|
Post by icefisher on Jan 25, 2016 0:09:24 GMT
Much is misunderstood about cooling. Especially people with no practical experience take the Engineeringtoolbox Net Radiation chart too seriously. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it except for the typo in the subtitle. But a lot of people don't understand how it actually works, which if you are a heating engineer in a critical design area you better actually know. The curve demonstrates that the cooling rate of a heated object will be slowed by a cooler object with a temperature above absolute zero. Absolute fact and the curve is right on the mark. But what people fail to recognize here for practical application in an active thermodynamic process this is a "snapshot". The actual cooling rate in the real world where things may not be completely in equilibrium is the actual cooling rate of the hot object is the value pulled from the Net Radiation Chart plus the cooling rate of the cooler object. In other words dynamically the heated object is heating the cooler object while the cooler object is cooling itself. If the actual rate of cooling was not both the Chart value plus the cooling rate of the cooler object would get colder and at the rate its cooling and the Enginneers curve will be right there to instantly fill that void. Thus this is the reason a cooler brick put between say outer space and a hot radiating object, the brick will cause the hot radiating target to continue to warm up if and only if the back radiation is greater than the backside (facing outwards) radiation. Since all the cartoons depicting the greenhouse effect is about CO2 molecules absorbing photons then slinging them in all directions its not going to warm anything if the backradiation is the same as the front radiation. Which is the case with all the neat diagrams labeled by Andrew over the years. He then has a fit when I suggest the brick is going to do a better job because conduction through a few billion layers of molecules in a brick is going to slow heat loss. Yeah it will. It will because the brick cooling rate is slower than a molecule of CO2. Now all that is not to say there is no radiant greenhouse effect. There are lots of stuff going on in the atmosphere. . . .clouds being a biggy. There is more. For example, the blackbody radiant temperature of the atmosphere is not the same as the surface. Its twice that. The surface blackbody temperature is given as 5.5C. The blackbody temperature of the atmosphere is 59C. Only the thermosphere gets that hot. The rest is cooled by water and diffusion and by depressurization via convection. There also is the combined conduction/radiation delay from an absorption to leaving the atmosphere. Nobody I think knows what that is. Conduction is slow because of billions of electric transactions occurring. Electricity is slowed by the length of a wire and the conductance of that wire. Mathematics fails to describe it because conduction gets to a point of astronomic speeds as a substance becomes thinner. . . .enabling neat engineered devices for measuring radiation using thin coatings of highly sensitive thermoresistant substances. I am not sure though anybody is even trying to calculate that. Seems everybody is working on models to try to get them to match predictions, kind of the new science where mathematicians have gone nuts trying to solve computationally intense problems from observations. Andrew keeps saying if I were right about this I would win a Nobel Prize. But its hard to figure how anybody wins anything but a Nobel Peace prize through observing something Engineers have known since God knows when. As near as I can tell this all basic stuff. Read State of Fear from Michael Crichton. He covers it all from the evil scientist lured by the dollars connected to the carrot, to the innocent scientist that takes from many publications, professors, and the yet to be completely vetted hypotheses of celebrated scientists via an innocent reference to what may or may not be a fact. Thats how adulterated science becomes popular science. No different than when the Pope put Galileo under house arrest and they burn't Giordano Bruno at the stake with the applause of many sycophant scientists. Read up on Trofim Lysenko and the program that allegedly led to 3,000 mainstream biologists being sent to prison or fired or executed for opposing Lysenko's ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 25, 2016 6:02:42 GMT
The actual cooling rate in the real world where things may not be completely in equilibrium is the actual cooling rate of the hot object is the value pulled from the Net Radiation Chart plus the cooling rate of the cooler object. In other words dynamically the heated object is heating the cooler object while the cooler object is cooling itself. If the actual rate of cooling was not both the Chart value plus the cooling rate of the cooler object would get colder and at the rate its cooling and the Enginneers curve will be right there to instantly fill that void. Thus this is the reason a cooler brick put between say outer space and a hot radiating object, the brick will cause the hot radiating target to continue to warm up if and only if the back radiation is greater than the backside (facing outwards) radiation. Please put it into language that can be understood. What are you talking about? ?? >>The actual cooling rate in the real world where things may not be completely in equilibrium is the actual cooling rate of the hot object is the value pulled from the Net Radiation Chart plus the cooling rate of the cooler object. please correct the english so it can be understood >>If the actual rate of cooling was not both the Chart value plus the cooling rate of the cooler object would get colder and at the rate its cooling and the Enginneers curve will be right there to instantly fill that void. please correct the english so it can be understood >> Thus this is the reason a cooler brick put between say outer space and a hot radiating object, the brickPlease correct the english so it can be understood >>radiating target to continue to warm up if and only if the back radiation is greater than the backside (facing outwards) typo - if and only if>>Thus this is the reason a cooler brick put between say outer space and a hot radiating object, the brick will cause the hot radiating target to continue to warm up if and only if the back radiation is greater than the backside (facing outwards) radiation. What objects are in this description and where are they positioned?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 25, 2016 7:26:01 GMT
The amount of heat loss from the heated object will be the amount calculated by engineering toolbox chart plus any loss of heat by the surface of the cooler object necessary to forestall cooling of that surface. ....sort of shall we say in increments smaller than .0000000001 watts at a time.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 25, 2016 8:31:39 GMT
The amount of heat loss from the heated object will be the amount calculated by engineering toolbox chart plus any loss of heat by the surface of the cooler object necessary to forestall cooling of that surface. ....sort of shall we say in increments smaller than .0000000001 watts at a time. You seem to be getting confused between Watts which is not expressed in amounts of time, and rising or falling temperatures which are changes created by watts gained or lost in an amount of time for that object. Regardless of fixed or cooling temperatures the watts passing between the objects is as calculated by the tool box for that moment of time. If the objects are getting colder then we say at 3pm the watts calculated by the tool box are 100w at 3.01 the watts calculated by the tool box are 99w at 3.02 the watts calculated by the tool box are 98w And so forth. From your post 1 in this thread >>what people fail to recognize here for practical application in an active thermodynamic process this is a "snapshot". >>The actual cooling rate in the real world where things may not be completely in equilibrium is the actual cooling rate of the hot object is the value pulled from the Net Radiation Chart plus the cooling rate of the cooler object. Once again you are muddled up or you just do this to create annoyance.. As you correctly say for a cooling object the tool box provides a snapshot. If you want to add time as a factor for a cooling object then you need to say something like. at 3pm the watts calculated by the tool box are 100w at 3.01 the watts calculated by the tool box are 99w at 3.02 the watts calculated by the tool box are 98w >>The amount of heat loss from the heated object will be the amount calculated by engineering toolbox chart plus any loss of heat by the surface of the cooler object necessary to forestall cooling of that surface What is that English describing? You appear to be talking about an object that is not cooling, so nothing is changing and yet you seem also to be talking about something that is changing when you add this part >>....sort of shall we say in increments smaller than .0000000001 watts at a time. Your use of english is awful.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 25, 2016 9:58:12 GMT
The amount of heat loss from the heated object will be the amount calculated by engineering toolbox chart plus any loss of heat by the surface of the cooler object necessary to forestall cooling of that surface. ....sort of shall we say in increments smaller than .0000000001 watts at a time. You seem to be getting confused between Watts which is not expressed in amounts of time, and rising or falling temperatures which are expressed as watts gained or lost in an amount of time for that object. Regardless of fixed or cooling temperatures the watts passing between the objects is as calculated by the tool box for that moment of time. If the objects are getting colder then we say at 3pm the watts calculated by the tool box are 100w at 3.01 the watts calculated by the tool box are 99w at 3.02 the watts calculated by the tool box are 98w And so forth. what ever Andrew. One watt is equal to 1 joule/sec. So .0000000001 watts is .0000000001 joules per second. Sometimes watts are expressed in amounts of time such as kilowatt hour. For example a .0000000001 watt nanosecond would equal .0000000000000000001 watts and a kilowatt hour equals 3,600,000 watts Now if you have a house built of 4.5" thick bricks with the conductivity of 1 with an inside temperature of 5.5 C including the inside surface of the bricks and on the outside the temperature is -23.5C that wall will pass 341watts/m2 which happens to be what a 5.5 C surface would radiate. So if you move this experiment to a world with a surface temperature of 5.5C a brick wall surrounding the world with the inward facing surface of the brick wall at 5.5C and an atmosphere above the brickwall at -23.5C, then the heat loss by the surface will 341watt/m2 which will equal the heatloss through the brickwall. The Engineering Toolbox curve says heat loss to the surface would be zero. Which is correct for a static condition. But the surface will need to maintain the temperature of the brickwall and the brickwall is losing 341watts/m2 so the surface cooling will not be slowed. Now if you increase the thickness of the brickwall to 5" the cooling of the surface will be reduced by 30watts. If there is nothing but outerspace on the other side of the brick wall you will need to make the wall more than 33 inches thick to slow surface cooling. An analogy would be a river/lake and a dam. If the lake is filled to the top of the dam any incoming flow would cause the dam to overflow. But if you open a chute and start draining the lake at an acrefoot/hour you can send an acrefoot/hour down the river without overflowing the dam.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 25, 2016 10:03:49 GMT
You seem to be getting confused between Watts which is not expressed in amounts of time, and rising or falling temperatures which are expressed as watts gained or lost in an amount of time for that object. Regardless of fixed or cooling temperatures the watts passing between the objects is as calculated by the tool box for that moment of time. If the objects are getting colder then we say at 3pm the watts calculated by the tool box are 100w at 3.01 the watts calculated by the tool box are 99w at 3.02 the watts calculated by the tool box are 98w And so forth. what ever Andrew. One watt is equal to 1 joule/sec. So .0000000001 watts is .0000000001 joules per second. Now if you have a house built of 4.5" thick bricks with the conductivity of 1 with an inside temperature of 5.5 C including the inside surface of the bricks and on the outside the temperature is -23.5C that wall will pass 341watts/m2 which happens to be what a 5.5 C surface would radiate. So if you move this experiment to a world with a surface temperature of 5.5C a brick wall surrounding the world with the inward facing surface of the brick wall at 5.5C and an atmosphere above the brickwall at -23.5C, then the heat loss by the surface will 341watt/m2 which will equal the heatloss through the brickwall. The Engineering Toolbox curve says heat loss to the surface would be zero. Which is correct for a static condition. But the surface will need to maintain the temperature of the brickwall and the brickwall is losing 341watts/m2 so the surface cooling will not be slowed. Now if you increase the thickness of the brickwall to 5" the cooling of the surface will be reduced by 30watts. If there is nothing but outerspace on the other side of the brick wall you will need to make the wall more than 33 inches thick to slow surface cooling. An analogy would be a river/lake and a dam. If the lake is filled to the top of the dam any incoming flow would cause the dam to overflow. But if you open a chute and start draining the lake at an acrefoot/hour you can send an acrefoot/hour down the river without overflowing the dam. If you cannot understand radiation alone you will never understand more complicated environments. >>The amount of heat loss from the heated object will be the amount calculated by engineering toolbox chart plus any loss of heat by the surface of the cooler object necessary to forestall cooling of that surface What is that English describing? You appear to be talking about an object that is not cooling, so nothing is changing and yet you seem also to be talking about something that is changing when you add this part >>....sort of shall we say in increments smaller than .0000000001 watts at a time. Your use of english is awful. >>The Engineering Toolbox curve says heat loss to the surface would be zero. Which is correct for a static condition. But the surface will need to maintain the temperature of the brickwall and the brickwall is losing 341watts/m2 so the surface cooling will not be slowed. If the wall is instantly erected on the cold planet and the bricks were preheated to the surface temperature then the inside and outside of the bricks are the same temperature of 5.5C. The experiment then begins with 5.5C brick radiating towards a -23.5C object and until the inside of the brick is less than 5.5C there is no heat loss from the surface. That could take many minutes to happen. A temperature gradient has to be established across the brick before the inside surface can begin cooling lower than 5.5C. The ground surface then cools slower than it would do if there was simply a 5.5C ground surface exposed to -23.5C even if the brick is only one molecule thick. Until you can express your thoughts clearly you are wasting your time attempting to understand complicated ideas.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 25, 2016 10:13:03 GMT
what ever Andrew. One watt is equal to 1 joule/sec. So .0000000001 watts is .0000000001 joules per second. Now if you have a house built of 4.5" thick bricks with the conductivity of 1 with an inside temperature of 5.5 C including the inside surface of the bricks and on the outside the temperature is -23.5C that wall will pass 341watts/m2 which happens to be what a 5.5 C surface would radiate. So if you move this experiment to a world with a surface temperature of 5.5C a brick wall surrounding the world with the inward facing surface of the brick wall at 5.5C and an atmosphere above the brickwall at -23.5C, then the heat loss by the surface will 341watt/m2 which will equal the heatloss through the brickwall. The Engineering Toolbox curve says heat loss to the surface would be zero. Which is correct for a static condition. But the surface will need to maintain the temperature of the brickwall and the brickwall is losing 341watts/m2 so the surface cooling will not be slowed. Now if you increase the thickness of the brickwall to 5" the cooling of the surface will be reduced by 30watts. If there is nothing but outerspace on the other side of the brick wall you will need to make the wall more than 33 inches thick to slow surface cooling. An analogy would be a river/lake and a dam. If the lake is filled to the top of the dam any incoming flow would cause the dam to overflow. But if you open a chute and start draining the lake at an acrefoot/hour you can send an acrefoot/hour down the river without overflowing the dam. If you cannot radiation alone you will never understand different environments >>The amount of heat loss from the heated object will be the amount calculated by engineering toolbox chart plus any loss of heat by the surface of the cooler object necessary to forestall cooling of that surface What is that English describing? You appear to be talking about an object that is not cooling, so nothing is changing and yet you seem also to be talking about something that is changing when you add this part >>....sort of shall we say in increments smaller than .0000000001 watts at a time. Your use of english is awful. do you want to talk about grammar or global warming?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 25, 2016 10:55:36 GMT
If you cannot radiation alone you will never understand different environments >>The amount of heat loss from the heated object will be the amount calculated by engineering toolbox chart plus any loss of heat by the surface of the cooler object necessary to forestall cooling of that surface What is that English describing? You appear to be talking about an object that is not cooling, so nothing is changing and yet you seem also to be talking about something that is changing when you add this part >>....sort of shall we say in increments smaller than .0000000001 watts at a time. Your use of english is awful. do you want to talk about grammar or global warming? I am not interested in global warming. only interested in the greenhouse idea and your confusion. If you cannot express yourself clearly you will never understand this topic. Your latest thought experiment is totally up the spout. The beginning point for you to understand is that your english expression is very poor. >>>>The Engineering Toolbox curve says heat loss to the surface would be zero. Which is correct for a static condition. But the surface will need to maintain the temperature of the brickwall and the brickwall is losing 341watts/m2 so the surface cooling will not be slowed. If the wall is instantly erected on the cold planet and the bricks were preheated to the surface temperature then the inside and outside of the bricks are the same temperature of 5.5C. The experiment then begins with 5.5C brick radiating towards a -23.5C object and until the inside of the brick is less than 5.5C there is no heat loss from the ground surface. That could take many minutes to happen. A temperature gradient has to be established across the brick before the inside brick surface can begin cooling lower than 5.5C. The ground surface then cools slower than it would do if there was simply a 5.5C ground surface exposed to -23.5C even if the brick is only one molecule thick. Time T grnd...T inside of brick. Eng curve Heat loss...............T of outside of brick. ................................................from grnd to brick 3.00pm 5.5C......5.5C.......................0 watts.....................5.5C 3.01pm 5.45C....5.4C.......................X watts....................-20.5C 3.02pm 5.4.....5.35C.......................X - Y watts................-20.7C 3.03pm 5.35C....5.3C.......................X -y -z watts..............-20.8C The rate of heat loss is slowed or the curves are wrong. You have insulation via a gap plus insulation via the brick. The snapshot is all that matters for each instantaneous moment of time. Until you can express your thoughts clearly you are wasting your time attempting to understand complicated ideas.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 25, 2016 17:54:39 GMT
do you want to talk about grammar or global warming? I am not interested in global warming. only interested in the greenhouse idea and your confusion. If you cannot express yourself clearly you will never understand this topic. Your latest thought experiment is totally up the spout. The beginning point for you to understand is that your english expression is very poor. >>>>The Engineering Toolbox curve says heat loss to the surface would be zero. Which is correct for a static condition. But the surface will need to maintain the temperature of the brickwall and the brickwall is losing 341watts/m2 so the surface cooling will not be slowed. If the wall is instantly erected on the cold planet and the bricks were preheated to the surface temperature then the inside and outside of the bricks are the same temperature of 5.5C. The experiment then begins with 5.5C brick radiating towards a -23.5C object and until the inside of the brick is less than 5.5C there is no heat loss from the ground surface. That could take many minutes to happen. A temperature gradient has to be established across the brick before the inside brick surface can begin cooling lower than 5.5C. The ground surface then cools slower than it would do if there was simply a 5.5C ground surface exposed to -23.5C even if the brick is only one molecule thick. Time T grnd...T inside of brick. Eng curve Heat loss...............T of outside of brick. ................................................from grnd to brick 3.00pm 5.5C......5.5C.......................0 watts.....................5.5C 3.01pm 5.45C....5.4C.......................X watts....................-20.5C 3.02pm 5.4.....5.35C.......................X - Y watts................-20.7C 3.03pm 5.35C....5.3C.......................X -y -z watts..............-20.8C The rate of heat loss is slowed or the curves are wrong. You have insulation via a gap plus insulation via the brick. The snapshot is all that matters for each instantaneous moment of time. Until you can express your thoughts clearly you are wasting your time attempting to understand complicated ideas. You are over complicating it. Think flows of energy. The toolbox curve describes the flow of energy between two things of different temperature. Other losses have to be considered as well. Those flows of energy have to come from somewhere or the temperatures of the objects are going to significantly change. The problem with your model is it only works mathematically as statically pictured when the temperature of the cooler object has exactly half the cooling rate of the warmer object. So your idea keeps that relationship in sync artificially so the math works out. What you have to realize is the Engineering Toolbox curve assumes stasis. The engineers job is not done until he considers the dynamics of the system as well. The curve is useful for figuring out problems where heat is flowing out of the system if you understand that radiant heat loss is a flow not a condition. You are not going to see temperature changes because the additional flow in from the hot object will equal the flow out of the cooler object to the extent it has the power to keep up. The dam analogy best describes it. If a lake is full to the top of the dam and there are no additional water losses the incoming flow needs to be zero to prevent the dam from overflowing. However, if you open a sluice gate and start sending 20,000 cu/ft per second down the sluice, you can open an upstream dam to send the same amount of water to maintain a full dam. Generally you will only see a decline in the water at the dam if the flow of water upstream is "delayed" in reaching the dam if the flows are equal. Its far too quick and too numerous to see with the eye on the thermometer any more than you can detect the amount of water flowing in and out of the lake by watching the water level in the lake. As I understand it Dr. Fred Singer claims to be close to establishing sensitivity as zero for CO2 a condition that would be enabled by a lack of sufficient insulation value by CO2 to cause any warming, due to the lack of CO2. Like on Mars which has as I recall 2.5times the CO2 above each unit area of surface as the earth has. Make it 10 times who knows Andrew maybe thats what it takes to have a measurable greenhouse effect from CO2.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 25, 2016 18:02:22 GMT
>>>You are not going to see temperature changes because the additional flow in from the hot object Is the hot object internally heated?? What the f**k are you talking about now? Forget about dams. What the f**k is the current thought experiment involving a 5.5C ground surface, a gap, a brick wall and a cold -23.5C environment? Is there a source of heat other than the core of the object or what? >>You are not going to see temperature changes because the additional flow in from the hot object will equal the flow out of the cooler object to the extent it has the power to keep up power to keep up?? Heat is flowing out of the surface of this world via the space between the ground surface and bricks, thru the bricks and then into the cold environment. There must be temperature differences of hot to cold for that to happen. The ground surface has to be hot and the internal brick surface must be colder!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 25, 2016 21:58:25 GMT
>>>You are not going to see temperature changes because the additional flow in from the hot object Is the hot object internally heated?? What the f**k are you talking about now What I am talking about is if you can't figure out what I am talking about you will never get a job as an engineer to build such a system, you will only be able to get a job as a Harvard professor as the climate department there only hires idiots.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 25, 2016 22:11:45 GMT
Is the hot object internally heated?? What the f**k are you talking about now What I am talking about is if you can't figure out what I am talking about you will never get a job as an engineer to build such a system, you will only be able to get a job as a Harvard professor as the climate department there only hires idiots. Bullshit. You are talking gibberish
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 26, 2016 9:54:21 GMT
What I am talking about is if you can't figure out what I am talking about you will never get a job as an engineer to build such a system, you will only be able to get a job as a Harvard professor as the climate department there only hires idiots. Bullshit. You are talking gibberish right i got it Andrew, insulation makes no difference when it comes to radiant heating. Once you have the shell warmed to a desired equilibrium temperature you can strip the insulation off the building and recycle it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 26, 2016 10:25:29 GMT
Bullshit. You are talking gibberish right i got it Andrew, insulation makes no difference when it comes to radiant heating. Once you have the shell warmed to a desired equilibrium temperature you can strip the insulation off the building and recycle it. Q. What kind of a dumb f**k argues the radiative insulating properties of double glazing only work if there are no changes in temperature? A. His almighty highness his most esteemed incredibleness Icefisher. The all knowing all seeing wonder boy
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 26, 2016 23:01:05 GMT
right i got it Andrew, insulation makes no difference when it comes to radiant heating. Once you have the shell warmed to a desired equilibrium temperature you can strip the insulation off the building and recycle it. Q. What kind of a dumb f**k argues the radiative insulating properties of double glazing only work if there are no changes in temperature? A. His almighty highness his most esteemed incredibleness Icefisher. The all knowing all seeing wonder boy single glazing blocks free diffusion of gasses, creates reflectivity, and provides a very nominal amount of insulation (r=1) double glazing doubles all those effects r=2. Double glazing with coatings that provide enhanced reflectivity and reduced emissivity, and filling the voids with gasses with higher thermal resistance can increase those values up to around R=3. So what is your point?
|
|