tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post7778014489056376276..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: A light dawnsEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-30479911501381626562010-12-17T21:16:41.965-05:002010-12-17T21:16:41.965-05:00Or you can do what is done with some commercial qu...Or you can do what is done with some commercial quartz halogen lamps which is to coat the glass with a dichroic coating which reflects IR and transmits visible (aka 'hot' mirror). This causes the lamp to run hotter and increases the output (as I recall a 37W lamp has the same output as a 50W conventional lamp).Phil.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55890477300772541472010-12-17T10:04:48.328-05:002010-12-17T10:04:48.328-05:00You can paint the thing black, put a partial coat ...You can paint the thing black, put a partial coat on, pull the current down so only IR is emitted, or whatever you want. Go do the experiment. It works the same way.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58506244793833130262010-12-15T19:39:41.626-05:002010-12-15T19:39:41.626-05:00Convection and conduction around the foil-bulb are...Convection and conduction around the foil-bulb are not kept the same; the foil gets hotter than the glass was, so its transfer of thermal energy can go up by whatever % it takes to dump the 5% or so of the filament's emissions that would normally go out as visible EM plus as direct IR EM from the filament. Since one channel of heat dissipation has been blocked, the others carry the load. For thermal dissipation to occur faster, the surface must get hotter.<br /><br />Foil is infinitely opaque. Is the optical depth of the atmosphere at CO2 frequencies infinite? Miskolczi says not, though that presumption is built-in to the basic formulae--suitable for stellar analysis, but mis-applied to the much "smaller" planetary environment. Various (nearly) instantaneous feedbacks kick in to maintain the optical depth of the atmosphere at 1.87, whether CO2 is at 200 ppm or 2,000. <br /><br />This is not easily modeled or analogized with lightbulbs, blankets, and foil, I'm afraid.Brian Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-59410098572450731722010-07-29T09:06:35.550-04:002010-07-29T09:06:35.550-04:00subtract a c...add an n.
If you know the wattage c...subtract a c...add an n.<br />If you know the wattage can you calc the temp?<br />DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19732914398525106632010-07-29T09:04:12.112-04:002010-07-29T09:04:12.112-04:00If you did it in a vaccuum the foil wrapped bulb w...If you did it in a vaccuum the foil wrapped bulb would have to glow i the visible?<br />Don FAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2663717126877960032008-10-06T18:44:00.000-04:002008-10-06T18:44:00.000-04:00It I fold the tin foil into a hat, and wear it on ...It I fold the tin foil into a hat, and wear it on my head, will it keep me warm?C W Mageehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09706100504739548720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5832134181731609332008-09-23T01:18:00.000-04:002008-09-23T01:18:00.000-04:00You can pretty much predict who's been excited eno...You can pretty much predict who's been excited enough to comment on this one<BR/><BR/>http://www.google.com/search?q=Douglass%2C+D.H.%2C+and+J.R.+Christy%2C+2008%3A+Limits+on+CO2+Climate+Forcing+from+Recent+Temperature+Data+of+EarthAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37268207059406927312008-09-21T23:00:00.000-04:002008-09-21T23:00:00.000-04:00Anonymous 9:08am: Must be all the talk about "surv...Anonymous 9:08am: Must be all the talk about "survival blankets" and stuff. And <A HREF="http://www.aliciaframis.com/one_night_tent.html" REL="nofollow">regarding that</A>... (NSFW)bi -- International Journal of Inactivismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030282249404084578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87248652637090671072008-09-21T13:16:00.000-04:002008-09-21T13:16:00.000-04:00I tend to not equate the va-jay-jay with lack of m...I tend to not equate the va-jay-jay with lack of manhood or lack of intelligence. <BR/><BR/>And the folks that are unable to publish anywhere and thus rely on E&E aren't the va-jay-jay or punane either, so the comparison wouldn't arise. <BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57217290696124077522008-09-21T12:08:00.000-04:002008-09-21T12:08:00.000-04:00anon 7:23 said A published article in EE is far mo...anon 7:23 said <I>A published article in EE is far more worthwhile than your innane, inconsequential, non-substantive posts. LOL.</I><BR/><BR/>"innane" as opposed to inane?<BR/><BR/>According to the <A HREF="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nane" REL="nofollow">Urban dictionary</A>, <BR/><BR/>"nane" is the shortened version of punane. Also known as vagina.<BR/><BR/>So innane means "in vagina"? ( sex??)<BR/><BR/>I don't recall Dano ever mentioning anything about sex or even vaginas.<BR/><BR/>maybe I missed that one (damn)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9090192508174483902008-09-21T09:08:00.000-04:002008-09-21T09:08:00.000-04:00Professor Rabett, you could do the test again with...Professor Rabett, you could do the test again with a black covering too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-61765133886867800012008-09-21T08:50:00.000-04:002008-09-21T08:50:00.000-04:00Oh, the (Socratic) Irony...Oh, the (Socratic) Irony...bi -- International Journal of Inactivismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030282249404084578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56216130715471035472008-09-20T22:23:00.000-04:002008-09-20T22:23:00.000-04:00"Point being: if someone has something to sha..."Point being: if someone has something to share, there are places to do it. E& E isn't it. Good for you to have alarm bells going off. <BR/><BR/>BTW - I've seen others ask similar questions to yours. It's a clue for some on this comment thread that something from a PR firm has been released. Just a thought."<BR/><BR/>Yeah, and as usual, a useless thought. A published article in EE is far more worthwhile than your innane, inconsequential, non-substantive posts. LOL.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-28994277325293424002008-09-19T20:33:00.000-04:002008-09-19T20:33:00.000-04:00I did not immediately take this as a sort of Ball-...<I>I did not immediately take this as a sort of Ball-like denial of theory, more like a "if the theory is true, why are we seeing these observations?", which may have valid explanations but which may not be clear to folks like me. </I><BR/><BR/>Good thoughts.<BR/><BR/>The key is that this is still a human endeavor, and someone finding something interesting is motivated at numerous levels - ego, professional, gonads, Narcissism, yadayada - to share interesting findings with the world. <BR/><BR/>If you are at a level where you are doing stuff that adds to knowledge, you want to share it with as many practitioners as possible. We do that, today, in reputable journals. <BR/><BR/>Me, I'm an applied researcher. When I have an idea that translates down to practice for people on the ground, I go to places where they meet and give a Powerpoint and Q&A afterward (and pub that night), and, someday I'll get lucky and get accepted for publication. Or I write letters or e-mails directly to researchers or listservs. I don't write it in a blog (I use friends' blogs to work out ideas and issues, but not final stuff). <BR/><BR/>Point being: if someone has something to share, there are places to do it. E& E isn't it. Good for you to have alarm bells going off. <BR/><BR/>BTW - I've seen others ask similar questions to yours. It's a clue for some on this comment thread that something from a PR firm has been released. Just a thought.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38448700320655870672008-09-19T19:13:00.000-04:002008-09-19T19:13:00.000-04:00Sounds right to me, but in Eli's experiment, most ...Sounds right to me, but in Eli's experiment, most of the energy is directed inward. In a blackbody situation (or atmosphere), half the radiation goes "up" and half goes "down," right?"<BR/><BR/>sure, but with regard to the process itself (interaction of electrons with e-m radiation) there is essentially no difference between reflection absorption/re-emission. <BR/><BR/>Even with the space blanket, not all the heat is being "reflected" backward (only about 80%)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-67755981864630746982008-09-19T19:01:00.000-04:002008-09-19T19:01:00.000-04:00jae says "I don't think correctly."Can't disagree ...jae says "I don't think correctly."<BR/><BR/>Can't disagree with that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69826116304760083382008-09-19T18:51:00.000-04:002008-09-19T18:51:00.000-04:00jae to eli:"As to the point about looking at net r...jae to eli:<BR/><BR/>"As to the point about looking at net radiation, Eli has thought long (1.6 ns) and deep (it was a large, deep beer glass) about this and the answer is no, that is not a good way of thinking about things, because the re-radiation is from the sum of convective and radiative heating, not just from the radiative heating. If the re-radiation from the atmosphere were ONLY a result of radiative heating of the atmosphere that would make sense."<BR/><BR/>Well, you still have this problem: it is easy to show that the surface would essentially be a true greenhouse, were it not for convection; and temperatures would be about twice as high during the daytime.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-51638470683295953982008-09-19T18:47:00.000-04:002008-09-19T18:47:00.000-04:00jae to anon:"If you actually look at that diagram ...jae to anon:<BR/><BR/>"If you actually look at that diagram that Arthur refers to (linked to on the other thread in response to your question about "cartoons"), you will see that convection is indeed being accounted for -- and it's effect is nowhere near the primary heat transfer mechanism (as you implied)"<BR/><BR/>It is "accounted for," but I don't think correctly. And I think convection IS the primary transfer mechanism. That's why fans are normally used to dissipate heat, rather than simple irradiation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9589689735603174572008-09-19T18:43:00.000-04:002008-09-19T18:43:00.000-04:00to anon from jaeanon:"From the standpoint of the n...to anon from jaeanon:<BR/><BR/>"From the standpoint of the net effect, there is no difference between "absorption/re-emission" and "reflection" -- especially for the case in which the absorption/re-emission happens at the same wavelength."<BR/><BR/>Sounds right to me, but in Eli's experiment, most of the energy is directed inward. In a blackbody situation (or atmosphere), half the radiation goes "up" and half goes "down," right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40941611791190153292008-09-19T17:04:00.000-04:002008-09-19T17:04:00.000-04:00jae asksBut are the convective losses being accoun...jae asks<BR/><I><BR/>But are the convective losses being accounted for properly? </I><BR/><BR/>If you actually look at that diagram that Arthur refers to (linked to on the other thread in response to your question about "cartoons"), you will see that convection is indeed being accounted for -- and it's effect is nowhere near the primary heat transfer mechanism (as you implied)<BR/><BR/>jae also says<BR/><I>I don't understand what Eli's experiment shows. It is all about REFLECTION of IR, not absorbtion/emission</I><BR/><BR/>From the standpoint of the net effect, there is no difference between "absorption/re-emission" and "reflection" -- especially for the case in which the absorption/re-emission happens at the same wavelength.<BR/><BR/>"Reflection" is actually what is termed a scattering process, which also involves an interaction of the photons with the electrons in the material that the photons impinge upon.<BR/><BR/>The difference between reflection and ordinary absorption/re-emission, is that in the case of "reflection" the photons do not correspond in energy to the difference between two energy levels in the atom or molecule.<BR/><BR/>Reflection is really a kind of absorption/re-emission involving "virtual" energy levels. But even in the case of reflection, the electrons do (momentarily) gain energy and then re-emit it.<BR/><BR/>The process of reflection is not really like most people envision it: tennis balls bouncing off a hard surface.<BR/><BR/>Feynman has a very clear exposition (perhaps the best I have ever read) of "reflection" in his little book "QED". He talks about it in the context of what most people normally refer to as interference between light "reflecting" from the front and back surface of a pane of glass. Feynman points out that in reality, what is really happening is that the light is interacting with the electrons in molecules in the glass all the way through and each scattering event makes a contribution to the net effect (which is obtained by just considering "reflection" from the top and bottom surfaces)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-59807992787762928422008-09-19T17:01:00.000-04:002008-09-19T17:01:00.000-04:00Atmoz, the point boils down to this sentence:I don...Atmoz, the point boils down to this sentence:<BR/>I don't quickly see how your test reveals anything about radiation vs conduction and convection?<BR/><BR/>This is not nitpicking or bitching. I'm trying to teach people something in occasional blog posts myself and I like feedback if people think I'm not making enough sense.<BR/><BR/>Of course, your subject matters raise the furor of a lot of idiots, so that probably heightens your threshold to accept or listen to criticisms or feedback. Fair enough. Just to say I'm on your side on this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33975362226177056832008-09-19T16:00:00.000-04:002008-09-19T16:00:00.000-04:00Dano,I wasn't sure if there was something new in t...Dano,<BR/><BR/>I wasn't sure if there was something new in the paper. I saw where it was published and I know their rep, but Christy was once taken seriously as a climate scientist and I just wasn't clear if this paper should be treated as reputable work or not.<BR/><BR/>I'm getting the idea that it's of the "or not" variety.<BR/><BR/>I did not immediately take this as a sort of Ball-like denial of theory, more like a "if the theory is true, why are we seeing these observations?", which may have valid explanations but which may not be clear to folks like me.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for taking the time to respond.Walt Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604522233009023574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21692868848760165832008-09-19T15:56:00.000-04:002008-09-19T15:56:00.000-04:00Bad me, I missed my response. It wasn't deleted!No...Bad me, I missed my response. It wasn't deleted!<BR/><BR/>Now you get free whacks at me.<BR/><BR/>'s OK, I'm used to it.<BR/><BR/>But really, just now and then try to understand that somebody with a question may not be a troll.Walt Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604522233009023574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62296666095201109892008-09-19T15:55:00.000-04:002008-09-19T15:55:00.000-04:00I see that my response to club-member-in-good-stan...I see that my response to club-member-in-good-standing bi was excised, no doubt via maximum judicious wisdom.<BR/><BR/>Nevermind! Somebody at RC (not Gavin, who is also too high and mighty to bother with laypeople) gave me some good info.<BR/><BR/>You boys go back to enjoying your club. Sorry to have intruded.Walt Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14604522233009023574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-65862521204343721162008-09-19T15:40:00.000-04:002008-09-19T15:40:00.000-04:00Dano:"if it was real, it would be in a real journa...Dano:<BR/><BR/>"if it was real, it would be in a real journal."<BR/><BR/>You know what's the nicest thing? Apparently Douglass and Christy didn't even <I>try</I> to submit their latest pile to a journal and get some comments by that means.<BR/><BR/>I can hear it now: `I'm <I>going to</I> be suppressed! I'm <I>going to</I> be suppressed!'bi -- International Journal of Inactivismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03030282249404084578noreply@blogger.com