|
Post by icefisher on Aug 6, 2013 3:01:52 GMT
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.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.I must be misunderstanding you. Here is a picture of what I think you described in your original statement. 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 bothSo here is a drawing I tried to make up of your description. If there are any errors there be sure to correct them. Here it is as I take it from the molecular screen model. If there are any errors there be sure to correct them. And here is a drawing of how I see it working. Source for the 400w/m2 radiating out of the right side of the glass is: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatcond.htmlUsing .96 for the conductivity of window glass from here: www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html Its very possible I have made an error here. But I provided the sources I used so if you come up with something different please indicate how you came out differently. If I made a mistake I want to know about it. I consider myself as mature and not worried about the size of my wanger. I promise I will not start rolling on the floor spewing profanities and ad hominems.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 6, 2013 5:14:27 GMT
You began by saying: >>>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. So there was a 290 degree temperature gradient and i had no idea what you were talking about >>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! A similar 287C temperature gradient And i want to a great deal of effort to explain how you were creating the conditions for an impossible to solve riddle. Then you just said: 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 A similar 287C temperature gradient, and another impossible to understand comment about what i am supposed to be thinking *and* you are baiting me. Now you are talking about the temperature either side of the glass being the same temperature for zero temperature gradient *and* you are baiting me. [/a] You just seem to be endlessly messing around with me. I have simply had enuf of your endless games.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 6, 2013 6:28:32 GMT
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.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.Thats about the time you should consider some introspection. My meaning is: 1. I can unquestionably put my finger on your errors However2. You will never correct what you are describingAs 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. You just simply need to read more carefully. 15 hours ago I posted: 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.You are still quoting the erroneous statement. I admitted I wrote that poorly and its clear to me that statement made in response in no way conforms with the model I laid out in the original post. So get over it. I laid out 3 versions of this on graphs. The first version is a representation of the temperature gradient you seem to be claiming in this thread. If its based upon my erroneous statement, your response should have been such a gradient would be impossible as such a gradient cannot exist in nature. Not go on about how conduction laws will make it look like the first depiction. Here is my reading of what you said. If there are any errors there be sure to correct them or tell me to discard this version. Here is my reading of what the molecular screen model would produce, which is what you have been saying for a year and half. If there are any errors there be sure to correct them or tell me to discard this version. I fully expect one version to emerge here. Finally here is my representation which matches to a tee the original word description I gave of the model minus the inner sphere. hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatcond.htmlUsing .96 for the conductivity of window glass from here: www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html When I wrote the erroneous statement I was thinking of 400watt/m2 flowing level all the way to the 3K outerspace sink (whatever that is). I recognized that might be confusing because the 400watts converts from heat to radiation at the backside of the glass. So I corrected the statment. So instead of spinning like a top on long ago corrections, how about moving forward and telling me which model you support and if its the same as mine fine, we will be in agreement. If its not lets compare your version (whether you first decide to modify it or not) to my version, I have checked and doubled checked the figures so there should be no errors there. If you pick the molecular screen model version we have no differences on the right hand side of the glass. The differences exist on the left side where you posit a warming from radiation resistance. I think such a resistance is a violation of the Engineering Toolbox curve. You have refused to source and perform a calculation to support your view. As it stands with no calculation from you I am winning this argument. So fine Iceskater have a tantrum go visit your grandmother or something. I like winning.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 6, 2013 7:10:19 GMT
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.You are still quoting the erroneous statement. I just quoted that statement I have absolutely no idea what it means. If you refuse to cooperate by writing things down in a standard form so they can be understood by me the conversation is totally impossible. Already we have made zero progress after months of the same kind of peculiar communication where i have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and you are never willing to explain the meaning of your words to me.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 6, 2013 7:12:04 GMT
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.You are still quoting the erroneous statement. I just quoted that statement I have absolutely no idea what it means. If you refuse to cooperate by writing things down in a standard form so they can be understood by me the conversation is totally impossible. Already we have made zero progress after months of the same kind of peculiar communication where i have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and you are never willing to explain the meaning of your words to me. trouble with words? Can't follow with pictures either?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 6, 2013 7:17:08 GMT
I just quoted that statement I have absolutely no idea what it means. If you refuse to cooperate by writing things down in a standard form so they can be understood by me the conversation is totally impossible. Already we have made zero progress after months of the same kind of peculiar communication where i have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and you are never willing to explain the meaning of your words to me. trouble with words? Can't follow with pictures either? We are done i am sick of your insulting immature behaviour I wish i could understand why your respond so peculiarly but i simply cannot and i have to escape this strangeness rather than continue and forever be frustrated by the games you play.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 6, 2013 7:21:26 GMT
Iceskater's corner throws in the towel!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 6, 2013 7:25:23 GMT
Iceskater's corner throws in the towel! What kind of winning is it when a person cannot understand anything you say and just gives up trying? Is that your kind of winning? Sounds pretty lonely to me. What is it you win from these exchanges other than seeing me suffer? It seems to me you have had 18 months of fun because you found a person who wanted to help you and you knew you could keep me dancing endlessly to your stupid tune where winning to you is to create frustration in the other person and there never is an intention to have an honest dialogue and person to person connection. 18 months and zero achievement and you think that is winning. I cant believe we have had such an epic failure to progress this conversation. But it is what is. It will never change. All of our interactions are toxic, unhealthy and utterly without any meaning.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 6, 2013 9:36:45 GMT
I am the winner by TKO. Failure of you to continue, failure of you to provide a calculation to support your model. You are just making excuses. You know your model when you see it but you have thrown in the towel on providing any calculations is support of it.
I provided calculations and references for all portions of my model.
The loser always goes back to his corner and complains the opponent faught unfairly. But you have no evidence of that either. You are trying to use a couple of typos of mine as an excuse for you not defending your model and of criticizing mine by another non-physical possibility about a falsehood that all temperature gradients are the same.
You Lose!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 6, 2013 10:22:00 GMT
I am the winner by TKO. Failure of you to continue, failure of you to provide a calculation to support your model. You are just making excuses. You know your model when you see it but you have thrown in the towel on providing any calculations is support of it. I provided calculations and references for all portions of my model. The loser always goes back to his corner and complains the opponent faught unfairly. But you have no evidence of that either. You are trying to use a couple of typos of mine as an excuse for you not defending your model and of criticizing mine by another non-physical possibility about a falsehood that all temperature gradients are the same. You Lose!You keep saying i have not provided calculations for my model and I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You must have said this now about ten times over the course of two weeks. You also keep saying i am hiding things, changing goal posts and endless other inventions. It is a simple fact that the temperature gradients for all materials of equal thickness and equal temperatures must be exactly the same, how can they possibly be different?? By definition they have the same temperatures and the same material thicknesses and must be the same. What is your model that you have provided details about? I have no idea what you are talking about. You provided several pieces of text that i totally could not read and then you produced a diagram. After what i read and saw all that is in my brain is the usual massive mess that makes no sense to me at all, but if i see errors i will point them out. What is our theory? what are you trying to prove or demonstrate? I have absolute no idea and dont care in the slightest. I only got involved in this thread because i noticed your text make no sense at all and i pointed that out, and i have pointed out that all the amended versions make no sense to me either. Generally speaking i am totally not interested in anything you say but when i see errors i point them out. I probably have some kind of obsessive compulsive proof reading syndrome. I will likely hang around here waiting for you next response so i can proof read that too. Almost certainly i will have no idea what you are talking about, and you will requirem me to wonder again what my model is supposed to be like that has no calculations that i am supposed to be avoiding, but I will at least notice the odd error here and there. It seems to be what i do.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 6, 2013 15:22:48 GMT
You keep saying i have not provided calculations for my model and I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You must have said this now about ten times over the course of two weeks. You also keep saying i am hiding things, changing goal posts and endless other inventions. You refused to give the calculation for the bottom layer of the molecular screen model. You chickened out on that because to do the calculation you would have to reveal that your model either violates the stefan-boltzmann 4th power rule or the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So you just went into an endless stream of excuses. It is a simple fact that the temperature gradients for all materials of equal thickness and equal temperatures must be exactly the same, how can they possibly be different?? By definition they have the same temperatures and the same material thicknesses and must be the same. I explained how the temperature gradients will be different on Aug 4, 2013 at 9:09pm 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. So the glass up to a little more than 27" has no temperature gradient, as it passes beyond 27" a temperature gradient begins to form and at 40" the temperture gradient is up to about 27K as the outside surface of the glass is 263K. I have given you scientific references on how to calculate it. hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatcond.htmlUsing .96 for the conductivity of window glass from here: www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.htmlThe Engineering Toolbox gives you the coefficient to use for a certain material that changes the gradient for every different material. Even various kinds of glass have different coefficients as they have different materials in them. Now you are disputing the Engineering ToolboxWhat is your model that you have provided details about? I have no idea what you are talking about. You provided several pieces of text that i totally could not read and then you produced a diagram. After what i read and saw all that is in my brain is the usual massive mess that makes no sense to me at all, but if i see errors i will point them out. The model is laid out by numbers in the top post. The diagram for it is the diagram labeled icefisher's. If you cannot even point out what you don't understand about the picture or the description of the picture I cannot help you. This thread is over and you lost by failing to respond. Unless you can say something constructive instead of reeling around like some punch drunk. You need some nurses to escort you from the ring. If you want to redeem yourself you need to explain how a molecular screen warms a surface from 290K to 345K with a 400watt/m2 radiation input and provide a calculation, a list of energy sources to feed the calculation, and references for the calculation. Otherwise there will be no rematch. Its your failure to do that, while I did do it for my model, that has caused you to lose.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 6, 2013 17:45:16 GMT
You keep saying i have not provided calculations for my model and I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You must have said this now about ten times over the course of two weeks. You also keep saying i am hiding things, changing goal posts and endless other inventions. You refused to give the calculation for the bottom layer of the molecular screen model. You chickened out on that because to do the calculation you would have to reveal that your model either violates the stefan-boltzmann 4th power rule or the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So you just went into an endless stream of excuses. It is a simple fact that the temperature gradients for all materials of equal thickness and equal temperatures must be exactly the same, how can they possibly be different?? By definition they have the same temperatures and the same material thicknesses and must be the same. I explained how the temperature gradients will be different on Aug 4, 2013 at 9:09pm 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. So the glass up to a little more than 27" has no temperature gradient, as it passes beyond 27" a temperature gradient begins to form and at 40" the temperture gradient is up to about 27K as the outside surface of the glass is 263K. I have given you scientific references on how to calculate it. hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatcond.htmlUsing .96 for the conductivity of window glass from here: www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.htmlThe Engineering Toolbox gives you the coefficient to use for a certain material that changes the gradient for every different material. Even various kinds of glass have different coefficients as they have different materials in them. Now you are disputing the Engineering ToolboxWhat is your model that you have provided details about? I have no idea what you are talking about. You provided several pieces of text that i totally could not read and then you produced a diagram. After what i read and saw all that is in my brain is the usual massive mess that makes no sense to me at all, but if i see errors i will point them out. The model is laid out by numbers in the top post. The diagram for it is the diagram labeled icefisher's. If you cannot even point out what you don't understand about the picture or the description of the picture I cannot help you. This thread is over and you lost by failing to respond. Unless you can say something constructive instead of reeling around like some punch drunk. You need some nurses to escort you from the ring. If you want to redeem yourself you need to explain how a molecular screen warms a surface from 290K to 345K with a 400watt/m2 radiation input and provide a calculation, a list of energy sources to feed the calculation, and references for the calculation. Otherwise there will be no rematch. Its your failure to do that, while I did do it for my model, that has caused you to lose. It is utter nonesense that i have refused to supply calculations. It has been done to death and there is no need to recalculate what has already been done. You have produced nothing new that requires me to make the effort to recalculate. All you have done is wave your hands around and demand i recalulate for different temperatures where there are no differences of any consequence. >>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. It is totally unreal the way you keep inventing reasons to avoid reality. Nothing is being hidden. There is no retreat. Everything is consistantly applied. You keep talking nonesense. All of these things have been experimentally determined and done to death since hundreds of years >>The Engineering Toolbox gives you the coefficient to use for a certain material that changes the gradient for every different material. Even various kinds of glass have different coefficients as they have different materials in them. Now you are disputing the Engineering Toolbox Draw what you are talking about. By definition the temperatures across 30cm of material are going to be X and Y and the thickness is going to be 30cm. How does the temperature gradient change if you talking about X and Y and 30cm? ? There is a temperature gradient across 4mm glass. One side outside is colder than the inside side. If they were the same temperature for no temperature gradient the glass would be a perfect insulator. I do however have to change what i said about all materials being the same for same x y and thickness for materials that can transmitt radiation as obviously these ones are internally heated by an external energy source and other things being equal that sounds a different situation to what would happen with a solid lump of copper. In practice however the difference might not make any difference. But obviously your comments about thin glass having no temperature gradient are false. And obviously if you apply 400W of heating force on one side of glass and only have 200W of cooling force you are continually heating the glass by 200W and it will get hotter and hotter and hotter until it is the hottest thing in the universe. All your work is full of these simple errors. All i have done since day one 18 months ago is scan your text that makes no sense to me to find simple errors. >>So the glass up to a little more than 27" has no temperature gradient Come on Icefisher. Use your brain. In Helsinki when it is -20C outside, the inside temperature of 4mm glass is about 5 - 10C or something like that and the outside is much colder, say around 1C. On one side is a heating force and on the other side is a cooling force. Heat can only flow across a conductor if there is a temperature difference. If the glass was about 20m thick you would have about -20C on one side and about room temperature on the other. A good conductor enables better heat transport with smaller temperature differences. Physical heat cannot flow without a temperature difference. Mathematical heat can flow thru space where really in the vacuum there are no temperature differences but physical heat is not flowing. Energy is flowing here and there but that energy movement is not created by anything connected to a temperature difference but moves here and there only because the transmitting objects are hotter than absolute zero. For a one molecule thick conductor you would have almost infinite conductivity with an almost infinitely small temperature gradient Whatever it is that you are thinking about it is clear you are thinking about it incorrectly.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 6, 2013 19:20:09 GMT
You keep saying i have not provided calculations for my model and I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You must have said this now about ten times over the course of two weeks. You also keep saying i am hiding things, changing goal posts and endless other inventions. You refused to give the calculation for the bottom layer of the molecular screen model. You chickened out on that because to do the calculation you would have to reveal that your model either violates the stefan-boltzmann 4th power rule or the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So you just went into an endless stream of excuses. If you want to redeem yourself you need to explain how a molecular screen warms a surface from 290K to 345K with a 400watt/m2 radiation input and provide a calculation, a list of energy sources to feed the calculation, and references for the calculation. Otherwise there will be no rematch. Its your failure to do that, while I did do it for my model, that has caused you to lose. It is utter bollocks that I have refused to do calculations. And utter bollocks that i know calculations will violate the laws of pysics! You do not seem to realise that the higher energy radiation from the sun is only partially absorbed by the atmosphere, whereas the lower energy radiation from the earth is much more highly absorbed by the atmosphere. For simplicity therefore we can consider the surface to be electrically heated. Several times you have produced an argument related to energy flows between day and night netting to zero. Those arguments fail once you realise the pathway for most of the energy that is inbound is totally different to the pathway for most of the energy that is outbound. Arm waving and hysteria is not going to change that. I have not refused anything. I have not changed anything. I have not back tracked or changed goal posts. I have simply asked you to justify what you believe before you expect me to do the work of calculation for you, when it is clear that your new idea changes nothing at all and you are just introducing more simple errors. I focus on the errors. Your arguments are consistantly full of very simple errors. I focus on the errors. I am almost never focusing on what you are totally describing to the intended audience. I focus on what is required by you so that you can understand simple scientific principles. Until you can manage to come up with some sentences that are not full of errors, you are very very unlikely to get anybody who is qualified to provide calculations to dance to your tune only. That is how it works for me anyway. In your world you have discovered a novel heating system that can change the world In my world you are unable to write down more or less anything without it being full of simple errors. You even claimed normal typical ordinary legal financial netting was something unknown to an auditor!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 6, 2013 20:19:46 GMT
Come on Icefisher. Use your brain. In Helsinki when it is -20C outside, the inside temperature of 4mm glass is about 5 - 10C or something like that and the outside is much colder, say around 1C. On one side is a heating force and on the other side is a cooling force. Heat can only flow across a conductor if there is a temperature difference. If the glass was about 20m thick you would have about -20C on one side and about room temperature on the other. A good conductor enables better heat transport with smaller temperature differences. Physical heat cannot flow without a temperature difference. Mathematical heat can flow thru space where really in the vacuum there are no temperature differences but physical heat is not flowing. Energy is flowing here and there but that energy movement is not created by anything connected to a temperature difference but moves here and there only because the transmitting objects are hotter than absolute zero. For a one molecule thick conductor you would have almost infinite conductivity with an almost infinitely small temperature gradient Whatever it is that you are thinking about it is clear you are thinking about it incorrectly. Using my brain the first thing that comes to mind is Helsinki is not on the face of the moon so temperature gradients are going to be strongly affected by conduction with free air convection and not perform like a house on the moon. We can discard this notion that it says anything about my model as irrelevant nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 6, 2013 20:29:53 GMT
Come on Icefisher. Use your brain. In Helsinki when it is -20C outside, the inside temperature of 4mm glass is about 5 - 10C or something like that and the outside is much colder, say around 1C. On one side is a heating force and on the other side is a cooling force. Heat can only flow across a conductor if there is a temperature difference. If the glass was about 20m thick you would have about -20C on one side and about room temperature on the other. A good conductor enables better heat transport with smaller temperature differences. Physical heat cannot flow without a temperature difference. Mathematical heat can flow thru space where really in the vacuum there are no temperature differences but physical heat is not flowing. Energy is flowing here and there but that energy movement is not created by anything connected to a temperature difference but moves here and there only because the transmitting objects are hotter than absolute zero. For a one molecule thick conductor you would have almost infinite conductivity with an almost infinitely small temperature gradient Whatever it is that you are thinking about it is clear you are thinking about it incorrectly. Using my brain the first thing that comes to mind is Helsinki is not on the face of the moon so temperature gradients are going to be strongly affected by conduction with free air convection and not perform like a house on the moon. We can discard this notion that it says anything about my model as irrelevant nonsense. If glass entirely surrounds the 400w heat source then no matter how thick it is then eventually 400W has to leave the glass. There will always be a temperature gradient in the glass. According to Stephan boltzmann the heated glass that is hotter than 4k will reduce the heat loss of the light which will get hotter. All of that additional heater emission power must leave the glass surroundings where only 400W can leave the top of the glass Either what you are describing to me is unclear or you are totally mixed up >>We can discard this notion that it says anything about my model as irrelevant nonsense. We cannot but you can do whatever you want >>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. There is a temperature gradient in all three cases. In all three cases once the glass has been heated, 400W will leave the top of the glass towards outerspace In all three cases one side of the glass has a higher heating power applied to it and the other side has a very much lower heating power applied to it. The more strongly heated side will be hotter than the less strongly heated side. Therefore heat will flow thru the conducting glass via a temperature gradient as nature seeks to equalise the energy differences Increasing the thickness of the glass increases the amount of insulation the conducting material provides and increases the temperature of the inside surface while the outside temperature of the glass and the 400w emitted remains the same for all cases
|
|