Greenplate Effect – It doesn’t happen!

Nikola Tesla - Google Play

Now, why am I not surprised?

Yet again, when I test what should be one of the rock solid corner stone foundations of the radiation greenhouse effect, the so-called “Greenplate Effect” it just doesn’t happen.  No matter how many times I test it, it refuses to show its lovely green-red hot face.

For those of you whom don’t know, there are a large number, of governmental and scientific advisors all of whom have convinced themselves using “wrong maths” that the “Green-plate Effect” is real and that they can show it is real because their maths says so.

Maths can be used to show Thanos, the nemesis of the Avengers is real and then digitise said maths to place him on a screen.  He isn’t real.  Maths can be used to show that most normal families have 2.4 children, they don’t, no-one does.  Maths can be used to show it perfectly possible to exist a long and healthy life with -3 hearts, it isn’t negatives numbers such as this don’t exist in reality, it is just up made up nonsense.

Their math’s, bears absolutely no relation to reality, and therefore any models they construct using it, are totally false.  As Nikola Tesla once said.

“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

It’s almost like Nikola saw the future of climate clownatolgy and wrote a paragraph for it in preparation.

The green-plate effect I elaborated upon in my book.  https://www.waterstones.com/book/black-dragon/geraint-hughes//9781949267006.

However, I didn’t call it the green-plate effect, I called it “London is calling 911” because if you do the averaging maths, which the alarmists pretend is real, then what happens is this.

With a plate in space on its own, using average approximation approach you get a temperature of 331.5k. So that you get 1367 in and 1367 out, with 683.5 out on each side.

So therefore on this basis, if you added another plate behind the first plate and continued to pretend that this fake reality was correct you get the following.

In other words, the output from the 1st plate, increases from 683.5 to 911 watts per side, to get a hotter front plate and a warm 2nd plate giving a total 1367 in and out.

This fake effect is what the pretenders call the green-plate effect.  Because it mathematically shows that the temperature of the first plate has risen in steady state temperature by just over 20K.  (I.e. Back-radiant forcing).  Surely maths can’t be wrong, right?  No way man, maths rules!!!!!!

When I wrote my book I didn’t have any test rigs constructed and I worked on the assumption that the maths as above was right and then, I showed how its effects were completely nullified and rendered irrelevant by Conduction and Convection and how 3D radiance renders such models completely ineffective at inducing heat gain on the surface, EVEN IF YOU ASSUME THEY ARE RIGHT!

A nullification effect which I have duplicated and demonstrated in my twin vacuum comparison experiment & other similar experiments.  https://www.thepostil.com/evidence-co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/

However, there is not a nullification of a back radiant effect, because back radiance, has no heating effect and so there is nothing to nullify.

Now, that I am in possession of my taller tower chamber, a chamber I only procured because you-tube trolls kept telling me “There wasn’t a big enough column of Air for back radiance to occur.”   I noticed that I have just enough space to perform some rudimentary plate to plate tests, with no need for gases.  Believers in the green-plate effect even go on to say, if you add a third plate the 1st one gets hotter still & if you add a fourth its hotter again & so on and so forth.  They are so SNOOTY about this, they think they are right.  They should be snooting at their own arrogance.

So this is what I have done and these are the results that I have discovered.

Experiment Details

I have performed three sets of experiments.  I have compared a heated plate and the maximum steady state temperature it attains, when fully exposed at room temperature.  This is just one plate on its own, supported above a constant heat source with mild steel angle supports.

Main Components, 40 watt spiral vintage bulb, 130mm aluminium diameter disc, powder coated black, 1mm thick. 200mm long metal steel supports, digital thermometer.  With the two plate setup a second disc or equal size is used and plastic spacers to separate the discs.

Components Picture

There is no contact between the bulb and the metal supports.

Bulb & Supports Pic

Therefore energy can only get to the plate via direct radiance from the bulb going up and anything conducted to the plate which is radiated from the bulb to the angle supports.  There is no direct conductive transfer.  In the vacuum chamber, under vacuum, there is no convective gains or losses within the chamber either.

I have conducted a second experiment where the same rig, was placed inside the Vacuum Chamber and the chamber evacuated  & then a final test where instead of there being 1 plate, a 2nd plate was placed above the 1st, in order to see what back radiant heating effects took place.

I can confirm NONE, were experienced.  The results are below.

20 minutes of cooling was also recorded between heating tests, just for interest and comparison.

Experiment 1 – Plate Exposed to air

When fully exposed to room temperature the following results occurred.  The thermometer is kept in place by two small angle brackets in the centre and some putty.

There are tiny breaks in between each test, as I also recorded these results on camera, save & name the data and then set up a new file for recording.  I may at some point download them all on you-tube.

A full breakdown of temperature tables will be downloaded onto my website.  https://theblackdragonsite.wordpress.com/

Each test was 1hour of heating with 20 minutes of cooling in-between.

Here we see that the peak maximum temperature was 47.6 with a range of just 1.5 degrees throughout the 5 tests.  Over 20 minutes on average 16.82 degrees of cooling was experienced.  With my arrangement the steel frame, gives a large amount of thermal mass and in the results, it shows with the temperature rise being slowest during the early stages.

This arrangement is just for comparison and allows for convective cooling all around.

Experiment 2 Single Plate in Vacuum Chamber

There is no contact between the metal plate and the vacuum chamber.

The first test didn’t quite work correctly as the video corrupted on the first cool-down and I tried to do it again, but ended up leaving the unit to cool too long when trying to fix it.  So on the 2nd test the heating period was 2 hours long, similar to the 1st.  To be honest I wasn’t expecting such software fails.  No idea why & it didn’t re-occur.

Here we can see that there is a peak maximum temperature of the plate of 70.9 with a range of just 2.4 degrees between the tests.  I am not quite sure what cause’s the differences, as nothing changed.  I am presuming that it must be as a result of electrical current fluctuations on the bulb and perhaps changes in air currents in the room which might affect the base, which is metal and connected to the plate via the metal stand, causing conductive loss fluctuations.

In future I will devise a new method of support with the aim of reducing such contact.  Maybe I will use wood, or hangars instead.

Again, there are small breaks in between as video switch overs occur.

We can see the difference that removing convective cooling has on the plate.  The temperature is some 30 degrees higher.

Experiment 3 Twin Plate in Vacuum Chamber

Again no contact between the plates and the vacuum chamber.

The only contact between the plates are the plastic spacers.  The thermometer goes through a hole in the top plate.

I had dinner in between test 4 & 5 so I did a 2 hour heat.

All in all the results were quite similar with the 1 plate test.  For information on test 5 it took 7.5 minutes to go from 68 degrees to 69 and it never got to 70.  Thermal mass is added to the system due to an extra plate and some heat transfer from the 1st plate to the 2nd plate via the plastic spacers is causing lower peak steady state temperatures.  That’s it.

I have to say, I was terribly disappointed, I was expecting the tipping point to be reached, 100 deg C plus temperatures as the amazing, ground-breaking complete smashing up of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics revealed itself to me in all its “green-plate glory.”  Unfortunately, for all the twaddle talking alarmists out there, I can now show you all up & it’s only going to get better.  Your talk is twaddle & your blabber is all “blah, blah, blah.”

On this experiment the maximum temperatures peaked on the lower end of the range of experiment two.  This is because there is a small, loss from the first plate to the second plate, via conduction where the 1st plate supports the 2nd plate via the plastic spacers.  These plastic spacers have far lower conductivity than the metal plates, but still, they act as small thermal bridges, enough to cause the peak temperatures to drop slightly.  There isn’t any nullification occurring, there just isn’t any heat rise due to back irradiance, that is a false science.

It is also noticeable in the rates of warming to get to the steady state temperature, were slower and on average it took longer.

Yes this set up isn’t perfect, but I can improve upon it, make the necessary tweaks and run further tests no problems at all.  Your magic won’t show itself, because it isn’t real.  None of you can “SHOW ME NOW” your back radiant CO2 inducing warming.  All the alarmists are fakers, their religion it is not real and it sure is not science.

Real science explains nature, real science aligns observations with theory.  My explanations match the observations.  My reasoning matches reality.  Radiation greenhouse effect does no such thing, it fails to appear, under every circumstance, however tested, it just does not happen.  IT IS A LIE, A BIG LIE!

Oh and yes, if I put an IR detector on the 1st plate, it would indeed detect IR coming from the 2nd plate, but SO WHAT.  It meant nothing, there was no temperature rise at all.  The 2nd plate is cooler than the 1st, so there is no mechanism at play which would enable higher peak temperatures.  You can’t warm objects to higher temperatures using their own heat.  There was no reduction in the rate of cooling, resulting in a faster rate of warming or higher peak temperatures, NONE.  Some thermal mass was added and that was it.

The radiation greenhouse effect, IN ITS ENTIRETY, is all nothing but lies.  The fake science of the phoney chicken little fanatics, is nothing more than the parading of parlour tricks, half-baked useless graphical data with no basis in reality & utterly pointless maths with no use in practical engineering & all designed with no purpose other than to con.  They are exactly like the spiritualists that claim they can speak to your recently dead Auntie and Uncle, or detect water with broken sticks, or use magnetic wrist band beads to increase your strength.  It’s all just a tissue of lies.

Oh and yes, you can stop hurricanes, but only if you buy this great new overpriced electric motorbike and pay your over the top carbon taxes.  “Coughs loudly.”

If you went to a doctor with a broken arm and he showed you a graph telling you that drinking honey tea with lemon will cure it, no need for a sling or plaster, or an x-ray, threw a book at you called “the consensus of honey & lemon tea for fixing broken bones” and then told you drink it and you will be fine.  Would you say, “Hey thanks doc, you been a great help”, or would you report him.  Well that’s what every single climate alarmist is doing to you, they are fobbing you off with lies.  Every single green politician, what every single UN IPCC pontificator.  Every climate change committee, every Carbon Reduction emissions advisor.  Fobbing you off, every last one.

Radiation Greenhouse effect, global warming, climate crisis & climate emergency has no foundations, none, it is all built on sand.

So tell your family, tell your friends, tell who ever happens to be in power in your area and demand ACTION.  All those committing Climate Crisis Fraud, need to be held to account, sacked, fined & jailed, made to account for the crimes that they commit upon society.

How many people didn’t get the right medicinal treatment, because money was wasted on some stupid Carbon Saving scheme instead of Medicine?  The real cost of CCF is unknown, it’s about time people examined it and laid the facts bare to the public.  The public has a right to know and a right to be angry & so they should be.  The largest scam in all of the history of human kind, is happening right now and it is being perpetrated upon us all, that includes YOU!


PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (109)

  • Avatar

    JDHuffman

    |

    Get ready for the attacks, Geraint. Your work repudiates the GHE pseudoscience. The clowns cannot stand for that.

    The “green plate” nonsense uses the same bogus science as the “steel greenhouse”. Both violate the laws of physics, just as does the GHE. Neither can be produced in reality, only in their make-believe world.

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    You said it straight “IT IS A LIE, A BIG LIE!”
    The whole climate worrying scam is just a big lie.
    A fake.
    A fraud, perpetrated by the UN to gain control over you and money from you, and become the unelected World Government.
    There is NO truth to ‘Climate Alarmism’.
    The UN-IPCC blessed ‘climate models™’ can never discover the future climate scenarios because those in ‘climate science™’ do not understand, characterize, or correctly recognize so much of the climate system, including thye important area of how the chaos inherent in the process operates.

    From all the evidence to date WE ARE NOT AT THE START OF AN EXTINCTION EVENT brought about by climate change.
    From biology it is evident that humans and our industrial venting of CO2 is NOT a problem, nature uses more CO2 than we could possibly exhaust to the atmosphere, and nature NOT humans regulates how much CO2 stays in the atmosphere via the oceans and biosphere. The more CO2 is released from fossil sources the more nature will expand to use it. IT IS A WIN WIN SCENARIO with no downside for the human species.
    If you believe otherwise then you are not recognizing either history or this planet’s natural processes.
    But belief is all you have — your climate worrying has become a religion!

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Make a model of an insulated room that simulates a real house.Make one wall a double glazed window [like a real house with an inert gas between the panes].Have a heat source in the model house and a thermometer.Measure the heat loss  over a time period. outside the model.NOW replace the inert gas with 100% CO2Then measure the heat loss over the same time period.And,  measure the temperature inside to see if there is any back-radiation.
    If 0.04%  CO2 in the atmosphere can cause global warming, then 100% CO2 in the window,must surely cause the interior of the model to warm up if there is any GH Effect.
    I do not have the facilities to do this experiment.

    • Avatar

      Squidly

      |

      Al, I guarantee you will find that the house will cool faster with the 100% CO2 in the window. You don’t need an experiment to demonstrate this as every ice skating rink in north America (and elsewhere) do this almost every day. They use CO2 and this principle to freeze their rinks to save themselves about 40% in energy costs. Because CO2 has such high emissivity, it lends itself well for fast radiative energy transfer. In short, the CO2 window will allow the house to cool much more quickly. This is why argon is used in windows, because argon has very low emissivity compared to many other gases (especially typical generic air).

      • Avatar

        jerry krause

        |

        Hi Squidly,

        Would not the glass of window block the transmission of any radiation emitted by the carbon dioxide gas between the two panes of glass?

        The following are the thermal conductivities of a few gases (same units) from engineersedge.com. Helium (156.7), Air (26.2), Argon (17.9), Carbon Monoxide (25.0), Carbon Dioxide (16.8).

        Now I question if any window manufacture has tested the difference between Argon and Carbon Dioxide? For they are probably using the same reasoning as and know that the cheaper carbon dioxide just would work.

        Now I hasten to admit that I haven’t done this comparison so I have not idea of what the results might be. However, if I were manufacturing windows I certainly would check it out.

        But I finally realize that I can do a literature search. So I Googled ‘Comparison of Argon filled windows with Carbon Dioxide filled windows. And found the following at the Andersen Window site.

        “Argon wasn’t the first thermally efficient gas used for fill. When double glazing was introduced, ordinary air was used in between the glass panes. In the ‘70s, some manufacturers utilized carbon dioxide and Freon. Unfortunately, these gases have side effects. Oxygen causes window materials to deteriorate over time, while carbon dioxide and Freon easily precipitates discoloration and are sensitive to seal failure.”

        At first I could not see how “carbon dioxide and Freon could easily precipitates discoloration” (this is copied and pasted from the Andersen Window site and while I commonly make typo errors the preceding is not one of them) and I initially missed the implication of “Oxygen causes window materials to deteriorate over time”. I can easily image that the oxygen of the outside air was reacting with the 70s sealants to produce precipitates and discoloration and seals that failed over time. But I am sure this was not the result of the gases inside the window.

        Hence, based upon what I consider a probably wrong assumption, Andersen Windows do not fill their double pane windows with what must be the much cheaper (than Argon) carbon dioxide gas because sealants have made since the 70s which do not react with the oxygen of the outside air.

        Of course, even with this information my understanding about carbon dioxide as a good insulating gas because of the molecule’s mass (a little greater than Argon) could be wrong. But Squidly, this is something you might consider.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        Have a good day, Jerry

        Have a good day, Jerry

        understand how chemically carbon dioxide can precipitate or chemically react with anything. However, I can imagine how, in the 70s, that the sealants might react with the oxygen of the outside air and become less than ‘air tight’ as they ‘aged’ and produced

        • Avatar

          jerry krause

          |

          See all my errors, clearly you should ignore all that this old person wrote.

        • Avatar

          Squidly

          |

          “Now I question if any window manufacture has tested the difference between Argon and Carbon Dioxide?”

          Indeed they absolutely have !!! .. they have tested many many gases and combination of gases. Are you kidding me? .. do you realize how much $$ there is in efficient windows? .. They are using Argon because it is both cheap and very effective at helping to slow radiant and conductive energy transfer through the panes, and, as noted, help to maintain color and reduce deterioration.

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Maybe the plate needs to be green?
    I’m just kidding. Good work, Geraint.

    • Avatar

      geraint hughes

      |

      OMG! Your so right, why didn’t I think of that? 😀

      Thanks

  • Avatar

    Squidly

    |

    Great experiments Geraint !!! … awesome work once again !!!

  • Avatar

    T L Winslow

    |

    The Green Plate Theory is one of many layers of fake physics the IPCC’s CO2 greenhouse warming hoaxer scientists have wrapped around their stinking onion to keep the public fooled into believing the world is in a climate emergency that only they can save us from after surrendering all power to them. The sad fact is that the fake field of “climate science” was created by the IPCC octopus to hijack atmospheric science and geophysics, resulting in thousands of circus clown Bozos with climate science doctorates who don’t know the first thing about physics but enjoy huge funding and protection from the IPCC, while the older real scientists are systematically marginalized and defunded. When will we reverse this travesty?

    “Historically, students of the atmosphere and climate have had proficiency in one of the physical disciplines that underpin the subject, but not in the others. Under the fashionable umbrella of climate science, many today do not have proficiency in even one.” –
    Murray L. Salby, Preface to Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (2012)

    Watch me pick apart the Green Plate Theory:

    https://www.quora.com/What-effects-does-the-solar-cycle-have-on-Earths-temperature/answer/TL-Winslow

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-views-of-Nir-Shaviv-Henrik-Svensmark-Judith-Curry-Willie-Soon-Freeman-Dyson-and-possibly-Richard-Muller-not-incorporated-in-mainstream-climate-science/answer/TL-Winslow

    http://www.historyscoper.com/tlwclimate.html

  • Avatar

    Norman

    |

    Geraint Hughes

    It seems your plastic thermal bridges are what are causing your experiment to distort what you are looking for. You have introduced and unknown (the conduction of heat through the plastic spacers) and yet you are calling well established science lies? Maybe you should eliminate this unknown and then you will see what you do not believe exists. The lower plate will increase in temperature.

    Your own experiment shows how much energy is removed by convection and conduction from the first test (left in air) and the second done in vacuum conditions. The other heat transfer mechanisms remove enough heat that there is over a 23 degree difference between the two.

    So maybe suspend the 2nd plate above the lower plate by a thin fish line to minimize any potential conduction. This would validate your test more.

    Another experimenter also did the green plate experiment and his shows exactly what established physics says it should. His did not have any possible conduction between plates so I think his is more valid than yours. If you minimize any conduction and then report no increase in temperature with the lower plate then I will sit up and take notice. As it stands I think you have more conduction moving energy from the lower plate to the upper plate than you are considering significant.

    The other test that shows opposite of yours.
    https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba

    I do compliment you for doing actual testing. More than most but experiments alone do not allow conclusions if the experimental setup is not eliminating what should be eliminated.

    I hope you use your same set-up just try to eliminate any possible conduction between plates.

  • Avatar

    Geraint Hughes

    |

    Norman,

    So what your telling me is that the puny amount of thermal conductance from a handful little plastic spacers is enough to overcome all the back radiant effect of the addition of another plate? Really, wow, this back radiance must be quite feeble if it is so easily nullified. Thank the lord.

    That’s you showing how naive you are.

    Yes I can repeat it with hangers. In fact I am trying to devise how best to do that right now.

    The difference between the other experiment and mine is I recorded all the temperatures on you tube with video and can download them at any time, you can see the camera on the pictures. Is suspect whomever made that other contraption, did’nt do the same.

    Secondly, I can duplicate the effect they experienced by not removing all the air from the vacuum chamber. Is that digital pressure gauge of theirs showing a real readout? I doubt it..

    When you leave air in the chamber, you can witness a warming effect, by reducing the rate of convective cooling by restricting the rate of convective cooling using obstruction techniques, like you demonstrated.

    People whom profess greenplate effect to be real are liars, I am not surprised that such fakes would resort to trickery to attempt to prove something which does not exist. Your con might work on the uninitiated but it doesnt work on me.

    In fact I will write an article at some point where I will show just that. How not evacuating the chamber properly results in the fake effect you demonstrated, but then how evacuating it properly has no effect.

    Geraint Hughes.

  • Avatar

    Norman

    |

    Geriant Hughes

    Thanks for doing the experiments.

    YOU: “So what your telling me is that the puny amount of thermal conductance from a handful little plastic spacers is enough to overcome all the back radiant effect of the addition of another plate? Really, wow, this back radiance must be quite feeble if it is so easily nullified. Thank the lord.”

    That is what you will attempt to find out.

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Norman,
      Ludwig Boltzmann is credited for both the experimental and theoretical derivation of Stefan-Boltzmann Law. In his derivation of SB Law from emission from a hole in an oven he DOES NOT have any mathematics that suggests two-way photon exchange. None whatsoever. So where did some imbecile textbook writers get that idea?

      • Avatar

        Norman

        |

        Zoe Phin

        If you want to know and have interest look at this downloaded book by Clausius. Look at the first page of Chapter 12 and read the contents (page 295 of the book itself, on the bottom scroll page it would be 318 of 435)

        https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog/page/n317

        Read this material and then tell why you think Clausius is an imbecile. What is the basis of this opinion of yours. Where do you get your secret knowledge from that allows you to think all but you are clueless?

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Norman,
          Clausius is not famous for measuring radiation. So why are you listening to him? Boltzmann made no use of his insight. Boltzmann simply counted the standing waves in a cavity, and he never doubled that number for two-way EM waves.

          Aristotle said the Earth doesn’t move. So what? Why would you listen to his opinion in that matter?

          “Clausius’s PhD thesis concerning the refraction of light proposed that we see a blue sky during the day, and various shades of red at sunrise and sunset (among other phenomena) due to reflection and refraction of light. Later, Lord Rayleigh would show that it was in fact due to the scattering of light,”

          So on that Clausius was wrong.

          Fourier also incorrectly thought that the atmsophere made the surface warmer.

          There were plenty of people in history who were wrong. How does quoting them help your case?

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Zoe Phin

            So I will ask again. Where do you get your information from? Why do you believe it is correct? You reject all modern physics which claim a two-way exchange of radiant energy between two objects with some temperature. You make smashing claims that all these scientists are imbeciles? You pretend to be a super expert on this topic. You make a claim about one experiment (though you provide no background information to your claims) and ignore countless experiments that prove there is such a two-way exchange of energy. So where are you getting your information from. I really do not care if you think you are a gifted genius who got A’s in physics with little effort, I would like supporting information for your claims. You have none but are very vocal about what you think is reality. But I am waiting for some support of your claims. So far you have none. Lots of noise, no music.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Norman,

            “countless experiments that prove there is such a two-way exchange of energy.”

            LMAO
            You got none bub. There is no technological device that could even detect this.

            Modern physics is based upon a guy (Clausius) that couldn’t give a proper description of why the sky is blue?

            OK, let’s reject Boltzmann, reject Planck, reject Einstein in favor of Clausius the super infalible genius.

            Norman, quit “fronting”, you got nothing.

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Zoe Phin

            Yes there have been actual experiments that prove the two-way energy exchange. That is why it is now established in even engineering physics of radiant heat transfer.
            https://faculty.utrgv.edu/constantine.tarawneh/Heat%20Transfer/HeatTransferBooklet.pdf

            I know you continue to ignore my request for information. I will ask again. Where do you get your information about a one way flow of radiant energy. You act like the Queen of Science. Science is supposed to work that Zoe makes a declaration about a topic and then that is the way it is. No proof, no evidence and everyone who does not believe her Divine proclamation is stupid. Again what is the basis of your information. Where did you get if from (other than making it up). No textbook states your claim. No equations support your claim. Nothing to date comes close to supporting what you state. Please supply some supporting evidence for what you claim to be factual. I am waiting.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            Norman, you didn’t link to any experiments.

            As usual, you linked to something you can’t understand.

            Nothing new.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Norman,
            You’re an imbecile.

            “Where do you get your information about a one way flow of radiant energy”

            I looked up how SB Law was derived. Read Boltzmann, Planck and Einstein.

            Why you so stupid?

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Norman,
            You can start with googling “photon gas in a box”.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Norman,
            “Yes there have been actual experiments that prove the two-way energy exchange.”

            Uhuh, in case science doesn’t support you, just fabricate a convenient lie. Nice, Norman.

          • Avatar

            Geraint Hughes

            |

            Norman posts a lot of equations that he doesnt know how to use. If you use them correctly you find you dont get back radiant effect from one plate to another.

            As a side issue, those fakes whom claim to have performed the experiment, they didnt. Watch what happens when you activate the pump and evacuate the chamber, convective cooling causes the temperature to drop. This was not indicated on their graph, but it is exactly what would have happened to both plates.

            Their graph is faked, they just drew any old thing that they thought looked right & supported their lies. There are other things wrong as well as indicated previously.

            If you watch my video, the plate temp drops from 48.3 to 47.6, a 0.7 degree Celsius drop. If i did it remotely and had a temp plate of 80 deg, the temperature drop would have been much more, approx 3 to 5 degree. Why is not shown? FAKES!

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TlWhJ-EfGU&feature=youtu.be

          • Avatar

            Norman

            |

            Zoe Phin

            Telling me to read some scientist material is not you supporting your claims. Do you have any link to material that supports your one-way radiant exchange of energy. I have read about the photon gas. So will you support your claims or just pretend you know what you are talking about and making up things?

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Norman,
            And what did you learn from the photon gas box model?

  • Avatar

    Geraint Hughes

    |

    Also, on that other experiment. If the second plate was behind the 1st, but lowered out of the way the energy from the lamp and the 1st plate, how did its temperature rise before it was raised to be behind the 1st plate, if the chamber was empty? Something real odd about that.

    • Avatar

      Geraint Hughes

      |

      Another thing I have noticed, when he says he activated the vacuum pump, he claimed the temperature rose. That doesnt happen, the temperature drops & then starts to rise again. Because the air rushes past the plates and causes it cool. I have noticed this over a dozen times in my run throughs. I will post you tube of that also.

      And another thing it says the test was done 28th May USA, the back ground is bright, the sunsets 20:30 EDT in Southern Most forida then, so why are his pics so clear and why did the temperature of the bell jar not drop as the air temp dropped as evening set in?

      And to top it off, doing the test outside would cause fluctuations in the bell jar temperature as gusts of wind and such like cause constant changes. No fluctuations are indicated at all, how on Earth can that possibly be.

      Finally if the temperature of the plate got to 110C plus, something which I have replicated using different bulbs in my chamber, the temperature of such a small glass chamber, like they and I are using gets far in excess of 30 deg c.

      I believe that experiment was never even conducted and its just a graph with some pictures used as props to add credibility.

      • Avatar

        E. Swanson

        |

        Geraint Hughes, As you might have realized, the experiment was conducted indoors, a fact which I neglected to mention. The photos were taken outdoors to show the device in good lighting with an interesting background. The heating is provided by an external high intensity light and the top plate receives both SW from the light and LW from the glass bell jar. I would not be surprised that the Green Plate and the wall of the bell jar would cool after the pump is switched on, since the air in the chamber will cool due to adiabatic expansion.

        I expect that you will refuse to accept my results, as you have already shown that you deny the physics involved. Perhaps you are also one of the people (including JD Huffman) who was banned from Roy Spencer’s site for repeatedly posting bogus physics, etc.

        • Avatar

          JDHuffman

          |

          Nice try Swanson, but your plates nonsense was proven wrong already. You can’t decrease entropy without adding more energy. Just like Spencer and several other clowns you must love your false religion.

          And the reason Spencer censored me is that I was exposing his nonsense, with my IR thermometer. My daily reporting of sky/ground temperatures showed how wrong he is. He couldn’t counter, because he is doing the same thing for a living–tracking temperatures based on IR. He was trapped, and he know it. His only option was to censor me. He was never knowledgeable about the physics, and now he has proven he is not a scientist.

          Nothing new.

          • Avatar

            JDHuffman

            |

            And current readings are:

            Sky, directly overhead –> 7.3 F

            Ground (shaded) –> 68.5 F

            The sky does NOT warm the surface. The surface warms the sky.

            (Clowns hate reality!)

        • Avatar

          Geraint Hughes

          |

          Your telling me you lugged all that outdoors, with a table, wired it all up, sucked out the vacuum to 0.001 bar as indicated on the pressure gauge and then shut it all down and took it inside again and then totally failed to mention this? Complete crap.

          Do you even know what adiabatic expansion is? There is no adiabatic expansion here, its atm then zero pressure.

          The plates cool as a result of convective cooling, the fact you have a warm plate and then you cause the air to rush past the plates is what causes the cooling.

          • Avatar

            E. Swanson

            |

            Geraint Hughes, You have just scored zero on reading comprehension.
            As I wrote:

            …the experiment was conducted indoors, a fact which I neglected to mention.

            Adiabatic expansion:

            Adiabatic cooling occurs when the pressure on an adiabatically isolated system is decreased, allowing it to expand, thus causing it to do work on its surroundings. When the pressure applied on a parcel of air is reduced, the air in the parcel is allowed to expand; as the volume increases, the temperature falls as its internal energy decreases.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process#Adiabatic_free_expansion_of_a_gas

  • Avatar

    Herb Rose

    |

    Hi Geriant,
    You an show the GHGT believers that their flat Earth model is wrong, that there is no “Greenhouse effect”, that CO2 doesn’t have the properties they assert, that the sun does heat the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere by uv breaking molecular bonds and being converted to kinetic energy when the bond reform, or by repeating different variations of your experiment to try to address their lame objections but it is of no avail. Their primary belief, that cannot be abandoned, is that they cannot be wrong.
    Herb

  • Avatar

    Chris

    |

    Hey Norm, if the plate can be heated in that manner why isn’t it used in engineering? Certainly if a plate can increase its own heat by simple expose to other heated plates then this marvel would be widely used. The trouble is that you are saying that additional wattage is getting into the system spontaneously. It is well known in engineering that you do not get something for nothing. In order to increase the heat on the plates more energy will need to be put into the system, already expended energy and their products are not going to make it hotter. Heat only transfers from hotter items to cooler, never the other way.

    • Avatar

      bobdroege

      |

      Hey Chris,

      It is used in engineering, it’s called reflective insulation, layers of stainless steel that reduce the heat transfer keeping the hot pipe at 500 degrees or so and the outside cool enough to touch.

      • Avatar

        Geraint Hughes

        |

        Reflective insulation does not work by back radiance and increasing the temperature of the heat source.

        They work, by not absorbing the energy, meaning that they are much less able to transfer that energy to other side of the material. In effect increasing the thermal resistance of the material, which reduces it thermal conductance.

        Nothing to do with back radiant heating I’m afraid.

        • Avatar

          bobdroege

          |

          It’s reflective because it is shiny, it reflects some of the radiation back to the pipe it is insulating, reducing the heat loss.

          They also absorb the energy that they don’t reflect, adding additional resistance to heat loss.

          Further, stainless steel is conductive to heat, that’s why it feels cold when you touch it, even if it is the same temperature as your skin. So it does transfer the energy to the other side, the layers are rather thin.

          Of course there is not back radiant heating as heat is only one way, as it’s defined that way.

          Though energy transfer by photons, that’s a different story, that does go both ways.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Bob,
            Neither photons nor EM waves travel “both ways” at the same time. Boltzmann, Planck, and Einstein do not DOUBLE count radiation in their photon gas cavity. Neither their derivation instructions or math shows simultaneous two way radiation. Since blackbody radiation is derived from their work …

          • Avatar

            bobdroege

            |

            Zoe,

            yeah they do, and it’s a simple high school physics experiment to model two source of waves in a wave tank.

            It’s not double counting.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Bob,
            Water is not photons.

            No, they don’t. You haven’t read about how radiation laws were derived. You are just fabeicating a lie to suit your ideology.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Possibly the disagreement involves semantics.

            “Energy” can, and does, move in opposing directions. “Heat” only moves in one direction.

          • Avatar

            bobdroege

            |

            I didn’t say water was photons, but photons do exhibit wave characteristics and can be modeled by a wave tank, which one would learn about if they took high school physics.

            I do know that the probability of two photons that are moving in opposite directions interacting is very small.

            Geran has the jist of it, though heat is defined that way, so with two plates you do have heat in only one direction but you do have photons moving in both directions. And when photons are absorbed they do turn into specific heat, which is a different use of the term heat, meaning the temperature is raised. Or the rate of cooling is lowered, whatever.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Bob,
            Photons are transverse waves. Photons have destructive interference. Photons can only form in some wavelengths/frequencies, not all. Photons have no elastic collisions.

            If you think photons can be modeled with water waves, why the need for quantum mechanics? Congratulations, you have debunked the need for all that extra math.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Bob,
            “but you do have photons moving in both directions. ”

            No evidence, only ideology. Boltzmann and Planck disagree with you, and they’re the fathers of …

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Bob, you may mean “internal energy”, rather than “specific heat”. They are two different things. And, just because a low-energy photon were somehow absorbed by a surface, that does not automatically translate to the surface will increase in temperature. The photon would have to increase the average vibrational frequency to increase the temperature. Temperature is not determined by the total energy of an object, it is determined by the average vibrational frequency. That’s why “slowing the cooling” is such nonsense.

            Zoe, photons moving in opposite directions is a consequence of the work of Planck, Stefan, and Boltzmann, not a violation of it. Their work described how flux was emitted from an object. So when you place two objects close to each other, you have flux (photons) traveling in opposite directions, between the objects. Whether or not an object absorbs a photon depends on wavelength, as does whether or not there will be interference between photons. Photons with different wavelengths can effectively pass through each other, with no interference.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            OK geran, show me the 2 factor in their work and then I’ll take you seriously.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Zoe, you probably have trouble seeing with those hilarious bug-eyed sunglasses, so here it is again:

            “Their work described how flux was emitted from an object. So when you place two objects close to each other, you have flux (photons) traveling in opposite directions, between the objects.”

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            geran,
            One wall has 10 molecules, and so does the other. They are parallel. Are there 20 photons streams or 10 photon streams? Boltzmann and Planck would say 10. That’s what their math shows.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            geran,
            Note that a photon stream includes all possible wavelengths of photons.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Wrong Zoe. That’s NOT what Boltzmann and Planck would say. It’s only a very high temperature that emits a full spectrum. Your walls are only emitting in the LWIR, at room temperature. But, equal walls would be emitting equal photons, so there would be a 2-way flow.

            You can test this basic fact by standing in front of a mirror. Visible light leaves your body and is reflected back to your eyes. There is a 2-way flow of photons.

            But heat only flows one-way.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            geran,
            You’re purposefully using walls and molecules. I’m talking about MOLCULES or ATOMS.

            Boltzmann and Planck assumed that two parallel walls would not have all its molecules simultaneously emitting photons two ways. They assumed that EITHER one would send photons to the colder other.

            In my example, you can have 5 molecules sending photons one way, and 5 the other. But you CAN’T have all doing it at the same time.

            5/10 is not the full flux of the wall.

            You can prove me wrong by showing the 2 factor in their math and a description of 2-way travel. I’ve looked at their math and its simply not there.

            It’s simply NOT THERE.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Zoe, you get to argue with yourself:

            Zoe: ”One wall has 10 molecules, and so does the other. They are parallel.”

            Zoe: ”You’re purposefully using walls…”

            Great humor. It’s nice to have a female clown (clownette?), for a change. You should get a blonde wig to go with your funny sunglasses.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            geran,
            Maybe you’re the clown? I recognize the smallest constituents of the wall, and you don’t. It’s just one blob for you.

            Two walls can emit both ways at the same time, but not all parts of the walls can emit two ways at the same time.

            You’re confusing the whole for the parts. It’s called the composition fallacy.

            When I say wall, I mean ALL parts of the wall. When you think wall, you think any/some parts of the wall.

          • Avatar

            bobdroege

            |

            Zoe,

            I sure hope that when you say photons have destructive interference, you don’t mean that the photons destroy each other.

            I hope not.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Zoe accidently trips over some reality: “Two walls can emit both ways at the same time…”

            But, the prediction is she will not even acknowledge it. Encounters with reality can be so frightful.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            geran,
            When people say two walls emit X W/m^2 to each other at the same time, that is incorrect. But X/2 is possible, so is any combination of X and (1-X). What is so difficult to understand?
            You’re chasing some sort of “gotcha” rather than acknowledge the truth. Why is that?

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            As predicted, Zoe denies the reality she stumbled over.

            Hilarious.

            She started out claiming she understood Boltzmann and Planck. Now, she is rewriting their work to suit her beliefs. I suppose she would calculate the flux from one wall, using the S/B equation, then divide it by 2, ” But X/2 is possible…”

            And I thought blonde jokes were funny….

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Geran,
            Rewriting their work?
            Did you know that Boltzmann’s and Planck’s emission surface is a hole in a box? A hole is a “surface”. To figure out emission from this “surface”, they count the standing waves and their energy in the box. The walls of the box are not the emission surface. The emission “surface” is the hole. The standing waves in the actual box are not counted twice, but only once. There is no actual radiation law for a surface, only a hole in a box. You know nothing about this.

            “I suppose she would calculate the flux from one wall, using the S/B equation, then divide it by 2, ” But X/2 is possible…”

            In cavity radiation, the 3 opposing walls do not have ALL their molecules emitting photons two ways.

            Do you understand statistical physics? You need to.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          geran,
          correction:
          You’re purposefully using walls and mirrors. I’m talking about MOLCULES or ATOMS.

  • Avatar

    Scientist

    |

    Geraint is mistaken in thinking that only half the radiation comes out of each side of the plate at equilibrium. If there were twice as much into the sunny side of the plate as there were coming out of that side then it would still be warming and thus not at equilibrium. Suppose, for example, the plate had an internal layer that was a perfect insulator. Would it then get hotter on the sunny side? If the plate were a rotating sphere then that is different. Suppose instead that the plate were divided into ten far thinner plates. Whilst those ten plates are in contact there would still be conduction, just as if they were all one thicker plate. But Geraint would say that, when you separate them then the plate on the outside on the dark side would be far, far colder than when they were all in contact. Is radiation between the plates supposed to be a far less effective mode of heat transfer than conduction? I think not! What happens is that the plate acts much like a perfectly transparent plate and what comes out on the dark side via radiation equals what goes in on the sunny side. There is no heat transfer either way between the Sun and the sunny side of the plate in the equilibrium state. Radiative flux does NOT equate to heat flux. There is a peer-reviewed PSI paper on radiation at http://www.whyitsnotco2.com/psi_radiated_energy.pdf and you all need to study carefully what the author (and Prof Claes Johnson who is cited) explained about the resonance process.

    • Avatar

      geraint hughes

      |

      Hi Scientist,

      I do not say only half comes out each side, I use that as an example to show what climate activisists think is what is happening, when they say “greenplate effect” and then show it is not.

  • Avatar

    E. Swanson

    |

    Geraint Hughes presents his experimental results and then states they disprove the Green Plate model of the Earth’s surface temperature and the Greenhouse Effect in general. As usual with such efforts, he begins by incorrectly presenting the GP model, assuming that the plate receives the full solar flux of 1367 watts/m^2, whereas the Earth’s disk represents only 1/4 the radiating surface area. As the result of this fact, the GP model is based on 1357/4 w/m^2, about 340 w/m^2, which is adjusted lower to account for albedo.

    There are several problems I see with his vacuum experiment. First, the energy radiated from the bulb is mostly absorbed by the metal angle supports, which both radiate and conduct energy to his plate(s) and to the glass of the vacuum chamber because glass is a good IR absorber. He provides no information regarding the level of vacuum achieved in his test and it’s well known that an incomplete vacuum will still exhibit convection. thus he can not claim to have suppressed convection.

    In both situations, the plates are in thermal equilibrium with the radiation field from the vacuum chamber, thus one might expect little temperature increase for the first plate when the second plate is added. I had to solve these problems with my Green Plate Demo, which showed the temperature of the first plate increasing when a second plate was added. Note that I achieved a measured vacuum of about 50 microns, which a single stage pump might not.

    https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba

    I used a completely different approach with my next experiment, suppressing convection thru geometry without using a vacuum and compared plates with different materials. I even showed warming when the plate was made of ice

    https://app.box.com/s/75x6grubursu06sq6kvenfiwu0axx59h

    I suggest that you need to try to understand your results in more depth before ranting about “There’s No Global Warming”.

    • Avatar

      JDHuffman

      |

      Actually Swanson, the original GP nonsense was based on 400 W/m^2. You don’t understand the relevant physics, but you should at least try to understand your pseudoscience.

    • Avatar

      Geraint Hughes

      |

      What is that drivvle in your first paragraph? Those figures you quote do not relate to a flat plate, they relate to a sphere. You need to ask yourself why you made such a pointless point? Are you just trying to prove how stupid you are? Or are you so light on details you decided to “FLUFF” out your comments with garbage?

      I gave a full vacuum, the pump is sufficient to enable to me to break the glass bulb and switch on the filament without it burning. See this for proof. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgjT_665T6U

      Also, a fake two plate effect would have been easy to replicate if I had left air inside, as it is the restriction of convection, causing a reduction in convective cooling which can trick people into thinking a radiation reduction occurred. The effect didn’t occur, therefore sufficient air has been removed.

      Your claim that the plate is in “thermal equilibrium” with the chamber is false. Your pretending that the chamber is acting as a second plate and therefore the addition of another plate has no effect. Greenplate fakers, like you also state the addition of a third plate would cause a temp rise, so in any event according to your false physics a rise would have occurred. It did not. Secondly, the glass on your bell jar would have been doing the same thing and therefore you would have had the same issue and therefore if the glass on my chamber is stopping the effect, then surely it must have stopped it on yours too, but you claim it didnt? You pretend that you “solved this problem” but there is no evidence of that in your pictures or description. How did you solve, this non-existant problem of LW IR absorption of the bell jar? Are you going to tell me you spent in excess of $50,000 dollars on a LW IR transparent bell jar, which people dont even manufacture anyway? Why dont i believe you. Again your making up nonsense on the spot.

      Mr Swanson, I put it to you that you never even conducted your experiment and your graph is nothing but a lie, so dont lecture me with your half baked made up on the spot nonsense. I can show that your graph is false with ease.

      The graph you say represents the results of your experiment is entirely false, because it has glaring errors in it, errors which would not occur if the data represented a true test.

      a) Why is the temperature of the 2nd plate rising when it is in the lowered position, when you have shielded it using baffles and a radiation shield at the bottom of your raising frame? The only input it could have would be from the bottom of the 1st plate, hitting the top of the 2nd, which is minimal radiant forcing and therefore minimal temperature rise would have been experienced. It would match closely the bell jar, but it is much hotter?

      b) Watch this video showing the temperature of the plate drop when the vacuum is activated. Why is this effect not shown on your graph? A drop of 3 to 5 degrees would be expected from the 1st plate with your arrangement. You do not show this on your graph. It is not physically possible to suck out all the cool air, force it to rush past both plates and not experience a reduction in temperature of the plates. This is direct proof you did NOT conduct the test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TlWhJ-EfGU. You dont show this effect? Probably because your so ignorant, you weren’t aware of it and so didnt take fake account of it, by showing a dip on your graph. You’ve been caught red handed I’m afraid. Where is the dip?

      Go on answer the question? WHERE IS THE DIP?

      c) You claim that the glass bell jar vacuum chamber you used, maintained roughly 30 degrees, throughout yet, it is outside at night and severe cooling would have occurred. Why is the jar not cooling when it is outside at night?

      d) The vacuum chamber temperature on your graph shows no fluctuations in temperature. Please explain the impossible. Your chamber is outside, and unprotected from the weather, such stability cant be achieved in such exposed circumstances.

      e) You say the 1st plate got to 110 degrees clesius & the 2nd 70. I have performed such a test. The glass bell jar, would not be 30 degrees with the plate at that temp inside. The bell jar is hot to the touch, it would have been far in excess of 30, even outside.

      e) Back radiant forcing doesn’t occur, as I have shown, therefore any shown on your graph is purely fictitious where ever it shows it.

      I can believe you didn’t know about the dip. Faker.

      • Avatar

        E. Swanson

        |

        Geraint Hughes accuses me of faking my experimental results and ignores the facts I presented.

        For example, the claim that my experiment was performed outside is repeated (c), when I clearly stated that was not what was done. And, in addition, it’s claimed that my “vacuum chamber” ( my bell jar?) shows no fluctuations in temperature (d), again ignoring the fact that I intentionally worked in an indoor area with relatively stable temperature. As noted, my temperature sensor for the bell jar was on the lower rear, which was a location which was not directly heated by the light, so the graph indicated a slow temperature increase while the other side of the jar warms more rapidly. The “green plate” in my demo is not completely shielded from the input energy, the aluminum shield will also emit IR EM in it’s direction, so it’s temperature slowly increases until the time point at which it is lifted in place, then the temperature begins a more rapid climb as it intercepts more energy from the blue plate.

        Finally, you state:

        e) Back radiant forcing doesn’t occur, as I have shown, therefore any shown on your graph is purely fictitious where ever it shows it.

        I can believe you didn’t know about the dip. Faker.

        Your two cylinder video showed a vacuum of ~28 inches on a mechanical gauge, which as I have noted, may not be low enough to suppress convection. If you can’t stop convection, your results are likely to have given you the wrong result.

        Lastly, there’s no reason that my results should exhibit a “dip” like you claim to have found(b) since my system is different than yours. My plates are both 1/4 inch (~6mm) thick and the thermocouples are embedded within each, so my plates have about 5 times the thermal mass as your plates. Your temperature measuring device appears to be an immersion type, not a point contact type, thus the dip you claim to see could well be just the air being cooled as it’s pressure drops, not the temperature of your 1mm thick plate plate.

        But, you have already decided that there’s no back radiation, so my results which do must be a fake, even as you ignore my critique of your work. And you have the nerve to call me a fake?

        • Avatar

          JDHuffman

          |

          Swanson, what makes your nonsense fake, or bogus, is that you’re trying to prove pseudoscience. You can’t avoid 2nd Law. You can’t make up things to fit your belief system. But you appear more than willing to pervert and corrupt established physics.

          Nothing new.

          Also, latest temperature readings (Sun has set):

          Directly overhead –> 5.3 F

          Ground –> 58.8 F

          You guessed it—-the sky is STILL not warming the surface!

        • Avatar

          Geraint Hughes

          |

          “Your two cylinder video showed a vacuum of ~28 inches on a mechanical gauge, which as I have noted, may not be low enough to suppress convection. If you can’t stop convection, your results are likely to have given you the wrong result.”

          Swanson, you need to stop talking, you keep embarrasing yourself.

          28 inches air pressure is 948 millibars, which is nearly full atmospheric pressure. If i turned the filament on in that it would burn out instantly.

          The vacuum pump I used takes it down to 2 millibar. I also have a bigger vacuum pump an RC8M which takes it down to 37 microns. There is no air in my chamber when i do my tests.

          “the aluminum shield will also emit IR EM in it’s direction” Actually pal, no it wont. Alumium has an IR emissivity of 0.05 or there abouts, unless if it is all rusty. A block of ice -50 deg C emits far more IR than the aluminium at +50 Deg C. WHY DO YOU NOT KNOW THIS?

          The air is not cooling as the pressure drops, the air is being extracted. The plate is cooling because the air is being drawn across its surface, transfering heat from the plate to the air, as it leaves the chamber.

          • Avatar

            E. Swanson

            |

            Geraint Hughes, It’s tough to read your gauge in the videos. Your pressure gauge appears to be a standard vacuum gauge. The red scale is the “inHg”, or inches of mercury in a closed tube. Please be aware that 28 or 29 inches Hg is not a high vacuum. You apparently don’t understand your own instruments…

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      Swanson,

      https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba

      I debunked your green plate experiment a while back on Roy Spencer’s blog:

      “The green hoax experiment is a sneaky fraud. The answer is much simpler.
      Take a look at photo 1, then photo 2. Look at the steel/lead pipe they use to lift green plate.

      It’s well within Blue plate’s view factor!
      The Blue Plate is heating the pipe! (higher heat capacity)
      Then they yank the pipe down, and the heat capacity goes down … heating the Blue plate.

      Blue emits in a radial hemisphere, and if you look at photo 1, you can easily eyeball the pipe taking up ~10% of Blue’s hemispheric view factor.

      The pipe is “holding down” Blue’s temperature.

      Then they bring green plate in … that is, they remove the pipe – and Blue heats up like 10% more. Amazing!

      Experiment is a fraud.”

      “I took a ruler to photo 1 (top left)

      The diameter of pipe is N
      The height of pipe is 3N

      Surface area of pipe FACING plate is 3N^2*PI

      Distance from center of plate to center of pipe is ~2.8N.

      Imaginary surface area of blue plate’s emission at distance 2.8N:

      4PI7.84N^2 = 31.36N^2PI

      So, the pipe takes up 3/31.36 = 9.6% of BP’s radiation.

      The results of experiment showed temperature difference from lack of pipe to presence of pipe to be 116 – 106 = 10 C

      In fluxes: 1300 – 1172 = 128 W/m^2

      Flux % increase: 128 / 1172 = 10.9%

      9.6% vs. 10.9% is too close to be a coincidence. The tiny difference is also due to the fact that when the pipe is lowered it still takes up a tiny % of view factor. It’s too small for me to bother measuring it.

      The pipe is the culprit. QED.

      According to backradiation theory, blue’s final flux should have been 100% higher than green’s (400 vs 200).

      In this experiment, the result was 1300/833 (75C for GP) = 56%

      This experiment shows pipe view factor heat capacity interference and not backradiation heating. QED”

      • Avatar

        E. Swanson

        |

        Zoe Phin, I didn’t see your comment on Spencer’s site. That said, you are forgetting about time in your analysis. The lead filled steel pipe “sees” mostly the walls of the bell jar and is thus going to reach steady state with the jar, not the Green Plate. The viewing area of the Green Plate is largely the Blue Plate on one side and the side of the bell jar on the other. Your claim that the weight is the cause of the warming of the Blue Plate seems far fetched to me.

        BTW, I never claimed that my demonstration was a highly accurate effort, such as one might obtain in a laboratory setting and I invited others to improve on my work. I think that Geraint Hughes’s efforts don’t even reach a level of accuracy that I achieved.

        • Avatar

          Zoe Phin

          |

          Swanson,
          In the up position, the Blue Plate shares 10% of its radiation with the lead pipe and 90% with the Bell Jar.
          Q = mCpdT

          In other words, you’re wasting energy heating the lead pipe via blue plate via heat lamp.

          When you bring lead pipe down, you are no longer wasting 10%, and therefore Blue Plate warms up by ~10%.

          Q = mCpdT

          It works out to the equivalent of changing the mass of the Blue Plate.

          Not fair. Cheating.

          • Avatar

            E. Swanson

            |

            Zoe Phin, As you note, the back of the Blue plate receives IR EM from it’s surroundings, which include the bell jar and the lead filled steel weight. I suggest that your calculations or the effects of the plate and weight view angles misses the fact that at steady state, the contribution from the bell jar and the weight would be equal to just the bell jar alone, since, at steady state, the weight is no longer gaining/losing energy. Thus, the dT in your equations becomes zero.

            Furthermore, the weight exchanges energy from the front via it’s view of the aluminum support angles in the frame, which you did not attempt to calculate. One side of the angle separates the Blue plate’s view from the weight, while also exchanging energy from the front of the angle to the back of the Blue plate.

            I suggest that the key was in the effort to run the device long enough to reach nearly steady state conditions. If one were to have added more thermocouples to fully instrument the setup, as well as data recording with a computer, perhaps the results would be more convincing, but I didn’t do that and won’t now.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Swanson,
            “As you note, the back of the Blue plate receives IR EM from it’s surroundings,”

            I do not note that. That is what you’re trying to prove, but you haven’t done so.

            “the contribution from the bell jar and the weight would be equal to just the bell jar alone”

            No! First of all, as Geraint noted, the Bell Jar absorbs IR directly from the heat lamp. That is not the case with the lead weight it gets most energy from the blue plate in phase I.

            Second of all radiation diminishes by inverse square law. The lead weight is VERY close to Blue Plate, and takes up 10% of its volumetric view factor, at that distance. The bell jar is farther away and a constant in both phase I and II of the experiment.

            The Bell Jar is a constant, and honestly should not be considered at all for the relative changes in temperature. OK? It’s just a vacuum shell.

            “the weight is no longer gaining/losing energy. Thus, the dT in your equations becomes zero.”

            No! The Blue Plate would have received the energy that it was forced to give up to the lead weight, and thus would have had a highet tempetature to begin with.

            This isn’t rocket science. Heat a hamburger patty on a frying pan with a given amount of energy. Then do the same for 0.9 times the mass of the hamburger. Get it? It doesn’t matter that there is a frying pan around both 1 and 0.9 hamburger. Get real.

            “Furthermore, the weight exchanges energy from the front via it’s view of the aluminum support angles in the frame, which you did not attempt to calculate”

            The supporting brackets don’t change. Whereas the lead weight goes to a completely different place almost completely out of sight of the blue plate.

            “I suggest that the key was in the effort to run the device long enough to reach nearly steady state conditions.”

            But for different masses. In phase I you radiatively heat Blue Plate + Lead Weight. In phase II you report just the Blue Plate (No Lead Weight).

            OK, I agree, 0.9 hamburger will be hotter than 1 hamburger. And a hamburger crumb will get even hotter than that.

          • Avatar

            Geraint Hughes

            |

            Zoe, The graph is fictional. There is no rational explanation for it.

            I will perform a test and you tube it to show this with an arrangement similar but better.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Swanson,

            “The supporting angle side pieces partially block the views between the Blue plate”

            No not really. Not according to the photos. They do block the heat lamp. So Normal radiation heats the blue plate, and the blue plate shares 10% of its radiation with the lead weight.

            “No, the Bell Jar radiates into the interior space as well as outward and the other elements within also radiate. That’s the explanation for the Green plate warming in phase 1. ”

            The data shows the weight gets twice as hot as the bell jar!

            “Remember the results are for steady state.”

            Call it whatever you like, but in reality you supplied Q over time in phase I. Q=mCpdT

            What do you not understand?

            Your lead weight functionally added ~10% mass to the blue plate. It’s as if the thickness of the blue plate dropped from phase I to II.

            And, you are apparently thinking that the weight will change the thermal mass, accumulate energy and then return it to the Blue plate, once the weight is lowered.

            “And, you are apparently thinking that the weight will change the thermal mass, accumulate energy and then return it to the Blue plate, once the weight is lowered.”

            No, I do not think that silly goof. The energy in the lead weight is radiated out towards bell jar.

            NEW radiance comes in from the heat lamp over time. A new Q but for a lower m. Q=mCpdT

            The rate q is still the same, though as the old q.

            What do you not understand?

            The blue plate constantly drained its energy to heat the lead weight. If the lead weight did not consume 10% of the view factor, that energy would have been used to raise blue plate’s temperature! The energy has been radiate out already, but no matter, new radiance with a lower m raises blue plates temperature to a new value – a value it would have achieved without the lead weight being there in the first place.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Swanson,
            There is another quick way to figure out your experimental fraud.

            The final temperatures are:
            31°C (Yellow) => 485 W/m^2
            75°C (Green) => 833 W/m^2
            116°C (Blue) => 1300 W/m^2

            We subtract Bell Jar (Yellow) from both:
            Green => 833-485 = 348
            Blue => 1300-485 = 815

            In the theoretical greenplate gedanken experiment, the radiation ratio of blue to green was 2 to 1.

            But in your experiment, we get:
            815/348 = 2.34 !

            You got a bigger difference than is possible. And the difference is too great to be accounted for by the distance difference of green plate and blue plate from the heat lamp inversed and squared.

            Also too large in case emissivities of material is not 1.

            You’ve done no theoretical analysis of your work’s. You need to state all the possible relevant parameters and determine your results theoretically as well, preferably before you do thr actual experiment.

            Also, in the gedanken experiment, the blue plate’s radiation increased from 200 to 266 W/m^2, factor of 1.33

            In your experiment, the increase was

            (1300-485)/(1171-485)= 1.19

            You got ratios of 2.34 and 1.19
            When you should have gotten 2.0 and 1.33

            Over and under. Lead weight is to blame.

            1.19 / 1.33 = 0.895 !

            What did I say? 10% !

          • Avatar

            E. Swanson

            |

            Zoe Phin, You continue to ignore the situation once steady state is achieved. After that point, whatever energy was being passed from the Blue plate to the weight (as well as the energy transfer between all the elements in the system) no longer changes and the temperature of the Blue plate stops increasing. After that point in time, the net energy into the weight will be zero.

            Furthermore, when you subtract the bell jar black body emission rate, you are ignoring three facts. First, the emitting area of the bell jar is much greater than either the Blue or Green plate. Secondly, the point at which the temperature probe is placed on the bell jar results in a cooler value than that higher up directly behind the Blue plate while the front of the bell jar is warmer still. Third, the front of the Blue plate is absorbing the external energy from both the light and that from the warm side of the bell jar, thus the temperature and rate of emission is greater than it would be resulting from the energy received from the bell jar alone.

            My device was constructed within an Earth based bell jar, not at some point outside the atmosphere where the surroundings would be at a temperature near zero Kelvin. Your calculation based on a comparison with Eli’s calculation misses this fact. It would not be surprised that the ratio you calculate is less for my Earth bound system that from Eli’s model.

            Of course, both you and GH have already made up your mind when you call my work a fraud. Think of it this way. Why would I fake the data with a device which would be so easy to replicate?

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Swanson,
            You’re an imbecile.

          • Avatar

            E. Swanson

            |

            Zoe Phin wrote:

            Swanson, You’re an imbecile.

            No. I’ve received 2 engineering degrees and “an imbecile” would not have done so.
            Do tell us, what’s your claim to fame? Of course, lacking such information, one is reminded that “Arrogance is the last resort of the ignorant” and that includes name calling.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Swanson,
            Yes, you arrogantly dismissed all the good arguments and repeated your junk science.

            Imbecile is not a name, imbecile.

            My claim to fame is being a wall street financial analyst and speculator. I made $84.5 million dollars for ~1200 clients over a 10 year period – right through the great recession. Had I stuck to what I learned at university I would have had no success.

            My husband has two engineering degrees and he disagrees with you as well.

            Tell me, why doesn’t Boltzmann, Planck, or Einstein use two-way photon transfers in their derivation of blackbody cavity radiation laws?

          • Avatar

            E. Swanson

            |

            Zoe Phin, Your expertise in the financial world doesn’t make you an expert in physics, (not that I am either). But, are those calculations you present your work or that of your husband? I’m sure that you know that there are different specialties under the general title “engineer” and heat transfer is usually a subject for mechanical engineering education. Of course, you still haven’t admitted that your canard about the weight is pointless, once steady state is achieved, thus dT = zero throughout the system.

            Here’s the proper way to look at the data.

            There are four steady state points on the graph, the first beginning at room temperature, the second after the light is switched on, the third after the vacuum pump is energized and the fourth after the Green plate is lifted into position. The size of the two plates was roughly 4.0″ x 3.5″ or 102mm x 89mm for a surface area of 0.109m x 0.089m = 9.7e-3 m^2 per side.

            Looking back at my data, I measured these steady state temperatures (C):

            Green Blue Bell

            Point 3 45.5 106.6 29.8
            Point 4 74.8 116.6 31.1

            Green emits Blue emits Bell emits

            Point 3 583 w/m^2 1177 w/m^2 476 w/m^2
            Point 4 830 w/m^2 1306 w/m^2 485 w/m^2

            4 – 3 247 129 9

            All three emit from both sides, so the area is irrelevant (though interesting). The increase in the Blue plate emission rate after the Green plate is raised (129 w/m^2) is almost exactly half the increase from the Green plate plus half that from the Bell jar (123.5 + 4.5 = 128 w/m^2). This is consistent with back radiation from the Green plate and Bell jar being the cause of the increase in temperature of the Blue plate.

          • Avatar

            E. Swanson

            |

            Woops, “Point 3” should have been 4 and “Point 4” should have been “Last”.

            Time for sleep…

          • Avatar

            E. Swanson

            |

            Zoe Phin, I guess I war more sleepy than I realized, as there are only 4 points. I’m also not a good HTML editor. Here’s an attempt to clean up the data in my post.

            Here’s the proper way to look at the data.

            There are four steady state points on the graph, the first beginning at room temperature, the second after the light is switched on, the third after the vacuum pump is energized and the fourth after the Green plate is lifted into position. The size of the two plates was roughly 4.0? x 3.5? or 102mm x 89mm for a surface area of 0.109m x 0.089m = 9.7e-3 m^2 per side.

            Looking back at my data, I measured these steady state temperatures (C):

            Green Blue Bell

            Point 3 45.5 106.6 29.8
            Point 4 74.8 116.6 31.1

            Calculate the emissions rate w/m^2

            Green Blue Bell

            Point 3 583 1177 476
            Point 4 830 1306 485

            4 – 3 247 129 9

            All three emit from both sides, so the area is irrelevant (though interesting).

            The increase in the Blue plate emission rate after the Green plate is raised (129 w/m^2) is almost exactly half the increase from the Green plate plus half that from the Bell jar (123.5 + 4.5 = 128 w/m^2).

            This is consistent with back radiation from the Green plate and Bell jar being the cause of the increase in temperature of the Blue plate.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Swanson,
            “Of course, you still haven’t admitted that your canard about the weight is pointless, once steady state is achieved, thus dT = zero throughout the system.”

            You still haven’t admitted you’re an imbecile. The “steady-state” is DIFFERENT for different masses. You fail to grasp this simple concept. Had the lead weight not been there there would have been a different steady-state temperature achieved by the blue plate.

            You’re compeltely unable to imagine how things would have been different.

            Your other math makes absolutely zero sense. The Bell Jar is free to warm the blue plate at any time. It doesn’t need the green plate.

            “The increase in the Blue plate emission rate after the Green plate is raised (129 w/m^2) is almost exactly half the increase from the Green plate ”

            That’s a completely irrelevant fact. Look at the relevant ratios I presented.

            If the green plate warmed up and is now emitting 247 W/m^2 on both sides, why would blue only be raised by half?

            In the theoretical experiment, it is the opposite: the blue plate emits twice as much as the green plate.

            But you just reversed the emission and made it an additive, and because you got a ~50% ratio, you think that’s the same thing.

            You are spoting gibberish.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            talking gibberish

          • Avatar

            M

            |

            spouting gibberish

          • Avatar

            E. Swanson

            |

            Zoe Phin wrote:

            The “steady-state” is DIFFERENT for different masses.

            The only impact of the weight is that it takes longer for the system to reach steady state, i.e.equilibrium temperatures, given the same rate of energy supplied to the system.

            The Bell Jar is free to warm the blue plate at any time. It doesn’t need the green plate.

            The bell jar is always “warming” the Blue plate, since it’s part of the pathway delivering the energy to the Blue plate.

            If the green plate warmed up and is now emitting 247 W/m^2 on both sides, why would blue only be raised by half?

            That 247 W/m^2 is the increase in the Green plate’s rate of emission, that is, the difference from before the Green plate was raised. The plates emit equal rates on each side. After the Green plate is raised, only the emission from one side is directed toward the Blue plate.

            In the theoretical experiment, it is the opposite: the blue plate emits twice as much as the green plate.

            Calculate the thermal power emitted by each plate

            power = rate of emissions per unit area x Area
            Area each plate = 9.7e-3 m^2 x 2 = 1.94e-2 m

            Green Blue

            Point 3 11.3 W 22.8 W
            Point 4 16.1 W 25.3 W

            Difference 4.8 W 2.5 W

            Note that in total, Blue Plate is emitting almost twice the power as the Green plate. But, the system is surrounded by the Bell jar, whereas the model emitted to deep space at zero Kelvin.

            The Blue plate’s power output is increased by about half that of the Green plate. But, the Green plate emits half it’s increase on each side, thus only 2.4 W could be intercepted by the Blue plate. Then too, the Green plate now blocks some of the IR from the bell jar from being absorbed by one side of the Blue plate facing the Green. It’s not an easy problem to analyze.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Swanson,

            “The only impact of the weight is that it takes longer for the system to reach steady state, i.e.equilibrium temperatures, given the same rate of energy supplied to the system.”

            And the steady-state temperature is dependant on MASS.

            Q/dT = mCp

            Steady state just means that dT/dt as t->0. Do you know the difference between dT and dT/dt?

            Why did you get rid of the air? Because of mass. You eliminated conduction and convection, but you left the lead weight for the blue plate to waste its energy heating it by radiation.

            “The bell jar is always “warming” the Blue plate, since it’s part of the pathway delivering the energy to the Blue plate.”

            The Bell Jar warms nothing inside it.

            “That 247 W/m^2 is the increase in the Green plate’s rate of emission, that is, the difference from before the Green plate was raised. The plates emit equal rates on each side.”

            Both sides of the green plate now emit 247 W/m^2 more.

            The SB law doesn’t split for surface areas. Every surface area emits according to its temperature.

            “9.7e-3 m^2”
            “Difference 4.8 W 2.5 W”

            This means the green plate is emitting 247 W/m^2 * 0.0097 m^2

            = 2.4 W

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Swanson,

            “Green Blue Bell
            Point 3 583 1177 476
            Point 4 830 1306 485

            4 – 3 247 129 9”

            Good thing you provided more accurate numbers.

            Like I said, I was able to determine that the lead weight takes up 9.6% of Blue Plate’s view factor. That means the lead weight suppressed 9.6% of the radiance from thermalizing the Blue Plate more. Let’s check:

            129 / 1306 = 9.877%

            Wow. Considering I eyeballed the dimensions of the lead weight, that’s pretty close!

            Since 9.877% is no longer suppressed, the blue plate is able to deliver an extra ~2.4 W to the green plate. You then erroneously think that it is the green plate providing an extra 2.4 W. LOL

          • Avatar

            E. Swanson

            |

            Zoe Phin wrote:

            And the steady-state temperature is dependant on MASS.

            Q/dT = mCp

            NOT SO. Your equation is for the heat transfer rate, not the equilibrium temperature with a constant input. Re-arrange your equation:

            dT = Q/mCp

            If Q in – Q out is zero, dT = 0.0, i.e.,the temperature no longer changes.

            The Bell Jar warms nothing inside it.

            Where does the energy to warm the Green plate come from before it is lifted, since it’s not directly illuminated? The Bell jar radiates both internally and externally to it’s surroundings.

            This means the green plate is emitting 247 W/m^2 * 0.0097 m^2 = 2.4 W

            Yes, the emissions from both sides of the Green Plate have increased by 2.4 W for a total of 4.8 W.

            Wow. Considering I eyeballed the dimensions of the lead weight, that’s pretty close!

            Your obsession with the weight based on your eye ball measurements continues. Please note that the weight is centered on the side of the Blue plate, so it isn’t fully exposed to the rear face of the Blue plate. In any event, for steady state, it’s dT is zero, so it neither warms nor cools the Green plate except via back radiation.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Swanson,
            You’re an imbecile.

            Q = m Cp dT

            Is not the real time heat transfer equation. Q is not a rate. Q is the total joules provided.

            The TOTAL joules you provided for the blue plate and lead weight were dispersed among a greater MASS, then had you just heated the blue plate, therefore you suppressed the temperature rise in the blue plate.

            “Yes, the emissions from both sides of the Green Plate have increased by 2.4 W for a total of 4.8 W.”

            The blue plate is radiating 1177 W/m^2 + 129 W/m^2 (it’s no longer radiating to lead weight), and so it heats the green plate.

            You then confuse blue plate’s temperature rise for the green plate being the source. It’s not the source. The blue plate heats the green plate, and never vice versa.

            The green plate’s radiation was ALWAYS greater then the Bell Jar, and that’s because if you look at photo 4 you can see that GP is slightly in BP’s view factor. BP was always heating GP, but not as much when you lifted GP.

          • Avatar

            E. Swanson

            |

            Zoe Phin, I will admit to some confusion regarding the use of “Q” vs. “q” in heat transfer situations. If one looks around on the ‘net, one finds that there are different usages. In any event, my point was that in steady state, there is no change in the internal energy of the weight or or the two plates.

            You, of course, continue to ignore the effects of the heating from the Bell jar toward the elements within. And, you wrote:

            You then confuse blue plate’s temperature rise for the green plate being the source. It’s not the source. The blue plate heats the green plate, and never vice versa.

            Indeed, in this situation, the Blue plate’s emissions (along with that from the Bell Jar) cause the Green plate’s temperature to increase. However, once the Green plate is raised, the radiation from one side of the Green plate is intercepted by the Blue plate, causing it’s rate of emissions to rise. You have refused to say where that radiation from the Green plate ends up, simply asserting that the back radiation from the Green plate “never” heats the Blue plate. You must account for the effect of the radiation from the Green plate toward the Blue one, else your claim is flawed.

            NOTE: in Figure 4, the Blue plate is behind the aluminum support. The wires which hold the Blue plate go thru the corner of the angle, therefore there’s less view from the blue plate to the weight and the rest of the weight faces the inside of the Bell jar.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Swanson,
            You’re imbecile.

            Once you fill up a container of water there is no more water to add, therefore the size of the container doesn’t matter. Except the problem was how many cups can you fill with that container. But steady-state is reached once the container is full! That’s all you’re saying, idiot.

            Boltzmann and Planck didn’t include two-way wall to wall radiation in their cavity experiments, so where did you get the notion that a cold body will radiate to a hot body?

            Was it Clausius? The guy who couldn’t explain why the sky is blue? Why listen to an early speculator that got it wrong when you could listen to the fathers of quantum mechanics?

          • Avatar

            E. Swanson

            |

            Zoe Phin offered an inappropriate analogy of a container of water filled to some level at which it will be full, i.e., no more water can be added.

            The proper analogy has a drain valve at the bottom of the container and the rate at which water leaves is a function of the depth in the container. At the same time, the container is receiving a constant stream of water flowing in, thus steady state appears when the level of water stops changing. Now, close the valve a little and the level rises to a new steady state. With steady state, the variables stop changing.

            Zoe Phin, doesn’t want to answer the obvious problem of the fate of the 2.4 W of energy which is continually leaving the Green Plate toward the Blue one. That’s the problem of Conservation of Energy to be addressed, which did not enter ZP’s reply. That energy emission doesn’t simply vanish, nor is it reflected from the Blue plate with it’s high emissivity coating.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Swanson,
            “Now, close the valve a little and the level rises to a new steady state. With steady state, the variables stop changing.”

            If you close the valve the container fills up indefinitely, and water overflows at the top. You’re saying GHGs will heat Earth to infinity degrees.

            Your heat lamp provided BP with R radiation over time t.

            Q = Rt = m Cp dT

            Since m is both BP and Weight, dT didn’t rise as much. Once Weight was pulled down, m was lowered and a new Rnew and t-new created a higher Temperature BP.

            The fact that dT/dt -> 0 has no meaning upon what happend previously to raise temperature.

            I feel like I’m lecturing a stupid child that can’t understand basic concepts.

            “Zoe Phin, doesn’t want to answer the obvious problem of the fate of the 2.4 W of energy which is continually leaving the Green Plate toward the Blue one.”

            No evidence of 2.4W. Who said you can apply SB Law to the cold side? Boltzmann and Planck never did that. In their cavity, two opposing walls don’t emit photons to each other. EITHER one or the other emits if the other gets colder. Why don’t you study some physics?

          • Avatar

            E. Swanson

            |

            Zoe Phin, In my water tank/container analogy, I did not say the valve was completely closed. The flow thru the valve is a function of pressure and size of the opening. As the valve is partially closed, the water level must rise in to the level at which the outlet flow the same as the input.

            Zoe Phin wrote:

            No evidence of 2.4W. Who said you can apply SB Law to the cold side?

            You apparently agree that increasing the temperature of the Blue plate from 106.6 to 116.6 represents an increase in energy output of 2.5 W. You still haven’t provided a source for that increase in power. It’s not the weight, since steady state implies that there’s no net power output from it. You still haven’t provided an answered for the fate of the extra 2.4 W emitted by the Green plate. You are ignoring the First Law of Thermodynamics. You have failed again.

            You wrote:

            I feel like I’m lecturing a stupid child that can’t understand basic concepts.

            Given your failures with the tank analogy and the First Law, I think it is you who doesn’t understand basic physics.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Swanson,
            If the inflow of water is greater than outflow, the water level increases indefinitely.

            The heat lamp heats the Blue Plate. Since the Blue Plate no longer heats the lead weight (mass decrease), the outflow is reduced, and the same inflow causes the temperature to go up. Had the lead weight not been there to beging with, the BP would have reached 116.6 at steady state.

  • Avatar

    JDHuffman

    |

    Swanson, the more you try to support your pseudoscience, the more tangled up you get.

    The original blue/green plates nonsense is easily debunked.

    Together, both plates have the same temperature, 244 K. Moved slightly apart, clowns claim the blue plate increases in temperature to 262K! Without adding anymore energy, the temperature has increased! That can’t happen with the given conditions. But, clowns don’t care about the laws of physics.

    Nothing new.

  • Avatar

    Scientist

    |

    You guys waste so much time talking about radiation when the global mean surface temperatures of Earth and Venus are not PRIMARILY determined by radiation of any kind, but rather by what the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt explained in 1876.

    How do you think you are going to explain the temperature of about 320K at the base of the nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus where there is no solar radiation or any solid surface down there? The solar radiation can only maintain temperatures around 60K near TOA of Uranus. Then some of that solar energy makes its way down to the base of the Uranus troposphere by the process that I have discovered and have explained directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    You all should study it some day: it’s not hard to understand, and yet it will be a light-bulb moment for you when you do, as it was for me late in 2012, subsequently explained in my 2013 paper, my websites, videos and my 2014 book.

    If you want to prove wrong the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture there are at least seven ways to do so in this article which nearly 400 have viewed since 26th November at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cogent-irrefutable-reasons-why-carbon-dioxide-cannot-warm-cotton/

  • Avatar

    Scientist

    |

    If you want to know how the core of the Moon is maintained at over 1,000 degrees above the hottest region of the surface by SOLAR energy, or if you want to know why the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is hotter than Earth, or how the surface of Venus warms by a few degrees on the sunlit side when the solar radiation reaching the Venus surface is only about one-eighth of that impinging on Earth’s surface, then read https://www.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871/detail/recent-activity/documents/

    • Avatar

      Zoe Phin

      |

      There we go. Crackpot scientist Doug Cotton believes the sun heats to the core and creates a gradient in a completely opposite direction of solar input. Retard Doug can’t believe that planets can have their own heat source. The idea that Earth is an infrared star would never occur to him.

      You and Postma actually have something in common. Except you go one step further and claim heating to the core.

      • Avatar

        bobdroege

        |

        Zoe, we can agree on one thing at least, Scientist is a crank.

  • Avatar

    bobdroege

    |

    Zoe, we can agree on one thing at least, Scientist is a crank.

Comments are closed

Share via