Maxwells theory of heat

[icefisher]

SB specifies the total energy emitted by a hot body with no reference at all to the temperature of the surroundings.

Which SB equation are you referring to?


You are saying a hot body emits less proportional to temperature of the surroundings.

Conduction operates proportional to the temperature of its surroundings. Don't you believe that either?

[Andrew]

Mar 19, 2012 7:03:26 GMT icefisher said:

SB specifies the total energy emitted by a hot body with no reference at all to the temperature of the surroundings.

Which SB equation are you referring to?


You are saying a hot body emits less proportional to temperature of the surroundings.

Conduction operates proportional to the temperature of its surroundings. Don't you believe that either?

There is only one Stefan-Boltzmann calculation for a single object

Conduction is not emitted. Radiation is emitted

[icefisher]

There is only one Stefan-Boltzmann calculation for a single object

A single object would radiate at its SB equivalent. With nothing nearby to attenuate emissions that should be obvious.

Conduction is not emitted. Radiation is emitted

Do you have evidence that radiation is different than conduction?

[Andrew]

Mar 19, 2012 13:19:16 GMT icefisher said:

There is only one Stefan-Boltzmann calculation for a single object

A single object would radiate at its SB equivalent. With nothing nearby to attenuate emissions that should be obvious.

Conduction is not emitted. Radiation is emitted

Do you have evidence that radiation is different than conduction?

You are being endlessly silly and you must know that.

In our galaxy we are always near other hot objects. Emissions are always attentuated by nearby hot objects with a temperature greater than 0 Kelvin No idea what i was thinking when i said that emissions are never attenuated by other hot objects

Conduction is a very slow event in a solid compared to the relatively instant speed of light transmission of radiation.

Your responses are getting particularly silly.

Evidently you are disputing those curves with everything you can think of. No matter how silly it is.

[icefisher]

In our galaxy we are always near other hot objects. Emissions are always atentuated by nearby hot objects.

Thats what I have been saying all along. SB is derived from observations of objects in proximity to each other. Its a reduction of a more complex mathematical equation, nothing more nothing less. You can't run around claiming physical properties from it for anything in the universe simply because their is no references to surrounding objects. The surrounding object effect was eliminated mathematically so its purely a conceptual law for a single object with nothing around it. You are trying to extend it back to objects with stuff around them. It makes no sense to do that without evidence.

Conduction is a very slow event in a solid compared to the relatively instant speed of light transmission of radiation.

This is getting so silly now it is no longer interesting

Well it probably is radiation at very short distances, with billions of absorptions and emissions traveling through an object.

Thats what G&T suggested it might be.

They also suggested the net greenhouse effect (namely the amount of slowing. . . .which Steve, You and everybody agrees it amounts to) might be calculated based upon the elements of conduction theory to determine how much stuff is slowed down identically to how its done in conduction theory.

Ultimately when you acknowledge that the greenhouse effect slows emissions to space the next very pregnant question is slows by how much? Watts are an hourly figure. Assuming the slowdown is a full hour long before radiation at the speed of light escapes the planet, then the AGW folks are right. But how can you assume that?

The answer is by assuming nothing else is going on in the atmosphere, no conduction no nothing.

I think its just getting interesting. We need to get beyond the "irrelevant" issue of whether there is backradiation or not. What I am focusing on is trying to determine how much slowing there is and a key element of that is a correct depiction of radiative transfer. Maxwell says its my diagram at least at equilibrium.

[Andrew]

Mar 19, 2012 15:48:26 GMT icefisher said:

In our galaxy we are always near other hot objects. Emissions are always atentuated by nearby hot objects.

Thats what I have been saying all along. SB is derived from observations of objects in proximity to each other. Its a reduction of a more complex mathematical equation, nothing more nothing less. You can't run around claiming physical properties from it for anything in the universe simply because their is no references to surrounding objects. The surrounding object effect was eliminated mathematically so its purely a conceptual law for a single object with nothing around it. You are trying to extend it back to objects with stuff around them. It makes no sense to do that without evidence.

Conduction is a very slow event in a solid compared to the relatively instant speed of light transmission of radiation.

This is getting so silly now it is no longer interesting

Well it probably is radiation at very short distances, with billions of absorptions and emissions traveling through an object.

Thats what G&T suggested it might be.

They also suggested the net greenhouse effect (namely the amount of slowing. . . .which Steve, You and everybody agrees it amounts to) might be calculated based upon the elements of conduction theory to determine how much stuff is slowed down identically to how its done in conduction theory.

Ultimately when you acknowledge that the greenhouse effect slows emissions to space the next very pregnant question is slows by how much? Watts are an hourly figure. Assuming the slowdown is a full hour long before radiation at the speed of light escapes the planet, then the AGW folks are right. But how can you assume that?

The answer is by assuming nothing else is going on in the atmosphere, no conduction no nothing.

I think its just getting interesting. We need to get beyond the "irrelevant" issue of whether there is backradiation or not. What I am focusing on is trying to determine how much slowing there is and a key element of that is a correct depiction of radiative transfer. Maxwell says its my diagram at least at equilibrium.

You are making things up based on a limited amount of knowledge.

Stefan took John Tyndalls observations that platinum wire emitted 11.7 times more radiation at around 1200C than it did around 700C and by a huge stroke of luck extremely accurately created Stefans law

But in fact Stefan had not considered emissivity of platinum and Tyndalls results were not very accurate for total emissions. The true figure was found 18 times at 1200C and it just so happened that the inaccurate results and the lack of use of emissivity created Stefans law so accurately.

Boltzmann was Stefans student and he managed to come up with a proof of Stefans law from entirely theoretical considerations and by adding in Emissivity and doing the theoretical work he got the honour of sharing the law with Stefan.

SB gives total energy emissions for any object in any location.

If you then have two objects they each emit to the other at the SB rate.

I am not changing anything. You are changing everything, and very very strongly you are trying to bend everything in a very silly manner.

You must realise i must be nuts to keep interacting with somebody who is obviously so lacking in an ability to be scientific as you are?

I keep hoping you will finally agree you were totally wrong and you will become a better person thanks to my efforts with you. What a waste of my own life however, when you show no willingness at all to learn from me or anybody else

[icefisher]

You are making things up based on a limited amount of knowledge.

Stefan took John Tyndalls observations that platinum wire emitted 11.7 times more radiation at around 1200C than it did around 700C and by a huge stroke of luck extremely accurately created Stefans law

But in fact Stefan had not considered emissivity of platinum and Tyndalls results were not very accurate for total emissions. The true figure was found 18 times at 1200C and it just so happened that the inaccurate results and the lack of use of emissivity created Stefans law so accurately.

Boltzmann was Stefans student and he managed to come up with a proof of Stefans law from entirely theoretical considerations and by adding in Emissivity and doing the theoretical work he got the honour of sharing the law with Stefan.

SB gives total energy emissions for any object in any location.

If you then have two objects they each emit to the other at the SB rate.

I am not changing anything. You are changing everything, and very very strongly you are trying to bend everything in a very silly manner.

You must realise i must be nuts to keep interacting with somebody who is obviously so lacking in an ability to be scientific as you are?

I keep hoping you will finally agree you were totally wrong and you will become a better person thanks to my efforts with you. What a waste of my own life however, when you show no willingness at all to learn from me or anybody else



The problem you have here is your are trying to teach science as a history lesson.

Stuff that is 1200C with a 4th power figure in a room temperature setting the environmental factor is exceedingly small.

I get the derivation via theoretical considerations and it is a mathematical reduction that eliminated the environmental aspect; thus it is inappropriate to draw any new conclusions from that, even if you dearly believe it to be so.

But this part of our disagreement is really irrelevant as long as we agree that warming is limited to slowing of radiation loss.

The other issues are important, including the equilibrium process, the budget diagrams of heat loss due to conduction (keeping in mind that backradiation has never been observed its possible it can be diverted into warming an object as opposed to radiating it) as these go to what the "slowing of cooling" amounts to.

How that operates is at the core of AGW theory. Its difficult to argue against stuff that is at least half right and I get the approach of lukewarmers to conceptually accept the idea of a warming from attenuation of IR as long as the door remains open for negative feedback

Though I question that incoming attenuation is feedback in any sense of the word. As such stuff if called feedback has the theoretical capability of creating greater than 100% feedback, if incoming attenuation of CO2 happened to be greater than outgoing attenuation of CO2, due to some other feedback process like convection exerting a negative influence on outgoing attenuation and a positive influence on incoming attenuation.

I am anxiously awaiting yours and Steve's explanation on the maximum temperature on record implicating the atmosphere as a net negative influence on daytime maximum temperature.

Somehow I think this is not going to end up with a satisfactory answer. Or at least experience would suggest that. But I remain optimistic despite the experiential odds.

[Andrew]

Mar 19, 2012 16:38:12 GMT icefisher said:

You are making things up based on a limited amount of knowledge.

Stefan took John Tyndalls observations that platinum wire emitted 11.7 times more radiation at around 1200C than it did around 700C and by a huge stroke of luck extremely accurately created Stefans law

But in fact Stefan had not considered emissivity of platinum and Tyndalls results were not very accurate for total emissions. The true figure was found 18 times at 1200C and it just so happened that the inaccurate results and the lack of use of emissivity created Stefans law so accurately.

Boltzmann was Stefans student and he managed to come up with a proof of Stefans law from entirely theoretical considerations and by adding in Emissivity and doing the theoretical work he got the honour of sharing the law with Stefan.

SB gives total energy emissions for any object in any location.

If you then have two objects they each emit to the other at the SB rate.

I am not changing anything. You are changing everything, and very very strongly you are trying to bend everything in a very silly manner.

You must realise i must be nuts to keep interacting with somebody who is obviously so lacking in an ability to be scientific as you are?

I keep hoping you will finally agree you were totally wrong and you will become a better person thanks to my efforts with you. What a waste of my own life however, when you show no willingness at all to learn from me or anybody else



The problem you have here is your are trying to teach science as a history lesson.

Stuff that is 1200C with a 4th power figure in a room temperature setting the environmental factor is exceedingly small.

I get the derivation via theoretical considerations and it is a mathematical reduction that eliminated the environmental aspect; thus it is inappropriate to draw any new conclusions from that, even if you dearly believe it to be so.

But this part of our disagreement is really irrelevant as long as we agree that warming is limited to slowing of radiation loss.

The other issues are important, including the equilibrium process, the budget diagrams of heat loss due to conduction (keeping in mind that backradiation has never been observed its possible it can be diverted into warming an object as opposed to radiating it) as these go to what the "slowing of cooling" amounts to.

How that operates is at the core of AGW theory. Its difficult to argue against stuff that is at least half right and I get the approach of lukewarmers to conceptually accept the idea of a warming from attenuation of IR as long as the door remains open for negative feedback

Though I question that incoming attenuation is feedback in any sense of the word. As such stuff if called feedback has the theoretical capability of creating greater than 100% feedback, if incoming attenuation of CO2 happened to be greater than outgoing attenuation of CO2, due to some other feedback process like convection exerting a negative influence on outgoing attenuation and a positive influence on incoming attenuation.

I am anxiously awaiting yours and Steve's explanation on the maximum temperature on record implicating the atmosphere as a net negative influence on daytime maximum temperature.

Somehow I think this is not going to end up with a satisfactory answer. Or at least experience would suggest that. But I remain optimistic despite the experiential odds.

How many more times do i have to tell you that backradiation is part of a cooling process? The cold atmosphere has no ability to warm the surface. Heat is flowing from the surface to the atmosphere. Backradiation just means that the heat flow is less.

Are you going to dispute the net radiative heat loss curves or allow them to exist?

Where is your equation to produce the curves if you are dismissing SB?

Why the hell have you quoted the damn equation to me and Steve???

Why the hell do you keep going on about 4th power relationships if you dispute the validity of the damn equation?

[icefisher]

How many more times do i have to tell you that backradiation is part of a cooling process? The cold atmosphere has no ability to warm the surface. Heat is flowing from the surface to the atmosphere. Backradiation just means that the heat flow is less.

Are you going to dispute the net radiative heat loss curves or allow them to exist?

Where is your equation to produce the curves if you are dismissing SB?

Why the hell have you quoted the damn equation to me and Steve???

Why the hell do you keep going on about 4th power relationships if you dispute the validity of the damn equation?

My Gawd you are dense!

How many times have I told you backradiation is irrelevant! A "power" system with "power" defined as it is in electricity will come up with the same answers as backradiation.

What isn't being defined here is the diversion of energy into warming an object. Objects don't warm magically, they need to divert energy to the task!

The SB equation has an illogical element to it if you start averaging watts/m2 immediately without any energy going into storage. Such a system would suggest that there is no way for objects to warm.

Warmer objects in the presence of colder objects still approach an equilibrium.

Your diagram shows an object immune to warming by being both colder and distributing all energy received.

My potential system also has the same problem.

The reason it does is it is clear science does not understand how things warm in a radiation field.

In an atmosphere you can blame it on conduction and for radiative diagrams it might be fine to have that void on the premise conduction will do the job.

But in outerspace the damn things warm too. . . .the rates might be different but the results aren't if you believe in Prevost's equilibrium.

I can't tell you where the problem is I can just see the problem. Its just logical. Logic is my specialty. I can't go recite the history of science and explain all this and clearly you can't either as you have been unable to characterize the problem in a logical quantified way.

My diagram avoids that difficulty by positing an equilibrium that is consistent with Maxwell.

Your diagram has an inequality that is illogical in the case of a planet with an atmosphere. It might be consistent with two balls, or two bricks where radiation is insufficient to warm the other brick to equilibrium due to only a portion of the radiation from the warmer brick going to the colder brick. But all that does not apply for planets as the heat has to go through the atmosphere, every bit of it.

But the bottom line is I do understand science has to be logical. I can admit to missing an important piece of science (but its not the engineer's curve or Maxwell). If you think it is you are completely on the wrong path.

[Andrew]

Mar 19, 2012 21:26:29 GMT icefisher said:

How many more times do i have to tell you that backradiation is part of a cooling process? The cold atmosphere has no ability to warm the surface. Heat is flowing from the surface to the atmosphere. Backradiation just means that the heat flow is less.

Are you going to dispute the net radiative heat loss curves or allow them to exist?

Where is your equation to produce the curves if you are dismissing SB?

Why the hell have you quoted the damn equation to me and Steve???

Why the hell do you keep going on about 4th power relationships if you dispute the validity of the damn equation?

My Gawd you are dense!

How many times have I told you backradiation is irrelevant! A "power" system with "power" defined as it is in electricity will come up with the same answers as backradiation.

What isn't being defined here is the diversion of energy into warming an object. Objects don't warm magically, they need to divert energy to the task!

The SB equation has an illogical element to it if you start averaging watts/m2 immediately without any energy going into storage. Such a system would suggest that there is no way for objects to warm.

Warmer objects in the presence of colder objects still approach an equilibrium.

Your diagram shows an object immune to warming by being both colder and distributing all energy received.

My potential system also has the same problem.

The reason it does is it is clear science does not understand how things warm in a radiation field.

In an atmosphere you can blame it on conduction and for radiative diagrams it might be fine to have that void on the premise conduction will do the job.

But in outerspace the damn things warm too. . . .the rates might be different but the results aren't if you believe in Prevost's equilibrium.

I can't tell you where the problem is I can just see the problem. Its just logical. Logic is my specialty. I can't go recite the history of science and explain all this and clearly you can't either as you have been unable to characterize the problem in a logical quantified way.

My diagram avoids that difficulty by positing an equilibrium that is consistent with Maxwell.

Your diagram has an inequality that is illogical in the case of a planet with an atmosphere. It might be consistent with two balls, or two bricks where radiation is insufficient to warm the other brick to equilibrium due to only a portion of the radiation from the warmer brick going to the colder brick. But all that does not apply for planets as the heat has to go through the atmosphere, every bit of it.

But the bottom line is I do understand science has to be logical. I can admit to missing an important piece of science (but its not the engineer's curve or Maxwell). If you think it is you are completely on the wrong path.

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

If you turn on the oven and the thermostat is broken it starts getting hotter and hotter but it cannot keep on getting hotter and hotter for ever because it will eventually reach an equilibrium between the heating force and the cooling force

The hotter that damn thing gets the more heat is distributed to the environment as a cooling force from the oven

The oven cannot heat the entire universe.

42 watts leaving the surface warms the atmosphere and 42W damn watts leaves the atmosphere to prevent the atmosphere heating the entire universe

What is between your ears?

[icefisher]

The oven cannot heat the entire universe.

Another strawman.

The hot object in a cool environment is heating the entire universe, at least the entire universe it can catch up to excluding the hot object itself.

On its way to raising the temperature of the remainder of the universe it heats more rapidly anything closer to it. And that item does not stay the same temperature while only the hot object heats as you maintain above in your ignorant statement.

If you believe only the hot object heats then you have a screw loose because your relationship of shedding half the heat it receives in two directions leaves nothing for the cooler object to warm.

Under your assumption it does not matter how hot the hot object gets.

A planet shedding a million watts and your cold object is directing it 500,000 watts to space and 500,000 watts to the surface and has not warmed a single joule.

[Andrew]

Mar 19, 2012 23:39:05 GMT icefisher said:

The oven cannot heat the entire universe.

Another strawman.

The hot object in a cool environment is heating the entire universe, at least the entire universe it can catch up to excluding the hot object itself.

On its way to raising the temperature of the remainder of the universe it heats more rapidly anything closer to it. And that item does not stay the same temperature while only the hot object heats as you maintain above in your ignorant statement.

If you believe only the hot object heats then you have a screw loose because your relationship of shedding half the heat it receives in two directions leaves nothing for the cooler object to warm.

Under your assumption it does not matter how hot the hot object gets.

A planet shedding a million watts and your cold object is directing it 500,000 watts to space and 500,000 watts to the surface and has not warmed a single joule.

The oven or the brick, heat the room but the room is cooling to the universe.

The universe is not heating the earth.

The universe is cooling which is what is driving Sigurdur to incorrectly keep saying that ALL matter is cooling.

The oven cannot heat the entire universe.

The oven heats until it is in balance with the cooling forces around it and then it does not get any hotter.

If your plasma communication theory or resonant wave theory was true then the current theory of the universe would have to be modified because as we know the stars are not heating us more than we are cooling to 'the stars' or rather the gaps in the stars where there is nothing. Apparently there is nothing between the stars. Light goes out but none is coming back.

Hence the big bang theory.

The oven cannot heat the entire universe unless that is wrong.

[icefisher]

The oven or the brick, heat the room but the room is cooling to the universe.

The universe is not heating the earth.

The universe is cooling which is what is driving Sigurdur to incorrectly keep saying that ALL matter is cooling.

The oven cannot heat the entire universe.

The oven heats until it is in balance with the cooling forces around it and then it does not get any hotter.

If your plasma communication theory or resonant wave theory was true then the current theory of the universe would have to be modified because as we know the stars are not heating us more than we are cooling to 'the stars' or rather the gaps in the stars where there is nothing. Apparently there is nothing between the stars. Light goes out but none is coming back.

Hence the big bang theory.

The oven cannot heat the entire universe unless that is wrong.

Uh what test would satisfy you that its wrong?

[Andrew]

Mar 20, 2012 9:52:17 GMT icefisher said:

The oven or the brick, heat the room but the room is cooling to the universe.

The universe is not heating the earth.

The universe is cooling which is what is driving Sigurdur to incorrectly keep saying that ALL matter is cooling.

The oven cannot heat the entire universe.

The oven heats until it is in balance with the cooling forces around it and then it does not get any hotter.

If your plasma communication theory or resonant wave theory was true then the current theory of the universe would have to be modified because as we know the stars are not heating us more than we are cooling to 'the stars' or rather the gaps in the stars where there is nothing. Apparently there is nothing between the stars. Light goes out but none is coming back.

Hence the big bang theory.

The oven cannot heat the entire universe unless that is wrong.

Uh what test would satisfy you that its wrong?

I was talking about the big bang theory of the universe.

We are surrounded by hot stars but we are not being roasted alive. Emissions from earth are vanishing into space and no emissions are coming back thru the gaps in the stars. Therefore the universe is thought to be finite.

To my way of thinking that is a human centric theory but that is the theory.

If the plasma wave theory is correct then the emissions from Earth would have to connect with something in space and be able to realise earth was hotter than the stuff out there.....but most of the stuff out there is hotter than the earth.

[icefisher]

I was talking about the big bang theory of the universe.

We are surrounded by hot stars but we are not being roasted alive. Emissions from earth are vanishing into space and no emissions are coming back thru the gaps in the stars. Therefore the universe is thought to be finite.

To my way of thinking that is a human centric theory but that is the theory.

If the plasma wave theory is correct then the emissions from Earth would have to connect with something in space and be able to realise earth was hotter than the stuff out there.....but most of the stuff out there is hotter than the earth.

An this tenuous logic is so important to you that you feel compelled to call people morons and stupid if they don't join your church?