Would the Apollo Moon astronauts have been frozen then cooked like chicken-in-a-bag - One Star Warrior unveiled - page 28

Then prove it.
You can't. You make a claim and an appeal to authority that you cannot prove. There are @ 12-14 people still lying on the internet about NASA hoaxes, and you are one of them.REAL SCIENTISTS don't waste their time shilling NASA and it's fraudulent contractors who have bilked the people of this country for trillions of dollars in the past 50 years..

The results of the experiment will be posted here, on this thread, because they prove that you're totally ignorant of basic facts, that like i said even children can understand.

If you don't understand why the composition and construction of identically shaped objects reach different equilibrium temperatures in identical thermodynamic environments, YOU ARE NOT COMPETENT

Yes, the surface DOES effect the equilibrium temperature, more reflective surfaces correlate with lower temperatures, but your understanding of the effects other factors have on it are obviously the result of someone who has been educated without learning, or perhaps is attempting to study as he goes along..

I will say it one more time, even children understand heat passes through materials without heating them, WHY DON'T YOU?

Only according to you and no one else.


Boy, I'm going to love dissecting your experiment. Explanations of the proper way of doing things from you I presume, I think I need to post a list of your misunderstandings from just this thread to keep track.


Proving I don't have to put up with abuse and spam more like.


Total fantasy, I really need that list to put some perspective on this so everyone can see.



If you are talking about the cube, that is a very simple maths problem. I defy you to find any book where a problem such as that was framed in that way, or given alongside a function to find the area at any angle of rotation. You would love me to have copied it because you wouldn't have to feel so bad about looking like a fool but you are completely out of luck. It is not a difficult problem to solve, and just to make sure we are clear, there is more maths for you to do connected with your experiment so you better dig out that book you had "40 years ago with the example" because you are going to need it.



Pass through pain ?


I must have missed that one, you can post what you like on your own threads.


Lying on the internet according to you, so we need that list for some perspective.

K

First count - you are the one making the claim as to the 99% of scientists and engineers. You have the burden of proof. What, did you make another one of your phone polls?

Second count - you are still saying "give a damned".

A surface which is painted radiates heat from the object which is painted into the paint where it is re radiated. The object also emits thermal radiation which is not absorbed and re re-radiated by the paint, because paint is semi-transparent to thermal radiation. If a paint reflects thermal radiation from outside the object preventing it from being absorbed, it also reflects thermal energy being radiated from the surface it is painted onto, inhibiting the emissivity of the painted object. There is no way to get around this.K Hall wants you to believe because by conduction the paint reaches a temperature approximately equal to the object it is painted onto that the only thing that needs to be taken into consideration is this painted surface and its emissivity. HE IS TOTALLY WRONG!. i suspect he is aware he is by now, perhaps this is the purpose of the slight of hand "hey,look over here!" distractions. .

These are facts which K Hall in either unaware of, or unwilling to consider.

Still making a complete dogs dinner of the quotes I see.


A very limited number of solids are transparent to long wave or far IR. Non of the ( non gaseous ) substances we have talked about are transparent to IR. Which ones do you say are transparent to thermal radiation?





Well obviously if its opaque to thermal radiation then it will absorb, emit or reflect it. I am now intrigued as to which solid materials ( yes this time not the maths context ) you believe are transparent to Long wave IR.






You will have your own thread, there is a lot to comment on.

K

Yes it does as there was no probe then, nor now that is capable of bringing back over 800 pounds of moon rocks.

Mmmmm delicious word soup.


Thermal energy is transferred from the body to the paint by conduction, not radiation. How many more times? Do you know how thick a layer of thermal control paint AZ technologies bases their calculations on for their paint's performance. 130 microns, do you know how thick 130 microns is ?


Conduction
[link to en.wikipedia.org]


Oh no, we will be looking at your misunderstandings in detail.

K

When the quantity of infra red radiation absorbed, reflected, and transmitted when radiation strikes a surface are measured in percentage of the total energy in the incident electromagnetic waves. The total energy is divided into three groups, they are called absorptivity , reflectivity and transmissivity .[1]


Let the following symbols represent the:

Absorptivity -a

reflectivity r

transmissivity- t

a + r + t = 1

In other words radiation is absorbed, reflected or transmitted, and these the sum of these adds up to the total input

Where Absorption is the percentage of infra red radiation absorbed by a surface, reflectivity is the percentage reflected by the surface.
Transmissivity is the fraction transmitted by the surface.

A material is considered transparent if it can transmit a percentage of the radiation incident to its surface. When electromagnetic waves are not transmitted through a material, it is called opaque. All materials are one or the other, and most with low atomic mass are transparent to infra red radiation. Plastic, glass and low mass metals are an example.

The thicker a transparent object is the more Infra red is absorbed. transparent does not mean it does not absorb any percentage of radiation.

When infra red is incident to the surface of an opaque body, some of the radiation is reflected, while the other some is absorbed by the material near the surface.

Heat is transferred to and through the paint by both processes.
------------------------------------------
If a paint reflects thermal radiation from outside the object preventing it from being absorbed, it also reflects thermal energy being radiated from the surface it is painted onto,


Conduction
{/quote]
Apples and oranges, You're a simpleton



I am not the one who is totally ignorant and trying to pretend I'm a satellite engineer when I'm really a professional bunk artist.

You cannot teach the willfully stupid

Ignorance can be cured, but it is the folly of a fool to try to educate the willfully stupid.

Whoa, hang on a minute. Most solids and liquids are opaque to long wavelength IR including window glass, or the glass in your aquarium. Specialist glass used in astronomy or other remote sensing application like fused silica( edit IR application fused silica is transmissive at higher frequencies ) or potassium bromide is transparent. It's not "any IR" we are talking about here is long wavelength IR ( thermal radiation ) So you list of transparent substances includes the semiconductors like silicon, germanium, GAAS plus sapphire and some plastics like PMMA.

K

I'm done here until you float another growler, and then I'll be back. As far as I am concerned, you have proved tow things.
1) You lied about your intent. YOU CLAIMED YOUR INTENT WAS honest inquiry when in fact it has a predetermined outcome

2)You lack the ability and the information to reach a meaningful conclusion. I shy away from complexities like this for a reason, and that is because the only way you can actually be sure is to test the equipment in the enviroment and see how it works. Experience and intuition trump supposition and calculations without solid basis every time.

Real engineers understand this. What you seem to be saying is that without knowing how something works, you can quantify how well it works, which I know to be wrong.


You're not willing to concede mistaken ideas, preferring to obfuscate further instead of stopping at that point and just saying, "yeah, I was wrong, now we need to consider the new knowledge".

You already know it all. You cannot be mistaken. I've known a thousand like you, and they were all a terrible burden to everyone else and were never helpful in actually accomplishment anything. My guess is that is why you were chosen for this job in the first place. You can't actually do anything, but you are a stubborn piece of work.

Good luck, you're going to need it.

Wrong. Every child knows this is wrong. Why don't you?

Get up one morning and sit in the Sun as it comes through a closed window. It makes no difference how far from the window you sit, you can feel the heat of the Sun on your skin.

I wonder if you're even real

[link to www.fourmilab.ch]


"Transparent materials, on the other hand,such as glass or plastics, allow most of thermal radiation to pass through only slightly attenuated"


Notice how the "opinions" of actual "experts" with Fourmilab agree with what *I* said to the word, that transparent materials or low mass materials allow most of the thermal radiation to pass through , while absorbing a small percentage. this is what "slightly attenuated" means.


Most laymen think a greenhouse works because it allows thermal radiation in, but not out. This simplistic idea is true to a certain extent, because the warmed air and surfaces inside the greenhouse are physically separated from the cold air outside, and heat trapped in this air and in objects in the greenhouse is isolated from the outside enviroment by the insulation qualities of the glass.

I don't know how many "human caused global warming" fanatics I have met who have this idea of the "greenhouse effect" totally fucked up. They believe CO2 blocks thermal radiation keeping it in. If this were true it would block an equal amount coming in, with the net gain being zero. What it really does is absorb it and heat up itself, which raises temperatures high in the stratosphere . The effects of CO2 are actually minimal in creating planetary warming effects,and the irony is that these "scientists" believe this only because studies have shown that warming periods in Earths history millions of years before industrialization always were accompanied by increases in CO2.
The misunderstanding is caused because there is no crossover between disciplines, a climatologist isn't an astrophysicist isn't a biologist. It takes a knowledge of all three to understand the correlation!.

It's more complicated than a "one way mirror" type of crap. The glass of a greenhouse is warmed by the radiation passing through it both ways. This creates radiant heat from the glass itself. But the main reason a greenhouse is warmer than the outside is simply because it is a closed enviroment that does not allow conduction and convection to remove as much heat as is occurring outdoors due to weather conditions. Glass has better insulation qualities than moving air.

I have personally done experiments proving this, that is if you allow air to circulate through a greenhouse from outdoors, it very quickly reaches near equilibrium with the outdoor temperature. It's a no brainer that the heating effect of a greenhouse is caused by physically isolating the inside from the outside with a barrier that has fairly good insulation qualities..

"the effects of water vapor in the atmosphere on the planets average temperatures are over 1,000,000 times that of C02."

Even if the concentrations of CO2 increased by a hundred times, the effect would be virtually nil. Global warming IS NOT a result of higher concentrations of CO2, higher CO2 concentrations are a result of global warming.

The danger is in the "vicious cycle" of warmer temperatures allowing the atmosphere to hold higher concentrations of water vapor, which in turn causes more warming. The delicate balance is evidence of intelligent design. There are feedback mechanisms that cannot be random, one being as the planet heats, geological activity increases, resulting in more ash and sulfur compounds in the atmosphere, which lower the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface.

These idea that all of these feedback mechanisms are random is perhaps the most unscientific conclusion in history, Scientific advancement has been arrested by pseudo-scientific atheism, which has taken control of academia.

EVERY ONE OF MY CRITICS, STALKERS, ATTACKERS AND OPPONENTS ON THIS THREAD IS AN ATHEIST, and their primary reason for attacking me personally has nothing to do with what they claim it does. It is a spiritual difference.

There has never been a great contributor to science that did not believe in intelligent creation. Aristotle, Pythagoras, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Planck, Da Vinci, Fermi... name a great man, ANY GREAT MAN in the history of science ,and they operated under the preconceived notion that the universe was ordered by intelligence.


If you don't believe in intelligent creation, you're not intelligent yourself, and you're claiming intelligence is not the path to understanding the universe.

Ideas like "the big bang" and the spontaneous generation of life are not intelligent, they're anti-intelligent.
If you find yourself reting to explain an ordered universe in the context of random happenstance and you devise a theory, it sounds idiotic to a man of true intelligence.

Many of the mediocre minds have been fooled into believing that embracing ideals like these makes them sound intelligent, so they do. It isn't because they understand them, it is because they don't want to be cast out, and let's face it, in todays academic enviroment if you espouse intelligent creation you are automatically ostracized and cast out, attacked by an organized group like I am here.

Now the question has to be, if all of the most well known contributes in the history of science whose ideas have stood the test of time believed in an intelligent design of the universe, and all of the evidence points towards a highly organized and ordered universe, how can this be?

What has happened? A better question,one you should be asking yourselves is why.

A man who has lost the spiritual links to creation can be made to conform to anything.

I am going to make a recommendation to K Hall as to how he should proceed. i have no doubt he will not only ignore it, he will criticize me for making it.

DON'T ASSUME ANYTHING YOU HAVE LEARNED OR BEEN TOLD IS TRUE.

You might not be as good a student as you thought you were, and you probably didn't have as good teachers as you thought.

Investigate every claim, and don't think you can make valid conclusions without proving every aspect of your proofs.

Examples in this case are that paint is opaque to infra red radiation, or that the composition of an object does not affect it's thermodynamic properties, only it's surface does.

I know both of these ideas are idiotic, and making assumptions like this makes valid conclusions impossible.

What you will find if you do the experiments is that an object on the surface of the moon will heat to a temperature very close to the surface temperature, because objects tend to do just that.

If it has a paint which reflects thermal energy, it also inhibits the underlying materials emissivity. If it absorbs heat a slower rate, it emits it at a slower rate.

The idea that objects are cooled by a vacuum because of the lack of molecules is ass backwards.
Satellites and manned orbital space stations and spacecraft work for two reasons, if it's an unmanned craft it can get much hotter without failing, electronics can easily survive temperatures that are 50-60K higher than humans, and if a spacecraft is in an orbit like manned vehicles are in, it has a 50% cool down period in the Earths shadow.

A manned spacecraft in interplanetary space or on the surface of the moon is very different,they're under constant irradiation from the Sun and temperatures above 50C for any length of time are untenable.

K HALL, you're wrong, and I suspect you are beginning to realize it. If not I really don't know what to say. Maybe your dumb, or maybe you're lying.

Satellites typically operate at temperatures that would be fatal to humans, even when every effort is made to reduce temperatures. Satellites which spend 12 or more hours in Sunlight typically heat to 75C-FACT

question:

[4] A manufacturer advertises a paint in the following way:

This paint will reflect 90% of all incoming radiation both visible and infra red, but it will radiate at all frequencies as a black body, thus removing "lots" of heat from the satellite. thus the paint will keep the satellite as cool as possible"

[note the similarities between this hypothetical manufacturers claims, and those of K Hall]

[4]SOLUTION:

THE PAINT CANNOT EXIST,BECAUSE IT WOULD VIOLATE THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

see link:
[link to www.jyu.fi (secure)]

One of the things I have learned over the past two months is something that really does not surprise me at all, and that is that NASA is relying on 'Mythological" explanations for things about the thermodynamic questions which I thought from the beginning to be impossible. Aluminum was probably the very worst choice for a material.

When you have them cornered, they come up with a majik paint or a sublimation system and add a few 55 gallon barrels of water.

And they use liars as representatives who engage in unsavory tactics,stalking, character assassination, threats, treating the very people that pay their salaries like terrorists.

And to top it all off they don't even know the basics.

Wow a wonderful cornucopia of wrong. Plenty to add to the list here. I think he must be in full meltdown. I don't have time to read all of this now ( or probably even today ) but lets pick out a few.

K

You are not an engineer.

Brilliant, another one to add to the list. Planck's law shows us for a body at 5800 K the vast majority of the energy is in visible and near IR light. It is this energy being absorbed by your skin that warms you, not the very long wavelength solar IR.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

K

Then a bunch of irrelevant stuff about greenhouses. We are not making greenhouses.

This "expert" at "Fourmilab" writing a paper about the effects of a nuclear blast, the blackbody temperature of the bomb here is in excess of 4000 K so the energy is again mostly in the visible and near IR. He is not an expert on the thermal transmittance characteristics of glass, but other are so lets have a look.

[link to www.newport.com]

These people make optics for visible to IR applications and have actual data not anecdotes .

Note how the transmittance of optical crown glass, not a specialist IR transmitting glass fall away to close to zero at 2.5 micrometers. This corresponds to a temperature 1150 K, longer wavelengths ( colder ) are not transmitted. otherwise there would be no need for specialist optical materials in thermal applications. room temperature has a spectrum that peaks at around 10 micrometers, so the vast majority of this energy would not be transmitted.


[link to www.iiviinfrared.com]

Later I will find a nice chart I saw of different materials that are transparent in long wavelength IR.

K

Then there is a bunch more waffle that I don't have time to read now but I can see a post in there which directly contradicts what I have said several times about Kirchoff's law so I need to respond to that but I don't have time now.

K

WORD SALAD

Here's the growler!



I'll tell ya this, I'd sooner trust my life to something I designed that something you did. You're a fucking idiot.

"I'm done here...."

Seems not as there were 5-6 more entries after that!

You boys are having a good time I see!

Yes, but what about the shorter wavelengths?
ALL WAVELENGTHS of light transmit energy, and on absorption they create heat energy.
You've lost here. All wavelengths of light are capable of producing thermal energy, so glass is transparent to thermal energy.

Obviously all of these wavelengths need to be considered.

Glass is transparent to most radiation capable of producing thermal energy. Glass is transparent to most wavelengths of infra red radiation. The only difference between infra red and visible spectrum light is that visible spectrum light is shorter wavelength and higher energy, and detectable by the eyes.

Gee whiz, you're a

You're probably not able to see how badly this idiot is floundering, but he hasn't said anything yet that makes sense. He came here with a predetermined goal, and has been proved incapable an irrelevant.

Nothing gives me more satisfaction than to out one of these over educated tiny brained fucktards for what they are.

Knowledge in the hands of idiots is useless.