|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2016 9:03:36 GMT
Pictets experiment is the same thing as shaping the ice around the thermometer while also enabling the thermometer to see all of the warmer room. You would get a larger fall in the thermometer if you were able to prevent convection and change the walls to ice There is no magnification. All you are doing is taking the cold that would be experienced at the focus of the cold mirror and placing it at the focus of the hot mirror. Similarly the effect of a hot coal in the focus of one mirror can be transported to the other mirror to burn a piece of paper. There is no magnification or trickery. The mirrors just enable another location to experience what is experienced elsewhere. Andrew all magnification is reshaping an image to a larger one so you can see it better. They use the same technology to build big telescopes. . . concave mirrors. So please give us a break. . .please. There is no magnification. The image is the same size as the object.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 5, 2016 23:25:09 GMT
Andrew all magnification is reshaping an image to a larger one so you can see it better. They use the same technology to build big telescopes. . . concave mirrors. So please give us a break. . .please. There is no magnification. The image is the same size as the object. You need to review your optics. Go get a basic physics text on it. You are good at doing that. Mirror A presents a magnified image of the cold tube, and Mirror B presents a magnified image of the hot tube. The mirrors are focused such that and dialed in my the curvature of the mirror so that when standing anywhere in front of mirror B and looking at Mirror A the whole surface of mirror A will be displaying the cold tube. You will not see any part of any wall behind mirror B, nor Mirror B, nor the hot tube. When the two images are inline with each other it changes the area as in watt/m2 of the surfaces. If the mirror was not convex and magnifying the images it would not work It also would not work well (it might work at a reduced value) if you just magnify one surface as the field of view parameter would greatly negate the magnification when it looked at the same area on the other end. So you must magnify both to keep the field of view parameter at the virtually the same value. (not quite as the additional area added by the mirrors are slightly further apart so the field of view percentage decreases slightly but only for the additional area displayed. If you don't believe it draw a correctly curved mirror and draw the tangent lines from the cold tube to the edge of the mirror on the same side of the mirror as the tangent line is to the ball and reflect that off a tangent line at the mirror edge at the same angle it came as incoming and that line will take you the edge of the other mirror. Those tangent lines so drawn will represent the borders of the image and its reflection all the way to the other mirror, which in turn then sends that image to the hot tube in the same manner. That would be what they called cold emanations.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2016 0:52:31 GMT
There is no magnification. The image is the same size as the object. You need to review your optics. The images are the same size. One mirror magnifies and the other minifies.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 6, 2016 2:03:44 GMT
You need to review your optics. The images are the same size. One mirror magnifies and the other minifies. Only if photons only run in one direction Andrew!! ROTFLMAO!!!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2016 2:19:57 GMT
The images are the same size. One mirror magnifies and the other minifies. Only if photons only run in one direction Andrew!! ROTFLMAO!!! Two concave mirrors facing each other will always produce an image in one, that is almost the same size as the object placed at the focal point of the otherA single concave mirror cannot produce an image of an object at the focal point as seen by an observer. The image most near the focal point on the mirror side is an erect virtual image slightly larger than the object. The image most near the focal point on the observer side is a inverted real image slightly larger than the object. Air is an exceptionally poor conductor and is renowned as being an excellent insulator
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 6, 2016 14:09:24 GMT
Only if photons only run in one direction Andrew!! ROTFLMAO!!! Two concave mirrors facing each other will always produce an image in one, that is almost the same size as the object placed at the focal point of the otherA single concave mirror cannot produce an image of an object at the focal point as seen by an observer. The image most near the focal point on the mirror side is an erect virtual image slightly larger than the object. The image most near the focal point on the observer side is a inverted real image slightly larger than the object. Air is an exceptionally poor conductor and is renowned as being an excellent insulatorYep it magnifies the first image then compacts (not minimizes) that image at the other. However, Andrew while the image is the same size as the original object the original object appears to be as big as the concave mirror to the eye of the observe at the second focal point. So if its a camera it will be subject to the field of view of the camera's lense as to whether it fill the entire frame. The same camera pointed at the original object will appear much further away. So this system produces the same effect of a telescope making an object appear much closer. When you look out the passenger window of your car at your "convex" mirror it will likely have printed on it "objects in the mirror are closer than they appear" as a convex mirror does the opposite of a concave mirror. So you are wrong about it not magnifying anything. . . .again.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2016 14:27:22 GMT
Two concave mirrors facing each other will always produce an image in one, that is almost the same size as the object placed at the focal point of the otherA single concave mirror cannot produce an image of an object at the focal point as seen by an observer. The image most near the focal point on the mirror side is an erect virtual image slightly larger than the object. The image most near the focal point on the observer side is a inverted real image slightly larger than the object. Air is an exceptionally poor conductor and is renowned as being an excellent insulator Yep it magnifies the first image then compacts (not minimizes) that image at the other. However, Andrew while the image is the same size as the original object the original object appears to be as big as the concave mirror to the eye of the observe at the second focal point. So if its a camera it will be subject to the field of view of the camera's lense as to whether it fill the entire frame. The same camera pointed at the original object will appear much further away. So this system produces the same effect of a telescope making an object appear much closer. When you look out the passenger window of your car at your "convex" mirror it will likely have printed on it "objects in the mirror are closer than they appear" as a convex mirror does the opposite of a concave mirror. So you are wrong about it not magnifying anything. . . .again. There is magnification and there is minification. You cannot have magnification if the object and image size are the same. Obviously. >>the original object appears to be as big as the concave mirror to the eye of the observe at the second focal point. You are describing rays of light that originate at the focal point and diverge. No image can be formed from these diverging rays of light as a virtual image behind the mirror (they need to meet behind the mirror), and the reflected light is parallel and does not diverge until reflected into the focus of the other mirror. An object placed in the absolute focus of a single concave mirror is not magnified. The impact of the mirrors is neutral. It just enables the thermometer bulb to easily have lines of sight to a cold object that is apparently surrounding half the thermometer bulb, while simultaneously the bulb is heated by nearly every point of the room. In any case Rumford demonstrated the same effect without use of mirrors. Dry air is an exceptionally poor conductor and is renowned as being an excellent insulator
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 6, 2016 16:23:51 GMT
Yep it magnifies the first image then compacts (not minimizes) that image at the other. However, Andrew while the image is the same size as the original object the original object appears to be as big as the concave mirror to the eye of the observe at the second focal point. So if its a camera it will be subject to the field of view of the camera's lense as to whether it fill the entire frame. The same camera pointed at the original object will appear much further away. So this system produces the same effect of a telescope making an object appear much closer. When you look out the passenger window of your car at your "convex" mirror it will likely have printed on it "objects in the mirror are closer than they appear" as a convex mirror does the opposite of a concave mirror. So you are wrong about it not magnifying anything. . . .again. There is magnification and there is minification. You cannot have magnification if the object and image size are the same. Obviously. >>the original object appears to be as big as the concave mirror to the eye of the observe at the second focal point. You are describing rays of light that originate at the focal point and diverge. No image can be formed from these diverging rays of light as a virtual image behind the mirror (they need to meet behind the mirror), and the reflected light is parallel and does not diverge until reflected into the focus of the other mirror. An object placed in the absolute focus of a single concave mirror is not magnified. The impact of the mirrors is neutral. It just enables the thermometer bulb to easily have lines of sight to a cold object that is apparently surrounding half the thermometer bulb, while simultaneously the bulb is heated by nearly every point of the room. In any case Rumford demonstrated the same effect without use of mirrors. Dry air is an exceptionally poor conductor and is renowned as being an excellent insulatorGet a life Andrew! It must truly be painful to be as sensitive as you are. Do you drink a lot?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2016 16:30:08 GMT
There is magnification and there is minification. You cannot have magnification if the object and image size are the same. Obviously. >>the original object appears to be as big as the concave mirror to the eye of the observe at the second focal point. You are describing rays of light that originate at the focal point and diverge. No image can be formed from these diverging rays of light as a virtual image behind the mirror (they need to meet behind the mirror), and the reflected light is parallel and does not diverge until reflected into the focus of the other mirror. An object placed in the absolute focus of a single concave mirror is not magnified. The impact of the mirrors is neutral. It just enables the thermometer bulb to easily have lines of sight to a cold object that is apparently surrounding half the thermometer bulb, while simultaneously the bulb is heated by nearly every point of the room. In any case Rumford demonstrated the same effect without use of mirrors. Dry air is an exceptionally poor conductor and is renowned as being an excellent insulatorGet a life Andrew! It must truly be painful to be as sensitive as you are. Do you drink a lot? The painful thing is this will be just a temporary pause in your list of reasons why reality is not allowed to exist on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 6, 2016 16:35:33 GMT
Get a life Andrew! It must truly be painful to be as sensitive as you are. Do you drink a lot? The painful thing is this will be just a temporary pause in your list of reasons why reality is not allowed to exist on Earth. You are a barrel of laughs Andrew. Love ya! The fact that when you look through a telescope and the image you see ends up as a tiny spot on your retina I suppose you could argue telescopes don't magnify. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2016 16:44:53 GMT
The painful thing is this will be just a temporary pause in your list of reasons why reality is not allowed to exist on Earth. You are a barrel of laughs Andrew. Love ya! The fact that when you look through a telescope and the image you see ends up as a tiny spot on your retina I suppose you could argue telescopes don't magnify. LOL! I am not the idiot claiming things are magnified when the object and image are the same size. neither am i the idiot claiming engineers have a special use of the laws of physics that harvard professors do not understand. You began as the most scientifically illiterate moron the World has ever seen and even after 4 years of my best efforts you are still just as stupid as when you began
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 6, 2016 18:18:09 GMT
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, “What are light quanta?”. Nowadays every Tom, thingy and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. (Einstein shortly before his death 1954)
I guess we should add Andrew to every Tom, thingy, and Harry.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2016 20:23:47 GMT
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, “What are light quanta?”. Nowadays every Tom, thingy and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. (Einstein shortly before his death 1954) I guess we should add Andrew to every Tom, thingy, and Harry. Idiot. You have been rejecting the engineers curves since day one of this stupid conversation while simultaneously claiming you are not rejecting them. Apparently according to his almighty royal highness they require a special interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 6, 2016 21:20:43 GMT
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, “What are light quanta?”. Nowadays every Tom, thingy and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. (Einstein shortly before his death 1954) I guess we should add Andrew to every Tom, thingy, and Harry. Idiot. You have been rejecting the engineers curves since day one of this stupid conversation while simultaneously claiming you are not rejecting them. Apparently according to his almighty royal highness they require a special interpretation. The only thing we differ on Andrew has nothing to do with the engineers curves. It entirely has to do with at which point a cool body will stop warming in relationship to the radiant source. I simply say the maximum temperature is the temperature of the source if the field of view is 1. You say 1/2 that. The engineering curve is silent on that point, except oddly if gives temperature differences higher than your limit. Must be for stuff warmed by something else.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 6, 2016 21:26:42 GMT
Idiot. You have been rejecting the engineers curves since day one of this stupid conversation while simultaneously claiming you are not rejecting them. Apparently according to his almighty royal highness they require a special interpretation. The only thing we differ on Andrew has nothing to do with the engineers curves. It entirely has to do with at which point a cool body will stop warming in relationship to the radiant source. I simply say the maximum temperature is the temperature of the source if the field of view is 1. You say 1/2 that. The engineering curve is silent on that point, except oddly if gives temperature differences higher than your limit. Must be for stuff warmed by something else. my life would be easier if I could put a gun to your head and demand you explain what you are talking about. What the f**k are you talking about? >>I simply say the maximum temperature is the temperature of the source if the field of view is 1 What the f**k does it mean? >>The engineering curve is silent on that point, except oddly if gives temperature differences higher than your limit. What the f**k are you talking about? ?? 100% gauranteed that text of yours is going to involve some shit for brains reasoning by you where even after years of trying to explain things to you you will just keep on producing these incomprehensible gibberish statements >>>>You say 1/2 that. Half of what for f**ks sake??? >>It entirely has to do with at which point a cool body will stop warming in relationship to the radiant source. come on punk. Make my f**king day. What the f**k are you talking about? ?
|
|