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.
http://hep.bu.edu/~superk/gc.html
“When a massive star at the end of its life collapses to a neutron star, it radiates almost all of its binding energy in the form of neutrinos, most of which have energies in the range 10-30 MeV. These neutrinos come in all flavors, and are emitted over a timescale of several tens of seconds. The neutrino luminosity of a gravitational collapse-driven supernova is typically 100 times its optical luminosity.”
http://snoplus.phy.queensu.ca/Supernova_Neutrinos.html
“When a massive star collapses in a type II supernova explosion, more than 99% of its gravitational binding energy is released as neutrinos. This results in more neutrinos being produced in the span of a few seconds than are released in the rest of the star’s life combined.”
http://physics.aps.org/story/v24/st4
“Before a dying star explodes, nuclear reactions generate neutrinos that carry away an estimated 99 percent of the supernova’s total radiated energy. Neutrinos barely interact with matter, so most of them fly right through the star’s layers and reach Earth before any other signs of the event.”
Educate yourself, sweetheart.
Oops, forgot one more for you, cba.
“All flavors of neutrinos and antineu-
trinos from the neutrinospheres inside the proto-NS are thought
to play at least two essential roles in successful SN explosions
in the ‘‘delayed explosion’’ model. First, successive interactions
between intensive flux of neutrinos and materials collapsing
into the proto-NS deposit neutrino energy into the ejecta and thus
revive the shock propagation, leading to a successful breakout
through the iron core (Wilson 1985; Bethe & Wilson 1985). Sec-
ond, in such a neutrino-powered SN explosion mechanism, the
atmosphere of the proto-NS is heated by neutrinos at high en-
tropy s/k=100~400 to form a ‘‘hot bubble’’ flowing out rap-
idly behind the shock, which is called the neutrino-driven wind.
This is a viable candidate site for the r-process (Woosley et al.
1994).”
“Otsuki et al. (2000) showed that neutrino heating occurs most
effectively at r=30 km from the center of the collapsing core.
We found in the same flow model analysis that it takes 3–4 ms
for the material blowing off the surface from the proto-NS to
reach 30 km. We discussed in
[2] that neutrino emission is followed, until abruptly terminated by the BH formation, with the appearance of the apparent horizon in the first scenario. Finite time elapses before the BH forms, and the neutrino luminosity
is cut off at 1–2 s (Burrows 1988). In the second scenario the
cutoff time is delayed about 10 s for the formation of the proto-
NS, followed by possibly a phase transition of softening of the
equation of state of the core matter, and possibly later mass accretion onto the BH. Since the neutrino cutoff time 1–2 or
10 s is larger than the heating timescale 3–4 ms, we can as-
sume that the hot bubble can form in the neutrino-driven wind
of Type II SNe that form BHs as remnants.
The temperature of all flows of the neutrino-driven wind used
in the present study reaches to T_9 ~=9 at t=3~4 ms. We adopt
this temperature as the typical temperature at which neutrino
heating is completed. The entropy of the hot bubble that is
formed stays constant after this time. This justifies our assump-
tion of constant entropy during the nucleosynthesis that follows.
Our nucleosynthesis calculation starts from this initial tem-
perature, and time zero refers to the time when the hot bubble
reaches T_9=9 as displayed in Figure 1. It is to be noted that
the time in this figure and all others we discuss in this paper is
not the time after core collapse or core bounce. Flows of the
neutrino-driven wind successively blow off until the neutrino
luminosity is cut off at the time t=t_cut.”
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/634/1/534/pdf/0004-637X_634_1_534.pdf
Now, unless I’m sorely mistaken, that paper and the links above say that during a supernova most of the gravitational binding energy is released in the form of neutrinos, and there is a process by which neutrino heating influences the formation of certain SN remnants, as well as being involved in r-nucleosynthesis during the explosion itself.
So, cba, can you please share with the rest of the class your insight about where my understanding of SN processes is incorrect?
SkepticGoneWild says (July 19, 2013 at 6:12 pm): “I’m not interested in thought experiments.”
Would you be interested in a real experiment?
Note that every experiment is a “thought experiment” until it’s actually carried out. Generally the experimenter has some idea/prediction, if only a guess, how the experiment will turn out. You’ve written enough that I can deduce your prediction, but feel free to make it explicit.
BTW, there are textbook/handbooks that dispute your version of the Second Law. See here and a href=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/the-r-w-wood-experiment/#comment-1219848>here.
Incidentally, I see you participated in the latter thread but apparently missed Willis’s references.
Correcting HTML error in my previous comment:
BTW, there are textbook/handbooks that dispute your version of the Second Law. See here and here.
I am appalled at the silliness that seems to have taken over WUWT. In the past, I have strongly recommended this site to others, but this kind of smarmy, non-scientific exchange is far beneath the standard I had come to expect of WUWT.
Example: Someone posting as “steveta_uk” suggests an experiment involving wrapping a lightbulb in aluminum foil, shiny side in. Exactly what purpose would be served by such an inane “experiment”? Clearly, this experiment would be meaningless as it has NOTHING in common with the misnamed “greenhouse effect” for the obvious reason that the lightbulb would be reflecting upon itself a heat source that is being continuously renewed from an outside source! This bears no resemblance whatsoever to the “greenhouse gas” theory of the solar-Earth-atmosphere system.
Perhaps “steveta_uk” would like to take a crack at explaining:
(1) Why greenhouse effect theory is a complete failure at predicting climate change?
or,
(2) Why ice core data clearly show that atmospheric carbon dioxide RESPONDS to climate warming and is not the CAUSE of climate warming,
or,
(3) Why, if water vapor is the primary and overwhelming “greenhouse gas” responsible for near-surface atmospheric warming (as claimed by GHE theory), a desert heat wave predicted during extremely dry (low water vapor) atmospheric conditions fails to materialize as a consequence of an influx of water vapor into the atmosphere?
or, in a similar example,
(4) Why when two continental (i.e., non-maritime) locations at the same latitude having climates that differ significantly in their atmospheric water vapor content (one desert, one humid), it is the location with the desert climate that posts the consistently HIGHER temperatures? If atmospheric “greenhouse” gas “back radiation” theory is correct and water vapor is such a potent greenhouse gas, how can that be? Hint: Please illustrate your explanation using one of the many “back radiation warming” graphics commonly used to explain “greenhouse gas” warming as the basis for your explanation.
If, in fact, “back radiation” is responsible for increasing surface temperature, and thus, subsequent radiation from Earth’s surface must increase, what prevents this cyclic process from continuously warming Earth’s surface in a runaway process? At what point does “back radiation” stop warming the surface?
Finally, doesn’t it strike defenders of GHE theory the least bit odd that, no matter what difference is claimed between what preliminary (in absence of GHE warming) computations predict Earth’s surface temperature should be and what it is thought to be, that difference can be explained by a warming process that miraculously warms just enough to account for that difference, no more, no less?
Isn’t it possible that estimates of Earth’s surface temperature (in the absence of a greenhouse effect) might just be wrong when their reconciliation with reality is dependent on this miraculously clever “greenhouse effect” that knows just how much warmth is needed? That such reconciliation is so readily accepted among those who claim scientific credentials is remarkable, given predictions for contributions to climate from a greenhouse effect are based on unrealistic assumptions piled on top of unproven theory in a grossly simplified climate universe.
How much serious effort has been expended trying to understand global climate & climate change in the absence of any reliance on a “greenhouse effect”?
Pierre R. Latour, PhD, has given this question serious consideration. His conclusions are worth a read: Greenhouse Gas Theory is False (July 8, 2013) at http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=latourp&date=130708
tjfolkerts says:
July 19, 2013 at 6:16 pm
“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).”
===================================================================
The word “net” is simply not there. It is in your postings and in many others, but in the historical statements it is not there. Hence what you and some others are presenting as the 2nd Law is not the 2nd Law.
Still, your pseudo “the 2nd Law” can be valid, but you need to prove it, what no one managed to do.
”
Max
So, cba, can you please share with the rest of the class your insight about where my understanding of SN processes is incorrect?
”
I did not see where your references stated that the neutrinos significantly interacted with anything on their way out of the star. Your claim that there is a greenhouse effect there and nowhere on Earth is where your problem exists. Talking about a massive compression shock wave rippling thru a large dying star and generating tremendous amounts of hydrogen fusion outside the core where hydrogen concentration is still very high is not relevent to anything about what is referred to as the greenhouse gas effect.
tjfolkerts says:
July 19, 2013 at 6:16 pm
“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.”
==============================================================
This “assistance” is the funniest argument, sorry. Just think of it: if I let my dog “assist” by pushing the air condition button, is my dog now cooling my house “in conjunction” with the air conditioner? Dogs cool houses? “Greendog effect”?
The warmists’ position is that colder objects supply energy to warmer objects, not just “assist” in an unrelated way.
Bob Webster says (July 19, 2013 at 7:32 pm): “Pierre R. Latour, PhD, has given this question serious consideration. His conclusions are worth a read: Greenhouse Gas Theory is False…”
Thanks Bob. Congrats on getting that link through moderation. I’ll put you down for “same” in the “Yes, Virginia” sweepstakes shall I, then?
So far we have:
johnmarshall: (presume “same” from comments)
Big Don: don’t know
Greg: (presume “same” from comments)
AlecM: (presume “same” from comments)
SkepticGoneWild: (presume “same” from comments)
Bob Webster: same (he refers to Latour, who is on record)
Stay tuned.
Bob, I’ll take a few quick stabs at some of your questions/comments:
“… the lightbulb would be reflecting upon itself a heat source that is being continuously renewed from an outside source! This bears no resemblance whatsoever to the “greenhouse gas” theory of the solar-Earth-atmosphere system.”
The earth IS renewed by an outside source .. the sun!
“(2) Why ice core data clearly show that atmospheric carbon dioxide RESPONDS to climate warming and is not the CAUSE of climate warming … “
CO2 can be both a casue and an effect of warming. The “natural condition” seems to be that warming leads to more CO2 which leads to some more warming (ie some degree of positive feedback). But the conditions in the last ~100 years ARE different from the past. The is an “unnatural” source of CO2 (ie people). This source of CO2 does not depend on the earth coming out of a previous glacial period. Surely you are not saying that the CO2 rise in the last ~ 100 years is the RESULT of warming?!
” … two continental locations at the same latitude …”
Phoenix and Atlanta fit the bill pretty well. There is some basic data here:
http://www.climate-zone.com/climate/united-states/arizona/phoenix/
http://www.climate-zone.com/climate/united-states/georgia/atlanta/
Yes, Phoenix is hotter. However …
1) Phoenix is significantly less cloudy, allowing in more solar energy, which by itself should make phoenix (and desert locations in general) warmer than Atlanta (or similar locations).
2) The difference between high and low is greater in Phoenix. The lack of GHGs mean more effective cooling at night.
“what prevents this cyclic process from continuously warming Earth’s surface in a runaway process?”
See the comment above to Greg. The infinite series converges, with a finite warming from added GHGs. There are other sorts of feedbacks that could magnify the effect (like melting ice changing earths albedo, or melting permafrost releasing yet more CO2), but even these can’t lead to temperatures spiraling upward toward infinity.
“… this miraculously clever “greenhouse effect” that knows just how much warmth is needed?”
This seems an oddly backwards way of thinking. The GHGs do provide some warming via backradiation (or “reduction of cooling” if you want to be picky). Fortunately the theory does give the right ballpark for surface temperatures, whereas a nonGHG atmosphere cannot come even close to the right temperatures. I find that “fortunate for science”, not “miraculous”.
” Pierre R. Latour, PhD, has given this question serious consideration.
Unfortunately, his “serious consideration” is good occasionally, but overall it is seriously lacking.
********************************************
Clearly we are not going to resolve these issues here. I just wanted to provide some food for thought to show that your objects are not “fatal” to climate science.
gbaikie says: July 19, 2013 at 8:05 am
“The fundamental aspect is idea that only the radiant effects of greenhouse gases
can increase the average temperature of a planet.”
This is a strawman argument. No serious scientist would say such a thing. LOTS of factors influence the surface temperature of the earth (and you go on to point out some of them).
I don’t think it’s strawman.
Let’s take a planet called Mars.
You probably think the only way to increase the average temperature of Mars is
by added more CO2 gas or some other greenhouse gas- like say, Methane.
I don’t think increasing Mars rotation [going from from 24 to say, 12 hours] it would affects it’s average temperature by a significant amount.
Though I do think if you increase our Moon’s rotation [had day which was 24 hours long] that this would increase it’s average temperature by a significance amount.
I think if you added liquid water to Mars you would increase it’s temperature.
And also if added enough water to Venus, it would decrease it’s average temperature.
With Mars the amount water could as little a 1 meter depth in terms of globally. And with Venus
probably the amount of water which equal to about 10 meters of depth globally. With Mars it’s assuming the water would somehow not disappear under the surface and/or just pile up at poles. Best to start by put all water at Mars equatorial/tropical region.
The water on Venus because of temperature would start as water vapor. And even if water starts is in form of ice on Mars, it still eventually warm Mars.
And more than this amount water on either planet will have a even more significant effect [cool Venus further, and warm Mars more].
And I think if you add more CO2 to Mars, it doesn’t increase global temperature but would create a larger CO2 polar caps. With more CO2 [say more twice current amount of the current 2.5 x 10^16 kg of mostly CO2, the increased sublimation of CO2 at pole would slightly increase polar winter temperature- so have some regional affect but not significantly affect global temperature.
It’s possible the increase of atmosphere [of any kind] could increase the amount dust in atmosphere, and increased dust could have global warming affect.
Greg says: “This “assistance” is the funniest argument, sorry. … The warmists’ position is that colder objects supply energy to warmer objects, not just “assist” in an unrelated way.”
I’m sorry that you have such trouble understanding basic physics, thinking that such physics is “funny”. The colder object DOES supple some energy to the warmer object, which is precisely an “assist” in a related way. Of course, this is all colloquial language, which could be made more formal. But heat (the NET flow of thermal energy) still flows from warmer to cooler; energy is still conserved; the laws of thermodynamics are still obeyed. There is nothing in the GHE that goes against the laws of physics.
Of course, there are many OTHER factors in addition to the GHE that affect climate. CO2 is simply one of many effects that combine to determine temperatures.
gbaikie says: “You probably think the only way to increase the average temperature of Mars is by added more CO2 gas or some other greenhouse gas- like say, Methane.”
You would be wrong! 🙂
Besides some of the more obvious ways (like changing the albedo), you could warm Mars by adding more non-GHGs as well!
The GHE involves GHGs at the “top of the atmosphere” (TOA) radiating poorly to space because it is cold there. The physics of lapse rates will ensure that the higher you go, the colder it will be (within certain limits). Adding EITHER GHGs or nonGHGs will raise the TOA. So adding either GHGs or nonGHGs to Mars will raise the surface temperature.
For earth, doubling the N2 in the atmosphere would have a bigger effect than doubling the CO2. But there is no chance of doubling the N2, while it is possible to double the CO2.
Here ya go, cba, which I assume stands for “can’t be asked”, as in “can’t be asked to read”, yes?
“All flavors of neutrinos and antineu-
trinos from the neutrinospheres inside the proto-NS are thought
to play at least two essential roles in successful SN explosions
in the ‘‘delayed explosion’’ model. First, successive interactions
between intensive flux of neutrinos and materials collapsing
into the proto-NS deposit neutrino energy into the ejecta and thus
revive the shock propagation, leading to a successful breakout
through the iron core (Wilson 1985; Bethe & Wilson 1985). Sec-
ond, in such a neutrino-powered SN explosion mechanism, the
atmosphere of the proto-NS is heated by neutrinos at high en-
tropy s/k=100~400 to form a ‘‘hot bubble’’ flowing out rap-
idly behind the shock, which is called the neutrino-driven wind.
This is a viable candidate site for the r-process (Woosley et al.
1994).”
“Otsuki et al. (2000) showed that neutrino heating occurs most
effectively at r=30 km from the center of the collapsing core.
We found in the same flow model analysis that it takes 3–4 ms
for the material blowing off the surface from the proto-NS to
reach 30 km. We discussed in
[2] that neutrino emission is followed, until abruptly terminated by the BH formation, with the appearance of the apparent horizon in the first scenario. Finite time elapses before the BH forms, and the neutrino luminosity
is cut off at 1–2 s (Burrows 1988). In the second scenario the
cutoff time is delayed about 10 s for the formation of the proto-
NS, followed by possibly a phase transition of softening of the
equation of state of the core matter, and possibly later mass accretion onto the BH. Since the neutrino cutoff time 1–2 or
10 s is larger than the heating timescale 3–4 ms, we can as-
sume that the hot bubble can form in the neutrino-driven wind
of Type II SNe that form BHs as remnants.
The temperature of all flows of the neutrino-driven wind used
in the present study reaches to T_9 ~=9 at t=3~4 ms. We adopt
this temperature as the typical temperature at which neutrino
heating is completed. The entropy of the hot bubble that is
formed stays constant after this time. This justifies our assump-
tion of constant entropy during the nucleosynthesis that follows.
Our nucleosynthesis calculation starts from this initial tem-
perature, and time zero refers to the time when the hot bubble
reaches T_9=9 as displayed in Figure 1. It is to be noted that
the time in this figure and all others we discuss in this paper is
not the time after core collapse or core bounce. Flows of the
neutrino-driven wind successively blow off until the neutrino
luminosity is cut off at the time t=t_cut.”
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/634/1/534/pdf/0004-637X_634_1_534.pdf
Perhaps bolding the references to neutrino heating will help?
Max
I haven’t been paying attention for some years. Have we physically detected any neutrinos ?
http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/news/nuexpt.html
Long time ago, 1956 according to that link, they were proposed in 1930 by Pauli, we’ve detected supernova neutrinos from the SN1987 event, as well as several others since then.
” tjfolkerts says:
July 19, 2013 at 9:15 pm
gbaikie says: “You probably think the only way to increase the average temperature of Mars is by added more CO2 gas or some other greenhouse gas- like say, Methane.”
You would be wrong! 🙂
Besides some of the more obvious ways (like changing the albedo), you could warm Mars by adding more non-GHGs as well! ”
Mars Earth Ratio (Mars/Earth)
Bond albedo 0.250 0.306 0.817
Visual geometric albedo 0.170 0.367 0.463
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
Moon Earth Ratio (Moon/Earth)
Bond albedo 0.11 0.306 0.360
Visual geometric albedo 0.12 0.367 0.330
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
Mars does not appear very bright due to it’s distance from Sun and though the surface material is not general as dark as Moon, it would appear less bright.
I don’t think if you made Mars the surface lamp soot black that the day time surface
temperature would much warmer and it would not affect night time surface temperature.
So I would say maybe at most, 2 C warmer average global temperature.
Naturally, Earth from space is fairly brilliant in comparison to either Mars or the Moon.
So if one made blacker than the Moon, it would have a slight effect.
And visually, it might be a stunning effect.
As far as adding more non-GHGs.
I think methane may warm it a bit more than non-GHGs. I think changing it lamp black could
be a bigger effect.
But If one means adding something like the Earth’s 1 atm of atmosphere,
this type of scale of atmosphere will dim the Mars surface considerably so that day time surface receives 100 watts [or more] reduction per square meter, so daytime surface temperature would be lower [*and* make the place “feel” really cold].
But perhaps overall it would increase night time temperatures.
I would guess that, Mars’ lower gravity than Earth, reduces amount heat which is transferred [via convection] to atmosphere- but perhaps not- or it’s not as a significant factor as think it could be.
But with a much more massive Mars atmosphere, it seems you would get much more powerful winds [the wind would increase convection, but more importantly, you get much more dust].
“For earth, doubling the N2 in the atmosphere would have a bigger effect than doubling the CO2. But there is no chance of doubling the N2, while it is possible to double the CO2.”
I think doubling Earth’s N2, would cool Earth. Reduces amount solar flux which reaches the surface. I think halving it, could make it a bit warmer, though regions far from bodies of water, would get cooler at night. [Siberia much colder].
But tropics of Earth is 40% of global surface area and up to 38 latitude north and south is half the world surface area and with our current ocean and land mass configuration, it seems to me this would make this region much warmer and hence in terms global temperature, a higher average temperature. It seems with less atmosphere and greater potential temperature differences, one could have more storms. So not as uniform a temperature, but a bit warmer.
Yore erata needs an erratum because you spelled errata rong. It’s the reflexive form of Muphry’s Law.
cba says (19 July, 2:11pm: “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’ve always thought this was the major factor in bulb failure, encouraged in this by the fact that I have some 12V halogen bulbs in place that have been there almost 20 years. I put this down to the fact that they’re fed from transformers, which reduce the shock.
Did anyone even bother to check that the example worked through is exactly the “steel Greenhouse” proposal and can be found in the textbook – – page 24 number 1026 – :-
Problems and Solutions on Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics (Major American Universities Ph.D. Qualifying Questions and Solutions) Volume 5 Edited by Young-Kuo Lim. ???
Read the book – you can find it Google Books and preview enough of it to see this example.
This is accurate physics and mathematics where the result is derived from first principles without any assumptions.
If it challenges your preconceived ideas test it out and see which one is actually right – you may be surprised.
Everyone should understand this is a sound result – even more so as it makes no assumptions about the answer unlike the assumption made in the “Steel Greenhouse”.
Proper science and mathematics require no assumption about the answer.
Anthony that is the ultimate cop out. you do not bother because you know it is not possible. If you could fame and fortune would be yours.
And rgb calling the sun the ultimate GHE could be confusion with something else but certainly not any GHE.
REPLY: Fame and fortune as a member of the “slayers” clown consensus? I think not. – Anthony
And you still have not explained why a desert is hotter than a rainforest within the concept of the GHE.
[snip – too stupid and condescending to post – Anthony]
tjfolkerts says:
July 19, 2013 at 9:03 pm
“The colder object DOES supple some energy to the warmer object, “
==========================================================
This is absolutely impossible, exactly as in case of a reflector.
In my example above, if we replace the reflector with a blackbody at 0K initially, in 2 seconds the system will export more energy than it has at it’s disposal, an absurd result that proves the assumption false.
[snip – too stupid and condescending to post – Anthony]