Right. Get up out of your chair once an hour, leave the office, and take a 5 minute walk. Come back and get back into work. Total time required: 10-15 minutes.
I don't know too many bosses who would be cool with that.
Once again, you've seen my method in action from start to finish. I've repeatedly asked if we can agree on that method before posting my final numerical answer. That's because I think you deserve a chance to show that you're capable of judging my method based on its physics, as opposed to reflexively objecting if my numerical answer contradicts the PSI Sky Dragon Slayers.
I will judge your method based on its physics, when I see your answer. You don't need my approval of your method to show it to me. You're asking me to approve of how a house was painted before you painted it. It should be no surprise that I balk at this request.
In a normal exchange of this kind, you would solve the problem, then justify your steps. Or do them at the same time. You're trying to get me to approve of your steps before you have fully taken them. That's... weird. I repeat that you don't need my approval to do something you claim you've already done.
For instance, suppose I told you that my final numerical answer agrees with the PSI Sky Dragon Slayers. Would that make you agree with my method's physics? In that case, would you really be agreeing with my method, or agreeing with the answer you want to hear?
No, and once again I resent the insulting personal remark. I have given you no genuine reason to say this.
Regardless of the answer you come up with, I want to see the individual steps justified. I don't, however, have any interest in agreeing to supposed "justification" of your answers before I've even seen them. That leads to misunderstandings and ambiguity. I don't care if you solve each equation first and then explain it afterward. In fact I'd vastly prefer that you do. I do want to see the justification. There's no doubt of that. But in asking for agreement before you even do the math, you're putting the cart before the horse. Suppose you transposed a number somewhere in your calculation. Should I then agree with your answer if your methodology were correct, but you made some other error? That would be ridiculous.
I intend to check your steps thoroughly AFTER you're done anyway, regardless of whether you explain before or afterward. If I have any specific objections at that time, I will bring them to your attention. That is the proper way to do things.
If you won't know if you agree with my method until you see my final numerical answer, you're depriving yourself of this chance to demonstrate your intellectual integrity.
Bullshit. I won't agree until I see the answer because I want to check your work. It's that simple. And you have given me here a perfect example of how you continue to toss in ambiguities when they're completely unnecessary:
As before, that net radiative power is described by Wikipediaâ(TM)s equation which accounts for areas and view factors.
I just want to make it very clear why I object to the way you ask for agreement, all the while throwing in ambiguities. You say you're using the equation for radiative power, when you're linking to the equation for heat transfer.
We already know what the equation for radiative power is: (epsilon)(sigma)T^4.
soln4[0].rhs().n()
Further, you've twice written that the last line contains the solution, when in fact it contains nothing of the sort.
So before you ask me to agree to things, MAYBE you should damned well be careful to make them clear in the first place?
Even better, just do the damned calculation, then we can discuss it. You're wasting our time. I have repeatedly told you I don't have much to spare right now, and you claim to have even less.
I will have no more time to devote to this until this evening. I'll check back then.
Apple doesn't middle-man the banking/merchant transaction in their model.
Unlike Google/Samsung/Amazon, they are not collecting or monetizing transaction or location info of buyers. They limit their liability and focus on where they make real money.
From a different security standpoint, it hardly matters. I am simply astounded that Apple chose to support NFC in their new phone.
NFC was cracked before it was even commonly available in phones by the same researcher who read (and cloned!) RFIDs from passports in the pockets of passersby from his car 10 meters away, in San Francisco.
He later proved that it was possible to gather "secure" information from NFC-equipped phones from 10 feet away, using concealed-on-person equipment that cost less than $200, even when they weren't engaged in a transaction! They just had to have NFC turned on.
NFC is not secure, and as long as it uses radio -- even radio at minuscule power -- transactions can be followed and cracked from a distance.
I haven't turned on the NFC on my phone since I bought it, and I don't really have any reason to.
I was worried that Jane was just trolling, and had no intention of ever acknowledging my method even if I described them from start-to-finish. Now that I've described my method from start-to-finish and Jane is pretending that he hasn't seen my method "in action" it seems like my worries came true.
I'm not pretending anything. Where is your method in action? Is there an answer in there somewhere? You told me you were going to calculate the temperature of the heat source at steady-state.
This is utter nonsense. I simply asked you for an explanation of how you calculated the figure you stated (long) before, after we agreed on the nature of the problem and the initial conditions.
Your methodology does does not require my approval in order to explain it. It's either your methodology, or it's not. If you were writing a paper about it, would you ask people who had never seen the problem before for your approval before publishing it? If you had the courage of your conviction, that is, and felt it was the correct solution.
Jane, if you won't do a single, solitary calculation of your own, could you at least please stop pretending that you haven't seen my method from start to finish? Here's my last step again:
STOP attempting to put words in my mouth! This is worse than an obnoxious habit of yours, it is a form of lying.
It is obvious that I have done calculations. I merely stated that I haven't calculated a solution yet. And THAT is largely due to what I clearly stated before: I have been busy, and don't have a lot of time to devote to this right now. I've been trying to squeeze in what I could, around work and other obligations.
You've been bugging me for a very long time now about this, and this was supposed to be YOUR EXPLANATION of how this works TO ME. So I have been waiting to see it completed. You have no reason to complain about whether I "agree" with your methodology. Either your analysis stands on its own, or it does not.
I have explained several times now that these Sage equations are not exactly straightforward and easy to read. I have been doing my own calculations in a clear and straightforward manner, making them as easy to read as possible. You really expect me to read this stuff?
The last line displays the answer.
Where? The "answer" being the temperature of the heat source at steady-state, which you said you would calculate? I don't see it.
Again, there appears to be a misunderstanding somewhere. I don't know where it is.
Give me a break. I'm no great fan of Windows, but even if they used one of the more secure versions of Linux, their own software is not exactly known for stellar security.
Reference the scandals some years back regarding their voting machines...
I don't see why you keep asking if I agree with your methods.
I wanted to reach agreement on the nature of the problem, to make sure we had it defined clearly.
But as far as I am concerned, pretty much everything beyond that is just your explanation of how you do it.
I *do* want and appreciate explanation. Don't misunderstand me there. But you said your purpose here was to explain something to me. So please, by all means, proceed with the explanation.
I likely won't have opportunity to see it until tomorrow sometime at the earliest, though.
On general principle, yes. When all factors are considered, this is true. I haven't disagreed with this general principle, and at this point I'm only really interested in seeing the rest of your calculations. Please explain what calculations you are using where, because I find it hard to tell the Sage-formatted calculations apart.
Since we've had to agree to disagree about the definition of the term "equilibrium" (whether radiative or thermal), it's necessary to agree on the fundamental principle of energy conservation using a simple statement that doesn't use the term "equilibrium" (of any kind).
Wait. Are you claiming that the enclosing hollow sphere is NOT at radiative equilibrium with its surroundings?
The only input and output are radiation, and it is at steady-state.
But I have already agreed, at least in principle, that as long as you are including energy in via "electricity" or whatever is heating the heat source, then your definition of "net zero across the boundary" should apply.
I did not realize you intended to include that figure. I thought you were attempting to say that there was no net energy transfer between the bodies.
Now, again in the interest of avoiding misunderstanding:
In our system, there IS input to the heat source, which obviously must come from outside. And in that sense (much like the gas burner), it is relevant to say that the net energy flow through that boundary is zero. I certainly do agree with that.
But that was the whole point of my attempts to word things precisely: so that this kind of misunderstanding does not arise.
If you meant zero net energy across your boundary, including the power input to the heat source, then yes of course I agree that the net must be zero. At steady-state, you won't be putting more out than you put in, or vice versa.
But the other objects (heat source and chamber walls) do not meet this criteria because they are heated/cooled by means that may be other than radiative. "The system" is not in radiative equilibrium.
But that should not matter because we are discussing a system in radiative equilibrium.
Really? Since when?
Sigh. We've already had this discussion. That upper quote was from 5 days ago, and we quickly established that it was incorrect. Since then, we went on to agree that at steady-state, the system is in radiative but not thermal equilibrium. Are you now retracting that agreement? Because there is definitely no thermal equilibrium, and without at least radiative equilibrium, there is no equilibrium at all and we might as well just stop again right here. Here is my later comment, in full:
To be even more clear, because I want to eliminate all misunderstands, this statement that I made above is incorrect:
Great. Except that it doesn't pertain to Spencer's challenge for several reasons. First, the chamber walls in Spencer's experiment are not "empty" space, but a material body that is being actively refrigerated, while the "enclosing passive plate" is being heated on the other side. So that plate is not in radiative equilibrium with the chamber wall or with anything else for that matter. In fact that would be impossible. There are other reasons why that description does not match Spencer's challenge, but that is irrelevant for now. One is enough.
Mea culpa. The outside of the enclosing passive plate would eventually reach radiative equilibrium with the chamber walls. But not thermal equilibrium. Further, the inside of the passive heated plate would reach radiative equilibrium with the heat source. But not thermal equilibrium in that case either. Nor, for that matter, is that same plate in thermal equilibrium even with itself, since realistically its inside and outside surfaces must be at different temperatures, in order to be at radiative equilibrium with those opposing surfaces.
Because I was incorrect to state that there is no radiative equilibrium, I was incorrect to state that a roughly analogous situation does not apply to Spencer's experiment. The opposing surfaces do reach radiative equilibrium. But it is still not very relevant here, because thermal (and therefore thermodynamic) equilibrium still does not exist.
My comment was in reference to whether this system is in thermal equilibrium, because I claimed (correctly or incorrectly), that Kirchhoff's Law did not apply. You produced a reference that it did apply to gray bodies even if not in thermal equilibrium, so I agreed you could go on with Kirchhoff's Law and see where it led.
So that was the state we were in when we continued: no thermal equilibrium, but I understood that we had agreed that the hollow spherical passive plate must be in radiative equilibrium with its surroundings, since there is no other input or output allowed.
Your wording could easily be misinterpreted to mean a constant other than zero. Didn't you mean that net power through that boundary at radiative steady-state represents zero energy flow through that boundary? If not, our misunderstanding is much more fundamental than I first thought.
No, I very definitely did NOT mean net power at radiative steady-state represents zero energy flow. There is heat transfer which is energy, which represents NET flow in one direction. That's what heat transfer is: an energy IMBALANCE, which means non-zero.
Example 1: If you draw a boundary around the burner of a gas furnace, inside the colder walls of the furnace, the RADIANT energy flow into and out of that boundary is NOT a net zero. It is definitely a positive number, from burner across the boundary to the wall. That energy is heat transfer .
Since you keep place qualifiers on energy conservation, your wording isn't equivalent to mine because my statement applies even for systems that aren't in radiative equilibrium.
But that should not matter because we are discussing a system in radiative equilibrium. If it were in disequilibrium, the only change would be the removal of "radiative equilibrium" and the word "constant", since it is radiative equilibrium that forces it to be constant.
I don't necessarily have a problem with a broader definition, but I prefer to stick to things that are pertinent to this discussion.
Did the Feds have a warrant for searching this particular server? Quote the 4th Amendment:
... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Did they have a warrant specifically describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized?
If not, they were violating the CSRA, by accessing a server without authorization, which is exactly what they tried to charge Aaron Schwarz with.
It is not permissible to break the law in order to enforce the law. This is a principle older than the United States itself.
I prefer my wording, which I think most people would agree is an equivalent statement regarding your drawn boundary, but (in my opinion) is less open to misunderstanding.
I agree that power into your boundary minus power out of your boundary equals the power through the boundary, which at radiative equilibrium is equivalent to a constant rate of energy flow through that boundary.
Were you trying to say something else? If not, let's please move on.
I'm not sure I agree with your wording. It could easily be misinterpreted to mean something it does not.
I agree that power in minus power out of your boundary equals power through that boundary, which at radiative steady-state represents a constant rate of energy flow through that boundary.
I get pretty pissed off when people say that hydroelectric power is "cheap" or "free" or "clean" energy, or that all the money to build the dams came from the Federal government so everyone should enjoy the benefits.
It DOES have ongoing costs to people who live in the region, and they aren't small. While some recreational activities are created, others are lost, so that's a zero-sum. But then there are the other ecological costs: loss of fish and fisheries for many thousands of square (not to mention linear) miles of waterway. There is the loss of land behind the dam which was often (perhaps typically) farmland. And so on.
There are many other factors: wildlife typically will no longer migrate across the reservoir, leading to loss of habitat. Etc. etc.
It ain't free, and people in the region do pay for it.
Just no. Energy of an entire system is conserved. It need not be conserved between individual elements of that system. That's what I've been saying.
HEAT TRANSFER is expressed in Joules. What it is a Joule? It is a unit of energy.
HEAT TRANSFER is always in one direction. Heat transfer between two bodies that are not at thermal equilibrium does not conserve energy between those two bodies. On the contrary: it is a flow of energy in one direction. If energy was conserved between those two bodies, then no heat transfer could take place and they must necessarily then be in thermal equilibrium. But the bodies in this system are NOT in thermal equilibrium.
Are you getting that yet?
I did not claim energy was not conserved for the entire system. I claimed only what is obviously true, and what textbook physics tells us is true: heat (energy) transfer between two bodies that are not at thermodynamic equilibrium is not required to conserve energy between those two bodies.
Are you also then presuming that power transferred from the outer surface of the enclosing plate to the chamber walls is the same as the power transferred from the heat source to that plate?
The reason my "dirt simple" calculation was wrong, as any reader of this exchange should be able to tell (and so should you have), that I misunderstood what your power figure represented.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. Get up out of your chair once an hour, leave the office, and take a 5 minute walk. Come back and get back into work. Total time required: 10-15 minutes.
I don't know too many bosses who would be cool with that.
Once again, you've seen my method in action from start to finish. I've repeatedly asked if we can agree on that method before posting my final numerical answer. That's because I think you deserve a chance to show that you're capable of judging my method based on its physics, as opposed to reflexively objecting if my numerical answer contradicts the PSI Sky Dragon Slayers.
I will judge your method based on its physics, when I see your answer. You don't need my approval of your method to show it to me. You're asking me to approve of how a house was painted before you painted it. It should be no surprise that I balk at this request.
In a normal exchange of this kind, you would solve the problem, then justify your steps. Or do them at the same time. You're trying to get me to approve of your steps before you have fully taken them. That's... weird. I repeat that you don't need my approval to do something you claim you've already done.
For instance, suppose I told you that my final numerical answer agrees with the PSI Sky Dragon Slayers. Would that make you agree with my method's physics? In that case, would you really be agreeing with my method, or agreeing with the answer you want to hear?
No, and once again I resent the insulting personal remark. I have given you no genuine reason to say this.
Regardless of the answer you come up with, I want to see the individual steps justified. I don't, however, have any interest in agreeing to supposed "justification" of your answers before I've even seen them. That leads to misunderstandings and ambiguity. I don't care if you solve each equation first and then explain it afterward. In fact I'd vastly prefer that you do. I do want to see the justification. There's no doubt of that. But in asking for agreement before you even do the math, you're putting the cart before the horse. Suppose you transposed a number somewhere in your calculation. Should I then agree with your answer if your methodology were correct, but you made some other error? That would be ridiculous.
I intend to check your steps thoroughly AFTER you're done anyway, regardless of whether you explain before or afterward. If I have any specific objections at that time, I will bring them to your attention. That is the proper way to do things.
If you won't know if you agree with my method until you see my final numerical answer, you're depriving yourself of this chance to demonstrate your intellectual integrity.
Bullshit. I won't agree until I see the answer because I want to check your work. It's that simple. And you have given me here a perfect example of how you continue to toss in ambiguities when they're completely unnecessary:
As before, that net radiative power is described by Wikipediaâ(TM)s equation which accounts for areas and view factors.
I just want to make it very clear why I object to the way you ask for agreement, all the while throwing in ambiguities. You say you're using the equation for radiative power, when you're linking to the equation for heat transfer.
We already know what the equation for radiative power is: (epsilon)(sigma)T^4.
soln4[0].rhs().n()
Further, you've twice written that the last line contains the solution, when in fact it contains nothing of the sort.
So before you ask me to agree to things, MAYBE you should damned well be careful to make them clear in the first place?
Even better, just do the damned calculation, then we can discuss it. You're wasting our time. I have repeatedly told you I don't have much to spare right now, and you claim to have even less.
I will have no more time to devote to this until this evening. I'll check back then.
Apple doesn't middle-man the banking/merchant transaction in their model.
Unlike Google/Samsung/Amazon, they are not collecting or monetizing transaction or location info of buyers. They limit their liability and focus on where they make real money.
From a different security standpoint, it hardly matters. I am simply astounded that Apple chose to support NFC in their new phone.
NFC was cracked before it was even commonly available in phones by the same researcher who read (and cloned!) RFIDs from passports in the pockets of passersby from his car 10 meters away, in San Francisco.
He later proved that it was possible to gather "secure" information from NFC-equipped phones from 10 feet away, using concealed-on-person equipment that cost less than $200, even when they weren't engaged in a transaction! They just had to have NFC turned on.
NFC is not secure, and as long as it uses radio -- even radio at minuscule power -- transactions can be followed and cracked from a distance.
I haven't turned on the NFC on my phone since I bought it, and I don't really have any reason to.
I was worried that Jane was just trolling, and had no intention of ever acknowledging my method even if I described them from start-to-finish. Now that I've described my method from start-to-finish and Jane is pretending that he hasn't seen my method "in action" it seems like my worries came true.
I'm not pretending anything. Where is your method in action? Is there an answer in there somewhere? You told me you were going to calculate the temperature of the heat source at steady-state.
This is utter nonsense. I simply asked you for an explanation of how you calculated the figure you stated (long) before, after we agreed on the nature of the problem and the initial conditions.
Your methodology does does not require my approval in order to explain it. It's either your methodology, or it's not. If you were writing a paper about it, would you ask people who had never seen the problem before for your approval before publishing it? If you had the courage of your conviction, that is, and felt it was the correct solution.
Jane, if you won't do a single, solitary calculation of your own, could you at least please stop pretending that you haven't seen my method from start to finish? Here's my last step again:
STOP attempting to put words in my mouth! This is worse than an obnoxious habit of yours, it is a form of lying.
It is obvious that I have done calculations. I merely stated that I haven't calculated a solution yet. And THAT is largely due to what I clearly stated before: I have been busy, and don't have a lot of time to devote to this right now. I've been trying to squeeze in what I could, around work and other obligations.
You've been bugging me for a very long time now about this, and this was supposed to be YOUR EXPLANATION of how this works TO ME. So I have been waiting to see it completed. You have no reason to complain about whether I "agree" with your methodology. Either your analysis stands on its own, or it does not.
I have explained several times now that these Sage equations are not exactly straightforward and easy to read. I have been doing my own calculations in a clear and straightforward manner, making them as easy to read as possible. You really expect me to read this stuff?
The last line displays the answer.
Where? The "answer" being the temperature of the heat source at steady-state, which you said you would calculate? I don't see it.
Again, there appears to be a misunderstanding somewhere. I don't know where it is.
Give me a break. I'm no great fan of Windows, but even if they used one of the more secure versions of Linux, their own software is not exactly known for stellar security.
Reference the scandals some years back regarding their voting machines...
In action, that is.
I haven't even tried to calculate an answer yet.
I won't know if I agree with your method until I see it.
I don't see why you keep asking if I agree with your methods.
I wanted to reach agreement on the nature of the problem, to make sure we had it defined clearly.
But as far as I am concerned, pretty much everything beyond that is just your explanation of how you do it.
I *do* want and appreciate explanation. Don't misunderstand me there. But you said your purpose here was to explain something to me. So please, by all means, proceed with the explanation.
I likely won't have opportunity to see it until tomorrow sometime at the earliest, though.
No, energy is conserved even when the bodies aren't in thermal equilibrium. As long as nothing inside the boundary is changing, power in = power out.
That wasn't what I was saying. But never mind, because it is just a misunderstanding, and it's really irrelevant at this point.
As I said before, this is a general principle which is true.
I don't know what more you want.
On general principle, yes. When all factors are considered, this is true. I haven't disagreed with this general principle, and at this point I'm only really interested in seeing the rest of your calculations. Please explain what calculations you are using where, because I find it hard to tell the Sage-formatted calculations apart.
Since we've had to agree to disagree about the definition of the term "equilibrium" (whether radiative or thermal), it's necessary to agree on the fundamental principle of energy conservation using a simple statement that doesn't use the term "equilibrium" (of any kind).
Wait. Are you claiming that the enclosing hollow sphere is NOT at radiative equilibrium with its surroundings?
The only input and output are radiation, and it is at steady-state.
But I have already agreed, at least in principle, that as long as you are including energy in via "electricity" or whatever is heating the heat source, then your definition of "net zero across the boundary" should apply.
I did not realize you intended to include that figure. I thought you were attempting to say that there was no net energy transfer between the bodies.
Now, again in the interest of avoiding misunderstanding:
In our system, there IS input to the heat source, which obviously must come from outside. And in that sense (much like the gas burner), it is relevant to say that the net energy flow through that boundary is zero. I certainly do agree with that.
But that was the whole point of my attempts to word things precisely: so that this kind of misunderstanding does not arise.
If you meant zero net energy across your boundary, including the power input to the heat source, then yes of course I agree that the net must be zero. At steady-state, you won't be putting more out than you put in, or vice versa.
But the other objects (heat source and chamber walls) do not meet this criteria because they are heated/cooled by means that may be other than radiative. "The system" is not in radiative equilibrium.
But that should not matter because we are discussing a system in radiative equilibrium.
Really? Since when?
Sigh. We've already had this discussion. That upper quote was from 5 days ago, and we quickly established that it was incorrect. Since then, we went on to agree that at steady-state, the system is in radiative but not thermal equilibrium. Are you now retracting that agreement? Because there is definitely no thermal equilibrium, and without at least radiative equilibrium, there is no equilibrium at all and we might as well just stop again right here. Here is my later comment, in full:
To be even more clear, because I want to eliminate all misunderstands, this statement that I made above is incorrect:
Great. Except that it doesn't pertain to Spencer's challenge for several reasons. First, the chamber walls in Spencer's experiment are not "empty" space, but a material body that is being actively refrigerated, while the "enclosing passive plate" is being heated on the other side. So that plate is not in radiative equilibrium with the chamber wall or with anything else for that matter. In fact that would be impossible. There are other reasons why that description does not match Spencer's challenge, but that is irrelevant for now. One is enough.
Mea culpa. The outside of the enclosing passive plate would eventually reach radiative equilibrium with the chamber walls. But not thermal equilibrium. Further, the inside of the passive heated plate would reach radiative equilibrium with the heat source. But not thermal equilibrium in that case either. Nor, for that matter, is that same plate in thermal equilibrium even with itself, since realistically its inside and outside surfaces must be at different temperatures, in order to be at radiative equilibrium with those opposing surfaces.
Because I was incorrect to state that there is no radiative equilibrium, I was incorrect to state that a roughly analogous situation does not apply to Spencer's experiment. The opposing surfaces do reach radiative equilibrium. But it is still not very relevant here, because thermal (and therefore thermodynamic) equilibrium still does not exist.
My comment was in reference to whether this system is in thermal equilibrium, because I claimed (correctly or incorrectly), that Kirchhoff's Law did not apply. You produced a reference that it did apply to gray bodies even if not in thermal equilibrium, so I agreed you could go on with Kirchhoff's Law and see where it led.
So that was the state we were in when we continued: no thermal equilibrium, but I understood that we had agreed that the hollow spherical passive plate must be in radiative equilibrium with its surroundings, since there is no other input or output allowed.
Your wording could easily be misinterpreted to mean a constant other than zero. Didn't you mean that net power through that boundary at radiative steady-state represents zero energy flow through that boundary? If not, our misunderstanding is much more fundamental than I first thought.
No, I very definitely did NOT mean net power at radiative steady-state represents zero energy flow. There is heat transfer which is energy, which represents NET flow in one direction. That's what heat transfer is: an energy IMBALANCE, which means non-zero.
Example 1: If you draw a boundary around the burner of a gas furnace, inside the colder walls of the furnace, the RADIANT energy flow into and out of that boundary is NOT a net zero. It is definitely a positive number, from burner across the boundary to the wall. That energy is heat transfer .
However: there IS p
Since you keep place qualifiers on energy conservation, your wording isn't equivalent to mine because my statement applies even for systems that aren't in radiative equilibrium.
But that should not matter because we are discussing a system in radiative equilibrium. If it were in disequilibrium, the only change would be the removal of "radiative equilibrium" and the word "constant", since it is radiative equilibrium that forces it to be constant.
I don't necessarily have a problem with a broader definition, but I prefer to stick to things that are pertinent to this discussion.
So can we move on?
Did the Feds have a warrant for searching this particular server? Quote the 4th Amendment:
... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Did they have a warrant specifically describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized?
If not, they were violating the CSRA, by accessing a server without authorization, which is exactly what they tried to charge Aaron Schwarz with.
It is not permissible to break the law in order to enforce the law. This is a principle older than the United States itself.
I prefer my wording, which I think most people would agree is an equivalent statement regarding your drawn boundary, but (in my opinion) is less open to misunderstanding.
I agree that power into your boundary minus power out of your boundary equals the power through the boundary, which at radiative equilibrium is equivalent to a constant rate of energy flow through that boundary.
Were you trying to say something else? If not, let's please move on.
Given your assumptions so far, I will not dispute your calculation of the temperature of the inner surface of the enclosing plate.
Please continue your calculations, as a reply to my other comment, so we can continue this exchange in a linear fashion.
I'm not sure I agree with your wording. It could easily be misinterpreted to mean something it does not.
I agree that power in minus power out of your boundary equals power through that boundary, which at radiative steady-state represents a constant rate of energy flow through that boundary.
Please continue.
I get pretty pissed off when people say that hydroelectric power is "cheap" or "free" or "clean" energy, or that all the money to build the dams came from the Federal government so everyone should enjoy the benefits.
It DOES have ongoing costs to people who live in the region, and they aren't small. While some recreational activities are created, others are lost, so that's a zero-sum. But then there are the other ecological costs: loss of fish and fisheries for many thousands of square (not to mention linear) miles of waterway. There is the loss of land behind the dam which was often (perhaps typically) farmland. And so on.
There are many other factors: wildlife typically will no longer migrate across the reservoir, leading to loss of habitat. Etc. etc.
It ain't free, and people in the region do pay for it.
Obviously at radiative equilibrium energy between objects in the system is being transferred at a constant rate.
And also obviously, I was referring to NET heat transfer.
No. Energy is always conserved. Always.
Did you actually read what I wrote?
Just no. Energy of an entire system is conserved. It need not be conserved between individual elements of that system. That's what I've been saying.
HEAT TRANSFER is expressed in Joules. What it is a Joule? It is a unit of energy.
HEAT TRANSFER is always in one direction. Heat transfer between two bodies that are not at thermal equilibrium does not conserve energy between those two bodies. On the contrary: it is a flow of energy in one direction. If energy was conserved between those two bodies, then no heat transfer could take place and they must necessarily then be in thermal equilibrium. But the bodies in this system are NOT in thermal equilibrium.
Are you getting that yet?
I did not claim energy was not conserved for the entire system. I claimed only what is obviously true, and what textbook physics tells us is true: heat (energy) transfer between two bodies that are not at thermodynamic equilibrium is not required to conserve energy between those two bodies.
Are you also then presuming that power transferred from the outer surface of the enclosing plate to the chamber walls is the same as the power transferred from the heat source to that plate?
No, of course I got the same answer, given your assumption that power-in = power-out: 149.59F.
The reason my "dirt simple" calculation was wrong, as any reader of this exchange should be able to tell (and so should you have), that I misunderstood what your power figure represented.