|
Post by icefisher on Jan 30, 2016 20:19:01 GMT
Andrew has complained he can't comprehend the question here, so I will simplify it.
I admit the previous discussion was rather confusing with a lot of ideas converging into the discussion. So I will reduce the question to one simple question.
What is the equilibrium (or steady state if you will before Andrew goes off on a tangent) temperature of a gas exposed to a hot object in a vacuum when the field of view between the radiating object and the gas is unity?
Give your answer as a fraction of the radiating temperature of the hot object.
Two definitions for this exercise to hopefully subdue Andrew from launching off into a bunny hunt are as follows: 1) Radiating temperature: Here are using the term radiating temperature as a value of wattage radiated by an object in accordance with the Stefan Boltzman Law for a surface of a given temperature.
2) Equilibrium: here we are using no special scientific meaning for equilibrium. We are using it in its simplest form. What temperature does the gas stop warming at. We know as it approaches its maximum temperature it slows its warming rate (we will discuss why this is later but first we need a value).
Can we all agree on the answer to this question? Hopefully so before the warmists start once again deploying smoke and mirrors all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 1, 2016 22:25:18 GMT
Rewrote the above to simplify the question.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 2, 2016 0:25:25 GMT
can you define what unity is Icefisher?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 2:08:20 GMT
can you define what unity is Icefisher? 1.0 or 100%
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 6:35:54 GMT
1) Radiating temperature: Here are using the term radiating temperature as a value of wattage radiated by an object in accordance with the Stefan Boltzman Law for a surface of a given temperature. Temperature is the parameter of interest so it should read: 1) Radiating temperature: Temperature of a surface when exposed to X watts/M2 of radiation, as calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law So What is the equilibrium (or steady state if you will before Andrew goes off on a tangent) temperature of a gas exposed to a hot object in a vacuum when the field of view between the radiating object and the gas is unity? Becomes What is the equilibrium or steady state temperature of a gas surface in a vacuum being uniformly heated by X watts/M2 of radiation?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 7:22:28 GMT
1) Radiating temperature: Here are using the term radiating temperature as a value of wattage radiated by an object in accordance with the Stefan Boltzman Law for a surface of a given temperature. Temperature is the parameter of interest so it should read: 1) Radiating temperature: Temperature of a surface when exposed to X watts/M2 of radiation, as calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law So What is the equilibrium (or steady state if you will before Andrew goes off on a tangent) temperature of a gas exposed to a hot object in a vacuum when the field of view between the radiating object and the gas is unity? Becomes What is the equilibrium or steady state temperature of a gas surface in a vacuum being uniformly heated by X watts/M2 of radiation? can't answer the question huh?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 7:41:25 GMT
Temperature is the parameter of interest so it should read: 1) Radiating temperature: Temperature of a surface when exposed to X watts/M2 of radiation, as calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law So Becomes What is the equilibrium or steady state temperature of a gas surface in a vacuum being uniformly heated by X watts/M2 of radiation? can't answer the question huh? I am not your baby sitter who is required to change your nappies. If you want to make a claim that I can understand then make it so I can audit it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 7:48:22 GMT
can't answer the question huh? I am not your baby sitter who is required to change your nappies. If you want to make a claim that I can understand then make it so I can audit it. Its not a claim. Do you not understand what a question is?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 7:49:17 GMT
I am not your baby sitter who is required to change your nappies. If you want to make a claim that I can understand then make it so I can audit it. Its not a claim. Do you not understand what a question is? Make the claim or go f**k yourself.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 7:52:45 GMT
Ok so you don't know what a question is.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 7:55:30 GMT
Ok so you don't know what a question is. Ok you win. Yes i agree i am so stupid i do not know what a question is.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 8:05:25 GMT
A rather limp thingy support for what you claim to be a simple idea. The idea you don't even know what the temperature would be for the gas that is going to warm a surface under 500w/m2 of solar rays would strongly suggest . . . .uh. . . . that you don't have clue one as to whether your "simple idea" is reality or fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 8:07:29 GMT
A rather limp thingy support for what you claim to be a simple idea. The idea you don't even know what the temperature would be for the gas that is going to warm a surface under 500w/m2 of solar rays would strongly suggest . . . .uh. . . . that you don't have clue one as to whether your "simple idea" is reality or fantasy. If you are unable to do that simple calculation yourself after 4 years of me helping you and 4 years of you being the nastiest meanest son of a b.itch on the planet I am not going to do it for you.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 2, 2016 8:31:33 GMT
A rather limp thingy support for what you claim to be a simple idea. The idea you don't even know what the temperature would be for the gas that is going to warm a surface under 500w/m2 of solar rays would strongly suggest . . . .uh. . . . that you don't have clue one as to whether your "simple idea" is reality or fantasy. If you are unable to do that simple calculation yourself after 4 years of me helping you and 4 years of you being the nastiest meanest son of a b.itch on the planet I am not going to do it for you. that difficult to do huh?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 8:34:49 GMT
If you are unable to do that simple calculation yourself after 4 years of me helping you and 4 years of you being the nastiest meanest son of a b.itch on the planet I am not going to do it for you. that difficult to do huh? Yes. You have f**ked with me for 4 years. Day after f**king day you set out to f**k with me. even the simplest of ideas is beyond you. Either you do your calculations yourself or go f**k yourself
|
|