After the essays in May on mirrors and light bulbs, I’ve been regularly poked and prodded via email for not wanting to engage “the slayers” anymore, or to do that “third experiment” I mentioned in May. I long ago concluded by my experiences afterwards with “the slayers” that it is a waste of time and effort to try to explain anything to them. Curt Wilson, who did the second experiment and was planning to do the third, has come to the same conclusion, as have many others.
I have to give them credit though, they are entertaining. When I saw this profoundly ridiculous rebuttal (reflectional denial) at their headquarters while arguing over Willis’ Steel Greenhouse post, I just had to share it.
LOL! That’s the “slayers” in nutshell right there. No better example of the absurdity of their position exists in my opinion. Epic.
WUWT regular, Duke physicist Dr. Robert G. Brown has been trying to talk some sense into them over at Principia Scientific. I keep telling him he’s being sucked into a time and energy sink like gravity around a neutron star. Just as it is a good policy to steer clear of neutron stars, so it is with these folks who are incapable of assimilating the real world of physics, but live in an alternate reality of absurd second law constructs.
So, that’s why I’m not bothering anymore, when you have reflection denial statements like the one above, why engage in a pointless dialog with the hopelessly lost who don’t want to learn anything? Thank goodness for my spam filter.
For those that might care, keeping the filament of a lightbulb within its optimum temperature range increases its life, by limiting hotspots and thus tungsten evaporation. Putting an incandescent bulb into a reflector housing not designed for it will in fact increase the filament temperature, increasing tungsten evaporation and deposition on the inside bulb glass surface.
See: http://www.lightingassociates.org/i/u/2127806/f/tech_sheets/FAQs_Reflector_Design__Why_is_it_important_.pdf
Tungsten evaporation from hotspots is why standard incandescent bulbs eventually fail.
All light bulbs eventually fail how does that constitute an argument for the GHE.
I guess they never heard of a reflector oven.
Certainly, but check out the Centennial Light Bulb, they don’t make ’em like they used to.
The late great political scientist Kenneth Minogue did a superb job in his great 2008 book Alien Powers: The Pure Theory of Ideology of describing what makes a theory ideology. Part of it is that facts do not matter or cause a shift in the beliefs.
Anyone interested in slaying this particular dragon would do well to read Minogue’s work to mix his definitions in with the facts.
It’s only scientific in the social science sense of a theory designed to alter human behavior by shifting personal values, attitudes, and beliefs.
Suppose the reflector is actually matt black rather than a normal reflector. I’m guessing that the matt black reflector will get hotter than the normal reflector and the filament will not get as hot.
Reflection of heat and heat transfer between objects is two different things completely.
is/are doh ! ignore my late night typing please..
>Jimbo says:
>July 19, 2013 at 4:28 am
>>johnmarshall says:
>>July 19, 2013 at 4:14 am
>>All light bulbs eventually fail how does that constitute an argument for the GHE.
>Certainly, but check out the Centennial Light Bulb, they don’t make ‘em like the used to.
It is not difficult to make a bulb that will outlast the customer, though it is difficult to turn a profit. It is actualy quite easy to modify a regular incandescent bulb to last a lifetime with a little resistance.
Slayers and other sceptics just keep talking past each other.
Slayers say that GHGs cannot make the surface any warmer than it otherwise would be because a cooler body cannot warm a hotter body, which in itself is correct but misses the point that only a reduction in the rate of cooling is required rather than any warming effect.
Other sceptics point out correctly that a cooler body (GHGs) can slow the rate of cooling of a hotter body (the surface) but that also misses the point because GHGs are not the cause of the so called greenhouse effect.
The reality is different again.
In the case of a planet with an atmosphere it is the entire mass of the atmosphere (which includes liquids on the surface) that provides the warming effect and any effect from composition variations whether on the solid surface, within any liquid oceans or in the atmosphere can only affect air circulation patterns.
We can see the proof of that in so many planets having wide variations in composition yet still managing to arrive at a long term balance between solar energy in and long wave energy out such that the atmospheres are retained. The atmospheric circulation simply configures itself to adapt the flow of energy through the system so as to retain ToA thermal balance despite the composition differences.
A variation in composition of the air is no different in principle from variations in composition of solid surfaces or bodies of liquid once an atmosphere is in place.
All composition characteristics in any of the three media (ground, oceans or air) will influence the prevailing air circulation pattern so one has to then ask just how large a contribution would be provided by such a tiny fraction as our emissions to the least dense medium (the air).
The answer must be that it would be indistinguishable from zero.
Mods, any idea why my post at 4.57 am went into moderation?
The shape of the reflector depends on what the light is intended to do. If you want a bright spot at a fair distance, then the reflector is a parabolic reflector with the bulb at the focus (think searchlight). All rays from the bulb that hit the reflector are reflected back parallel and in the direction you want to illuminate. If you want a large area illuminated, you use a hyperbolic (including at the extreme a flat) reflector. This spreads rays over a large area. If you want 360 degree illumination, you don’t bother with a reflector.
BUT, remember that the bulb has to be supported in the reflector system. Normal method of support is through the reflector and on the axis of the reflector. This means that rays that would otherwise be reflected back through the filament are caught by the back of the bulb and normally dispersed so they do not impinge on the filament. So the filament is protected from the reflected rays.
Make the reflector a matt black. This will absorb light energy from the light rays, and it will heat. Less light will be projected in the intended direction. But as no light (see below) is reflected back to the filament, it will not get hotter.
Note, however, that even with a matt black paint, there will be some slight amount of light reflected, and because of the uneven surface of the matt paint, some minute quantity may be reflected back to the filament. This will give rise to some heating of the filament. In normal circumstances, this will be negligible.
The above statement is true as long as you make some assumptions. 🙂 If you keep adding heat to something, and the heat can’t escape, then that thing will eventually evaporate.
So we have two assumptions: 1 – you keep adding heat to your face long enough to make it evaporate. 2 – the heat can’t escape.
I leave it to you as an exercise to explain why those assumptions don’t apply in the face, mirror example.
Have the Slayers ever explained how a thermos works?
It is not difficult to make a bulb that will outlast the customer, though it is difficult to turn a profit. It is actualy quite easy to modify a regular incandescent bulb to last a lifetime with a little resistance.
Only if your lifetime is expected to be very short. I purchased a whole set of resistors being marketed to do that very thing long ago to use in bulbs that were very difficult to replace outdoors. They did extend the lifetime of the bulb(s) — by a factor of maybe three or four. But die they did, probably from the thermal shock of going on and off in the wintertime, maybe from something else.
Personally, I think the second law always wins.
The funny thing is, if you put your face a vacuum surrounded by a perfect reflector of EM energy and maintained its power output indefinitely, it would indeed eventually melt. Even the slayer’s BAD argument is in fact correct, but they cannot begin to grasp that there are multiple things going on and the mirror isn’t perfect and there is air.
It’s useful to remember that the power density of the active fusion region of the sun is remarkably low — less than that of the human body IIRC. The only reason that it stays so hot is basically “the greenhouse effect” — radiative trapping of the released energy. It takes around 100 ky for a photon produced in the Sun’s core to get to the surface and escape. Now that’s a greenhouse effect!
rgb
I suggested to one of the slayers during the last debable that he perform a trivial experiment.
This was to counter the argument that while the light bulb got hotter, the filament was ths source of the heat to it could not possibly get hotter.
The experiment consisted of wrapping a bulb in foil, shiny side in, and turning it on. Obviously, as the filament cannot get any hotter, there is no reason that the bulb will expire in a few seconds.
Did any slayer dare to try the experiment?
Erata: “ths source of the heat to it could not possibly get hotter” -> “the source of the heat so it could not possibly get hotter.
– the above erata is to a comment that used the “s” word so is queued in moderation ;(
OK Anthony, you have faith in the GHE so patent a process using this effect to generate energy. This is just a simple challenge to you and your GHE friends.
REPLY: Why would I need or want to? There’s plenty of other sources. And, as RGB points out above, the sun is not only the ultimate energy source for Earth but also has the ultimate GHE. – Anthony
Jimbo— yes I know about this but that bulb has been left ”on” to eliminate the heat stress of the on/off cycle which is the main thing to cause bulb failure.
I, for one, would like to see a third experiment. Unlike most WUWT readers, I’m not yet fully convinced that the slayers are fundamentally wrong. I’m not convinced they’re fundamentally right either, mind you, and I have to agree that they do present some silly arguments to defend their position. To help me reach a conclusion, I’d like to see an experiment similar to the initial mirror experiment with a flat plate of similar dimensions to the mirror, but made of a material that comes close to being a black body (on both sides so it will emit in all directions), rather than a reflector. CO2 absorbs the 15 micron stuff — it doesn’t reflect it. I think (but I’m not sure) the plate would want to be thin and light so as to have minimal thermal mass. I’m thinking atmospheric CO2 has minimal thermal mass, but I might be wrong.
From the viewpoint of a self-taught engineer: >> IF << it were possible to tune a parabolic light reflector to the entire tungsten filament there would be little effect at all. As the reflected light was absorbed, the resistance would increase, less current would be drawn, and the 'boil-off' would stabilize.
– sort of like "Earth adjusts its own thermometer"
As it is, even distribution is difficult if not impossible and the hottest/thinnest point on the filament will eventually fail anyway… if not sooner.
– sort of like geo-climate-engineering would have unintended consequences.
ummm .. I mean “Earth adjusts its own thermoSTAT”
Quibbling about the filament of a light bulb is missing the big error, that if the dragonslayers were right and energy cannot travel from a lower energy source to a higher energy source then it would be impossible to see yourself in a mirror because the face is at a higher energy than the mirror.
Or, it would only be possible to see yourself in a mirror if was hotter than you!
Rejecting the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect is such a profound error in physics that it is difficult to disagree with this post that engaging with such errant nonsense is an exercise in futility.
As is most engagement with folks who are incapable of assimilating the real world of physics, but live in an alternate reality.
You could have quoted my very clear statement on impossibility of “back radiation warming” from the same page as well, it is relevant:
“Radiation reflected back to the source can not have any effect on the temperature of the source.
However, in our usual environment putting a reflector close to the hot source would substantially reduce the convective cooling of the source thus causing a rise in temperature. But not through back radiation.
Sadly, there are some fraudulent demonstrations around, where the effect of reduction in convective cooling is presented as the proof of a non-existing back radiation warming (“greenhouse effect”).”
I can easily demonstrate it mathematically here, when this one has come through your moderation. Otherwise I would do it on the PSI forum where my comments are allowed.
REPLY: I could have, but it would not have been as entertaining. Your comments are allowed here, except for the ones that are continually off-topic thread jacking, rants, or other policy violations. The Slayers never did thank me for pushing them into allowing comments on PSI in the first place. Maybe it is because they realize that it is now a a source of entertainment. win-win 😉 – Anthony
I thought I’d try this experiment just to see. ….. and you know what , MY FACE EVAPORATED!
They are right! I’m now going to sue WUWT for telling me it was safe !
The greenhouse effect is misnamed because greenhouses don’t work that way. Therefore, the greenhouse effect isn’t real.
Get it?
What would the temperature at the surface of Venus be if Venus has the identical atmosphere (depth and composition) as Earth? Same for Mars? Incidentally, planets without oceans. The density, composition, and pressure of our atmosphere in combination of the energy received from the sun at a particular distance produces an average temperature. We’ve seen what volcanic ash can do as an effective energy reflector, yet it does not reflect energy from the surface as a green house effect, but rather preventer of energy from further heating the surface. The composition of our atmosphere is a resistance to energy absorption and reflection o and to and from the surface. Right?