I will make this one correction here. Yes, the view factor I mentioned was the wrong one, from the inside of the enclosing sphere to the heat source. (Or from the chamber wall to the outside of the enclosing sphere, which just happens to be the same due to specified dimensions.) Of course it is not the same from the chamber wall to the heat source. But that is the only mistake I made here.

But (this is not for you, but for other readers): because ALL of the incoming cooler radiation is reflected or scattered, and no NET amount is absorbed, it goes right back out your boundary. The rest that misses the heat source also goes right back out your boundary (pretty much by definition). Which all adds up to the TOTAL radiation coming in through your boundary going right back out again. There is no need to account for the view factor in this direction because there is no net radiation absorbed. It all goes right back out. Net inwelling energy through your boundary is zero.

I almost started to argue with you again, but I have learned that it won't do any good. You'll still keep insisting that this violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is really how it's done. Sigh.

I don't think you really believe that for a second, if you're really the physicist you claim to be. The very simple textbook math has proved it wrong. I mean, didn't it send up a red flag when you took your answer and fed it back into standard heat transfer equations and it didn't balance? Oh, that's right... you didn't. But I did.

But that's just a statement of fact. I'm not arguing with you now and I'm not going to again. You're either a fool or a liar, and I do not care which. I have already proved it and I intend to publish that for the world to see. Along with textbook explanations and diagrams showing exactly where and how you went wrong.

Tell me why that first link has to lead to that beta junk. Couldn't you just make it point to goase, it would've been less painful to the eye.

Good luck getting the US to abide by that!

The MPAA would fight something like that tooth and nail.

Ya'll got shit on yer mustache - and busy trying to convince good folks that the whole world smells like that!

Old fucks fought a WAR against the Japanese. I would give them a pass for retaining some of the obvious and foreseeable animosity that would have come from that. I would cut Japanese geezers the same slack.

... 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. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-24]

No, Jane tried to use an equation that only calculates radiative "power out" when Jane needs to use an equation for heat transfer that calculates radiative "power out minus power in".

If radiation enters the boundary and goes right back out, we need to account for it entering and exiting. That's why there are separate terms for "power in" and "power out".

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? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-24]

Jane's accounting for "power out" without including a term for "power in". That's not A = A, it's A = 0 because one of the terms has been ignored. It's led Jane to the absurd conclusion that electrical heating power doesn't depend on the cooler chamber wall temperature. If that's the case, then how did we detect the 2.7K cosmic microwave background radiation with warmer detectors? How do uncooled IR detectors see cooler objects? Again, why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

... 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. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-24]

This is complete gibberish, Jane. Power radiated in from the chamber walls needs to be accounted for using one term. Power radiated out from the source needs to be accounted using another. Once again, accounting for power flowing in doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics or somehow imply net energy transfer from cool to hot, no matter how many times Jane wants to assert that nonsense. However, failing to account for power flowing in does violate conservation of energy, because power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing.

So Jane refuses to retract his absurd claim that view factors vary as the radius ratio, which violates conservation of energy. A cynic might have expected as much, given how Jane flagrantly violates conservation of energy by incoherently ignoring radiative power passing in through a boundary around the heat source.

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... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-24]

Jane made no such claim? Jane keeps making that absurd claim! Again, the link I've repeatedly given Jane shows that for smaller radius R1, F21 = (R1/R2)^2 = 0.9978.

If the view factor varied as the radius ratio like Jane claims, energy really wouldn't be conserved. The view factor has to vary as the area ratio, which is the square of the radius ratio.

Jane's campaign of educating ignorant, stupid physicists about physics has only just begun. Jane still needs to educate Prof. Brown and Lonny Eachus still needs to educate Dr. Joel Shore.

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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-24]

Of course Jane argued with Prof. Brown and wasn't able to "educate" him. Of course Lonny Eachus argued with Dr. Joel Shore and wasn't able to "educate" him. Why not, Jane? Do those physicists not have heat transfer textbooks, or are they just ignorant and stupid?

... 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. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-24]

But Jane does make broad claims:

.. the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible. I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

Jane/Lonny Eachus insists that an enclosed source doesn't warm, which means CO2 emissions couldn't cause warming. That's why Jane/Lonny Eachus needs to educate the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society.

.. Be a man for a change and admit it. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

.. Be a man and admit the truth.. You've been owned, man. BE enough of a man to admit it. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-19]

... Time to act like a man and admit that you were wrong. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-24]

Jane/Lonny Eachus wins a silver medal in psychological projection for telling me to "be a man for a change" but Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan still takes the gold.

If you object to nanny state nonsense, the full article isn't any better. You are under the mistaken impression that there is an amount of lipstick you could put on this pig to make it acceptable.

The only "meaning" it has is to their particular recycling and waste disposal programs. As you say, this is not about waste at all. It is only about where to put different kinds of trash.

It would be very similar to an ordinance that fines people for putting glass in the aluminum recycle bin.

To make a single line break. Double it for 2 (paragraph). Also see down below your text entry window for "Allowed HTML". b in brackets is bold, i in brackets is italics, etc. You must use opening and closing brackets around your text. E.g.,

<i>This would be italics.</i>

I used trickery to do that though. The brackets don't show up in the final text. Try it in a reply and use the "preview" button.

"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.