"Terribly uninteresting"? How quaint.

The moon is the single best opportunity for the expansion of space exploration.

Guess what? Rockets large enough to send out to the asteroid belt with people in them, as a practical matter, are too damned big to launch from Earth. Did I hear "build them in orbit"? Nope. Too difficult, slow, and expensive. At our current level of technology you really need gravity to do practical construction on a very large scale. 1/6 the gravity? Perfect! Rockets built there don't have to be very large at all.

The moon has vast natural resources; they merely need to be extracted from the rock. Oxygen is one of them. There is also a surprising amount of fissionable material available. So... given some initial energy and material input, you can probably have sustained output, without too much "resupply" coming from Earth. And while energy requirements of a colony might be high, there are vast amounts of solar energy available, and plenty of silicon and trace elements to make solar cells.

Etc., etc. Our current U.S. government administration might be clueless about these things, but in the long run, the moon is our greatest hope for the future.

I am also going to say to you, khayman80, that there will be no further discussion here. You have been doing nothing but repeating false claims which I proved wrong long ago. Any further discussion with you would be a waste of time. You have wasted far too much of my time already.

You've twisted and distorted arguments, played havoc with the math, and tried to deny known physical laws. But I've caught you at every turn.

Time to act like a man and admit that you were wrong. After all, other people are going to see it anyway. I promised to publish the results of our exchange no matter how it turned out. You don't get to complain now just because you lost.

I am making one last reply to "khayman80" here, because he's so good at trolling and readers deserve to see the rebuttal.

Just no. If radiation goes in and comes right back out, we do not need to account for it, because then the NET amount of that particular radiation crossing your boundary is ZERO. A = A. You do know how to add and subtract, right? You know what a zero is, right?

Just no. This is a ridiculous assertion. The equation above is for heat transfer, not radiative power.

I used the proper equation for radiative power, which at steady-state doesn't depend on other bodies. So there is no "difference" term. Just temperature. That's simple physics. You are trying to use a heat transfer equation to calculate power out of a single body at known temperature. That's just plain WRONG.

I made no such claim, you liar. As you well know, the view factor from the surface of the inner sphere to the inner surface of the outer sphere is 1. The calculated view factor from the outer sphere to the inner was 0.9998. BUT, since all the radiation going IN which strikes the hotter body is effectively reflected or scattered, it goes right back out, AND the small amount of radiation from the cooler body that misses the inner sphere ALSO goes right back out, then the EFFECTIVE view factors in this case are both 1.

All the radiation going IN from the cooler body just goes right back OUT again, making the NET radiation crossing your boundary from the cooler body zero. If that were not so, then you'd have net energy being transferred from a cooler body to a hotter one, which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. As I've explained to you many times now. You're just plain wrong.

No, I don't need to educate either one. They can both pick up a textbook on heat transfer and see that I am correct. I'm not arguing with them. Our discussion was about THIS experiment of Spencer's. What I did was refute YOUR "solution" to Spencer's challenge. I found the correct answers and checked my work. Funny, but YOUR solutions didn't check out when plugged back in to standard heat transfer equations. I daresay that any eminent physicist can also do the math and see where you were wrong. And I'm going to give them plenty of opportunity to see it. So why not just wait and see?

I did NOT make broad claims in this recent exchange about "greenhouse gas" or any such thing. So I'm not arguing with those other people. I simply showed YOU to be wrong.

I agree with Blue Trane. It's just not a defining factor. Science fiction is about science. Even if it's just postulating a future world, there is a line between fantasy fiction and science fiction, even if it's a blurry one.

There is nothing more to say. You have been proved wrong. You can write books about your nonsense "physics", and it won't make your bullshit theory any more correct.

I have 3 heat transfer textbooks here, and they all say you're wrong. I'll stick with the well-known and established physics, thanks very much, and dismiss the nonsense from the cheap seats.

Funny, but for years you talked about "consensus" and "established science", but whenever the established physics disagrees with you, you will write pages and pages about why they're wrong and you're right.

There's a word for that. The word is "hypocrisy". There are other words for what you do, too, but I'll let other readers decide on those.

Well, it didn't work and it won't work. The textbooks all say you're wrong. Goodbye.

And you can achieve that quite nicely by drawing your "boundary" around the heat source.

Nonsense. By the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, the chamber walls add no net power in. It just goes right back out through your boundary again. How many times must I explain this to you?

Apparently I would be explaining forever, because I've explained it clearly many times now.

I won't consider it because it's not physics. There is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. It's against the second law of thermodynamics, and it violates the S-B radiation law: (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4).

We've been over this. You're just trolling. You were proved wrong many days ago now. No more. Done.

I don't think so. That description describes fantasy as well as it does science fiction, but they're two different genres.

You're forgetting the "science" in science fiction. While there is occasionally some overlap, science fiction isn't fantasy fiction isn't horror fiction.

Yes, they most definitely did.

Further, if I were any of the organizations that - we have lots of solid evidence - were harassed by the IRS under Lerner, I would charge her, and her cohorts as individuals under 18 USC 242, which carries some harsh penalties... up to life in prison.

Apparently you did not read what I wrote:

What I object to is your insane insistence that the electrical power to the heat source requires a term for the chamber walls. This is sheer nonsense. Standard, textbook physics says the thermodynamic temperature of the heat source, since it is "the hottest thing in the room", as it were, is independent of radiation from the chamber walls. Since it cannot absorb net radiative power from the chamber walls, any electrical power calculation is similarly independent.

You are attempting to add a term to "account for" radiation from the cooler chamber walls, but no such accounting is necessary according to the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law. No net radiative power from the chamber walls is absorbed by the heat source. The chamber wall do not somehow magically cause it to output either less or more radiative power, therefore the input power is not dependent on the chamber walls. QED. I've explained this (truly) about 10 times now.

There is nothing imaginary about it. I am the one who told YOU to draw your boundary around your heat source. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, no NET RADIATIVE POWER is absorbed by the heat source from the chamber walls, and the chamber walls do not affect its radiative power out. I capitalized different words this time in a (probably vain) attempt to get you to understand what is being said here. YOU are apparently imagining some kind of magical net energy flow from less thermodynamically energetic to more thermodynamically energetic, which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The chamber walls neither transfer any of their net radiative power to the heat source, nor do they cause the net radiative power of the heat source to be any less. They have NO EFFECT. Net energy flows only FROM the heat source to the walls, and the temperature of the walls effects heat transfer only, not radiative power of the heat source.

For about 100 times now, I do not claim "no radiation" is absorbed. Just no net radiative power.

Right. Exactly. That's the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, as I've stated many, many times now. Note that it is an equation for heat transfer.

YES!!! This is a different equation! It's not an equation for heat transfer! It's the Stefan-Botlzmann RELATION between radiative power out and temperature for gray bodies. It is used for calculating RADIATIVE POWER OUT versus TEMPERATURE and vice versa. It is not for heat transfer and I'm not using it for heat transfer. YOU are the one who is getting them confused, not me. This other equation shows that radiative power is dependent ONLY on emissivity and temperature. It does not depend on other bodies. For the third time (today): it's a temperature vs. power equation, not a heat transfer equation.

Further, "electrical" is your own addition. The equation is for power. It doesn't specify "electrical".

"Jane's equation" is the textbook equation for calculating temperature from radiative power of a gray body, and vice versa. It is not an equation for heat transfer and therefore doesn't have to account for the chamber walls. At steady-state, it is independent of other bodies. Period. Look it the hell up.

RIGHT HERE is where you contradict yourself. You cite the S-B radiation law, above, saying no NET radiative power is absorbed by the warmer body. Apparently you don't understand the concept of NET, even though you have derided me for supposedly "ignoring" it.

I do not claim no radiation is absorbed. I claimed no NET RADIATIVE POWER is absorbed. Those are not the same things. The effect is as if all incident radiation from cooler bodies is reflected, scattered, or transmitted. But since these are diffuse gray bodies of significant mass, they don't transmit. So draw your precious boundary around the heat source. All incoming radiation from the chamber walls is reflected or scattered and goes right back out, so you have no net power IN through your boundary. This is at least the second time I have explained this in detail.

There is no magical flow of NET power into your heat source from the chamber walls. That would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore I do not need to account for radiation from the chamber walls in calculating the temperature of the heat source. That is nothing but imaginary nonsense on your part. The Stefan-Boltzmann RELATION (not radiation law) for gray bodies has only 2 variables: emissivity and temperature.

And that is why, when calculating power needs, I use the appropriate equation for temperature versus power, not the one for heat transfer.

This is textbook stuff, and you just aren't getting it straight. Are you sure you're a physicist?

Look at your S-B equation above. What does it say? No net radiative power is absorbed by warmer bodies from cooler bodies. You said so yourself. But NOW, you're claiming that it is. You contradict yourself.

I will repeat: I did not and do not claim that no radiation is absorbed. Just no net radiative power. Any that does get absorbed is just re-transmitted, with a total power (and therefore heat transfer) effect of ZERO. That's why it is not necessary to account for cooler bodies in the temperature versus power out equation.

The second equation you cited above is the STANDARD equation for calculating radiative power out of a gray body. I showed you where it was in Wikipedia. It also just happens to be in my heat transfer textbooks. The answer is 82.12 W/m^2. It is the textbook answer. It isn't going to change. Why don't you look it up in a textbook and discover that for yourself?

The first equation you cite, and claim to be using, is an equation for heat transfer between two bodies. It is not the equation for radiant power output of a single body. It is the wrong equation for this calculation.

I repeat: if you truly don't understand this, due to your "greenhouse gas religion" or something, that's just too bad. I'm using textbook physics for situations like this. You are not. You are espousing magical net power transfer from cold to hot, rather than actual physics.

Radiative power out of the warmer body is dependent ONLY on emissivity and thermodynamic temperature. Anything else violates the second law of thermodynamics. It isn't controlled or mitigated by nearby cooler bodies. All else being equal, energy doesn't spontaneously travel from cooler to warmer. That's complete bullshit. Doesn't happen.

Knock off the fantasy physics and pick up a textbook.

NO!!! This is just plain bullshit. I do NOT object to a term for electrical power. I simply asserted a physical truth: in our isolated system, the electrical power to the heat source, called for by Spencer, has zero dependency on the chamber walls.

It is this nonsense dependency on the chamber walls that I have disputed, nothing else. That is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

So just to be clear: I don't object to a term for "electrical power" and never have. My only objection is your insistence that the power input to the heat source is somehow related to radiation from the chamber walls. If these are treated as gray bodies: just no. That's a violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

You are VERY good at trying to make it appear I have been saying things I actually haven't. But it isn't going to fly. It's just bullshit.

NO!!! Repeat, for about the 100th time now: no NET radiative power input from cooler objects. That is ALL I have claimed, and it's a direct result of the Stefan-Botlzmann radiation law. Why do you keep disputing textbook physics laws?

Stop lying. Because that's all you're doing now.

All great points. It reminds me of a project I took over from an engineer that was leaving the company. He had created an overly complex design that didn't add much value. I implemented his design in part, while leaving out the superfluous parts. He was furious that I didn't implement exactly to his spec. Since he was on the way out, I politely told him to F off.

Regarding reuse, the rule of thumb is that any design that is alleged to be reusable can only make that claim after it has been used more than once. You really need 3+ instance of a reusable design to prove it is truly reusable.

NONSENSE. The power output is not dependent on the chamber walls, therefore the power input is not dependent on the chamber walls. You're contradicting yourself, trying to have it both ways.

Radiation from the cooler walls has no effect on the heat source whatsoever. This is a basic requirement of thermodynamics!

What's ridiculous is your constant repetition of this bullshit idea. Yes, the cooler walls radiate inward but they have no effect whatsoever on the heat source. ALL of that radiation is reflected or scattered by the heat source. (It is not transmitted because we're dealing with diffuse gray bodies of significant mass.)

If you're being honest, then it's really too bad that you still don't understand the clear implications of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law. But at the same time, it makes me wonder how you got your degree.

I'm done. If all you're going to do is keep repeating these incorrect assertions, after why they are incorrect has been clearly explained to you many times, this is indeed just a waste of my time. I set out to have a scientific discussion, not to argue about your religion.

Hybrid or not, I'm not buying a Chinese car.

I'll pay twice as much for a Tesla first.

But this isn't a "methodology" at all. It's a statement of goals.

This isn't an "alternative to Agile", because it isn't a methodology. You can use Agile to achieve this "reactive system".

Frankly, it looks like a bunch of BS buzzwords to me. I write software to meet my customer's needs. "Reactive" attempts to define those needs... but NO, that's what the customer does.

This might be something good to show a client who wants a web site built, which you then proceed to build using Agile or some other methodology. But it isn't a methodology itself, and calling that thing a "Manifesto" is a joke.

"We want a machine that makes things cold. We don't care how it's built. We'll call this... The Refrigerator Manifesto".

Give me a frigging break. In fact I have to think this is actually somebody's idea of a joke.

If you are sincere (you certainly haven't been acting like you are), then you must be postulating some kind of "tractor beam" effect that allows the chamber wall to "suck" power out of the heat source from a distance.

I assure you that at least at out current level of technology, we have not managed to build such a sucking device. The heat source radiates out what it radiates out, and nothing around it is "sucking" any power from it.

Although you seem to be doing your very best at "sucking" my time away over stupid bullshit.