As I've repeatedly and consistently stressed, "T_c" is only identical on both sides of the enclosing cold plate if it's a thermal superconductor.
We have never disagreed on this. The problem is that there is no such thing as a thermal superconductor of this kind, and you aren't seeing that it leads to contradictions. The only way it could exist would be if it had NO thermal effect on its surroundings whatever. So it's the ultimate straw-man argument. There is no way it can be legitimately used to demonstrate anything.
Since you just linked to this excellent example, did you notice that MIT solved this problem at the very top and got a completely different answer than Dr. Latour?
No, they didn't, because it's a different problem, being given a theoretical treatment. You keep doing that, but I'm not buying. Two infinite plates, neither of which is heated, is not even remotely the same situation, and it's also theoretical only. They're not taking into account certain real-world factors pertaining to Spencer's experiment. Latour does. Not that they're doing anything wrong... given the context of their situation: infinite non-heated grey bodies. This is not Spencer's experiment.
I've showed that Dr. Latour was wrong because his claim violates conservation of energy. Again, in physics that's a really big mistake.
No, you didn't. You did not point to a calculation he performed on Spencer's situation and prove it wrong. You took what you incorrectly called an analogous situation and called that wrong. Which has been my whole point here. You keep claiming something else represents Spencer's experiment, but you won't tackle Spencer's actual, original experiment. You have consistently refused, for over 2 years.
You can toss around equations all you like, but if you're not applying them to the experiment actually under discussion (and you haven't been), you're still not proving anything. You're just moving the goalposts.
And that's why I've said I'm out of here. You continue to refuse to actually do what you said you'd done: refute Latour's treatment of Spencer's challenge. You can keep prevaricating and beating around the bush and straw-manning and moving the goalposts, and I'll just keep telling you why you're wrong. Or rather, no I won't. I've done that too many times already.
How do you explain why all the insurance companies are convinced this is a problem?
That's dirt simple. If they can claim it's a problem, they can charge higher rates. So whenever they find something that they can even remotely get away with claiming to be a problem, they claim it is a problem. Whether it's true or not.
Melting has always occurred around Antarctica. That doesn't mean it's losing ice.
The net gain (86 Gigatons / year) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.
[emphasis mine]
Funny how these contrary studies have never seemed to make the headlines on Slashdot.
Sure, but as I say, I don't work in an office and there aren't lots of people using my network. Only one or two. So a 4-core machine is usually fine, but faster is still better. It would be great to have $2000-$3000 for an 8-core Haswell-E with motherboard and all the associated components, but it's not in the budget right now. Maybe next year. Besides, clock speed should be up again by then.
Superconductors are distinguished from aluminum by internal properties, not radiative surface properties. That's because conduction happens inside materials, whereas radiation is emitted and absorbed on surfaces.
You're not thinking.
We're talking about the context of SPENCER'S experiment. The only heat transfer in or out is radiation. It order for it to actually superconduct all the heat absorbed, it has to dispose of that heat somehow. The only way it has to do that is to super-radiate as well (emissivity very close to 1). This is the only logical conclusion. Otherwise it could not be a thermal superconductor; it would build up heat and HAVE TO conduct it away more slowly, like any other material. And there is a similar argument for absorptivity.
You keep wanting to have things both ways but that isn't going to work.
I am aware that the only thing that has an emissivity and absorptivity of 1 is a black body. I'm not stupid. But your hypothetical thermal superconductor could not store heat like a black body and remain a superconductor. That's a contradiction. So it's a different creature, from your imagination. This is why I say: leave it out. There is no way you can try to demonstrate anything else with it, either, without leading to a contradiction. And it's not part of the original experiment anyway; it's nothing but misdirection.
Remember that the inner surface of the enclosing shell is different than the surface of the heated plate. The inner and outer surfaces of the enclosing shell are at exactly the same temperature because it's a thermal superconductor. That's what I've always been saying, despite your attempts to pretend otherwise.
I quoted your words above.
At equilibrium, the enclosing shell radiates the same power out as the heated plate did before it was enclosed. But its area is 1.0025 times larger, so its outer temperature is 149.6F (338.5K) instead of 150.0F (338.7K).
In order for what you say to be correct, then the "enclosing shell" you refer to is not the heated plate enclosing the source. Which would mean you were talking about a completely different experiment, not even the one Spencer mentioned with the heated plate enclosing the source.
I'm not interested. Original experiment. Latour's treatment of it. Show where he was wrong. Period. Stop prevaricating.
Don't you see that you threw in this whole "thermal superconductor" schtick without considering what properties a thermal superconductor must actually have?
In order to superconduct, it must be the same temperature everywhere, always. The only way this would be even remotely possible were if it were a perfect radiator, with emissivity of 1. It would also be a perfect absorber, absorptivity of 1. Regardless of wavelength.
So while this might not technically be true, for all practical purposes it is: a thermal superconductor would be completely transparent to all radiation, and there is no way to heat it or cool it in relation to its surroundings. It has no "thermal mass".
So it would have absolutely no effect on anything in this experiment. For practical purposes, it would not exist.
Your idea that you can get around this by placing some kind of thin lining on its interior doesn't work. It's still as though it weren't there at all... all you have left for practical purposes is the thin shell, nothing else.
Trying to use it as part of your demonstration won't wash. Every time you try to demonstrate something with it, you end up contradicting yourself. (Which I have pointed out to you many times now. Not just twice, more like 5 or 6 times.)
That's why I say: no more prevarication. No more beating about the bush. Take Spencer's original challenge, apply Latour's thermodynamic treatment of it, and show where it is wrong.
Anything else constitutes failure to back up your claim that Latour is wrong and -- as you have said more than once -- some kind of nutcase. You've had more than 2 years. That is plenty.
And I want to be clear about this: I'm not demanding anything from you. YOU are the one who proclaimed Latour wrong, therefore it is your burden to demonstrate that he actually is, by showing exactly where he is incorrect.
I really don't give a damn whether you believe it or not. I'm not the one following you around, casting personal aspersions against YOU. I've just been defending myself from YOUR malicious attacks.
The whole point: You claimed Latour was wrong. But you refuse to back up your claim by showing WHERE in his calculations he was incorrect. That's your burden and you haven't been meeting it. Until you do, you have no argument to make. You can throw all the ad-hominem and straw-man arguments and irrelevancies in that you want, but none of it proves you correct. Until you actually show where Latour made a mistake, in his actual calculations related to this experiment, you're wrong by default.
See? Same shit different day. You won't sit down and do the calculations start-to-finish, instead you do one small part, then start indulging in your hallmark game of out-of-context he-said, she-said, toss in a straw-man, then claim it's all proved. Here's a classic example of the kind of straw-man arguments you introduce:
I've stressed that this thought experiment has been tested for decades in the real world. Radiation shields allow for more accurate measurements of gas temperatures using thermocouples:
"The greatest problem with measuring gas temperatures is combatting radiation loss.... surround the probe with a radiation shield... The thermocouple bead radiates to the shield which is much hotter than the surrounding walls. Thus the radiative loss and hence temperature error is significantly reduced. The shield itself radiates to the walls."
Here is an excellent example of this (19.3.2), which illustrates why it is a straw-man argument that is not relevant to the problem at hand. In this case the walls are warmer, not cooler, and the radiation shield is blocking the thermocouple from the radiation inward from the chamber walls, so that it can get an accurate temperature reading of the air without interference from the walls. In your case, it is the opposite: the walls are cooler than the thermocouple. But in neither case is the situation a representation of equilibrium (for example in this case, air is convecting away some of the heat of the thermocouple). The shield is absorbing and emitting radiation, too, it's just that it is isolated from the chamber walls, and so is closer to the ambient temperature of the medium being measured.
This is in no way related to our experiment at all. It is in a vacuum. There is no "medium" to measure, with an ambient temperature. Not even remotely. It's simply another illustration of the depths of hand-waving you will go to, rather than actually doing all the calculations on the actual experiment from start to finish.
All you're doing is tossing in more straw-men and irrelevancies. You won't do the actual experiment. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn here is that you won't do it because you know you're wrong.
No, I'm not wrong. You calculated the outside temperature from the inside temperature, saying it's LOWER because of its greater area. This much is correct.
THEN you try to say that with a thermal superconductor, the inner temperature would be the same as outside. Except you just calculated that outside temperature from a WARMER interior. You quite literally can't have it both ways. EITHER you're claiming a superconductor has a different temperature on both sides, or you're claiming that the inside has 2 different temperatures simultaneously.
Over a period of MORE THAN TWO YEARS, I have repeatedly tried to engage you in a thorough analysis of this experiment. EVERY TIME, you have done (usually incorrectly) a partial analysis, then declared the subject proved. But it never was. When pressed, you resorted to the same kind of bullshit you have pulled here, with ad-hominem, not-sequiturs, and straw-men. NEVER daring to face the full problem in real detail.
Because you KNOW Latour was correct. And it isn't just him. TEXTBOOKS about practical applications of thermodynamics say so.
You have NEVER, ONCE, tackled the problem head-on. Always a little twist here, a little change there, let's ignore areal exposure to the ambient radiation, ad nauseum. Always weaseling sideways, never quite taking on the task of REFUTING LATOUR, even though that's what you claimed to be doing, with all your misdirection.
Well, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, even though I honestly don't believe you deserve it. I am willing to concede that you really are a Kool-Aid drinker, and can't accept that the dogma isn't what you thought it was. That's preferable to believing that you're simply a malicious lying sonofabitch.
I'm repeating that, with the quotations done properly, so I can save it for posterity.
No, I said both sides of a thermal superconductor enclosing shell are at 149.6F.
Haha. Here are your words.
At equilibrium, the enclosing shell radiates the same power out as the heated plate did before it was enclosed. But its area is 1.0025 times larger, so its outer temperature is 149.6F (338.5K) instead of 150.0F (338.7K).
A_h*T_h^4 = A_c2*T_c2^4 (Eq. 3)
For the moment, let's pretend the enclosing shell is a thermal superconductor, so its inner temperature is also 149.6F (338.5K). Energy conservation at equilibrium just inside the enclosing shell shows [dumbscientist.com] that the heated sphere will warm to an equilibrium temperature of 233.8F (385.3K)
But its inner temperature ISN'T 149.6F, because it's being heated from the inside, not the outside. You calculate a temperature due to heating on the inside, with its area, then account for a reduced temperature on the outside due to increased area, then try to turn around and say the temperature on the inside is the same as the outside.
I'm not changing a thing. This is the same criticism I gave before (just in more detail). And you're STILL full of shit, you pretender. This is the most ludicrous thing I've heard coming from someone who claims to be a real scientist in years.
I've heard some "doozies", as they say, but it's doubly hilarious that I've pointed this out to you three times, and here you are still trying to defend it, rather than simply saying "Oops, I messed up."
It is A WASTE OF MY TIME to argue with you. You don't learn. I won't do it any more. And I'm going to give a copy of this to my grandchildren.
No, I said both sides of a thermal superconductor enclosing shell are at 149.6F.
Haha. Here are your words.
At equilibrium, the enclosing shell radiates the same power out as the heated plate did before it was enclosed. But its area is 1.0025 times larger, so its outer temperature is 149.6F (338.5K) instead of 150.0F (338.7K).
A_h*T_h^4 = A_c2*T_c2^4 (Eq. 3)
For the moment, let's pretend the enclosing shell is a thermal superconductor, so its inner temperature is also 149.6F (338.5K). Energy conservation at equilibrium just inside the enclosing shell shows [dumbscientist.com] that the heated sphere will warm to an equilibrium temperature of 233.8F (385.3K)
But its inner temperature ISN'T 149.6F, because it's being heated from the inside, not the outside. You calculate a temperature due to heating on the inside, with its area, then account for a reduced temperature on the outside due to increased area, then try to turn around and say the temperature on the inside is the same as the outside.
I'm not changing a thing. This is the same criticism I gave before (just in more detail). And you're STILL full of shit, you pretender.
Oh, Jesus Christ. I actually started to have a serious discussion with you, then you had to obfuscate it and throw n all this other bullshit.
Every goddamned time. I thought we'd actually settle this scientifically, once and for all, but I see that you were never really interested in that anyway. I think other readers (which there WILL be) will conclude the same.
Really sorry if you're dying, but if so (I didn't believe it for a moment) you can go knowing that you abdicated on a chance to prove to the world that you can solve "civilization-paralyzing misinformation".
And I will know that you went exactly as you (from what you have shown me, anyway) deserve: unknown and deservedly so.
I offered to work through this with you reasonably, from start to finish. Even after you have repeatedly demonstrated that I have to reasonable obligation to you, to do so. You have refused.
End of discussion. End of ALL discussions with you, as far as I am concerned. Given that I have often offered to discuss this openly with you, and you have continually refused, then the matter is done. You lose by default because you refuse to lose like a man.
Spencer's INITIAL description of his thought experiment. As I have told you several time. This first, then more if you want to get into it. I will not discuss this with you in the other order, AS I HAVE TOLD YOU. Because until you get that right, you're not going to get the other one right. If you continue to argue the other case first, then we are done, and I will write you off as hopeless.
Again, as long as the enclosing shell is nearly the same size as the heated plate, those areas are nearly irrelevant. And because it's a simpler problem (like a tricycle) one should master it before trying to ride a bicycle with complicated view factors. I already specified my areas. Again, neglecting area ratios predicts that the heated plate warms from 150F to 235F after it's enclosed. Accounting for area ratios similar to Earth's predicts that the heated plate warms from 150F to 233.8F.
No "enclosing shell". Two parallel plates. The original thought experiment is two parallel plates (we can make them of equal volume and dimensions just to simplify, but it's not necessary). I repeat: we briefly discussed "even if it were enclosing" but that's a complication of the original, and we'll solve the original first.
What the fuck am I doing? I actually started to solve this for you, after telling you I wouldn't. It must be very late on a Friday night.
Also, I don't think we're assuming black bodies. The best we can realistically do is grey bodies that absorb in all the relevant frequencies under discussion.
What the hell. Anything is better than your "thermal superconductors" that you then claim are different temperatures on different sides. Do you remember that is the second time you tried to pull that? I bet not.
Currently with inflation at 1.5 - 2, the budget should be balanced and taxes moderate.
If you really believe inflation has been at 1.5-2%, you're either a complete loon, or you haven't tried to buy a house lately, or you've totally swallowed the government Kool-Aid.
OR, more likely, you've just been letting the wife buy the groceries and not listen to her complaints about the prices.
For fuck's sake, man, if you knew how CPI was calculated you'd never listen to that BS.
You have made it abundantly clear that your interest here is to try to make me look bad. You can pretend you are having an "argument" all you like, but an objective observer can (has, actually) easily see that it is not so.
I have no reason to participate in your game and give you the satisfaction, regardless of the fact that (past evidence shows, and that's another truth) you would lose anyway. I have better things to do with my time.
To put it another way: this isn't worth my time. I will not respond further.
My point in the last post, which I have made before and will repeat, is that either you're not competent to analyze this, or (probably more likely), you are attempting yet again to misdirect from the real science.
Your behavior has been classic: call someone who disagrees a nutcase (which you have done both explicitly and implicitly many times now) or "conspiracy theorist", and then when that doesn't work, and you are pushed to the wall, misdirect with half-answers that seem to be real but which are actually just straw-man arguments. You have done this so many times now it is becoming quite hilarious. But it's still a pain in the ass, and it's still antisocial behavior if not worse.
An actual, complete analysis of the situation gives actual, real answers which contradict your conclusions above. You have continued to try to weasel out of it, but it isn't working. The facts still remain and you're still wrong.
Actually, yes it is. This first example isn't NOAA, it is just for illustration, because it was a handy but excellent example of the same kind of shenanigans. (Note, I'm not claiming "conspiracy" here but incompetence and certain other circumstances can lead to the same net result.) The data is from official sources, the same datasets that scientists use, as is the progressive "adjustment" of same. The historical (official) record is quite clear. The linked story is not itself "the scientific literature", of course, but the official historical temperature data IS.
Now go look at NOAA and GISS explanations of their TOBS "adjustments" for just one more example, and compare them against analyses of the actual historical temperature records (which are, in fact, the very basis of much of the "scientific literature" ). It's not just there, it's all over the place for anyone who bothers to look. Not that I expect you to. You appear to want people to not look, by calling anyone who dares to question authority a nutcase conspiracy theorist.
Speed brings nothing to table in personal computing anymore (outside of gaming and i'm not and have been a gamer).
There are LOTS of applications outside of gaming where more speed is appreciated. Especially if you're a professional. (Of course, it's arguable you didn't mean that when you said "personal" computing, but I'm not working in an office, and my work machine is my "personal" machine.)
I was chugging along with a c2d for a long time too. But there came a time when it was long past due for replacement.
I have looked this over, and looked at my references again. And you're still wrong. You're mischaracterizing the thermodynamics of this experiment rather egregiously. I don't know whether you are doing it intentionally or otherwise, but you're doing it.
I mentioned this to you several times, but you haven't picked up on it: just for one thing, you're claiming to be using flux but flux has an areal component which you are not accounting for. You say power in = power out, which may be true, but that total power is being transferred via emissive power, which is in W/m^2. Nowhere are you accounting for this. As I stated before: you are conflating power and emissive power, and you can't do that. Where are your areas? It might conserve energy but without areas you do not have the information required to calculate actual radiative temperature.
There are number of other factors you are 're not accounting for. My statement stands: your attempted analysis of Spencer's thought experiment is nothing but a clusterfuck pretending to be physics.
I told you where you can find a complete treatment of the actual thermodymics of this situation. If you'd actually read it and understood it (and were honest), you'd know that with a reasonable degree of precision it is correct.
You state on your website:
Radiation is proportional to T**4, so the magnitude of actual transfer is only related to T(h)**4 - T(c)**4 because hot objects absorb radiation from cooler objects. Thatâ(TM)s consistent with the second law because hot objects radiate more power to cold objects than vice versa.
Yes, this is true (with the exception of the word "only"), but you are neglecting so many other factors that this statement is meaningless in context. Nobody is claiming this statement is essentially wrong... in fact I've made it myself several times. But the devil is in the details. As you show quite well by going on to misapply it:
Nonsense. Start with conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium: power in = power out.
The plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. The cold walls at 0ÂF (T(c) = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150ÂF (T(h) = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m**2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigmaT(c)**4 = sigmaT(h)**4
This is a joke, right? Trying to see if I'd catch it?
Again, among other things you are substituting irradiance for power without factoring in any area. That's just simply bad math. And I repeat: you have also invalidly ignored other factors which may not be ignored.
Create a realistic scenario, draw yourself a diagram, and run some actual numbers on them rather than just tossing equations around without seeing how they fit together in the real world.
I repeat: get the experiment with the two separate plates (actively heated plate and passive plate) right first. Then you can move on to a fully-enclosing plate. You say it's simpler but in a way it's not; you're trying to ride a bicycle when you haven't even managed to ride your tricycle without falling off.
There are numerous sources, including physics and engineering textbooks, which contradict your analysis and conclusions. Why don't you try the engineering textbooks Latour cited, which have examples of real-world situations? After all: ultimately what we're talking about here is the real world, not a thought experiment.
Slashdot Mirror
As I've repeatedly and consistently stressed, "T_c" is only identical on both sides of the enclosing cold plate if it's a thermal superconductor.
We have never disagreed on this. The problem is that there is no such thing as a thermal superconductor of this kind, and you aren't seeing that it leads to contradictions. The only way it could exist would be if it had NO thermal effect on its surroundings whatever. So it's the ultimate straw-man argument. There is no way it can be legitimately used to demonstrate anything.
Since you just linked to this excellent example, did you notice that MIT solved this problem at the very top and got a completely different answer than Dr. Latour?
No, they didn't, because it's a different problem, being given a theoretical treatment. You keep doing that, but I'm not buying. Two infinite plates, neither of which is heated, is not even remotely the same situation, and it's also theoretical only. They're not taking into account certain real-world factors pertaining to Spencer's experiment. Latour does. Not that they're doing anything wrong... given the context of their situation: infinite non-heated grey bodies. This is not Spencer's experiment.
I've showed that Dr. Latour was wrong because his claim violates conservation of energy. Again, in physics that's a really big mistake.
No, you didn't. You did not point to a calculation he performed on Spencer's situation and prove it wrong. You took what you incorrectly called an analogous situation and called that wrong. Which has been my whole point here. You keep claiming something else represents Spencer's experiment, but you won't tackle Spencer's actual, original experiment. You have consistently refused, for over 2 years.
You can toss around equations all you like, but if you're not applying them to the experiment actually under discussion (and you haven't been), you're still not proving anything. You're just moving the goalposts.
And that's why I've said I'm out of here. You continue to refuse to actually do what you said you'd done: refute Latour's treatment of Spencer's challenge. You can keep prevaricating and beating around the bush and straw-manning and moving the goalposts, and I'll just keep telling you why you're wrong. Or rather, no I won't. I've done that too many times already.
How do you explain why all the insurance companies are convinced this is a problem?
That's dirt simple. If they can claim it's a problem, they can charge higher rates. So whenever they find something that they can even remotely get away with claiming to be a problem, they claim it is a problem. Whether it's true or not.
This is hardly a genius-level concept.
Melting has always occurred around Antarctica. That doesn't mean it's losing ice.
The net gain (86 Gigatons / year) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.
[emphasis mine]
Funny how these contrary studies have never seemed to make the headlines on Slashdot.
Sure, but as I say, I don't work in an office and there aren't lots of people using my network. Only one or two. So a 4-core machine is usually fine, but faster is still better. It would be great to have $2000-$3000 for an 8-core Haswell-E with motherboard and all the associated components, but it's not in the budget right now. Maybe next year. Besides, clock speed should be up again by then.
Superconductors are distinguished from aluminum by internal properties, not radiative surface properties. That's because conduction happens inside materials, whereas radiation is emitted and absorbed on surfaces.
You're not thinking.
We're talking about the context of SPENCER'S experiment. The only heat transfer in or out is radiation. It order for it to actually superconduct all the heat absorbed, it has to dispose of that heat somehow. The only way it has to do that is to super-radiate as well (emissivity very close to 1). This is the only logical conclusion. Otherwise it could not be a thermal superconductor; it would build up heat and HAVE TO conduct it away more slowly, like any other material. And there is a similar argument for absorptivity.
You keep wanting to have things both ways but that isn't going to work.
I am aware that the only thing that has an emissivity and absorptivity of 1 is a black body. I'm not stupid. But your hypothetical thermal superconductor could not store heat like a black body and remain a superconductor. That's a contradiction. So it's a different creature, from your imagination. This is why I say: leave it out. There is no way you can try to demonstrate anything else with it, either, without leading to a contradiction. And it's not part of the original experiment anyway; it's nothing but misdirection.
Remember that the inner surface of the enclosing shell is different than the surface of the heated plate. The inner and outer surfaces of the enclosing shell are at exactly the same temperature because it's a thermal superconductor. That's what I've always been saying, despite your attempts to pretend otherwise.
I quoted your words above.
At equilibrium, the enclosing shell radiates the same power out as the heated plate did before it was enclosed. But its area is 1.0025 times larger, so its outer temperature is 149.6F (338.5K) instead of 150.0F (338.7K).
In order for what you say to be correct, then the "enclosing shell" you refer to is not the heated plate enclosing the source. Which would mean you were talking about a completely different experiment, not even the one Spencer mentioned with the heated plate enclosing the source.
I'm not interested. Original experiment. Latour's treatment of it. Show where he was wrong. Period. Stop prevaricating.
Don't you see that you threw in this whole "thermal superconductor" schtick without considering what properties a thermal superconductor must actually have?
In order to superconduct, it must be the same temperature everywhere, always. The only way this would be even remotely possible were if it were a perfect radiator, with emissivity of 1. It would also be a perfect absorber, absorptivity of 1. Regardless of wavelength.
So while this might not technically be true, for all practical purposes it is: a thermal superconductor would be completely transparent to all radiation, and there is no way to heat it or cool it in relation to its surroundings. It has no "thermal mass".
So it would have absolutely no effect on anything in this experiment. For practical purposes, it would not exist.
Your idea that you can get around this by placing some kind of thin lining on its interior doesn't work. It's still as though it weren't there at all... all you have left for practical purposes is the thin shell, nothing else.
Trying to use it as part of your demonstration won't wash. Every time you try to demonstrate something with it, you end up contradicting yourself. (Which I have pointed out to you many times now. Not just twice, more like 5 or 6 times.)
That's why I say: no more prevarication. No more beating about the bush. Take Spencer's original challenge, apply Latour's thermodynamic treatment of it, and show where it is wrong.
Anything else constitutes failure to back up your claim that Latour is wrong and -- as you have said more than once -- some kind of nutcase. You've had more than 2 years. That is plenty.
Like accuracy, you mean?
The official end of Summer is the moment before Autumn starts, sometime around the 20th of September, give or take.
And I want to be clear about this: I'm not demanding anything from you. YOU are the one who proclaimed Latour wrong, therefore it is your burden to demonstrate that he actually is, by showing exactly where he is incorrect.
I really don't give a damn whether you believe it or not. I'm not the one following you around, casting personal aspersions against YOU. I've just been defending myself from YOUR malicious attacks.
The whole point: You claimed Latour was wrong. But you refuse to back up your claim by showing WHERE in his calculations he was incorrect. That's your burden and you haven't been meeting it. Until you do, you have no argument to make. You can throw all the ad-hominem and straw-man arguments and irrelevancies in that you want, but none of it proves you correct. Until you actually show where Latour made a mistake, in his actual calculations related to this experiment, you're wrong by default.
I've stressed that this thought experiment has been tested for decades in the real world. Radiation shields allow for more accurate measurements of gas temperatures using thermocouples:
... surround the probe with a radiation shield ... The thermocouple bead radiates to the shield which is much hotter than the surrounding walls. Thus the radiative loss and hence temperature error is significantly reduced. The shield itself radiates to the walls."
"The greatest problem with measuring gas temperatures is combatting radiation loss.
Here is an excellent example of this (19.3.2), which illustrates why it is a straw-man argument that is not relevant to the problem at hand. In this case the walls are warmer, not cooler, and the radiation shield is blocking the thermocouple from the radiation inward from the chamber walls, so that it can get an accurate temperature reading of the air without interference from the walls. In your case, it is the opposite: the walls are cooler than the thermocouple. But in neither case is the situation a representation of equilibrium (for example in this case, air is convecting away some of the heat of the thermocouple). The shield is absorbing and emitting radiation, too, it's just that it is isolated from the chamber walls, and so is closer to the ambient temperature of the medium being measured.
This is in no way related to our experiment at all. It is in a vacuum. There is no "medium" to measure, with an ambient temperature. Not even remotely. It's simply another illustration of the depths of hand-waving you will go to, rather than actually doing all the calculations on the actual experiment from start to finish.
All you're doing is tossing in more straw-men and irrelevancies. You won't do the actual experiment. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn here is that you won't do it because you know you're wrong.
No, I'm not wrong. You calculated the outside temperature from the inside temperature, saying it's LOWER because of its greater area. This much is correct.
THEN you try to say that with a thermal superconductor, the inner temperature would be the same as outside. Except you just calculated that outside temperature from a WARMER interior. You quite literally can't have it both ways. EITHER you're claiming a superconductor has a different temperature on both sides, or you're claiming that the inside has 2 different temperatures simultaneously.
Over a period of MORE THAN TWO YEARS, I have repeatedly tried to engage you in a thorough analysis of this experiment. EVERY TIME, you have done (usually incorrectly) a partial analysis, then declared the subject proved. But it never was. When pressed, you resorted to the same kind of bullshit you have pulled here, with ad-hominem, not-sequiturs, and straw-men. NEVER daring to face the full problem in real detail.
Because you KNOW Latour was correct. And it isn't just him. TEXTBOOKS about practical applications of thermodynamics say so.
You have NEVER, ONCE, tackled the problem head-on. Always a little twist here, a little change there, let's ignore areal exposure to the ambient radiation, ad nauseum. Always weaseling sideways, never quite taking on the task of REFUTING LATOUR, even though that's what you claimed to be doing, with all your misdirection.
Well, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, even though I honestly don't believe you deserve it. I am willing to concede that you really are a Kool-Aid drinker, and can't accept that the dogma isn't what you thought it was. That's preferable to believing that you're simply a malicious lying sonofabitch.
I am fucking well done here.
No, I said both sides of a thermal superconductor enclosing shell are at 149.6F.
Haha. Here are your words.
At equilibrium, the enclosing shell radiates the same power out as the heated plate did before it was enclosed. But its area is 1.0025 times larger, so its outer temperature is 149.6F (338.5K) instead of 150.0F (338.7K).
A_h*T_h^4 = A_c2*T_c2^4 (Eq. 3)
For the moment, let's pretend the enclosing shell is a thermal superconductor, so its inner temperature is also 149.6F (338.5K). Energy conservation at equilibrium just inside the enclosing shell shows [dumbscientist.com] that the heated sphere will warm to an equilibrium temperature of 233.8F (385.3K)
But its inner temperature ISN'T 149.6F, because it's being heated from the inside, not the outside. You calculate a temperature due to heating on the inside, with its area, then account for a reduced temperature on the outside due to increased area, then try to turn around and say the temperature on the inside is the same as the outside.
I'm not changing a thing. This is the same criticism I gave before (just in more detail). And you're STILL full of shit, you pretender. This is the most ludicrous thing I've heard coming from someone who claims to be a real scientist in years.
I've heard some "doozies", as they say, but it's doubly hilarious that I've pointed this out to you three times, and here you are still trying to defend it, rather than simply saying "Oops, I messed up."
It is A WASTE OF MY TIME to argue with you. You don't learn. I won't do it any more. And I'm going to give a copy of this to my grandchildren.
No, I said both sides of a thermal superconductor enclosing shell are at 149.6F.
Haha. Here are your words.
At equilibrium, the enclosing shell radiates the same power out as the heated plate did before it was enclosed. But its area is 1.0025 times larger, so its outer temperature is 149.6F (338.5K) instead of 150.0F (338.7K).
A_h*T_h^4 = A_c2*T_c2^4 (Eq. 3)
For the moment, let's pretend the enclosing shell is a thermal superconductor, so its inner temperature is also 149.6F (338.5K). Energy conservation at equilibrium just inside the enclosing shell shows [dumbscientist.com] that the heated sphere will warm to an equilibrium temperature of 233.8F (385.3K)
But its inner temperature ISN'T 149.6F, because it's being heated from the inside, not the outside. You calculate a temperature due to heating on the inside, with its area, then account for a reduced temperature on the outside due to increased area, then try to turn around and say the temperature on the inside is the same as the outside.
I'm not changing a thing. This is the same criticism I gave before (just in more detail). And you're STILL full of shit, you pretender.
Oh, Jesus Christ. I actually started to have a serious discussion with you, then you had to obfuscate it and throw n all this other bullshit.
Every goddamned time. I thought we'd actually settle this scientifically, once and for all, but I see that you were never really interested in that anyway. I think other readers (which there WILL be) will conclude the same.
Really sorry if you're dying, but if so (I didn't believe it for a moment) you can go knowing that you abdicated on a chance to prove to the world that you can solve "civilization-paralyzing misinformation".
And I will know that you went exactly as you (from what you have shown me, anyway) deserve: unknown and deservedly so.
I offered to work through this with you reasonably, from start to finish. Even after you have repeatedly demonstrated that I have to reasonable obligation to you, to do so. You have refused.
End of discussion. End of ALL discussions with you, as far as I am concerned. Given that I have often offered to discuss this openly with you, and you have continually refused, then the matter is done. You lose by default because you refuse to lose like a man.
Pardon me.
s/equal volume and dimensions/equal dimensions
Again, as long as the enclosing shell is nearly the same size as the heated plate, those areas are nearly irrelevant. And because it's a simpler problem (like a tricycle) one should master it before trying to ride a bicycle with complicated view factors. I already specified my areas. Again, neglecting area ratios predicts that the heated plate warms from 150F to 235F after it's enclosed. Accounting for area ratios similar to Earth's predicts that the heated plate warms from 150F to 233.8F.
No "enclosing shell". Two parallel plates. The original thought experiment is two parallel plates (we can make them of equal volume and dimensions just to simplify, but it's not necessary). I repeat: we briefly discussed "even if it were enclosing" but that's a complication of the original, and we'll solve the original first.
What the fuck am I doing? I actually started to solve this for you, after telling you I wouldn't. It must be very late on a Friday night.
Also, I don't think we're assuming black bodies. The best we can realistically do is grey bodies that absorb in all the relevant frequencies under discussion.
What the hell. Anything is better than your "thermal superconductors" that you then claim are different temperatures on different sides. Do you remember that is the second time you tried to pull that? I bet not.
Currently with inflation at 1.5 - 2, the budget should be balanced and taxes moderate.
If you really believe inflation has been at 1.5-2%, you're either a complete loon, or you haven't tried to buy a house lately, or you've totally swallowed the government Kool-Aid.
OR, more likely, you've just been letting the wife buy the groceries and not listen to her complaints about the prices.
For fuck's sake, man, if you knew how CPI was calculated you'd never listen to that BS.
Let's be clear:
You have made it abundantly clear that your interest here is to try to make me look bad. You can pretend you are having an "argument" all you like, but an objective observer can (has, actually) easily see that it is not so.
I have no reason to participate in your game and give you the satisfaction, regardless of the fact that (past evidence shows, and that's another truth) you would lose anyway. I have better things to do with my time.
To put it another way: this isn't worth my time. I will not respond further.
Right, you're just making shit up now and attributing it to me.
That's called "lying".
Don't be an ass. That isn't what I said. I was explaining why NOAA's datasets are not trustworthy. No more, no less.
On second thought, based on recent experience, I won't tell you to not be an ass anymore, because if you did you'd disappear.
My point in the last post, which I have made before and will repeat, is that either you're not competent to analyze this, or (probably more likely), you are attempting yet again to misdirect from the real science.
Your behavior has been classic: call someone who disagrees a nutcase (which you have done both explicitly and implicitly many times now) or "conspiracy theorist", and then when that doesn't work, and you are pushed to the wall, misdirect with half-answers that seem to be real but which are actually just straw-man arguments. You have done this so many times now it is becoming quite hilarious. But it's still a pain in the ass, and it's still antisocial behavior if not worse.
An actual, complete analysis of the situation gives actual, real answers which contradict your conclusions above. You have continued to try to weasel out of it, but it isn't working. The facts still remain and you're still wrong.
Certainly not in the scientific literature.
Actually, yes it is. This first example isn't NOAA, it is just for illustration, because it was a handy but excellent example of the same kind of shenanigans. (Note, I'm not claiming "conspiracy" here but incompetence and certain other circumstances can lead to the same net result.) The data is from official sources, the same datasets that scientists use, as is the progressive "adjustment" of same. The historical (official) record is quite clear. The linked story is not itself "the scientific literature", of course, but the official historical temperature data IS.
Now go look at NOAA and GISS explanations of their TOBS "adjustments" for just one more example, and compare them against analyses of the actual historical temperature records (which are, in fact, the very basis of much of the "scientific literature" ). It's not just there, it's all over the place for anyone who bothers to look. Not that I expect you to. You appear to want people to not look, by calling anyone who dares to question authority a nutcase conspiracy theorist.
Nice try, but it won't work.
Speed brings nothing to table in personal computing anymore (outside of gaming and i'm not and have been a gamer).
There are LOTS of applications outside of gaming where more speed is appreciated. Especially if you're a professional. (Of course, it's arguable you didn't mean that when you said "personal" computing, but I'm not working in an office, and my work machine is my "personal" machine.)
I was chugging along with a c2d for a long time too. But there came a time when it was long past due for replacement.
I mentioned this to you several times, but you haven't picked up on it: just for one thing, you're claiming to be using flux but flux has an areal component which you are not accounting for. You say power in = power out, which may be true, but that total power is being transferred via emissive power, which is in W/m^2. Nowhere are you accounting for this. As I stated before: you are conflating power and emissive power, and you can't do that. Where are your areas? It might conserve energy but without areas you do not have the information required to calculate actual radiative temperature.
There are number of other factors you are 're not accounting for. My statement stands: your attempted analysis of Spencer's thought experiment is nothing but a clusterfuck pretending to be physics.
I told you where you can find a complete treatment of the actual thermodymics of this situation. If you'd actually read it and understood it (and were honest), you'd know that with a reasonable degree of precision it is correct.
You state on your website:
Radiation is proportional to T**4, so the magnitude of actual transfer is only related to T(h)**4 - T(c)**4 because hot objects absorb radiation from cooler objects. Thatâ(TM)s consistent with the second law because hot objects radiate more power to cold objects than vice versa.
Yes, this is true (with the exception of the word "only"), but you are neglecting so many other factors that this statement is meaningless in context. Nobody is claiming this statement is essentially wrong... in fact I've made it myself several times. But the devil is in the details. As you show quite well by going on to misapply it:
Nonsense. Start with conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium: power in = power out.
The plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. The cold walls at 0ÂF (T(c) = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150ÂF (T(h) = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m**2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigmaT(c)**4 = sigmaT(h)**4
This is a joke, right? Trying to see if I'd catch it?
Again, among other things you are substituting irradiance for power without factoring in any area. That's just simply bad math. And I repeat: you have also invalidly ignored other factors which may not be ignored.
Create a realistic scenario, draw yourself a diagram, and run some actual numbers on them rather than just tossing equations around without seeing how they fit together in the real world.
I repeat: get the experiment with the two separate plates (actively heated plate and passive plate) right first. Then you can move on to a fully-enclosing plate. You say it's simpler but in a way it's not; you're trying to ride a bicycle when you haven't even managed to ride your tricycle without falling off.
There are numerous sources, including physics and engineering textbooks, which contradict your analysis and conclusions. Why don't you try the engineering textbooks Latour cited, which have examples of real-world situations? After all: ultimately what we're talking about here is the real world, not a thought experiment.