Icefishers world

[Andrew]

Jun 17, 2011 19:12:18 GMT glc said:

THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER.

I do hope this is clear enough for you. I'll see if I can make the font size bigger if that would help.

Mar 17, 2012 17:49:07 GMT icefisher said:

Where is your evidence you are not just making stuff up?

Its rather hilarious, to say the least, that all along while you have been accusing me of disputing the engineers radiation heat loss curves (despite my insistence I was not); that it has been you all along who has been disputing the chart finding a need to modify it to add a backradiation element to it that never before existed on the chart without a shred of scientific evidence. ROTFLMAO!!!

Apr 16, 2012 5:22:39 GMT Andrew said:

The backradiation component is built into the chart already.

Apr 16, 2012 5:37:44 GMT icefisher said:

You mean the amounts of net amount of radiation transferred to the unheated object is consistent with a calculation based upon backradiation.

Apr 16, 2012 5:53:25 GMT Andrew said:

How can there be net radiation if you deny the backradiation??

[icefisher]

THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER.

I do hope this is clear enough for you. I'll see if I can make the font size bigger if that would help.

Indeed they CAN by well understood and empirically tested physical processes that warms the cold object first and then serves as a means of moving heat through itself slower than the original substance. (by definition insulation is something that transfers heat slower)

You have not even established an insulating value for IR absorbing gases. You have not demonstrated that IR absorbing gases in an atmosphere absorb more outgoing than incoming and finally thanks to THE CRITICAL RADIUS OF INSULATION you have not established there is a sufficient layer of CO2 in the atmosphere to slow surface cooling as opposed to maybe even accelerating it.

Worse you know all that to be the case when you posted and then deleted this response of yours:


The dead body is like a battery. It has stored energy that can be used. If the energy at the surface cannot escape so rapidly then the surface accumulates energy that would have been lost earlier.

Your observation about insulation cooling the surface is correct.

Therefore, you need sufficient cooling mass and sufficiently good insulation to notice a warming of the surface before there is a resumption in cooling.

An insulated sphere will cool more rapidly if the insulation is insufficiently thick. This is described as THE CRITICAL RADIUS OF INSULATION
www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%202/main/2.6.4.html

You went back and erased that post. This makes you being the one obfuscating and being disingenuous about the issues.

Your post and the URL proves the answer changes dependent upon a calculation.

The URL also states that too thin insulation can accelerate cooling. . . .a factor used in designing electric wiring to reduce heat and the build up of resistance to electricity flow.

Its quite understandable under the circumstances why you went back and erased it considering how clear it is that your number one priority is all about you being right rather than caring about finding the real answer.

Magellan discovered an error he was making over a period of time and manned up to it. You used the delete function to cover up evidence you might be wrong. Huge difference! An infinite difference in character.

[Andrew]

My posts were removed because I thought I had no need to embarrass Magellan further, and I thought that the Indian physics professor really had brought about a change on the board

[icefisher]

My posts were removed because I thought I had no need to embarrass Magellan further and I thought that the indian really had brought about a change on the board

The post in question in fact holds mitigating information for Magellan's case.

THE CRITICAL RADIUS OF INSULATION tells us often insulation gives you a net increase in cooling so dead bodies covered by a thin blanket probably will not warm the skin of the dead body. That was my claim and you briefly admitted to it before Magellan admitted his error then you erased it.

You removed it because it weakens your case and its your intent to embarrass Magellan as much as you can. Thats the appearance anyhow.

[Andrew]

Apr 16, 2012 4:34:55 GMT icefisher said:

My posts were removed because I thought I had no need to embarrass Magellan further and I thought that the indian really had brought about a change on the board

The post in question in fact holds mitigating information for Magellan's case.

THE CRITICAL RADIUS OF INSULATION tells us often insulation gives you a net increase in cooling so dead bodies covered by a thin blanket probably will not warm the skin of the dead body. That was my claim and you briefly admitted to it before Magellan admitted his error then you erased it.

You removed it because it weakens your case and its your intent to embarrass Magellan as much as you can. Thats the appearance anyhow.

Rubbish. I just wanted to help Magellan save face.

I had already told him his small piece of steel was not representative of a larger body like a human body. Where even my heavy bricks were quite small for that purpose.

Magellan was totally irrational but at least he did eventually realise he was wrong

I imagined that everybody could just delete all their posts and the whole thing could be forgotten.

But you wanted to continue being irrational

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Retired Indian physics professor offers help:

solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=1931&page=1#80245

[icefisher]

The post in question in fact holds mitigating information for Magellan's case.

THE CRITICAL RADIUS OF INSULATION tells us often insulation gives you a net increase in cooling so dead bodies covered by a thin blanket probably will not warm the skin of the dead body. That was my claim and you briefly admitted to it before Magellan admitted his error then you erased it.

You removed it because it weakens your case and its your intent to embarrass Magellan as much as you can. Thats the appearance anyhow.


Rubbish. I just wanted to help Magellan save face.

I had already told him his small piece of steel was not representative of a larger body like a human body. Where even my heavy bricks were quite small for that purpose.

Magellan was totally irrational but at least he did eventually realise he was wrong

I imagined that everybody could just delete all their posts and the whole thing could be forgotten.

But you wanted to continue being irrational

I got it anything but talk about the mitigating factors. Lets stay as far away from the CRITICAL RADIUS OF INSULATION as possible and throw stones instead of having a debate on the topic right?

[Andrew]

Apr 16, 2012 5:10:11 GMT icefisher said:

The post in question in fact holds mitigating information for Magellan's case.

THE CRITICAL RADIUS OF INSULATION tells us often insulation gives you a net increase in cooling so dead bodies covered by a thin blanket probably will not warm the skin of the dead body. That was my claim and you briefly admitted to it before Magellan admitted his error then you erased it.

You removed it because it weakens your case and its your intent to embarrass Magellan as much as you can. Thats the appearance anyhow.


Rubbish. I just wanted to help Magellan save face.

I had already told him his small piece of steel was not representative of a larger body like a human body. Where even my heavy bricks were quite small for that purpose.

Magellan was totally irrational but at least he did eventually realise he was wrong

I imagined that everybody could just delete all their posts and the whole thing could be forgotten.

But you wanted to continue being irrational

I got it anything but talk about the mitigating factors. Lets stay as far away from the CRITICAL RADIUS OF INSULATION as possible and throw stones instead of having a debate on the topic right?

The posts were deleted because i thought the stupidity had ended and people recognised I was right and any other expert on the subject is going to agree with me.

I have no reason to humiliate people if they are prepared to stop abusing me for no reason at all

[icefisher]

I have no reason to humiliate people if they are prepared to stop abusing me for no reason at all

Then you should be ready to admit you were wrong also.

[Andrew]

Apr 16, 2012 5:34:19 GMT icefisher said:

I have no reason to humiliate people if they are prepared to stop abusing me for no reason at all

Then you should be ready to admit you were wrong also.

I can easily admit where I am wrong

But I have not been wrong

You and Magellan, if you are in fact different people, demonstrated the same enormous ability to be wrong and abusive again and again where not once did you show you were prepared to learn.

Magellan was wrong about everything. That included

The silly comments about the warming oven trays

The silly comments about Roy Spencers thought experiment

The silly comments about the bricks in my sauna

The silly comments about my testing ability and his enormous superiority

[icefisher]

I can easily admit where I am wrong

But I have not been wrong

You were very wrong. You said the skin of all cooling surfaces when covered by a blanket will warm. Thats clearly very very wrong.

You even did an experiment that showed consistent cooling and claimed it proved warming.

You criticized Magellan's experiments though they were done correctly you were wrong in that also.

Eventually it gravitated away from control of one form of cooling, radiation, to a blanket that controls all 3 forms of cooling. Even then its not certain the skin will warm even when all 3 modes are controlled the object might still cool faster from the application of insulation.

Yes there are circumstances where the skin can get warmer but the object does not get warmer which is what the entire topic was originally about before you got into hair splitting and running down an irrelevant bunny trail to chase a dragon.

You made so many mistakes Magellan in stamping them out was like a duck stamping out a forest fire. He stepped a bit over the foul line in his zeal for which he apologized.

And when the science is right in your face, you still claimed yesterday in reply #75: "Any heated surface will warm if the heat losses are reduced"

Are you some kind of moron that can't learn anything Iceskater?

[Andrew]

Apr 16, 2012 7:07:33 GMT icefisher said:

you still claimed yesterday in reply #75: "Any heated surface will warm if the heat losses are reduced"

Are you some kind of moron that can't learn anything Iceskater?

Any heated surface will warm if the heat losses are reduced

I was not wrong about anything

You are being irrational

Mar 14, 2012 23:11:02 GMT magellan said:

Mar 14, 2012 5:08:40 GMT Andrew said:

As i have already demonstrated if an object is warmed and then placed in air, the surface is colder than the interior and therefore the interior heats the surface.

When the blanket is placed around the object the surface layer will rise in temperature until the various heating and cooling forces are in balance.

The same would apply to a recently deceased dead body which had been cooling in the same kind of uninsulated environment prior to the blanket being placed

[/color].[/quote]

I don't have a manikin so this probably won't meet your demand for a qualified test. However, I still have my disc friend and he is deader than a door nail I assure you.
[/quote]

[icefisher]

you still claimed yesterday in reply #75: "Any heated surface will warm if the heat losses are reduced"

Are you some kind of moron that can't learn anything Iceskater?[/quote]

Any heated surface will warm if the heat losses are reduced

I was not wrong about anything

You are being irrational[/color]

Good Gravy!!!!

I think even my dog knows thats wrong!

An object as it cools reduces its heat losses. . . . Iceskater. . . . its freaking not warming!!!

[Andrew]

Apr 16, 2012 7:36:32 GMT icefisher said:

you still claimed yesterday in reply #75: "Any heated surface will warm if the heat losses are reduced"

Are you some kind of moron that can't learn anything Iceskater?

Any heated surface will warm if the heat losses are reduced

I was not wrong about anything

You are being irrational

Good Gravy!!!!

I think even my dog knows thats wrong!

An object as it cools reduces its heat losses. . . . Iceskater. . . . its freaking not warming!!!

There was never a suggestion that an unheated object would warm if the heat losses were reduced.

The suggestion was always that the heated surface would warm if the heat losses were reduced.

If the heating is reduced at the same rate as the heat losses are reduced then the temperature will be constant.

There was never a suggestion that if the heating is reduced more than the heat loss is reduced the surface would rise in temperature

You are being irrational

[icefisher]

There was never a suggestion that an unheated object would warm if the heat losses were reduced.

The suggestion was always that the heated surface would warm if the heat losses were reduced.

What is the tense of that sentence Iceskater? Its past tense. All objects are heated. Some are heated more than others. The ones heated more than others are cooling. Cooling objects naturally reduce their heat losses as they move closer to the same temperature as the relatively unheated objects around it. That does not make them get warmer.

Reducing heat loss is insufficient to warm an object. You need heat gain. Like I said I think even my dog knows that.

[Andrew]

Apr 16, 2012 7:56:37 GMT icefisher said:

There was never a suggestion that an unheated object would warm if the heat losses were reduced.

The suggestion was always that the heated surface would warm if the heat losses were reduced.

What is the tense of that sentence Iceskater? Its past tense. All objects are heated. Some are heated more than others. The ones heated more than others are cooling. Cooling objects naturally reduce their heat losses as they move closer to the same temperature as the relatively unheated objects around it. That does not make them get warmer.

Reducing heat loss is insufficient to warm an object. You need heat gain. Like I said I think even my dog knows that.

If you reduce the heat losses of any heated surface, the surface will become warmer.

My meaning was perfectly clear

I specified watts of heating and watts of heat loss

You are just being continually unreasonable and irrational