Light bulb Experiments: Slaying Watts with Watts

Written by Joseph E. Postma

Anthony Watts has performed an experiment in follow-up to Roy Spencer’s challenge to the Slayers/Principia Scientific International to “put up or shut up”, to which we replied that we had already put up, and in which we proved that Dr. Spencer’s understanding of the offered challenge was somewhat lacking. Curt Wilson has also done a follow-up experiment for WUWT.

Unfortunately, our successful answer to the original challenge was ignored and a new line of questioning was instead pursued by Watts et al. Sometimes this is called changing reference frames. The distraction comes from a diagram we used to present a general physical principle of thermodynamics, such that radiant emission from a source cannot act as an additional source, for the source. This means that the source cannot become brighter, which in radiative emission terms of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law means hotter, from its own radiation. If such a thing could happen, then an object’s own radiation could act as a source or cause of temperature increase for the object, which is of course plainly in violation of thermodynamics.

The diagram which has presented the hapless convenience for Watts et al. to reframe the rebuttal to their challenge, is reproduced below:

Siddons Light Bulb and Mirror

Figure 1: (Image courtesy of Alan Siddons.)

This diagram (Figure 1) was included in the context of a previous diagram, as shown here:

Siddons Two Light Bulbs

Figure 2:  (Image courtesy of Alan Siddons.)

The point of the discussion surrounding these diagrams was in terms of an elucidation of the underlying physical principles which govern the fundamental thermodynamic behaviour. Unfortunately, the underlying physical principles of thermodynamics, such that a source of light cannot make itself shine brighter (i.e. become hotter) with its own light, or that two equal sources of light cannot make each other brighter (hotter at the source), can be ignored at the expense of mischaracterizing an experiment to test them. It would have been just as well if Watts et al. would have chosen to create an experiment based on Figure 2, because the brightness results would have been much more obvious. However, Figure 1 and Figure 2 do allow for significant misperception if the underlying principles are not understood, or ignored. This is something we didn’t consider would occur, and it is an important lesson for science communicators.

Regarding the underlying theoretical principles of what such an experiments requires to be understood and in regards to the greenhouse effect, Mr. Watts replied at his site: “And yet, in the diagram proposed in the essay by Postma, such fine details were not mentioned nor required. Demanding them now post facto doesn’t fly.”

Unfortunately, expecting the “fine details” to be appreciated is something we expected a-priori. That was our mistake. Unfortunately, it is the onus of the experimentalist to be competent and responsible for their complete understanding of what it is they’ll be intending to measure, and to quantify it. If all of the details aren’t sorted out, such as what the underlying physical principles are, as opposed to a simple literal interpretation of words without context and misidentifying original causes, then any such discussion by the experimentalist of the empirical results cannot be expected to be meaningful. It has always been a tricky business.

The underlying physical principles we had expected to be understood can be expressed in terms of the general equivalence of concepts between three major areas of physics: force mechanics, electrical mechanics, and thermal mechanics. It is sometimes helpful for a student to consider that a problem in one domain can be qualitatively solved equivalently in another domain, for example: voltage is like temperature is like force; current is like heat flow is like acceleration; and electrical resistance is like thermal mass is like material mass.

Postma domain table

In terms of an energy analysis, force, voltage, and temperature all represent the potential to induce action if there is a non-zero differential in them. That is, a force differential causes acceleration, modulated by a physical parameter; a voltage differential causes current, modulated by a physical parameter; and a temperature differential causes heat flow, modulated by a physical parameter. In all cases the nature of the action is similar: the acceleration caused by the force does not increase the force; the current caused by the voltage does not increase the voltage; and the heat flow caused by a temperature differential does not increase the temperature. In all cases, if one wishes to modify the action, they must either modify the differential, or modify the relevant physical parameters. We will see ahead the importance of these facts.

In an electrical circuit, dissipation of energy is performed by the resistor. The energy dissipation takes the form of heat in the resistor, and if the physical parameters of the resistor and the circuit are appropriate, the resistor can become hot enough to emit visible light. Typically, light bulb filaments run at 3300K and produce emission close to a blackbody. It is important to comprehend that the source of the thermal emission/heat generation in the resistor is caused by the current running through it, and the current is caused by the voltage applied to the circuit. If the filament emits similar to a blackbody, then its radiant output flux density can be related to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. The radiant emission has as its source, then, the current going through the circuit, which is caused by the voltage applied to the circuit. If you want to increase the temperature of the source of light/heat so that you can produce more light/heat, and the source of those is the filament, then you have to increase the current going through the filament, and this is done by increasing the voltage across the circuit. It cannot be done by giving the filament the light or heat it produces back to itself, as the light is dissipated energy, not source energy for the circuit or filament. The filament’s dissipated energy cannot be used to increase the voltage across the circuit, and hence cannot be used to increase the brightness/temperature of the source.

Both of the WUWT experiments make the mistake of considering that the frosted glass of the bulb is the source of light and heat. PSI acknowledges that such a confusion is possible if you look naively at the diagrams and see what looks like a frosted bulb and simple-mindedly assume that the frosted glass itself is the source of the energy, and assume a bland interpretation of the words describing the scenario.

The frosted glass is a source of light in as much as it scatters the incoming spectrum, and it is a source of heat in as much as its absorbs the incoming spectrum. Obviously, the actual source of light and heat is the filament inside the bulb producing the spectrum at a typical temperature of 3300K, and the source of energy for the filament is the voltage applied to the circuit. The frosted glass is a passive semitransparent screen in front of the actual source. The frosted glass bulb itself, once heated, can be a source of heat for something cooler than it, such as a finger or hand, but it is not the source of energy.

We did not expect that the underlying physical principles would be disregarded, or plainly not understood, nor scientifically quantified. This experiment could be repeated to check for a brightness increase of the frosted glass when another bulb is brought nearby; this might actually occur, but the reason would be that the frosted glass has a high albedo and some additional light would simply be reflected back. Again, this would not actually get down to the underlying physical thermodynamic principle involved nor of what is claimed with the greenhouse effect, because the true source wouldn’t actually increase in temperature. Mr. Watts has insisted that we do not consider such fundamentals of theory and its quantification and instead focus only on the surface appearances of his experiment; doing such a thing obviously presents the opportunity for obfuscation, and we can wonder if this is intended, or simply not comprehended.

It becomes clear that it is the frosted glass of the bulb which presents the confusion regarding what is the actual source of light and heat. The opacity of the glass provides a convenient occlusion of the underlying physics. We may not be able to see inside the frosted glass bulb, but nevertheless inside the frosted glass bulb is a filament at 3300K. Indeed, this experiment would have been more obviously nonsensical if a clear glass bulb was used, because clear glass exposes the underlying source of things. Indeed such details were not discussed by us there, but we would have expected an honest experimental assessment of the true underlying physics of the fundamental concept we described, rather than this more haphazard and amateurish assessment.

To be sure, the source of this light bulb experiment is a convenient bait-and-switch away from the fact that we answered Mr. Watts’ and Roy Spencer’s challenge to us, in which we demonstrated that they did not understand their own challenge, in which we had already answered their challenge, and in which we proved that it is possible to scientifically quantify with theory and with empirical data that the Earth is spherical, that sunshine is hot, and that no greenhouse effect exists. Is it a bait-and-switch we provided the opportunity for? Yes that can be said. However, such a response was only possible in a crass environment.

The results of this experiment go back to the original challenge from Watts & Spencer, and relates directly to the confusion related to the greenhouse effect. In the greenhouse effect, it is the source input which must be added to by its own reaction in the system. Both Mr. Watts and Mr. Wilson stated that their experiments showed that the heat produced by the bulb was able to come back and heat the bulb up some more. This is the same thing as saying that the light and heat produced by the circuit was able to come back and add to the voltage applied to the circuit, which is obviously nonsensical, but these are the details Mr. Watts would like to ignore.

The question ultimately goes back to the source, and what is causing the actual light and heat. In the case of the circuit, it has just been discussed – the voltage applied to the circuit, the current through the circuit, and the electrical energy dissipation in the filament. In the case of the models which create the greenhouse effect, it is the globally-diluted sunshine which is modeled at a forcing temperature of -180C, or 240 W/m2. What is required by these models, because they use a value of sunshine which is far colder than its actual value, effectively treating the Sun as if it twice as far away from the Earth as it is, is to have this forcing input become increased to a higher temperature by having the atmosphere, which is heated by that diluted solar input, send back some thermal radiation to have it augment the input heating. This is why Mr. Watts and Mr. Wilson interpreted their experiments in the way that they did and stated what they stated about them. Watts: “…I have just proven in the “simplest” mirror experiment…that some energy will be returned [causing more heating]”. Wilson: “We therefore have solid experimental evidence that radiation from a cooler object (the shell) can increase the temperature of a warmer object”.

Typically this is called backradiation heating and has been the traditional mode of explanation and argument for the greenhouse effect, although within the greenhouse effect following itself there is typically little consistency. For example, Watts: “I’ve never made a doubling claim …, nor am I aware that any of the others named have claimed a doubling”. However, this PSI paper (Appendix H) lists as references twenty-five major institutions that adhere to the flux-doubling back-radiation heating argument of the greenhouse effect. It matters little whether one is claiming an exact doubling, a 50% return, or whatever, for it is the underlying concept which is the heart of the engine, such subtle details which are important to understand. But for example, a full doubling of the input is exactly what we see from the University of Washington’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences, in Figure 3. It is important to note that the actual input in these greenhouse effect diagrams is a forcing of -180C or 240 W/m2, which is a Sun twice as far away from the Earth as it actually is. What is then done is to have the dissipated response heat from this input come back and add to the input again. (Although little consistency will be found within greenhouse effect advocacy because sometimes it is argued that the backradiation simply slows cooling instead of actually causing heating, among other alternative claims…this lack of consistency indicates a severe problem at the core of the theory, which has been discussed elsewhere.) In the greenhouse effect models such as Figure 3, the input forcing is augmented by its own reaction in the system, causing further action within itself, bumping the forcing temperature up to 303K. This inbred process is called “the greenhouse effect”, and it is required because the model places the Sun twice as far away as it should be. It is a plain violation of reality, and then of thermodynamics. If a real-time physical model is used instead with the actual Sun and spherical Earth, as PSI demonstrated, then perhaps not-too remarkably, the input forcing is naturally 303K. The standard models create a fiction of the Earth and Sun in order to create a greenhouse effect meme to fills the gaps between reality and fiction, whereas a natural model produces the same results without any additions. In the natural model published by PSI, for example, it is the Sun which creates clouds and drives the climate by its real-time action in the system; in the fiction models, the Sun cannot create clouds. The preference between the two should be obvious.

standard Greenhouse Gas Model

Figure 3: Solar radiation is diluted to an input one-quarter of its actual power density in order to create the greenhouse effect. This effectively makes the Sun twice as far away as it actually is. (http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html)

For an electrical resistive circuit such as that for an incandescent light bulb, the power being utilized by the circuit is that which is put into it, via the voltage and the current that is then generated. (In practice the inrush current takes a short time to stabilize but relatively quickly a stable resistor temperature and current is reached.) The equation for the power is P = I2R = V2/R, and has units of Joules per second, or Watts. If you can determine the surface area that this Wattage interacts with, you can then connect it directly to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, F = σT4. If A is the surface area from which the power is being emitted by the filament, then F = σT4 = P/A = I2R/A, and so T = (I2R/σA)1/4 . So, the temperature of the filament, which is the source of the light and heat, is caused by the current in combination with the other physical parameters of the filament, as we discussed previously. In terms of the radiant source itself, if we wish to produce a higher source temperature and hence higher brightness and more heat, then we must increase the current through the circuit. This can be done by increasing the voltage because we can replace the current term with voltage from the previous equation, that is, T = (V2/σAR)1/4 . Directing the radiant output from the filament back on to the filament does not increase the voltage across the circuit, and hence does not cause an increase in brightness of the source. Such a scheme is a basic violation of the set of laws of thermodynamics let alone the basic physics of the process, because we cannot use the dissipated heat energy from a process to do more work (increase the power) in that process. Such heat produced can only go do work (such as raising temperature) on something less energetic than it.

WUWT bulb experiment

Figure 4: Schematic of the WUWT experiments.

In Mr. Watts’ first experiment, the power rating of the light bulb is listed at 65 Watts. This is partially absorbed by the passive frosted glass bulb. Roughly, his lamp bulb had a diameter of 10cm and is approximately flat, and so, if the power were fully absorbed, this would result in a temperature of about 6200F. At the start of his experiment without the mirror, Mr. Watts recorded a frosted glass temperature of only 2100F, which indicates a glass absorptivity of about 13.1%. After he added the mirror it went to 2280F, which is marginal increase to 14.6% absorption. This result is rather obviously explained in that the mirror simply returned some of the non-absorbed, transmitted light, which passed through the frosted glass the first time, and then some of this would be absorbed on the second encounter with the frosted glass again. This is not heat coming back raising the temperature of the source, this is source energy having another go at absorption in a secondary passive element. There may have also been some convective reduction in the vicinity. There is no source being heated by its own radiation, but a passive screen being heated more efficiently by creating a partial cavity in its environment. Again, the source temperature is given by the power input to the circuit, not by the energy dissipation of the source adding to the source temperature.

In Mr. Wilson’s second experiment, the power usage of the bulb was recorded at 35 Watts. In this case the bulb glass is roughly spherical and a typical bulb of this sort has a radius of about 3cm. At full absorptivity, the glass would have a temperature of 226.60C. Without a cover, the glass had a temperature of 950C, which indicates an absorptivity of about 33.6%. The best case scenario of this experiment was with the bulb covered by the reflective foil shell, with essentially identical results being found whether the shell was by itself or covered on the outside with glass; the temperature of the frosted glass of the bulb was 1770C. With much higher inner reflectivity and a more complete creation of a cavity than the first experiment, the transmitted light from the source is presented many more opportunities for interacting with the glass bulb, with this scenario indicating a total of 75.2% of the power being produced by the source being absorbed by the glass. Again, the source temperature is given by the power input to the circuit, not by the energy dissipation of the source temperature adding back to the source temperature. The energy dissipation from the filament cannot increase the power being applied to the circuit via the voltage. The difference between the glass-only vs. black-anodized box is simply that the black box absorbs more energy and so this will allow a higher temperature inside the box to be achieved than if the radiation is mostly transmitted through the box without much absorption, together with the convective trapping occurring. The black box gets to a temperature of 470C, and if its emissivity is approximately 98%, then if the box were a cube it would have a side-length of about 11cm, which is very close to what is seen. There is nothing unexpected occurring here either. The highest shell temperature is with aluminum foil, with the foil either covering the glass container, or the foil being covered by the glass container; this resulted in about 700C for the glass/foil shell. In this case, the foil is the medium for transferring radiant thermal energy to the outside, and aluminum foil has an emissivity of about 0.04, and so theoretically the foil could have gotten to 4370C. Therefore the foil’s measured response in this scenario is still well within the bounds of the standard application of energy and heat transfer of the traditional physics that Principia Scientific International is an advocate of.

If the Slayers have ever required experimental evidence to help support our position of the traditional laws of physics that the laws of thermodynamics are also obeyed by radiation and sources of radiation, the experimental work by Mr. Watts and Mr. Wilson has nicely provided that. Unfortunately, neither Mr. Watts nor Mr. Wilson performed a quantified scientific analysis of their experiments, and instead, a rather crass interpretation of their results was pursued with no scientific analysis of their numbers or experiment at all. It becomes very burdensome for those familiar with theory to have to deconstruct every misinterpreted experiment that is presented to defend an idea which has no basis in reality in the first place, as we have shown. Let us not forget that this experimental debacle has its source in the challenge brought to PSI by Mr. Watts and Dr. Spencer, which we answered and which they promptly ignored, and then changed reference frames with an experiment they didn’t scientifically analyze or quantify or discuss the theory of or understand the principles of. The whole sequence is queer, because the simple fact of the matter is that PSI has already published both model and empirical data which proved that the greenhouse effect models are wrong and that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. This is of course precisely what Mr. Watts would like to ignore, it seems, which is a curious state of affairs for someone who likens themselves to be an advocate of science, let alone someone who makes the appearance of being a skeptic to anthropogenic global warming. Insisting on a crass interpretation of a simple experiment is hardly skeptical, let alone scientific.

Principia Scientific International would like to offer its own challenge available to all people in regards to the assumptions which underlie climate science. We simply ask for people to vote for what they think constitutes a valid scientific model of the Earth and climate:

In science, the Earth should be modeled as

  1. flat, or spherical

  2. static, or rotating

Sunshine should be modeled as:

  1. cold with the Sun twice as far, or, its real value

  2. uniform and even with no day or night, or, uneven with a day & night distribution

Water should:

  1. not exist, or, be present

Clouds should be:

  1. assumed, or, created by sunshine

Equations and physical parameters should be:

  1. independent of time, or, time dependent

As PSI has repeatedly shown (as if it isn’t obvious), the first set of answers correspond to a fiction, and it is this fiction which creates the greenhouse effect. What has always been curious in this debate is how some people claiming to advocate for science do not want to consider what happens if researchers create a model based on the second set of answers, the set of which actually corresponds to physical reality. Is the reason as simple that the realistic model of the Earth is not desired because it does not have the greenhouse effect? Science can be advanced with better physics, better knowledge, and better models…why not do that?

The underlying error is that the models which require the greenhouse effect dilute the power of sunshine to one-quarter of its actual value, and so another fiction needs to be created to make up the difference. It is essentially the same thing as claiming that the voltage across a circuit can be increased by the light and heat the resistor produces. From time to time the claim is made that the input, even though it is modeled at only -180C, is actually capable of heating things up to the spectral temperature of sunlight (~5778K) if greenhouse gases trap the outgoing radiation. This is a falsehood. The only way to get the incoming solar spectrum to produce higher temperature than its local flux density is to either 1) have a surface with low emissivity, or 2) re-condense the sunlight with a mirror or magnifying glass, to undue the photon-density decrease experienced by the wave-front undergoing inverse-square law diminution while travelling from the Sun to the Earth. Greenhouse gases do neither of those things. Once the incoming spectrum is absorbed at the Earth, all spectral information regarding the source is lost, and turned into heat. It is this real-time heat that drives the climate in a spherical rotating Earth with day & night. This heat subsequently has its own, new and unique, spectral signature at a much lower temperature, and just like the light bulb, any subsequent interaction with it cannot augment the source of the action. The source is not a Sun twice as far away at one-quarter the power, the source is the real sun at full power.

Mr. Watts and Mr. Wilson desired to conclude that an input could be increased in temperature with its own output, in some way or another, because this is what is required for the fiction of the greenhouse effect. This is and has always been a violation of thermodynamics, and the traditional understanding of physics which PSI is nearly alone in defending. Their results proved the exact opposite thing of their claims and fully support the position of PSI. Mr. Watts and Mr. Wilson were not aware of what their results proved, because they did not attempt a quantified scientific analysis.

********

 

Additional comments by Joe Postma from his blog:

 

Incidentally, the light bulb experiment such as this is something which is performed by undergraduate physics majors…at least, it was by me when I was in university getting my B.Sc.  Mr. Watts does not have such training, and so the result of the lack of such training has been made apparent here.  The equations to describe what was happening are about the simplest you can find, and are learned in first-year undergraduate physics.  Mr. Watts and Mr. Wilson have proven with their experiments that no additional heating occurred than what was the original energy input.  No one trained in physics should have expected otherwise.  Thus, their experiments do not lend support to a radiative greenhouse effect as is promulgated by the models.  What is worrisome is that no one else, other than PSI and a few people commenting on blogs, is calling Mr. Watts out on this abuse of physics and empiricism.

 

It is insane that people pretending to don the mantle of science work so hard and so crassly at trying to prevent better science from being done.  Amateurs with science blogs are hurting science and are harming people’s minds and are creating cults of personality around their obviously simple-minded egos; could we ever expect Mr. Watts to understand the science in his experiment?  I think not.  All that they have to create the GHE is this fictional simplification of the Earth into a flat plane with a Sun twice as far away that has nothing to do with the real physics of the real Earth.

 

It is a defined fiction, and they loveit.

 

These GHE beliefs seems really important to some people, for some unknown reason.  As you know, I can’t tell if it is a religious thing, if it just stupidity, or if it is malice?  Possibly it is all of that?  Some people really love the greenhouse effect, really love the fictional premises it is based upon, and they have some incredible emotional attachment to it.

 

So, what to do?  Because the fact of the matter is that you cannot use Logos to educate or convince any Mythos person about anything; they have their beliefs and they have an emotional commitment to them, and no Mythos person can ever think beyond this emotional directorship because that is specifically what defines them.  Logos vs. Mythos people process information in completely different ways, and in fact they may not even recognize the same types of information at all.  Mythos people literally do not even see the same information that a Logos person sees.  A Logos person has simply never been able to convert a Mythos person to Logos by presenting them logos information; this is something that a Mythos person has to do by themselves by some miraculous transformation of their own psyche, some experience or some event that forces them to begin to recognize Logos information, because they willed it of their own spontaneous desire.  It happens randomly and unpredictably.

 

But the point is, because I had asked “what to do”, is that perhaps you must let people have their religion.

 

If the new Mythos is to make a religion about the atmosphere, about cold things heating up hot things, that the greenhouse effect is good and creates life but it can also punish you if you disobey it and then it will destroy life, that you need to be subservient to and worship the atmosphere and Earth, etc., well, maybe that’s just fine for now.  Maybe this set-up needs to be dialectically explored for a few generations, or even millennia, for some reason or other.

 

Maybe we need to kill and murder each other over it for a little while.

 

Perhaps we can have a system where we are taxed for the air, and where our slave labour payments are made in “credits” of air, and then we can have an underground society of Logos adepts who are secret heretics of the ruling order who are trying to free the human mind and soul from its atmospheric bondage.

 

I mean, it’s not like this would be new or original or anything, it would just be exploring all the same old archetypes in a different skin.  There would be some new stuff which comes out of it, sure, given that the conditions and the language is slightly changed, but, it’s not like this isn’t specifically and exactly the history of the human condition.

 

It (the GHE) is created so that people can waste time debating endlessly about a meaningless simulacrum, while at the same time other people try to tax them for the air.  Printing valueless money and charging interest on it is one nauseating thing, unfortunately, we know all too well in this world; taxing the chemical basis of life itself, carbon, is just getting greedy.

 

May Cold bless all of you and keep you Warm.

 

It may not be known to all yet, but this marks the end of the debacle of climate alarm and the greenhouse effect, because this is what the defence of the GHE and climate alarm has been reduced to, and it proves itself to be void.  In truth you can feel some empathy towards these GHE followers because they really, really want to be believe that the Earth is flat and static and that sunshine is cold and the Sun is twice as far away, that the coldatmosphere heats up the hotter Earth and that cold things heat up hot things by various verbose means, etc.  These beliefs seems really important to them for some unknown reason.

 

They get really upset if you say you want to model the Earth as spherical and the Sunshine as its real value, and do it in real time, and also have water, etc.

 

It seems like such an idea really makes them sad.  And then it also makes them really mad.

 

It kind of makes you feel bad when you take it away from them…I mean, when you see what it does to them.

 

On the other hand, this also marks the end of science, and even physics.  The equations to show what their experiment was doing are basic.  I mean, if you asked random people on the street the questions of the poll presented in the above article, everyone will answer the correct way.  Implicitly people will know what the correct answers are.  However, most people will not know what their answers imply, and most will still accept the prognostications of the appearance of authority, because they won’t have the knowledge or training to put it all together and identify the contradiction.  People could understand it quite easily, this is definitely true, because I’ve tried it on random people and they do get it, easily.  What most people don’t accept however is that such big lies can exist – that is the difficult thing to convince people of, that such huge mistakes can be made by people who, well let’s face it, pretend to be smart.  It is probably too disconcerting to imagine.  But, if you work around “smart” people like I do, then you know just how possible it is.

 

It is really easy to rule people…their behaviour and their minds, etc.

 

You simply lie to them.

 

Read more from Joe Postma at climateofsophistry.com

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments (57)

  • Avatar

    ewiljan

    |

    The tantelum oxise reflector dose increase efficacy of the lamp buy not by back radiation or even back reflection. the coating reduced the effictive emissivity, thus decreasing a heat dissapative efferc. This forces the filimant to increase in temperature untill it can dissapate all electrical power received.
    The oxide cannot be applied to the filiment
    as the temperature would destroy the oxide.

    The whole process of fabricating incanderant
    lamps is complex, driven my manufacturing costs. This cannot be hand waved away by simple physics.

  • Avatar

    DougCotton

    |

    All that Anthony Watts’ experiment, and Roy Spencer’s yet-to-be-done experiment demonstrate is the well known fact that radiation from a cooler body can slow the rate of cooling by radiation from a warmer body. The frosted glass in AW’s experiment is far cooler than the filament, so the temperature gradient is steep between it and the filament. Back radiation makes a small change in that gradient and the glass (an intermediate point on the temperature plot) ends up a few degrees warmer, but the filament may not be warmer at all. So what! (I hadn’t read the experiment in detail when I wrote the initial comment. I laughed when I did read it, as it is so primitive, and the deductions made are just so incorrect.)

    Not only do I know that radiative cooling is slowed, but I also know how it slows that component of cooling which is by radiation without its energy being converted to thermal energy, and I have explained this in many comments on many climate blogs. The last paragraph of Section 5 of my “Radiated Energy” paper published over a year ago in March 2012 reads …

    “In fairness, there would be a slight slowing of the rate of cooling when the temperatures approach each other, because of the way in which the area between the Planck curves reduces. But this only applies to radiation, so evaporation and diffusion could easily compensate and it does not mean energy is added to the surface or the atmosphere.”

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      Doug, this is absurd.

      To put it in a simple way, if cold could warm hot, which includes slowing down cooling, and the hot body were initially at a stable temperature, they would warm each other endlessly, Doug. This is physically impossible, therefore your “back radiation warming effect” is impossible, too. No way. It is time to get it. It is so simple.

    • Avatar

      ewiljan

      |

      [quote name=”DougCotton”]All that Anthony Watts’ experiment, and Roy Spencer’s yet-to-be-done experiment demonstrate is the well known fact that radiation from a cooler body can slow the rate of cooling by radiation from a warmer body.

      Interrupt:

      The cooler but still warmer than the eventual cold sink body cannot accept the same energy from the warmer body, All energy accepted by the mid temperature body is simultaneously transfered to the cold sink. No back adiation is demonstrated. There is nothing to power such a refigeration process..

  • Avatar

    DougCotton

    |

    Just for the record, for some reason Joe has deleted my response to Max on his blog, as well as two more comments I posted there. If Max or anyone wishes to debate the only recent comment of mine which did pass Joe’s moderation, then it may be best to do so here. What is the point of this fragmented discussion partly on Joe’s blog and partly on the official PSI thread here? Joe keeps trying to draw us to his private site.

  • Avatar

    DougCotton

    |

    The fallacy in Anthony Watts light bulb experiment

    It is well known in physics that the presence of a cooler body can indeed slow that portion of the cooling of a warmer body which is itself by radiation. It cannot slow the other portion of cooling which is by non-radiative processes. Furthermore, radiation from the cooler body cannot add thermal energy to the warmer body, because its electro-magnetic energy is used for immediate re-emission of identical radiation, and that energy is not converted to thermal energy in the warmer target.

    A globe may well be raised to a warmer temperature when a mirror reflects its radiation back upon itself, but the reason is not what you think – the back radiation is not adding thermal energy to the bulb.

    Focus carefully on what I am explaining, because this is the solution to the dilemma.

    Suppose the bulb is initially at [i]T[/i] degrees. Let’s say that electricity is capable of raising it to a maximum of [i](T + d)[/i] degrees. However, in the absence of the mirror, radiative cooling rates will indeed be greater than with the mirror in place. So its initial equilibrium temperature is [i]T[/i] and that is because it has cooled by [i]d[/i] simultaneously.

    Now, with the mirror in place it will cool by less than [i]d[/i], and so it appears to warm above the initial [i]T[/i].

    But the Sun cannot warm Earth’s surface to a mean of 288K, so all this is irrelevant.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”DougCotton”]A globe may well be raised to a warmer temperature when a mirror reflects its radiation back upon itself, but the reason is not what you think – the back radiation is not adding thermal energy to the bulb.[/quote]

      Doug, this is absurd. Think again. And no, I will not read your “papers”.

    • Avatar

      ewiljan

      |

      [quote name=”DougCotton”]The fallacy in Anthony Watts light bulb experiment

      It is well known in physics that the presence of a cooler body can indeed slow that portion of the cooling of a warmer body which is itself by radiation.

      Huh, what did you say! any claim of back radiation?
      In radiative situations a passive object with emissivity, will ways decrease the effective emissivity of the powered body. Every mocroWatt transfered from the powered body to the unpowered body at thermodynamic equilibrium is simoltaniously transfered to a colder surface. (power in = power out). This is the definition of thermodynamic equilibriumk. There is no power left to transfer heat to a higher temperature body (a refrigeration process)

  • Avatar

    DougCotton

    |

    A globe may well be raised to a warmer temperature when a mirror reflects its radiation back upon itself, but the reason is not what you think – the back radiation is not adding thermal energy to the bulb.

    Focus carefully on what I am explaining, because this is the solution to the dilemma.

    Suppose the bulb is initially at [i]T[/i] degrees. Let’s say that electricity is capable of raising it to a maximum of [i](T + d)[/i] degrees. However, in the absence of the mirror, radiative cooling rates will indeed be greater than with the mirror in place. So its initial equilibrium temperature is [i]T[/i] and that is because it has cooled by [i]d[/i] simultaneously.

    Now, with the mirror in place it will cool by less than [i]d[/i], and so it appears to warm above the initial [i]T[/i].

    But the Sun cannot warm Earth’s surface to a mean of 288K, so all this is irrelevant.

    • Avatar

      ewiljan

      |

      [quote name=”DougCotton”]A globe may well be raised to a warmer temperature when a mirror reflects its radiation back upon itself, but the reason is not what you think – the back radiation is not adding thermal energy to the bulb.

      Focus carefully on what I am explaining, because this is the solution to the dilemma.

      Suppose the bulb is initially at [i]T[/i] degrees. Let’s say that electricity is capable of raising it to a maximum of [i](T + d)[/i] degrees. However, in the absence of the mirror, radiative cooling rates will indeed be greater than with the mirror in place. So its initial equilibrium temperature is [i]T[/i] and that is because it has cooled by [i]d[/i] simultaneously.

      Now, with the mirror in place it will cool by less than [i]d[/i], and so it appears to warm above the initial [i]T[/i].

      But the Sun cannot warm Earth’s surface to a mean of 288K, so all this is irrelevant.
      BS,
      Please demonsstrate such a limitation in temperature the Earth? the temperature can reach any temperature , between that of the Sun and that of all space. Not the claimed
      temperature of the CMB. n Please explain your claims1

  • Avatar

    DougCotton

    |

    Planetary surface temperatures are not primarily determined by any greenhouse effect caused by back radiation.

    The over-riding determinant of planetary atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures is not radiative forcing of surface temperatures.

    What determines atmospheric and surface temperatures is a combination of the level of Solar radiative flux reaching the atmosphere, the temperature gradient which evolves spontaneously (as the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will happen) and the height of the troposphere over which the temperature plot rises to higher temperatures (following the predetermined gradient) until it intersects the surface at what is a predetermined supporting temperature.

    For more information please read my paper “[url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-COTTON_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf]Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.[/url]”

  • Avatar

    DougCotton

    |

    [b]kcoffman[/b] said [i]”The conductive model is a good analogy for convection and radiation because they always work in the same direction “[/i]

    No they don’t always. On Venus, for example, radiation from the atmosphere has a net propensity to cool the atmosphere by radiating energy to space, as we clearly see in the 4-month Venus night. It will keep on doing so in the Venus day as well, because it meets with very little opposition from the mere 10W/m^2 of Solar radiation that gets through to the surface. Even the Solar radiation at TOA is less than a tenth of the 16,100W/m^2 that a 730K surface would be radiating. So clearly radiation has a net outward direction on Venus.

    So where is the balancing inflow of energy coming from? Many are surprised to learn that, when night becomes day, the thermal energy absorbed from incident Solar radiation at all altitudes can actually “creep” up the temperature gradient by a combination of diffusion and convection processes opposing the direction of the radiation. For reasons see Sections 4 to 9 [url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-COTTON_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf]here[/url].

  • Avatar

    DougCotton

    |

    The statement “and a temperature differential causes heat flow” is not strictly correct in a vertical plane in a gravitational field. It is very important to understand this and the ramifications relating to planetary atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures.

    How can the Venus surface actually warm up by 5 degrees during its day, when so little direct Solar radiation reaches the surface? Obviously the cold atmosphere is not raising the far hotter surface temperature even more by radiation. And it would need 16,100W/m^2 to do so anyway, which is far more than is entering at the top of the atmosphere.

    The fact that no one can answer these questions within the framework of the “Old Paradigm” of radiative forcing and greenhouse conjectures, and the fact that we can see that to do so would violate thermodynamics laws, shows that that old paradigm is wrong. Thus it has to be non-radiative processes which do the work, and during sunlit hours, while the surface is warming, heat is actually creeping up the temperature gradient by slow diffusion and convection processes which are restoring the thermodynamic equilibrium which the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will evolve spontaneously.

  • Avatar

    ewiljan

    |

    Thank you,Joseph E Postma for a detailed
    accurate response. For “me” Way to dfetailed.
    but you know your reader, not I, My minders
    trying to get me to do a pitch like that,
    would through up in disgust
    I was unable to conceive of earthlings
    that could not switch a myoptic POV,and be unable to view from four PI conflicting
    steradians. Always going Hummm like I.

    Comment: Too heavy against Mr.Watt and
    Spencer. Both believe that radiance is radiation. the stuff still works, Just
    a different POV, and incorrect, IMHO.

    These guys are not your opponent!

  • Avatar

    Kevin

    |

    Joe P.,

    What you’re saying makes sense. I don’t have a physics background, but you write clearly and it seems transparent…no mirrors or curtains, etc.

    I’ve noticed that commenting is off on WUWT for both experiments and not seeing a response as you indicated. I guess the conclusions are obvious. I am confused about the vehemence from their side but I guess that is why you mentioned Logos v Mythos.

    i support those guys so it is disappointing that ‘ego’ has gotten in the way. I hope they can lay aside their egos and get to facts. Anthony can be ‘hot-headed’ at times and we remain patient with him.

    I am reading Roy Spencer’s Blunder book right now and am finding it clear and helpful…so not sure where this will end up.

    Anyway, since I am late to the party, I am still catching up on how this experiment applies to GHE. I guess I will be reading backwards to the original dust-up.

    Thanks for taking the time to explain this in detail in a clear and transparent manner. I will be paying attention to more of your work.

  • Avatar

    Jeff Daly

    |

    A quote from Richard Feynman:

    “[I]f you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

    “Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can – if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong – to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

    “In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/05/global-warming-theory-has-failed-all-tests-so-alarmists-return-to-the-97-consensus-hoax/#more-87701

  • Avatar

    albertellul

    |

    The planet has given us the proof that CO2 increases do not result in higher atmospheric temperatures. While CO2 has been linearly increasing in a y=a+bx graph, the temperature has stayed put at a flat rate for the past 17 years and the UK’s Met office saying that it owuld stay like that for another 5 years.

    The planet seems to be agreeing with the slayers.

  • Avatar

    Joseph A Olson

    |

    For decades, humanity has been treated to the worst science since the world was flat, based on the false hypothesis of Greenhouse Effect (GHE). The mythical power of certain gases to amplify radiant heat is proven false repeatedly at the Watts website daily by multiple authors. This fraud has cost over $140 billion in squandered research money and trillions in unneeded mitigation costs.

    The Siddons schematic was not presented as an experiment, was improperly tested by Watts without notice of the test, notice of the failed results, or notice of the posting of the video. This was grandstanding tabloid jounalism, not science or education. At most, this was a high school science test of convective trapping. The over 400 comments largely supported Siddons.

    In the comment section, I made a minor misstatement on the operation of IR thermometers, posted at [url]http://fauxscienceslayer.com/pdf/Mea_culpa.pdf[/url] This article explains one additional set of defective ‘data’ supporting GHE, misinterpreted data from cheap remote read thermometers.

    The world awaits an apology from the supporters of any level of Carbon climate forcing. Climatology is congenitally defective and should be decertified, with functional Paleoclimatology returned to Geology and any remaining current climate story returned to Metereology.

    • Avatar

      albertellul

      |

      “…with functional Paleoclimatology returned to Geology and any remaining current climate story returned to Metereology.”

      and what remains of climatology would then be referred to as cli-mythology

      • Avatar

        Squid2112

        |

        Ah, and sadly, “cli-mythology” is exactly what climatology is!

  • Avatar

    Jeff Daly

    |

    Anthony Watts doesn’t even understand that the latest article he’s published on WUWT by Joe D’Aleo is another take down of the bogus greenhouse gas theory. Can’t the guy even join the dots?

    • Avatar

      Squid2112

      |

      Sadly it seems, Mr. Watts is only concerned with popularity. Truth in science is simply an afterthought, at best.

  • Avatar

    F.Ketterer

    |

    Here in this document
    http://www.ies.org/PDF/100Papers/053.pdf
    is presented that the filament of a lamp can be heated by its own IR radiation and thus reducing the power needed to get the same amount of light.
    This contradicts Joe Postma’s statements in the paragraph beginning with
    “In an electrical circuit, dissipation of energy”….
    Where Joe states: “If you want to increase the temperature of the source of light/heat so that you can produce more light/heat, and the source of those is the filament, then you have to increase the current going through the filament, and this is done by increasing the voltage across the circuit. It cannot be done by giving the filament the light or heat it produces back to itself,”
    Does Joe think Osram and GE is setting up a hoax with their IRC halogen lamps or did I not get Joe’s argument in that paragraph?

    • Avatar

      Joseph A Olson

      |

      @ F Ketterer

      In the comments at the WUWT post, a claimed former GE worker stated that he worked on the failed “High Efficiency Incandescent” light project, begun in Feb 2007 and abandoned a few years later after $15 million in research. More at Wikipedia “Heat_Bulb” on the actual history and construction of lighting systems. One wonders if GE could not amplify radiant energy with the finest staff, years and millions of dollars investment, how could Watts and Wilson create this mythical amplification with just a mirror or some bits of aluminum foil ?

      There is as yet, NO experimental evidence to prove GHE, yet PSI has posted experiments proving NO GHE. It is odd that WUWT posts daily articles that the greatest “test” of this failed hypothesis, warming of the Earth by increasing CO2, has NOT occurred in the last two decades. Someone notify the Chicken Little Climatologists that the SKY IS NOT FALLING.

    • Avatar

      albertellul

      |

      Can a filament lamp then sustain itself glowingly? NOT.

      • Avatar

        F.Ketterer

        |

        You are right, but this was NOT the question.
        Question was: can reflected (own) IR-radiation make an filament more energy effective (more light at same power consumption). The answer is: Yes.
        Given by Osram (IRC-lamps and GE HIR lamps).
        J.Olson refers to GE HEI-prgram, which faild. This does not affect the cited article.

        • Avatar

          Joseph E Postma

          |

          You’re sophizing what is actually happening.

          The bulb has higher *efficacy* – learn words and how to read them. “More light at the same power consumption” is about engineering a better light bulb – the limits are still within the original input. It is not producing more output than the input, which is what the GHE is all about.

          Nice attempt at obfuscation and sophistry. But the laws of physics win.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”F.Ketterer”]Here in this document
      http://www.ies.org/PDF/100Papers/053.pdf
      is presented that the filament of a lamp can be heated by its own IR radiation and thus reducing the power needed to get the same amount of light.[/quote]

      You made the same statement on another thread and I told you that a brighter light spot can indeed be achieved with a reflector, which does not prove that the reflector warms the filament back. They did not prove an increase in temperature of the filament experimentally.

      This is a typical fallacy of unfounded distribution.

      I also gave you an example that even the most stupid person can understand. Here we go again. [i]”You can “prove” exactly the same way that saying “Ketterer” turns your TV on. Just say “Ketterer” and press the remote. Then attribute the effect to saying “Ketterer”. If you can do that, you are ready to work for the IPCC.”[/i]

      In response you asked me to [i]”specify the “ketterer” and the “remote” in the article cited”[/i], which is sheer nonsense. This leads me to the conclusion that you know very well what sort of crap you are spreading around.

      • Avatar

        F.Ketterer

        |

        Hi Greg, They did not report a brighter light spot , they reported more (visible) light output at the same power input. The only explanation I can think of: the filament did send out more light. In case the material was not changed (and the design of the filament) my only explanation would be: the filament has a higher temperature. In case you have a better idea I would be glad to learn about it.
        Before you answer I want to bring to your attention the relevant part of this document.
        http://www.ies.org/PDF/100Papers/053.pdf
        “The basic idea of the Halogen-IR lamp is…to reflect back a portion of the emitted IR energy to the filament where a fraction of the reflected energy is absorbed. The absorbed radiation reduces the input electrical power needed to maintain the filament temperature, hence increasing the efficacy.”
        And about the “Ketterer” and the “remote”: I can confirm you that this is sheer nonsense. And I do not see why you brought this up.

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          [quote name=”F.Ketterer”]Hi Greg, They did not report a brighter light spot , they reported more (visible) light output at the same power input. The only explanation I can think of: the filament did send out more light…. “The basic idea of the Halogen-IR lamp is…to reflect back a portion of the emitted IR energy to the filament …”[/quote]

          Again, they used a reflector that can produce a brighter light spot. Therefore there is no reason to attribute a brighter lighter spot or “more visible light”, as you put it, to any other alleged effect, including back radiation warming.

          I thought I made it clear, but I can repeat it: it is a fallacy of unfounded attribution. Someone sees a real effect, butt attribute it to a certain cause without any basis in science.

          I am very glad that you admit that it is false to attribute turning the TV on by pressing the remote to something you said when pressing the remote. So is attributing a brighter light spot caused by a reflector to the physically absurd “back radiation” effect.

          • Avatar

            thefordprefect

            |

            gh:
            from the referenced document

            The basic idea behind the Halogen-IR lamp is to place a spectrally reflecting filter on the outside of a halogen lamp envelope to reflect back a portion of the emitted infrared energy to the filament where a frac¬tion of the reflected energy is absorbed. The absorbed radiation reduces the input electrical power needed to maintain the filament temperature, hence increas¬ing the efficacy. It is clear that the filter, in addition to reflecting the infrared, should transmit nearly all of the visible radiation if the lumen output and color of the light is to be maintained

            Only a portion of the reflected radiation returned to the filament is absorbed as the tungsten wire emissivity is only about 0.3 in the near infrared. The actual absorbency of the filament depends on how it is coiled; typical values are about 0.4. [b]This means that less than half of the reflected radiation returning to the filament will be absorbed;[/b] the rest is reflected back. In addition, some reflected radiation misses.
            —————
            i.e. emitted radiation is absorbed on its source.
            The documenis explicet on the mode of operation – reflected IR is returned to the filament thus reducing the power required for the same light output (or to put it another way use same power input and get more light out.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”thefordprefect”]gh:
            from the referenced document The basic idea behind the Halogen-IR lamp is to place a spectrally reflecting filter on the outside of a halogen lamp envelope to reflect back a portion of the emitted infrared energy to the filament …reflected IR is returned to the filament thus reducing the power required for the same light output…[/quote]

            No, they start with a reference to the absurd “back radiation heating” as a fact. They did not prove any back radiation heating.

            As for light output, it is only redirection by a reflector, so they can get a brighter spot.

            Attributing “more light” to “back radiation heating” has no basis in science and is physically absurd.

          • Avatar

            ewiljan

            |

            [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”thefordprefect”]gh:
            from the referenced document The basic idea behind the Halogen-IR lamp is to place a spectrally reflecting filter on the outside of a halogen lamp envelope to reflect back a portion of the emitted infrared energy to the filament …reflected IR is returned to the filament thus reducing the power required for the same light output…[/quote]

            No, they start with a reference to the absurd “back radiation heating” as a fact. They did not prove any back radiation heating.

            As for light output, it is only redirection by a reflector, so they can get a brighter spot.

            Attributing “more light” to “back radiation heating” has no basis in scie
            nce and is physically absurd.[/quote]

            No back radiation ever

            The tantilium oxide coating reduces the emiswsivity of the glass at wavelengths longer than the visable. At the same power input the temperature of the filiment increses to 3300 Kelvin for maximum efficacy.(mostlumens/watt()

            The halogen increases thermal conductivity from the filiment to bulb to perserve the lifetime of the lamp. The whole thing is a difficult balancing act.

          • Avatar

            thefordprefect

            |

            greg
            Please at least look at the document!
            The bulb is a cylindrical tube. The filament runs down the tube (in some cases offset from the central axis and is getting focussed IR off the circumferential coating of visible transmission/IR reflective coating. The idea was to get the IR focussed on the element for greatest effect. They talk about how to prevent droop[ in the element which would take it out of the focus. It is not a focussed visual beam it is a linear element with wide dispersion..

            repeating an incorrect statement does not make it correct:
            “Attributing “more light” to “back radiation heating” has no basis in science and is physically absurd”

            The theory for this bulb said 100% more light for the same power. in practice it turned out at only 40%.

            Note they also talk of multiple reflections glass coating to element (emissivity 30%) and from element to glass coating.

            (Figures from memory)

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            Since the readers can not usually experiment with the temperature of the bulb filament, I suggest a simple home experiment to check the alleged warming effect of radiation reflected back to the source.

            Just position yourself before a mirror, but not too close to avoid the effect of suppressed convection (air circulation). If reflected radiation warms, you will feel the heat almost immediately, because the speed of radiation is like 300,000 km per second. If you do not feel heat, then you know how warmists fool you.

            The concept of back radiation warming is also apparently absurd on the theoretical level. Back to the mirror example, if it was possible, you would get warmer and receive more reflected radiation from the mirror accordingly, then radiate more to the mirror and so on. This would lead to you get burned like vampires getting out on a sunny day in the movies.

            Who still believes in the warmists crap has only himself to blame.

          • Avatar

            thefordprefect

            |

            Greg
            1st you must use a front silvered mirror (Some glass absorbs IR so 2 traverses through the mirror glass would absorb a significant amopunt of IR making your mirror warmer.

            2nd your face is radiating over an angle of 180° so the inverse square law would apply – you would be trying to detect your face’s temperature at 2 times the distance you stand away from the fron surface mirror.

            It is not likely you would feel the back radiation (but you could probably measure it!)

            Apart from calling me a liar you have not explained the results of my experiment
            http://www.climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-copper-iron-green-house-revisited.html
            and others.

    • Avatar

      Joseph E Postma

      |

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy

      The output of the bulbs is not increased above the Wattage input – that is the key. The “efficacy” is being increased, the total output is not being increased above the input. This still doesn’t support the GHE which requires the input being doubled (or so) above the input. This paper supports PSI’s position and traditional physics.

      “Does Joe think Osram and GE is setting up a hoax with their IRC halogen lamps or did I not get Joe’s argument in that paragraph?”

      The problem is that you don’t actually understand what you’re talking about. The input is supplied by the voltage – backradiation doesn’t increase the voltage and hence doesn’t increase the input, although there are things you can do to increase the efficacy of lighting to make it more efficient in visible light.

      • Avatar

        F.Ketterer

        |

        [quote name=”Joseph E Postma”]
        The output of the bulbs is not increased above the Wattage input – that is the key. The “efficacy” is being increased, the total output is not being increased above the input.

        The input is supplied by the voltage – backradiation doesn’t increase the voltage and hence doesn’t increase the input,….[/quote]

        Come on Joe, since you got you Master in Astrophysics you obviously are not as slow witted as it seems to be at the first glance. When you write:
        “if we wish to produce a higher source temperature and hence higher brightness and more heat, then we must increase the current through the circuit.”
        you imply that electricity is the only energy source available. In the “GE-paper”.
        http://www.ies.org/PDF/100Papers/053.pdf
        it was clearly stated that reflected IR radiation was added to the filament.
        Thus they needed less electrical power to achieve the same temperature. Where is your problem to comprehend this?
        I do not state, that the voltage increased nor did I say that more power was emitted by the lamp than the electrical input was. If you take the time to look at the paper you see that the tungsten filament takes up a portion of the reflected IR light, thus having a higher color temperature than it would be expected at 60W power consumption.
        The point is: this paper contradicts your statement in the paragraph starting with “In an electrical circuit, dissipation of energy”.

        • Avatar

          Joseph E Postma

          |

          What we say is that you can’t get backradiation to do more work than the original input. This is directly inline with P = RI^2 for a circuit. Can you engineer a lightbulb to produce light more efficiently, with more *efficacy*. Yes. Is the lightbulb producing more power than the input, which is what the GHE says? No. You can’t engineer your way past P = V^2/R, let alone expect nature to do it passively. An engineered light bulb which is more efficient at producing visible light is not what the GHE is about. You can not ignore the power input to the bulb and the limit of the power being produced via P = V^2/R. “Efficacy” is not about producing more power than you put in, is it about producing more visible light but still within the bounds of the input power. The GHE violates the bounds of the input power because 161 W/m^2 comes in, and the atmosphere gives back 324, heating up the surface some more. This is all nonsensical, obviously, and has nothing to do with high efficacy lightbulbs. Besides, we have real-world empirical data which proves that no further heating than the solar input occurs, and we have a real-world model.
          What is the point of sophizing with high efficacy lightbulbs? P = V^2/R and such light bulbs don’t violate that. The GHE does. Bringing in the light bulbs is meaningless.
          Why defend a flat static Earth without latent heat no production of clouds or melt water with a Sun twice as far away, a model that can’t predict local temps etc.

          • Avatar

            ewiljan

            |

            [quote name=”Joseph E Postma”]What we say is that you can’t get backradiation to do more work than the original input. This is directly inline with P = RI^2 for a circuit. Can you engineer a lightbulb to produce light more efficiently, with more *efficacy*. Yes. Is the lightbulb producing more power than the input, which is what the GHE says? No. You can’t engineer your way past P = V^2/R, .

            I am beginningto see the problem. Every thing that radiates partially sets its temperature by the amount it radiates in Watts’ video.
            the surface interfered with that radiation.
            To compensate the temperature of the filiment increased along with the temperature of the glass bulb. This is what Anthony correctly measured. It is the same with thhe iro shell. the temperature in both cases did increase it was forced to, but not by any back radiation.

            Both have the same effect as reducing the emissivity. This can always be demonstrated. In the case of the lamp,the amount radiated went down as the increase in temperature also increased the resistance of the filament.
            P = V^2/R,
            Most of these folk think thermodynamics is only power transfer between isotherms. This is a minor point. The big part is “dynamics”. “What must adjust to reach equilibirum” All spontanious heat transfer is an attempt to do just that.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”ewiljan”]…To compensate the temperature of the filiment increased along with the temperature of the glass bulb. This is what Anthony correctly measured.[/quote]

            I am not quite sure what you mean, but anyway, Mr.Watts did not measure the temperature of the filament at all.

          • Avatar

            ewiljan

            |

            [quote name=”Greg House”][quote name=”ewiljan”]…To compensate the temperature of the filiment increased along with the temperature of the glass bulb. This is what Anthony correctly measured.[/quote]

            I am not quite sure what you mean, but anyway, Mr.Watts did not measure the temperature of the filament at all.[/quote]
            Indeed he only “measured” the radiance of the glass envelope in the infrared. Why did that radiance increase? Iclaim the interferance
            with the dissipation of the provided power
            raised the temperature of everything. No back radiation even reflection was involvede. Reduce it effective of anything and at a fixed power the temperature “must” increase.

          • Avatar

            Joe Postma

            |

            ewiljan, the temperature of the filament did not increase, just the temperature of the glass, because absorption at the glass was increased by covering it.

          • Avatar

            ewiljan

            |

            [quote name=”Joe Postma”]ewiljan, the temperature of the filament did not increase, just the temperature of the glass, because absorption at the glass was increased by covering it.[/quote]
            Is that just a claim or did you measure?
            wnat did yo measure. I did makk a claim that the the temperature of everything went up
            so that all the power supplied can be dissipated. This is my own scientific decription of what that demonstration
            did demonstrate. YMMV.

        • Avatar

          ewiljan

          |

          No it was not added it was never emitted.so the temperature went up. No back radiation of energy. No back reflection of energy to the source. Niether has ever been measured! Earthlings do not know! See my post to Greg House.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Slight problem – Wilson’s light bulb was 40 Watt not 35.

    Only strenghthens the argument against their position though as you have assumed a decreased power for the true source and hence overestimated the result of how much of the initial power is absorbed.

    Correcting the error simply makes their position even less tenable.

  • Avatar

    kcoffman

    |

    Very well said, Joe. When I looked at Anthony’s experiment it was instantly clear they were using a passive intermediary material as a source, when this is clearly wrong. Here’s the way I look at it. If you connect a conductive rod between a source and a sink, along the rod, you will see all temperatures between the two points. By changing the conductivity, you can modulate where the various temperatures occur along the rod, but you will never get a temperature greater than the source. The conductive model is a good analogy for convection and radiation because they always work in the same direction using the same motive force (though at different rates and with different effectivity). On this topic, I think Watts and Spencer and Eschenbach are hopeless and I feel no particular drive to correct them. It suits me fine to have them so clearly incorrect. It amuses me that they think we have no useful knowledge about the quantum effects of EM radiation. This implies there is some great quantum machine working in our atmosphere to increase our average surface temperature by 33C. Wouldn’t I love to hear their explanation for what this looks like and how it works. Of course, we’ll never get an explanation, only mumbling and handwaving. So it goes.

    • Avatar

      DougCotton

      |

      Q.1: What’s your explanation for the 33 degrees of warming, or whatever you say the real figure is?

      Q.2: How does the required thermal energy get into the surface, when we know that direct radiation from the Sun cannot raise the mean surface temperatures as high as 288K.

      • Avatar

        ewiljan

        |

        [quote name=”DougCotton”]Q.1: What’s your explanation for the 33 degrees of warming, or whatever you say the real figure is?

        Q.2: How does the required thermal energy get into the surface, when we know that direct radiation from the Sun cannot raise the mean surface temperatures as high as 288K.[/quote]

        What is the basis of your claim of 288 Kelvin
        With the proper spectral and spatial emissivity
        of the surface and atmosphere the temperature
        could be well over 1000 Kelvin. The most stright forward answer to the higher temperature at the surface from that part ofr the atmosphere that does the sufficient radiation to cold space is the adaibatic temperature increase with increasing pressure.

        Radiation is not involved. Every planet with an atmosphere does the same thing.

        • Avatar

          DougCotton

          |

          No it couldn’t be well over 1000K without a far higher atmosphere and the right parameters for gravity, specific heat and Solar intensity. If the emissivity were so low there would be a lot more reflection and so far less energy entering the surface.

          You can’t explain the 730K temperature on Venus resulting from 10W/m^2 of insolation that gets through the atmosphere. Surface emissivity would have to be about 0.0006 and conduction nil and reflection nil – an absurd and impossible combination.

          • Avatar

            ewiljan

            |

            [quote name=”DougCotton”]No it couldn’t be well over 1000K without a far higher atmosphere and the right parameters for gravity, specific heat and Solar intensity. If the emissivity were so low there would be a lot more reflection and so far less energy entering the surface.

            Wrong, high emissivity from 0.1 to 0.7 microns
            high reflectivity at all longer wacelengths.
            no radiative gasses in the atmosphere result !000 Kelvin. Show otherwise!

            You can’t explain the 730K temperature on Venus resulting from 10W/m^2 of insolation that gets through the atmosphere. Surface emissivity would have to be about 0.0006 and conduction nil and reflection nil – an absurd and impossible combination.[/quote

            i have already done so. Bekow the level in the atmosphere that radiates solar energy to space 305 Kelvin, no mor radiativeenergy is needed. the rest is all adiabatic compression,witth a corresponding temperature increase. Even above critical temperature and pressure the CO2 is still a compressable fluid. Radiation plays no part.

            I

          • Avatar

            DougCotton

            |

            There is not necessarily a temperature increase with adiabatic compression. Nor is such compression happening as a net effect. Unlike Jupiter, Venus is not in a state of continual compression.

            High pressure at the base of a planet’s troposphere is not what is maintaining high temperatures. There is no law of physics that says it must do so, least of all the Ideal Gas Law. To maintain high temperatures there must be an energy input to match the inevitable energy loss, the latter being by both radiative and non-radiative mechanisms, just as on Earth.

            The Sun does not deliver any incident radiation at the base of the theoretical troposphere of Uranus, which is 350Km down from the top. Virtually all the mere 3W/m^2 of insolation is absorbed and re-emitted to space from the uppermost layers of the Uranus atmosphere, where the temperature is close to the planet’s radiating SBL temperature of 59K. But 350Km below that it is 320K, and that requires a constant energy input to balance the radiative and conductive losses to cooler regions above. Pressure (which is not associated with any overall planetary compression) does not supply energy out of nowhere.

          • Avatar

            DougCotton

            |

            As for your low emissivity calculations, you have completely omitted even the slightest consideration of conduction at the surface-atmosphere boundary.

            To show you what nonsense you are writing, or at least show others, do you really think that a mere 10W/m^2 of incident Solar radiation could not be transferred back to the atmosphere entirely by conduction – and far more?

            The Venus surface receives only about 10% of the direct Solar radiative flux with Earth’s surface receives. Do you really think that alone is the only supply of thermal energy into the Venus surface? High pressure does not maintain high temperatures. It has nothing to do with pressure.

          • Avatar

            DougCotton

            |

            On any planet with a surface (ie a solid core) there is little likelihood of continual gravitational compression as is happening on completely gaseous planets like Jupiter.

            Hence, for every “adiabatic compression” in the atmosphere there must be equal and opposite adiabatic expansion. There can be no net compression, for if there were, where would it stop, and why would it be happening?

            So it is nonsense to imagine that the required thermal energy takes a one way path downwards due to “adiabatic compression.” The process is completely different and it caused by the spontaneous evolution and restoration of thermodynamic equilibrium, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will happen. For details read Sections 4 to 9 [url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-COTTON_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf]here[/url].

          • Avatar

            DougCotton

            |

            ewiljan wrote [i]”the rest is all adiabatic compression, with a corresponding temperature increase.”[/i]

            Well the rest of us know that “adiabatic” means there is no energy input or loss.

            And we also know that, to increase the temperature of a gas, there must be an increase in the mean kinetic energy of the molecules.

            So you need to explain, as I have in my paper in the PROM menu, how the required energy goes from cooler to warmer regions.

        • Avatar

          DougCotton

          |

          Temperatures are due to the gravity effect, not the pressure gradient. That is what my paper “[url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-COTTON_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf]Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures[/url]” is all about.

          [b]It is not high pressure which is maintaining high temperatures at the bases of planetary atmospheres. The process whereby the required thermal energy gets to the base of the atmosphere is a downward diffusion and convection process explained in my paper. It is not a direct function of pressure.[/b]

Comments are closed