The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

[polarbear]

Hey guess what I did find one:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1385/8945/files/210_manual_090607.pdf?4556440520457788278
24
SECTION 3.2: Sensitivity Check / Optimizing the Flame
Sensitivity check
However, for elements requiring richer flames (including those requiring nitrous oxide), or if you are having
trouble achieving the sensitivity check, optimizing the flame may improve your results. Starting with the
burner head 4mm below the beam, light the flame and let the burner warm up a few minutes while aspirating
de-ionized water. Zero the instrument then aspirate your high standard. Slowly increase the fuel (turn the fuel
adjust counter clockwise) while watching the absorbance reading until you reach the best absorbance.
There it is. Of course the Darwin award winners can`t get it what the manual stated.
A fuel rich flame is cooler and the absorbance you get is better than at higher temperatures. Of course you also need a temperature high enough to atomize the substance you want to analyze

 

[SSDD]

Who am I to argue with the second law of thermodynamics?

But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.

Photons don't move spontaneously from cool to warm....but if you feel like you can provide an example that violates the second law, by all means do show it...

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

Nothing more than a mathematically constructed hypothesis based on assumptions.

This is the whole argument you guys have been fighting for weeks on. This drives me nuts!

The whole point of my thread was the physical conditions of matter that allow or disallow absorption of photons (EM radiation). CO2 is energy saturated in our atmosphere and once the molecule is in the positive or high state it can not receive more energy before it releases energy and returns to its low (neutral) dipole state.

MY whole point being, that our atmosphere is now totally transparent to LWIR and it can not cause further warming at current levels of CO2 saturation.

What is the status of newly emitted CO2 from vehicles and powerplants? Is it also transparent to LWIR? I thought the whole argument about AGW was more CO2 led to more energy absorbed led to a warmer atmosphere.

Absorbed by what? Long wave IR emitting from the earth? Read a bit of data produced by engineers and manufacturers who produce infrared heating systems. They have about a million hours of design, experiment, industrial, and residential application that demonstrates pretty clearly that air is not heated by infrared radiation. Conduction and convection so overwhelmingly dominate energy movement from the surface to the top of the troposphere (where the greenhouse effect, and AGW are supposed to be happening) that the very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is laughable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No one is denying that Photons or EM radiation can flow from a cooler object towards a warmer object

SSDD denies that. Strenuously.

Who am I to argue with the second law of thermodynamics?

But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.

Photons don't move spontaneously from cool to warm....but if you feel like you can provide an example that violates the second law, by all means do show it...

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net. If you like, do feel free to show me an observed, measured instance of energy flowing spontaneously in two directions. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible, and the second law has not been changed to reflect net energy flow....it it still describes one way gross energy movement from a more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a less organized state to a more organized state...according to the second law, that isn't possible.

What you are stating as if it were fact, is nothing more than what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model predicts based on yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model....not much substance there to be stating it as if it were real.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Who am I to argue with the second law of thermodynamics?

But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.

Photons don't move spontaneously from cool to warm....but if you feel like you can provide an example that violates the second law, by all means do show it...

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net. If you like, do feel free to show me an observed, measured instance of energy flowing spontaneously in two directions. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible, and the second law has not been changed to reflect net energy flow....it it still describes one way gross energy movement from a more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a less organized state to a more organized state...according to the second law, that isn't possible.

What you are stating as if it were fact, is nothing more than what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model predicts based on yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model....not much substance there to be stating it as if it were real.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

'NET' is ALWAYS USED WHEN 'WORK' IS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM. It refers to the amount of energy removed by WORK!

It is defined by an outside energy source creating WORK!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Who am I to argue with the second law of thermodynamics?

But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.

Photons don't move spontaneously from cool to warm....but if you feel like you can provide an example that violates the second law, by all means do show it...

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net. If you like, do feel free to show me an observed, measured instance of energy flowing spontaneously in two directions. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible, and the second law has not been changed to reflect net energy flow....it it still describes one way gross energy movement from a more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a less organized state to a more organized state...according to the second law, that isn't possible.

What you are stating as if it were fact, is nothing more than what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model predicts based on yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model....not much substance there to be stating it as if it were real.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

bolding mine

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.

Photons don't move spontaneously from cool to warm....but if you feel like you can provide an example that violates the second law, by all means do show it...

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net. If you like, do feel free to show me an observed, measured instance of energy flowing spontaneously in two directions. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible, and the second law has not been changed to reflect net energy flow....it it still describes one way gross energy movement from a more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a less organized state to a more organized state...according to the second law, that isn't possible.

What you are stating as if it were fact, is nothing more than what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model predicts based on yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model....not much substance there to be stating it as if it were real.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

'NET' is ALWAYS USED WHEN 'WORK' IS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM. It refers to the amount of energy removed by WORK!

It is defined by an outside energy source creating WORK!

'NET' is ALWAYS USED WHEN 'WORK' IS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM. It refers to the amount of energy removed by WORK!

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Human skin is doing work to remove heat from the walls of the room?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But the photons from cooler to warmer doesn't violate the second law.

Photons don't move spontaneously from cool to warm....but if you feel like you can provide an example that violates the second law, by all means do show it...

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net. If you like, do feel free to show me an observed, measured instance of energy flowing spontaneously in two directions. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible, and the second law has not been changed to reflect net energy flow....it it still describes one way gross energy movement from a more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a less organized state to a more organized state...according to the second law, that isn't possible.

What you are stating as if it were fact, is nothing more than what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model predicts based on yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model....not much substance there to be stating it as if it were real.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

bolding mine

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Photons don't move spontaneously from cool to warm....but if you feel like you can provide an example that violates the second law, by all means do show it...

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net. If you like, do feel free to show me an observed, measured instance of energy flowing spontaneously in two directions. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible, and the second law has not been changed to reflect net energy flow....it it still describes one way gross energy movement from a more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a less organized state to a more organized state...according to the second law, that isn't possible.

What you are stating as if it were fact, is nothing more than what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model predicts based on yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model....not much substance there to be stating it as if it were real.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

'NET' is ALWAYS USED WHEN 'WORK' IS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM. It refers to the amount of energy removed by WORK!

It is defined by an outside energy source creating WORK!

'NET' is ALWAYS USED WHEN 'WORK' IS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM. It refers to the amount of energy removed by WORK!

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Human skin is doing work to remove heat from the walls of the room?

Try again Todd...

Now your conflating masses of differing sizes to doing work.. AND yes the human heart is doing work... But again you conflate the two... into an unrecognizable jumble...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Photons don't move spontaneously from cool to warm....but if you feel like you can provide an example that violates the second law, by all means do show it...

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net. If you like, do feel free to show me an observed, measured instance of energy flowing spontaneously in two directions. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible, and the second law has not been changed to reflect net energy flow....it it still describes one way gross energy movement from a more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a less organized state to a more organized state...according to the second law, that isn't possible.

What you are stating as if it were fact, is nothing more than what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model predicts based on yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model....not much substance there to be stating it as if it were real.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

bolding mine

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

This is why I don't debate this stuff for long since you just ran away from the "refrigerator" link that doesn't agree with you. The link YOU posted in the first place.

Give it up Todd, you are evading the reality the concept can only work when there is work added to it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Photons don't move spontaneously from cool to warm....but if you feel like you can provide an example that violates the second law, by all means do show it...

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net. If you like, do feel free to show me an observed, measured instance of energy flowing spontaneously in two directions. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible, and the second law has not been changed to reflect net energy flow....it it still describes one way gross energy movement from a more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a less organized state to a more organized state...according to the second law, that isn't possible.

What you are stating as if it were fact, is nothing more than what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model predicts based on yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model....not much substance there to be stating it as if it were real.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

bolding mine

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

As the sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons all this is seeing is the photons emitted from all matter above 0K. What it is not doing is warming from that lower temperature and lower energy photon from striking the sensor.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.. Now what can a more energized mass do with a lesser energized photon? Does it reflect it? Absorb it? or does it cool the object it strikes by taking on the energy of the higher energetic state (this is called dampening) IF the photon is now taking on more energy to be re-emitted, then it is cooling the mass.

So what is your magical photon doing?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net. If you like, do feel free to show me an observed, measured instance of energy flowing spontaneously in two directions. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible, and the second law has not been changed to reflect net energy flow....it it still describes one way gross energy movement from a more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a less organized state to a more organized state...according to the second law, that isn't possible.

What you are stating as if it were fact, is nothing more than what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model predicts based on yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model....not much substance there to be stating it as if it were real.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

'NET' is ALWAYS USED WHEN 'WORK' IS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM. It refers to the amount of energy removed by WORK!

It is defined by an outside energy source creating WORK!

'NET' is ALWAYS USED WHEN 'WORK' IS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM. It refers to the amount of energy removed by WORK!

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Human skin is doing work to remove heat from the walls of the room?

Try again Todd...

Now your conflating masses of differing sizes to doing work.. AND yes the human heart is doing work... But again you conflate the two... into an unrecognizable jumble...

Now your conflating masses of differing sizes to doing work.

You're the one claiming work has to be done for matter above 0K to emit.

AND yes the human heart is doing work

Excellent. So why are the walls radiating?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net. If you like, do feel free to show me an observed, measured instance of energy flowing spontaneously in two directions. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible, and the second law has not been changed to reflect net energy flow....it it still describes one way gross energy movement from a more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a less organized state to a more organized state...according to the second law, that isn't possible.

What you are stating as if it were fact, is nothing more than what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model predicts based on yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model....not much substance there to be stating it as if it were real.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

bolding mine

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

This is why I don't debate this stuff for long since you just ran away from the "refrigerator" link that doesn't agree with you. The link YOU posted in the first place.

Give it up Todd, you are evading the reality the concept can only work when there is work added to it.

This is why I don't debate this stuff for long since you just ran away from the "refrigerator" link that doesn't agree with you.

Ran away? LOL!

How does this disagree with me?

"Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation"

 

[Billy_Bob]

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net. If you like, do feel free to show me an observed, measured instance of energy flowing spontaneously in two directions. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible, and the second law has not been changed to reflect net energy flow....it it still describes one way gross energy movement from a more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a less organized state to a more organized state...according to the second law, that isn't possible.

What you are stating as if it were fact, is nothing more than what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model predicts based on yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model....not much substance there to be stating it as if it were real.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

'NET' is ALWAYS USED WHEN 'WORK' IS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM. It refers to the amount of energy removed by WORK!

It is defined by an outside energy source creating WORK!

'NET' is ALWAYS USED WHEN 'WORK' IS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM. It refers to the amount of energy removed by WORK!

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Human skin is doing work to remove heat from the walls of the room?

Try again Todd...

Now your conflating masses of differing sizes to doing work.. AND yes the human heart is doing work... But again you conflate the two... into an unrecognizable jumble...

Now your conflating masses of differing sizes to doing work.

You're the one claiming work has to be done for matter above 0K to emit.

AND yes the human heart is doing work

Excellent. So why are the walls radiating?

Your running in circles Todd... enjoy you're run...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Photons are emitted from anything that is warmer than absolute zero. We had this discussion before, talking about Stefan-Boltzman. Photons leave spontaneously. You seem to keep forgetting the term "NET". The warmer object emits higher energy photons than the cooler object, but they both emit. And the photons do not intercept each other, so some of the photons from the cooler object hit the warmer object. So the NET effect is a flow of energy from warmer to cooler, so the second law is not violated.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net. If you like, do feel free to show me an observed, measured instance of energy flowing spontaneously in two directions. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible, and the second law has not been changed to reflect net energy flow....it it still describes one way gross energy movement from a more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a less organized state to a more organized state...according to the second law, that isn't possible.

What you are stating as if it were fact, is nothing more than what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model predicts based on yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model....not much substance there to be stating it as if it were real.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

bolding mine

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

As the sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons all this is seeing is the photons emitted from all matter above 0K. What it is not doing is warming from that lower temperature and lower energy photon from striking the sensor.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.. Now what can a more energized mass do with a lesser energized photon? Does it reflect it? Absorb it? or does it cool the object it strikes by taking on the energy of the higher energetic state (this is called dampening) IF the photon is now taking on more energy to be re-emitted, then it is cooling the mass.

So what is your magical photon doing?

sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons

I agree. Two way flow. Tell SSDD.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.

Which disproves SSDD's claims.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

'NET' is ALWAYS USED WHEN 'WORK' IS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM. It refers to the amount of energy removed by WORK!

It is defined by an outside energy source creating WORK!

'NET' is ALWAYS USED WHEN 'WORK' IS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM. It refers to the amount of energy removed by WORK!

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Human skin is doing work to remove heat from the walls of the room?

Try again Todd...

Now your conflating masses of differing sizes to doing work.. AND yes the human heart is doing work... But again you conflate the two... into an unrecognizable jumble...

Now your conflating masses of differing sizes to doing work.

You're the one claiming work has to be done for matter above 0K to emit.

AND yes the human heart is doing work

Excellent. So why are the walls radiating?

Your running in circles Todd... enjoy you're run...

Bob said, as he ran away.

 

[SSDD]

The fact remains that nothing connected to a power source is a spontaneous process....and anyone who thinks otherwise is completely ignorant of the basics of physics..

Nope, you disagree with the definition of spontaneous process. It is spontaneous if there is no external energy source. And there is none in a penlight.

You are proof that you can't fix stupid....or dishonesty.

There are no external power inputs to a penlight. Look at this and tell me where you see an external power source.
penlight at DuckDuckGo

It is clear that your understanding of the topic is so far from the level of the conversation, having principles explained to you is simply a waste of time. I suppose nothing less than a direct response regarding the LED penlight will get through to you..and at this point, even that is doubtful.

So again, I contacted some professors of physics with this note:

Greetings Dr.XXX,

My name is XXX XXDX and if I may, I would like to ask a physics question. Can any process that is connected to a battery, or other power source be considered to be a spontaneous process. An LED penlight for example….can the light emitted from the LED be considered a spontaneous process?

Thank you in advance for sharing your time and knowledge.

XXXXXX


The first response was fromJoachim (Jimmy) Raeder, Professor of Physics, Department of Physics & Space Science Center
University of New Hampshire:

He Responds:

Nope, you need to press a button. Nothing spontaneous about that.

Spontaneous processes usually happen on the quantum mechanical level, like the decay of a radioactive atom nucleus.

Joachim (Jimmy) Raeder
Professor of Physics, Department of Physics & Space Science Center
University of New Hampshire
245G Morse Hall, 8 College Rd, Durham, NH 03824-3525
voice: 603-862-3412 mobile: 603-502-9505 assistant: 603-862-1431
e-mail: [email protected]
WWW: http://mhd.sr.unh.edu/~jraeder/tmp.homepage

I believe I pointed out that error in your thinking in post 417 where I pointed out that you would have to press a button which is not a spontaneous act...to which you, in your abject ignorance replied, put a piece of tape over the button if that bothers me....clearly unable to see that there is nothing more spontaneous about putting a piece of tape over the button than there was in pressing the button in the first place..and you might go back to assembling the penlight in the first place...what was spontaneous about that?

 

[SSDD]

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net. If you like, do feel free to show me an observed, measured instance of energy flowing spontaneously in two directions. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible, and the second law has not been changed to reflect net energy flow....it it still describes one way gross energy movement from a more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be moving from a less organized state to a more organized state...according to the second law, that isn't possible.

What you are stating as if it were fact, is nothing more than what an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model predicts based on yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model....not much substance there to be stating it as if it were real.

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

bolding mine

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

As the sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons all this is seeing is the photons emitted from all matter above 0K. What it is not doing is warming from that lower temperature and lower energy photon from striking the sensor.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.. Now what can a more energized mass do with a lesser energized photon? Does it reflect it? Absorb it? or does it cool the object it strikes by taking on the energy of the higher energetic state (this is called dampening) IF the photon is now taking on more energy to be re-emitted, then it is cooling the mass.

So what is your magical photon doing?

sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons

I agree. Two way flow. Tell SSDD.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.

Which disproves SSDD's claims.

Sorry guy, that sensor can detect two things.,,itself warming or itself cooling. If it is pointed at something warmer than itself, it gains energy...if it is pointed at something cooler than itself, it loses energy to the cooler object...it converts the amount of, and rate of change across the sensor to a mathematical formula and produces a picture.

Your drawing is of a model...not any actual observed measured effect.

 

[Billy_Bob]

'NET' is ALWAYS USED WHEN 'WORK' IS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM. It refers to the amount of energy removed by WORK!

It is defined by an outside energy source creating WORK!

'NET' is ALWAYS USED WHEN 'WORK' IS APPLIED TO THE SYSTEM. It refers to the amount of energy removed by WORK!

Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Human skin is doing work to remove heat from the walls of the room?

Try again Todd...

Now your conflating masses of differing sizes to doing work.. AND yes the human heart is doing work... But again you conflate the two... into an unrecognizable jumble...

Now your conflating masses of differing sizes to doing work.

You're the one claiming work has to be done for matter above 0K to emit.

AND yes the human heart is doing work

Excellent. So why are the walls radiating?

Your running in circles Todd... enjoy you're run...

Bob said, as he ran away.

You can not accept basic principals. Until you actually understand them it is pointless to continue...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am not forgetting the term net...I dispute the term net based on an absolute lack of observed, measured evidence for net.

View attachment 206261

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Plenty of sources mention net.
You've provided none that say net doesn't exist.

The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible,

Only in your confused mind. No back up, ever.

Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

bolding mine

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

As the sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons all this is seeing is the photons emitted from all matter above 0K. What it is not doing is warming from that lower temperature and lower energy photon from striking the sensor.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.. Now what can a more energized mass do with a lesser energized photon? Does it reflect it? Absorb it? or does it cool the object it strikes by taking on the energy of the higher energetic state (this is called dampening) IF the photon is now taking on more energy to be re-emitted, then it is cooling the mass.

So what is your magical photon doing?

sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons

I agree. Two way flow. Tell SSDD.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.

Which disproves SSDD's claims.

Sorry guy, that sensor can detect two things.,,itself warming or itself cooling. If it is pointed at something warmer than itself, it gains energy...if it is pointed at something cooler than itself, it loses energy to the cooler object...it converts the amount of, and rate of change across the sensor to a mathematical formula and produces a picture.

Your drawing is of a model...not any actual observed measured effect.

Your drawing is of a model...not any actual observed measured effect.

You should contact the authors and explain that they were wrong to say "net".

 

[SSDD]

Todd, your confusion is trying to apply NET transfer concept on a one way energy transfer, which your own link clearly states:

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles."

bolding mine

Without work applied to it, there is ZERO net in it.

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Yup. Nothing there precludes photons.
Check out the following image.
From the Handbook of Modern Sensors, third edition.

Do you think they don't understand radiation flows?

As the sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons all this is seeing is the photons emitted from all matter above 0K. What it is not doing is warming from that lower temperature and lower energy photon from striking the sensor.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.. Now what can a more energized mass do with a lesser energized photon? Does it reflect it? Absorb it? or does it cool the object it strikes by taking on the energy of the higher energetic state (this is called dampening) IF the photon is now taking on more energy to be re-emitted, then it is cooling the mass.

So what is your magical photon doing?

sensor is doing a mathematical calculation of received photons against its own generated photons

I agree. Two way flow. Tell SSDD.

With this you prove nothing other than all matter emits photons.

Which disproves SSDD's claims.

Sorry guy, that sensor can detect two things.,,itself warming or itself cooling. If it is pointed at something warmer than itself, it gains energy...if it is pointed at something cooler than itself, it loses energy to the cooler object...it converts the amount of, and rate of change across the sensor to a mathematical formula and produces a picture.

Your drawing is of a model...not any actual observed measured effect.

Your drawing is of a model...not any actual observed measured effect.

You should contact the authors and explain that they were wrong to say "net".

Actually, you should provide an observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy flow and prove me wrong...of course we both know that you can't do that so your infantile, impotent mewling juvenile responses are all that is left to you. Have fun with it.