It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:42:06 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 12:10:26 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:04:59 AM

And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.

Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.

Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.

The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.

lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube.  Does the light need a conductor or convection currents?  No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation.  Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.

No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.

And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.

I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video.  You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. 

The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.

Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 12:46:58 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:42:06 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 12:10:26 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:04:59 AM

And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.

Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.

Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.

The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.

lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube.  Does the light need a conductor or convection currents?  No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation.  Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.

No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.

And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.

I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video.  You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. 

The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.

Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.

The fact that you did not burn your finger at a camp fire proves that you won't burn your fingers when handling something that has been in a 2200C oven?  Are you just shitting me now?  I thought you were going to come up with some real evidence, but you have let me down.   

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 28, 2015, 01:44:38 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 12:46:58 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:42:06 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 12:10:26 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:04:59 AM

And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.

Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.

Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.

The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.

lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube.  Does the light need a conductor or convection currents?  No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation.  Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.

No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.

And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.

I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video.  You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. 

The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.

Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.

The fact that you did not burn your finger at a camp fire proves that you won't burn your fingers when handling something that has been in a 2200C oven?  Are you just shitting me now?  I thought you were going to come up with some real evidence, but you have let me down.   

^ This is not how you evade an argument kids, if you're smart.


I never spoke anything about a campfire in that whole post, or wether I burned my fingers or not. Here's the quote since you completely ignored it:

The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.

Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.

I am sorry, but I do not see the correlation between you bringing up your drunk campfire escapades and industrial furnaces.  Maybe you can help here? 

I am sorry, but I do not see the correlation between you bringing up your drunk campfire escapades and industrial furnaces.  Maybe you can help here?

The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.

Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.

You are probably the most stupid person right now on the forum. Learn to read before you participate in an online forum.

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:42:06 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 12:10:26 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:04:59 AM

And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.

Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.

Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.

The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.

lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube.  Does the light need a conductor or convection currents?  No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation.  Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.

No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.

And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.

I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video.  You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. 

I don't have to. IR just doesn't radiate through solids like silica.

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 12:46:58 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:42:06 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 12:10:26 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:04:59 AM

And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.

Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.

Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.

The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.

lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube.  Does the light need a conductor or convection currents?  No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation.  Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.

No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.

And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.

I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video.  You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. 

I don't have to. IR just doesn't radiate through solids like silica.

Your eyes are made of silica now?  Or, maybe my computer monitor screen is made out of silica?  You are getting more and more confusing with every post you make. 

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 01:58:21 AM

I am sorry, but I do not see the correlation between you bringing up your drunk campfire escapades and industrial furnaces.  Maybe you can help here?

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 28, 2015, 01:44:38 AM

The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.

Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.

gettimg
You are probably the most stupid person right now on the forum. Learn to read before you participate in an online forum.

Oh, I did not realize that it makes me a stupid person for calling people out on their inconsistencies and lies. 

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 02:09:47 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 12:46:58 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:42:06 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 12:10:26 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:04:59 AM

And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.

Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.

Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.

The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.

lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube.  Does the light need a conductor or convection currents?  No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation.  Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.

No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.

And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.

I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video.  You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. 

I don't have to. IR just doesn't radiate through solids like silica.

Your eyes are made of silica now?  Or, maybe my computer monitor screen is made out of silica?  You are getting more and more confusing with every post you make. 

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 28, 2015, 02:03:50 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 01:58:21 AM

I am sorry, but I do not see the correlation between you bringing up your drunk campfire escapades and industrial furnaces.  Maybe you can help here?

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 28, 2015, 01:44:38 AM

The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.

Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.

gettimg
You are probably the most stupid person right now on the forum. Learn to read before you participate in an online forum.

Oh, I did not realize that it makes me a stupid person for calling people out on their inconsistencies and lies. 

We were talking about a video where people took up hot cubes in the cold corners, when you started talking about campfires and drunk friends etc. without giving any connections to what we are talking about. THAT's inconsistency.

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 02:27:04 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 02:09:47 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 12:46:58 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:42:06 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 12:10:26 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:04:59 AM

And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.

Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.

Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.

The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.

lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube.  Does the light need a conductor or convection currents?  No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation.  Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.

No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.

And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.

I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video.  You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. 

I don't have to. IR just doesn't radiate through solids like silica.

Your eyes are made of silica now?  Or, maybe my computer monitor screen is made out of silica?  You are getting more and more confusing with every post you make. 

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 28, 2015, 02:03:50 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 01:58:21 AM

I am sorry, but I do not see the correlation between you bringing up your drunk campfire escapades and industrial furnaces.  Maybe you can help here?

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 28, 2015, 01:44:38 AM

The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.

Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.

gettimg
You are probably the most stupid person right now on the forum. Learn to read before you participate in an online forum.

Oh, I did not realize that it makes me a stupid person for calling people out on their inconsistencies and lies. 

We were talking about a video where people took up hot cubes in the cold corners, when you started talking about campfires and drunk friends etc. without giving any connections to what we are talking about. THAT's inconsistency.

lol, you were the one who brought up not burning your fingers at a campfire.  You really are drunk, are you not? 

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 28, 2015, 02:32:13 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 02:27:04 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 02:09:47 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 12:46:58 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:42:06 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 12:10:26 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:04:59 AM

And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.

Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.

Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.

The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.

lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube.  Does the light need a conductor or convection currents?  No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation.  Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.

No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.

And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.

I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video.  You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. 

I don't have to. IR just doesn't radiate through solids like silica.

Your eyes are made of silica now?  Or, maybe my computer monitor screen is made out of silica?  You are getting more and more confusing with every post you make. 

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 28, 2015, 02:03:50 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 01:58:21 AM

I am sorry, but I do not see the correlation between you bringing up your drunk campfire escapades and industrial furnaces.  Maybe you can help here?

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 28, 2015, 01:44:38 AM

The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.

Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.

gettimg
You are probably the most stupid person right now on the forum. Learn to read before you participate in an online forum.

Oh, I did not realize that it makes me a stupid person for calling people out on their inconsistencies and lies. 

We were talking about a video where people took up hot cubes in the cold corners, when you started talking about campfires and drunk friends etc. without giving any connections to what we are talking about. THAT's inconsistency.

lol, you were the one who brought up not burning your fingers at a campfire.  You really are drunk, are you not?

My post:

The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.

Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.

Your next post:

The fact that you did not burn your finger at a camp fire proves that you won't burn your fingers when handling something that has been in a 2200C oven?  Are you just shitting me now?  I thought you were going to come up with some real evidence, but you have let me down.   

As you can see I didn't say anything about a campfire. I did bring something similar up a few posts earlier, but that was obviously in a different context, with us discussing another part of the current subject. If you had any sense of consistency you'd understand that.

lol, Master_Evar, why do you post the original post of you talking about you and your friends at the campfire instead of being deceitful? 

lol, Master_Evar, why do you post the original post of you talking about you and your friends at the campfire instead of being deceitful?

The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.

Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.

Quote the words campfire and friends from that quote, because I certainly can't find them. Or better, highlight them in the quote.

I really wish you would quit lying.  Here you are first trying to compare a campfire to an industrial furnace.  Liar. 

I have managed to get a hot enough campfire to make the grating glow red from the heat. And no one got burned by the light. Heck, a light bulb glows way stronger than that cube, yet it doesn't grill the people that is in it's light.

Quote from: markjo on August 27, 2015, 05:50:28 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 27, 2015, 01:38:16 PM

lol, markjo.  This cookie sheet is not exactly glowing hot, now is it? 

Not in the visible spectrum, but I'm willing to guess that it would glow quite nicely in the infrared range.

Yes, markjo, I am sure that the amount of infrared light emitted by the 125 degree C cookie sheet is anywhere close to the amount of IR light emitted by the 2000 degree C tile, lol.

The amount of infrared emitted by the cookie sheet is irrelevant, that the clear silicone can protect you from it is.  The point that I'm trying to make is that a material can be transparent to visible light but opaque to infrared light (heat).  In other words, just because you can see the light doesn't mean that you're going to feel the heat if that insulating material is opaque to infrared.

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 27, 2015, 09:53:32 PM

I have managed to get a hot enough campfire to make the grating glow red from the heat. And no one got burned by the light. Heck, a light bulb glows way stronger than that cube, yet it doesn't grill the people that is in it's light.

I really wish you would quit lying.  Here you are first trying to compare a campfire to an industrial furnace.  Liar.

Damn you're slow. As I SAID:

I did bring something similar up a few posts earlier, but that was obviously in a different context, with us discussing another part of the current subject. If you had any sense of consistency you'd understand that.

That is not part of the CURRENT discussion. What I said in THIS discussion was:

The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.

Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 05:08:51 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 27, 2015, 09:53:32 PM

I have managed to get a hot enough campfire to make the grating glow red from the heat. And no one got burned by the light. Heck, a light bulb glows way stronger than that cube, yet it doesn't grill the people that is in it's light.

I really wish you would quit lying.  Here you are first trying to compare a campfire to an industrial furnace.  Liar.

Damn you're slow. As I SAID:

Quote

I did bring something similar up a few posts earlier, but that was obviously in a different context, with us discussing another part of the current subject. If you had any sense of consistency you'd understand that.

That is not part of the CURRENT discussion. What I said in THIS discussion was:

Quote

The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.

Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.

\

So, you are admitting that you are lying?

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 28, 2015, 06:02:42 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 05:08:51 AM

Quote from: Master_Evar on August 27, 2015, 09:53:32 PM

I have managed to get a hot enough campfire to make the grating glow red from the heat. And no one got burned by the light. Heck, a light bulb glows way stronger than that cube, yet it doesn't grill the people that is in it's light.

I really wish you would quit lying.  Here you are first trying to compare a campfire to an industrial furnace.  Liar.

Damn you're slow. As I SAID:

Quote

I did bring something similar up a few posts earlier, but that was obviously in a different context, with us discussing another part of the current subject. If you had any sense of consistency you'd understand that.

That is not part of the CURRENT discussion. What I said in THIS discussion was:

Quote

The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.

Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.

\

So, you are admitting that you are lying?

So you are admitting that you are an idiot?

Stop digressing, please, MODERATOR.

Let's continue from before you started digressing and evading:

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 12:46:58 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:42:06 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2015, 12:10:26 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on August 28, 2015, 12:04:59 AM

And we come back to explaining heat flow and gradients and methods of heat transfer.

Ok. The edges of the cube are able to disapate heat to the surrounding through conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction will be poor as air is a bad conductor. Radiation will start high but rapidly drop. Convection will account for a lot of heat transfer, because the air around the cube can flow freely and will rise when heated drawing cooler air which continues the process.

Meanwhile the cube itself has extremely poor heat transfer. The air inside can't move so convection is out. Conduction and radiation are very, very low.

The result is that the edges cool down very quickly as they can shed heat to the external environment but the heat within the cube will travel to the edges very slowly. The rat flow out of the cube is very high initially and drops off rapidly.

lol, another RE'er who can't understand that the fact it is glowing means there is a lot of radiant energy emitting from the cube.  Does the light need a conductor or convection currents?  No, it is radiant, just like the IR radiation.  Nice straw man you people keep trying to throw out there, but you are not fooling me with your lack of thermodynamics.

No, you've just demonstrated you know nothing about EM radiation. The cube is emitting energy in the form of radiation but a lot of that energy is emitted in the visible light spectrum which can move through the cube easily as it is a mix of silica and air which are both pretty transparent to visible light. IR radiation does not travel easily though the cube and is only emitted from the surface of the cube when that surface is very hot. As the surface cools down it quickly stops emitting IR.

And anyway the fact that an object is emitting light does not mean it would emit heat as LEDs clearly demonstrate.

I am sorry, I did not realize that you could tell the amount of visible light compared to the amount of invisible light simply by looking at a video.  You should donate your eyes to science when you die so they can study the human spectrometer and find out how you work. 

The fact that they didn't burn their fingers shows us that, well, they didn't burn their fingers. The observation of 0 burned fingers logically leads to the conclusion that 0 fingers were burnt.

Remember (because your short-term memory seems to be a real problem for you) that this is a video made by one of the VISITORS, and that YOU YOURSELF can be one of these visitors and make your own video of yourself picking up one of the cubes.

You all bore me now; let's move on...

The melting temperature of aluminium is 660C.

& it fails structurally in airframe applications at 350-450C max.

So why did NASA use so much of it in their 'space programme'?

They really loved the stuff; why?

Learning is Fun!

You all bore me now; let's move on...

The melting temperature of aluminium is 660C.

& it fails structurally in airframe applications at 350-450C max.

So why did NASA use so much of it in their 'space programme'?

They really loved the stuff; why?

Learning is Fun!

It is a lightweight material, and has a better structural strength per unit of mass than most materials.

You all bore me now; let's move on...

The melting temperature of aluminium is 660C.

& it fails structurally in airframe applications at 350-450C max.

So why did NASA use so much of it in their 'space programme'?

They really loved the stuff; why?

Learning is Fun!

For the same reasons that the airplane industry uses so much of it; because aluminum alloys can be made light and strong.  NASA can use so much of it in their spacecraft because they put a lot of time and effort in thermal protection systems.
http://www.aluminum.org/product-markets/aircraft-aerospace

LOL!!!

I think I've just shown how pathetically fraudulent NASA's 'thermal protection systems' are!

& I didn't even get deeply into the subject; in the past they've used such 'advanced' systems as layers of cork & fibreglass...

They are Useless.

Anyhow; the wing leading edges, nose-cone & other parts of the SR-71 spy plane had to be made of titanium (melting point 1668C; a full 1000C higher than aluminium) in order to withstand the 350+C heat-friction caused by travelling at 3,000+ mph.

But aluminium is perfectly fine for NASA's contraptions even though they travel at up to 8 times that velocity?

8 x 350  = what, exactly?

I will tell you what it equals; it equals ROFLMFAO at anyone dumb enough to buy what NASA sells!!!

And that's why aluminium is used for the airframe which isn't subjected to heat, and why thermal tiles and carbon-carbon panels for the outer skin which is.

O rly?

And what was the outer skin of the Saturn V made of, mainframes?

Well, you asked me for proof that you are a Liar; thanks for providing it with minimum effort!

Just LOL!!!

The Saturn V didn't undergo re-entry.....

Anyhow; the wing leading edges, nose-cone & other parts of the SR-71 spy plane had to be made of titanium (melting point 1668C; a full 1000C higher than aluminium) in order to withstand the 350+C heat-friction caused by travelling at 3,000+ mph.

But aluminium is perfectly fine for NASA's contraptions even though they travel at up to 8 times that velocity?

Actually, the nose and wing leading edges of the shuttle are made of reinforced carbon-carbon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_carbon%E2%80%93carbon

The Saturn V didn't undergo re-entry.....

LOL!!!

Neither did the SR-71 you idiot.

The point is that heat-friction from the atmosphere is a big problem for Real hypersonic aircraft...

But not Imaginary ones, like the Saturn V.

Which, lest we forget, also allegedly weighed 3,000 lol-tastic TONNES.

Now; do me some math: what is 8 x 350?

Oh, & markjo; while looking good on paper, reinforced carbon-carbon (lol! So good they named it twice...) has Big structural problems in high-speed aerospace applications...

But you wouldn't know about them, being a dumb disinfo-spammer that's utterly uninterested in Truth.

Anyway; glad you're all coming round -  I'll start on your silly fake ISS again soon, cos I dug up some lulzy info on the subject that's sure to get you all leaping round your shill-cages, shrieking & flinging poo like the jizz-monkeys you are.

It'll be ACE!

Oh, & markjo; while looking good on paper, reinforced carbon-carbon (lol! So good they named it twice...) has Big structural problems in high-speed aerospace applications...

Would you care to explain some of those "Big structural problems" and tell us why they can't  be overcome?

LOL!!!

Would YOU care to explain why you can't use google & tell us why you're a time-wasting disinfo-spammer?

Carbon-carbon is very brittle & porous; not the most desirable characteristics for a material you plan to smash through the atmosphere, & all the moisture contained therein (i.e. CLOUDS before you ask...) at tens of thousands of miles per hour.

Anyhow; the Saturn V had an aluminium outer skin yet allegedly travelled at 8 times the velocity of the SR-71, which had to be made of titanium to cope with the heat-friction it created...

Bit of a problem there, no?

Meh; whatever... You'll just ignore it, won't you?

Think I'll get some dinner now, whilst you work out your troll-tactics for avoiding my point but still looking like you have something worthwhile to say...

Have fun, criminal!

Papa you retard.

When the Saturn V is travelling at hypersonic speeds it is so high up in the atmosphere the air density is very low and doesn't cause any significant heating. The SR-71 travels at high altitude but well below the altitude at which Saturn v hits hypersonic speeds and there is still significant air density to cause frictional heating.

LOL!!!

Would YOU care to explain why you can't use google & tell us why you're a time-wasting disinfo-spammer?

Because it's not my job to do your research.

Carbon-carbon is very brittle & porous; not the most desirable characteristics for a material you plan to smash through the atmosphere, & all the moisture contained therein (i.e. CLOUDS before you ask...) at tens of thousands of miles per hour.

Yes, RCC is somewhat brittle, but less so than many other ceramics.  I'm just not sure why you think that RCC is porous.  I'm also not sure why you think that the shuttle was traveling through clouds at "tens of thousands of miles per hour".

Anyhow; the Saturn V had an aluminium outer skin yet allegedly travelled at 8 times the velocity of the SR-71, which had to be made of titanium to cope with the heat-friction it created...

To which part of the Saturn V are you referring?

Bit of a problem there, no?

If you're referring to the first stage, then no, it's not really a problem at all.  If you're referring to the command module, then you're just plain wrong as it used stainless steel.

Meh; whatever... You'll just ignore it, won't you?

No, you're the one who ignores pretty much anything that contradicts your ranting.