The arc lamp and the light bulb are two very different things. Just the name gives it away: one uses an electric arc. The light bulb uses an electrically-heated filament. They are about as similar as wine and vinegar.
Having said that, it is true that he didn't invent the idea of the filament bulb. But he did improve the it enough to make it practical.
You may put down the shovel any time you like. By the way, are you by any chance employed by a mainstream media outlet? I ask because such organizations have a long-standing history of distortion via exclusion of context.
I know a rather prominent member of Slashdot who has a long-standing history of the same thing. Not a reference to present company.:)
I am becoming increasingly curious why there appears to be a higher than normal rate of errors and repetition in this particular comment thread. However, I freely admit that my stated perception of that error rate is clearly a speculative utterance in the absence of a much greater volume of sample data.
The problem is Slashdot itself. Replies are shown in a linear fashion but they are made (of course) in chronological fashion.
So if GP didn't notice that his parent made a further comment down below, and replied to a reply to this one, the previous comments were missed. And it isn't particularly GP's fault. It's just the way Slashdot reads.
Now, that does also depend somewhat on your settings in Slashdot, but many people don't even know they exist, much less the (rather enormous) effect they can have on how comments are presented.
Which is why I leave the settings mostly alone. That way I see Slashdot the way most other people do.
So someone who is behaving like a fraud, claims to be able to violate the known laws of physics. If anyone wants to bet that this is real, I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that it is not.
That's what people said about 2 years ago when this device was first announced. It's later now, and things have changed.
I have read the paper. The methodology seems sound. If the researchers themselves check out for reputation, I would say this is astoundingly good news.
NOBODY here is claiming "to violate the known laws of physics". Nobody. There is nothing here that violates any known physical laws. It's just that nobody had quite managed to make it work yet. It has been known to be theoretically possible for a long time now.
The U.S. Navy has been researching ways to achieve LENR using nickel for many years now. Do you think the Navy is crazy? Do you think it's crazy that a university professor might have discovered a way to do it?
You should have professional magicians look at it. These are people who know how to find the "trick".
You nailed it.
Not really. Rossi's case is 100% different from professional sleight-of-hand.
The devices are fairly small, so it's easy to isolate them from any conceivable unknown energy input. Electricity input can easily be monitored. Output can easily be monitored. If you have done a careful job of isolation, and the output over time is more than the same amount of mass could produce chemically (i.e., even a super-powered chemical battery), then you have a nuclear reaction. It's that simple.
It isn't as though Rossi had one bolted to a table and wouldn't let anyone under the table to look.
Relying on Trade Secrets for this kind of invention is the #1 indicator of fraud. A proper patent would make him rich beyond his imagination. A Trade Secret is only good for fleecing investors.
But you contradict yourself. If (as you said yourself) that he could not get a patent, then trade secret is his only real protection.
I agree that's not a good way to do it, but if that's all you've got, that's what you do.
But that's the thing. That sort of stunt would be chump change compared to inventing cold fusion. If the inventor really has figured something out, and I'll grant you that's unlikely, it would behoove him to keep a tight lid on it until he has pretty much the entire eastern seaboards worth of lawyers under his belt.
That's the classic paradox, and it has plagued REAL inventions and inventors since the dawn of time.
The Wright brothers were so afraid that the secrets of their invention would get out before they could profit from it, that they only gave staged, pre-arranged demonstrations to limited audiences. So much so that Scientific American claimed they were fraudsters, and credited manned flight to somebody else, for something like 8 years after the Wright brothers' first announcement.
It wasn't until a later demonstration (in France, IIRC) which was widely witnessed and written about that SciAm retracted their recognition of the other guy and admitted that they were wrong about the Wrights (no pun intended).
Of course, everything is a hoax and scientifically impossible until the day it is proven to actually work.
Which of course is exactly what a lot of people told me here on Slashdot when I wrote that we really don't have any evidence it's a hoax, so let's just wait and see.
Frankly I had no idea whether it worked or not. But I was willing to wait for real evidence before screaming "Hoax!" to the heavens, the way a lot of people here did.
Of course, it did help that I had researched it a bit and knew that the U.S. Navy had been investigating similar processes for many years.
And by the way: your habit of distorted out-of-context quoting is the sort of thing that gets journalists sued and fired. For someone who claims to be a scientist, it's worse than pathetic.
I have told you this repeatedly over a period of years. You don't seem to learn.
If net radiative power is "all inputs minus all outputs" then net radiative power is only zero if all the inputs equal all the outputs. That only happens if the source is at the same temperature as the chamber walls.
This is just more dishonest out-of-context nonsense again. I clearly told you that the context of my statement was radiation from the walls through a boundary. I did not claim the net radiation across that boundary was zero. I claimed the net radiation across the boundary from the wall is zero, because it just goes right back out.
This is a wonderful example of how you distort context, in order to make it appear someone else is saying something they actually did not. That is a form of lying.
Jane can't quote a textbook stating this "fundamental principle" because it's nonsense. For instance, the "transmitted" term describes a body's transparency, not its absorption and re-emission. Here's an introduction [wikipedia.org]:
Okay, I admit I screwed up on that one sentence. Big deal. Elsewhere, I have on record where I told you transmittance was not an issue here at all because we are discussion diffuse gray bodies of significant mass, so there is no transmittance.
What I meant to say is exactly what I stated before: there is no net absorption of radiation from colder bodies. It is all reflected, transmitted, or scattered. And since these are diffuse gray bodies, none is transmitted.
Also, it's bizarre that Jane insists he's accounting for absorbed and re-emitted radiation in a "transmitted" term that isn't even in his energy conservation equation.
That was a mistake in one sentence, which you should have realized was a MISTAKE, because I clearly stated in our earlier conversation that there was no transmittance in this situation, and exactly why. You're trying to make it sound like I was "asserting" that when it was clearly a brief moment of forgetfulness, no more.
... when this is the hottest body in the room, that figure is ZERO. Zero net radiation absorbed from other, cooler bodies.... that ZERO of the radiative power output... THE NET IS ZERO.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-10]
Again, you chop up my quotes to try to make it sound like I was saying something I was not. That is just plain dishonest. Why do you feel you need to be dishonest about it? Is it because you can't win an honest argument? THIS is what I wrote:
at steady-state, the relation given above already accounts for any radiative power being absorbed from other bodies. And second, when this is the hottest body in the room, that figure is ZERO. Zero net radiation absorbed from other, cooler bodies. This is a requirement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Now, this is NOT the same as saying "no radiation absorbed at all". But when you put the two points above together, what it does mean is that ZERO of the radiative power output from the above equation is coming from other bodies. THE AMOUNT OF POWER OUTPUT IN THIS EQUATION DOES NOT NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR POWER FROM THE WALLS, BECAUSE THE NET IS ZERO.
Then you say:
That's a serious problem, because Jane's first principle is wrong. Net radiative power would only be zero if the source and the chamber walls were at the same temperature.
This is a COMPLETE distortion of what I was saying. You're just plain trolling again. In fact I don't think you've ever stopped. That's all you're doing here. You're deliberately distorting my comments to the point that I hardly recognize them.
Nowhere did I actually claim that net radiative power from the walls would be zero. What I actually stated, many times now, was that net radiative power from the wall THROUGH A BOUNDARY between the heat source and the wall would be zero, because it is just reflected or scattered by the heat source and goes back out. That small fraction that doesn't strike the heat source goes right back out anyway. So the net POWER IN from the wall across that boundary is zero, because it goes right back out again. The radiated power figure for the heat source remains unchanged.
Anything else is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says you can't have a NET energy transfer from cooler to warmer.
I did NOT claim the net radiative power through the boundary was zero. What I wrote was that the radiative power from the walls through that boundary cancels itself out, leaving a net across that boundary from the wall = 0.
By taking my comment out of context (yet again), you dishonestly distorte
Problem: Since you can't lose something you never owned to begin with, this makes no sense. They never owned your money, and you never interacted with them, so they lost nothing except perhaps the potential to gain, which isn't really losing anyway.
You violated a social contract that was agreed upon by society at large. As such, you "damaged" (if only infinitesimally) the holder of that social contract.
The real issue here isn't whether copyrights should exist. But whether these huge abusive corporate expansions of copyright power should exist.
It was never part of that social contract. It's just corporate greed.
By the way: I consider that "members of the Good Old Boy club" very definitely includes Hillary Clinton. It's a figure of speech, not literal. But as a figure of speech, Hillary is as Good Old Boy as they get.
I have nothing at all against a woman President... but I would never consider Hillary, even if she were a man. She's been involved in a lot of the most crooked politics in Washington, ever since her husband was elected. And maybe before.
Nobody is going to "restore America's faith" in such institutions until the bastards who built them up and run them are gone from the scene. That means Barack Obama and his whole crew, anyone left from Bush's crew, and anybody who has been appointed to the Supreme Court in the last 14 years. PLUS the "live-in" Congresscritters and their even more "live-in" staff.
I'm not talking revolution, but what I am talking about is electing an awful lot of new legislators and a new President who aren't members of the Good Old Boy club.
2014 is going to be an election to remember. Things are changing.
If you use bittorrent, you are distributing while you download.
Depends on whether you mean the client called "bittorrent", or the BitTorrent protocol.
There's nothing in the protocol that says you "have to" upload in order to download. That's something that's built into most of the clients, on the reasoning that if nobody shares, there will be nothing to download.
I disagree: people have shown themselves to be willing to share things regardless of any such rules.
Further, the laws against "piracy", (which is NOT the same as downloading), were intended primarily to punish people who make bulk copies of copyrighted works and sell them for a profit. That's essentially what "copyright piracy" means. It's a legal term. And downloading doesn't qualify. Downloading isn't a "crime" at all. It's just a copyright violation. Piracy, on the other hand, is a crime.
Some of the biggest differences are:
[A] Almost all downloaders are doing it for personal use, not for profit. A reasonable penalty for that would be lost profits to the copyright holder (which is almost always far, far lower than the retail price), so for example copying a DVD might be a total loss of profits to the copyright holder of not more than about 50 cents. PLUS a "statutory penalty", which courts use to discourage such behavior. A rather large fine for creating a "loss of profit" of 50 cents might be 50 dollars... 100 times the actual damage.
[B] A very big problem with that is that studies have been showing for over 15 years now that in the vast majority of cases of downloading, there never would have been a sale (or rental) in the first place. So even 50 cents "damage" to the copyright holder as in [A] is more theoretical than actual. Further, downloaders give the actual product free word-of-mouth advertising, further mitigating any "damage".
It doesn't matter what the FBI "considers" downloading to be. THE LAW says it isn't a crime. And it sure as hell isn't "stealing". They are two very, very distinct areas of the law. When you steal from somebody, you deprive them of the use of the stolen item. When you copy a copyrighted work, you haven't deprived anyone of that work. Any "damage" is purely theoretical and must, logically, be tied to any lost profit from that particular copy.
Statutory damages that were originally intended for bulk, profitable piracy are not appropriate for individual downloaders. At all. That whole mess was nothing but "crony capitalism" at work. And lots of people have suffered a lot, as a result.
Sure, you can get a serious answer. But I notice you did not answer my question.
My answer to you is this: probably when it is somewhat higher than 54 ppm, in just a tiny area, in a single part of the world. It's probably a lot higher than that in your living room when someone lets out a good fart.
By the way, just in case it wasn't obvious from the fact that I was responding to Jane's claims of zero net radiation absorbed and zero net radiative power output, I was talking about net radiative power because that's what Jane seemed to be talking about. That's why my equation only has radiative terms. Here's a less ambiguous version:
NOWHERE did I state "zero net radiative output". I don't believe I used that phrase at all, but if I did, you present it here out of context.
So you're not going to retract your claim that net power is zero when the source is warmer than the chamber walls?
That's a grossly inaccurate -- one might even say distorted -- way to sum up what I stated. Which is exactly what I have come to expect from you. I have no reason to retract anything.
Is Jane using some kind of special Sky Dragon Slayer definition of the word "net"? In physics, net power through a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in".
I made 2 statements, related to the situation under discussion (gray bodies in vacuum at radiative steady state):
First, there is no NET radiative power absorbed by a body at one thermodynamic temperature from another body at a lower temperature. Doing so would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I'm using the standard definition of "net", which is to say "all inputs minus all outputs". No NET radiative input from chamber walls means anything crossing your precious boundary inward goes right back out. As I have explained to you many times now.
Second, the radiative power output, per unit area, of a gray body at a given temperature is (e * s) * T^4, where e = emissivity, s = Stefan-Botlzmann constant, and T is thermodynamic temperature.
Those are the statements I made. Anything else is a logical extension of those two principles.
Only if "already accounts for" means "completely ignores" in Janeland.
"Already accounts for", in Thermodynamics Land.
No, we don't have to "agree" on anything anymore. The only "agreement" I had with you was on the initial conditions of the experiment. Known physical principles do not require your "agreement". (Or mine, for that matter.)
I proved you wrong a long time ago. You keep hammering at this like some kind of zombie that doesn't realize it's dead yet. And you've added nothing new in all that time. Just brainless repetition of the same things.
In the context of Spencer's "experiment", colder objects do not make the heat source hotter still. It has been demonstrated, using straightforward application of thermodynamic and well-known heat transfer principles and equations.
None of the rest of your blathering matters. It is just constantly repeated hot air.
And I know you said they should have to get a warrant, but in practice, if the information exists, they're going to suck it all up.
Just no. That is actually a very recent phenomenon, due to new laws and government irresponsibility since 9/11.
Prior to that, the government was much better kept in check. There might have been transgressions here and there, but they were very clearly illegal and people got prosecuted for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. You beat me to it.
The arc lamp and the light bulb are two very different things. Just the name gives it away: one uses an electric arc. The light bulb uses an electrically-heated filament. They are about as similar as wine and vinegar.
Having said that, it is true that he didn't invent the idea of the filament bulb. But he did improve the it enough to make it practical.
s/person/personal
From what I've heard, the mere availability of Oxycontin (not oxytocin) is enough to influence the sociosexual behavior of some human females.
But I have no person experience of this, so I don't know.
Ehhhhhh (sound of buzzer). Minus two points. Saying one thing badly does not constitute saying something else "unconsciously".
In debate logic, that's known as the "mind reading fallacy".
You may put down the shovel any time you like. By the way, are you by any chance employed by a mainstream media outlet? I ask because such organizations have a long-standing history of distortion via exclusion of context.
I know a rather prominent member of Slashdot who has a long-standing history of the same thing. Not a reference to present company. :)
I am becoming increasingly curious why there appears to be a higher than normal rate of errors and repetition in this particular comment thread. However, I freely admit that my stated perception of that error rate is clearly a speculative utterance in the absence of a much greater volume of sample data.
The problem is Slashdot itself. Replies are shown in a linear fashion but they are made (of course) in chronological fashion.
So if GP didn't notice that his parent made a further comment down below, and replied to a reply to this one, the previous comments were missed. And it isn't particularly GP's fault. It's just the way Slashdot reads.
Now, that does also depend somewhat on your settings in Slashdot, but many people don't even know they exist, much less the (rather enormous) effect they can have on how comments are presented.
Which is why I leave the settings mostly alone. That way I see Slashdot the way most other people do.
So someone who is behaving like a fraud, claims to be able to violate the known laws of physics. If anyone wants to bet that this is real, I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that it is not.
That's what people said about 2 years ago when this device was first announced. It's later now, and things have changed.
I have read the paper. The methodology seems sound. If the researchers themselves check out for reputation, I would say this is astoundingly good news.
NOBODY here is claiming "to violate the known laws of physics". Nobody. There is nothing here that violates any known physical laws. It's just that nobody had quite managed to make it work yet. It has been known to be theoretically possible for a long time now.
The U.S. Navy has been researching ways to achieve LENR using nickel for many years now. Do you think the Navy is crazy? Do you think it's crazy that a university professor might have discovered a way to do it?
There is no contradiction. If he could not get a patent it is because his "invention" is a scam.
Hahaha. If you knew anything about the current U.S. patent system you would know that statement to be ridiculous.
You should have professional magicians look at it. These are people who know how to find the "trick".
You nailed it.
Not really. Rossi's case is 100% different from professional sleight-of-hand.
The devices are fairly small, so it's easy to isolate them from any conceivable unknown energy input. Electricity input can easily be monitored. Output can easily be monitored. If you have done a careful job of isolation, and the output over time is more than the same amount of mass could produce chemically (i.e., even a super-powered chemical battery), then you have a nuclear reaction. It's that simple.
It isn't as though Rossi had one bolted to a table and wouldn't let anyone under the table to look.
Relying on Trade Secrets for this kind of invention is the #1 indicator of fraud. A proper patent would make him rich beyond his imagination. A Trade Secret is only good for fleecing investors.
But you contradict yourself. If (as you said yourself) that he could not get a patent, then trade secret is his only real protection.
I agree that's not a good way to do it, but if that's all you've got, that's what you do.
But that's the thing. That sort of stunt would be chump change compared to inventing cold fusion. If the inventor really has figured something out, and I'll grant you that's unlikely, it would behoove him to keep a tight lid on it until he has pretty much the entire eastern seaboards worth of lawyers under his belt.
That's the classic paradox, and it has plagued REAL inventions and inventors since the dawn of time.
The Wright brothers were so afraid that the secrets of their invention would get out before they could profit from it, that they only gave staged, pre-arranged demonstrations to limited audiences. So much so that Scientific American claimed they were fraudsters, and credited manned flight to somebody else, for something like 8 years after the Wright brothers' first announcement.
It wasn't until a later demonstration (in France, IIRC) which was widely witnessed and written about that SciAm retracted their recognition of the other guy and admitted that they were wrong about the Wrights (no pun intended).
Of course, everything is a hoax and scientifically impossible until the day it is proven to actually work.
Which of course is exactly what a lot of people told me here on Slashdot when I wrote that we really don't have any evidence it's a hoax, so let's just wait and see.
Frankly I had no idea whether it worked or not. But I was willing to wait for real evidence before screaming "Hoax!" to the heavens, the way a lot of people here did.
Of course, it did help that I had researched it a bit and knew that the U.S. Navy had been investigating similar processes for many years.
why she shouldn't be trusted in a position of responsibility.
Definitely.
And by the way: your habit of distorted out-of-context quoting is the sort of thing that gets journalists sued and fired. For someone who claims to be a scientist, it's worse than pathetic.
I have told you this repeatedly over a period of years. You don't seem to learn.
If net radiative power is "all inputs minus all outputs" then net radiative power is only zero if all the inputs equal all the outputs. That only happens if the source is at the same temperature as the chamber walls.
This is just more dishonest out-of-context nonsense again. I clearly told you that the context of my statement was radiation from the walls through a boundary. I did not claim the net radiation across that boundary was zero. I claimed the net radiation across the boundary from the wall is zero, because it just goes right back out.
This is a wonderful example of how you distort context, in order to make it appear someone else is saying something they actually did not. That is a form of lying.
Jane can't quote a textbook stating this "fundamental principle" because it's nonsense. For instance, the "transmitted" term describes a body's transparency, not its absorption and re-emission. Here's an introduction [wikipedia.org]:
Okay, I admit I screwed up on that one sentence. Big deal. Elsewhere, I have on record where I told you transmittance was not an issue here at all because we are discussion diffuse gray bodies of significant mass, so there is no transmittance.
What I meant to say is exactly what I stated before: there is no net absorption of radiation from colder bodies. It is all reflected, transmitted, or scattered. And since these are diffuse gray bodies, none is transmitted.
Also, it's bizarre that Jane insists he's accounting for absorbed and re-emitted radiation in a "transmitted" term that isn't even in his energy conservation equation.
That was a mistake in one sentence, which you should have realized was a MISTAKE, because I clearly stated in our earlier conversation that there was no transmittance in this situation, and exactly why. You're trying to make it sound like I was "asserting" that when it was clearly a brief moment of forgetfulness, no more.
... when this is the hottest body in the room, that figure is ZERO. Zero net radiation absorbed from other, cooler bodies. ... that ZERO of the radiative power output ... THE NET IS ZERO. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-10]
Again, you chop up my quotes to try to make it sound like I was saying something I was not. That is just plain dishonest. Why do you feel you need to be dishonest about it? Is it because you can't win an honest argument? THIS is what I wrote:
at steady-state, the relation given above already accounts for any radiative power being absorbed from other bodies. And second, when this is the hottest body in the room, that figure is ZERO. Zero net radiation absorbed from other, cooler bodies. This is a requirement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Now, this is NOT the same as saying "no radiation absorbed at all". But when you put the two points above together, what it does mean is that ZERO of the radiative power output from the above equation is coming from other bodies. THE AMOUNT OF POWER OUTPUT IN THIS EQUATION DOES NOT NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR POWER FROM THE WALLS, BECAUSE THE NET IS ZERO.
Then you say:
That's a serious problem, because Jane's first principle is wrong. Net radiative power would only be zero if the source and the chamber walls were at the same temperature.
This is a COMPLETE distortion of what I was saying. You're just plain trolling again. In fact I don't think you've ever stopped. That's all you're doing here. You're deliberately distorting my comments to the point that I hardly recognize them.
Nowhere did I actually claim that net radiative power from the walls would be zero. What I actually stated, many times now, was that net radiative power from the wall THROUGH A BOUNDARY between the heat source and the wall would be zero, because it is just reflected or scattered by the heat source and goes back out. That small fraction that doesn't strike the heat source goes right back out anyway. So the net POWER IN from the wall across that boundary is zero, because it goes right back out again. The radiated power figure for the heat source remains unchanged.
Anything else is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says you can't have a NET energy transfer from cooler to warmer.
I did NOT claim the net radiative power through the boundary was zero. What I wrote was that the radiative power from the walls through that boundary cancels itself out, leaving a net across that boundary from the wall = 0.
By taking my comment out of context (yet again), you dishonestly distorte
Problem: Since you can't lose something you never owned to begin with, this makes no sense. They never owned your money, and you never interacted with them, so they lost nothing except perhaps the potential to gain, which isn't really losing anyway.
You violated a social contract that was agreed upon by society at large. As such, you "damaged" (if only infinitesimally) the holder of that social contract.
The real issue here isn't whether copyrights should exist. But whether these huge abusive corporate expansions of copyright power should exist.
It was never part of that social contract. It's just corporate greed.
By the way: I consider that "members of the Good Old Boy club" very definitely includes Hillary Clinton. It's a figure of speech, not literal. But as a figure of speech, Hillary is as Good Old Boy as they get.
I have nothing at all against a woman President... but I would never consider Hillary, even if she were a man. She's been involved in a lot of the most crooked politics in Washington, ever since her husband was elected. And maybe before.
Nobody is going to "restore America's faith" in such institutions until the bastards who built them up and run them are gone from the scene. That means Barack Obama and his whole crew, anyone left from Bush's crew, and anybody who has been appointed to the Supreme Court in the last 14 years. PLUS the "live-in" Congresscritters and their even more "live-in" staff.
I'm not talking revolution, but what I am talking about is electing an awful lot of new legislators and a new President who aren't members of the Good Old Boy club. 2014 is going to be an election to remember. Things are changing.
If you use bittorrent, you are distributing while you download.
Depends on whether you mean the client called "bittorrent", or the BitTorrent protocol.
There's nothing in the protocol that says you "have to" upload in order to download. That's something that's built into most of the clients, on the reasoning that if nobody shares, there will be nothing to download.
I disagree: people have shown themselves to be willing to share things regardless of any such rules.
Further, the laws against "piracy", (which is NOT the same as downloading), were intended primarily to punish people who make bulk copies of copyrighted works and sell them for a profit. That's essentially what "copyright piracy" means. It's a legal term. And downloading doesn't qualify. Downloading isn't a "crime" at all. It's just a copyright violation. Piracy, on the other hand, is a crime.
Some of the biggest differences are:
[A] Almost all downloaders are doing it for personal use, not for profit. A reasonable penalty for that would be lost profits to the copyright holder (which is almost always far, far lower than the retail price), so for example copying a DVD might be a total loss of profits to the copyright holder of not more than about 50 cents. PLUS a "statutory penalty", which courts use to discourage such behavior. A rather large fine for creating a "loss of profit" of 50 cents might be 50 dollars... 100 times the actual damage.
[B] A very big problem with that is that studies have been showing for over 15 years now that in the vast majority of cases of downloading, there never would have been a sale (or rental) in the first place. So even 50 cents "damage" to the copyright holder as in [A] is more theoretical than actual. Further, downloaders give the actual product free word-of-mouth advertising, further mitigating any "damage".
It doesn't matter what the FBI "considers" downloading to be. THE LAW says it isn't a crime. And it sure as hell isn't "stealing". They are two very, very distinct areas of the law. When you steal from somebody, you deprive them of the use of the stolen item. When you copy a copyrighted work, you haven't deprived anyone of that work. Any "damage" is purely theoretical and must, logically, be tied to any lost profit from that particular copy.
Statutory damages that were originally intended for bulk, profitable piracy are not appropriate for individual downloaders. At all. That whole mess was nothing but "crony capitalism" at work. And lots of people have suffered a lot, as a result.
Sure, you can get a serious answer. But I notice you did not answer my question.
My answer to you is this: probably when it is somewhat higher than 54 ppm, in just a tiny area, in a single part of the world. It's probably a lot higher than that in your living room when someone lets out a good fart.
By the way, just in case it wasn't obvious from the fact that I was responding to Jane's claims of zero net radiation absorbed and zero net radiative power output, I was talking about net radiative power because that's what Jane seemed to be talking about. That's why my equation only has radiative terms. Here's a less ambiguous version:
NOWHERE did I state "zero net radiative output". I don't believe I used that phrase at all, but if I did, you present it here out of context.
So you're not going to retract your claim that net power is zero when the source is warmer than the chamber walls?
That's a grossly inaccurate -- one might even say distorted -- way to sum up what I stated. Which is exactly what I have come to expect from you. I have no reason to retract anything.
Is Jane using some kind of special Sky Dragon Slayer definition of the word "net"? In physics, net power through a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in".
I made 2 statements, related to the situation under discussion (gray bodies in vacuum at radiative steady state):
First, there is no NET radiative power absorbed by a body at one thermodynamic temperature from another body at a lower temperature. Doing so would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I'm using the standard definition of "net", which is to say "all inputs minus all outputs". No NET radiative input from chamber walls means anything crossing your precious boundary inward goes right back out. As I have explained to you many times now.
Second, the radiative power output, per unit area, of a gray body at a given temperature is (e * s) * T^4, where e = emissivity, s = Stefan-Botlzmann constant, and T is thermodynamic temperature.
Those are the statements I made. Anything else is a logical extension of those two principles.
Only if "already accounts for" means "completely ignores" in Janeland.
"Already accounts for", in Thermodynamics Land.
No, we don't have to "agree" on anything anymore. The only "agreement" I had with you was on the initial conditions of the experiment. Known physical principles do not require your "agreement". (Or mine, for that matter.)
I proved you wrong a long time ago. You keep hammering at this like some kind of zombie that doesn't realize it's dead yet. And you've added nothing new in all that time. Just brainless repetition of the same things.
In the context of Spencer's "experiment", colder objects do not make the heat source hotter still. It has been demonstrated, using straightforward application of thermodynamic and well-known heat transfer principles and equations.
None of the rest of your blathering matters. It is just constantly repeated hot air.
And I know you said they should have to get a warrant, but in practice, if the information exists, they're going to suck it all up.
Just no. That is actually a very recent phenomenon, due to new laws and government irresponsibility since 9/11.
Prior to that, the government was much better kept in check. There might have been transgressions here and there, but they were very clearly illegal and people got prosecuted for them.