No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

[DevilsAdvocator]

Do you reject the S-B equation for the Sun or just the Earth?

The SB equations are meaningless for gasses since a gas molecule is not a black body...nor is it a gray body. Using the SB equations for energy exchange in the atmosphere is a fundamental, foundational error of climate science and everything that follows is therefore flawed.

Now the Sun isn't composed of gasses? You are just a fountain of misinformation aren't you.

I'd like his explanation for how the cooler Sun's surface manages to radiate toward the much hotter corona.

that direction quickly goes into the weeds. the corona is not like an atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you reject the S-B equation for the Sun or just the Earth?

The SB equations are meaningless for gasses since a gas molecule is not a black body...nor is it a gray body. Using the SB equations for energy exchange in the atmosphere is a fundamental, foundational error of climate science and everything that follows is therefore flawed.

Now the Sun isn't composed of gasses? You are just a fountain of misinformation aren't you.

I'd like his explanation for how the cooler Sun's surface manages to radiate toward the much hotter corona.

that direction quickly goes into the weeds. the corona is not like an atmosphere.

SSDD claims photons won't travel from cooler matter toward hotter matter.
The corona is hotter, so the surface should stop emitting.

 

[DevilsAdvocator]

hey Toddster. where do YOU think the missing 200+ watts comes from? is your understanding different than mine? any small (or large) differences you'd like to discuss?

any qualms like how Trenberth double dips latent heat/thermals?

 

[DevilsAdvocator]

Do you reject the S-B equation for the Sun or just the Earth?

The SB equations are meaningless for gasses since a gas molecule is not a black body...nor is it a gray body. Using the SB equations for energy exchange in the atmosphere is a fundamental, foundational error of climate science and everything that follows is therefore flawed.

Now the Sun isn't composed of gasses? You are just a fountain of misinformation aren't you.

I'd like his explanation for how the cooler Sun's surface manages to radiate toward the much hotter corona.

that direction quickly goes into the weeds. the corona is not like an atmosphere.

SSDD claims photons won't travel from cooler matter toward hotter matter.
The corona is hotter, so the surface should stop emitting.

yah, but the density and temperature of the corona arent caused by simple radiative transfer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

hey Toddster. where do YOU think the missing 200+ watts comes from? is your understanding different than mine? any small (or large) differences you'd like to discuss?

any qualms like how Trenberth double dips latent heat/thermals?

The atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The SB equations are meaningless for gasses since a gas molecule is not a black body...nor is it a gray body. Using the SB equations for energy exchange in the atmosphere is a fundamental, foundational error of climate science and everything that follows is therefore flawed.

Now the Sun isn't composed of gasses? You are just a fountain of misinformation aren't you.

I'd like his explanation for how the cooler Sun's surface manages to radiate toward the much hotter corona.

that direction quickly goes into the weeds. the corona is not like an atmosphere.

SSDD claims photons won't travel from cooler matter toward hotter matter.
The corona is hotter, so the surface should stop emitting.

yah, but the density and temperature of the corona arent caused by simple radiative transfer.

SSDD thinks the 2nd Law means no radiation from cool to hot.

Is he correct?

 

[DevilsAdvocator]

Now the Sun isn't composed of gasses? You are just a fountain of misinformation aren't you.

I'd like his explanation for how the cooler Sun's surface manages to radiate toward the much hotter corona.

that direction quickly goes into the weeds. the corona is not like an atmosphere.

SSDD claims photons won't travel from cooler matter toward hotter matter.
The corona is hotter, so the surface should stop emitting.

yah, but the density and temperature of the corona arent caused by simple radiative transfer.

SSDD thinks the 2nd Law means no radiation from cool to hot.

Is he correct?

the SLoT says no heat can be transferred from cool to warm. radiation only turns into heat if there is a net flow in one direction. the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other but the net flow would be towards the surface, magnetic and electrical forces being ignored

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'd like his explanation for how the cooler Sun's surface manages to radiate toward the much hotter corona.

that direction quickly goes into the weeds. the corona is not like an atmosphere.

SSDD claims photons won't travel from cooler matter toward hotter matter.
The corona is hotter, so the surface should stop emitting.

yah, but the density and temperature of the corona arent caused by simple radiative transfer.

SSDD thinks the 2nd Law means no radiation from cool to hot.

Is he correct?

the SLoT says no heat can be transferred from cool to warm. radiation only turns into heat if there is a net flow in one direction. the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other but the net flow would be towards the surface, magnetic and electrical forces being ignored

the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other

Don't tell SSDD. His photons refuse to move toward warmer matter.

 

[DevilsAdvocator]

that direction quickly goes into the weeds. the corona is not like an atmosphere.

SSDD claims photons won't travel from cooler matter toward hotter matter.
The corona is hotter, so the surface should stop emitting.

yah, but the density and temperature of the corona arent caused by simple radiative transfer.

SSDD thinks the 2nd Law means no radiation from cool to hot.

Is he correct?

the SLoT says no heat can be transferred from cool to warm. radiation only turns into heat if there is a net flow in one direction. the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other but the net flow would be towards the surface, magnetic and electrical forces being ignored

the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other

Don't tell SSDD. His photons refuse to move toward warmer matter.

He is obviously wrong. Radiation goes in all directions, all the time, from everything. What does the temperature of the target have to do with the matter that is radiating?

 

[DevilsAdvocator]

that direction quickly goes into the weeds. the corona is not like an atmosphere.

SSDD claims photons won't travel from cooler matter toward hotter matter.
The corona is hotter, so the surface should stop emitting.

yah, but the density and temperature of the corona arent caused by simple radiative transfer.

SSDD thinks the 2nd Law means no radiation from cool to hot.

Is he correct?

the SLoT says no heat can be transferred from cool to warm. radiation only turns into heat if there is a net flow in one direction. the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other but the net flow would be towards the surface, magnetic and electrical forces being ignored

the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other

Don't tell SSDD. His photons refuse to move toward warmer matter.

It doesn't matter how fast the the matter is moving because of its temperature, the photon will catch up. Atoms or molecules either absorb, reflect or transmit photons according to their emissivity. It is because of how the electrons are bound, and the quantum states available. Why would distant objects affect emission or absorbance?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD claims photons won't travel from cooler matter toward hotter matter.
The corona is hotter, so the surface should stop emitting.

yah, but the density and temperature of the corona arent caused by simple radiative transfer.

SSDD thinks the 2nd Law means no radiation from cool to hot.

Is he correct?

the SLoT says no heat can be transferred from cool to warm. radiation only turns into heat if there is a net flow in one direction. the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other but the net flow would be towards the surface, magnetic and electrical forces being ignored

the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other

Don't tell SSDD. His photons refuse to move toward warmer matter.

He is obviously wrong. Radiation goes in all directions, all the time, from everything. What does the temperature of the target have to do with the matter that is radiating?

He is obviously wrong. Radiation goes in all directions, all the time, from everything. What does the temperature of the target have to do with the matter that is radiating?

It's his wacky misinterpretation of the 2nd Law.
Epicycles built on epicycles, so that he can say back radiation doesn't exist.

 

[SSDD]

No, ian, it isn't a catch phrase..it is simply what the SB equations say...you really have become quite the liar in your attempt to rationalize your dogma....like your posting up of the loschmidt article completely avoiding the relevance to jelbring and n&z...doesn't your recent rapid decent into dishonesty raise questions about why?....I honesty thought you had more character than that...was I wrong?

Whoaaaa now. Jelbring and N&Z? Where did they come from? Are you changing your position again?

Where did they come from?...clearly you didn't read the link I provided and am not going to offer any more...continue to wallow in your quasi religious dogma if you like...you seem to like it there. But do keep in mind that their hypotheses...scratch that...theories now that the basics have been proven by experimentation predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can only predict the temperature here with a fudge factor.

 

[SSDD]

No, ian, it isn't a catch phrase..it is simply what the SB equations say...

Please point out where the S-B equations make mention of a special exemption for vacuum and non vacuum states. I know they deal with conditions of no radiation, an imaginary state because even empty space has some background radiation, and conditions where two objects have a net exchange of energy but I haven't seen any special mention of vacuums. Where did you see it? Got a link?

Says right there in the equation ian...i thought you were the brightest guy in the room....surprising that the smartest guy in the room would miss such a fundamental statement of the equations..and then base everything after on a terribly flawed understanding of the fundamentals...Here ian....

This equation represents a radiator...radiating into nothing...radiating according to its temperature...where might you find nothing...no background other than a vacuum ian?

This equation represents a radiator radiating into a background with some temperature....in order for the radiator to be radiating...(P=something other than 0), the background must be cooler than the radiator...the presence of a background with a temperature suggests somewhere other than a vacuum

This is something that I have been trying to point out to you for a long time ian, and you just don't seem to be able to grasp it...these aren't just numbers and symbols...they are sentences, structured to say something...structured to describe a physical reality...the words could be written out in english, or german, or yiddish, but the symbolism of math is more efficient...but it doesn't change the fact that they are statements written in a language describing a physical reality... one describes a radiator...in a vacuum, radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator, not in a vacuum, radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and the background it is radiating into...you can't see that because you can't grasp that it is something other than math....you only see the equations and not the physical reality they are describing...which is precisely why you find that you had no idea that the radiator you love to describe radiating according to its temperature is sitting all by its lonesome in a vacuum...you are so busy being the smartest guy in the room that you have missed things that us guys who have to put an effort into thinking see pretty clearly. You apparently are under the impression that you know so much that thinking is no longer necessary.

It is a sad commentary on your intellect that you would have to have "special" mention made of a vacuum....the guys who wrote this figured that if you were interested, you would have already taken the time to learn to speak the language....where, other than a vacuum might you be able to put your radiator so that it remains unaffected by any background temperature?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, ian, it isn't a catch phrase..it is simply what the SB equations say...

Please point out where the S-B equations make mention of a special exemption for vacuum and non vacuum states. I know they deal with conditions of no radiation, an imaginary state because even empty space has some background radiation, and conditions where two objects have a net exchange of energy but I haven't seen any special mention of vacuums. Where did you see it? Got a link?

Says right there in the equation ian...i thought you were the brightest guy in the room....surprising that the smartest guy in the room would miss such a fundamental statement of the equations..and then base everything after on a terribly flawed understanding of the fundamentals...Here ian....

This equation represents a radiator...radiating into nothing...radiating according to its temperature...where might you find nothing...no background other than a vacuum ian?

This equation represents a radiator radiating into a background with some temperature....in order for the radiator to be radiating...(P=something other than 0), the background must be cooler than the radiator...the presence of a background with a temperature suggests somewhere other than a vacuum

This is something that I have been trying to point out to you for a long time ian, and you just don't seem to be able to grasp it...these aren't just numbers and symbols...they are sentences, structured to say something...structured to describe a physical reality...the words could be written out in english, or german, or yiddish, but the symbolism of math is more efficient...but it doesn't change the fact that they are statements written in a language describing a physical reality... one describes a radiator...in a vacuum, radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator, not in a vacuum, radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and the background it is radiating into...you can't see that because you can't grasp that it is something other than math....you only see the equations and not the physical reality they are describing...which is precisely why you find that you had no idea that the radiator you love to describe radiating according to its temperature is sitting all by its lonesome in a vacuum...you are so busy being the smartest guy in the room that you have missed things that us guys who have to put an effort into thinking see pretty clearly. You apparently are under the impression that you know so much that thinking is no longer necessary.

It is a sad commentary on your intellect that you would have to have "special" mention made of a vacuum....the guys who wrote this figured that if you were interested, you would have already taken the time to learn to speak the language....where, other than a vacuum might you be able to put your radiator so that it remains unaffected by any background temperature?

...the other describes a radiator, not in a vacuum, radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and the background it is radiating into...

Of course, radiators with dimmer switches. This is why we point and laugh.

 

[IanC]

No, ian, it isn't a catch phrase..it is simply what the SB equations say...

Please point out where the S-B equations make mention of a special exemption for vacuum and non vacuum states. I know they deal with conditions of no radiation, an imaginary state because even empty space has some background radiation, and conditions where two objects have a net exchange of energy but I haven't seen any special mention of vacuums. Where did you see it? Got a link?

Says right there in the equation ian...i thought you were the brightest guy in the room....surprising that the smartest guy in the room would miss such a fundamental statement of the equations..and then base everything after on a terribly flawed understanding of the fundamentals...Here ian....

This equation represents a radiator...radiating into nothing...radiating according to its temperature...where might you find nothing...no background other than a vacuum ian?

This equation represents a radiator radiating into a background with some temperature....in order for the radiator to be radiating...(P=something other than 0), the background must be cooler than the radiator...the presence of a background with a temperature suggests somewhere other than a vacuum

This is something that I have been trying to point out to you for a long time ian, and you just don't seem to be able to grasp it...these aren't just numbers and symbols...they are sentences, structured to say something...structured to describe a physical reality...the words could be written out in english, or german, or yiddish, but the symbolism of math is more efficient...but it doesn't change the fact that they are statements written in a language describing a physical reality... one describes a radiator...in a vacuum, radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator, not in a vacuum, radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and the background it is radiating into...you can't see that because you can't grasp that it is something other than math....you only see the equations and not the physical reality they are describing...which is precisely why you find that you had no idea that the radiator you love to describe radiating according to its temperature is sitting all by its lonesome in a vacuum...you are so busy being the smartest guy in the room that you have missed things that us guys who have to put an effort into thinking see pretty clearly. You apparently are under the impression that you know so much that thinking is no longer necessary.

It is a sad commentary on your intellect that you would have to have "special" mention made of a vacuum....the guys who wrote this figured that if you were interested, you would have already taken the time to learn to speak the language....where, other than a vacuum might you be able to put your radiator so that it remains unaffected by any background temperature?

??????

There you go again! You make a foolish assumption and surround it with semantics, then convince yourself that it must be true.

The first equation describes a single object. Period. The object radiates in proportion to its temperature as described by the equation.

The second equation describes the interaction between two objects, both of which are defined by the first equation.

You don't like the first equation because it implies that the radiation is always there (and it is always there). So you substitute the first equation with the second equation but with the cooler term set to zero, an imaginary case because there is no place in the universe without some radiation.

I hope this simple explanation will clear up your misunderstanding but I doubt it.


Again....the first equation describes the radiation of an object, regardless of the background. The second equation describes the net flow between two objects.

 

[SSDD]

No, ian, it isn't a catch phrase..it is simply what the SB equations say...

Please point out where the S-B equations make mention of a special exemption for vacuum and non vacuum states. I know they deal with conditions of no radiation, an imaginary state because even empty space has some background radiation, and conditions where two objects have a net exchange of energy but I haven't seen any special mention of vacuums. Where did you see it? Got a link?

Says right there in the equation ian...i thought you were the brightest guy in the room....surprising that the smartest guy in the room would miss such a fundamental statement of the equations..and then base everything after on a terribly flawed understanding of the fundamentals...Here ian....

This equation represents a radiator...radiating into nothing...radiating according to its temperature...where might you find nothing...no background other than a vacuum ian?

This equation represents a radiator radiating into a background with some temperature....in order for the radiator to be radiating...(P=something other than 0), the background must be cooler than the radiator...the presence of a background with a temperature suggests somewhere other than a vacuum

This is something that I have been trying to point out to you for a long time ian, and you just don't seem to be able to grasp it...these aren't just numbers and symbols...they are sentences, structured to say something...structured to describe a physical reality...the words could be written out in english, or german, or yiddish, but the symbolism of math is more efficient...but it doesn't change the fact that they are statements written in a language describing a physical reality... one describes a radiator...in a vacuum, radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator, not in a vacuum, radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and the background it is radiating into...you can't see that because you can't grasp that it is something other than math....you only see the equations and not the physical reality they are describing...which is precisely why you find that you had no idea that the radiator you love to describe radiating according to its temperature is sitting all by its lonesome in a vacuum...you are so busy being the smartest guy in the room that you have missed things that us guys who have to put an effort into thinking see pretty clearly. You apparently are under the impression that you know so much that thinking is no longer necessary.

It is a sad commentary on your intellect that you would have to have "special" mention made of a vacuum....the guys who wrote this figured that if you were interested, you would have already taken the time to learn to speak the language....where, other than a vacuum might you be able to put your radiator so that it remains unaffected by any background temperature?

??????

There you go again! You make a foolish assumption and surround it with semantics, then convince yourself that it must be true.

.

Sorry ian..but you are wrong. But here you go...perhaps the physics department at Perdue is credible enough to move you to enlighten yourself somewhat. It is difficult to find a source that explicitly states that the first version of the SB law depicts a radiator radiating into a vacuum...they wrongly assume that anyone reading the material already knows this...clearly everyone reading the material doesn't.

Stefan.doc - Physics (is a doc file from Perdue university which you must download to read) Last section of the second page

Experimentally, σ was measured with increasing precision from the 1890’s (σ=5.45◊10-8Wm-2K-4) to the 1930’s (σ=5.737±0.017◊10-8Wm-2K-4). Thus knowing σ and the surface area of any object (assumed to be a blackbody), the power emitted into a vacuum can be calculated.

In this experiment, you will repeat Stefan’s measurements using computer-assisted data acquisition techniques and you will obtain an estimate for the Stefan-Boltzmann constant σ.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

that direction quickly goes into the weeds. the corona is not like an atmosphere.

SSDD claims photons won't travel from cooler matter toward hotter matter.
The corona is hotter, so the surface should stop emitting.

yah, but the density and temperature of the corona arent caused by simple radiative transfer.

SSDD thinks the 2nd Law means no radiation from cool to hot.

Is he correct?

the SLoT says no heat can be transferred from cool to warm. radiation only turns into heat if there is a net flow in one direction. the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other but the net flow would be towards the surface, magnetic and electrical forces being ignored

the corona and the surface obviously radiate towards each other

Don't tell SSDD. His photons refuse to move toward warmer matter.

This is classic, do you have any idea at all WHY the corona is 200 times hotter than the surface? The theories on this sound every bit as bizarre as why the Moon is in orbit around the Earth

 

[IanC]

No, ian, it isn't a catch phrase..it is simply what the SB equations say...

Please point out where the S-B equations make mention of a special exemption for vacuum and non vacuum states. I know they deal with conditions of no radiation, an imaginary state because even empty space has some background radiation, and conditions where two objects have a net exchange of energy but I haven't seen any special mention of vacuums. Where did you see it? Got a link?

Says right there in the equation ian...i thought you were the brightest guy in the room....surprising that the smartest guy in the room would miss such a fundamental statement of the equations..and then base everything after on a terribly flawed understanding of the fundamentals...Here ian....

This equation represents a radiator...radiating into nothing...radiating according to its temperature...where might you find nothing...no background other than a vacuum ian?

This equation represents a radiator radiating into a background with some temperature....in order for the radiator to be radiating...(P=something other than 0), the background must be cooler than the radiator...the presence of a background with a temperature suggests somewhere other than a vacuum

This is something that I have been trying to point out to you for a long time ian, and you just don't seem to be able to grasp it...these aren't just numbers and symbols...they are sentences, structured to say something...structured to describe a physical reality...the words could be written out in english, or german, or yiddish, but the symbolism of math is more efficient...but it doesn't change the fact that they are statements written in a language describing a physical reality... one describes a radiator...in a vacuum, radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator, not in a vacuum, radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and the background it is radiating into...you can't see that because you can't grasp that it is something other than math....you only see the equations and not the physical reality they are describing...which is precisely why you find that you had no idea that the radiator you love to describe radiating according to its temperature is sitting all by its lonesome in a vacuum...you are so busy being the smartest guy in the room that you have missed things that us guys who have to put an effort into thinking see pretty clearly. You apparently are under the impression that you know so much that thinking is no longer necessary.

It is a sad commentary on your intellect that you would have to have "special" mention made of a vacuum....the guys who wrote this figured that if you were interested, you would have already taken the time to learn to speak the language....where, other than a vacuum might you be able to put your radiator so that it remains unaffected by any background temperature?

??????

There you go again! You make a foolish assumption and surround it with semantics, then convince yourself that it must be true.

.

Sorry ian..but you are wrong. But here you go...perhaps the physics department at Perdue is credible enough to move you to enlighten yourself somewhat. It is difficult to find a source that explicitly states that the first version of the SB law depicts a radiator radiating into a vacuum...they wrongly assume that anyone reading the material already knows this...clearly everyone reading the material doesn't.

Stefan.doc - Physics (is a doc file from Perdue university which you must download to read)

Okay I scanned over the document. It is a boilerplate description of how to do a blackbody experiment. I only saw vacuum mentioned once, something like 'radiation emitted into the vacuum ', which may have been a quote from an old text. Vacuums had no relevance to the experiment but I did notice that their means of measurement was by using a thermophile detector, which they described in some detail.

You are as bad as Old Rocks, sending me on wild goose chases that have no point, and in the end contradict your position.

Next time quote the passage, or at least identify where it can be found. What a fucking waste of time.

 

[jc456]

No, ian, it isn't a catch phrase..it is simply what the SB equations say...

Please point out where the S-B equations make mention of a special exemption for vacuum and non vacuum states. I know they deal with conditions of no radiation, an imaginary state because even empty space has some background radiation, and conditions where two objects have a net exchange of energy but I haven't seen any special mention of vacuums. Where did you see it? Got a link?

Says right there in the equation ian...i thought you were the brightest guy in the room....surprising that the smartest guy in the room would miss such a fundamental statement of the equations..and then base everything after on a terribly flawed understanding of the fundamentals...Here ian....

This equation represents a radiator...radiating into nothing...radiating according to its temperature...where might you find nothing...no background other than a vacuum ian?

This equation represents a radiator radiating into a background with some temperature....in order for the radiator to be radiating...(P=something other than 0), the background must be cooler than the radiator...the presence of a background with a temperature suggests somewhere other than a vacuum

This is something that I have been trying to point out to you for a long time ian, and you just don't seem to be able to grasp it...these aren't just numbers and symbols...they are sentences, structured to say something...structured to describe a physical reality...the words could be written out in english, or german, or yiddish, but the symbolism of math is more efficient...but it doesn't change the fact that they are statements written in a language describing a physical reality... one describes a radiator...in a vacuum, radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator, not in a vacuum, radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and the background it is radiating into...you can't see that because you can't grasp that it is something other than math....you only see the equations and not the physical reality they are describing...which is precisely why you find that you had no idea that the radiator you love to describe radiating according to its temperature is sitting all by its lonesome in a vacuum...you are so busy being the smartest guy in the room that you have missed things that us guys who have to put an effort into thinking see pretty clearly. You apparently are under the impression that you know so much that thinking is no longer necessary.

It is a sad commentary on your intellect that you would have to have "special" mention made of a vacuum....the guys who wrote this figured that if you were interested, you would have already taken the time to learn to speak the language....where, other than a vacuum might you be able to put your radiator so that it remains unaffected by any background temperature?

??????

There you go again! You make a foolish assumption and surround it with semantics, then convince yourself that it must be true.

.

Sorry ian..but you are wrong. But here you go...perhaps the physics department at Perdue is credible enough to move you to enlighten yourself somewhat. It is difficult to find a source that explicitly states that the first version of the SB law depicts a radiator radiating into a vacuum...they wrongly assume that anyone reading the material already knows this...clearly everyone reading the material doesn't.

Stefan.doc - Physics (is a doc file from Perdue university which you must download to read)

Okay I scanned over the document. It is a boilerplate description of how to do a blackbody experiment. I only saw vacuum mentioned once, something like 'radiation emitted into the vacuum ', which may have been a quote from an old text. Vacuums had no relevance to the experiment but I did notice that their means of measurement was by using a thermophile detector, which they described in some detail.

You are as bad as Old Rocks, sending me on wild goose chases that have no point, and in the end contradict your position.

Next time quote the passage, or at least identify where it can be found. What a fucking waste of time.

he did quote the passage in his post!

"Experimentally, σ was measured with increasing precision from the 1890’s (σ=5.45◊10-8Wm-2K-4) to the 1930’s (σ=5.737±0.017◊10-8Wm-2K-4). Thus knowing σ and the surface area of any object (assumed to be a blackbody), the power emitted into a vacuum can be calculated.

In this experiment, you will repeat Stefan’s measurements using computer-assisted data acquisition techniques and you will obtain an estimate for the Stefan-Boltzmann constant σ."

 

[IanC]

Please point out where the S-B equations make mention of a special exemption for vacuum and non vacuum states. I know they deal with conditions of no radiation, an imaginary state because even empty space has some background radiation, and conditions where two objects have a net exchange of energy but I haven't seen any special mention of vacuums. Where did you see it? Got a link?

Says right there in the equation ian...i thought you were the brightest guy in the room....surprising that the smartest guy in the room would miss such a fundamental statement of the equations..and then base everything after on a terribly flawed understanding of the fundamentals...Here ian....

This equation represents a radiator...radiating into nothing...radiating according to its temperature...where might you find nothing...no background other than a vacuum ian?

This equation represents a radiator radiating into a background with some temperature....in order for the radiator to be radiating...(P=something other than 0), the background must be cooler than the radiator...the presence of a background with a temperature suggests somewhere other than a vacuum

This is something that I have been trying to point out to you for a long time ian, and you just don't seem to be able to grasp it...these aren't just numbers and symbols...they are sentences, structured to say something...structured to describe a physical reality...the words could be written out in english, or german, or yiddish, but the symbolism of math is more efficient...but it doesn't change the fact that they are statements written in a language describing a physical reality... one describes a radiator...in a vacuum, radiating according to its temperature...the other describes a radiator, not in a vacuum, radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and the background it is radiating into...you can't see that because you can't grasp that it is something other than math....you only see the equations and not the physical reality they are describing...which is precisely why you find that you had no idea that the radiator you love to describe radiating according to its temperature is sitting all by its lonesome in a vacuum...you are so busy being the smartest guy in the room that you have missed things that us guys who have to put an effort into thinking see pretty clearly. You apparently are under the impression that you know so much that thinking is no longer necessary.

It is a sad commentary on your intellect that you would have to have "special" mention made of a vacuum....the guys who wrote this figured that if you were interested, you would have already taken the time to learn to speak the language....where, other than a vacuum might you be able to put your radiator so that it remains unaffected by any background temperature?

??????

There you go again! You make a foolish assumption and surround it with semantics, then convince yourself that it must be true.

.

Sorry ian..but you are wrong. But here you go...perhaps the physics department at Perdue is credible enough to move you to enlighten yourself somewhat. It is difficult to find a source that explicitly states that the first version of the SB law depicts a radiator radiating into a vacuum...they wrongly assume that anyone reading the material already knows this...clearly everyone reading the material doesn't.

Stefan.doc - Physics (is a doc file from Perdue university which you must download to read)

Okay I scanned over the document. It is a boilerplate description of how to do a blackbody experiment. I only saw vacuum mentioned once, something like 'radiation emitted into the vacuum ', which may have been a quote from an old text. Vacuums had no relevance to the experiment but I did notice that their means of measurement was by using a thermophile detector, which they described in some detail.

You are as bad as Old Rocks, sending me on wild goose chases that have no point, and in the end contradict your position.

Next time quote the passage, or at least identify where it can be found. What a fucking waste of time.

he did quote the passage in his post!

"Experimentally, σ was measured with increasing precision from the 1890’s (σ=5.45◊10-8Wm-2K-4) to the 1930’s (σ=5.737±0.017◊10-8Wm-2K-4). Thus knowing σ and the surface area of any object (assumed to be a blackbody), the power emitted into a vacuum can be calculated.

In this experiment, you will repeat Stefan’s measurements using computer-assisted data acquisition techniques and you will obtain an estimate for the Stefan-Boltzmann constant σ."

That was added afterwards in an edit. As can be seen from my quote.