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.
george e. smith says:
” but the terminal Voltage increases, just as if the internal resistance has increased (it has).
So with the same current drive and a higher drive Voltage the applied power is increased, and the chip will get hotter.”
If you increase the temperature of a semiconductor its resistance goes down.
“WUWT regular, Duke physicist Dr. Robert G. Brown has been trying to talk some sense into them over at Principia Scientific.”
I am SO jealous! Why would the good doctor waste his time on those clowns when he could be sharing his wisdom with US here at WUWT? We LOVE him, but those guys will only break his heart!!!
Goodness, I’m so upset I need to eat ice cream or go shopping or something! 🙂
tadchem says:
July 19, 2013 at 10:24 am
Definitive experiment
Not so definitive…
The difference in conduction/convection of a thin layer of CO2 compared to air has very little resemblance to what happens with the IR absorbance by CO2 in a 70 km layer of air…
You know, why do y’all need these experiments? It’s simple heat transfer by radiation.
If you have a monolith in space Then there’s no conduction or convection. You have sunlight hitting it and blackbody radiation going off
-S->
The heat balance is
S = 2*BB
If there are two objects, then the BB radiation of both of them hits each other.
-S->
So the heat balance of object 1 is
S + BB2 = 2*BB1
If object 2 is above absolute 0, BB2 must be positive. Obviously, BB1 has to be higher than BB above. As the only way for outgoing radiation to increase is a temperature increase, this is true if BB2 is a blob of liquid helium.
Seriously, this is basic heat transfer to set up, and high school physics to understand.
steveta_uk says:
July 19, 2013 at 8:55 am
Absolute twaddle. Your eyes detect light, which was reflected off your face from some high-energy source, bounced off the mirror with little loss, and back to your eyes.
=================
Then how do you explain the fact that vampires can’t see their own reflection, hmm?
[+emphasis]
With respect, may I suggest using the term black hole since information seems to be going in, but nothing seems to be comes out.[:–)
Did I read someone say the sun has an “ultimate greenhouse effect”…
The interior of the sun is so dense that photons produced in nuclear fusion–fusion initiated by the mass of the star being high enough to result in said densities–take millions of years to random walk out to the less dense layers where there is a chance of reaching the exterior and then making it into space beyond the star.
The only stellar process which remotely resembles the greenhouse hypothesis, specifically the absurd runaway version, is the neutrino pulse which superheats the outer layers during a supernova.
Normally the rest of the star is transparent to neutrinos, and so there is effectively zero energy transfer to the outer layers by neutrino absorption.
In the case where the core has undergone a catastrophic collapse, the gravitational binding energy is converted into a large enough amount of neutrinos to result in significant heating of the outer layers.
The escaping neutrinos also reduce the pressure within the star somewhat, allowing the outer layers to collapse inwards towards the neutrino shockwave, accelerating the rate of interaction even more dramatically, before the pull of the star is overwhelmed and the remaining mass is scattered beyond the star.
The inability of the neutrino pulse to escape to space results in extreme heating of the outer layers, which at least somewhat resembles the “infrared trapping” mechanism postulated by the greenhouse hypothesis.
A normal main sequence star has no analogue to said hypothesis, though, as the heating of the outer layers is not due to trapping of energy, rather it is simple proximity to the fusing core layers that leads to the temperature profile observed.
The idiocy of out of context remarks is what this blog has come to be known by.
To a layman – it is clear that you miss many of the points that the slayers disclose but there seems to be fearfulness for some reason pervading here!
REPLY: Fearfullness? LOL! Maybe you are confused by the chorus of laughter. – Anthony
Dear Gary Hladik,
I did indeed read Dr. Spencer’s thought experiment. After over 30 years as an engineer, I’ve been through hundreds of thought experiments, but many fail to hold up to verification when tested with real physical matter. I’m not saying he is wrong, just that I wouldn’t mind seeing a demonstration that he is right. The whole reason I got sucked into being a climate skeptic in the first place is that I can’t bring myself to believe something just because someone with a PhD says that its so. Dr. Mann says the hockey stick is so. But when I looked for independent verification, there was none. Not to compare Spencer to Mann, but hey, I’m not one to just take anybody’s word for things, even if I know them to be honorable people. As to predicting an outcome — no I can’t. That’s exactly why I would like to see the experiment. I have no favorite horse in this race – I just want to see some data to see what happens. I’d be equally happy finding that Roy is right as to find out that the slayers are.
Practical light bulb problem
The filament of a standard light bulb has a positive coefficient when it comes to how resistance changes with temperature. If the temperature of the filament rises, so does the resistance and that reduces the power dissipation of the electric circuit and hence reduces the temperature, causing a bit of regulating. Since a 120 ohm resistance in an operating light bulb corresponds to a room temperature filament resistance below 20 ohms, the startup inrush current surge can easily be 10 times that of normal operating power dissipation and is when the usual light bulb failure happens.
==========================================================================
I sure hope Obama or the UN don’t force them to turn it off. It has a carbon filament.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Centennial_Light?o=2801&qsrc=999
The slayers intrigue me because they provide an alternative, when I do think an alternative explanation of light and energy is needed, and I have ideas on that. It seems unlikely that the slayers are on the right track, though, but cracking the door can be helpful. Unfortunately I haven’t time to look into it much, so kudos to Robert Brown for doing so.
max,
you’ve got some real hangups there. Temperature balance occurs when the energy rate in equals the energy rate out. If you put 60 W of power into a light bulb, it will heat up until 60 W of power leave that light bulb. See above post for what happens to the actual amount of power when you manipulate the light bulb’s condition because it will reduce the electrical power applied unless you manipulate the voltage to compensate. If you block some of that radiation from leaving, then the light bulb will heat up more until a power balance is reached. If you simply take a warm object and place it in a room or a box, that object will assume the temperature of that room (which might change from the initial value or it might not – depending upon the thermal mass). Once that is done, the object will be at the temperature and it will radiate power out as if it were sitting out in space near nothing. However, since it will not transfer energy away and cool to a lower temperature than the ambient, that means that the radiation coming back by reflection off the walls and by radiation from the walls will equal the power being radiated. In other words, once the object has reached equilibrium with the room or box, it will neither become hotter or cooler as long as that box or room remains at a constant temperature.
Note that if you think what I’ve stated is incorrect, you should immediate go apply for a patent because you now have a perpetual energy source and can build a perpetual motion machine.
In reality, you simply have an object that is emitting and absorbing the same amount of power and if you add more – by running an electrical power cord to it and start adding additional heat, that object will heat up according to how much additional energy it receives minus how much additional energy leaves it. (assuming no work is being done or chemical reaction energy is occurring).
As for your supernovae post, I’d suggest go read an introductory article about them.
======================================================================
Maybe CO2 is also the cause of dry humor?
When I first heard about the magic of the greenhouse effect, I painted my house green and found it didn’t work (sarc/off). Perhaps this type of linear thought has led Slayer’s to their conclusions. In the way Al Gore embarrasses CAGW proponents, the Slayers are the sceptic’s cross to bear. Some of you may have heard the hymn “Gladly the Cross I’d Bear” which is misinterpreted by small children as “Gladly the cross-eyed Bear”.
“””””…..Bryan says:
July 19, 2013 at 11:19 am
george e. smith says:
” but the terminal Voltage increases, just as if the internal resistance has increased (it has).
So with the same current drive and a higher drive Voltage the applied power is increased, and the chip will get hotter.”
If you increase the temperature of a semiconductor its resistance goes down…….”””””
Bryan, I am going to assume that English is NOT your native language. You clearly didn’t read what I wrote; to whit;
“””””….. but the terminal Voltage increases, just as if the internal resistance has increased (it has)……”””””
Doesn’t say one word about increasing the Temperature of a semiconductor.
I believe I said that the terminal VOLTAGE increases.
I believe I said that the CURRENT flowing stays constant.
I believe that Voltage times current equals power.
I believe I said the applied power increases.
I believe if you put more power into ANYTHING, it will get hotter.
I believe that Voltage divided by current is (one measure of) RESISTANCE. (not necessarily Ohmic).
I believe that a higher VOLTAGE divided by a constant CURRENT implies a higher RESISTANCE..
And finally, I believe that if you made your first LED (light emitting diode) prior to June 1966, that you probably do know more about LEDs than I do.
Big Don says (July 19, 2013 at 2:01 pm): “I did indeed read Dr. Spencer’s thought experiment. After over 30 years as an engineer, I’ve been through hundreds of thought experiments, but many fail to hold up to verification when tested with real physical matter. I’m not saying he is wrong, just that I wouldn’t mind seeing a demonstration that he is right.”
Thanks. I should have included “don’t know” as a possible answer. Sorry.
More later. I’d like others to weigh in on “Yes, Virginia” before proceeding.
As I said before, back radiation can not have any warming effect on the source, either when it is produced by a perfect reflector or by a colder body. I’ll start with the reflector case, it is similar in case of emission/absorption by a colder body.
The main problem the “greenhouse effect” proponents can not overcome is this. If we have a body held initially at a stable temperature (like by an internal battery)and then introduce a perfect reflector on the one side of the body and assume that the reflected radiation warms the body (“greenhouse effect”), then the warmed body (at a higher temperature than initially) would also radiate to the reflector more energy than initially. Therefore more reflected energy would come to the body than initially and this energy would warm the body even more. The body would then radiate even more energy to the reflector (in accordance to it’s higher temperature) and so on. It would never stop, the warming would be endless without any additional input of energy. The other side of the increasingly hotter getting body would very soon radiate away more energy, than there is in the system body-reflector, which is physically absurd and proves the initial assumption (“greenhouse effect” or warming by back radiation) false.
Now let’s illustrate it with numbers. So, we have a flat very thin 1m² black body initially held by it’s internal battery at a stable temperature in vacuum, so that it constantly radiates 800 W/m²according to it’s temperature, which is 400 joules per second from each side (we neglect the radiation from the very thin sides to simplify the calculation). There is absolutely no other source of energy in the neighborhood. To further simplify the calculation we’ll do it in 1-second intervals.
Now we put a perfect reflector of the same form and shape as our black body very very close to it so that what our body radiates from one side comes perfectly back to it, and we assume there is the “greenhouse effect”, of course (according to the “greenhouse effect” our black body absorbs this reflected radiation and gets warmer).
So, the reflector reflects 400 back to our body, the body gets warmer accordingly and radiates (at a higher temperature than initially) 800+400=1200, which means 600 to the reflector and 600 away to the deep deep space (600+600=1200). Not that bad jet, but…
The reflector reflects now 600 back to our body (because our body radiates 600 to the reflector, see above), and the “greenhouse effect” makes our black body absorb those 600 and get warmer accordingly. At an even higher temperature now our black body radiates 1200+600=1800, which means 900 to the reflector and 900 away to the deep deep space (900+900=1800).
Now it is really bad for the “greenhouse effect”, because the 900 per second our body radiates away is more than the system body-reflector has at it’s disposal. This is physically impossible and proves the assumption of the “greenhouse effect” false.
(By the way, if we proceed this way, we’ll see that the “export” of energy accelerates, we’ll get 600, 900, 1350, 2025 and so on.)
The calculation in case of another black body instead of a reflector is similar and leads to the same conclusion.
P.S. The method used above is known as “reductio ad absurdum”. Wikipedia describes it as “a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate […] that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.”
IMHO, this is not an argument between the “slayer” position and the WUWT crowd. I did not know who “slayers” were until the Willis “steel shell” post evolved. My understanding through my university physics and thermo courses has always been that a cold object simply cannot warm up a warmer object. That is the essence of the Clausian statement of the Second Law, That has always been my understanding even before I knew who the “slayers” were, and before I knew anything about the greenhouse effect. And a violation of the 2nd Law always leads to a violation of the 1st Law.. I have never seen one physics or thermo textbook state any modified versions of these laws to indicate otherwise. No I am not going to debate these issues, because that is not my point. My point is that there are many scientists/physicists who adhere to the long established laws of thermodynamics, which happen to coincide with the slayer position.
Greg, how many times can you give this sort of example, be corrected by someone, and STILL give the same wrong answer the next time?
“… makes our black body absorb those 600 and get warmer accordingly.”
OK — tou did get that line right. The object is absorbing 600 W of reflected light and absorbing 800 W of electrical power, for a total of 1400 W.
It now will be emitting 700 W each way (for a total of 1400 W). It will absorb 700 W of reflected light and 800 W of electrical power, for a total of 1500 W.
Then 750 W each way. Then 775 W each way. Then 787.5 W each way. It asymptotically approaches 800 W each way, and everything is in balance. There is never 900 W each way. There is no run-away heating.
[There would be a few details related to the finite heat capacity of the 1mx1m sheet. This would determine how long it would take to reach each of stages listed above, but won’t change the conclusion.]
SkepticGoneWild says (July 19, 2013 at 5:16 pm): “My understanding through my university physics and thermo courses has always been that a cold object simply cannot warm up a warmer object.”
Thanks, Skeptic. So I’ll put you down for “temp stays the same” in the “Yes, Virginia” thought experiment?
tjfolkerts says (July 19, 2013 at 5:57 pm): “Greg, how many times can you give this sort of example, be corrected by someone, and STILL give the same wrong answer the next time?”
One can also think of Greg’s setup as applying a perfect insulator to one side of the two-sided black body. Then all 800 W must radiate from one side.
Gary,
I’m not interested in thought experiments.
SkepticGoneWild says “My point is that there are many scientists/physicists who adhere to the long established laws of thermodynamics, which happen to coincide with the slayer position.”
With due respect, you are misinterpreting the thermodynamics involved. The long established laws of physics do NOT coincide with the slayer position (at least not often).
Consider these two points.
1) The 2nd Law says that heat (the net flow of thermal energy) naturally goes from warmer to cooler. This in no way precludes some thermal energy from moving from a cooler object to a warmer object, as long as more thermal energy goes the other way. The laws of conduction and radiation guarantee that this will always be the case. (The ‘slayers’ typically misinterpret this law, insisting incorrectly that the word “net” should not be there and that NO energy can move from a cooler object to a warmer object).
2) Cool objects can “assist” in warming a warmer object in conjunction with some other heater. Only the heater actually “heats” the warm object. The cool object limits the heat flow that would have occurred to EVEN COLDER objects. (The sun for the earth; the electric heater in Greg’s example above; a furnace for your house). So the cool walls of your house, in conjunction with the hot furnace, will keep your house warmer than if there were no walls (or poorly insulated walls). Similarly, the cool atmosphere, in conjunction with the hot sun, will keep the earth warmer than if the earth were radiating straight to space.
tjfolkerts says (July 19, 2013 at 5:57 pm): ““… makes our black body absorb those 600 and get warmer accordingly.”
OK — tou did get that line right. The object is absorbing 600 W of reflected light and absorbing 800 W of electrical power, for a total of 1400 W.”
========================================================
I know this argument, it is false.
It ignores that the body in my example has already been warmed by the first portion of reflected radiation (“greenhouse effect”). Of course, this “greenhouse effect” can never happen in reality, but you can not insist there is “greenhouse effect” and ignore the higher temperature it is supposed to cause.
Just stick to the assumption of the “greenhouse effect”.
Again, black bodies radiate according to their temperature.
800 joule per second is only what holds our black body at a stable temperature initially and what it radiates initially. Of course, in reality it would never get warmer without additional source of energy, it is only the assumption of the “greenhouse effect” that “warms” it and leads to the absurd result.
So, you could only add 600 to 800, if the body were still at it’s initial temperature, but it is not, because it has already been “warmed” by the first portion of reflected radiation, which was 400. Therefore it’s next temperature is determined by the temperature corresponding to 1200 (not to 800) and the “additional” 600 reflected back. I am sorry, but this is your “greenhouse effect”, not mine.
As I said, the problem the proponents of the “greenhouse effect” can not overcome is that their “greenhouse warming” causes also more back radiation which causes more warming and so on and it can never stop.
From my experience, some people debating this point of mine somehow forget that the whole calculation is done strictly under the assumption of the “greenhouse effect”, every single step of it.