On 10/08/2015 21:14, 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.

Because there is less of it than there is from the hotter object and the
environment. You are not focussing "cold radiation" you are preventing
the thermometer interacting with its warmer environment.

The net flow of heat is always from the hotter to the colder body.

Nor why I should not call the radition from the snow to the thermometer cold radiation.

Because it is merely thermal radiation from the object characteristic of
its temperature. Your clueless magyck is not needed. Everyone else here
has understood this point but you are stubbornly unable to do so

A good FLIR camera can just about see thermal emissions from snow. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therma...sive_Power.png

Are you really being serious, or are you just try to prove how clever you think are?

You are certainly determined to show how ignorant you are.

What was it? Dunning-Kruger effect?


You really have lost the plot and rapidly becoming a laughing stock.

Keep on digging if you want to destroy your credibility entirely.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown