Green Plate Challenge
Izen has turned the Green Plate Effect and his animation into a video just in time for the bunnies to show it to their uncles at Thanksgiving or Christmas. Copy this onto your smart phone for future use
Sunday, November 05, 2017
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
244 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 244 of 244Eli, the system did not *heat up*. You've failed to prove that. There was only photon conversion.
Yes, there is an adiabatic process in Earth's atmosphere, which is what Bernard brought up. We strayed from GPT.
How pathetic of you to not understand that the context of the conversation changed.
Bernard, why can't you add temperatures? Because the hotter subsumes the colder.
You can't add temperatures because temperature is an intensive property and does not depend on size. For example consider one ice cube, T= 273 K, V= 1 cc and a pot of boiling water T = 373 K, V=1000 cc. Drop the ice cube into the water. The temperature is not 646 K
"Marco, the absorption/emission follows from the reflected IR to the tungsten."
For a moment there I had this strange hope that Betty finally got it, but Betty's dismissal of the paper I cited shows this to be an idle hope. After all, Betty claims it is not helpful, even though it calculates, based on the standard view of how physics work, why an IR coating reduces energy use for the same output in the visible light region, and what design features are important to get as much as possible energy saving.
But Betty, are you also aware that you are now contradicting your prior claims? Are you aware that you do not provide a mechanism for this photon upconversion while we *have* provided a mechanism for that "photon upconversion"? That this is the mechanism you continuously claim does not exist?
Allow me to go through this point-by-point, although I predict you'll evade the points and just go on another side track.
1. In your prior claims you stated that photons coming from the colder object cannot interact with the warmer object - later changed to some weird "replacement"-type of argument. You also claimed that an object cannot simultaneously absorb and emit. Yet, here we have a colder object reflecting radiation, or if you really wish, a warm object radiating onto itself, where you now claim there *is* an interaction of that warm object with those photons. In fact, that warm object now simultaneously emits and absorbs, in your own explanation! It thus *does* do something with those photons that fall onto the object!
2. For photon upconversion to occur in a filament that is at very high temperature, you (as in: you, Betty Pound) have to propose that the reflected radiation makes the filament diverge from a blackbody-like emitter. You do not explain in any way how it is supposed to do so. We, on the other hand, have proposed the standard view of how these IR coatings work: since the radiation loss in the IR region is limited by the IR coating reflecting it back onto the filament, the filament *must heat up* and thereby emit more radiation in total. However, the *same* amount of radiation as before the IR cotaing was applied leaves the bulb itself, because some of it is reflected *within* the system.
"all continuously heated systems go to equilibrium. Doesn't matter if the heat transfer mechanism is conduction, convection, or radiation."
Weird, the earth still hasn't reached >5770 K, despite being continuously heated by the sun...
Betty,
"Wrong, Christian, all continuously heated systems go to equilibrium. Doesn't matter if the heat transfer mechanism is conduction, convection, or radiation."
Finally you stated in all clarity where you have gotten the most basic physics wrong. I tried to worm this statement out of you some hundred comments ago.
I find my thesis about the root of all your further misconceptions verified by this.
You really do treat the process of Eli's GPE like an adiabatic process that defines thermal equilibrium.
The defintion of adiabatic you can find in any physics textbook about thermodynamics, and it always is like this:
Adiabatic: Relating to or denoting a process or condition in which heat does not enter or leave the system concerned.
So, you are the magician who designed a process behaving exactly like an adiabatic one ( being in equilibrium ), but nonetheless being continually heated, for you claim literally: "[...] all continuously heated systems go to equilibrium."
No physician ever has dared to think this. And why so, for every experiment ever made in thermodynamics proved the opposite. But you dare, and even teach other people. Fascinating!
Be aware that your claim is 100% wrong. Systems being heated are never in equilibrium for the time being heated. They are always at best in steady state, which means gain and loss of energy are equal. That is what literature as well as experiments provide.
What you claim is the opposite of what textbooks and papers for at least the last 120 years claim. You need therefore strong evidence for your claim.
It is without sense to discuss with you the behaviour of photons as long as you are wrong on one of the most basic principles of physics.
And I'm 99,9% sure you will not understand how gravely you are wrong, for you miss totally the ability to see what is in front of your nose. Even sources delivered by yourself contradicts your view totally, but you are not realizing it.
Remember that page you linked me once, with this one side heated metal rod. It was explaining exactly what I am expalining now. You were so full of your wrong idea that you managed it to see the opposite of the true meaning out of this text. So you are able to find things that disproves you as prove for your theory.
You might be beyond help.
"No physician ever has dared to think this."
Well...physicians might have dared to think this, not being so well-informed on the physics of the world. One hopes physicists have not, however ;-)
"Well...physicians might have dared to think this, not being so well-informed on the physics of the world. One hopes physicists have not, however ;-) "
Uh... sometimes english being not my native language leads to some funny curiosities.
Of course it has to be physicists.
1) nope. there is no simultaneous absorption and emission on a microscopic basis. one follows the other.
2) does the resulting spectrum show a blackbody? of course it doesn't.
you're an idiot who's engaging in doublespeak.
for the object to heat up, the total energy must increase. it doesn't, and so you are left with lying about what heat is. You are pathetic.
The earth is not at the sun.
Christian, you continue with your pathetic strawmen and redherrings.
"Systems being heated are never in equilibrium for the time being heated."
That's true. But steady-state systems do eventually go to equilibrium, as all of my videos showed.
Since you mistate my position, I shit on your face.
I only refer to adiabatic process in the context of our atmosphere. Do you deny it?
You also gave an incomplete definition of adiabtic:
"In thermodynamics, an adiabatic process is one that occurs without transfer of heat or matter between a thermodynamic system and its surroundings. In an adiabatic process, energy is transferred to its surroundings only as work."
Temperature can increase via either Heat or Work.
In our atmosphere, Work subsumes co2's backradiation.
"since the radiation loss in the IR region is limited by the IR coating reflecting it back onto the filament, the filament *must heat up* and thereby emit more radiation in total. However, the *same* amount of radiation as before the IR cotaing was applied leaves the bulb itself, because some of it is reflected *within* the system."
This statement is so telling. Such pathetic doublespeak.
You are saying:
It *must* heat up and emit more radiation, and yet it emits the same amount of TOTAL radiation, distributed diffetently.
Well, which is it?
Does it emit more or the same?
If it's the same, then you contradict your heating. If it's more, it contradicts the spectrum provided by both my/your/Tim's sources.
What a wretched human being you are.
Eli, yet you add some of the colder's temperature (radiative equivalent) back on to the hotter. Tsk tsk. You lie and deny.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS6/6EquilibriumTemp.html
The earth has already achieved equilibrium with the sun (averaged for entire surface). It varies very little.
It most certainly is not a steady-state problem.
"1) nope. there is no simultaneous absorption and emission on a microscopic basis. one follows the other."
So you admit you made a false claim earlier. Good.
"2) does the resulting spectrum show a blackbody? of course it doesn't."
Without the coating, it's near enough to a blackbody spectrum. With the coating, it's still near enough to a blackbody spectrum, but not the spectrum you'd measure outside the bulb, because there, by design, the IR part is not measured.
In the meantime, *you* have *failed* *once again* to provide any mechanism by which your claimed photon upconversion takes place.
"You are saying:
It *must* heat up and emit more radiation, and yet it emits the same amount of TOTAL radiation, distributed diffetently."
Nope, that's not what I am saying. You are so incapable of understanding basic physics that you do not understand that language! The *filament* heats up and thus emits more radiation, but the *system* as a whole does *not*. It's the exact same as the BP and GP example.
Now, Betty, give us the mechanistic explanation as to how those IR photons reflected by the coating are upconverted to VIS photons in the filament. Failing to do so is admission you are a loser.
Upconversion is a process which increases the energy of a photon by immediate interaction with a thermally excited species. What happens in the lamps is that a returning IR photon is absorbed. Other photons are emitted but they have no relationship to the absorbed photon are not emitted from the same place nor at the same time, nor does the frequency of the emitted photons depend on the frequency of the absorbed ones.
"The *filament* heats up and thus emits more radiation, but the *system* as a whole does *not*."
DOUBLESPEAK. Show us this magic emission from the filament that magically fails to pass through. Where is that spectrum? Oh you don't have it? Oh, its not different from the external spectrum, because obviously more heated things will show up over colder things?
Gosh, you are pathetic.
I did provide a mechanism. You just can't accept reality. See my reference. You just want to push BS rhetoric.
You are one of those poofy wizards that believes merely repeating rubbish makes it true. Accuse accuse accuse is your only strategy left. The wise will see through it, you shameless shameless weasel.
Betty, you loser, you just cited a frikkin' Wikipedia page without even knowing what the photon up-conversion refers to!
I asked you to explain how that photon up-conversion would take place in a hot tungsten filament. Reading that Wikipedia page would have to make you scratch your head how the mechanism explained there would happen in such a compound. But not Betty. Betty just thinks it has read something that suits the purpose to stick its head further up its behind and ignore reality.
"Show us this magic emission from the filament that magically fails to pass through."
Weird, just a few comments earlier you accepted that the IR radiation wasn't coming through, but was reflected back to the filament. In other words, you accepted there is "magic" emission" that "magically" fails to pass through. Stop contradicting yourself, Betty.
Betty,
your self contradicting claims are going on:
""Systems being heated are never in equilibrium for the time being heated."
That's true. But steady-state systems do eventually go to equilibrium, as all of my videos showed."
You managed to make a claim ( "That's true" ) and falsifiy it only one sentence later ( steady-state systems do eventually go to equilibrium ).
What now? If something is never to go to equilibrium while being heated ( You to that: "That's true" ), it will not do so eventually. The word never strictly forbids eventually being possible in any way.
And no, your videos do not show this ( and I watched them ), and the text you provided does not say this either.
The videos show how temperature is distributed quite evenly on a surface after some time of heating. Nobody denied this would happen.
A surface however is only 2 of the 3 dimensions of matter. In the third dimension ( material thickness of the plate in the case of the electric iron for example ) the videos do not show anything.
That's a pity, because that is the very thing of interest, for everyone here claims that there has to be a temperature gradient, for otherwise heat would not be supplied continuosly to the outer surface ( where it is measured an filmed then ), whereas you claim equilibrium state and thus uniform temperature throughout all 3 dimensions of the material. The video does not show one of these dimensions, or will you even deny this?
The text you provided however do in fact claim that equilibrium is reached. BUT: This text does not say "eventually while heating continues". It does explicitly say something very different, namely that after adiabatic enclosure of the system it will regulate to equilibrium.
And adiabatic enclosure means cease of heating by definition of adiabatic. In more easy terms your text states, that a system that is heated will go to equilibrium over time once heating is turned off and the system is then enclosed by some perfect reflector and perfect insulator.
That again is nothing any physicist would question, for equilibrium is the only state of adiabatic systems after some time.
You have not understood and will for all you show here not understand forever, that thermodynamic equilibrium is only a state with evenly distributed temperature and without any heating or cooling at all. All other states, though often called equilibrium, for output is equilibrated to input, are steady states and show temperature gradients.
You do knwo, that the transport of heat ( let's say: to some output point for example ) is only possible under the condition of temperature gradients, don't you?
"I only refer to adiabatic process in the context of our atmosphere. Do you deny it?"
Deny what? That you refer to it in atmosphere context only, or that the system earth-atmosphere is adiabatic?
To be clear: I deny both! You referred to the conceptional GPE that Eli has provided in a way that you treated it as an adiabatic system, for you explicitly claimed evenly distributed temperature for this system. Further the system earth-atmosphere is constantly both receiving and emitting energy, and thus violates the definition of adiabatic constantly. So, you tried to force adiabatic conditions on completely open systems in claiming thermodynamic equilibrium state for them.
"http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS6/6EquilibriumTemp.html
The earth has already achieved equilibrium with the sun (averaged for entire surface). It varies very little."
Yes. The earth ( what according to your link means surface + atmosphere ) is somewhere near equilibrium with the sun. That is nothing anybody here will deny. The very thing is: equilibrium with a heat source ( like the sun ) is a steady state, for constantly energy is coming in and going out.
To be equilibrated to a heat source and to be in thermodynamic equilibrium are two completely different things. That is the very thing you are unable to understand, although it is right in front of your nose all the time.
From your link: "In equilibrium we expect ENERGY IN = ENERGY OUT"
So, again one link provided by yourself shows the system to be in a state where input and output are balanced, which is not thermodynamic equilibrium. We can have a semantical disussion about the term equilibrium and when to use it, but this will not change the facts.
( Furthermore you delivered a source explaining the GHE. Congratulations! )
The thing with earth is very simple in principle: ENERGY IN = ENERGY OUT. Input is mainly to the surface, output is mainly from the atmosphere in altitudes above the surface. So, to maintain the IN = OUT heat needs to be transported from the surface to those altitudes. This transport mainly goes by convection and very little by cascades of radiation between long-wave active molecules. Thus this transport away from the surface is very much slower than the input by the sun, which is at light speed. To keep the balance anyway the slower transport must be of higher energy density, which simply means more internal energy = more temperature.
If we shifted the altitudes from where radiation goes into space, we would therefore shift temperature at the surface. It is the only way to prevent violation of 1st law.
But how will you see any priciple, even an easy one like this, if you come up with that:
"In our atmosphere, Work subsumes co2's backradiation."
So, volume work subsumes a radiation? Explain the mechanism!
If the backradiation must not lead to temperature increase than a volume element needs to increase in volume instead of being heated ( work done ). That means further rising up in the atmosphere, which leads to the convective transport of air to some altitudes above the surface... wait! Could lead to a proper explanation of the GHE. Well, of course only as long as you are not claiming that radiation can be turned into work for 100% all the time. Then we would have the next discussion of how badly you misunderstand basic physics.
To support the claim that: "The earth has already achieved equilibrium with the sun (averaged for entire surface). It varies very little", Betty Pine links to the lecture notes of Fran Bagenal, a prominent planetary scientist at the University of Colorado:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS6/6EquilibriumTemp.html
If Ms. Pine had read a little further down in Professor Bagenal's notes on that same web page, she would have found the following question:
"What happens when this equilibrium temperature is compared with the TRUE temperature (measured by looking at the IR spectrum and measuring the wavelength of maximum emission and using Wein's Law)?"
which is answered by the following figures (links copied from Professor Bagenal's web page):
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS6/EVMgreenhouseT.jpg
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS6/Greenhouse.jpg
Note the text in the second figure: "Greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, thereby heating the lower atmosphere."
The term "equilibrium", like many terms in physics, does not have a unique definition - it means different things in different contexts. Examples include "mechanical equilibrium", "radiative equilibrium", "radiative-convective equilibrium", and "thermal equilibrium". Only the last - thermal or thermodynamic equilibrium - requires that the temperature be constant throughout the system. In her notes, Professor Bagenal calculates the average temperature of the earth assuming radiative equilibrium, and shows that it does not correspond to the actual temperature. She then demonstrates that "back radiation" resolves the discrepancy.
BP is hung up on temperature. I hate when these threads migrate to temperature. It is a non physical, arbitrary construct that is always too easy to misuse as a proxy for energy. It moves people from energy (a flow,joules/sec) to a static proxy. The units fall away and before you know it people are talking past each other.
Jump into the middle of this thread and you won't have a clue what all the numbers floating around are.
Give it time. Only been trying for 4 billion years
An interesting extension to this problem is to generalize to the case where you have any number of plates striking out to the right with plate numbers 0 to n. Plates radiate R0,R1,R2,....Rn from each side
Let S be the solar energy into the left plate, plate 0. It sends R0 to space and plate n, the rightmost plate, sends Rn to space.
You get the simple equations....
S=R0+Rn , with Rn=S/(n+1) using nothing but first law
If you let n approach infinity R0 approaches S and Rn approaches 0. This is analogous to an infinitely long conductor sliced into infinite number of segments each in physical contact. It's a thermal gradient where the left end emits virtually all the input energy and the far end emits nothing (you have to assume no radiation loss except at the ends)
You have a radiant system of plates where all the energy is essentially reflected back to its source and nothing comes out on the right. Internal to the system you have lots and lots of energy moving around but when it reaches steady state, each plate obeys 1st law and the system obeys 1st law.
28/11/17 8:35 AM
Paul B.,
While I agree that temperature is a poor proxy for energy, it is hardly arbitrary. It is defined as the partial derivative of energy wrt entropy. This could hardly be more precise.
My (poorly crafted) point was that jumping to temps without agreement on first principles (energy) is a tar pit.
Actually if i wanted to model conduction in a metal bar it would be the exact same math, eh?
Slice the bar into infinite # of slabs, then each slab receives energy from a source slab And divides it in half. Half goes to next slab. Half goes back towards source. Rinse, repeat.
Paul, not today but soon, Eli wants to extend your model to an interesting point about GCMs. Allow the bunny to be a bit mysterious.
Intriguing. Have at it!
Fascinating how the introduction of a simple equation makes the troll go away, eh?
Paul B,
"Fascinating how the introduction of a simple equation makes the troll go away, eh?"
To be fair, Betty has gone away a little while before you came up with this equation. If you read the entire threads ( I do not recommend this, but it is possible ), you will find the idea of adding more plates and how this works as a geometric series as well thrown in the ring as simple book keeping of energy quantities. And the equations Eli delivered in the original article are simple, too.
Nothing of this worked. By now, Betty might have simply given up on teaching retards like us. Or she has taken my advice to do some experiment and finally wrapped her computer CPU in some wool to proof that the room temperature cold wool cannot "heat" the CPU further. Would be my favourite explanation of silence.
If you are into working with energy only to simply look at 1st law to solve this case, I might quote myself:
"In steady state ENERGY IN = ENERGY OUT must be true for
a) The entire system
b) for every single plate
You can simply count the energy qunatities and you will find, that only ONE state will satisfy a) AND b). And this state claims rising temperature for the blue plate, if you add more plates behind it."
And Betty her very self came up with a one side heated rod, that showed a perfect temperature gradient. It was claimed in the source, that adiabatic enclosure of the rod will lead to uniform temperature over the rod. Perfectly true.
But Betty's conclusion: Steady states will always eventually go into thermodynamic equilibrium, even with the energy source still heating.
That is nothing you can solve with any equation, may it be as simple as possible.
I thought of this recently at Science of Doom when some troll was making the usual claim that energy cannot pass from a colder to a warmer surface, specifically that EM radiation emission from the colder surface is inhibited by the warmer surface. Would detection of the Cosmic Microwave Background be a valid counterexample? I think it is, but I would appreciate comments.
DeWitt,
it is a valid counterexample. But since when does validity count when it comes to dealing with trolls?
Why so complicated? You will only get complaints about that a past big bang is no body at all.
Can you use your radio, when the emitter station is colder than your receiving device? I bet you can. Even the trolls can. But can they explain why? Are photons emitted by thermal radiation regulated by different laws than others?
It seems strange that this discussion about radiation always boils down to decades of engineering and scientific application using demonstrable set of equations that work vs. Emotional ranting and name calling from those who claim back radiation doesn't or can't work.
The emitters never come up with the mathematics for their argument. I figure science without math is not science so I did some for the opposition to see what the world would look like if they are right.
It's a pretty simple extension of Eli's plates experiment where we feed energy to both plates. I worked out equations for the BR doesn't work thing.
I have a left plate being fed A watts/m^2 and right plate being fed B watts/m^2. You need 3 sets of equations: one for A>B, one for AB, L=A/2, R=B+A/2, N=A/2
For A<B, L=B/2, R=A+Bt2, N=-B/2
For A=B, L=A, R=B, N=0
The most interesting result here isn't the goofy equations. It's what happens right around A=B. So I plugged in some sample numbers.
I held B at 90 and varied A, as 89,90,91.
You get respectively:
A=......89,90,91
L=.... 44.5,90,134.5
R=.....134.5,90,44.5
N=.....44.5,0,-44.5
It's no big surprise that there is a big discontinuity exhibited at A=B because the net flow gets a sign change there. It would show up with flows of 89.999,90.000,90.001.
This is pretty exciting new science, instantaneous energy redirection. Could be a new energy weapon or maybe cloaking device.
It seems strange that this discussion about radiation always boils down to decades of engineering and scientific application using demonstrable set of equations that work vs. Emotional ranting and name calling from those who claim back radiation doesn't or can't work.
The emitters never come up with the mathematics for their argument. I figure science without math is not science so I did some for the opposition to see what the world would look like if they are right.
It's a pretty simple extension of Eli's plates experiment where we feed energy to both plates. I worked out equations for the BR doesn't work thing.
I have a left plate being fed A watts/m^2 and right plate being fed B watts/m^2. You need 3 sets of equations: one for A>B, one for AB, L=A/2, R=B+A/2, N=A/2
For A<B, L=B/2, R=A+Bt2, N=-B/2
For A=B, L=A, R=B, N=0
The most interesting result here isn't the goofy equations. It's what happens right around A=B. So I plugged in some sample numbers.
I held B at 90 and varied A, as 89,90,91.
You get respectively:
A=......89,90,91
L=.... 44.5,90,134.5
R=.....134.5,90,44.5
N=.....44.5,0,-44.5
It's no big surprise that there is a big discontinuity exhibited at A=B because the net flow gets a sign change there. It would show up with flows of 89.999,90.000,90.001.
This is pretty exciting new science, instantaneous energy redirection. Could be a new energy weapon or maybe cloaking device.
I have a left plate being fed A watts/m^2 and right plate being fed B watts/m^2. You need 3 sets of equations: one for A>B, one for A<B, and one for A=B.
I define the flow out of left as L. The flow out of right is R Net flow is a vector N, positive to the right. It turns out that the equations are really trivial when no feedback. You get....
Well, thanks to all the help here but this example has actually, IEHO, had an effect. Obviously not on the completely dug in, but on the observers. Over at Roy's for example, several of them started rolling their eyes and also at SoD.
Thanks again
Apparently you can't use the blockquote tag here. My comment didn't post. I'll try again.
Christian,
"Can you use your radio, when the emitter station is colder than your receiving device? "
Not the same thing. An RF transmitter isn't thermal. Also, the apparent brightness temperature of the signal could be quite high, as all the power is concentrated in a narrow frequency band. The CMB has a perfect Planck spectrum to the limit of the precision of the measurement. It doesn't really matter how it was generated.
Nope on the bloggerquote.
Post a Comment