... you KNOW Latour was correct. And it isn't just him. TEXTBOOKS about practical applications of thermodynamics say so.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]
Again, I already showed you that MIT's equation reduces to my Eq. 1 for blackbodies, and is consistent with theseequations and Eq. 1 in Goodman 1957. 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."
These radiation shields have been used since at least Daniels 1968 (PDF), and they work like Dr. Spencer's insulating plate. They slow radiative heat loss from the hotter thermocouple. If Jane and Dr. Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer misinformation is correct, why have accurate thermocouples used radiation shields since at least 1968? Isn't that an example of a "real world" situation that's ultimately what we're talking about?
After twicepretending that I'd claimed the inner temperature wasn't equal to its outer temperature of 149.6F... now you make that incorrect claim yourself? Bizarrely, I have to point out that a thermal superconductor enclosing shell will have an inner temperature equal to its outer temperature, exactly as I originally said.
This reminds me of your other similar mistake that you haven't acknowledged:
A plate near the heat source is NOT even remotely the same as closing the drain on a bathtub, because the total power out of the system (it's a closed system with heat being removed, remember?) remains constant, as you have so conveniently observed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-28]
Completely backwards, as usual. I've never observed any such ridiculous nonsense. That's actually Jane's ridiculous "observation" which I've already tried to correct:
"... Hopefully it's also clear that Jane's also wrong to claim that the power used by the cooler is required to be constant. The chamber wall temperature is held constant, so the power used by the cooler temporarily decreases after the enclosing plate is added, until it reaches equilibrium."
Jane, you just quoted me saying that "its outer temperature is 149.6F... let's pretend the enclosing shell is a thermal superconductor, so its inner temperature is also 149.6F"
Don't you see how my quote shows you were wrong to twicepretend that I'd claimed otherwise?
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.... No "enclosing shell". Two parallel plates. The original thought experiment is two parallel plates (we can make them of equal 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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]
Once again, solving a problem without spherical symmetry means you'll have to solve for equilibrium temperatures which aren't constant across the heated and passive plates. Those equilibrium temperatures wouldn't be simple numbers. They'd be complicated functions that would vary across the plate surfaces. Contrast that with a spherically symmetric enclosing plate, where equilibrium temperatures are just simple numbers.
Are you disputing those facts, or do you really not see which of these problems is more complicated?
... 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.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]
I already solved the problem for graybodies, and showed that the graybody equation reduces to the blackbody equation. That's why it's useful to solve the simpler blackbody problem first, to provide a sanity check on the more complicated solution.
...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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]
I've never claimed that, but this is the second time you've tried to pretend I have. Once again:
... its outer temperature is 149.6F... pretend the enclosing shell is a thermal superconductor, so its inner temperature is also 149.6F... [Dumb Scientist]
So, first you postulate a thermal superconductor, and then assert that it has a far higher temperature on one side than on the other? What a magical world you must live in. [Jane Q. Public]
No, I said both sides of a thermal superconductor enclosing shell are at 149.6F.
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.... No "enclosing shell". Two parallel plates. The original thought experiment is two parallel plates (we can make them of equal 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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]
Once again, solving a problem without spherical symmetry means you'll have to solve for equilibrium temperatures which aren't constant across the heated and passive plates. Those equilibrium temperatures wouldn't be simple numbers. They'd be complicated functions that would vary across the plate surfaces. Contrast that with a spherically symmetric enclosing plate, where equilibrium temperatures are just simple numbers.
Are you disputing those facts, or do you really not see which of these problems is more complicated?
... 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.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]
I already solved the problem for graybodies, and showed that the graybody equation reduces to the blackbody equation. That's why it's useful to solve the simpler blackbody problem first, to provide a sanity check on the more complicated solution.
...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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]
I've never claimed that, but this is the second time you've tried to pretend I have. Once again:
... its outer temperature is 149.6F... pretend the enclosing shell is a thermal superconductor, so its inner temperature is also 149.6F... [Dumb Scientist]
So, first you postulate a thermal superconductor, and then assert that it has a far higher temperature on one side than on the other? What a magical world you must live in. [Jane Q. Public]
No, I said both sides of a thermal superconductor enclosing shell are at 149.6F.
... power in = 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.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-29]
Again, start with power in = power out through a boundary with surface area "A". Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation because we can divide both sides by "A" to obtain irradiance in = irradiance out.
... 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.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-29]
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.
So the tricycle isn't too inaccurate compared to the bicycle, it's much easier to learn, and it provides a sanity check on the more complicated calculation. As the area ratio approaches "1.0" the bicycle should give the same answer as the simpler tricycle. And it does.
Incidentally, that tricycle is much more accurate than Jane'sprediction that the heated plate remains at 150F even after it's enclosed.
... 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.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-29]
No. A spherical heated plate with a fully-enclosing shell has spherical symmetry, so the heated and enclosing plate temperatures are constant across their surfaces. That's why the equilibrium temperature solutions are just simple numbers.
However, if the passive plate doesn't fully enclose the heated plate then the heated and enclosing plate temperatures would be complicated functions of spherical coordinates theta and phi. That's a unicycle, not a tricycle.
... There are numerous sources, including physics and engineering textbooks, which contradict your analysis and conclusions. Why don't you try the engi
A plate near the heat source is NOT even remotely the same as closing the drain on a bathtub, because the total power out of the system (it's a closed system with heat being removed, remember?) remains constant, as you have so conveniently observed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-28]
Completely backwards, as usual. I've never observed any such ridiculous nonsense. That's actually Jane's ridiculous "observation" which I've already tried to correct:
"... Hopefully it's also clear that Jane's also wrong to claim that the power used by the cooler is required to be constant. The chamber wall temperature is held constant, so the power used by the cooler temporarily decreases after the enclosing plate is added, until it reaches equilibrium."
I've repeatedly said the electrical heating power is constant, and that adding an enclosing plate temporarily reduces power out until the heated plate warms to a higher equilibrium temperature.
... Since the temperature of every other object is less than that of the heat source, there is no net heat flow TO the heat source, therefore the heat source does not become hotter. This is, and has been, the whole of Latour's argument, and it is valid. It is not crazy speculation by some nitwit... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-02]
Eq. 1 shows that Jane and "the whole of Latour's argument" are wrong. Net heat transfer doesn't have to flow from plate to source in order to cause the heat source to be hotter. Just reducing the net heat flow from source to plate is sufficient to warm the plate, as long as electrical heating power is constant.
... you're conflating electrical power with "emissive power" or irradiance, which are different things, in different units. Sheesh. You'd at least expect a "physicist" to get that much right. So I gave that much away. And you still didn't deserve it.... Now I have given you your bone, doggie. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-28]
No. As I originally said: "Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation...
Sage solves Eq. 1 for a constant electric input of 509 W/m^2."
So the variable "electricity" has always been in the same units as irradiance, which made the equations simpler. The electrical power used by the heater is "electricity" times the surface area of the heated plate. I've repeatedly noted that electrical heating power is constant, which means that the variable "electricity" is also constant unless the heated plate shape-shifts to change its surface area. Just to be clear, I haven't been considering shapeshifting plates.
Again, it's fascinating that Jane keeps wrongly implying my previous calculations had units confused, but didn't point out the actual units confusion in the eq. 4 I posted.
... I still know things you don't. Why do you think I've felt free to be so glib? I've been watching you make a fool of yourself, ever since you revealed what a despicable human being you are (again, just my opinion of course, but I've had some confirmation). My advice to go do something more worthwhile was sincere. Because if you don't, after you are gone, I will quite happily reveal those things and your "legacy" won't be quite what you thought it was. That's not a threat in any way, it's just a description of the truth.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-28]
Empty bluster won't stop me from continuing to debunk your civilization-paralyzing misinformation as long as I can.
... you still have yet to share with us what this "civilization-paralyzing misinformation" is. It isn't in the links you provided above. And you're still wrong about Spencer and Latour. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-28]
... The plate cannot cause the heat source to be hotter because that would require NET heat transfer in the other direction.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-20]
No. Again, warming the heat source doesn't require net heat transfer from the plate to the source. At equilibrium, power in = power out. Because electrical heating power is constant, the heat source warms even if net "power out" decreases. It doesn't have to reverse direction (plate to source) in order to warm the source.
Maybe an analogy would help. Suppose water flows from a bathtub faucet at a rate of 1 liter/minute. The drain is open, letting water out at 1 liter/minute. Since water in = water out, the bathtub water level is constant.
Now partially close the drain so water only leaves at 0.5 liter/minute. Since water in > water out, the bathtub water level rises.
Raising the bathtub water level doesn't require that the drain reverse direction and start pumping water up from the drain into the bathtub. Because the faucet pours a constant 1 liter/minute into the tub, raising the water level only requires reducing the water out.
... I was only partly wrong about the NATO rounds.... I wasn't wrong, my information was just old.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]
Condescendingly lecturing a veteran like this was wrong: "Bullshit, dude. Maybe where your tour was... Just plain bullshit.... Give up, man. You are trying to argue with someone who knows what she's [she's?!?] talking about.... Jeez, dude. Do you even read your own bullshit?... You may know more than I do about what the military is currently doing, but I do know something about 5.56 ballistics, thank you very fucking much.... maybe you know more about what the military is doing these days, but if that's what they're doing, they're being just plain stupid...."
... So sure, I've made some small errors. And admitted them when I did. But that is only a minority of links above, which you are apparently trying to claim are all "nonsense". Like the beta decay: after some initial confusion I asked how the oscillations take place, and someone answered. I admitted that I was wrong.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]
No, after delt0r answered, you insisted he must not have understood your point. After I repeated delt0r's point, you claimed that you had got yourself sorted out already and accused me of butting in and insulting you.
You've repeated this pattern ad nauseum. After your neutrino rant, you repeatedly claimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong and asked me "why didn't you bother to repeat the part...?" when I actually had repeated that part and responded to it.
In fact, the more I read of these old streams, the more I've found where I was actually correct. (Like the one on bicycle stability for instance.) I have a copy of that paper right here and it says I was correct.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]
It's more likely that your Sauron-classMorton's demon told you that it says you were correct. Just like you've insisted you were still correct about punctuation despite never providing sentences with the plurals of i, a, and u.
... YOUR problem is that you claim these things are nonsense, but you haven't disproved a single one of them. Why not?... in a lot of it I wasn't wrong at all, you just think I was.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]
Because you're galloping faster than any Gish Gallop I've ever seen, and because despite your protests you seldom accept refutations for longer than about 5 minutes anyway.
... One last thing, to anybody else who has bothered to wade through a
That still doesn't explain why the owner of the building himself said that they blew it up. Or why the BBC reported its fall 20 minutes before it actually fell.... blahblah[Jane Q. Public, 2008-08-24]
... Kinda hard to argue with the owner of the building when he publicly says he did it on purpose!... why did the OWNER say that it was done on purpose?... A NY radio station was told beforehand that the building was going to be demolished. The BBC reported the fall of the building 20 minutes before it actually fell.... the odds are strongly against the idea that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.... Does this prove that WTC 7 did not collapse because of the fire? No, of course not. But the credibility of any "official" story by now is very, very thin. [Jane Q. Public, 2008-08-24]
... for example lumping 9/11 together with the moon landing. Those are not even remotely the same class of questions.... On 9/11, for example, there are some very serious questions, raised by very reputable scientists. Not "conspiracy theorists". [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-10]
Your "examples" should not all be grouped together, since some of them are at vastly different levels of "known", compared to the others. For example, some (but by no means all) of the "9/11 truthers" (a very derogatory phrase) have some good evidence to cite. This is hardly something an area that is "unequivocally known".... Further, while flouride may not be a communist plot, there are some very serious ethical issues involved with putting it in drinking water. [Jane Q. Public, 2010-02-24]
... it goes on to say that fluoridated products should NEVER be ingested by children, because of possible adverse effects.
Then it goes on further to say that THERE IS EVIDENCE of other harmful effects from fluoride, PARTICULARLY the form that is commonly put in drinking water.
Now, I want to emphasize something: I am not a “conspiracy theorist”, and I do not believe there is some giant conspiracy to stupidify America via the drinking water. But this is what I very much **DO** believe:
When there are serious, scientifically valid questions about adverse physical effects of a substance (as their are with fluoride), you’re a moron if you want to put it in the drinking water. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-10-19]
... One thing working in the conspiracy theorists' favor is the fact (discovered by reputable scientists with expertise in the subject and no conflict of interest, and independently verified) that the dust from the buildings contained bits of high-tech thermite. Not your everyday garage variety, either, but real high-tech stuff that is usually only available to government and military.... there is documented, solid and confirmed evidence, by university scientists, that not only was there thermite, it was of a particular, restricted commercial variety.... The 9/11 Commission report is nothing but a jok
Hint: rabidly claiming that Obama was born elsewhere is what makes somebody a "birther". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]
In True Scotsman style, you can't be a "birther" unless you have rabies. Except you've previously implied that what makes someone a "birther" is claiming Obama's birth certificate is fake:
I was not a "birther". But I might have been... I thought the President had already proven his birth situation. Apparently not. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]
I was not a "birther". But now I am tempted. Apparently there is pretty good evidence that Obama's new birth certificate is fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]
I have to admit: most of my doubts are now gone. The President's birth certificate (shown so prominently on Oprah) is a fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]
Now, look. I'm not trying to say that Obama was not born in the United States. However, the preponderance of the evidence does suggest that. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]
The publisher's website said Obama was born in Kenya until 2 months AFTER he announced he was running for President. exm.nr/LksgJ9[Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]
... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]
Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]
... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]
That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]
... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake?... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]
Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]
... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them.... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]
... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]
One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]
Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]
I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]
... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]
... since you mention power... are you sure you don't have your units confused somewhere? But oops... I told you I wouldn't give you any more hints.... I know they [the PSI Slayers] will (quite correctly) tear your arguments to shreds, and I even know how they'll do it.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]
... I know where you're making at least one mistake, but I already told you that you're going to have to discover it on your own. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-07]
It's fascinating that you'd wrongly implied my previous calculations had units confused somewhere, but haven't pointed out the actual units confusion in the eq. 4 I posted yesterday.
I made a mistake by forgetting to divide by the 1mm thickness "x" of the enclosing shell:
electricity = k*(T_h - T_c)/x (Eq. 4)
Here's the corrected Sage worksheet; the old wrong worksheet is here. I'm sorry for any confusion this caused, and I've corrected the equation at Dumb Scientist.
The corrected temperatures with the aluminum enclosing shell are so close to those with the superconducting shell that the differences don't show up with the four significant figures I'm using. So my original thermal superconductor approximation was even more accurate than I thought.
"... non-person... disingenuous and intended to mislead... he is either lying... dishonest... intellectually dishonest... intellectually dishonest... Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty... Pathetic.... you've come out the loser in every case... you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person.... cowardice... odious person... you look like a fool... utterly and disgustingly transparent... Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell.... You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about.... Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit.... spewing bullshit... You're making yourself look like a fool.... Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool.... a free lesson in humility... you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter.... Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit.... if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume)... I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do.... stream of BS... idiot... Your assumptions are pure shit.... I'm done babysitting you..."[Jane Q. Public]
Jane, instead of typing all those charming statements, have you considered that it might be quicker and easier to just write down the equation describing conservation of energy aroun
... Pathetic. You've tried to argue with people who really matter (I don't claim to be one of them, but I've seen it a number of times) and you've come out the loser in every case. Even if you had the courage (haha... that's a laugh) of your convictions, you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-27]
... since you mention power... are you sure you don't have your units confused somewhere? But oops... I told you I wouldn't give you any more hints. It is now triply hilarious to me that now I have stopped guiding you by the nose through this problem, you have turned hostile and ad-hominem again. Why do you need my guidance?... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]
You either need guidance, or you've betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
... Regarding your calculations: you're making mistakes that others have already made -- and which have subsequently been shot down -- when trying to refute Latour. I could point a couple of them out now, but I'm not going to. This was amusing at first but I'm done babysitting you. You really need to do your homework. I know you think you're right. But among other things, you're conflating... oops but I said I wouldn't do that. So good bye. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]
You won't point out mistakes because you can't.
Jesus, you're a dumbshit. (That's just a statement of opinion. But an honest one.) I told you before I'm not going to tell you why you're wrong. But here's another hint you don't deserve: I don't dispute your Equation 1, and never have (in a hypothetical ideal context, that is). You're just applying it in a way that doesn't actually apply.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-20]
You won't point out how this simple equation 1 doesn't apply because you can't.
Oh, hell. I'll just give it away, since you're being such a dumbass (my opinion). Among other mistakes, you're making the same one that Watts did when he tried to refute Latour. I have noticed a couple of other mistakes, but that by itself shows you are wrong. [Jane Q. Public]
You won't point out other mistakes because you can't.
... your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck. Here's another hint: I have told you several times where you're wrong, but you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid. Go where this has been debated before if you want your answers. Because you keep demanding them from me even though you were too goddamned stupid to realize that I gave you the clue a long time ago. No more replies. I am through. Again. [Jane Q. Public]
Again, I'd rather not go to that pedophile's website and debate with a child rapist. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.
Why did you wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? If you actually understand how conservation o
Why would you think the experiment has changed? Of course it's still in vacuum. It's the same experiment I described here, based on Dr. Spencer's description of the passive plate enclosing the heated plate. Maybe you should read it again, then explain why you think it just changed.
I've repeatedly explained that net heat flows from the electrical heater to the heated plate, to the enclosing shell. I've repeatedly explained that adding the enclosing shell reduces the net heat flow away from the heated plate, which warms it. I've explained that your bizarre focus on the exact final outer temperature of the enclosing shell relative to the initial temperature of the heated plate is completely irrelevant to the fact that enclosing the heated plate warms it.
The only way you'll be able to understand this is if you write down the equation governing equilibrium temperature. That's why I did that for you. If you still insist that the heated plate doesn't warm when it's enclosed, then write down the equation that you think describes the equilibrium temperature of the heated plate after the enclosing shell is added. If your equation is different than mine, explain why.
As long as you keep insisting that the heated plate doesn't warm when the passive enclosing plate is added, my argument is with you, so I'll keep asking you why you're spreading this civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
Why did you wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? If you actually understand how conservation of energy at equilibrium works, then you must be able to recognize that enclosing a heated plate warms it. So why do you keep insisting otherwise? Do you need physics lessons, or have you betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation?
Energy is conserved, which means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), power going in minus power going out equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. At equilibrium, that rate is zero because the system doesn't change. So at equilibrium, power in = power out. Jane replied:
... I already told you I was being an ass about your "power in equals power out" thing. Trying to lecture me about conservation of energy is particularly pointless, since I need no such lesson.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]
Jane claims he needs no such lesson because he said:
I admit to being an ass there. Mea culpa. But it's irrelevant. As long as the power used by the source and the power used by the cooler are constant as required, any relationship between them has no bearing on the experiment. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-02]
No, the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures isn't irrelevant. Anyone making that claim either needs a lesson about conservation of energy, or is deliberately spreading misinformation.
The basis of all my calculations is the very relevant principle that in equilibrium, power in = power out. I've never even mentioned the power used by the cooler of the chamber walls, so Jane either needs a lesson about conservation of energy or Jane's deliberately spreading misinformation. Which is it?
Remember that conservation of energy at equilibrium let us calculate the 233.8F equilibrium temperature of a heated plate enclosed by a superconducting shell. But we can also account for the finite thermal conductivity of an aluminum shell using this same relevant principle by drawing a boundary within the enclosing shell.
The same relevant principle applies: in equilibrium, power in = power out. Again, electrical power flows in. But all the other boundaries we drew were in vacuum, so heat transfer was by radiation. This time the boundary is inside aluminum, so heat transfer out is by thermal conduction.
electricity = k*(T_h - T_c) (Eq. 4)
For aluminum, thermal conductivity k = 215 W/(m*K). Sage solves this equation for an equilibrium inner shell temperature of 149.9F rather than 149.6F for a superconducting shell. This warms the enclosed plate to 234.0F rather than 233.8F for a superconducting shell.
Hopefully this exercise shows how useful it is to start with the widely applicable principle that in equilibrium, power in = power out. Hopefully it's also clear that none of these equations has anything to do with the power used by the cooler. Hopefully it's also clear that Jane's also wrong to claim that the power used by the cooler is required to be constant. The chamber wall temperature is held constant, so the power used by the cooler temporarily decreases after the enclosing plate is added, until it reaches equilibrium.
Why does Jane wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? Does Jane need a lesson about conservation of energy, or is he deliberately spreading misinformation?
"... Most discussion on the science of AGW revolves around the climatic effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. How it got there in the first place- the assumption being that increased carbon dioxide arises overwhelmingly from human activities- is often taken for granted. Yet Salby believed that he had uncovered clear evidence that this was not the case, as his trip to Europe was designed to expose.... the IPCC declared in its fourth assessment report, in 2007: “The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to be caused by human activities.” Salby contends that the IPCC’s claim isn’t supported by observations.... In Salby’s view, the evidence actually suggests that the causality underlying AGW should be reversed. Rather than increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere triggering global temperatures to rise, rising global temperatures come first- and account for the great majority of changes in net emissions of CO2... temperature appears more likely to be the cause, rather than the effect, of observed atmospheric changes. Further, Salby presents satellite observations showing that the highest levels of CO2 are present not over industrialized regions but over relatively uninhabited and nonindustrialized areas, such as the Amazon.... Salby also contends that temperature alone can largely account for the rise in atmospheric CO2 through the earlier part of the twentieth century... University of Oslo geosciences professor Ole Humlum published a landmark 2012 paper demonstrating that changes of CO2 follow changes of temperature, implying the same cause and effect...."
I told Jane that humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentration. Jane even seemed to agree, calling contrary claims "ridiculous". But today Jane/Lonny regressed again, linking to an article making these ridiculous claims even after Jane said:
"I haven't intentionally disputed this. Not for many years, anyway. I suppose I might have, 4-5 years ago, when I knew next to nothing about the subject. So who are you arguing with?... not only arguing with yourself (since I was not present), but also (again as usual) arguing about something I didn't even say. I wasn't arguing with you about those things. So why did you try to make it appear I did? Why were you trying to give the impression I said something I did not in fact say?... it's doubly hilarious that you're trying to argue with me about something I told you in plain English I wasn't even arguing. Only you."
But Jane/Lonny Eachus is still arguing about the fact that we're responsible for the CO2 rise by linking to that absurd rant and claiming it makes climate science "very Unsettled". The rant Jane/Lonny linked repeats Salby's ridiculous argument, Humlum's ridiculous calculus mistake, and John O'Sullivan's ridiculous misinformation about satellite observations. I've told Jane that they’re ignoring simple accounting, decreasing oxygen, calculus, the seasons, increa
The argument had nothing to do with any other "member" of a "group". As he already knows. It had to do with Pierre Latour's science only, not some "group". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]
You told me to "make these same arguments to Latour and his friends" in his "little group" but I'd rather not, because his "friends" include pedophiles and a child rapist. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.
To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]
Looks like Jane believes John O'Sullivan's disgusting blame the victim act. If Jane knew about the acquittal, it is only reasonable to believe he knew that John O'Sullivan later wrote "Vanilla Girl: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl."
John O'Sullivan even illustrated "Vanilla Girl" but think twice before clicking that link. Not just because it depicts child nudity, but also because you'll have to wash your eyes with bleach to banish the image of a nude John O'Sullivan leering at a topless girl. That leer doesn't seem too different from O'Sullivan's "serious" expression.
"Vanilla Girl" is much more fact-based than "Slaying the Sky Dragon" so Jane might want to read John O'Sullivan's fact-based book before defending him any further. Keep a barf bag handy, though. It's a disturbing glimpse into the mind of a psychopathic pedophile.
John O'Sullivan is CEO of the PSI Slayers, and his behavior makes his smearsagainstMichael Mann an unbelievably ironic example of psychological projection. Even for a climate contrarian.
Khayman80 refuses to refute someone's science to his face -- or even properly read up on the topic -- because (he says) the people involved are reprehensible lowlifes. But not only is that not science, that charge is blatantly false. To publicly call someone a pedophile and "child rapist" based on NO real evidence is a serious breach indeed. He didn't mention any actual names, but that is no excuse because from the context it is very apparent that he meant John O'Sullivan, and if I were him (I am not) I would sue khayman80's ass without a second thought. And probably win
This person has no courage to engage the actual authors of ideas... do it to his face... you should be making these arguments to HIM, not me. Why are you "arguing" with me about this? If you want to refute him, then refute him, in public where other people can see.... If you think you really can refute Latour, then go do it... If you had the courage of your convictions, you would argue with the proper people about this... his little group also does have physicists in it... Why don't you present your argument to Latour?... Latour and friends have had an open challenge out there for more than a year now -- I think closer to two -- asking for anyone who can formally refute his main thesis, which was briefly explained in his rebuttal of Spencer. So far nobody has. Why is that? If you can, why aren't you? Why are you here, trying to argue with me instead? But we both know why, don't we? I'm only asking so that any other people who might read this will ask themselves. Go make these same arguments to Latour and his friends... why aren't you asking the author of the whole thing, rather than me? [Jane Q. Public]
Again, I wouldn't talk with Dr. Latour's friends in his little PSI Slayer group for the same reason I wouldn't talk with SuperAdventure Club members if they existed.
But perhaps a blunter approach is necessary. I don't want to comment at a pedophile's website or talk with Dr. Latour's child rapist friend. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.
Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?
Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?
Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?
Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I already showed you that MIT's equation reduces to my Eq. 1 for blackbodies, and is consistent with these equations and Eq. 1 in Goodman 1957. 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."
These radiation shields have been used since at least Daniels 1968 (PDF), and they work like Dr. Spencer's insulating plate. They slow radiative heat loss from the hotter thermocouple. If Jane and Dr. Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer misinformation is correct, why have accurate thermocouples used radiation shields since at least 1968? Isn't that an example of a "real world" situation that's ultimately what we're talking about?
After twice pretending that I'd claimed the inner temperature wasn't equal to its outer temperature of 149.6F... now you make that incorrect claim yourself? Bizarrely, I have to point out that a thermal superconductor enclosing shell will have an inner temperature equal to its outer temperature, exactly as I originally said.
This reminds me of your other similar mistake that you haven't acknowledged:
Completely backwards, as usual. I've never observed any such ridiculous nonsense. That's actually Jane's ridiculous "observation" which I've already tried to correct:
"... Hopefully it's also clear that Jane's also wrong to claim that the power used by the cooler is required to be constant. The chamber wall temperature is held constant, so the power used by the cooler temporarily decreases after the enclosing plate is added, until it reaches equilibrium."
I've repeat
Jane, you just quoted me saying that "its outer temperature is 149.6F ... let's pretend the enclosing shell is a thermal superconductor, so its inner temperature is also 149.6F"
Don't you see how my quote shows you were wrong to twice pretend that I'd claimed otherwise?
Once again, solving a problem without spherical symmetry means you'll have to solve for equilibrium temperatures which aren't constant across the heated and passive plates. Those equilibrium temperatures wouldn't be simple numbers. They'd be complicated functions that would vary across the plate surfaces. Contrast that with a spherically symmetric enclosing plate, where equilibrium temperatures are just simple numbers.
Are you disputing those facts, or do you really not see which of these problems is more complicated?
I already solved the problem for graybodies, and showed that the graybody equation reduces to the blackbody equation. That's why it's useful to solve the simpler blackbody problem first, to provide a sanity check on the more complicated solution.
I've never claimed that, but this is the second time you've tried to pretend I have. Once again:
No, I said both sides of a thermal superconductor enclosing shell are at 149.6F.
Once again, solving a problem without spherical symmetry means you'll have to solve for equilibrium temperatures which aren't constant across the heated and passive plates. Those equilibrium temperatures wouldn't be simple numbers. They'd be complicated functions that would vary across the plate surfaces. Contrast that with a spherically symmetric enclosing plate, where equilibrium temperatures are just simple numbers.
Are you disputing those facts, or do you really not see which of these problems is more complicated?
I already solved the problem for graybodies, and showed that the graybody equation reduces to the blackbody equation. That's why it's useful to solve the simpler blackbody problem first, to provide a sanity check on the more complicated solution.
I've never claimed that, but this is the second time you've tried to pretend I have. Once again:
No, I said both sides of a thermal superconductor enclosing shell are at 149.6F.
Correction: However, if the passive plate doesn't fully enclose the heated plate then the heated and passive plate temperatures...
Again, start with power in = power out through a boundary with surface area "A". Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation because we can divide both sides by "A" to obtain irradiance in = irradiance out.
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.
So the tricycle isn't too inaccurate compared to the bicycle, it's much easier to learn, and it provides a sanity check on the more complicated calculation. As the area ratio approaches "1.0" the bicycle should give the same answer as the simpler tricycle. And it does.
Incidentally, that tricycle is much more accurate than Jane's prediction that the heated plate remains at 150F even after it's enclosed.
No. A spherical heated plate with a fully-enclosing shell has spherical symmetry, so the heated and enclosing plate temperatures are constant across their surfaces. That's why the equilibrium temperature solutions are just simple numbers.
However, if the passive plate doesn't fully enclose the heated plate then the heated and enclosing plate temperatures would be complicated functions of spherical coordinates theta and phi. That's a unicycle, not a tricycle.
Typo: Just reducing the net heat flow from source to plate is sufficient to warm the source...
Completely backwards, as usual. I've never observed any such ridiculous nonsense. That's actually Jane's ridiculous "observation" which I've already tried to correct:
"... Hopefully it's also clear that Jane's also wrong to claim that the power used by the cooler is required to be constant. The chamber wall temperature is held constant, so the power used by the cooler temporarily decreases after the enclosing plate is added, until it reaches equilibrium."
I've repeatedly said the electrical heating power is constant, and that adding an enclosing plate temporarily reduces power out until the heated plate warms to a higher equilibrium temperature.
Again, Eq. 1 describes equilibrium temperature:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
Eq. 1 shows that Jane and "the whole of Latour's argument" are wrong. Net heat transfer doesn't have to flow from plate to source in order to cause the heat source to be hotter. Just reducing the net heat flow from source to plate is sufficient to warm the plate, as long as electrical heating power is constant.
No. As I originally said: "Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation... Sage solves Eq. 1 for a constant electric input of 509 W/m^2."
So the variable "electricity" has always been in the same units as irradiance, which made the equations simpler. The electrical power used by the heater is "electricity" times the surface area of the heated plate. I've repeatedly noted that electrical heating power is constant, which means that the variable "electricity" is also constant unless the heated plate shape-shifts to change its surface area. Just to be clear, I haven't been considering shapeshifting plates.
Again, it's fascinating that Jane keeps wrongly implying my previous calculations had units confused, but didn't point out the actual units confusion in the eq. 4 I posted.
That's what I told Demena.
Empty bluster won't stop me from continuing to debunk your civilization-paralyzing misinformation as long as I can.
Yes it was. And you're still spreading Dr. Latour's civilization-paralyzing Slayer misinformation:
No. Again, warming the heat source doesn't require net heat transfer from the plate to the source. At equilibrium, power in = power out. Because electrical heating power is constant, the heat source warms even if net "power out" decreases. It doesn't have to reverse direction (plate to source) in order to warm the source.
Maybe an analogy would help. Suppose water flows from a bathtub faucet at a rate of 1 liter/minute. The drain is open, letting water out at 1 liter/minute. Since water in = water out, the bathtub water level is constant.
Now partially close the drain so water only leaves at 0.5 liter/minute. Since water in > water out, the bathtub water level rises.
Raising the bathtub water level doesn't require that the drain reverse direction and start pumping water up from the drain into the bathtub. Because the faucet pours a constant 1 liter/minute into the tub, raising the water level only requires reducing the water out.
Condescendingly lecturing a veteran like this was wrong: "Bullshit, dude. Maybe where your tour was... Just plain bullshit. ... Give up, man. You are trying to argue with someone who knows what she's [she's?!?] talking about. ... Jeez, dude. Do you even read your own bullshit? ... You may know more than I do about what the military is currently doing, but I do know something about 5.56 ballistics, thank you very fucking much. ... maybe you know more about what the military is doing these days, but if that's what they're doing, they're being just plain stupid. ..."
No, after delt0r answered, you insisted he must not have understood your point. After I repeated delt0r's point, you claimed that you had got yourself sorted out already and accused me of butting in and insulting you.
You've repeated this pattern ad nauseum. After your neutrino rant, you repeatedly claimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong and asked me "why didn't you bother to repeat the part...?" when I actually had repeated that part and responded to it.
It's more likely that your Sauron-class Morton's demon told you that it says you were correct. Just like you've insisted you were still correct about punctuation despite never providing sentences with the plurals of i, a, and u.
Because you're galloping faster than any Gish Gallop I've ever seen, and because despite your protests you seldom accept refutations for longer than about 5 minutes anyway.
So you're unable/unwilling to produce these records that you claimed I "don't seem to realize"? Irony?
Is this the record you claim I "don't seem to realize" or can you link to an earlier squirrel?
My point is that you've been spreading nonsense like a firehose for years, and each time your Sauron-class Morton's demon convinces you that you're right and the other person isn't very good at refutation. This doesn't just apply to your nonsense about climate change, dark matter, neutrino oscillation, the Casimir effect and Maxwell's equations, creationists, Obama birthers and 9/11 Truthers.
It also applies to your nonsense about conservation of energy, beta decay, quantum computing, nuclear isomers, Cherenkov radiation, virtual particles, infinities, string theory, cold fusion, R o s s i ' s E - C a t L E N R h o a x, peltier coolers, GPS, bicycle stability, control theory, hyperbolic trajectories,
In True Scotsman style, you can't be a "birther" unless you have rabies. Except you've previously implied that what makes someone a "birther" is claiming Obama's birth certificate is fake:
It's fascinating that you'd wrongly implied my previous calculations had units confused somewhere, but haven't pointed out the actual units confusion in the eq. 4 I posted yesterday.
I made a mistake by forgetting to divide by the 1mm thickness "x" of the enclosing shell:
electricity = k*(T_h - T_c)/x (Eq. 4)
Here's the corrected Sage worksheet; the old wrong worksheet is here. I'm sorry for any confusion this caused, and I've corrected the equation at Dumb Scientist.
The corrected temperatures with the aluminum enclosing shell are so close to those with the superconducting shell that the differences don't show up with the four significant figures I'm using. So my original thermal superconductor approximation was even more accurate than I thought.
"... non-person... disingenuous and intended to mislead ... he is either lying ... dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty ... Pathetic. ... you've come out the loser in every case... you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. ... cowardice ... odious person ... you look like a fool ... utterly and disgustingly transparent ... Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell. ... You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about. ... Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. ... spewing bullshit ... You're making yourself look like a fool. ... Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. ... a free lesson in humility... you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter. ... Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. ... if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume) ... I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do. ... stream of BS... idiot ... Your assumptions are pure shit. ... I'm done babysitting you..." [Jane Q. Public]
Jane, instead of typing all those charming statements, have you considered that it might be quicker and easier to just write down the equation describing conservation of energy aroun
You either need guidance, or you've betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
You won't point out mistakes because you can't.
You won't point out how this simple equation 1 doesn't apply because you can't.
You won't point out other mistakes because you can't.
Again, I'd rather not go to that pedophile's website and debate with a child rapist. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.
Why would you think the experiment has changed? Of course it's still in vacuum. It's the same experiment I described here, based on Dr. Spencer's description of the passive plate enclosing the heated plate. Maybe you should read it again, then explain why you think it just changed.
I've repeatedly explained that net heat flows from the electrical heater to the heated plate, to the enclosing shell. I've repeatedly explained that adding the enclosing shell reduces the net heat flow away from the heated plate, which warms it. I've explained that your bizarre focus on the exact final outer temperature of the enclosing shell relative to the initial temperature of the heated plate is completely irrelevant to the fact that enclosing the heated plate warms it.
The only way you'll be able to understand this is if you write down the equation governing equilibrium temperature. That's why I did that for you. If you still insist that the heated plate doesn't warm when it's enclosed, then write down the equation that you think describes the equilibrium temperature of the heated plate after the enclosing shell is added. If your equation is different than mine, explain why.
As long as you keep insisting that the heated plate doesn't warm when the passive enclosing plate is added, my argument is with you, so I'll keep asking you why you're spreading this civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
Why did you wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? If you actually understand how conservation of energy at equilibrium works, then you must be able to recognize that enclosing a heated plate warms it. So why do you keep insisting otherwise? Do you need physics lessons, or have you betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation?
Energy is conserved, which means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), power going in minus power going out equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. At equilibrium, that rate is zero because the system doesn't change. So at equilibrium, power in = power out. Jane replied:
Jane claims he needs no such lesson because he said:
No, the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures isn't irrelevant. Anyone making that claim either needs a lesson about conservation of energy, or is deliberately spreading misinformation.
The basis of all my calculations is the very relevant principle that in equilibrium, power in = power out. I've never even mentioned the power used by the cooler of the chamber walls, so Jane either needs a lesson about conservation of energy or Jane's deliberately spreading misinformation. Which is it?
Remember that conservation of energy at equilibrium let us calculate the 233.8F equilibrium temperature of a heated plate enclosed by a superconducting shell. But we can also account for the finite thermal conductivity of an aluminum shell using this same relevant principle by drawing a boundary within the enclosing shell.
The same relevant principle applies: in equilibrium, power in = power out. Again, electrical power flows in. But all the other boundaries we drew were in vacuum, so heat transfer was by radiation. This time the boundary is inside aluminum, so heat transfer out is by thermal conduction.
electricity = k*(T_h - T_c) (Eq. 4)
For aluminum, thermal conductivity k = 215 W/(m*K). Sage solves this equation for an equilibrium inner shell temperature of 149.9F rather than 149.6F for a superconducting shell. This warms the enclosed plate to 234.0F rather than 233.8F for a superconducting shell.
Hopefully this exercise shows how useful it is to start with the widely applicable principle that in equilibrium, power in = power out. Hopefully it's also clear that none of these equations has anything to do with the power used by the cooler. Hopefully it's also clear that Jane's also wrong to claim that the power used by the cooler is required to be constant. The chamber wall temperature is held constant, so the power used by the cooler temporarily decreases after the enclosing plate is added, until it reaches equilibrium.
Why does Jane wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? Does Jane need a lesson about conservation of energy, or is he deliberately spreading misinformation?
"If you don't thi
Lonny's link claims that:
"... Most discussion on the science of AGW revolves around the climatic effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. How it got there in the first place- the assumption being that increased carbon dioxide arises overwhelmingly from human activities- is often taken for granted. Yet Salby believed that he had uncovered clear evidence that this was not the case, as his trip to Europe was designed to expose. ... the IPCC declared in its fourth assessment report, in 2007: “The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to be caused by human activities.” Salby contends that the IPCC’s claim isn’t supported by observations. ... In Salby’s view, the evidence actually suggests that the causality underlying AGW should be reversed. Rather than increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere triggering global temperatures to rise, rising global temperatures come first- and account for the great majority of changes in net emissions of CO2... temperature appears more likely to be the cause, rather than the effect, of observed atmospheric changes. Further, Salby presents satellite observations showing that the highest levels of CO2 are present not over industrialized regions but over relatively uninhabited and nonindustrialized areas, such as the Amazon. ... Salby also contends that temperature alone can largely account for the rise in atmospheric CO2 through the earlier part of the twentieth century... University of Oslo geosciences professor Ole Humlum published a landmark 2012 paper demonstrating that changes of CO2 follow changes of temperature, implying the same cause and effect. ..."
I told Jane that humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentration. Jane even seemed to agree, calling contrary claims "ridiculous". But today Jane/Lonny regressed again, linking to an article making these ridiculous claims even after Jane said:
"I haven't intentionally disputed this. Not for many years, anyway. I suppose I might have, 4-5 years ago, when I knew next to nothing about the subject. So who are you arguing with? ... not only arguing with yourself (since I was not present), but also (again as usual) arguing about something I didn't even say. I wasn't arguing with you about those things. So why did you try to make it appear I did? Why were you trying to give the impression I said something I did not in fact say? ... it's doubly hilarious that you're trying to argue with me about something I told you in plain English I wasn't even arguing. Only you."
But Jane/Lonny Eachus is still arguing about the fact that we're responsible for the CO2 rise by linking to that absurd rant and claiming it makes climate science "very Unsettled". The rant Jane/Lonny linked repeats Salby's ridiculous argument, Humlum's ridiculous calculus mistake, and John O'Sullivan's ridiculous misinformation about satellite observations. I've told Jane that they’re ignoring simple accounting, decreasing oxygen, calculus, the seasons, increa
You told me to "make these same arguments to Latour and his friends" in his "little group" but I'd rather not, because his "friends" include pedophiles and a child rapist. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.
Looks like Jane believes John O'Sullivan's disgusting blame the victim act. If Jane knew about the acquittal, it is only reasonable to believe he knew that John O'Sullivan later wrote "Vanilla Girl: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl."
John O'Sullivan even illustrated "Vanilla Girl" but think twice before clicking that link. Not just because it depicts child nudity, but also because you'll have to wash your eyes with bleach to banish the image of a nude John O'Sullivan leering at a topless girl. That leer doesn't seem too different from O'Sullivan's "serious" expression.
"Vanilla Girl" is much more fact-based than "Slaying the Sky Dragon" so Jane might want to read John O'Sullivan's fact-based book before defending him any further. Keep a barf bag handy, though. It's a disturbing glimpse into the mind of a psychopathic pedophile.
John O'Sullivan is CEO of the PSI Slayers, and his behavior makes his smears against Michael Mann an unbelievably ironic example of psychological projection. Even for a climate contrarian.
Again, I wouldn't talk with Dr. Latour's friends in his little PSI Slayer group for the same reason I wouldn't talk with Super Adventure Club members if they existed.
But perhaps a blunter approach is necessary. I don't want to comment at a pedophile's website or talk with Dr. Latour's child rapist friend. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.
Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?
Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?
If Jane could answer this simple question, he wouldn't have spent the time since my last comment regurgitating more nonsense from "Steve Goddard" and issuing "Public Service Announcements" like Jane did at the beginning of this thread.
Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?
Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?