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, 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.

On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:45:00 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 11:07:18 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:

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.

This is why I didn't want to start this argumeent. You have got it all arse about face and I am left trying to sort you out.

Roughly speaking, Pictet only believed in the pure caloric theory until he had conducted his experiment. That was why he thought, like you, it would not work. You are the believer in caloric claiming that radiation can only travel in one direction, just like the fluid caloric. After the experiment he had to accept that vibrations were involved, but of course at that time electro-magenetic were not recognised as such.

BTW, that book you are quoting is wrong. The first experiment with a small hot cannon ball was first carried out by H-B de Saussure with Pictet as his assistant. See Section 926 in Chapter 35 of "Travels in the Alps".
http://www.abmcdonald.freeserve.co.u...APTER%2035.pdf
or
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1029499.r=.langFR
if you don't trust my translation.
Moreover, it was not the cooling cannon ball that heated the thermometer, the cannon ball was allowed to cool until it no longer produced visisble rays. Your book claims that Pictet believed in caloric, but not after the experiment as your book implies. See:

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.

No, I did not omit my reference. You have saved me the bother of entering it since you quote it three times. Yours is the same reference each time! Do you think that makes your interpretaion of it three times more correct?

Pictet demonstrated that the reflection of cold can occur, as did others before him. Have you read any of that paper?

As I wrote elsewhere I only started this debate to clarify this issue in my mind. That is now done. Thank you for your part in it. You have been of use to me. Can I now award your the epithet of "Useful idiot" :-)

"Useful idiots need to be shown the facts ... . Until then, rational people can have fun laughing at their ignorance."

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 3:52:52 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 August 2015 08:45:00 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 11:07:18 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:

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.

This is why I didn't want to start this argumeent.

Is that why you opened the thread?

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 10:52:52 AM UTC-4, Alastair wrote:

[...]

Pictet demonstrated that the reflection of cold can occur, as did others before him.

[...]


"Useful idiots need to be shown the facts ... . Until then, rational people can have fun laughing at their ignorance."

=========

And everyone after Pictet showed that it does not. I linked a couple of days ago in a different thread to one such example. Did you not read it? Or did confirmation bias not allow you to?

Here it is again:

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

One-line summary:

"The thermometer, initially at room temperature, now radiates away more energy than it absorbs, and so suffers a decrease in temperature."

From: "Pictet's experiment: The apparent radiation and reflection of cold"
James Evans, Department of Physics, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Washington 98416
Brian Popp, Department of Physics FM-15, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195

Here's another quote for you: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard P. Feynman.

Stephen.

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