We Knew Warmers Were Wacko...But Really?

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD is not looking at the equations for what they are. Generalizations from 100 years ago to get the basic ideas described. For example, the process obviously needs a calculus term as power from both sides changes with respect to time.

Imagine that....looking at an equation for what it is and stating what it says....as I have pointed out repeatedly....it is you guys who are interpreting the equations to be saying something that they aren't....When net energy exchange is observed, measured and proven, I am sure that the second law of thermodynamics and all laws that derive from it will be rewritten to state that they are talking about net energy exchanges....today, however, they aren't...and aren't likely to be altered anytime in the near future.

The idea that a hundred year old first approximation can be used as proof that radiation from an individual particle is prohibited is obvious nonsense.

You are kidding...right? The whole AGW farce is based on 100 year old science...

And since there never has been any proof that energy moves from cool to warm, the laws, and accompanying equations say what they have always said....there is no back radiation and it is good to see that at last you can finally admit that the equations say as much...maybe you can explain it to toddster and crick since clearly neither of them have the slightest idea of what the equations say or don't say. Think you can bring yourself to do that?

there is no back radiation

Despite your own links that say otherwise. Priceless!

I decided to try to help you with your heat confusion. Took a trip to the library yesterday.
Schaum's Outlines
College Physics 11th Edition.
Chapter 18, page 213

Heat (Q) is thermal energy in transit from a system (or aggregate of electrons, ions, and atoms) at one temperature to a system that is in contact with it but is at a lower temperature.

Chapter 18, page 222

Radiation is the mode of transport of radiant electromagnetic energy through vacuum (e.g., the space between atoms). Radiant energy is distinct from heat, though both correspond to energy in transit. Heat is heat; electromagnetic radiation is electromagnetic radiation-don't confuse the two.

All objects whose temperature is above absolute zero radiate energy. When an object at absolute temperature T is in an environment where the temperature is Tₑ, the net energy radiated per second by the
object is P=εAσ(T⁴-Tₑ⁴)

The author is Eugene Hecht, Ph.D.
Says he's from Adelphi University

EUGENE HECHT Faculty Profiles Adelphi University

That's his profile page.
Maybe you could email him and point out his errors?

 

[SSDD]

So where is the expression of incoming energy altering P?

rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T

P = εAσT^4

The above equation shows the outgoing radiation of the cooler object.[/quote]

You really don't have a clue...do you. P=the power of the radiation emitting from the radiator....which equals e which is the emissivity of the radiator * A which is the area of the radiator * sigma which is the SB constant * T^4 which is the temperature of the radiator... Tc is the expression for the cooler temperature of the surroundings....there is nothing in that expression that says anything whatsoever about the temperature of the cooler surroundings.

It also shows the outgoing radiation of the warmer object.

Pretty weird, right?

It only shows the outgoing radiation of the radiator....and yes....its pretty weird that you have pretended to have a clue this long only to find out that you don't have the first clue....anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the SB law knows that the above expression says nothing about the temperature of the cooler surroundings.

To get the net energy lost (by the warmer object) and gained (by the cooler object) you have to add the 2 numbers.

You were better off playing cricks game....snide remarks but never actually touching the math....once you do that, you let everyone know what you know...and it is painfully obvious now that you don't know this topic... There is no expression of the temperature or the radiation emitted by the cooler surroundings....an expression of temperature would be meaningless. In order to have an expression of net energy...you would have to have a number that actually alters P before you subtract Tc from T. The equation is not an expression of net anything...it is describing gross energy flow.

The below formula does it in a single step.

Sorry, but it doesn't...that expression says that the radiating power of P is equal to the emissivity of the radiating object * the SB constant * the area of the radiator * the temperature to the 4th power of the radiator minus the temperature to the 4th power of the temperature of the surroundings....

That's all it says and all it ever will say....there is nothing there that would suggest net anything....T-Tc is analogous to partially closing the gates on a dam...they change the gross flow of the water, but have nothing to do with a net change in the water behind the dam....in order to calculate a net change in the water behind the dam...you need to know how much water you have....and how much water is coming in from rivers and the amount of water escaping through the dam.

Busted toddster...you don't know jack about the math involved and now everyone who does knows that you don't.

 

[SSDD]

Despite your own links that say otherwise. Priceless!

Saying a thing doesn't make it so...the equations don't describe net energy exchanges...even Ian has admitted as much.

I decided to try to help you with your heat confusion. Took a trip to the library yesterday.
Schaum's Outlines
College Physics 11th Edition.
Chapter 18, page 213

Heat

(Q) is thermal energy in transit from a system (or aggregate of electrons, ions, and atoms) at one temperature to a system that is in contact with it but is at a lower temperature.

So are you saying that heat is a form of energy or not?

Theoretical Physics Second Edition on page 514 says that "heat is not “a form of energy” but a mode of energy transmission}

and then

Environmental Physics, on page 77 says that "Heat is a form of energy that is present in all matter."

So which is it?

 

[SSDD]

I know, and we're trying to educate you, but it's not working yet, despite the links you posted.

At this point...it is clear that you aren't educating anyone....unless you consider that demonstrating how much you don't know about basic math is educational...you were busted when you made the claim that P = εAσT^4 says anything at all about the temperature of the cooler surroundings in the SB law. You may as well have stood at the podium shouted at the top of your lungs through a microphone that you don't understand this topic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It only shows the outgoing radiation of the radiator....

No, it shows the outgoing radiation of any object above absolute zero.
Remember......rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T

anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the SB law knows that the above expression says nothing about the temperature of the cooler surroundings.

Of course it says nothing about the surroundings, we're discussing outgoing radiation at the moment. Try to focus. If you want to talk about net energy lost or gained, then you need to know about the surroundings.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Despite your own links that say otherwise. Priceless!

Saying a thing doesn't make it so...the equations don't describe net energy exchanges...even Ian has admitted as much.

I decided to try to help you with your heat confusion. Took a trip to the library yesterday.
Schaum's Outlines
College Physics 11th Edition.
Chapter 18, page 213

Heat

(Q) is thermal energy in transit from a system (or aggregate of electrons, ions, and atoms) at one temperature to a system that is in contact with it but is at a lower temperature.

So are you saying that heat is a form of energy or not?

Theoretical Physics Second Edition on page 514 says that "heat is not “a form of energy” but a mode of energy transmission}

and then

Environmental Physics, on page 77 says that "Heat is a form of energy that is present in all matter."

So which is it?

So are you saying that heat is a form of energy or not?

Heat (Q) is thermal energy in transit from a system (or aggregate of electrons, ions, and atoms) at one temperature to a system that is in contact with it but is at a lower temperature

The author is Eugene Hecht, Ph.D.

I don't find anything in his description to disagree with.
If you understood it, you might sound less stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, and we're trying to educate you, but it's not working yet, despite the links you posted.

At this point...it is clear that you aren't educating anyone....unless you consider that demonstrating how much you don't know about basic math is educational...you were busted when you made the claim that P = εAσT^4 says anything at all about the temperature of the cooler surroundings in the SB law. You may as well have stood at the podium shouted at the top of your lungs through a microphone that you don't understand this topic.

you were busted when you made the claim that P = εAσT^4 says anything at all about the temperature of the cooler surroundings in the SB law.

Since I never claimed that formula said anything about the temperature of the surroundings whether cooler, hotter or the same, you're arguing with yourself.
Is that the only time you win?

Maybe you should email the professor I mentioned, or your 2 sources that contradicted your claims, and explain to them how they are wrong?
Please be sure to post their responses.
Thanks.

 

[SSDD]

It only shows the outgoing radiation of the radiator....

No, it shows the outgoing radiation of any object above absolute zero.
Remember......rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T

You just keep digging deeper and deeper. The expression you provided was only for A radiator. If you think there is something in there about a cooler radiator feel free to point it out.

Of course it says nothing about the surroundings, we're discussing outgoing radiation at the moment. Try to focus. If you want to talk about net energy lost or gained, then you need to know about the surroundings.

You may as well quit pretending that you grasp any of this...you are busted toddster....There is nothing whatsoever in either expression of the SB law that says anything at all about incoming energy from another radiator. The fact that you think there is is ample proof that you don't have a clue.

 

[SSDD]

So are you saying that heat is a form of energy or not?

Heat (Q) is thermal energy in transit from a system (or aggregate of electrons, ions, and atoms) at one temperature to a system that is in contact with it but is at a lower temperature

The author is Eugene Hecht, Ph.D.

I don't find anything in his description to disagree with.
If you understood it, you might sound less stupid.

Back to weaseling I see....I don't blame you....trying to say that the SB equation had an expression concerning incoming energy from another radiator pretty much lost you any credibility you had with regard to the math...clearly it is past your understanding...

Being afraid to say whether you think heat is a form of energy or a means of transferring energy speaks volumes.

 

[SSDD]

you were busted when you made the claim that P = εAσT^4 says anything at all about the temperature of the cooler surroundings in the SB law.

Since I never claimed that formula said anything about the temperature of the surroundings whether cooler, hotter or the same, you're arguing with yourself.
Is that the only time you win?

Digging deeper and deeper and deeper....the SB equation only speaks of a radiator radiating into its surroundings....it doesn't matter whether the surroundings are full of other radiators or a completely empty vacuum...the equation describes a gross energy flow from a radiator which varies with the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings. If you thought that it spoke to anything other than that then chalk it up to just one more thing you don't know about the SB law.

Maybe you should email the professor I mentioned, or your 2 sources that contradicted your claims, and explain to them how they are wrong?

No need...the equations speak for themselves....if you choose to believe something that the equations don't say feel free. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments.....if you think the equation speaks to incoming radiation from another radiator step right on up and prove that you and the professor are right and point out where within the SB equation the expression for that incoming radiation is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It only shows the outgoing radiation of the radiator....

No, it shows the outgoing radiation of any object above absolute zero.
Remember......rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T

You just keep digging deeper and deeper. The expression you provided was only for A radiator. If you think there is something in there about a cooler radiator feel free to point it out.

Of course it says nothing about the surroundings, we're discussing outgoing radiation at the moment. Try to focus. If you want to talk about net energy lost or gained, then you need to know about the surroundings.

You may as well quit pretending that you grasp any of this...you are busted toddster....There is nothing whatsoever in either expression of the SB law that says anything at all about incoming energy from another radiator. The fact that you think there is is ample proof that you don't have a clue.

The expression you provided was only for A radiator.

And as you know, everything above 0K is a radiator.
I'm kidding, it seems you don't know that.

you are busted toddster

Says the guy who keeps posting sources that directly contradict him.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So are you saying that heat is a form of energy or not?

Heat (Q) is thermal energy in transit from a system (or aggregate of electrons, ions, and atoms) at one temperature to a system that is in contact with it but is at a lower temperature

The author is Eugene Hecht, Ph.D.

I don't find anything in his description to disagree with.
If you understood it, you might sound less stupid.

Back to weaseling I see....I don't blame you....trying to say that the SB equation had an expression concerning incoming energy from another radiator pretty much lost you any credibility you had with regard to the math...clearly it is past your understanding...

Being afraid to say whether you think heat is a form of energy or a means of transferring energy speaks volumes.

trying to say that the SB equation had an expression concerning incoming energy from another radiator pretty much lost you any credibility you had

Says the guy who thinks objects stop radiating, when a warmer object is near. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

you were busted when you made the claim that P = εAσT^4 says anything at all about the temperature of the cooler surroundings in the SB law.

Since I never claimed that formula said anything about the temperature of the surroundings whether cooler, hotter or the same, you're arguing with yourself.
Is that the only time you win?

Digging deeper and deeper and deeper....the SB equation only speaks of a radiator radiating into its surroundings....it doesn't matter whether the surroundings are full of other radiators or a completely empty vacuum...the equation describes a gross energy flow from a radiator which varies with the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings. If you thought that it spoke to anything other than that then chalk it up to just one more thing you don't know about the SB law.

Maybe you should email the professor I mentioned, or your 2 sources that contradicted your claims, and explain to them how they are wrong?

No need...the equations speak for themselves....if you choose to believe something that the equations don't say feel free. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments.....if you think the equation speaks to incoming radiation from another radiator step right on up and prove that you and the professor are right and point out where within the SB equation the expression for that incoming radiation is.

No need...the equations speak for themselves....

And they, and your own sources, prove you're wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

thermodynamic theory says every object of sufficient size gives off radiation proportional to its temperature. there is no arbitrary choice of whether to radiate or not.

When the object is a black body in a vacuum at 0 degrees K. You guys always fail to mention that fact. Once you are no longer talking about a black body and it is out of the vacuum and the surroundings are above 0 degrees K...the equation clearly shows that things begin to change,

in the special case where both the object and the surroundings are the same temperature, both continue to fully radiate according to their temperature but the power is zero because they are both gaining energy as fast as they are radiating it away.

Yeah....heard it before. The thing is though, that according to the SB law, P does not represent "net" energy flow.

SSDD purposely confuses the basic principle of 'every object radiates according to its temperature' with the equation for Power/energy transfer that is dependent on a temperature differential. he declares that the power describes the actual radiation, eg the warmer object emits less than the basic principle demands and the cooler object doesnt radiate at all.

The Stefan Boltzmann Law

The Stefan-Boltzman Law for Black Body Radiation

http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf

Here is an informative clip from that last one

This is known as Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states that the rate of outward radiative energy (per unit area) emitted by an object with temperature T is proportional to the 4th power of T

Note that the SB law is, in fact, talking about rates of outward radiative energy....not net energy flows or any other addendum you would care to add to the law in an effort to make it support your beliefs. Simply rate of outward energy flow....no more...no less.

SSDD cannot let go of this folly because if he did then his worldview of thermodynamics would fall apart.

It isn't me, Ian, who is adding words like net, and statistical to the actual statements of the law in an effort to support my argument...that is you and yours. I am satisfied with the laws as they are stated and until you and yours actually prove that they are wrong, they will remain as they are and state what they state and you will still be making statements that don't agree with the laws. When QM actually proves that energy movement is a net proposition, the laws of thermodynamics will be changed and rewritten to reflect that proof. As of now, they don't which makes me right and you wrong.

Look at your second source.

Radiation emitted by objects

All objects that have a temperature greater than 0 K emit radiation

No exceptions listed.

Do you have a source that says, "All objects that have a temperature greater than 0 K emit radiation, unless a warmer object is nearby"?

How about a source that says, "All objects that have a temperature greater than 0 K emit radiation, unless their surroundings are warmer"?

I wonder why you've failed to produce such a source?

 

[SSDD]

The expression you provided was only for A radiator.

And as you know, everything above 0K is a radiator.
I'm kidding, it seems you don't know that.

So now you are back to weasel words pretending to know what the hell you are talking about when you, I and anyone who bothered to read your posts knows that you don't....You claimed that the expression you provided gave information about the cooler radiator which was supposed to be radiating towards the warmer radiator...your words...You said:

P = εAσT^4

The above equation shows the outgoing radiation of the cooler object.
It also shows the outgoing radiation of the warmer object.p

Regarding the cooler radiator...it shows no such thing....you don't have a clue.....and at this point, you are not much more than comic relief....pretending to know that you understand the math when you don't even know what the above expression is referencing.[/quote]

 

[SSDD]

trying to say that the SB equation had an expression concerning incoming energy from another radiator pretty much lost you any credibility you had

Says the guy who thinks objects stop radiating, when a warmer object is near. LOL!

All I think is what the equations relating to the SB law say is happening....as you have seen and I have proven, the SB equations are not showing any net energy exchange but are describing gross energy flows...you don't believe what the SB law says and are actually calling it magic and claim that something other than what the equations describe is happening...so which one of us is actually out there.

 

[SSDD]

No need...the equations speak for themselves....

And they, and your own sources, prove you're wrong.

Still waiting for you to show where, in any of the expressions of the SB law there is information about incoming radiation from a cooler radiator...till you can provide that information, I remain correct and you or any source remain wrong. The equations say what they say and no source has the power to override physical laws....you show where the expressions in the SB law show incoming radiation from a cooler source and you win...fail to do that and you just fail.

 

[Crick]

Idiot.

Here you go.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law

 

[SSDD]

Look at your second source.

Radiation emitted by objects

All objects that have a temperature greater than 0 K emit radiation

The equations of the SB law describe a one way gross flow of energy...which is correct...a physical law or a source on the internet.

Do you have a source that says, "All objects that have a temperature greater than 0 K emit radiation, unless a warmer object is nearby"?

All I have is the SB law which says that the radiating power of P is equal to the emissivity of the radiating object * the SB constant * the area of the radiator * the temperature to the 4th power of the radiator minus the temperature to the 4th power of the temperature of the surroundings....

That statement explicitly states that the Radiating power of P becomes smaller as the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings decrease...Are you saying that the SB law is wrong?

How about a source that says, "All objects that have a temperature greater than 0 K emit radiation, unless their surroundings are warmer"?

The equations of the SB law itself aren't a good enough source for you? They say explicitly that the radiating power of P is equal to the emissivity of the radiating object * the SB constant * the area of the radiator * the temperature to the 4th power of the radiator minus the temperature to the 4th power of the temperature of the surroundings....

If you could do math you could keep raising the temperature of Tc (the radiator's surroundings) till the temperature of the surroundings were the same temperature as the object and the radiating power of the object would be zero. What other source could I provide that is more authoritative than the physical law that states exactly that?

I wonder why you've failed to produce such a source?

I wonder why you fail to recognize that the physical law itself is the supreme source...any source that doesn't agree with what the physical law says is clearly wrong...now you prove that there is a mathematical statement in the SB law regarding incoming radiation from the background which the radiator is absorbing and you win....fail to do that and again...you just fail. I may not have an advanced degree in math but I can recognize what simple equations like those associated with the SB law say...and I understand that equations associated with physics are describing things that are happening in the real world....and the equations associated with the SB law are describing gross energy flows as there is no expression describing incoming radiation from any other source altering P...

I also understand that if I say anything...or make any claim not supported by the physical law and the equations associated with it that I am wrong till such time as the law is rewritten...you are making claims that the equations of the law don't support...you are claiming that the law is incorrect....in short...you are wrong. The law itself is the ultimate source and it supports my position regardless of what any other source says.

 

[SSDD]

Idiot.

Says the timid little titmouse who is still afraid to engage the actual topic and show where in the SB law there is any expression at all describing incoming radiation from any other source....

We both know you won't because you don't have the education you claim and can't even speak to very simple math like that involved in the expressions associated with the SB law.

You say I'm an idiot but can't even begin to say where I have made any error in my description of the equations describing the SB law...you are, in fact, the idiot and your fear of actually speaking to the math proves it every time you do it.