|
Post by Andrew on Feb 25, 2012 0:36:13 GMT
Ridiculing me does not make you a good scientist. My arrangement demonstrated an effect. If another person does a better arrangement and they get no results then that is science in action - if they are able to do the necessary work and realise what they are testing for. If your cold face only warms a tiny amount then with surface irregularities and uneven colouring - as you have, then these other differences could overwhelm the small difference you expect to see to the point of reversing it. You also seem to be refusing to acknowledge that you need an approximately uniform colder environment without heat souces around the blocks. The more things you decide are irrelevant the more mickey mouse your super expensive arrangment ends up becoming I did check the conductivity of air and checked on a large number of specific heat contents of things like granite bricks wood lead and so forth. I am going to arrange a set up with matt black concrete blocks with 4 identical thermocouples. I am already running such an experiment without the matt black and i can see warmer facing temperatures using the radiation thermometer, but using a hand held radiation thermometer is far from ideal Like they say, what comes around goes around. Now that you've dumped your posts down the rabbit hole, nobody will ever know. Of course the thermocouples will be calibrated with stated accuracies and use the appropriate ones, i.e. contact probes and not immersion probes. How many times can I say this; an IR thermometer is a WASTE OF TIME for such experiments. Ten people will get ten different readings. If you can't use the proper equipment in the proper conditions and do not have the capability of validating the measurements, there is no sense in continuing this discussion. And yes I will be the judge of whether your setup and procedure is legitimate; if you don't like that, tough. You are very reactionary. You were the one who decided that 0.25mm air gap was ok, I gave reasons it was not a good idea and yet you still continued telling me it was irrelevant. And you are the one who keeps on going on about changing the goal posts. Originally you were going to do this in a vacuum. To make it easier for you I said it should work anyway outside of a vacuum. But for it to work it has to be set up correctly. Why do you have such a reaction to that? We are demonstrating a relative effect here and not some new kind of magic power. I deleted my posts because i was becoming ill having to deal with Icefishers disgusting attitude towards me. Most of what i wrote is still available in other peoples posts. I am just human. You seem to have taken it very badly that I put forwards a critique of some of your comments about annealing furnace temperatures, where for example you were talking about putting hot metal on cold surfaces as a demonstration i was wrong, and i said well what do you expect. Meanwhile here in Finland i am getting a tiny demonstration of warmer inner faces but my bricks are a greyish white and i have a distance of 16cm and the room is not very cold. The radiation thermometer is not a waste of time no matter how many times you repeat that. It gives an indication of a result that justifies further work or gives no results and no justification for more effort.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 25, 2012 0:59:20 GMT
Ok.............let's make this simple. 1. Does everyone agree that all objects above absolute zero emit radiation? ? Let's start with a very simple premiss and see if we can build on that.....ok? I agree. But you could spend 6 months building up the body of agreement and still not get any agreement because they have faith backradiation from a colder object is impossible I note by the way you want to ask the questions. I answered yours and took a long time to carefully do it. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=1917&page=1#79526Do you have a response please?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 25, 2012 2:02:32 GMT
I deleted my posts because i was becoming ill having to deal with Icefishers disgusting attitude towards me. Most of what i wrote is still available in other peoples posts.I am just human.
Its interesting to note your posts were making you ill. They were making me ill also.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 25, 2012 3:29:05 GMT
Ok.............let's make this simple. 1. Does everyone agree that all objects above absolute zero emit radiation? ? Let's start with a very simple premiss and see if we can build on that.....ok? Can't agree to that. Objects in side of warmer objects may emit nothing. Everything in our section of the universe may need to be 3k or better and have a view of space to emit radiation. Otherwise it operates solely by conduction. Its important here to always talk net radiation which when combined with conduction and convection will result in a heat flow (net heat flow is a redundancy all heat flows in one direction from hot to cold). We cannot speak of theoretical radiation because we have no other knowledge of what it is you are talking about. Radiation is a term that in the context of known science is like a heat flow. If back radiation exists it should be capable of clear demonstration. The fact it has not been demonstrated (all attempts at doing so can be explained within the context of known science). If that were not the case we would all be reading about a carefully designed study that demonstrated the opposite. The last such study was by Arhennius that claimed to do that but was falsified by the Woods experiment that explained the phenomena described by Arhennius (heat in a greenhouse) on trapped convection. Climate science like a bunch of midnight ghoulish grave robbers went out and dug Arhennius' corpse up, took him to a lab, dabbed on some makeup, hung some signs saying PhD, and sold him to governments much to the delight of Al Gore who had positioned himself ideally financially.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 25, 2012 4:27:15 GMT
Ok.............let's make this simple. 1. Does everyone agree that all objects above absolute zero emit radiation? ? Let's start with a very simple premiss and see if we can build on that.....ok? Can't agree to that. Objects in side of warmer objects may emit nothing. Everything in our section of the universe may need to be 3k or better and have a view of space to emit radiation. Otherwise it operates solely by conduction. Its important here to always talk net radiation which when combined with conduction and convection will result in a heat flow (net heat flow is a redundancy all heat flows in one direction from hot to cold). We cannot speak of theoretical radiation because we have no other knowledge of what it is you are talking about. Radiation is a term that in the context of known science is like a heat flow. If back radiation exists it should be capable of clear demonstration. The fact it has not been demonstrated (all attempts at doing so can be explained within the context of known science). If that were not the case we would all be reading about a carefully designed study that demonstrated the opposite. The last such study was by Arhennius that claimed to do that but was falsified by the Woods experiment that explained the phenomena described by Arhennius (heat in a greenhouse) on trapped convection. Climate science like a bunch of midnight ghoulish grave robbers went out and dug Arhennius' corpse up, took him to a lab, dabbed on some makeup, hung some signs saying PhD, and sold him to governments much to the delight of Al Gore who had positioned himself ideally financially. Icefisher: Ok......I think I may be getting somewhere. 1. ALL objects emit radiation, unless at absolute zero. The reason they emit is because of what is called molecular activity. We all know that atoms have photons/nuetrons etc that circle a nuclei. Molecular activity. 2. Now, there are differences in ABSORBTION caused by changes in temperature. That is why, theoritically, at absolute zero all motion stops. When all motion stops, all radiation stops as well. 3. The warmer an object, the more it emits because the warmth causes an increase in molecular activity. 4. An object, atom etc, does not stop absorbing.....nor emitting. A change in temperature is the change in rate of absorbtion and emission. Can we all agree with that so far? I will look at your reponse in the morning Iceskater that you posted earlier. I have to go turn on fans in the spud house now..and it is late.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 25, 2012 5:58:05 GMT
Can't agree to that. Objects in side of warmer objects may emit nothing. Everything in our section of the universe may need to be 3k or better and have a view of space to emit radiation. Otherwise it operates solely by conduction. Its important here to always talk net radiation which when combined with conduction and convection will result in a heat flow (net heat flow is a redundancy all heat flows in one direction from hot to cold). We cannot speak of theoretical radiation because we have no other knowledge of what it is you are talking about. Radiation is a term that in the context of known science is like a heat flow. If back radiation exists it should be capable of clear demonstration. The fact it has not been demonstrated (all attempts at doing so can be explained within the context of known science). If that were not the case we would all be reading about a carefully designed study that demonstrated the opposite. The last such study was by Arhennius that claimed to do that but was falsified by the Woods experiment that explained the phenomena described by Arhennius (heat in a greenhouse) on trapped convection. Climate science like a bunch of midnight ghoulish grave robbers went out and dug Arhennius' corpse up, took him to a lab, dabbed on some makeup, hung some signs saying PhD, and sold him to governments much to the delight of Al Gore who had positioned himself ideally financially. Icefisher: Ok......I think I may be getting somewhere. 1. ALL objects emit radiation, unless at absolute zero. The reason they emit is because of what is called molecular activity. We all know that atoms have photons/nuetrons etc that circle a nuclei. Molecular activity. 2. Now, there are differences in ABSORBTION caused by changes in temperature. That is why, theoritically, at absolute zero all motion stops. When all motion stops, all radiation stops as well. 3. The warmer an object, the more it emits because the warmth causes an increase in molecular activity. 4. An object, atom etc, does not stop absorbing.....nor emitting. A change in temperature is the change in rate of absorbtion and emission. Can we all agree with that so far? I will look at your reponse in the morning Iceskater that you posted earlier. I have to go turn on fans in the spud house now..and it is late. 1. ALL objects emitare capable of emitting radiation, unless at absolute zero. The reason they emit is because of what is called molecular activity. We all know that atoms have photons/nuetrons etc that circle a nuclei. Molecular activity. 2. Now, there are differences in ABSORBTION caused by changes in temperature. That is why, theoritically, at absolute zero all motion stops. When all motion stops, all radiation stops as well. 3. The warmer an object, the more it emits is capable of emitting because the warmth causes an increase in molecular activity. 4. An object, atom etc, does not stop absorbing.....nor emitting. A change in temperature represents a potential for the is change in rate of absorbtion and emission. I can agree with the above changes. Both Einstein and Kelvin talk of "potential" in theories of electromagnetism. We should not abandon that for all electromagnetism, including radiation, until such time that it is firmly established in observations. Further there is strong evidence of potential in radiation and the fact that not all objects emit at the same level of radiation for their temperature. Thus the statements above would be wrong for that reason alone without the above modifications. That fact is taken advantage of for cooling radiation barriers and it proves very effective for reducing cooling costs in homes and its the reason you need to specifically adjust IR temperature sensors to match the emissivity of what you are measuring. If you know the objects emissivity you can adjust the gain on the device and get a somewhat accurate reading. But it is an art using the devices, except when the device is designed for measuring one specific thing. Measuring metals can be very problematic even if you know what the alloy is as you have to also know how polished or oxidized the surface might be. Then when you have it adjusted correctly you can read the temperature but you are not then reading its rate of emission.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 25, 2012 6:38:57 GMT
3. The warmer an object, the more it emits because the warmth causes an increase in molecular activity. This sentence makes no sense at all. Atomic/Molecular activity is warmth. All you can say is either: i, The warmer an object, the more it emits or ii, The more atomic/molecular activity an object has, the more it emits Heat is nothing other than atomic and molecular vibrational movement. Heat has zero meaning other than in those terms. Vibrational sound waves of a voice for example are not travelling thru space in the use of radio. Heat cannot travel thru space. Energy travels thru space Sound waves are not heat Heat is not electromagnetic radiation Sound is not electromagnetic radiation but sound, heat and electromagnetic radiation are all forms of energy
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 25, 2012 7:11:33 GMT
Icefisher: Ok......I think I may be getting somewhere. 1. ALL objects emit radiation, unless at absolute zero. The reason they emit is because of what is called molecular activity. We all know that atoms have photons/nuetrons etc that circle a nuclei. Molecular activity. 2. Now, there are differences in ABSORBTION caused by changes in temperature. That is why, theoritically, at absolute zero all motion stops. When all motion stops, all radiation stops as well. 3. The warmer an object, the more it emits because the warmth causes an increase in molecular activity. 4. An object, atom etc, does not stop absorbing.....nor emitting. A change in temperature is the change in rate of absorbtion and emission. Can we all agree with that so far? I will look at your reponse in the morning Iceskater that you posted earlier. I have to go turn on fans in the spud house now..and it is late. 1. ALL objects emitare capable of emitting radiation, unless at absolute zero. The reason they emit is because of what is called molecular activity. We all know that atoms have photons/nuetrons etc that circle a nuclei. Molecular activity. 2. Now, there are differences in ABSORBTION caused by changes in temperature. That is why, theoritically, at absolute zero all motion stops. When all motion stops, all radiation stops as well. 3. The warmer an object, the more it emits is capable of emitting because the warmth causes an increase in molecular activity. 4. An object, atom etc, does not stop absorbing.....nor emitting. A change in temperature represents a potential for the is change in rate of absorbtion and emission. I can agree with the above changes. Both Einstein and Kelvin talk of "potential" in theories of electromagnetism. We should not abandon that for all electromagnetism, including radiation, until such time that it is firmly established in observations. Further there is strong evidence of potential in radiation and the fact that not all objects emit at the same level of radiation for their temperature. Thus the statements above would be wrong for that reason alone without the above modifications. That fact is taken advantage of for cooling radiation barriers and it proves very effective for reducing cooling costs in homes and its the reason you need to specifically adjust IR temperature sensors to match the emissivity of what you are measuring. If you know the objects emissivity you can adjust the gain on the device and get a somewhat accurate reading. But it is an art using the devices, except when the device is designed for measuring one specific thing. Measuring metals can be very problematic even if you know what the alloy is as you have to also know how polished or oxidized the surface might be. Then when you have it adjusted correctly you can read the temperature but you are not then reading its rate of emission. Icefisher You are mixing up 1. the tendency of an object to emit radiation when it has the energy to do so, which is related to the probability of emission (You have spent weeks trashing the fools like Einstein and Maxwell who talked about probability theory and emission, and now you are talking about it yourself.) with 2. The ability of an object to be able to emit radiation which is related to surface and atomic/molecular properties and described by the emissivity at a particular wavelength And it is interesting you are happy to give a reasonably accurate account of the use of emissivity in radiation thermometers when you were so unable to talk about the exact same principles in the use of thermographic cameras The technology of the two devices is essentially the same but an RT can display reasonably accurate temperatures of much colder surfaces when the emissivity is known. What you are highlighting with the difficulties of measuring temperature with IR, is the lack of relationship between IR and heat at anything other than very pure objects, where in the real world that is almost impossible outside of a laboratory if at all Heat is atomic/molecular motion. The only way to measure atomic/molecular motion is to have an object that is in physical contact with that motion so that equilibrium is established between the movement of the testing device and the test object. Anything else will always be an approximation. It is for example impossible to measure the temperature of the Earth from outerspace as anything other than an approximation based on your own assumptions. And the additional complication of measuring heat is that radiation from outside the desired measurement area can have a profound impact upon results. As for example when we try to measure the temperature of air. It cannot be done in fact. All you can do is have some reproducible means of comparing the molecular movement of air, in the inaccurate way you measure it, in different locations and times so that you have a relative measurement. Hence the use of Stevenson screens, all of which have different paints and who knows what else. It is interesting that Climate 'scientists' cannot admit all of these things because otherwise they have no data from the past that means anything at all
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 25, 2012 7:33:27 GMT
Icefisher
Related to your observations on the use of Radiation thermometers it was interesting how Magellan was happy to trash my use of a radiation thermometer, while himself using a polished silverish piece of steel for a radiation experiment where to get good results in air we want to maximise radiation emission/absorption to give maximum heating and cooling by radiation versus heating and cooling influences by conduction/convection
His attitude towards me was a bit peculiar. Apparently only he can decide what is the right way and my dismay at his method was just evidence of me changing the goal posts.
Sometimes you and Magellan seem like the same person. Quite often in fact.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 25, 2012 8:39:01 GMT
Icefisher
You are mixing up
1. the tendency of an object to emit radiation when it has the energy to do so, which is related to the probability of emission
(You have spent weeks trashing the fools like Einstein and Maxwell who talked about probability theory and emission, and now you are talking about it yourself.)
with
2. The ability of an object to be able to emit radiation which is related to surface and atomic/molecular properties and described by the emissivity at a particular wavelength
sorry to interrupt you Iceskater you are supposed to agree with either Sigurdur's statement or my statement or modify such statements so that you can agree with a statement.
If you cannot agree with any of the statements you should provide a replacement statement.
And it is interesting you are happy to give a reasonably accurate account of the use of emissivity in radiation thermometers when you were so unable to talk about the exact same principles in the use of thermographic cameras
Oh I did give the same explanation for thermographic cameras. You just were not listening as usual.
The technology of the two devices is essentially the same but an RT can display reasonably accurate temperatures of much colder surfaces when the emissivity is known. What you are highlighting with the difficulties of measuring temperature with IR, is the lack of relationship between IR and heat at anything other than very pure objects, where in the real world that is almost impossible outside of a laboratory if at all.
this would be a good place to describe the thermometer used in your kitchen experiment, model #, adjustment setting, etc. You should also describe how you dealt with the difference in emissivity from your middle tray and the window into the freezer.
You should do this before going on and criticizing anybody's (mine or Magellan's) critique of your experiment as it sounds like you are saying we are right in a very backhanded manner.
And by now suggesting it should have been done in a lab, which is another point I have been pressing home, sounds more like you now agree I was right here also.
Heat is atomic/molecular motion. The only way to measure atomic/molecular motion is to have an object that is in physical contact with that motion so that equilibrium is established between the movement of the testing device and the test object.
Anything else will always be an approximation.
My goodness! Thats what Magellan has been telling you!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 25, 2012 8:41:48 GMT
Oh I did give the same explanation for thermographic cameras. You just were not listening as usual. Typical dishonesty by you. I had to tell you that emissivity was something that could be adjusted by the operator. You claimed they were producing images rather than being a measure of temperature I had to explain to you that a thermographic camera was essentially just an array of radiation thermometers and there were no essential differences in the technology. You are nothing other than a fraud and conman Nobody can teach you anything because you refuse to acknowledge you lacked knowledge and refuse to follow a step by step process that enables you to acquire knowledge from a teacher. The essence of being taught is that you have to acknowledge you are being changed. Evidently change is something you resist with your entire power Anybody attempting to teach you gets these typical BS responses from you were you repond like a fraudster who has to cover up his tracks Nobody can pin you down because one moment you claim that science needs your logic and your philosophy and the next you claim it needs experiments. You claim Science needs the experimental method of Lord Kelvin when Lord Kelvin regularly used thought experiments in order to set up the design of actual experiments. Nobody can have a thought experiment with you because you demand experiments first. And like the slime ball you are the next moment you are conducting thought experiments. It is insanity. All you do is spin a web of fraud to ensure you can never be changed by reality.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 25, 2012 9:10:56 GMT
Icefisher Related to your observations on the use of Radiation thermometers it was interesting how Magellan was happy to trash my use of a radiation thermometer, while himself using a polished silverish piece of steel for a radiation experiment where to get good results in air we want to maximise radiation emission/absorption to give maximum heating and cooling by radiation versus heating and cooling influences by conduction/convection His attitude towards me was a bit peculiar. Apparently only he can decide what is the right way and my dismay at his method was just evidence of me changing the goal posts. Sometimes you and Magellan seem like the same person. Quite often in fact. Iceskater, the earth and sky have reflectivity. Magellan was not measuring radiation he was measuring temperature. He showed you were wrong about the temperature. All objects despite their radiative characteristics according to you backradiate and warm the other object. Unless you are claiming the radiation shuts off completely before reaching absolute zero, some warming should have been registered if as you have claimed the gap would be hotter from having 50% of the heat coming back. Thus the only relevant temperatures in Magellan's experiment was if as you claimed the gap was going to be hotter than anyplace else. It wasn't. And I am not Magellan. I have acknowledged the possibility of backradiation, or at least I did before Magellan just proved it didn't exist which for all practical intents and purposes it appears he just did. The gap was not warmer! The gap was not warmer! The glove did not fit! The glove did not fit! You may still vote to convict but I think there is reasonable doubt here.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 25, 2012 11:20:35 GMT
Icefisher Related to your observations on the use of Radiation thermometers it was interesting how Magellan was happy to trash my use of a radiation thermometer, while himself using a polished silverish piece of steel for a radiation experiment where to get good results in air we want to maximise radiation emission/absorption to give maximum heating and cooling by radiation versus heating and cooling influences by conduction/convection His attitude towards me was a bit peculiar. Apparently only he can decide what is the right way and my dismay at his method was just evidence of me changing the goal posts. Sometimes you and Magellan seem like the same person. Quite often in fact. Iceskater, the earth and sky have reflectivity. Magellan was not measuring radiation he was measuring temperature. He showed you were wrong about the temperature. All objects despite their radiative characteristics according to you backradiate and warm the other object. Unless you are claiming the radiation shuts off completely before reaching absolute zero, some warming should have been registered if as you have claimed the gap would be hotter from having 50% of the heat coming back. Thus the only relevant temperatures in Magellan's experiment was if as you claimed the gap was going to be hotter than anyplace else. It wasn't. And I am not Magellan. I have acknowledged the possibility of backradiation, or at least I did before Magellan just proved it didn't exist which for all practical intents and purposes it appears he just did. The gap was not warmer! The gap was not warmer! The glove did not fit! The glove did not fit! You may still vote to convict but I think there is reasonable doubt here. A typical strange response. In one breath you say it is all proven and in the next you say there is reasonable doubt Nobody can discuss anything with you because you are two different people at the same time where you adopt whichever personality suits you to pretend you are making sense. Magellans experimental setup was designed in such a manner that it would have little chance of measuring a radiation effect. Magellan refused to read my earlier discussion about this experiment, refused to discuss why he comes up with the reasons for his design, refused to discuss my observation that he appears to not understand what he is testing for, and refused to be reasonable about making suggested changes. It is not the way to be Scientific. It is impossible to design and test for something if you dont know what you are supposed to be testing. You and Magellan have no idea what backradiation is. Even if you disagree you should be able to describe what it is thought to be by somebody who believes the effect exists. Instead each time i talk about it you transform what i say. You wont even allow my thoughts to exist That sounds like an illness.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 25, 2012 12:37:13 GMT
Thus the only relevant temperatures in Magellan's experiment was if as you claimed the gap was going to be hotter than anyplace else.
It wasn't.
And I am not Magellan. I have acknowledged the possibility of backradiation, or at least I did before Magellan just proved it didn't exist which for all practical intents and purposes it appears he just did.
The gap was not warmer! The gap was not warmer! The glove did not fit! The glove did not fit! You may still vote to convict but I think there is reasonable doubt here.
A typical strange response.
In one breath you say it is all proven and in the next you say there is reasonable doubt
Nobody can discuss anything with you because you are two different people at the same time where you adopt whichever personality suits you to pretend you are making sense.
Your command of English is a little impaired. I said it appears he proved it didn't exist. So it should be the default hypothesis until its clearly shown there was a problem with his experiment. Professional temperature equipment and the gap not showing warmer strongly suggests that either there is no backradiation effect or if there is some backradiation effect (perhaps reflection) its likely not to be significant.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 25, 2012 12:47:44 GMT
Thus the only relevant temperatures in Magellan's experiment was if as you claimed the gap was going to be hotter than anyplace else.
It wasn't.
And I am not Magellan. I have acknowledged the possibility of backradiation, or at least I did before Magellan just proved it didn't exist which for all practical intents and purposes it appears he just did.
The gap was not warmer! The gap was not warmer! The glove did not fit! The glove did not fit! You may still vote to convict but I think there is reasonable doubt here.A typical strange response.
In one breath you say it is all proven and in the next you say there is reasonable doubt
Nobody can discuss anything with you because you are two different people at the same time where you adopt whichever personality suits you to pretend you are making sense. Your command of English is a little impaired. I said it appears he proved it didn't exist. So it should be the default hypothesis until its clearly shown there was a problem with his experiment. Professional temperature equipment and the gap not showing warmer strongly suggests that either there is no backradiation effect or if there is some backradiation effect (perhaps reflection) its likely not to be significant. So you can say I have acknowledged the possibility of backradiation, or at least I did before Magellan just proved it didn't exist
The gap was not warmer! The gap was not warmer! The glove did not fit! The glove did not fit!And that is meant to mean it appears backradiation does not exist? And the only reason you can think that backradiation does not exist might be Magellans test apparatus was faulty? Meanwhile you have a stupidly small gap between the blocks and the blocks are lightly coloured and reflective and unevenly coloured. You have no ability to be scientific. Earlier you were ranting with Steve about the importance of heat transmission effects of thin air layers. But now the other personality is back who is not aware of what you said back then where you came up with millions of watts per square meter A scientist does his best to allow reality to be revealed to him rather than imagine he can create reality by his opinion like you do Time and time again you simply invent whatever reasons you need to maintain the illusion
|
|