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.
Trick says (July 22, 2013 at 8:19 pm): “Not a real system.”
Right. It’s a thought experiment, or in Greg’s case a “thought-less” experiment. I seem to recall Greg writing in an old thread that he didn’t like thought experiments, but perhaps he’s learned to embrace the madness. 🙂
I’m thinking I’ve been to quick to dismiss Greg’s “demonstration”, as he puts it. I think we can have some fun with it. Let’s take Greg’s two-sided one meter square metal plate with 800 watts of input power, radiating 400 W per side. Now add Greg’s “perfect reflector” to side B, effectively blocking all radiation from side B. Assume, as Greg claims is true, that the reflected energy reaching side B can’t raise the plate’s temperature. What happens then?
Well, I never studied Pink Unicorn Physics, so here I have to ask Greg what happens to the reflected energy striking side B? Is it absorbed somehow without affecting the plate, is it reflected back to the perfect reflector, or does it disappear?
Over to you, Greg.
Gary Hladik says:
July 22, 2013 at 9:17 pm
“No, no, I referenced a real live peer-reviewed paper … do you have a peer-reviewed paper …”
=========================================================
I suggest we discuss physics and math, not the peer-review process.
Dang, that should have been …
1ST SECOND: the object at
298 K289.8 Kin my previous post.
I hope that is the only typo.
Gary Hladik says:
July 22, 2013 at 9:37 pm
“I think we can have some fun with it. Let’s take Greg’s two-sided one meter square metal plate with 800 watts of input power, radiating 400 W per side. Now add Greg’s “perfect reflector” to side B, effectively blocking all radiation from side B. Assume, as Greg claims is true, that the reflected energy reaching side B can’t raise the plate’s temperature. What happens then?”
=============================================================
Gary, if someone suggests 2,000,000,000,000 apples + 2,000,000,000,000 apples = 5,000,000,000,000 apples, would you suggest someone conducted an experiment or used simple math to prove that it is false? The question is rhetorical, of course.
tjfolkerts says (July 22, 2013 at 9:41 pm): “I hope that is the only typo.”
Don’t worry, only three or four of us are still reading. I suspect the mods are about to put a contract out on us. 🙂
Indeed, Greg House hasn’t made any converts, and his arguments are still as ridiculous as his face melting from last week.
Thread closed.