|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 8, 2013 1:11:56 GMT
And your hot iron will absorb energy from the cold iron, but the rate of loss of the hot iron is much higher than the rate of loss from the cold iron, so the net effect is negative.
As I stated earlier, all physical matter is trying to approach absolute zero. Even the sun will do so at some point.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 8, 2013 1:24:12 GMT
There is only one plate in the atmosphere, and that is the surface area of earth. The point is that there are three 'objects' with different temperatures where the coldest by far is the outerspace surrounding the other two and the rest is mind numbingly simple physics
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 8, 2013 1:27:31 GMT
And your hot iron will absorb energy from the cold iron, but the rate of loss of the hot iron is much higher than the rate of loss from the cold iron, so the net effect is negative. As I stated earlier, all physical matter is trying to approach absolute zero. Even the sun will do so at some point. Signurdur Please keep out of this. In a colder environment a hotter iron is heating a colder iron where they are warmer between the sides that face each other. If you want to have your own personalised experience with me then please create a thread for that purpose rather than filling this one with comments that are not going to help me or Magellan come to a suitable amicable arrangement that feels good for both of us.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 8, 2013 1:34:31 GMT
Iceskater: Your premise is wrong if you think the Atmosphere in any way shape or form is close to your experiment.
There are only 2 solids........one of which is creating heat, the sun, the other absorbing heat, the earth.
The earth is a sphere, not a flat surface.
Anyways, I still don't see what contribution to atmospheric physics you are trying to prove. The metrics are like comparing a rotten apple to a fish.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 8, 2013 1:57:59 GMT
Iceskater, you continue to drag me through the mud, so now I'm conceding you are superior and I want to learn from your vast knowledge of thermodynamics and heat transfer physics. Per the problem a.) Determine the net rate of radiation heat transfer from plates 1 and 2. b.) Will plate 1 T 1 increase? Once again you are refusing to understand the point i am wishing to make. It is unfair you expect me as your teacher to dance to your tune while you ignore the point of the lesson you should be learning The conditions of your experiment specify that the sides of the plates facing outwards are insulated and the only radiation to consider is between the plates.
However if the insulation is removed and you just have two plates in space in a colder environment as otherwise described: 1. if the high temperature plate is cooling only in the presence of the colder environment it will be colder at the surface than when the colder plate is added between the hot plate and the colder environment where upon the surface of the hotter plate warms as the hot plate heats the colder plate. 2. If both plates are present in the described colder environment and one plate is hotter than the other than the plates will be warmer between their surfaces facing each other than the faces that are not facing each other where the colder faces are facing a colder environment 3. If the plates are cooling, the warmer surfaces between the plates will be temporary until the plates have cooled to the temperature of the colder environment 4. If the hotter plate is permanently directly heated internally it will be permanently warmer while the colder indirectly heated plate is between this directly heated plate and the colder environment It clearly states both temperatures are uniform. The distance between the plates is C=1m. The area of surroundings is infinite. You don't get to change the rules to suit your game as you've done in the past, so stop baffling with bullshit. I'm not a math major; more like a monkey who has learned through repetition how to perform certain complex equations in my line of work that have nothing to do with this problem, so all I'm asking is for you to solve what should be fairly simple for someone as yourself that has a more complete understanding of heat transfer problems. Let's make this even easier. In order to maintain surface (1)= T 1 at 600k, and surface (2) T 2 at 300k, how much heat transfer in W (watts) from plate (1) to plate (2) or from plate (2) to plate (1) is required? Oh, and I'm sorry, I incorrectly quoted problem b) (don't know whatever came over me). b) should read: If you can't solve the problem, no big deal, just say so. a
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 8, 2013 2:02:18 GMT
Iceskater: Your premise is wrong if you think the Atmosphere in any way shape or form is close to your experiment. There are only 2 solids........one of which is creating heat, the sun, the other absorbing heat, the earth. The earth is a sphere, not a flat surface. Anyways, I still don't see what contribution to atmospheric physics you are trying to prove. The metrics are like comparing a rotten apple to a fish. As already explained to you in detail your comments about the earth being a sphere and this invalidating the results by a massive margin are incorrect The point of the exercise is all about backradiation. The moon is thought to be a solid and helps to keep the earth warmer - or are you going to argue about that as well! Icefisher is endlessly arguing backradiation breaks the laws of physics He ranted high and low that my bricks in my cold sauna demonstrated nothing Please keep out of this if you have nothing constructive to say about backradiation All you doing is seeking to cause trouble while saying you are being helpful where an open and honest discussion is never on your mind and instead you want your personal result where science is second to what you believe to be true.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 8, 2013 2:10:36 GMT
Once again you are refusing to understand the point i am wishing to make. It is unfair you expect me as your teacher to dance to your tune while you ignore the point of the lesson you should be learning The conditions of your experiment specify that the sides of the plates facing outwards are insulated and the only radiation to consider is between the plates.
However if the insulation is removed and you just have two plates in space in a colder environment as otherwise described: 1. if the high temperature plate is cooling only in the presence of the colder environment it will be colder at the surface than when the colder plate is added between the hot plate and the colder environment where upon the surface of the hotter plate warms as the hot plate heats the colder plate. 2. If both plates are present in the described colder environment and one plate is hotter than the other than the plates will be warmer between their surfaces facing each other than the faces that are not facing each other where the colder faces are facing a colder environment 3. If the plates are cooling, the warmer surfaces between the plates will be temporary until the plates have cooled to the temperature of the colder environment 4. If the hotter plate is permanently directly heated internally it will be permanently warmer while the colder indirectly heated plate is between this directly heated plate and the colder environment It clearly states both temperatures are uniform. The distance between the plates is C=1m. The area of surroundings is infinite. You don't get to change the rules to suit your game as you've done in the past, so stop baffling with bullshit. I'm not a math major; more like a monkey who has learned through repetition how to perform certain complex equations in my line of work that have nothing to do with this problem, so all I'm asking is for you to solve what should be fairly simple for someone as yourself that has a more complete understanding of heat transfer problems. Let's make this even easier. In order to maintain surface (1)= T 1 at 600k, and surface (2) T 2 at 300k, how much heat transfer in W (watts) from plate (1) to plate (2) or from plate (2) to plate (1) is required? Oh, and I'm sorry, I incorrectly quoted problem b) (don't know whatever came over me). b) should read: If you can't solve the problem, no big deal, just say so. Heaven knows why you are talking about this you when you cant be bothered to do what i ask of you. What is wrong with there being a fair trade? I have no idea what point you wish to make other than you are seeking to ridicule me. And that was all you sought to do when we got into the earlier mess where you said you knew what the results would be and you refused to listen to my protests you were not designing the test correctly where it was clear you had no idea what you were supposed to be testing for. Meanwhile you are saying that one of the plates is a uniform temperature of 600K which is not possible unless you have some very very sophisticated heating arrangement and yet this is not included in your assumptions. Clearly in the real world it would not be possible to create a plate which has thickness that is only insulated on the back side that has a uniform temperature when this object is facing another object and the objects are exposed to a colder environment Also you have not provided the thickness of the plates or what they are made of So at the moment whatever you are proposing makes no sense at all I suggest you come up with something real that the modelling and calculation boys at your workplace can agree is something that can be calculated as you want it to be calculated to get the result you are wanting to get Obviously by insulating the back of the plates you want to make sure this has as little to do with what I did with my bricks as is possible, but so far you already failing in that mission because the plates must have thickness, and cannot have a uniform temperature. Do you want an honest discussion or do you just want to prove you are the kind of person you appeared to be the last time we were interacting where you refused to listen to anything i said because you said you knew better than me?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 8, 2013 2:31:15 GMT
It clearly states both temperatures are uniform. The distance between the plates is C=1m. The area of surroundings is infinite. You don't get to change the rules to suit your game as you've done in the past, so stop baffling with bullshit. I'm not a math major; more like a monkey who has learned through repetition how to perform certain complex equations in my line of work that have nothing to do with this problem, so all I'm asking is for you to solve what should be fairly simple for someone as yourself that has a more complete understanding of heat transfer problems. Let's make this even easier. In order to maintain surface (1)= T 1 at 600k, and surface (2) T 2 at 300k, how much heat transfer in W (watts) from plate (1) to plate (2) or from plate (2) to plate (1) is required? Oh, and I'm sorry, I incorrectly quoted problem b) (don't know whatever came over me). b) should read: If you can't solve the problem, no big deal, just say so. Heaven knows why you are talking about this you when you cant be bothered to do what i ask of you. What is wrong with there being a fair trade? I have no idea what point you wish to make other than you are seeking to ridicule me. And that was sll you sought to do when we got into the earlier mess where you said you knew what the results would be and you refused to listen to my protests you were not designing the test correctly where it was clear you had no idea what you were supposed to be testing for. Meanwhile you are saying that one of the plates is a uniform temperature of 600K which is not possible unless you have some very very sophisticated heating arrangement and yet this is not included in your assumptions. Also you have not provided the thickness of the plates or what they are made of So at the moment whatever you are proposing makes no sense at all Make them out of bubble gum for all I care and whatever thickness you want; e 1 and e 2 are given along with all other required parameters, and since they are insulated so that the heat can only radiate in one direction, toward each other, your questions are mute. I was really hoping you could answer the problem in its entirety. However, you could answer part of it without even doing any calculations, but so far you don't realize what you're looking at do you? And frankly, I'm sick of your constant bloviating. There was nothing wrong with my tests. Solve the problem please, if not with math, then what you expect the results to be. How's that?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 8, 2013 2:37:19 GMT
since they are insulated so that the heat can only radiate in one direction, toward each other, your questions are mute. Obviously there is no requirement for radiation to only magically radiate towards the surface of another plate facing the plate when it is exposed to a colder environment either side of the plates. What you are saying would only be true if the objects were totally insulated from the colder environment Since you are designer here and the person who has to be satisfied by the answer i give you it is your responsibility to make sure your assumptions are accurate All i can do is point out your errors.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 8, 2013 2:40:41 GMT
Magellan
We are having the same conversation we always have where you tell me you know better and nothing i can say or do counts for anything whatsoever to you.
And the more i object and point out you are not looking at it correctly the more difficult and immature you become
Meanwhile you manage to create the belief it is me who is the conceited one!
You were totally muddled up last year and spent months kicking the shit out of me while your buddy icefisher celibrated
And evidently if i do not submit to this kind of arrogant stupidity it makes me big headed and unable to admit i am wrong!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 8, 2013 3:01:08 GMT
Magellan We are having the same conversation we always have where you tell me you know better and nothing i can say or do counts for anything whatsoever to you. And the more i object and point out you are not looking at it correctly the more difficult and immature you become Meanwhile you manage to create the belief it is me who is the conceited one! You were totally muddled up last year and spent months kicking the shit out of me while your buddy icefisher celibrated And evidently if i do not submit to this kind of arrogant stupidity it makes me big headed and unable to admit i am wrong! It is obvious you don't know what the problem represents, and despite the volumes of lectures you've given, you can't figure out a simple heat transfer problem that any Freshman year engineer college student should know. I'm not even asking you to do the calculations now. No Iceskater, you won't be allowed to skate out of this one by moving the goal posts, making up new rules etc. No more snooker games. I'm freely admitting you are more knowledgeable than I am concerning heat transfer physics. You have been begging to teach me, so start teaching. There is absolutely no additional information required. You either get it or you don't.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 8, 2013 3:02:11 GMT
Iceskater: Your premise is wrong if you think the Atmosphere in any way shape or form is close to your experiment. There are only 2 solids........one of which is creating heat, the sun, the other absorbing heat, the earth. The earth is a sphere, not a flat surface. Anyways, I still don't see what contribution to atmospheric physics you are trying to prove. The metrics are like comparing a rotten apple to a fish. As already explained to you in detail your comments about the earth being a sphere and this invalidating the results by a massive margin are incorrect The point of the exercise is all about backradiation. The moon is thought to be a solid and helps to keep the earth warmer - or are you going to argue about that as well! Icefisher is endlessly arguing backradiation breaks the laws of physics He ranted high and low that my bricks in my cold sauna demonstrated nothing Please keep out of this if you have nothing constructive to say about backradiation All you doing is seeking to cause trouble while saying you are being helpful where an open and honest discussion is never on your mind and instead you want your personal result where science is second to what you believe to be true. Iceskater: The whole premise of the discussion was to prove that there was a case for atmospheric back radiation. For this to be effective, you would need proportionate sized articles, similar in shape....and only TWO articles..one producing heat, the other absorbing it. The atmosphere is not a solid, in no way shape or form behaves like a solid. My point is.....what are any of you really trying to prove as you have added parameters that are NOT in the actual structure of the field you are trying to demonstrate. So, once again, rotten apples to fish....about the same. I will comment no further as there is no value.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 8, 2013 3:11:50 GMT
Magellan We are having the same conversation we always have where you tell me you know better and nothing i can say or do counts for anything whatsoever to you. And the more i object and point out you are not looking at it correctly the more difficult and immature you become Meanwhile you manage to create the belief it is me who is the conceited one! You were totally muddled up last year and spent months kicking the shit out of me while your buddy icefisher celibrated And evidently if i do not submit to this kind of arrogant stupidity it makes me big headed and unable to admit i am wrong! It is obvious you don't know what the problem represents, and despite the volumes of lectures you've given, you can't figure out a simple heat transfer problem that any Freshman year engineer college student should know. I'm not even asking you to do the calculations now. No Iceskater, you won't be allowed to skate out of this one by moving the goal posts, making up new rules etc. No more snooker games. I'm freely admitting you are more knowledgeable than I am concerning heat transfer physics. You have been begging to teach me, so start teaching. There is absolutely no additional information required. You either get it or you don't. I get it alright. I get it loud and clear. It has almost nothing to do with what i am talking about and everything to do with what you insisted in testing for last year
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 8, 2013 3:14:37 GMT
As already explained to you in detail your comments about the earth being a sphere and this invalidating the results by a massive margin are incorrect The point of the exercise is all about backradiation. The moon is thought to be a solid and helps to keep the earth warmer - or are you going to argue about that as well! Icefisher is endlessly arguing backradiation breaks the laws of physics He ranted high and low that my bricks in my cold sauna demonstrated nothing Please keep out of this if you have nothing constructive to say about backradiation All you doing is seeking to cause trouble while saying you are being helpful where an open and honest discussion is never on your mind and instead you want your personal result where science is second to what you believe to be true. Iceskater: The whole premise of the discussion was to prove that there was a case for atmospheric back radiation. For this to be effective, you would need proportionate sized articles, similar in shape....and only TWO articles..one producing heat, the other absorbing it. The atmosphere is not a solid, in no way shape or form behaves like a solid. My point is.....what are any of you really trying to prove as you have added parameters that are NOT in the actual structure of the field you are trying to demonstrate. So, once again, rotten apples to fish....about the same. I will comment no further as there is no value. The greenhouse effect requires 3 objects of 3 different temperatures! Please stop publically humilating yourself Meanwhile Icefisher said that backradiation involving solid bricks in my solid cold sauna was impossible. Endlessly you seek to disrupt while you demonstrate just how stupid you can be
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 8, 2013 4:49:39 GMT
Iceskater: 1. I am far from stupid. You experiment in no way resembles the earth, atmosphere and sun. 2. You have no magnetic fields of scale. 3. Your objects do not present shape dynamics. 4. No matter how you cut it, still a rotten apple and fish analogy.
|
|