On Thursday, 6 August 2015 15:52:09 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
Dawlish,

On Page 576 of University Physics with Modern Physics, Technology Update, Thirteenth Edition (2010), which continues to set the benchmark for clarity and rigor combined with effective teaching and research-based innovation, they write:

"Radiation. Heat transfer by radiation is important in some surprising places. A premature baby in an incubator can be cooled dangerously by radiation if the walls of the incubator happened to be cold, even when the air in the incubator is warm. Some incubators regulate the temperature measuring the baby's skin ..."

Hot objects radiate heat which warms adjacent objects. Cold objects radiate cold which cools adjects objects. The latter is difficult to demonstrate because it is more difficult to maintain a constant cold temperature than a high temperture. The latter is easy using electrical heating. However, holding a thermnometer over an object taken from a freezer will cause the temperature shown to drop.

I hope you will now realise that you are wrong, will apologise and admit your mistake. Cold radiation does exist.

Cheers, Alastair.

There is no such thing in Physics as "cold" - just lack of heat. Everything radiates heat, even a block of ice, the intensity of heat radiation being proportional to the 4th power of the Absolute Temperature (Stefan-Boltzmann Law). So if a body is in cold surroundings it radiates more heat than it gets back and so is cooled. You could look at that as "cold radiation"; all this argument is really just one of semantics.

Ian Bingham,
Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.

There hasn't been a single 'insult'. You've just been told and shown, with total clarity that you are completely wrong and that your assertions about cold radiation are at best misguided and at worst totally ignorant of the physics.

Man up. Accept the criticism and abandon your idea.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
There hasn't been a single 'insult'.

Oh really?

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 10:46:59 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, 6 August 2015 21:05:35 UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:

No. It is because there is less radiation from the walls, not that the
radiation is inherently colder. The distinction is important.

It is the same radiation being emitted by all subjects.


It is not the same radiation. It has a different spectrum based on
Kirchhoff's Law. It is not just less intense. Anyway, less intense,
colder, what's in a name?

But you lot obviously believe I am wrong. I have long discovered that you
cannot change a man's beliefs with logical argument, so I won't waste any
more of my time trying to enlighten you.

Cheers, Alastair.

You have been shown to be an idiot and have decided that you know better
than every single physicist alive today.

The Earth is flat too. It's an established fact for a few. laughing



--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 6:59:38 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"Eskimo Will" wrote in message
...

I really canot understand why this is being discussed at such length. The
laws of thermodynamics state that heat energy (radiation is a form of
heat) flows from warm to cold and entropy increases, end of, surely?

I now realise that the problem is that we are talking at cross purposes.

No. You cannot see the problem. The problem for you is that cold radiation does not exist and you are the only person in this newsgroup and perhaps the scientific world, who thinks it does.

See the problem now?

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 6:59:46 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
"JohnD" wrote in message
...
"Dawlish" wrote in message
...

It was Dawlish that pointed out the idiocy. Backed by your good self and
everyone else who has replied to him, John.

This post adds zilch to the thread I'm afraid but, for the record, my
comment was intended to be shorthand for: 'Forget your running battle with
Dawlish and zoom out from that; just look at the fact that absolutely
no-one else here, including several with a relevant and professional
scientific background, is prepared to give the notion of cold radiation
the time of day. Doesn't that give you pause for thought?'

But it's fairly clear that the answer to that question is no. And so as
Stephen says, this thread has run its course of useful discussion.

Stephen was right. I falsely accused you of committing the fallacy of ad
hominem. It should have been the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum .

That is the error that was comitted when nearly everyone thought the
new idea of continental drift was wrong, but they were not correct.
And everyone here thinks I am wrong, presumably because cold
radiation is a new idea to them. But it was proved experimentally
about 250 years ago.

Science is successful because every new idea is fiercely contested. But that
does not mean that the counter arguments are more valid than the
original thesis. In this case everyone is looking for the flaw in my
arguments, and no one trying to to see where they are correct. I agree with
you and Stephen, this thread has probably run its course of useful
discussion since no one will try to evaluate my ideas objectively.

Cheers, Alastair.

Despite being shown at least twice, that your experiment from 250 years ago has been completely discredited, you still cling to it and think it is 'proof'. There is no proof in science and this illustrates that fact perfectly.. Something is widely accepted until it is shown to be wrong.

Exactly that has happened here and 'cold radiation' does not exist in science. **No-one** thinks it does except you. Either re-write the second law of thermodynamics, or accept your mistake. You only have those two alternatives and I do not think you are capable of the first.

"Col" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 10:46:59 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, 6 August 2015 21:05:35 UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:

No. It is because there is less radiation from the walls, not that the
radiation is inherently colder. The distinction is important.

It is the same radiation being emitted by all subjects.


It is not the same radiation. It has a different spectrum based on
Kirchhoff's Law. It is not just less intense. Anyway, less intense,
colder, what's in a name?

But you lot obviously believe I am wrong. I have long discovered that you
cannot change a man's beliefs with logical argument, so I won't waste any
more of my time trying to enlighten you.

Cheers, Alastair.

You have been shown to be an idiot and have decided that you know better
than every single physicist alive today.

The Earth is flat too. It's an established fact for a few. laughing


It just shows how hard it is to escape illusions. The biggest illusion is
one of solidity whereas all is energy. What stops us falling to the floor
when sat on a chair? Answer, the very strong electromagnetic force.
Physicists are the new philosophers!

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

On 07/08/2015 19:08, Alastair wrote:
On Friday, 7 August 2015 18:08:18 UTC+1, JohnD wrote:

Forget Dawlish, but observe that no-one else here, not one single person,
has posted support for this notion. Remember also that the readership here
contains a very considerable amount of scientific expertise and insight, yet
no-one, no-one at all, believes 'cold radiation' is a credible concept.

What they believe is not scientific proof, and what you are using is a fallacious ad hominem argument.

Attacking me rather than my arguments. What is your answer to my four questions?

If you think that then you have clearly lost the plot entirely.

"Cold radiation" is the stuff of dodgy double glazing salesmen.

Let's discuss the science, not resort to political point scoring.

The experiment showing that cold can be radiated was performed in the 18th Century and it is described in this paper:
http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/...experiment.pdf
Pictet's experiment is not well known, so it it is not surprising that people in this newsgroup have not heard of it.
But he did show that if the radiation from a flask filled with ice is
focussed with mirrors onto a thermometer then its
temperature will fall. And this happened before Herschel "discovered"
infrared radiation.

But all that does is make it so that the ice subtends a larger angle at
the thermometer. Reflective mirror surfaces are not black bodies. He
didn't understand the thermodynamics of his experiment at the time - and
he had an excuse - you do not. You are tilting at windmills.

It is not for nothing that Thermos flasks are made with a mirror finish.

Actually, it all came about as a result of Horace-Benedict de Saussure FRS, described by R.G. Barry
as the First Alpine Meteorologist", discovering the greenhouse
effect. You can read about it here
in my translation of Chapter 35 of his book "Voyages dans les Alpes".
http://www.abmcdonald.freeserve.co.u...APTER%2035.pdf

Cheers, Alastair.


I don't doubt that in the time before people understood that thermal
radiation was another form of electromagnetic radiation you can find all
sorts of quackery being written about "cold radiation" but that does not
make it real any more than "Polywater" or "N-rays".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray

If you wish to totally destroy your own credibility even more completely
than you have done already keep on flogging this dead horse.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 9:06:55 AM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 07/08/2015 19:08, Alastair wrote:
On Friday, 7 August 2015 18:08:18 UTC+1, JohnD wrote:

Forget Dawlish, but observe that no-one else here, not one single person,
has posted support for this notion. Remember also that the readership here
contains a very considerable amount of scientific expertise and insight, yet
no-one, no-one at all, believes 'cold radiation' is a credible concept.

What they believe is not scientific proof, and what you are using is a fallacious ad hominem argument.

Attacking me rather than my arguments. What is your answer to my four questions?

If you think that then you have clearly lost the plot entirely.

"Cold radiation" is the stuff of dodgy double glazing salesmen.

Let's discuss the science, not resort to political point scoring.

The experiment showing that cold can be radiated was performed in the 18th Century and it is described in this paper:
http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/...experiment.pdf
Pictet's experiment is not well known, so it it is not surprising that people in this newsgroup have not heard of it.
But he did show that if the radiation from a flask filled with ice is
focussed with mirrors onto a thermometer then its
temperature will fall. And this happened before Herschel "discovered"
infrared radiation.

But all that does is make it so that the ice subtends a larger angle at
the thermometer. Reflective mirror surfaces are not black bodies. He
didn't understand the thermodynamics of his experiment at the time - and
he had an excuse - you do not. You are tilting at windmills.

It is not for nothing that Thermos flasks are made with a mirror finish.

Actually, it all came about as a result of Horace-Benedict de Saussure FRS, described by R.G. Barry
as the First Alpine Meteorologist", discovering the greenhouse
effect. You can read about it here
in my translation of Chapter 35 of his book "Voyages dans les Alpes".
http://www.abmcdonald.freeserve.co.u...APTER%2035.pdf

Cheers, Alastair.


I don't doubt that in the time before people understood that thermal
radiation was another form of electromagnetic radiation you can find all
sorts of quackery being written about "cold radiation" but that does not
make it real any more than "Polywater" or "N-rays".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray

If you wish to totally destroy your own credibility even more completely
than you have done already keep on flogging this dead horse.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Yesterday was 'too time consuming' - which is one possible way out, without conceding that cold radiation is a load of baloney, of course. Let's see what Alastair tries today.

On 07/08/2015 21:26, Col wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 5:56:34 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:

I find your posts so insulting I have difficulty reading them.

I know. It's because they tell you that you are clearly and
unambiguously wrong.

Didn't you say that there was no 'proof' in science?

But there is "disproof" - a subtle difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...tific_evidence

There is no proof of correctness of a theory. Every independent
experiment consistent with a theory merely improves confidence in it
until you find a novel *experiment* that breaks the status quo. We can
never be sure we have a complete description but we get a successively
better approximation to describing our universe as time passes.

However, a scientific theory must be capable of being *refuted* and one
clear refutation is more than enough to show that a widely held theory
is invalid or at the very least incomplete. You can prove that some
theory is wrong because it does not describe the universe we live in.

"Cold radiation" doesn't even get over the first hurdle it is complete
and utter ********(TM) in the same vein as N-rays and polywater.

Dodgy double glazing salesmen might use the term but no physicist would
give this "concept" the time of day. I sincerely hope that the physics
book that Alastair quoted earlier does not support his views otherwise
it is not fit to be a university textbook.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

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