Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[ReinyDays]

Thank you for the ad hominem attack ... you've conceded my argument is unassailable and are left with only my person to attack ...

 

[jc456]

So ... I answered your question ... please answer mine ... how do infrared thermometers work? ...

do a search in this thread using my user name. it's in here. I actually spoke to a manufacturer.

Let me ask you something while you contemplate whether to find your answer from me out or not. I'm not repeating because you're new to the game.

Anyway, your saying that two objects in a room all the same temperature, room+ two objects, that an infrared camera would show the two objects? just asking. you don't have to answer.

 

[jc456]

Thank you for the ad hominem attack ... you've conceded my argument is unassailable and are left with only my person to attack ...

oh shaw, a newby in here who thinks he can just pound his chest because he's new in here. answer my question on the infrared camera son! you afraid to answer?

here from a previous discussion, but SSDD did a better job explaining then I did. here.

I do that experiment every time I point my Home Depot IR thermometer at my windows looking for leaks.. Can read window sills at 40DegF or so even tho the IR thermometer is at room temperature dude... Straighten up and fly right.. There are HUNDREDS of opportunities to hit on "climate science".. THIS --- aint one of them..

What you do every time you point your Home Depot IR thermometer is get fooled by instrumentation. That lens in the front of your thermometer focuses whatever you point it at at an internal thermopile...if you are pointing it at a warmer object, the thermopile begins to warm and the amount and rate of warming is converted to an electrical signal and plugged into an equation and it tells you the temperature...if what you are pointing it at is a cooler object, the internal thermopile starts cooling down and again, the rate and amount of cooling is converted into an electrical signal and plugged into an equation and it tells you the temperature.

I hate to burst your bubble, but your thermometer is not measuring cold radiation moving from your leaky window to your warmer thermometer. You should be embarrassed that you don't know how such a simple instrument works, but clearly you aren't.....behold, the power of dogma.....you apparently are perfectly fine with being fooled by your instrument every time you use it....ALL HAIL THE DOGMA....

I see why you would want to keep this sort of conversation away from the general population...if I didn't know how my Home Depot IR thermometer worked, I might not want everyone in creation to know about it either...especially if I was passing myself off as some sort of expert in energy transfer..

 

[jc456]

Who said anything about a third object at 9.99999ºC? ... and why are we using a thermometer with that level of accuracy? ... just a pan of water and ice with a Walmart thermometer ... or go to your local high school and ask the chemistry teacher ...

Insulation in building walls prevents convection ... the fiberglass itself isn't the insulating material, it's the air trapping inside the fiberglass ... that's why building inspectors are supposed to check that the fiberglass isn't stuffed into the cavities ... it needs to remain fluffy and trap as much air as possible ... surprisingly, we can frame our homes with 2x4's, we use 2x6's strictly to install more insulation ...

Photons are prohibited from traveling from cooler matter toward hotter matter.
Because the 2nd Law. So says SSDD and jc456 agrees.

Don't worry about it. It's an old argument.

and yet again, ol toddster can't produce an experiment or observation of his claim. And he won't as I told everyone in my previous post. ol toddster just makes shit up!!

what is the answer if t=tc? come on todd, tell me what that answer is? did you study math?

let's see how you react to a challenge.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's funny.

You should post some good sources that agree with you. Must be millions.
Show everyone how wrong I am to claim that objects at equilibrium still radiate.

Show everyone how wrong I am to claim that objects at equilibrium still radiate

Everyone, I say toddster can't produce one experiment that shows objects at equilibrium radiate at each other.

Exactly!
Todd won't prove that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is correct.
And you won't prove that it's been wrong all these years.

there you go, no experiment, just like I said.

t-tc =0 when t=tc.

maybe todd has a different version of SB law.

Every version says that objects above 0K radiate.

Where is the SSDD version that says they don't?

sure, again, i agree. when the objects are at equilibrium t=tc, the output is zero. At least in math classes that's how math worked.

when the objects are at equilibrium t=tc, the output is zero.

Right, only you have no source that says they don't radiate.
After 140 years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who said anything about a third object at 9.99999ºC? ... and why are we using a thermometer with that level of accuracy? ... just a pan of water and ice with a Walmart thermometer ... or go to your local high school and ask the chemistry teacher ...

Insulation in building walls prevents convection ... the fiberglass itself isn't the insulating material, it's the air trapping inside the fiberglass ... that's why building inspectors are supposed to check that the fiberglass isn't stuffed into the cavities ... it needs to remain fluffy and trap as much air as possible ... surprisingly, we can frame our homes with 2x4's, we use 2x6's strictly to install more insulation ...

Photons are prohibited from traveling from cooler matter toward hotter matter.
Because the 2nd Law. So says SSDD and jc456 agrees.

Don't worry about it. It's an old argument.

and yet again, ol toddster can't produce an experiment or observation of his claim. And he won't as I told everyone in my previous post. ol toddster just makes shit up!!

what is the answer if t=tc? come on todd, tell me what that answer is? did you study math?

let's see how you react to a challenge.

ol toddster can't produce an experiment or observation of his claim.

Right, I won't prove Stefan-Boltzmann and I made it up.

what is the answer if t=tc?

Net power equals zero.

 

[jc456]

Show everyone how wrong I am to claim that objects at equilibrium still radiate

Everyone, I say toddster can't produce one experiment that shows objects at equilibrium radiate at each other.

Exactly!
Todd won't prove that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is correct.
And you won't prove that it's been wrong all these years.

there you go, no experiment, just like I said.

t-tc =0 when t=tc.

maybe todd has a different version of SB law.

Every version says that objects above 0K radiate.

Where is the SSDD version that says they don't?

sure, again, i agree. when the objects are at equilibrium t=tc, the output is zero. At least in math classes that's how math worked.

when the objects are at equilibrium t=tc, the output is zero.

Right, only you have no source that says they don't radiate.
After 140 years.

what's the answer todd? zero is zero. so how does nothing radiate?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly!
Todd won't prove that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is correct.
And you won't prove that it's been wrong all these years.

there you go, no experiment, just like I said.

t-tc =0 when t=tc.

maybe todd has a different version of SB law.

Every version says that objects above 0K radiate.

Where is the SSDD version that says they don't?

sure, again, i agree. when the objects are at equilibrium t=tc, the output is zero. At least in math classes that's how math worked.

when the objects are at equilibrium t=tc, the output is zero.

Right, only you have no source that says they don't radiate.
After 140 years.

what's the answer todd? zero is zero. so how does nothing radiate?

zero is zero.

Yes, net is zero.

so how does nothing radiate?

Everything radiates. Stefan-Boltzmann.

Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts

 

[jc456]

there you go, no experiment, just like I said.

t-tc =0 when t=tc.

maybe todd has a different version of SB law.

Every version says that objects above 0K radiate.

Where is the SSDD version that says they don't?

sure, again, i agree. when the objects are at equilibrium t=tc, the output is zero. At least in math classes that's how math worked.

when the objects are at equilibrium t=tc, the output is zero.

Right, only you have no source that says they don't radiate.
After 140 years.

what's the answer todd? zero is zero. so how does nothing radiate?

zero is zero.

Yes, net is zero.

so how does nothing radiate?

Everything radiates. Stefan-Boltzmann.

Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts

nothing isn't anything, so it can't be everything.

 

[Wuwei]

Like I said...no mention of net in the bunch...of course, you have demonstrated a penchant to interpret anything to mean what you want, so no doubt, in your mind, they all explicitly say net...such is the level of dishonesty inherent in your thinking.

Hey, SSDD you ran off and didn't answer this question. Here it is again. These various statements of the second law do not use the words "spontaneous" nor "net" nor "energy". These statements are the Clausius form, Carnot's form and the entropy form. Do you disagree with any of the following statements of the second law?

Clausius Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

“It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”.​

Carnot’s principle states:

1. No engine can be more efficient than a reversible engine (a Carnot heat engine) operating between the same high temperature and low temperature reservoirs.

2. The efficiencies of all reversible engines (Carnot heat engines) operating between the same constant temperature reservoirs are the same, regardless of the working substance employed or the operation details.​

Thermodynamics - The second law of thermodynamics

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible.​

Second Law of Thermodynamics

It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W. Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir. This precludes a perfect heat engine.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.​

5.1 Concept and Statements of the Second Law

No process is possible whose sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work. [Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law

No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. [Clausius statement of the second law]​

Second Law of Thermodynamics

The final entropy must be greater than the initial entropy for an irreversible process.​

.
.

 

[SSDD]

So ... I answered your question ... please answer mine ... how do infrared thermometers work? ...

An infrared thermometer is a rudimentary version of Pictet's experiment. Pictet focused a cool object upon a warm object and noted that the warm object cooled. He thought he had demonstrated cold radiation. In fact all he demonstrated was that that the warm object was losing heat to the cooler object.

An infrared thermometer works on a more advanced application of the same principle. An IR thermometer has a lens in its front that focuses the objects you point it at on an internal thermopile. Point it at an object warmer than the internal thermopile and the thermopile begins to warm. Internal electronics measure how much and how fast the thermopile is warming, run that information through a mathematical equation which provides the information necessary to generate a pretty precise electrical signal which is then converted to a temperature.

Point the thermometer at a cool object and the internal thermopile starts to cool. Again, internal electronics measure how much and how fast the thermopile is cooling and that information is converted to an electrical signal which is then converted to a temperature. The thermometer is not receiving cold radiation from the cooler object..it is only measuring how much and how fast energy is being lost by the warmer thermopile to the cooler object it is focused upon.

 

[SSDD]

actually, if you put a thermometer between the two objects you will get surrounding temps, and not the two objects temperatures. I asked for you to prove it. go for it. post that experiment, put two objects at 10C and put a thermometer between them and give me the reading.

Get some 0ºC liquid water and add some 0ºC ice in a 0ºC environment ... the thermometer in the water will read 0ºC when the system achieves equilibrium ... not sure what you mean by "post that experiment", this is kitchen counter chemistry ... in this system, there are liquid water molecules giving up energy and freezing on the ice, and there are ice molecules absorbing energy becoming liquid, however the thermometer remains at 0ºC because the net energy flow is 0 ... the melting and freezing occur at the same rate ...

The laws of thermodynamics work for all three types of energy transfer ... including radiation ... this is the principle of how infrared thermometers work ... point it at the coldest object in a system and we'll still get a fairly accurate reading ... this is because the coldest object radiates, just less than all the other objects ... thus we get a net flow into the coldest object ...

You have ice, water, and air all in theoretical thermal equilibrium...0C. You don't have the exchange of energy between the three that you believe you do. Interestingly, you picked the phase boundary of water for your mind experiment. True, ice at 0C is at a lower energy state than water at 0C, but since you have put the entire system in theoretical equilibrium at 0C, nothing is going to happen according to the SB law stated in the form

Set T and Tc to the same temperature and P=0. Alter the temperature of any of the three and then energy will begin to move and since the water is at a phase boundary things will start to happen...of course, all those things will be in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy only moves spontaneously from warm to cool

If this is an experiment you performed in a college level physics or chemistry lab, and your professor described what was happening as you described, he failed if he didn't mention to you that in your experiment you really didn't achieve perfect equilibrium...and if you did, then nothing at all would be happening. It is very easy to look at a thing and believe you are seeing one thing, when in fact, you are seeing something entirely different...especially when you are looking at a substance at a phase boundary.

There are people here, on this very thread who are seemingly very intelligent, and claim to work with, and even design scientific instrumentation who believe that when they point their IR thermometer at an object that is cooler than the thermopile in the thermometer, that cold radiation from the cooler object is actually "beaming" into the thermometer and being read by the thermometer. Even when given an explanation of how the thermometer works by a manufacturer, he still believes what he believes.

He has faith rather than knowledge and faith is a very difficult thing to break. If he were working from knowledge, finding out that he was mistaken about how his thermometer works would just result in adjusting his perception of how it works based on new knowledge. "Oh...so that's how it works! Light bulb goes on and now he has an entirely new understanding of how his instrument works...It isn't cold radiation coming in..it is energy leaving the instrument and the amount of and rate of energy leaving tells him how much cooler the object is than the internal thermopile in his thermometer.

He isn't operating from that position though...he is operating from a position of faith, than energy can flow spontaneously between a cool object and a warm object. He isn't willing to give up that faith so he will live out his life, being fooled by instrumentation...believing that the instrument is measuring one thing, when in fact, it is measuring something else. The number on the display of his thermometer is the same, either way, but he is not measuring what he believes he is measuring....and that misunderstanding leaks over into other aspects of energy transfer which also don't alter the number displayed on the instrument being used, but leave him believing that the instruments are measuring something other than what they are actually measuring.

And it isn't just him...it can happen to an entire field of science. The field of meteorology says that a pyrogeometer is the only device that is acceptable to measure downwelling radiation. The fact is that a pyrogeometer is no more capable of measuring downwelling radiation than a mercury thermometer. Pyrogeometers also only measure the temperature change of an internal thermopile and then run that through a mathematical equation that makes an assumption. The assumption is that the instrument is measuring downwelling radiation. It isn't of course...it is only measuring the amount of, and rate of change of the temperature of an internal thermopile...but a whole field of science is being fooled by that particular piece of instrumentation..They have faith that it is measuring downwelling radiation when it is measuring no such thing.

 

[SSDD]

Like I said...no mention of net in the bunch...of course, you have demonstrated a penchant to interpret anything to mean what you want, so no doubt, in your mind, they all explicitly say net...such is the level of dishonesty inherent in your thinking.

Hey, SSDD you ran off and didn't answer this question. Here it is again. These various statements of the second law do not use the words "spontaneous" nor "net" nor "energy". These statements are the Clausius form, Carnot's form and the entropy form. Do you disagree with any of the following statements of the second law?

Clausius Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

“It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”.​

Carnot’s principle states:

1. No engine can be more efficient than a reversible engine (a Carnot heat engine) operating between the same high temperature and low temperature reservoirs.

2. The efficiencies of all reversible engines (Carnot heat engines) operating between the same constant temperature reservoirs are the same, regardless of the working substance employed or the operation details.​

Thermodynamics - The second law of thermodynamics

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible.​

Second Law of Thermodynamics

It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W. Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir. This precludes a perfect heat engine.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.​

5.1 Concept and Statements of the Second Law

No process is possible whose sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work. [Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law

No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. [Clausius statement of the second law]​

Second Law of Thermodynamics

The final entropy must be greater than the initial entropy for an irreversible process.​

.
.

Not playing...been through it all before...if you must relive your failure to make your case, then do it by going back to any of the multitude of times we have already had this discussion...

 

[ReinyDays]

First off ... THANK YOU SSDD ... I sincerely appreciate the time you've taken this morning to type all that in ... I found it very informative, though I don't necessarily agree with everything, I did want to start my answers by acknowledging that some of this information is new to me ... if your intent here is to enlighten, then you're perhaps a better person than me ... let me apologize in advance if I should ever call you a wooly-headed sheep-herder (that sometime slips out of me) ...

Point the thermometer at a cool object and the internal thermopile starts to cool.

Why? ... what physics is going on here ... the argument here is that energy can only be transferred from hot-to-cold ... this means the thermopile is transferring energy from itself to the cool object ... unfortunately, this requires the passage of time and depending on the materials involved it may require a lot of time ... and if we're clever with our thermal masses we could actually increase the temperature of the cool object, although unlikely it is a remote possibility ...

It's simpler to just measure the radiation from the cool object by focusing it onto the thermopile and let the thermopile shed it's extra energy by whatever means possible ... but for this we'd have to concede that black-body radiation is real, and that all objects radiate at all times ...

but since you have put the entire system in theoretical equilibrium at 0C, nothing is going to happen according to the SB law stated in the form

Yeah, that was an especially poor choice of experiments, but it is easy to set up in a typical kitchen environment ... I disagree that "nothing is going to happen", unless there's some physical property that makes it impossible for water to freeze or melt in the vessel at 0ºC ... my understanding is these are on-going processes at rates that are equal, thus we call this equilibrium ... there's no net change in energy at the mole-for-mole level, however individual molecules are exchanging energy as they freeze and melt ... just simple collision physics ...

If you can forgive me for not learning how to parse fancy-pants scientificy symbols here, then I'll be using e = emissivity, o = SB constant and parentheses for subscript ... SB states that the radiative power of an object is proportional to the fourth power of it's temperature, and (ideally) nothing else ... so we have for our first object P(1) = eoAT(1)^4 and for our second object P(2) = eoAT(2)^4 ... our net power is then P(1) - P(2) ... substituting we have eoAT(1)^4 - eoAT(2)^4 and factoring gives eoA(T(1)^4 - T(2)^4) ... meaning this form of SB you give is for net power, and by extension net energy ... it seems these terms are what's offensive I'm not really clear on why ...

There are people here ...

Not sure if you're referring to me ... I admit it's been 40 years since I study all this and that in terms of photometry ... the subject comes up in climate change studies and it seems to be an easy transition ... perhaps I've forgotten the details but the general principles are the same ... I guess I hold these as true on faith, people smarter than me say they are ...

-----

Let's scamper out of mama's kitchen ... she's still mad about the siphoning experiment that went horribly wrong ... let's build a fire out in the backyard, 1500ºC ... now let's put a 20ºC iron bar in the fire ... before the iron bar reaches 1500ºC, it's going to start glowing red ... thus demonstrating that a cooler object does radiate energy, and in amounts proportional to the fourth power of it's own temperature ... I hear sirens, better put the fire out ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First off ... THANK YOU SSDD ... I sincerely appreciate the time you've taken this morning to type all that in ... I found it very informative, though I don't necessarily agree with everything, I did want to start my answers by acknowledging that some of this information is new to me ... if your intent here is to enlighten, then you're perhaps a better person than me ... let me apologize in advance if I should ever call you a wooly-headed sheep-herder (that sometime slips out of me) ...

Point the thermometer at a cool object and the internal thermopile starts to cool.

Why? ... what physics is going on here ... the argument here is that energy can only be transferred from hot-to-cold ... this means the thermopile is transferring energy from itself to the cool object ... unfortunately, this requires the passage of time and depending on the materials involved it may require a lot of time ... and if we're clever with our thermal masses we could actually increase the temperature of the cool object, although unlikely it is a remote possibility ...

It's simpler to just measure the radiation from the cool object by focusing it onto the thermopile and let the thermopile shed it's extra energy by whatever means possible ... but for this we'd have to concede that black-body radiation is real, and that all objects radiate at all times ...

but since you have put the entire system in theoretical equilibrium at 0C, nothing is going to happen according to the SB law stated in the form

Yeah, that was an especially poor choice of experiments, but it is easy to set up in a typical kitchen environment ... I disagree that "nothing is going to happen", unless there's some physical property that makes it impossible for water to freeze or melt in the vessel at 0ºC ... my understanding is these are on-going processes at rates that are equal, thus we call this equilibrium ... there's no net change in energy at the mole-for-mole level, however individual molecules are exchanging energy as they freeze and melt ... just simple collision physics ...

If you can forgive me for not learning how to parse fancy-pants scientificy symbols here, then I'll be using e = emissivity, o = SB constant and parentheses for subscript ... SB states that the radiative power of an object is proportional to the fourth power of it's temperature, and (ideally) nothing else ... so we have for our first object P(1) = eoAT(1)^4 and for our second object P(2) = eoAT(2)^4 ... our net power is then P(1) - P(2) ... substituting we have eoAT(1)^4 - eoAT(2)^4 and factoring gives eoA(T(1)^4 - T(2)^4) ... meaning this form of SB you give is for net power, and by extension net energy ... it seems these terms are what's offensive I'm not really clear on why ...

There are people here ...

Not sure if you're referring to me ... I admit it's been 40 years since I study all this and that in terms of photometry ... the subject comes up in climate change studies and it seems to be an easy transition ... perhaps I've forgotten the details but the general principles are the same ... I guess I hold these as true on faith, people smarter than me say they are ...

-----

Let's scamper out of mama's kitchen ... she's still mad about the siphoning experiment that went horribly wrong ... let's build a fire out in the backyard, 1500ºC ... now let's put a 20ºC iron bar in the fire ... before the iron bar reaches 1500ºC, it's going to start glowing red ... thus demonstrating that a cooler object does radiate energy, and in amounts proportional to the fourth power of it's own temperature ... I hear sirens, better put the fire out ...

meaning this form of SB you give is for net power, and by extension net energy ... it seems these terms are what's offensive I'm not really clear on why ...


SSDD believes the cooler atmosphere cannot radiate towards the cooler surface, because that would violate the 2nd Law. This would make back radiation (and global warming) impossible.

His "theory" requires epicycle upon epicycle.

For example, the cooler surface of the sun cannot radiate toward the hotter corona.
If I point a flashlight at the sun, for some reason, it is impossible for these flashlight photons to
hit the sun's surface. Originally he claimed cooler matter simply "will not radiate" toward hotter matter.

Even billions of light years away, an emitter will predict the target and its temperature and not send a photon in the direction of warmer matter.

Very complicated. Occasionally he would post a source to back up his silly claims. Inevitably, the source would end up contradicting his claims. He now just claims he already won, despite no sources agreeing with "objects at equilibrium stop all emissions" or with "photons from cooler matter don't travel toward or hit hotter matter.

 

[ReinyDays]

Has anyone directed him to the emission spectrum of carbon dioxide? ...

 

[jc456]

 

[Wuwei]

Like I said...no mention of net in the bunch...of course, you have demonstrated a penchant to interpret anything to mean what you want, so no doubt, in your mind, they all explicitly say net...such is the level of dishonesty inherent in your thinking.

Hey, SSDD you ran off and didn't answer this question. Here it is again. These various statements of the second law do not use the words "spontaneous" nor "net" nor "energy". These statements are the Clausius form, Carnot's form and the entropy form. Do you disagree with any of the following statements of the second law?

Clausius Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

“It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”.​

Carnot’s principle states:

1. No engine can be more efficient than a reversible engine (a Carnot heat engine) operating between the same high temperature and low temperature reservoirs.

2. The efficiencies of all reversible engines (Carnot heat engines) operating between the same constant temperature reservoirs are the same, regardless of the working substance employed or the operation details.​

Thermodynamics - The second law of thermodynamics

A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible.​

Second Law of Thermodynamics

It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W. Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir. This precludes a perfect heat engine.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.​

5.1 Concept and Statements of the Second Law

No process is possible whose sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work. [Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law

No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. [Clausius statement of the second law]​

Second Law of Thermodynamics

The final entropy must be greater than the initial entropy for an irreversible process..​

​

Not playing...been through it all before...if you must relive your failure to make your case, then do it by going back to any of the multitude of times we have already had this discussion...

We have never had a discussion on the various laws I quoted. I know why you are not playing. It is because you think the laws that I cited are wrong. You painted yourself in a corner.

The only thing you cling to is
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. But you have said anything that has received prior energy does not radiate spontaneously. The only conclusion is radiation can flow anywhere. You have failed to make your case.

.

.

 

[Wuwei]

If you can forgive me for not learning how to parse fancy-pants scientificy symbols here, then I'll be using e = emissivity, o = SB constant and parentheses for subscript ... SB states that the radiative power of an object is proportional to the fourth power of it's temperature, and (ideally) nothing else ... so we have for our first object P(1) = eoAT(1)^4 and for our second object P(2) = eoAT(2)^4 ... our net power is then P(1) - P(2) ... substituting we have eoAT(1)^4 - eoAT(2)^4 and factoring gives eoA(T(1)^4 - T(2)^4) ... meaning this form of SB you give is for net power, and by extension net energy ... it seems these terms are what's offensive I'm not really clear on why ...

You are right. This is a more detailed explanation from Dartmouth Univ. However SSDD does not believe it and makes up his own interpretation. He has no reference that agrees with him.

 

[SSDD]

First off ... THANK YOU SSDD ... I sincerely appreciate the time you've taken this morning to type all that in ... I found it very informative, though I don't necessarily agree with everything, I did want to start my answers by acknowledging that some of this information is new to me ... if your intent here is to enlighten, then you're perhaps a better person than me ... let me apologize in advance if I should ever call you a wooly-headed sheep-herder (that sometime slips out of me) ...

No sweat...I have the same reaction to people who believe things simply because they are called science but lack empirical evidence to support the belief...It is science after all and belief really doesn't have a place beyond the original thought...then experimentation, observation, careful measurement, thoughtful consideration of the results, then repeated retesting take the element of belief out and replace it with demonstrable empirical evidence.

Once that has happened, one doesn't need to propose thought experiments and mathematical models and flights such of fancy in which all manner of things can be claimed to be happening without the burden of actually proving that those things are happening.

People who believe are acting from a quasi religious position whereas people who have actually seen the evidence are not.

Why? ... what physics is going on here ...

The physics described by the second law of thermodynamics which says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.

the argument here is that energy can only be transferred from hot-to-cold ... this means the thermopile is transferring energy from itself to the cool object ... unfortunately, this requires the passage of time and depending on the materials involved it may require a lot of time ...

Fortunately, the engineers who designed the thermometers chose sensors and instruments that do not take a lot of time. Otherwise you might need to set your IR thermometer on a tripod to wait. A bit of time does pass between the instant you activate your thermometer and the time the display appears. Not much, but the process isn't instantaneous.

and if we're clever with our thermal masses we could actually increase the temperature of the cool object, although unlikely it is a remote possibility ...

Pictet demonstrated that this could happen given time...after all, the warmer object is losing energy to the cooler object. In the case of a tiny thermopile over distance, however, that isn't a real consideration. The IR thermometers that you purchase from home depot have a relatively large margin of error. If you want a smaller margin of error, you must spend considerably more money...7uy\\\87

It's simpler to just measure the radiation from the cool object by focusing it onto the thermopile and let the thermopile shed it's extra energy by whatever means possible ... but for this we'd have to concede that black-body radiation is real, and that all objects radiate at all times ...

It would be...except there is no radiation from the cooler object. That whole energy only moving in one direction thing is a big obstacle.

If you can forgive me for not learning how to parse fancy-pants scientificy symbols here, then I'll be using e = emissivity, o = SB constant and parentheses for subscript ... SB states that the radiative power of an object is proportional to the fourth power of it's temperature, and (ideally) nothing else ... so we have for our first object P(1) = eoAT(1)^4 and for our second object P(2) = eoAT(2)^4 ... our net power is then P(1) - P(2) ... substituting we have eoAT(1)^4 - eoAT(2)^4 and factoring gives eoA(T(1)^4 - T(2)^4) ... meaning this form of SB you give is for net power, and by extension net energy ... it seems these terms are what's offensive I'm not really clear on why ...

This equation can not give you net anything. In order to derive net from an equation, you must have an expression within the equation to derive net. This is a simple subtract and multiply equation...there is nothing there from which to derive net.

Simply stated, the equation says that the power emitted by the radiator...that is THE radiator.....only one radiator....is equal to the emissivity of the radiator, times the SB constant, times the area of the radiator times the difference in temperature of the radiator and its cooler surroundings to the 4th power) There is no description of two radiators within that equation.

One of the guys on this board likes to show an equation....actually, an unfinished equation which he believes shows the means by which one derives net from the SB equation, but his so called equation is nothing more than the process of reducing the equation to its simplest terms...the bottom line...the finished, elegant equation is stated as above....The unfinished equation which he represents as the means by which net may be derived completely ignores the fundamental assumption of the SB law which is that the radiator is warmer than its surroundings.

Not sure if you're referring to me ... I admit it's been 40 years since I study all this and that in terms of photometry ... the subject comes up in climate change studies and it seems to be an easy transition ... perhaps I've forgotten the details but the general principles are the same ... I guess I hold these as true on faith, people smarter than me say they are ...

No...unless you actually believe that cold radiation is being beamed into your IR thermometer...It isn't...and one of the guys went so far as to inquire from the manufacturer how the device works...the manufacturer was clear on the fact that the thermopile is losing energy to the cooler object...

The fact is that belief that energy is free flowing between objects of different temperatures is an article of faith...there are certainly no actual measurements of such a thing happening. The idea of net energy exchange is an artifact of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.

No such observations or measurements have ever been made...it is a belief...not a statement based on empirical fact.

Let's scamper out of mama's kitchen ... she's still mad about the siphoning experiment that went horribly wrong ... let's build a fire out in the backyard, 1500ºC ... now let's put a 20ºC iron bar in the fire ... before the iron bar reaches 1500ºC, it's going to start glowing red ... thus demonstrating that a cooler object does radiate energy, and in amounts proportional to the fourth power of it's own temperature ... I hear sirens, better put the fire out ...

Thought experiments are fun..but they do allow you to fool yourself if you aren't careful and if the only reason you proposed the experiment was an attempt to prove a point. You throw your iron bar in the fire and it starts warming up...but it is laying in the coals...no radiation going on there...The laws of physics say that there can be no radiation between objects that are in intimate contact. That sort of energy movement is conduction. The only radiation that is happening insofar as the iron bar goes is radiation moving from the warmer bar to the cooler air.

I am an empirical sort of guy...show me data from actual observations, and measurements...and demonstrate that you haven't simply been fooled by the instrumentation and then I can modify my position.

Now it is true, that I may be wrong, but being wrong based on the best empirical evidence available, in my view is better than being wrong because I took an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model on faith. If future instrumentation is sensitive enough to actually measure and record spontaneous energy movement between objects of different temperatures, then I will modify my position to include the best empirical evidence available.