A new radiation model (revised for clarity)

[icefisher]

Here is an effort to suggest a radiation model managed by insulating materials.

First let me say its really not a new radiation model. Its essentially the model for estimating heat losses from residential structures.

First some background:
Gerlich and Tscheuschner claimed that there was no first principles physics that establishes the greenhouse effect.

The response of mainstream climate scientists to their claim was complete silence, despite vowing to reply to the science points. Instead the mainstream danced around the issue of proof of a greenhouse effect.

If there were first principles physics in support of it, say experiments in the vacuum of space, that would have been offered up in response in one hot second!

So what we have here is a theory. Theories are made to be first proven. All that skeptics can do is show proofs are unreliable. People claiming a greenhouse effect have no viable model for the effect. Their models generally violate commonly understood laws of thermodynamics and/or violate principles of net cooling rates between sources and destinations of heat flows.

Frequently when models of the commonly held view of the greenhouse effect are drawn up in schematics, laws of thermodynamics are selectively applied. Usually omitted from compliance with these laws is the original heat input which is never subjected to a netting of energy flow as is done internally in the model. One can take my model here and apply backradiation if one wishes. But it has been pared down to show that if backradiation is consistently applied in any model the effect cancels itself out. It only has an effect when selectively applied (e.g. between the surface and the atmosphere) but is never applied to incoming radiation and it is always assumed the incoming and its backradiation does not net at any level in or out of the atmosphere.

In fact backradiation proponents to avoid charges of violating the 2nd law retreat to an insulating model which implies that incoming radiation magically increases to warm the surface, whereas if backradiation had been applied consistently incoming would decrease and cancel out the backradiation at the surface.

This might be an intuitive idea since furnaces run off hot flames. But its important to note that the sun despite being a hot flame is far from us and certain other laws (expanding size of the sphere as distance from the sun increases, physically limits how much radiation we can harvest from the sun)

Here is an alternative view that consistently applies the various thermodynamic laws and principles. This model never increases the temperature of the first surface incoming energy lands on but does provide for an absorption of heat into the atmosphere. This could have consequences on surface temperature via potential energy but then the greenhouse effect becomes one of convection not radiation. That topic will not be addressed by this model.

1) Imagine two spheres. One embedded inside the other.

2) Each sphere is a shell hollow in the middle filled with a vacuum.

3) Further assume for the sake of mathematical simplicity only that both spheres have the same total surface area. While this is impossible it’s possible in a conceptual model.

4) a) Further assume the outer sphere is insulated perfectly and no heat will pass out of the outer sphere to outer space. Impossibility but one could substitute an opposing radiant force of sufficient magnitude to mimic perfect insulation.
b) The inner sphere has no insulation value (as we continue we will learn what insulation value means)

5) The inner sphere is internally heated by a radiant heat source of 400 watts/m2. This would warm the inner sphere shell to 17c.

6) The outer surface of the inner sphere would radiate 400 watts/m2 towards the inner face of the outer sphere.

7) The radiation from #6 above from the outer surface of the inner sphere will shine on the inner surface of the outer sphere, which because of perfect insulation will warm to 17c and radiate 400watts/m2 back to the inner sphere.

8) The two counter flows in #6 and #7 would net to zero energy flow.

9) The inside of the inner sphere being 17c will radiate 400 watts/m2 back to the original radiant source countering it so that energy flow here is also zero.

10) Most back radiation models call for one of these radiation sources to push more heat into the system to force 400 watts/m2 out of the perfectly insulated outer sphere. If that were to happen the whole system should melt down almost instantaneously but you have to violate the rule of energy flows (e.g. the radiant flow inside the inner sphere is really more than 400watts/m2.

11) Ok now let’s play with the system some. We strip some of that perfect insulation away from the outer sphere. Heat begins to conduct through the outer sphere.

12) The conduction is slow because there is still a lot of insulation. So the interface is still supplying a 400watt potential to the inside of the outer sphere and heat flows from it through the shell of the sphere to outer space. You can take an IR meter and it will tell you the temperature of the inner surface of the outer sphere is now going to read on the basis of 400watts/m2 minus whatever the flow is exiting through the insulated sphere. It would register a cooler temperature than the 17c as dictated by calculations with the Stefan Boltzmann constant.

13) The IR meter will read a lower temperature on the outer surface of the outer sphere depending upon the insulation temperature gradient.

14) The inner sphere continues to emit 400watts/m2 and continues to be 17c with its internal radiant source happily applying the necessary fuel on demand based upon the Stefan Boltzmann constant.

15) We continue to strip insulation and the flow through the shell of the outer sphere approaches 400 watts and the inner surface of the outer sphere begins to approach a temperature of absolute zero.

16) We strip off the remaining insulation and the inner surface of the outer sphere is now absolute zero.

17) The inner sphere is still being fed energy on demand based upon the Stefan Boltzmann constant and that flow has reached the maximum flow the internal energy source can supply.

CAUTION: THIS MODEL IS OF OBJECTS SITTING IN RADIATION FIELDS OF VARIABLE INTENSITY ONLY! TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCES ARE MEASURED IN TERMS OF STEFAN BOLTZMANN CONVERSIONS OF RADIATION RATES! AND DO NOT REPRESENT ANY REAL TEMPERATURES OR TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS! THIS MODEL WILL NOT PERFORM IDENTICALLY INSIDE OF OTHER SUBSTANCES WHERE NO VACUUM SEPARATION EXISTS BETWEEN THE RADIATION SOURCE AND THE OBJECT, AND THE OBJECT AND THE RADIATION SINK. SO AS WE GO TO EXAMPLES OF THIS THE TEMPERATURES ON THE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE OBJECT IS ACTUALLY AN INTENSITY OF LIGHT AND NOT TEMPERATURE. THIS IS CAUTION IS TO AVOID ICESKATER FROM GETTING CONFUSED ABOUT TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS.

Question:
Has at this point in time the outer sphere ceased to exist? All substances of sufficient thinness, measured in millions. billions. and maybe trillions of layers of molecules conduct heat faster than radiation.

More than 2 feet of common window glass will conduct 400 watts with an implied temperature difference of 290K. Thus no insulation value in a radiation field. If in substance with superior conductivity it will have an insulation value.

In residential construction window glass has no insulation value. But it has value as it restricts wind and convection. Residential construction accounts for this through a concept of air exchanges. All houses leak, in fact it is potentially unhealthy to have a house that does not leak. So air exchange is important as it expel carbon dioxide and allows fresh oxygen to enter the room. Air exchange rates change your furnance input rates to maintain certain temperatures. So windows do provide a form of insulation value by restricting air exchange but our model is in a radiation field so we are only going to examine that.

[nautonnier]

You also need to understand that the ONLY reason the atmosphere can cool is due to the presence of CO2 and H2O radiative gases. CO2 molecules scatter incident infrared in three very narrow bands; if they collide before re-emitting incident infrared they can pass on that energy to the colliding N2 or O2 molecules. If a CO2 molecule is given energy by collision it can radiate that energy as infrared. H2O absorbs heat from infrared and from collisions and may release it on state change. H2O molecules can also change state on absorbing heat without changing temperature and release heat on state change without changing temperature. Infrared released by H2O on state change (condensation and freezing) is not subject to Stefan Boltzmann radiation equations. Liquid water can exist up to 30,000 ft or more in convective updrafts.

The simplistic 'greenhouse' effect takes no account of the above facts. Further simplifying the description of the 'greenhouse' effect adds even more simplification errors and discrepancies.

[steve]

Couple of comments:
1. While the insulation is perfect, no internal source is required to keep the inner shell to the temperature required to maintain 400W/m^2. It emits 400W and receives 400W.

2. Once you start to strip away the insulation, the outer layer will start to lose heat to outer space, so will cool. As it cools, it will radiate steadily less than 400W inwards. Therefore the inner layer will *also* start to cool *unless* you turn on a heat source to maintain the inner layer at 17C. You will have to gradually increase the heat source as the insulation is removed if you want to maintain 400W.

If the outer layer is reduced to a thin layer of glass then:
- either it is completely transparent in which case it neither absorbs any of the 400W, and nor does it emit any (Kirchoff's thermal radiation law - so essentially this is an impossible material).
- or it absorbs a small amount of the energy which will warm it such that it will be able to emit the energy too - some outwards and some inwards.

[steve]

Aug 4, 2013 12:28:06 GMT nautonnier said:

You also need to understand that the ONLY reason the atmosphere can cool is due to the presence of CO2 and H2O radiative gases. CO2 molecules scatter incident infrared in three very narrow bands; if they collide before re-emitting incident infrared they can pass on that energy to the colliding N2 or O2 molecules. If a CO2 molecule is given energy by collision it can radiate that energy as infrared. H2O absorbs heat from infrared and from collisions and may release it on state change. H2O molecules can also change state on absorbing heat without changing temperature and release heat on state change without changing temperature. Infrared released by H2O on state change (condensation and freezing) is not subject to Stefan Boltzmann radiation equations. Liquid water can exist up to 30,000 ft or more in convective updrafts.

The simplistic 'greenhouse' effect takes no account of the above facts. Further simplifying the description of the 'greenhouse' effect adds even more simplification errors and discrepancies.

It depends on your reading of the "simplicity". For example:

If you take a cold atmosphere and irradiate it with IR, then the CO2 and H2O molecules will absorb some of the radiation then collide with O2 and N2 molecules. This will cause the atmosphere to warm up. You could say that this is due to the heat being "trapped" by the CO2 and H20 molecules because of the *fact* that adding more CO2 and H2O will tend to warm the atmosphere more.

The fact that they act as a trap is dependent on the fact that the profile of the atmosphere is warm and dense at the bottom and cold and thin at the top is for the purposes of the explanation neither here nor there.

Regardless of the semantics, though, estimating the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere is done by sophisticated models that do not have the arguably erroneous simplifications.

[Andrew]

Aug 4, 2013 13:37:32 GMT steve said:

You could say that this is due to the heat being "trapped"

Steve, it would be better if you guys came up with clearer language. "Trapping" creates so many problems for the flat Earth society that it becomes extremely painful to explain that while they are arguably right about trapping they are in fact totally wrong about everything else.

[icefisher]

Aug 4, 2013 13:26:46 GMT steve said:

Couple of comments:
1. While the insulation is perfect, no internal source is required to keep the inner shell to the temperature required to maintain 400W/m^2. It emits 400W and receives 400W.

Technically, the internal source was specified as a radiant source inside of the inner sphere, so the same balance exists here as above the surface, as it would exist on a planet without an atmosphere. . . .the source is just. . . .uh. . . .warm somewhat like
Marshall Gardner's, "A Journey to the Earth's Interior" which had its own sun. Of course such a bright ball would be too hot to be contained inside of the earth, but our inhabitants on the inner surface of the inner shell can maybe have Infrared vision.

2. Once you start to strip away the insulation, the outer layer will start to lose heat to outer space, so will cool. As it cools, it will radiate steadily less than 400W inwards. Therefore the inner layer will *also* start to cool *unless* you turn on a heat source to maintain the inner layer at 17C. You will have to gradually increase the heat source as the insulation is removed if you want to maintain 400W

.

Keeping in mind the inner sphere has an internal source of energy, this would be true if the inner sphere's shell represented a degree of insulation also.

I didn't specify it as negligible, however, it was intended to be negligible (I have molecular screens dancing in my head). I will make that note in the model. If its a very thin shell the amount of cooling of its outer surface would be negligible. (even a million molecule thick screen, would have almost nil insulation value unless it was made out of some super insulator.)

I specified a heat gradient in the outer sphere's insulation as it is much much thicker and possessed infinite value until I started stripping away insulation. If I imitate insulation on the outer sphere with a variable light heat source, I could turn down the effective insulation by turning down the counterbalancing light, energy would flow through the shell of the outer sphere without a significant temperature gradient if it were constructed similar to the inner sphere.

I am thinking this is the primary physical reality. The temperature gradients exist as conductive gradients in objects and not via radiation effects. At least thats how a home designer looks at designing insulation for the home. I am not sure how space ship designers do it.   Space designers do try to take advantage of reflective surfaces as in space there is no convection so reflective surfaces are efficient at reducing heat absorption.  Home designers use reflection to reduce solar heat gain and reduce radiance of surfaces that have absorbed heat.

If the outer layer is reduced to a thin layer of glass then:
- either it is completely transparent in which case it neither absorbs any of the 400W, and nor does it emit any (Kirchoff's thermal radiation law - so essentially this is an impossible material).
- or it absorbs a small amount of the energy which will warm it such that it will be able to emit the energy too - some outwards and some inwards.

I am not sure what you mean. The glass in the aside example is common window glass. It will absorb all radiation from a 400w light source as that source is all infrared light shining off the outer surface of the interior sphere.

The fact even common window glass has very poor insulating values mean it will pass 400watts with a 287K temperature difference at a thickness of 27 inches, so it would have no temperature gradient from the 400 watt internal surface to an exterior surface radiating 400watts at a 3 watt heat sink.

In this model we are only interested in radiation converted to thermal heat as that is the only exit from this trap.

Emissions that do not result in thermal warming are simply extraneous. . . .netted if you will .

[Andrew]

>>>The fact even common window glass has very poor insulating values mean it will pass 400watts with a 290K temperature difference at a thickness of 27 inches, so it would have a very large temperature gradient from the 400 watt internal source to a 0 watt heat sink that was 27 inches long.

All uniformly mixed materials of the same thickness have exactly the same temperature gradient for the same internal and external temperatures.

A heat sink cannot suck heat out of an object. All it can allow is that it be heated and conduct heat quickly to another place.

So your meaning of a zero watt heat sink is unclear. You need watts to enter the heat sink for it to allow heat to flow from the other material.

To have meaning you need to say the temperature at the contact point with the heat sink is X degrees and the heat sink is removing Y watts

>>so it would have a very large temperature gradient from the 400 watt internal source to a 0 watt heat sink that was 27 inches long.

This sentence shows you are muddling terms in a big way.

If there was 0 watts going thru the heat sink the temperature of the glass on each side would be the same.

Earlier when we talked about how the core of an egg reheats the surface it appeared you dont understand the meaning of a temperature gradient - Either way it was clear the whole topic of the eggs surface getting hotter again was really confusing you.

So there is something going on here that will be useful for you to work out and see more clearly.

I dont know what it is, but it is clear from your comments elsewhere that there is something basic about heat and temperature that you do not understand.

>> It will absorb all radiation from a 400w light source as that source is all infrared light shining off on? the outer surface of the interior sphere.

You consistantly mix long and short wave IR into a single IR, when the context requires they be separated. Both short and long wave IR passes thru ordinary window glass, however the long wave IR is better absorbed. Glass cannot be a perfect absorber for all long wave frequencies. Some will pass thru relatively uninterrupted, even while large areas of other bands will be mainly absorbed. Yes, with 27 inches of window glass we can say that nothing passes thru, which is a good enuf description, but with 4mm the situation is unclear and context is everything.

Also a hot light source will be producing significant short wave IR. You are better off using an electric fire as the heat source or better yet, you do as Tyndall did and you use what he called a Leslies cube which contains boiling water and has the best possible matt black surface you can produce - usually carbon black from a candle. That way you can be fairly sure you have constant low temperature emissions of the same temperature with a constant surface area, with a consistantly reproducible emissivity for a consistantly reproduceable wattage.

The beauty of my cooling brick experiments was that i guaranteed, as best I could, there were no heating fluctuations impacting the heating of their surfaces, and i also did not need absolute temperature measurement and only required relative changes where the 4 thermometers were capable of amazingly consistant readings of +/- 0.01C, where C is only representing a relative scale relative to the other thermometers, rather than absolute temperature. I also used two bricks where there were 8 different, but identically looking, ways of arranging the bricks so i could be reasonably sure there was nothing strange creating the results due to the bricks properties.

Because those bricks took about 4 hours to cool from 80C to 20C and i had a 14C room to work in, if i had a way of producing a 4 hour video i could easily show that for each 8 combinations of bricks, that when they were placed together the inside faces would in time always be hotter than the outside faces. Which is exactly what you would expect from Stefans rule where each surfaces emissions are being absorbed by the other bricks surface regardless of temperature.

>>20 hours ago icefisher said:
We know that radiation is radiating heat from the warmer brick to the cooler brick but thats all we know that can be specifically attributable to radiation.


You are clearly disputing the validity of the Stefan-boltzmann constant

Fairly clearly you are not understanding some basic ideas about heat temperature and radiation or you are wanting to talk about your own ideas about these ideas without making it clear that you reject ordinary scientific principles while simultaneously you say you are not rejecting them!

Your threads therefore become a riddle that can never be solved.

[icefisher]

Aug 4, 2013 17:06:08 GMT Andrew said:

>>>The fact even common window glass has very poor insulating values mean it will pass 400watts with a 290K temperature difference at a thickness of 27 inches, so it would have a very large temperature gradient from the 400 watt internal source to a 0 watt heat sink that was 27 inches long.

All uniformly mixed materials of the same thickness have exactly the same temperature gradient for the same internal and external temperatures.

A heat sink cannot suck heat out of an object. All it can allow is that it be heated and conduct heat quickly to another place.

So your meaning of a zero watt heat sink is unclear. You need watts to enter the heat sink for it to allow heat to flow from the other material.

To have meaning you need to say the temperature at the contact point with the heat sink is X degrees and the heat sink is removing Y watts

>>so it would have a very large temperature gradient from the 400 watt internal source to a 0 watt heat sink that was 27 inches long.

This sentence shows you are muddling terms in a big way.

If there was 0 watts going thru the heat sink the temperature of the glass on each side would be the same.

There is 400watts going through the glass.

Aug 4, 2013 17:06:08 GMT Andrew said:

Earlier when we talked about how the core of an egg reheats the surface it appeared you dont understand the meaning of a temperature gradient - Either way it was clear the whole topic of the eggs surface getting hotter again was really confusing you.

So there is something going on here that will be useful for you to work out and see more clearly.

I dont know what it is, but it is clear from your comments elsewhere that there is something basic about heat and temperature that you do not understand.

Very possible even likely. Appears you very possibly have the exact same problem if you don't know what it is.

Aug 4, 2013 17:06:08 GMT Andrew said:

>> It will absorb all radiation from a 400w light source as that source is all infrared light shining off on? the outer surface of the interior sphere.

You consistantly mix long and short wave IR into a single IR, when the context requires they be separated. Both short and long wave IR passes thru ordinary window glass, however the long wave IR is better absorbed. Glass cannot be a perfect absorber for all long wave frequencies. Some will pass thru relatively uninterrupted, even while large areas of other bands will be mainly absorbed. Yes, with 27 inches of window glass we can say that nothing passes thru, which is a good enuf description, but with 4mm the situation is unclear and context is everything.

The model is not intended to pass any light through the glass, only heat. If it does it can transmit more than 400watts/m2 through 27 inches of glass over a temperature difference of 287K

If it makes it easier for you to digest assume the glass is blackened so no light passes.

Aug 4, 2013 17:06:08 GMT Andrew said:

Also a hot light source will be producing significant short wave IR. You are better off using an electric fire as the heat source or better yet, you do as Tyndall did and you use what he called a Leslies cube which contains boiling water and has the best possible matt black surface you can produce - usually carbon black from a candle. That way you can be fairly sure you have constant low temperature emissions of the same temperature with a constant surface area, with a consistantly reproducible emissivity for a consistantly reproduceable wattage.

A 287K temperature differential and a 400watt warming potential would assume the radiant light inside of the box was all infrared. The light would be outputting only 400watts/m2 and warming the insulation/glass to about 17c.

So I have no idea what you are talking about needing a flame. I could use a naked man if that helps you understand the situation a little clearer.

Aug 4, 2013 17:06:08 GMT Andrew said:

The beauty of my cooling brick experiments was that i guaranteed, as best I could, there were no heating fluctuations impacting the heating of their surfaces, and i also did not need absolute temperature measurement and only required relative changes where the 4 thermometers were capable of amazingly consistant readings of +/- 0.01C, where C is only representing a relative scale relative to the other thermometers, rather than absolute temperature. I also used two bricks where there were 8 different, but identically looking, ways of arranging the bricks so i could be reasonably sure there was nothing strange creating the results due to the bricks properties.

Because those bricks took about 4 hours to cool from 80C to 20C and i had a 14C room to work in, if i had a way of producing a 4 hour video i could easily show that for each 8 combinations of bricks, that when they were placed together the inside faces would in time always be hotter than the outside faces. Which is exactly what you would expect from Stefans rule where each surfaces emissions are being absorbed by the other bricks surface regardless of temperature.

This model will only create a surface warming effect if another layer of insulation is piled onto a surface that already has a relatively large temperature gradient.

The 27 inches of glass is not insulating in the path of a 400watt heat flow. It will not create a temperature gradient anywhere. It will not warm any surface.  The entire system will be 17C.

What you need to understand is that all materials can conduct heat faster than radiation until they get to a certain thickness then they conduct less.

400 watts on to 1" of glass will conduct 400watts/m2 if exposed to 3K outerspace

400 watts on to 27" of glass will conduct 400watts/m2 in the same environment.

400 watts on to 40" of glass will only conduct 270watts/m2. So you now have a temperature gradient. And only now can you raise the temperature of the surface by adding more insulation.

Aug 4, 2013 17:06:08 GMT Andrew said:

>>20 hours ago icefisher said:
We know that radiation is radiating heat from the warmer brick to the cooler brick but thats all we know that can be specifically attributable to radiation.


You are clearly disputing the validity of the Stefan-boltzmann constant

Fairly clearly you are not understanding some basic ideas about heat temperature and radiation or you are wanting to talk about your own ideas about these ideas without making it clear that you reject ordinary scientific principles while simultaneously you say you are not rejecting them!

Your threads therefore become a riddle that can never be solved.

It must be really confusing to you to see the math use Stefan Boltzmann in every single calculation and have the math even check correctly. I can appreciate what you are going through.

The Stefan Boltzmann constant is involved in all the temperature estimates in the answer to your previous problem so quite clearly you are wrong about your claim of my having a dispute over the matter.   Of course you have been wrong about that for a year and a half and still haven't noticed that I have never contested the engineering curve.  I have only contested extrapolations that claim any cool object in the path of radiation to a colder place will cause a select object to warm.   This model is demonstrating that only under certain conditions will that select surface warm.  Steve put his finger on it when he claimed it would cool above if insulation was stripped.  I replied it would only cool under certain circumstances.

In fact the model I am offering here is in fact a more thorough use of Stefan Boltzmann at all levels of the schematic than your model.

Photons can fly which way they want to and they can net all they want and I could care less. I only care if I can notice an effect from them. Its the result that counts and only the result that counts. For all I could care they could fly to Mars and Jack Off then come back and do their job.

While I don't know if the calculators are always correct, they are correct enough to properly insulate a building.

[Andrew]

Aug 5, 2013 4:09:15 GMT icefisher said:

Aug 4, 2013 17:06:08 GMT Andrew said:

>>>The fact even common window glass has very poor insulating values mean it will pass 400watts with a 290K temperature difference at a thickness of 27 inches, so it would have a very large temperature gradient from the 400 watt internal source to a 0 watt heat sink that was 27 inches long.

All uniformly mixed materials of the same thickness have exactly the same temperature gradient for the same internal and external temperatures.

A heat sink cannot suck heat out of an object. All it can allow is that it be heated and conduct heat quickly to another place.

So your meaning of a zero watt heat sink is unclear. You need watts to enter the heat sink for it to allow heat to flow from the other material.

To have meaning you need to say the temperature at the contact point with the heat sink is X degrees and the heat sink is removing Y watts

>>so it would have a very large temperature gradient from the 400 watt internal source to a 0 watt heat sink that was 27 inches long.

This sentence shows you are muddling terms in a big way.

If there was 0 watts going thru the heat sink the temperature of the glass on each side would be the same.

There is 400watts going through the glass.

Aug 4, 2013 17:06:08 GMT Andrew said:

Earlier when we talked about how the core of an egg reheats the surface it appeared you dont understand the meaning of a temperature gradient - Either way it was clear the whole topic of the eggs surface getting hotter again was really confusing you.

So there is something going on here that will be useful for you to work out and see more clearly.

I dont know what it is, but it is clear from your comments elsewhere that there is something basic about heat and temperature that you do not understand.

Very possible even likely. Appears you very possibly have the exact same problem if you don't know what it is.

Aug 4, 2013 17:06:08 GMT Andrew said:

>> It will absorb all radiation from a 400w light source as that source is all infrared light shining off on? the outer surface of the interior sphere.

You consistantly mix long and short wave IR into a single IR, when the context requires they be separated. Both short and long wave IR passes thru ordinary window glass, however the long wave IR is better absorbed. Glass cannot be a perfect absorber for all long wave frequencies. Some will pass thru relatively uninterrupted, even while large areas of other bands will be mainly absorbed. Yes, with 27 inches of window glass we can say that nothing passes thru, which is a good enuf description, but with 4mm the situation is unclear and context is everything.

The model is not intended to pass any light through the glass, only heat. If it does it can transmit more than 400watts/m2 through 27 inches of glass over a temperature difference of 287K

If it makes it easier for you to digest assume the glass is blackened so no light passes.

Aug 4, 2013 17:06:08 GMT Andrew said:

Also a hot light source will be producing significant short wave IR. You are better off using an electric fire as the heat source or better yet, you do as Tyndall did and you use what he called a Leslies cube which contains boiling water and has the best possible matt black surface you can produce - usually carbon black from a candle. That way you can be fairly sure you have constant low temperature emissions of the same temperature with a constant surface area, with a consistantly reproducible emissivity for a consistantly reproduceable wattage.

A 287K temperature differential and a 400watt warming potential would assume the radiant light inside of the box was all infrared. The light would be outputting only 400watts/m2 and warming the insulation/glass to about 17c.

So I have no idea what you are talking about needing a flame. I could use a naked man if that helps you understand the situation a little clearer.

Aug 4, 2013 17:06:08 GMT Andrew said:

The beauty of my cooling brick experiments was that i guaranteed, as best I could, there were no heating fluctuations impacting the heating of their surfaces, and i also did not need absolute temperature measurement and only required relative changes where the 4 thermometers were capable of amazingly consistant readings of +/- 0.01C, where C is only representing a relative scale relative to the other thermometers, rather than absolute temperature. I also used two bricks where there were 8 different, but identically looking, ways of arranging the bricks so i could be reasonably sure there was nothing strange creating the results due to the bricks properties.

Because those bricks took about 4 hours to cool from 80C to 20C and i had a 14C room to work in, if i had a way of producing a 4 hour video i could easily show that for each 8 combinations of bricks, that when they were placed together the inside faces would in time always be hotter than the outside faces. Which is exactly what you would expect from Stefans rule where each surfaces emissions are being absorbed by the other bricks surface regardless of temperature.

This model will only create a surface warming effect if another layer of insulation is piled onto a surface that already has a relatively large temperature gradient.

The 27 inches of glass is not insulating in the path of a 400watt heat flow. It will not create a temperature gradient anywhere. It will not warm any surface.  The entire system will be 17C.

What you need to understand is that all materials can conduct heat faster than radiation until they get to a certain thickness then they conduct less.

400 watts on to 1" of glass will conduct 400watts/m2 if exposed to 3K outerspace

400 watts on to 27" of glass will conduct 400watts/m2 in the same environment.

400 watts on to 40" of glass will only conduct 270watts/m2. So you now have a temperature gradient. And only now can you raise the temperature of the surface by adding more insulation.

Aug 4, 2013 17:06:08 GMT Andrew said:

>>20 hours ago icefisher said:
We know that radiation is radiating heat from the warmer brick to the cooler brick but thats all we know that can be specifically attributable to radiation.


You are clearly disputing the validity of the Stefan-boltzmann constant

Fairly clearly you are not understanding some basic ideas about heat temperature and radiation or you are wanting to talk about your own ideas about these ideas without making it clear that you reject ordinary scientific principles while simultaneously you say you are not rejecting them!

Your threads therefore become a riddle that can never be solved.

It must be really confusing to you to see the math use Stefan Boltzmann in every single calculation and have the math even check correctly. I can appreciate what you are going through.

The Stefan Boltzmann constant is involved in all the temperature estimates in the answer to your previous problem so quite clearly you are wrong about your claim of my having a dispute over the matter.   Of course you have been wrong about that for a year and a half and still haven't noticed that I have never contested the engineering curve.  I have only contested extrapolations that claim any cool object in the path of radiation to a colder place will cause a select object to warm.   This model is demonstrating that only under certain conditions will that select surface warm.  Steve put his finger on it when he claimed it would cool above if insulation was stripped.  I replied it would only cool under certain circumstances.

In fact the model I am offering here is in fact a more thorough use of Stefan Boltzmann at all levels of the schematic than your model.

Photons can fly which way they want to and they can net all they want and I could care less. I only care if I can notice an effect from them. Its the result that counts and only the result that counts. For all I could care they could fly to Mars and Jack Off then come back and do their job.

While I don't know if the calculators are always correct, they are correct enough to properly insulate a building.

You totally ignored everything i said to you.

1. No explanation of the zero watts heat sink comment

2. No intelligent comment on the strange comment of:

>>20 hours ago icefisher said:
We know that radiation is radiating heat from the warmer brick to the cooler brick but thats all we know that can be specifically attributable to radiation.

You are clearly dismissing the stefan boltzmann constant and the engineers curves while saying you do not.

You are still stuck in the same strange place you began where you accused climate scientists of fraudulent science related to backradiation

Obviously it is you who is the fraud.

[icefisher]

I have no idea what you asking about a heat sink.

I also have no recollection of saying anything about bricks in this thread.

[Andrew]

Aug 5, 2013 5:36:18 GMT icefisher said:

I have no idea what you asking about a heat sink.

I also have no recollection of saying anything about bricks in this thread.

Goodbye and good luck with your ideas.

[icefisher]

Aug 4, 2013 17:06:08 GMT Andrew said:

>>>The fact even common window glass has very poor insulating values mean it will pass 400watts with a 290K temperature difference at a thickness of 27 inches, so it would have a very large temperature gradient from the 400 watt internal source to a 0 watt heat sink that was 27 inches long.<<<<

All uniformly mixed materials of the same thickness have exactly the same temperature gradient for the same internal and external temperatures.

A heat sink cannot suck heat out of an object. All it can allow is that it be heated and conduct heat quickly to another place.

So your meaning of a zero watt heat sink is unclear. You need watts to enter the heat sink for it to allow heat to flow from the other material.

To have meaning you need to say the temperature at the contact point with the heat sink is X degrees and the heat sink is removing Y watts

I made an error in the above statement that may have confused Iceskater. I have corrected that statement to say:
The fact even common window glass has very poor insulating values mean it will pass 400watts with a 287K temperature difference at a thickness of 27 inches, so it would have no temperature gradient from the 400 watt internal surface to an exterior surface radiating 400watts at a 3 watt heat sink

It is clearly wrong to say: "All uniformly mixed materials of the same thickness have exactly the same temperature gradient for the same internal and external temperatures." One needs to strike the words "of the same thickness" out of the statement as objects conduct heat at widely variable rates. Also "external" needs to be clarified as "external surface temperature". Internal could be interpreted as "core" or "perfectly insulated inside surface".

A light can pose as perfect insulation in a static temperature condition but it would not allow cooling.

And here is what appears to be the answer. The lighted interior surface is 17C, per Stefan-Boltzmann the surface is absorbing 400watt/m2. The glass is 27" thick and a calculation here:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatcond.html

. Inputting 1 M/2 as the surface area. Using the conductivity value from here of .96

www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html

Inputting Hot side at 17C and cold side at -270C generates a heat transmission rate of about 402watts (so the glass could be a tad thicker than 27inches and still not create a temperature gradient.

If the light inside the sphere were turned off and 27" glass shell allowed to cool, a temperature gradient would form. But the temperature gradient would not look like the gradient in glass wool which has a conductivity of .04. If you adjusted the thickness of the glass wool to the same heat transmission rate then it would look like a scale model of the glass temperature gradient.

However no temperature gradient will form if the glass is heated at or below what its heat conduction (Q/t) rate is.

And of course if we start adjusting for the relative surface area of real spheres inside of real spheres, we can make the internal light hotter without forming temperature gradients.

[Andrew]

Aug 5, 2013 14:28:28 GMT icefisher said:

Aug 4, 2013 17:06:08 GMT Andrew said:

>>>The fact even common window glass has very poor insulating values mean it will pass 400watts with a 290K temperature difference at a thickness of 27 inches, so it would have a very large temperature gradient from the 400 watt internal source to a 0 watt heat sink that was 27 inches long.<<<<

All uniformly mixed materials of the same thickness have exactly the same temperature gradient for the same internal and external temperatures.

A heat sink cannot suck heat out of an object. All it can allow is that it be heated and conduct heat quickly to another place.

So your meaning of a zero watt heat sink is unclear. You need watts to enter the heat sink for it to allow heat to flow from the other material.

To have meaning you need to say the temperature at the contact point with the heat sink is X degrees and the heat sink is removing Y watts

I made an error in the above statement that may have confused Iceskater. I have corrected that statement to say:
The fact even common window glass has very poor insulating values mean it will pass 400watts with a 287K temperature difference at a thickness of 27 inches, so it would have no temperature gradient from the 400 watt internal surface to an exterior surface radiating 400watts at a 3 watt heat sink

It is clearly wrong to say: "All uniformly mixed materials of the same thickness have exactly the same temperature gradient for the same internal and external temperatures." One needs to strike the words "of the same thickness" out of the statement as objects conduct heat at widely variable rates. Also "external" needs to be clarified as "external surface temperature". Internal could be interpreted as "core" or "perfectly insulated inside surface".

A light can pose as perfect insulation in a static temperature condition but it would not allow cooling.

And here is what appears to be the answer. The lighted interior surface is 17C, per Stefan-Boltzmann the surface is absorbing 400watt/m2. The glass is 27" thick and a calculation here:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatcond.html

. Inputting 1 M/2 as the surface area. Using the conductivity value from here of .96

www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html

Inputting Hot side at 17C and cold side at -270C generates a heat transmission rate of about 402watts (so the glass could be a tad thicker than 27inches and still not create a temperature gradient.

If the light inside the sphere were turned off and 27" glass shell allowed to cool, a temperature gradient would form. But the temperature gradient would not look like the gradient in glass wool which has a conductivity of .04. If you adjusted the thickness of the glass wool to the same heat transmission rate then it would look like a scale model of the glass temperature gradient.

However no temperature gradient will form if the glass is heated at or below what its heat conduction (Q/t) rate is.

And of course if we start adjusting for the relative surface area of real spheres inside of real spheres, we can make the internal light hotter without forming temperature gradients.

Hello again Icefisher

You are using the term 'temperature gradient' incorrectly. In your later example the temperature gradient is simply a line drawn thru a drawing of the conducting material from a temperature of 17C that is drawn higher on the left hand side for example, sloping very very strongly downwards to an incredibly much much much lower temperature on the right hand side of the drawing of -270C.

Obviously that is a massive temperature gradient

Therefore:

All uniformly mixed materials of the same thickness have exactly the same temperature gradient for the same temperature differences across the material.

Eg for copper or for fiberglass if the temperatures are 17C and -270C either side of the material the slopes of the temperature gradients are a straight line for both and are the same slope angle for both

>>The fact even common window glass has very poor insulating values mean it will pass 400watts with a 287K temperature difference at a thickness of 27 inches, so it would have no temperature gradient from the 400 watt internal surface to an exterior surface radiating 400watts at a 3 watt heat sink

Whatever you are describing here needs to be reworded to allow for the correct meaning of temperature gradient. And whatever you mean by 'a 3 watt heat sink' has to be clarified. Are you talking about a heatsink or are you saying the heat is sinking? Either way, I really have no idea what you are describing.

If you had a 400W CPU inside a computer part and an outside surface of the CPU part, in contact with the heat sink, then the heat sink has to be removing 400W from the surface of the 400W CPU part.

Whatever you are getting at with the 400W flow and the '3 watt heat sink' is beyond my abilities to work out - even if you correct the temperature gradient part where 'the temperature gradient' is essentially 'the temperature difference' you have already mentioned as being present.

Fairly obviously there is something about heat and temperature that you do not understand. Until you do resolve that we are unable to have an intelligent conversation that is anything other than an endlessly impossible to solve riddle, of endlessly going around in the same circle saying different things and always coming back to the same riddle.

But importantly you already know i have said hundreds of times by now i do not understand you and you already know you give me answers to my 'alleged' lack of understanding which I keep saying are tremendously unsatisfactory.

From my viewpoint I can never put my finger on an error of yours and get you to correct what you are describing. Instead you always produce abusively dismissive commentary and avoid what i am talking about.

You must realise by now i cannot keep doing this and I am unable to keep spending time with you for no purpose at all.

The conversation has to move forwards from where it began.

At the moment we are in some kind of doom loop. Unless you make a change, the only escape for me is to exit the loop that involves you.

I am 100% certain you are playing a game with me that i cannot understand the purpose of. Whether or not you realise you are playing that game is not the point i am making.

Therefore you must begin to make a significant change in your understanding of heat and temperature to get another response from me

[icefisher]

Aug 5, 2013 16:46:24 GMT Andrew said:

Hello again Icefisher

You are using the term 'temperature gradient' incorrectly. In your later example the temperature gradient is simply a line drawn thru a drawing of the conducting material from a temperature of 17C that is drawn higher on the left hand side for example, sloping very very strongly downwards to an incredibly much much much lower temperature on the right hand side of the drawing of -270C.

Obviously that is a massive temperature gradient

Therefore:

All uniformly mixed materials of the same thickness have exactly the same temperature gradient for the same temperature differences across the material.
Eg for copper or for fiberglass if the temperatures are 17C and -270C either side of the material the slopes of the temperature gradients are a straight line for both and are the same slope angle for both

Review the model. The surface of the glass is 17C due to radiation from a 400watt/m2 light source exactly as Stefan Boltzmann constant would suggest. Deep space is believed to be -270C degrees or 3K. If the surface facing deep space were also -270C then per the Stefan Boltzmann constant and the engineering tool box curve there would be zero heat loss by radiation to space from the glass.

Thats impossible!

Aug 5, 2013 16:46:24 GMT Andrew said:

>>The fact even common window glass has very poor insulating values mean it will pass 400watts with a 287K temperature difference at a thickness of 27 inches, so it would have no temperature gradient from the 400 watt internal surface to an exterior surface radiating 400watts at a 3 watt heat sink

Whatever you are describing here needs to be reworded to allow for the correct meaning of temperature gradient. And whatever you mean by 'a 3 watt heat sink' has to be clarified. Are you talking about a heatsink or are you saying the heat is sinking? Either way, I really have no idea what you are describing.

heat sink
n.
1. An environment capable of absorbing heat from an object with which it is in thermal contact without a phase change or an appreciable change in temperature.

Space is technically not a heat sink, but it acts like one.

Aug 5, 2013 16:46:24 GMT Andrew said:

If you had a 400W CPU inside a computer part and an outside surface of the CPU part, in contact with the heat sink, then the heat sink has to be removing 400W from the surface of the 400W CPU part.

Whatever you are getting at with the 400W flow and the '3 watt heat sink' is beyond my abilities to work out - even if you correct the temperature gradient part where 'the temperature gradient' is essentially 'the temperature difference' you have already mentioned as being present.

Fairly obviously there is something about heat and temperature that you do not understand. Until you do resolve that we are unable to have an intelligent conversation that is anything other than an endlessly impossible to solve riddle, of endlessly going around in the same circle saying different things and always coming back to the same riddle.

But importantly you already know i have said hundreds of times by now i do not understand you and you already know you give me answers to my 'alleged' lack of understanding which I keep saying are tremendously unsatisfactory.

Well since you apparently do not think the heated glass will cool to space because its outer surface is 3K forming this imaginary temperature gradient; there is little I can do to help you until you get your thinking cap on straight. The only time such a gradient could exist if indeed outerspace starlight is 3watts is by making all the comparative materials infinitely thick.

Aug 5, 2013 16:46:24 GMT Andrew said:

From my viewpoint I can never put my finger on an error of yours and get you to correct what you are describing.

Thats about the time you should consider some introspection.

[Andrew]

Aug 5, 2013 19:29:53 GMT icefisher said:

Aug 5, 2013 16:46:24 GMT Andrew said:

Hello again Icefisher

You are using the term 'temperature gradient' incorrectly. In your later example the temperature gradient is simply a line drawn thru a drawing of the conducting material from a temperature of 17C that is drawn higher on the left hand side for example, sloping very very strongly downwards to an incredibly much much much lower temperature on the right hand side of the drawing of -270C.

Obviously that is a massive temperature gradient

Therefore:

All uniformly mixed materials of the same thickness have exactly the same temperature gradient for the same temperature differences across the material.
Eg for copper or for fiberglass if the temperatures are 17C and -270C either side of the material the slopes of the temperature gradients are a straight line for both and are the same slope angle for both

Review the model. The surface of the glass is 17C due to radiation from a 400watt/m2 light source exactly as Stefan Boltzmann constant would suggest. Deep space is believed to be -270C degrees or 3K. If the surface facing deep space were also -270C then per the Stefan Boltzmann constant and the engineering tool box curve there would be zero heat loss by radiation to space from the glass.

Thats impossible!

You are creating an unsolveable riddle. I am saying there is a massive temperature gradient from 17C to -270C

You are saying there is a large heat flow across the material *and* the only method of cooling is via the same temperature of -270C

I am correct. You are wrong. There is no heat flow for what you are describing as you are describing it. Instead the temperature of -270C must be much higher to enable the continual heating of 400W to be released from the material and enable cooling to only -270C.

Aug 5, 2013 16:46:24 GMT Andrew said:

>>The fact even common window glass has very poor insulating values mean it will pass 400watts with a 287K temperature difference at a thickness of 27 inches, so it would have no temperature gradient from the 400 watt internal surface to an exterior surface radiating 400watts at a 3 watt heat sink

Whatever you are describing here needs to be reworded to allow for the correct meaning of temperature gradient. And whatever you mean by 'a 3 watt heat sink' has to be clarified. Are you talking about a heatsink or are you saying the heat is sinking? Either way, I really have no idea what you are describing.

heat sink
n.
1. An environment capable of absorbing heat from an object with which it is in thermal contact without a phase change or an appreciable change in temperature.

Space is technically not a heat sink, but it acts like one.

Correct. As just explained the temperature gradient across the material is not as you described it. Whatever the temperatures will be you have made an error.

Aug 5, 2013 16:46:24 GMT Andrew said:

If you had a 400W CPU inside a computer part and an outside surface of the CPU part, in contact with the heat sink, then the heat sink has to be removing 400W from the surface of the 400W CPU part.

Whatever you are getting at with the 400W flow and the '3 watt heat sink' is beyond my abilities to work out - even if you correct the temperature gradient part where 'the temperature gradient' is essentially 'the temperature difference' you have already mentioned as being present.

Fairly obviously there is something about heat and temperature that you do not understand. Until you do resolve that we are unable to have an intelligent conversation that is anything other than an endlessly impossible to solve riddle, of endlessly going around in the same circle saying different things and always coming back to the same riddle.

But importantly you already know i have said hundreds of times by now i do not understand you and you already know you give me answers to my 'alleged' lack of understanding which I keep saying are tremendously unsatisfactory.

Well since you apparently do not think the heated glass will cool to space because its outer surface is 3K forming this imaginary temperature gradient; there is little I can do to help you until you get your thinking cap on straight. The only time such a gradient could exist if indeed outerspace starlight is 3watts is by making all the comparative materials infinitely thick.

As already explained, you have created an unsolveable riddle because you have declared there can be no or little cooling and yet the heat flow across the material is significant so contrary to what you have declared, there must be existing a significant cooling force to balance the significant heating force.

You need to make a change to end the impossible to solve riddle.

Aug 5, 2013 16:46:24 GMT Andrew said:

From my viewpoint I can never put my finger on an error of yours and get you to correct what you are describing.

Thats about the time you should consider some introspection.


My meaning is:

1. I can unquestionably put my finger on your errors

However

2. You will never correct what you are describing

As explained and emphasised earlier the change has to happen on your side. You are unquestionably muddled up about some aspect of heat and temperature and endlessly resisting that being explained to you.

You have though, unusually, at least directly addressed what i have said to you - which is a significant change even if your scientific understanding remains the same. From here onwards what happens in the doom loop depends upon on how many iterations of this same lack of progress we make from here forwards. It will not go on much longer. I need progress or escape.