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.

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 3:52:09 PM 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.

'Cold objects radiate cold which cools adjects objects.' I knew you still believed this, despite all you were shown by many people last time you tried it.

Utter rubbish. You have totally misinterpreted the link and what you propose is physically impossible. There *cannot* be an overall transfer of cold to warm. Photons are emitted by all objects with a temperature above absolute zero, but heat will **always** move from warm to cold. 'Cold radiation' does not exist in our known physical universe.

I suggest you go back and read about the laws of thermodynamics.

On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 3:52:09 PM 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.

This explains it to you. You can access any number of other academic explanations. You will not find a single one which tells you that heat moves from cool to hot, unless and external energy supply is applied. Now stop this silly belief you have and don't make this proposal again.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

On Thursday, 6 August 2015 16:13:18 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 3:52:09 PM 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.

This explains it to you. You can access any number of other academic explanations. You will not find a single one which tells you that heat moves from cool to hot, unless and external energy supply is applied. Now stop this silly belief you have and don't make this proposal again.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

I find your posts so insulting I have difficulty reading them. So it is only now that I am replying.

What is described there is the flow of heat energy - i.e. the kinetic energy of molecules. If you have a bar of metal heat can only flow in one direction - from the hot end to the cold end. But the hot end will get cooler and the cool end hotter.

The dame thing happens with radiation. The hot body emits hot radiation which warms the cold body and the cold body emits radiation which cools the hot body.

Do hot bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that hot radiation.
Do cold bodies emit radiation? YES! Let's call that cold radiation.

If a cold body absorbs hot radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will warm.
If a hot body absorbs cold radiation, will it warm or cool? Of course it will cool. Do you agree?

No!

Because you are a stupid arrogant little ****!

Cheers, Alastair.

"Alastair" wrote in message
...

The dame thing happens with radiation. The hot body emits hot radiation
which warms the cold body and the cold body emits radiation which cools the
hot body.
=================================

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.

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? 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.

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.

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 Friday, August 7, 2015 at 6:08:18 PM UTC+1, JohnD wrote:
"Alastair" wrote in message
...

The dame thing happens with radiation. The hot body emits hot radiation
which warms the cold body and the cold body emits radiation which cools the
hot body.
=================================

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.

It was Dawlish that pointed out the idiocy. Backed by your good self and everyone else who has replied to him, John. I can assure you that Alastair will not forget Dawlish. Sometimes people like this just need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that their ideas are just stupid.

On Friday, 7 August 2015 21:02:54 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 6:08:18 PM UTC+1, JohnD wrote:

It was Dawlish that pointed out the idiocy. Backed by your good self and everyone else who has replied to him, John. I can assure you that Alastair will not forget Dawlish. Sometimes people like this just need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that their ideas are just stupid.

Dawlish,

Answer the four questions.

Cheers, Alastair.

In article ,
says...

I can assure you that Alastair will not forget Dawlish.


I'm the King of the Castle!
I'm the King of the Castle!

While others have tried to educate, you have simply indulged in
epicaracic mocking.


--
Alan LeHun

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus