|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 13, 2016 19:29:07 GMT
Venus is hot because it has a 90 bar atmosphere. Mars is cold because it has a .01 bar atmosphere. Both are 95% CO2.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 13, 2016 20:00:02 GMT
Venus is hot because it has a 90 bar atmosphere. Mars is cold because it has a .01 bar atmosphere. Both are 95% CO2. And your point is?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 13, 2016 21:01:21 GMT
The only thing I ever criticized about your experiments is you had not reliably captured any actual significant increase in temperature of any surface. Bullshit. From the beginning I demonstrated the hot plate got hotter and you foamed at the mouth. If you reduce the cooling rate of any heated surface it will get hotter. If you reduce the cooling rate of the earth it will head towards the temperature of the Sun, where if the earth is not cooled at all it will be the temperature of the Sun . If not the laws of physics are wrong. the surface of my cooling bricks got hotter and you foamed at the mouth. Evidently these realities are so troubling to you you need to claim I am Steve. Andrew you are full of it. Simply document the experiment you claim to have done, and submit it for your Nobel Prize because nobody else has done it. You will be celebrated as an Einstein if anybody can verify your experiment by repeating it. Go for it Dude! But the sad fact remains a dead body does not get warmer if you throw a cooler blanket over it and your brick is not going to get warmer either if you put a cooler brick next to it. And I could care less if you are Steve or not. It just seems to be a likely possibility since you defend him so, you showed up right after he disappeared, your argument mirrors his, you fail to provide any scientific evidence of your belief other than your extrapolations of 100 year old experimentations, and last but not least you have been caught with at least 2 other aliases on this board already. But like I say I could care less,
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 14, 2016 3:13:19 GMT
Bullshit. From the beginning I demonstrated the hot plate got hotter and you foamed at the mouth. If you reduce the cooling rate of any heated surface it will get hotter. If you reduce the cooling rate of the earth it will head towards the temperature of the Sun, where if the earth is not cooled at all it will be the temperature of the Sun . If not the laws of physics are wrong. the surface of my cooling bricks got hotter and you foamed at the mouth. Evidently these realities are so troubling to you you need to claim I am Steve. Andrew you are full of it. Simply document the experiment you claim to have done, and submit it for your Nobel Prize because nobody else has done it. You will be celebrated as an Einstein if anybody can verify your experiment by repeating it. Go for it Dude! But the sad fact remains a dead body does not get warmer if you throw a cooler blanket over it and your brick is not going to get warmer either if you put a cooler brick next to it. And I could care less if you are Steve or not. It just seems to be a likely possibility since you defend him so, you showed up right after he disappeared, your argument mirrors his, you fail to provide any scientific evidence of your belief other than your extrapolations of 100 year old experimentations, and last but not least you have been caught with at least 2 other aliases on this board already. But like I say I could care less, Come on lad, if you could learn to read you might make some progress. the surface of my cooling bricks got hotter and you foamed at the mouth. My videos show the expected results as predicted from heat loss curves and most definately there are no Nobel prizes awaiting me for such a simple demonstration of radiation science.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 14, 2016 3:21:52 GMT
Andrew you are full of it. Simply document the experiment you claim to have done, and submit it for your Nobel Prize because nobody else has done it. You will be celebrated as an Einstein if anybody can verify your experiment by repeating it. Go for it Dude! But the sad fact remains a dead body does not get warmer if you throw a cooler blanket over it and your brick is not going to get warmer either if you put a cooler brick next to it. And I could care less if you are Steve or not. It just seems to be a likely possibility since you defend him so, you showed up right after he disappeared, your argument mirrors his, you fail to provide any scientific evidence of your belief other than your extrapolations of 100 year old experimentations, and last but not least you have been caught with at least 2 other aliases on this board already. But like I say I could care less, My videos showed the expected results anybody will get as predicted by engineering heat loss curves How the hell can i get a nobel prize for being able to correctly use a heat loss curve? Obama got one, nough said.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 14, 2016 3:43:11 GMT
My videos showed the expected results anybody will get as predicted by engineering heat loss curves How the hell can i get a nobel prize for being able to correctly use a heat loss curve? Obama got one, nough said. I suppose there might be a possibility of a Nobel prize for getting Icefisher to come back to Earth and be in touch with reality, and most likely something very novel will be required to achieve that.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 14, 2016 4:10:48 GMT
When you win it, you have to share it with the board.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 14, 2016 4:15:33 GMT
When you win it, you have to share it with the board. The board is giving me no help. Why should I hand over a few hundred thousand for nothing?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 14, 2016 5:17:09 GMT
Come on lad, if you could learn to read you might make some progress. the surface of my cooling bricks got hotter and you foamed at the mouth. Just the surface? You mean the surface got hotter and the brick did not?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 14, 2016 5:27:18 GMT
Come on lad, if you could learn to read you might make some progress. the surface of my cooling bricks got hotter and you foamed at the mouth. Just the surface? You mean the surface got hotter and the brick did not? The core of a cooling brick heats the surface. If you limit the ability of the surface to cool, the surface will get hotter. If the brick has a powered external/internal heating source the entire heated brick will get hotter if cooling is reduced and will be permanently hotter while heating continues. When I used the heated oven plate when cooling was reduced the entire plate got hotter. All of these things are predictable from the engineers radiation heat loss curves and have nothing to do with the thickness of the second unheated object which is being heated by the first hotter object.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 14, 2016 6:42:13 GMT
Just the surface? You mean the surface got hotter and the brick did not? The core of a cooling brick heats the surface. If you limit the ability of the surface to cool, the surface will get hotter. No doubt we can call this Andrews Law! LOL! I sense a Nobel Prize here if you can establish this. My recollection is you claimed to have uniformly heated the brick Andrew. So your claim is that by putting a cold brick next to the hot brick the surface heated and the core of the brick got colder than the surface. How does that happen? Does the cold brick suck heat out of the core of the brick? Actually I remember a bit more than that. I recall after setting up the bricks and thermometers you picked up digit on your temperature readout. But no doubt that was a reversal of the brick becoming cooler while setting up your experiment. You though believed it was not sloppy experiment practices but some kind of proof 0f something that the folks here would be interested in. You will need to take another shot at explaining what that was. All of these things are predictable from the engineers radiation heat loss curves and have nothing to do with the thickness of the second unheated object which is being heated by the first hotter object. The radiation heat loss curve says that an object with 341watts/m2 shining on and has a surface temperature of 278.5K will have both zero heat loss and zero heat gain and that if the surface is say 280k it will cool and not warm. So what you said above is just incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 14, 2016 7:05:31 GMT
The core of a cooling brick heats the surface. If you limit the ability of the surface to cool, the surface will get hotter. No doubt we can call this Andrews Law! LOL! I sense a Nobel Prize here if you can establish this. My recollection is you claimed to have uniformly heated the brick Andrew. Correct So your claim is that by putting a cold brick next to the hot brick the surface heated Correct and the core of the brick got colder than the surface. Not Correct. The hot core of the brick is still heating the surface. How does that happen? Does the cold brick suck heat out of the core of the brick? The brick was uniformly heated and left to cool for a few minutes. The hotter core then heats the colder surface. A second unheated brick is then placed next to the first brick and the hot surface of the heated brick begins heating the second brick and the surface of the second brick rises in temperature. Therefore the first brick can no longer cool at the same rate as it did before the second brick was present and the surface of the first brick rises in temperature but the hotter core of the first brick continues to transfer heat to the still colder surface of the first brick. Please try again.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 14, 2016 7:40:10 GMT
No doubt we can call this Andrews Law! LOL! I sense a Nobel Prize here if you can establish this. My recollection is you claimed to have uniformly heated the brick Andrew. Correct So your claim is that by putting a cold brick next to the hot brick the surface heated Correct and the core of the brick got colder than the surface. Correct. The brick is cooling still How does that happen? Does the cold brick suck heat out of the core of the brick? The brick was uniformly heated and left to cool for a few minutes. The hotter core then heats the colder surface. A second unheated brick is then placed next to the first brick and the hot surface of the heated brick begins heating the second brick Wrong! The first brick is not heating, its cooling. The surface of the brick might get warmer if the core is hot enough but thats just a redistribution of the diminishing total heat in the brick. and the surface of the second brick rises in temperature. Therefore the first brick can no longer cool at the same rate as it did before the second brick was present But thats consistent with a potential driven radiation theory also. So nobody disputes that. and the surface of the first brick rises in temperature but the hotter core of the first brick continues to transfer heat to the still colder surface of the first brick. Please try again. Well you spent a great deal of time claiming the surface warming occurred in a "uniformly heated" brick Andrew. You are changing goal posts here by making the brick was not uniformly heated. But nevertheless we are making progress here. For the surface of the first brick to warm if indeed it was uniformly heated would have to be due to cold radiation heating the surface, not the core. . . .unless of course you also believe a colder core can cold conduct heat to a hotter surface. We need to cut through all this meaningless crap. There is no issue regarding heat already trapped in the object. We should be able to agree that the 2nd brick is not warming the first brick and be done with this.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 14, 2016 7:48:47 GMT
The brick was uniformly heated and left to cool for a few minutes. The hotter core then heats the colder surface. A second unheated brick is then placed next to the first brick and the hot surface of the heated brick begins heating the second brick Wrong! The first brick is not heating, its cooling. The surface of the brick might get warmer if the core is hot enough but thats just a redistribution of the diminishing total heat in the brick. and the surface of the second brick rises in temperature. Therefore the first brick can no longer cool at the same rate as it did before the second brick was present But thats consistent with a potential driven radiation theory also. So nobody disputes that. and the surface of the first brick rises in temperature but the hotter core of the first brick continues to transfer heat to the still colder surface of the first brick. Please try again. Well you spent a great deal of time claiming the surface warming occurred in a "uniformly heated" brick Andrew. You are changing goal posts here by making the brick was not uniformly heated. But nevertheless we are making progress here. For the surface of the first brick to warm if indeed it was uniformly heated would have to be due to cold radiation heating the surface, not the core. . . .unless of course you also believe a colder core can cold conduct heat to a hotter surface. We need to cut through all this meaningless crap. There is no issue regarding heat already trapped in the object. We should be able to agree that the 2nd brick is not warming the first brick and be done with this.I should have marked one of your comments above as not being correct. I originally marked it correct. The core of the cooling brick is always heating the surface. With that in mind please answer that post again. The cooling brick was uniformally heated but once it begins cooling it is no longer uniformally heated. The hotter core heats the colder surface. Please let me know you do understand the brick is no longer uniformally heated. I am saying the same thing i was saying in February 2012 and have never changed any goal posts.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 14, 2016 8:50:31 GMT
Wrong! The first brick is not heating, its cooling. The surface of the brick might get warmer if the core is hot enough but thats just a redistribution of the diminishing total heat in the brick. But thats consistent with a potential driven radiation theory also. So nobody disputes that. Well you spent a great deal of time claiming the surface warming occurred in a "uniformly heated" brick Andrew. You are changing goal posts here by making the brick was not uniformly heated. But nevertheless we are making progress here. For the surface of the first brick to warm if indeed it was uniformly heated would have to be due to cold radiation heating the surface, not the core. . . .unless of course you also believe a colder core can cold conduct heat to a hotter surface. We need to cut through all this meaningless crap. There is no issue regarding heat already trapped in the object. We should be able to agree that the 2nd brick is not warming the first brick and be done with this.I should have marked one of your comments above as not being correct. I originally marked it correct. The core of the cooling brick is always heating the surface. With that in mind please answer that post again. well at this point i am at a loss of words. clearly the surface of the first brick is warming from conduction and redistribution of existing heat in the brick and did not gain any heat from the second brick thereby remaining consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. so we did not have any greenhouse warming either. so what was the objective of this experiment?
|
|