|
Post by Andrew on Feb 8, 2016 8:05:01 GMT
I asked you to explain what you are talking about. You responded. I then began auditing your response, issue 1. I then asked you to explain what you are talking about. At this point in time I am waiting for you to answer my questions.>>a calculation of that shows where the heat comes from as the exterior walls cool to the outdoors. 1. What do you mean by 'where the heat comes from'? 2. What do you mean by 'as the exterior walls cool to the outdoors'. Are the walls getting colder as I had first believed or is something different happening? >>You have to fill the heat loss What do you mean by 'you have to fill the heat loss'? Well if you don't know what you are talking about when in support of a greenhouse effect, can't explain it, can't demonstrate, nor even calculate in more ways that one. . . .uh its clear you have no clue. Of course its always up to the skeptics to prove that the pseudo-scientists are wrong. . . .can't have it any other way or heck you might be a real scientist. NOT! If you are not prepared to intelligently discuss why you are calling the use of a law of physics a tool, that has to be used according to your own rules, there is nothing I can do about it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 9, 2016 6:02:28 GMT
If you are not prepared to intelligently discuss why you are calling the use of a law of physics a tool, that has to be used according to your own rules, there is nothing I can do about it. Well whether it be a law or a tool its necessary to apply it correctly Andrew. I asked you to provide some calculations on simplified commonly engineered projects of multiple layers and different insulation values in the walls of interior closets and exterior walls for the dissipation of heat from a radiant source to the outdoors using the net radiation tool and convection and conduction calculations so we can see how a radiant heating system would operate in a real world way. If you need a tutorial on how to do that I will be happy to oblige. If you don't then this should be an easy assignment. Of course if you want to forego this work which does not lead to any immediate compensation I can understand that. In that event I offer up my own invention for you to develop, royalty free, based upon the figures you have already provided. I am willing to do that in my way of thanking you for doing the calculations for me. I can promise you that if you are able to engineer this device and demonstrate its operation, I will be fighting to the front of the throngs in order to be the first person at least on my block to own one.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 9, 2016 15:35:13 GMT
Well whether it be a law or a tool its necessary to apply it correctly >> 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. Nobody is suggesting the brick keeps causing the heated surface to continually warm up. >>>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. I have no idea at all what that text means. >>>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. Nor that one either >>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. Likewise. I have not got the slightest notion what it is supposed to mean. How can it be that such a simple law of physics is causing so much difficulty?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 10, 2016 6:16:47 GMT
I don't know Andrew. I suppose its just a case of you not knowing the laws.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 10, 2016 6:45:17 GMT
I don't know Andrew. I suppose its just a case of you not knowing the laws. I can never work out if you are psychotic, perverted or just plain daft.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 10, 2016 9:47:49 GMT
I don't know Andrew. I suppose its just a case of you not knowing the laws. I can never work out if you are psychotic, perverted or just plain daft. Funny how that works. You can't demonstrate it, you can't even calculate a simple engineering problem and you think I am psychotic for asking you to do it. Golly even a priest is smart enough to say its a matter of faith.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 10, 2016 10:14:22 GMT
I can never work out if you are psychotic, perverted or just plain daft. Funny how that works. You can't demonstrate it, you can't even calculate a simple engineering problem and you think I am psychotic for asking you to do it. Golly even a priest is smart enough to say its a matter of faith. What do you want me to do? I cant even understand what you are talking about. >> 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. Nobody is suggesting the brick keeps causing the heated surface to continually warm up.>>>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. I have no idea at all what that text means.>>>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. Nor that one either>>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. Likewise. I have not got the slightest notion what it is supposed to mean.Are you on drugs or medication?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 10, 2016 15:37:55 GMT
Funny how that works. You can't demonstrate it, you can't even calculate a simple engineering problem and you think I am psychotic for asking you to do it. Golly even a priest is smart enough to say its a matter of faith. What do you want me to do? I cant even understand what you are talking about. >> 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. Nobody is suggesting the brick keeps causing the heated surface to continually warm up.>>>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. I have no idea at all what that text means.>>>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. Nor that one either>>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. Likewise. I have not got the slightest notion what it is supposed to mean.Are you on drugs or medication?How can you possibly know the answer to any of the above questions when you don't have the ability to apply your theory to any sort of real world scenario?
|
|