gslack
Senior Member
- Mar 26, 2010
- 4,527
- 356
- 48
Not sure if this may help with the concept overall but I will try once more..
Ian remember spencers experiment?
He mentions the plate being heated to 150 F?
Okay are we to assume he means the heat source is through a thermostat which keeps enough energy (electricity) flowing in it to keep it at that temp? or it is limited to enough energy required to make that plate that temperature? See the difference? With a thermostat to regulate it we are observing the temperature and not necessarily the energy directly just the result. The amount of energy it would take could change with environment, variables, insulators, heat sinks, et al. with the concern being the temperature. However if we were wanting to maintain the same energy input that would cause the plate to reach 150F with the set parameters and environment at the beginning any insulating body would require less energy to create 150F temperature in that plate.
So which are we concerned with the energy input to output vs back from the second plate or the heat?
One big problem I see with it is he mixes the two concepts giving the impression they are one and the same, When they are not.In his experiment Energy = cause, heat = effect... Changing parameters like adding another body in close enough proximity to allow reflected heat to factor into it (as he claims) would have to change the energy input from the source if we were concerned with maintaining 150F temperature, but he claims the source stays the same.. In which way does it stay the same? Input energy or output heat?
he does not specify that I read anyway, anything like that other then the 150F for the first plate. So to me even IF he could cause the temperature the first plate to rise (which i think not) it wouldn't be applicable to atmospheric activity on our planet anyway.
Even IF backradiation existed, it would amount to virtually no significance when you realize the loss of energy in the work involved at each stage of transfer. We have to take into account all other manner in which heat is transferred in the atmosphere and the surface, and the constant flow of the formless gasses due to their temperature, wind, pressure, concentration, and cloud cover...
The problem here is too many educated people (along with uneducated) that have focused on one aspect so intently they forget the bigger picture and fuss inconsequential factors that do nothing when taken into proper context with the whole.. They would love to see the forest but they have the damn tree in their way...
Ian remember spencers experiment?
He mentions the plate being heated to 150 F?
Okay are we to assume he means the heat source is through a thermostat which keeps enough energy (electricity) flowing in it to keep it at that temp? or it is limited to enough energy required to make that plate that temperature? See the difference? With a thermostat to regulate it we are observing the temperature and not necessarily the energy directly just the result. The amount of energy it would take could change with environment, variables, insulators, heat sinks, et al. with the concern being the temperature. However if we were wanting to maintain the same energy input that would cause the plate to reach 150F with the set parameters and environment at the beginning any insulating body would require less energy to create 150F temperature in that plate.
So which are we concerned with the energy input to output vs back from the second plate or the heat?
One big problem I see with it is he mixes the two concepts giving the impression they are one and the same, When they are not.In his experiment Energy = cause, heat = effect... Changing parameters like adding another body in close enough proximity to allow reflected heat to factor into it (as he claims) would have to change the energy input from the source if we were concerned with maintaining 150F temperature, but he claims the source stays the same.. In which way does it stay the same? Input energy or output heat?
he does not specify that I read anyway, anything like that other then the 150F for the first plate. So to me even IF he could cause the temperature the first plate to rise (which i think not) it wouldn't be applicable to atmospheric activity on our planet anyway.
Even IF backradiation existed, it would amount to virtually no significance when you realize the loss of energy in the work involved at each stage of transfer. We have to take into account all other manner in which heat is transferred in the atmosphere and the surface, and the constant flow of the formless gasses due to their temperature, wind, pressure, concentration, and cloud cover...
The problem here is too many educated people (along with uneducated) that have focused on one aspect so intently they forget the bigger picture and fuss inconsequential factors that do nothing when taken into proper context with the whole.. They would love to see the forest but they have the damn tree in their way...