each

after the second bar is added the heated bar is now 160C and I will make up a figure of 800W for ease of calculation. 800 divided by 5 faces is 160W.

the question is where did the extra 50W come from.

Hell Ian, why not make it 20 faces, or 200 faces. Maybe you can make it 1000 faces and power a whole damned neighborhood on 750 watts worth of electricity. What is sad is that you actually believe that crap.

You were given the math that reflects the reality of the experiment Ian. Sorry you don't get it. If you believe you can multiply energy by adding more faces to your radiator, then get yourself some investors (surely there are goobs out there who will believe you) and go into the power business. You will make billions and be adored by the masses if it works.

More likely, the goobs you con out of their money will break your kneecaps when they realize that they have been had by a huckster.

are you denying that a rectangular block with height=2, width=1, depth=1 does not have six faces, four equal 2x1 faces and two 1x1 faces(these two half size faces add up to the area of a larger face).

we know only one of the larger faces is interacting with the second bar and all the other sides are interacting with the cooled outside. surely you understood this? from my post-

now lets add up the radiation escaping to the cooled vacuum container.

from the heated bar. four full faces (1+1+1+1/2+1/2) x 160W= 640W
the inside face does not escape but goes into the unheated bar

from the unheated bar. three full faces (1+1+1/2+1/2) at 33W= 100W
one face at 10W
the inside face does not escape but goes into the heated bar

grand total of escaping heat is 640W+100W+10W= 750W. the same power going out as the power going in.

where is the multiplying effect that you are accusing me of?

More BS from you.... Ian just ONCE why don't you man the F*** up and respond to what HE DOES SAY instead making shit up or arguing something HE DIDN'T SAY... Man could you get any more of a chicken shit without having feathers?

Man up wuss..

 

[IanC]

you guys really are mental midgets. of all the things that you could question about my simple description of where and how the heat flows in Spencer's thought experiment you pick on my choice of dividing the surface areas of the blocks into whether they radiate into cold space or back into a block!

I expected you to complain that the radiation back into the heated block would cause a temperature gradient there, just like in the unheated block. it would, except there is already a temperature gradient from the imbedded heater that would totally swamp the insignificant effect.

or you could have complained that the radiation/backradiation was an infinite series. it is but the end result is different by a negligible amount.

you could have complained that the corners of the blocks would be cooler than the interior of the face area because they have ability to shed radiation in more planes. true but I defined them as equally radiating at the start to escape from the fantastically difficult math involved.

obviously you two dont do any thinking for yourselves. you take someone else's statements, repeat them ad nauseum, and insult people who challenge their veracity. the problem is-- you guys take true statements but then attach them to situations that dont apply.

the zeroith law doesnt apply to equilibriums where one of the objects is heated by external power.

the 2nd law doesnt state that it is impossible for a cooler object to radiate into a warmer object. it states that the balance of radiation will flow from warmer to cooler.

I look forward to your next round of bluster and ad homs. I just wish that you would add a little insight into the topic of discussion once in a while.

BTW- I'm still waiting for you to prove that photons are extinguished in space without the presense of matter....and do the math of course. hahahaha

 

[IanC]

Hell Ian, why not make it 20 faces, or 200 faces. Maybe you can make it 1000 faces and power a whole damned neighborhood on 750 watts worth of electricity. What is sad is that you actually believe that crap.

You were given the math that reflects the reality of the experiment Ian. Sorry you don't get it. If you believe you can multiply energy by adding more faces to your radiator, then get yourself some investors (surely there are goobs out there who will believe you) and go into the power business. You will make billions and be adored by the masses if it works.

More likely, the goobs you con out of their money will break your kneecaps when they realize that they have been had by a huckster.

are you denying that a rectangular block with height=2, width=1, depth=1 does not have six faces, four equal 2x1 faces and two 1x1 faces(these two half size faces add up to the area of a larger face).

we know only one of the larger faces is interacting with the second bar and all the other sides are interacting with the cooled outside. surely you understood this? from my post-

now lets add up the radiation escaping to the cooled vacuum container.

from the heated bar. four full faces (1+1+1+1/2+1/2) x 160W= 640W
the inside face does not escape but goes into the unheated bar

from the unheated bar. three full faces (1+1+1/2+1/2) at 33W= 100W
one face at 10W
the inside face does not escape but goes into the heated bar

grand total of escaping heat is 640W+100W+10W= 750W. the same power going out as the power going in.

where is the multiplying effect that you are accusing me of?

More BS from you.... Ian just ONCE why don't you man the F*** up and respond to what HE DOES SAY instead making shit up or arguing something HE DIDN'T SAY... Man could you get any more of a chicken shit without having feathers?

Man up wuss..

wirebender said-

If you believe you can multiply energy by adding more faces to your radiator, then get yourself some investors (surely there are goobs out there who will believe you) and go into the power business. You will make billions and be adored by the masses if it works.

and I responded.

one of the difficulties I have in discussing things with you two guys is that you imbed your questions in reams of insults. I usually ignore them.

or how about you gslack. how many times have you accused me of making perpetual motion machines? or getting energy for free?

you never quote me, you just state that I said it. when I ask you about it you just go on to the next insult.

I am more than willing to answer questions but I do expect some compliance in returning the favour.

 

[wirebender]

are you denying that a rectangular block with height=2, width=1, depth=1 does not have six faces, four equal 2x1 faces and two 1x1 faces(these two half size faces add up to the area of a larger face).

The number of faces is completely irrelavent Ian and in a cooled vacuum, it doesn't matter which direction the faces are pointing or what they are pointing at. Sorry you fail to get it. More importantly, however, a heat sink does not, and can not heat up the radiator it is serving to help cool.

 

[gslack]

you guys really are mental midgets. of all the things that you could question about my simple description of where and how the heat flows in Spencer's thought experiment you pick on my choice of dividing the surface areas of the blocks into whether they radiate into cold space or back into a block!

I expected you to complain that the radiation back into the heated block would cause a temperature gradient there, just like in the unheated block. it would, except there is already a temperature gradient from the imbedded heater that would totally swamp the insignificant effect.

or you could have complained that the radiation/backradiation was an infinite series. it is but the end result is different by a negligible amount.

you could have complained that the corners of the blocks would be cooler than the interior of the face area because they have ability to shed radiation in more planes. true but I defined them as equally radiating at the start to escape from the fantastically difficult math involved.

obviously you two dont do any thinking for yourselves. you take someone else's statements, repeat them ad nauseum, and insult people who challenge their veracity. the problem is-- you guys take true statements but then attach them to situations that dont apply.

the zeroith law doesnt apply to equilibriums where one of the objects is heated by external power.

the 2nd law doesnt state that it is impossible for a cooler object to radiate into a warmer object. it states that the balance of radiation will flow from warmer to cooler.

I look forward to your next round of bluster and ad homs. I just wish that you would add a little insight into the topic of discussion once in a while.

BTW- I'm still waiting for you to prove that photons are extinguished in space without the presense of matter....and do the math of course. hahahaha

Ian you have just described exactly what you have been doing here all along, and the ridiculous part is you really honestly think you can do crap like that and come back in the next day and claim we did it and its all good..

yeah Ian you fool somebody I am sure....

Please Ian can you point to YOUR original work here? I seemed to have missed it... I just explained my points and positions to you over several posts, you couldn't respond to them adequately, you knew this and decided to pretend some higher intellect, insult me and run away like a coward until you could google some more terms...

You look ridiculous dude... I almost feel sorry for you..Almost...

 

[IanC]

are you denying that a rectangular block with height=2, width=1, depth=1 does not have six faces, four equal 2x1 faces and two 1x1 faces(these two half size faces add up to the area of a larger face).

The number of faces is completely irrelavent Ian and in a cooled vacuum, it doesn't matter which direction the faces are pointing or what they are pointing at. Sorry you fail to get it. More importantly, however, a heat sink does not, and can not heat up the radiator it is serving to help cool.

the number of faces is irrelevent. what is relevent is whether they are radiating to the cold space or a warmer object. net power=power emitted-power absorbed. my post made that abundantly clear.