|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 26, 2012 0:02:03 GMT
Magellan: Wow.......I recognize very good testing equipment when I see it.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 26, 2012 2:59:16 GMT
My wife and I were active in the Sauna and produced the following: Distance between concrete blocks painted matt black with 400 oC heat resistant paint is 16cm Blocks are 7.5cmX27cmX12cm Sauna is 14C Blocks were heated for 1.5 hours to 150C and moved to Sauna. One was then wrapped in aluminium foil and a jacket and left for about 15minutes Blocks were then set up as shown with hot block on the right. After about 40 minutes we began recording the results and messing around with Excel. The results were as expected img824.imageshack.us/img824/1084/dataeb.jpg [/img] Tomorrow i will heat just one block and will expect the other to warm up and give me good results. Please note: I tried this arrangement yesterday without the matt black and the grey blocks gave me barely visible expected results. I am holding the radiation thermometer on two pieces of string so my body is out of the way of line of sight between the various surfaces. As you can see pointing the thermometer at the middle of each face where the temperature is highest for each side gives consistant results [/quote] Oh my.....
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 26, 2012 8:59:34 GMT
I now have the 150C block heating a 12C block kept in the Sauna over night. The results are as expected. 10:40 142C..........142.4C..............17.4..................12.2 10:41 137.............139.6................16.6..................12 10:42 134.6...........137..................18.0..................12 10:49 122..............125.6...............18.6...................11.8
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 26, 2012 19:31:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 31, 2013 21:55:50 GMT
Interesting to review this thread 17 months later and observe two clowns objecting to the engineers net radiation heat loss curves and the Stephan Boltzmann formula. Hard to believe i went to all of that effort and taught them absolutely nothing at all. Just how stupid does a person want to be? If you place a cold heated object between a heated hot object and a very cold surface the heated object must get warmer The principle i was demonstrating was childishly simple
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 31, 2013 22:14:03 GMT
The sound in the video is my wife doing the vacuuming elsewhere Interesting to review this thread 17 months later and observe two clowns objecting to the engineers net radiation heat loss curves and the Stephan Boltzmann formula. Hard to believe i went to all of that effort and taught them absolutely nothing at all. Just how stupid does a person want to be? If you place a cold heated object between a heated hot object and a very cold surface the heated object must get warmer The principle i was demonstrating was childishly simple I apologized for my rank behavior. The biggest mistake was allowing you to change the goal posts and allowed emotions to rule. If you want to continue to be an 'not a very nice person', that's up to you. However, I will remind you just recently you were worried about water vapor increasing the surface temperature in death valley. ROFL
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 31, 2013 22:26:35 GMT
Interesting to review this thread 17 months later and observe two clowns objecting to the engineers net radiation heat loss curves and the Stephan Boltzmann formula. Hard to believe i went to all of that effort and taught them absolutely nothing at all. Just how stupid does a person want to be? If you place a cold heated object between a heated hot object and a very cold surface the heated object must get warmer The principle i was demonstrating was childishly simple I apologized for my rank behavior. The biggest mistake was allowing you to change the goal posts and allowed emotions to rule. If you want to continue to be an 'not a very nice person', that's up to you. However, I will remind you just recently you were worried about water vapor increasing the surface temperature in death valley. ROFL Magellan i never changed any goal posts and just recently you were still disputing i was correct. I am not worried about water vapour warming death valley. Just pointing out it must happen if there is more water vapour in death valley. Why you have to keep inventing things about me is beyond me. Do you still believe that there is such a thing as cold radiation? Are you still disputing it is childishly simple that if you place a heated cold object between a heated object and a very cold surface that the heated object will become warmer? Why do you still want to mock me about this while telling me recently that i was wrong changing the goal posts and all of that nonesense? >>The biggest mistake was allowing you to change the goal posts Magellan you are either a liar or you are muddled up. I never changed any goal posts. What i said was consistant since way before you brought up spencers ice box thought experiment and told me it proved i was wrong. Obviously it did no such thing. As i explained in detail, Spencer could have explained himself a bit better but what he was saying was correct and is simple engineering knowledge ie: if you place a heated cold object between a heated object and a very cold surface that the heated object must become warmer. And the same applies to a cooling recently dead body where if insulated the surface warms up. The changing the goal posts accusation is at best very unreasonable behaviour Going back over these old threads it is obvious that right from the beginning you and Icefisher were attacking me on a personal basis simply because i was explaining something a knowledgeable person would know about or understand. Despite my best honest efforts, both you and Icefisher and others here like Trbixler were mocking me as if i was talking about magic microwave ovens or impossible physics when in fact the subject matter was trivial if a person gave it some thought. You appear to be quite conceited and cannot bear the thought of admitting being wrong. Numerouno and you argue about the dumbest things endlessly. I stopped posting in the other thread because you never once could admit being wrong or even opinionated no matter how much common sense, data and sources were given. Your standard response is always the same: obfuscate, deflect, redirect and always remind us what a privilege it is for us be educated by you. You seem to have a short memory. You were the one lecturing me about the superiority of your methods and knowledge and you were the one who dismissed my correct results with "Oh my!"
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 31, 2013 23:01:40 GMT
I apologized for my rank behavior. The biggest mistake was allowing you to change the goal posts and allowed emotions to rule. If you want to continue to be an 'not a very nice person', that's up to you. However, I will remind you just recently you were worried about water vapor increasing the surface temperature in death valley. ROFL Magellan i never changed any goal posts and just recently you were still disputing i was correct. I am not worried about water vapour warming death valley. Just pointing out it must happen if there is more water vapour in death valley. Why you have to keep inventing things about me is beyond me. Do you still believe that there is such a thing as cold radiation? Are you still disputing it is childishly simple that if you place a heated cold object between a heated object and a very cold surface that the heated object will become warmer? Why do you still want to mock me about this while telling me recently that i was wrong changing the goal posts and all of that nonesense? >>The biggest mistake was allowing you to change the goal posts Magellan you are either a liar or you are muddled up. I never changed any goal posts. What i said was consistant since way before you brought up spencers ice box thought experiment and told me it proved i was wrong. Obviously it did no such thing. As i explained in detail, Spencer could have explained himself a bit better but what he was saying was correct and is simple engineering knowledge ie: if you place a heated cold object between a heated object and a very cold surface that the heated object must become warmer. And the same applies to a cooling recently dead body where if insulated the surface warms up. The changing the goal posts accusation is at best very unreasonable behaviour Going back over these old threads it is obvious that right from the beginning you and Icefisher were attacking me on a personal basis simply because i was explaining something a knowledgeable person would know about or understand. Despite my best honest efforts, both you and Icefisher and others here like Trbixler were mocking me as if i was talking about magic microwave ovens or impossible physics when in fact the subject matter was trivial if a person gave it some thought. If forests were planted in Death Valley and water vapor increased, it would be cooler. Sorry "dude", you lost this one already. You said: When you can help Santer and Trenberth find the missing heat, let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 31, 2013 23:10:46 GMT
Magellan i never changed any goal posts and just recently you were still disputing i was correct. I am not worried about water vapour warming death valley. Just pointing out it must happen if there is more water vapour in death valley. Why you have to keep inventing things about me is beyond me. Do you still believe that there is such a thing as cold radiation? Are you still disputing it is childishly simple that if you place a heated cold object between a heated object and a very cold surface that the heated object will become warmer? Why do you still want to mock me about this while telling me recently that i was wrong changing the goal posts and all of that nonesense? >>The biggest mistake was allowing you to change the goal posts Magellan you are either a liar or you are muddled up. I never changed any goal posts. What i said was consistant since way before you brought up spencers ice box thought experiment and told me it proved i was wrong. Obviously it did no such thing. As i explained in detail, Spencer could have explained himself a bit better but what he was saying was correct and is simple engineering knowledge ie: if you place a heated cold object between a heated object and a very cold surface that the heated object must become warmer. And the same applies to a cooling recently dead body where if insulated the surface warms up. The changing the goal posts accusation is at best very unreasonable behaviour Going back over these old threads it is obvious that right from the beginning you and Icefisher were attacking me on a personal basis simply because i was explaining something a knowledgeable person would know about or understand. Despite my best honest efforts, both you and Icefisher and others here like Trbixler were mocking me as if i was talking about magic microwave ovens or impossible physics when in fact the subject matter was trivial if a person gave it some thought. If forests were planted in Death Valley and water vapor increased, it would be cooler. Sorry "dude", you lost this one already. You said: When you can help Santer and Trenberth find the missing heat, let me know. Magellan Your opinions do not decide Science. I correctly described what would happen based on common knowledge and got the results i expected. All you could do was refuse to understand what the question was and dismiss all explanations with "I think I'll reheat some chicken in my Easy BackradiationR (no power needed) oven" And i can promise you that if you want to start mocking me again while I am explaining ordinary scientific principles that you are not willing to learn you are going to become mentally unstable again.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 31, 2013 23:17:28 GMT
If forests were planted in Death Valley and water vapor increased, it would be cooler. Sorry "dude", you lost this one already. You said: When you can help Santer and Trenberth find the missing heat, let me know. Magellan Your opinions do not decide Science. I correctly described what would happen based on common knowledge and got the results i expected. All you could do refuse to understand what the question was and dismiss all explanations with "I think I'll reheat some chicken in my Easy BackradiationR (no power needed) oven" And i can promise you that if you want to start mocking me again because i am explaining ordinary scientific principles that you are not willing to learn you are going to become mentally unstable again. Keep me out of your effing arguments with Icefisher. You are nobody's teacher here. That you didn't know why deserts are hot wasn't a big deal, so I posted without insulting your eminence' name. You have a habit of putting yourself up on a pedestal; you may have been wrong once in your life but were probably mistaken. BTW, John Christy has acknowledged the alleged 'hot spot' does not exist as GHE "theory" says it should. Neither is the stratosphere cooling.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 31, 2013 23:34:27 GMT
Magellan Your opinions do not decide Science. I correctly described what would happen based on common knowledge and got the results i expected. All you could do refuse to understand what the question was and dismiss all explanations with "I think I'll reheat some chicken in my Easy BackradiationR (no power needed) oven" And i can promise you that if you want to start mocking me again because i am explaining ordinary scientific principles that you are not willing to learn you are going to become mentally unstable again. Keep me out of your effing arguments with Icefisher. You are nobody's teacher here. That you didn't know why deserts are hot wasn't a big deal, so I posted without insulting your eminence' name. You have a habit of putting yourself up on a pedestal; you may have been wrong once in your life but were probably mistaken. BTW, John Christy has acknowledged the alleged 'hot spot' does not exist as GHE "theory" says it should. Neither is the stratosphere cooling. I think you are mixing up different things 1. You are saying if the world is warming due to a greenhouse effect then you are saying you will expect some results from that in the troposphere that are not being observed. 2. You appear to be saying there can be no greenhouse effect because cold radiation cannot be absorbed by a warm object? Item 1. Is essentially a strawman that is irrelevant as far as i can see for the purposes of discussing the so called backradiation and the backradiation of item 2 is essentially irrelevant for the purposes of talking about whether there is or is not a greenhouse effect. --------- Meanwhile you seem fond of making abusive comments about me while you forget how superior you thought you were as you looked down upon my supposedly pathetic experimental results which were in fact correctly describing the relevant discussion point, where you had not even bothered to learn what you were supposed to be testing for. And all my protestations to get you off my back were always met with silly reasons like i used too many words, the sb equation was psychobabble or i was changing the goal posts. So you need to think very very carefully what you are going to do and say next before you think you are superior to me and can loook down upon me like i am some kind of disgusting little worm. Your opinions about the merits of the green house effect are irrelevant to the fact that the greenhouse effect theory does exist and has existed in its current form since about 1850 and cannot be annihilated just because you decide anybody who agrees with the theory is stupid. A nobel prize awaits anybody who can prove the Green house effect theory is false. The GHE theory is based on a principle a child can understand. If you place a cold heated object between a heated hot object and a very cold surface the heated object must get warmer Obviously there is a basis for a very strong theory and only somebody who is either stupid, uneducated or unbelievably arrogant is going to put quotation marks around the words "theory" as you just did. If you want a Nobel prize you are going to have to work for it rather than imagine it is yours for the taking. The surface of any heated object that has reached equilibrium will become warmer if you slow down the rate of cooling. There is no ifs buts and maybes about this. I'm not going to re-open that ludicrous discussion, but the truth is you kept on changing the goal posts, again and again.
You appear to be quite conceited and cannot bear the thought of admitting being wrong. I stopped posting in the other thread because you never once could admit being wrong or even opinionated no matter how much common sense, data and sources were given. Your standard response is always the same: obfuscate, deflect, redirect and always remind us what a privilege it is for us be educated by you Magellan your problem with me is that you think your opinion can trash the scientific work of the last few centuries and when challenged you are unable to come up with a rebuttal that does not reveal that you have a very high opinion of yourself - which is to be expected if you think all of the scientific greats of the last two centuries of radiation science are idiots, and you decided long ago my identical point of view to the scientific greats is "ludicrous". The main problem between me and you seemed to be a communication problem however. You give the impression that listening to another person is not your style. You still do not seem to realise you were arguing against something a child could understand, despite all of my best honest efforts to assist you to realise that. >> the truth is you kept on changing the goal posts, again and again. Obviously that is not the truth and it is only your opinion. How on Earth you can think i changed the goal posts when everything I said to you from day one amounted to the same damn thing is beyond me. You were continually disputing what a child can understand and it seems to be the case you still are. As i have already demonstrated if an object is warmed and then placed in air, the surface is colder than the interior and therefore the interior heats the surface. When the blanket is placed around the object the surface layer will rise in temperature until the various heating and cooling forces are in balance. The same would apply to a recently deceased dead body which had been cooling in the same kind of uninsulated environment prior to the blanket being placed. I don't have a manikin so this probably won't meet your demand for a qualified test. However, I still have my disc friend and he is deader than a door nail I assure you. Obviously no goal posts were changed by me. You were simply unable to read, and nothing i did or said could make any difference at all. Also the principle that a cooled egg will get damagingly hot again at the surface once cooling reduces, due to the internal temperature gradient, was beyond you to understand until i appealed to a retired indian physics professor to help me. And long before you began attacking me over your change the goal posts opinion, I was already encountering the same thing from you.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 1, 2013 3:58:53 GMT
A nobel prize awaits anybody who can prove the Green house effect theory is false. Should have been awarded to RW Wood in 1909 then. Nobel is like the Pope and the Pope took almost 2,000 years to get it right that the earth went around the sun instead of vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 1, 2013 4:26:26 GMT
A nobel prize awaits anybody who can prove the Green house effect theory is false. Should have been awarded to RW Wood in 1909 then. Nobel is like the Pope and the Pope took almost 2,000 years to get it right that the earth went around the sun instead of vice versa. You will notice he has a power source going to the left block.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 1, 2013 4:32:16 GMT
Should have been awarded to RW Wood in 1909 then. Nobel is like the Pope and the Pope took almost 2,000 years to get it right that the earth went around the sun instead of vice versa. You will notice he has a power source going to the left block. You will notice that in Spencers thought experiment that you provided the link for Spencer had a heated metal block. You will also notice that the diagram is labeled Spencers thought experiment What is your point?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 1, 2013 5:12:53 GMT
You will notice he has a power source going to the left block. You will notice that in Spencers thought experiment that you provided the link for Spencer had a heated metal block. You will also notice that the diagram is labeled Spencers thought experiment What is your point? That was not your original argument!!! Talk to any metallurgist and see if he agrees that during the heat treat process (done in vacuum atmosphere) a block of metal is being heated to say 1000 degF, and a cold (70 degF) block of metal of equal shape and mass is placed next to it during the process will cause the first piece to get warmer. He would laugh his fricking arse off.
|
|