Postma’s Obsession

  1. solvingtornadoes says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Greg House:
    “Joe, is there a clear physical evidence that a colder object does emit IR specifically towards a warmer object?”

    ST:
    Of course there is. The rate of cooling of the warmer object is less than it would be without its proximity to the cooler object. How was this ever not obvious?

  2. solvingtornadoes says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    JP:
    “It’s sophistry and bullshit of course, and stupidity. Because each term is not itself heat in any case. Only the difference is heat, as per the equation. As to what happens to the energy from the cool object…nothing happens to it, and it certainly doesn’t raise the temperature of the warmer object anyway! Idiots.”

    ST:
    Joe, there are three different things at play here and unless you are very careful, specific, and deliberately explicit you will only open the door to more sophistry. There is energy, a noun. There is heat, a process. And there is increase or decrease in measured temperature, what is commonly called heating. If you are not perfectly clear as to which of these three you intend you will only open the door to confusion and more sophistry.

    If you pave the road to sophistry you can’t criticize those that travel it.

    I suggest that you reread what you wrote above and be extremely critical of where there might be any confusion as to which of these three meanings you intend in each instance and revise to remove any possibility of misinterpretation.

    Jim McGinn
    http://www.solvingtornadoes.com

  3. solvingtornadoessays:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Greg House:
    “So I take it as there is no physical evidence for cold radiating towards hot, . . .”

    ST:
    Is there any evidence that it doesn’t?

    Greg House:
    or suggestion how humble me COULD prove it experimentally if I wish. But as for now we have zero evidence.

    ST:
    If you attempt to disprove it you will fail.

    Greg House:
    I allow me to humbly suggest this “both ways” mantra to be dropped

    ST:
    Based on what? You just confirmed you have no experimental evidence that contradicts it. Right?

    1. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      Arfur Bryant says:
      The mere presence of another cooler object can either reduce or increase the rate of cooling depending on the cooler object’s temperature.

      ST:
      I agree, the cooler object would just have to be warmer than the surroundings.

      AB:
      Well, actually, heat is also a noun.

      ST:
      True. I guess I’m saying that heat (in contrast to what most people first assume) is a process, not a thing. Energy is a thing. Heat is the process by which energy changes its location.

      AB:
      However, I do agree with you that radiation is emitted from both the warm and cool objects (and in all directions). Heat, though, only flows one way.

      ST:
      Well, this is where things get real confusing. Being a process that is the result of energy changing its location, heat actually travels in all directions due to the fact that energy travels (changes location) in all directions also. Heating, being the measurable increase in temperature that results from the process of heat, only takes place in the cooler of the two objects. Heating is not a process. It is the result of a process. Heating sounds like a process, but it’s not. It’s the result of a process. Heat sounds like a thing, but it’s not. It’s a process.

      So, heat travels in all directions. Heating takes place in the cooler of the two objects and reduction in rate of cooling takes place in the warmer of the two objects.

      AB:
      Any suggested reduction in rate of cooling is entirely dependant on the temperature difference, not the energy transfer.

      ST:
      Same difference.

    2. solvingtornadoes says:

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      MS:
      This made me think of a real world experiment. Take a stove and heat a pot of what to boiling temperature (100C) and then set it on the counter away from the heat and measure its rate of cooling. Now with the room temperature the same (a/c set at same temp should do it — 23C?) we do the same thing but set the pot of boiling water (100C) next to a pot of cooler water which is at say, 50 C, and then check the rate of cooling of the first pot (the pot of boiling water) again.

      As I understand it, S.T. claims the cooling rate of the first pot would be changed and Greg House says it would not change. Would this experiment settle the matter?

      ST:
      Yes, that would settle it.

      However, it might be difficult detecting temperature differences in pots of water. It might be easier to just use two metal plates.

One response to “Postma’s Obsession”

  1. solvingtornadoes says :

    J.P. ” . . . good point Arfur. Convection is really about heat diffusion into a fluid, . . .

    ST: Joe, I think you are talking about conduction here, not convection.

    Jim

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: