On 07/08/2015 23:21, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...
Exactly, if the radiation a body receives is from a cooler body,
then the first body will cool. So it is possible to cool a body with
radiation,
and it only makes sense to call it cold radiation.
You are confusing and conflating the net flux of energy with
temperature. An object doesn't care about its surroundings it emits
radiation according to its own absolute temperature and surface
emissivity. The balance between the net fluxes of emitted and received
radiation determines the objects final equilibrium temperature. You cool
a body by lack of incident radiation like when the sun goes down or the
sky clears at night.
I thought initially that you were trolling but it is now clear that you
do not understand the subject of radiative heat transfer at all.
No. As a visualisation, it does sort of work, but it isn't an accurate
representation of what is actually going on. It is thus not sense to use
it.
I think this is one of those things where having explained modern
thermodynamics patiently and with several different approaches we have
to consign Alastair to the same netkook status as Oriel36 in the
astronomy groups (he can't cope with sidereal days being fundamental).
We will end up going over the same ground forever. He will never be
convinced that he is wrong. All we can do is make sure that mainstream
thermodynamics is represented whenever this dross comes up again.
You wouldn't call the water going into a bucket, drippy water, and the
water coming out it, leaky water, and then try and claim that drippy
water and leaky water are somehow different types of water.
How about lumping it in with phlogiston, polywater and N-rays?
"Cold radiation" is from the same stable.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown