It is a while since I had read the Pictet paper, so I assumed that it began with a description of the experiment. In fact that description is buried in the penultimate section, so it is no surprise that no-one is aware of it. Here is the appropriate section:

==============

Pictet happened to discuss his experiments with Louis Bertrand," professor of mathematics at Pictet's own Academy of Geneva. Bertrand asked Pictet whether he be-lieved that cold also could be reflected. Pictet's response, as he recorded it himself, was immediate and negative:

"He asked me if I believed cold susceptible of being reflected? I confidently replied no; that cold was only privation of heat, and that a negative could not be reflected. He requested me, however, to try the experiment, and he assisted me in it."

The apparatus was arranged as shown in Fig. 1. [See Paper] Two mirrors of tin were placed 101 ft apart. At the focus of one was a thermometer of air, which was observed with the necessary precautions, and at the focus of the other a flask full of snow.

At the instant the flask was placed for experiment, the thermometer at the opposite focus descended several degrees, and remounted as soon as the flask was removed. Having replaced the flask at the focus, and thus made the thermometer descend to a certain degree, where it remained stationary, I poured some nitrous [i.e., nitric] acid upon the snow, and the cold thus produced caused the thermometer to descend instantly 5 or 6 deg. lower.

The fact was notorious, and amazed me at first; a moment's reflection, however, explained it. This phenomenon offered nothing more than a final proof, if it had been necessary, of the reflection of heat...

================

So Pictet has demonstrated that cold radiation does exist. I rest my case :-)

Cheers, Alastair.

A link to the paper is he http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/...experiment.pdf

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 1:06:24 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
It is a while since I had read the Pictet paper, so I assumed that it began with a description of the experiment. In fact that description is buried in the penultimate section, so it is no surprise that no-one is aware of it. Here is the appropriate section:

==============

Pictet happened to discuss his experiments with Louis Bertrand," professor of mathematics at Pictet's own Academy of Geneva. Bertrand asked Pictet whether he be-lieved that cold also could be reflected. Pictet's response, as he recorded it himself, was immediate and negative:

"He asked me if I believed cold susceptible of being reflected? I confidently replied no; that cold was only privation of heat, and that a negative could not be reflected. He requested me, however, to try the experiment, and he assisted me in it."

The apparatus was arranged as shown in Fig. 1. [See Paper] Two mirrors of tin were placed 101 ft apart. At the focus of one was a thermometer of air, which was observed with the necessary precautions, and at the focus of the other a flask full of snow.

At the instant the flask was placed for experiment, the thermometer at the opposite focus descended several degrees, and remounted as soon as the flask was removed. Having replaced the flask at the focus, and thus made the thermometer descend to a certain degree, where it remained stationary, I poured some nitrous [i.e., nitric] acid upon the snow, and the cold thus produced caused the thermometer to descend instantly 5 or 6 deg. lower.

The fact was notorious, and amazed me at first; a moment's reflection, however, explained it. This phenomenon offered nothing more than a final proof, if it had been necessary, of the reflection of heat...

================

So Pictet has demonstrated that cold radiation does exist. I rest my case :-)

Cheers, Alastair.

Unbelievable. Another ridiculous thread, around an experiment which has been fully discussed and explained on other threads, but Alastair **again** has not understood and it seems, hasn't even read the links provided to him.

Alastair clearly bases his whole belief in this ridiculous idea of cold radiation on an experiment conducted over 200 years ago, which could not be easily explained at the time, with 18th century physics, but most certainly has been since - without invoking 'cold radiation'.

On 10/08/15 13:06, Alastair wrote:
It is a while since I had read the Pictet paper

You haven't read it with comprehension. It's pointless starting another
long thread trying to explain it to you if you can't understand any of
the many explanations which have been given to you so far.

On Monday, 10 August 2015 17:00:21 UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 10/08/15 13:06, Alastair wrote:
It is a while since I had read the Pictet paper

You haven't read it with comprehension. It's pointless starting another
long thread trying to explain it to you if you can't understand any of
the many explanations which have been given to you so far.

No-one has explained to me how the radition from a flask of snow can cause the temperture recorded in a thermometer to fall. Nor why I should not call the radition from the snow to the thermometer cold radiation.

Are you really being serious, or are you just try to prove how clever you think are? What was it? Dunning-Kruger effect?

On Monday, 10 August 2015 13:11:06 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 1:06:24 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
It is a while since I had read the Pictet paper, so I assumed that it began with a description of the experiment. In fact that description is buried in the penultimate section, so it is no surprise that no-one is aware of it. Here is the appropriate section:

==============

Pictet happened to discuss his experiments with Louis Bertrand," professor of mathematics at Pictet's own Academy of Geneva. Bertrand asked Pictet whether he be-lieved that cold also could be reflected. Pictet's response, as he recorded it himself, was immediate and negative:

"He asked me if I believed cold susceptible of being reflected? I confidently replied no; that cold was only privation of heat, and that a negative could not be reflected. He requested me, however, to try the experiment, and he assisted me in it."

The apparatus was arranged as shown in Fig. 1. [See Paper] Two mirrors of tin were placed 101 ft apart. At the focus of one was a thermometer of air, which was observed with the necessary precautions, and at the focus of the other a flask full of snow.

At the instant the flask was placed for experiment, the thermometer at the opposite focus descended several degrees, and remounted as soon as the flask was removed. Having replaced the flask at the focus, and thus made the thermometer descend to a certain degree, where it remained stationary, I poured some nitrous [i.e., nitric] acid upon the snow, and the cold thus produced caused the thermometer to descend instantly 5 or 6 deg. lower.

The fact was notorious, and amazed me at first; a moment's reflection, however, explained it. This phenomenon offered nothing more than a final proof, if it had been necessary, of the reflection of heat...

================

So Pictet has demonstrated that cold radiation does exist. I rest my case :-)

Cheers, Alastair.

Unbelievable. Another ridiculous thread, around an experiment which has been fully discussed and explained on other threads, but Alastair **again** has not understood and it seems, hasn't even read the links provided to him..

What links? You pasted the only two, one to this paper from which it was obvious you had not read as far as the Pictet experiment. That was when I realised that no-one else had either.

Oh, and then you posted two links on your first response. Did you notice how the diagram in the paper about the second law had heat flowing from cold to hot? Of course you didn't. Your not interested in the science. Only scoring political points.

Alastair clearly bases his whole belief in this ridiculous idea of cold radiation on an experiment conducted over 200 years ago, which could not be easily explained at the time, with 18th century physics, but most certainly has been since - without invoking 'cold radiation'.

It was explained quite easily at the time by accepting that all bodies emit blackbody radition including cold ones. They emit cold radiation which you cannot accept exists. Your science dates to the early 18th Century or even earlier. Presumably, for you, cold radiation cannot exist because the phogiston condenses and falls to the floor.

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 9:14:39 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Monday, 10 August 2015 17:00:21 UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 10/08/15 13:06, Alastair wrote:
It is a while since I had read the Pictet paper

You haven't read it with comprehension. It's pointless starting another
long thread trying to explain it to you if you can't understand any of
the many explanations which have been given to you so far.

No-one has explained to me how the radition from a flask of snow can cause the temperture recorded in a thermometer to fall. Nor why I should not call the radition from the snow to the thermometer cold radiation.

Are you really being serious, or are you just try to prove how clever you think are? What was it? Dunning-Kruger effect?

Apart from both of the links I provided for you - but you abjectly failed to read. Scroll back and read them both.

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 10:05:00 PM UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 9:14:39 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Monday, 10 August 2015 17:00:21 UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 10/08/15 13:06, Alastair wrote:
It is a while since I had read the Pictet paper

You haven't read it with comprehension. It's pointless starting another
long thread trying to explain it to you if you can't understand any of
the many explanations which have been given to you so far.

No-one has explained to me how the radition from a flask of snow can cause the temperture recorded in a thermometer to fall. Nor why I should not call the radition from the snow to the thermometer cold radiation.

Are you really being serious, or are you just try to prove how clever you think are? What was it? Dunning-Kruger effect?

Apart from both of the links I provided for you - but you abjectly failed to read. Scroll back and read them both.

Why? Do they mention Pictet or cold radiation?

Oh, you don't mean the first two links. You mean the one from the Scandanavian professor who believed that global warming was not a threat because radiation only travels in one direction? I think even you will admit that it travels both from the source to the object and from the object to the source.. You do don't you?

The other was the link to the Pictet paper which I have read in the past, but only skimmed this time until I reached the experiment which I have posted. Have you read that?

I agree most of the paper is just a history of late 18th scientific thought about heat, and does not really explain why the American double agent for the British and Bavarians, Count Rumford, founder of the Royal Institution is a colourful character. They mention that he married the widow Madame Lavoisier, but don't mention the massive falling out that ensued because she was a party animal and he a scientific loner.

No point in asking if you have changed your mind now, since it isn't broad enough for ideas new to you to fit in. Just one idea, that you repeat endlessly "Cold radiation does not exist." Don't you think that a rather narrow view of life?

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 11:07:18 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 10:05:00 PM UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 9:14:39 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Monday, 10 August 2015 17:00:21 UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 10/08/15 13:06, Alastair wrote:
It is a while since I had read the Pictet paper

You haven't read it with comprehension. It's pointless starting another
long thread trying to explain it to you if you can't understand any of
the many explanations which have been given to you so far.

No-one has explained to me how the radition from a flask of snow can cause the temperture recorded in a thermometer to fall. Nor why I should not call the radition from the snow to the thermometer cold radiation.

Are you really being serious, or are you just try to prove how clever you think are? What was it? Dunning-Kruger effect?

Apart from both of the links I provided for you - but you abjectly failed to read. Scroll back and read them both.

Why? Do they mention Pictet or cold radiation?

Oh, you don't mean the first two links. You mean the one from the Scandanavian professor who believed that global warming was not a threat because radiation only travels in one direction? I think even you will admit that it travels both from the source to the object and from the object to the source. You do don't you?

The other was the link to the Pictet paper which I have read in the past, but only skimmed this time until I reached the experiment which I have posted. Have you read that?

I agree most of the paper is just a history of late 18th scientific thought about heat, and does not really explain why the American double agent for the British and Bavarians, Count Rumford, founder of the Royal Institution is a colourful character. They mention that he married the widow Madame Lavoisier, but don't mention the massive falling out that ensued because she was a party animal and he a scientific loner.

No point in asking if you have changed your mind now, since it isn't broad enough for ideas new to you to fit in. Just one idea, that you repeat endlessly "Cold radiation does not exist." Don't you think that a rather narrow view of life?

Idiot.

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 11:07:18 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 10:05:00 PM UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 9:14:39 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Monday, 10 August 2015 17:00:21 UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 10/08/15 13:06, Alastair wrote:
It is a while since I had read the Pictet paper

You haven't read it with comprehension. It's pointless starting another
long thread trying to explain it to you if you can't understand any of
the many explanations which have been given to you so far.

No-one has explained to me how the radition from a flask of snow can cause the temperture recorded in a thermometer to fall. Nor why I should not call the radition from the snow to the thermometer cold radiation.

Are you really being serious, or are you just try to prove how clever you think are? What was it? Dunning-Kruger effect?

Apart from both of the links I provided for you - but you abjectly failed to read. Scroll back and read them both.

Why? Do they mention Pictet or cold radiation?

Oh, you don't mean the first two links. You mean the one from the Scandanavian professor who believed that global warming was not a threat because radiation only travels in one direction? I think even you will admit that it travels both from the source to the object and from the object to the source. You do don't you?

The other was the link to the Pictet paper which I have read in the past, but only skimmed this time until I reached the experiment which I have posted. Have you read that?

I agree most of the paper is just a history of late 18th scientific thought about heat, and does not really explain why the American double agent for the British and Bavarians, Count Rumford, founder of the Royal Institution is a colourful character. They mention that he married the widow Madame Lavoisier, but don't mention the massive falling out that ensued because she was a party animal and he a scientific loner.

No point in asking if you have changed your mind now, since it isn't broad enough for ideas new to you to fit in. Just one idea, that you repeat endlessly "Cold radiation does not exist." Don't you think that a rather narrow view of life?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...lained&f=false

by still believing Pictet, you believe in 'Caloric' and by association, phlogisten.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aap...0.1119/1.14305

The 'apparent' reflection of cold. in practice, of course, it doesn't happen, because the reflection of cold is impossible.

http://www2.ups.edu/physics/faculty/evans/Pictet's%20experiment.pdf

The final nail in your Pictet coffin; the classic, full and accepted (by everyone except you, of course) explanation of why Pictet found what he did, published by Evans and Popp 1984.

http://www2.ups.edu/physics/faculty/evans/Pictet's%20experiment.pdf

Without Pictet, you have nothing else but your imagination to keep you going. Cold radiation is a figment of that.

QED.