Comment Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 708
Typo: Just reducing the net heat flow from source to plate is sufficient to warm the source...
A plate near the heat source is NOT even remotely the same as closing the drain on a bathtub, because the total power out of the system (it's a closed system with heat being removed, remember?) remains constant, as you have so conveniently observed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-28]
Completely backwards, as usual. I've never observed any such ridiculous nonsense. That's actually Jane's ridiculous "observation" which I've already tried to correct:
"... Hopefully it's also clear that Jane's also wrong to claim that the power used by the cooler is required to be constant. The chamber wall temperature is held constant, so the power used by the cooler temporarily decreases after the enclosing plate is added, until it reaches equilibrium."
I've repeatedly said the electrical heating power is constant, and that adding an enclosing plate temporarily reduces power out until the heated plate warms to a higher equilibrium temperature.
... Since the temperature of every other object is less than that of the heat source, there is no net heat flow TO the heat source, therefore the heat source does not become hotter. This is, and has been, the whole of Latour's argument, and it is valid. It is not crazy speculation by some nitwit... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-02]
Again, Eq. 1 describes equilibrium temperature:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
Eq. 1 shows that Jane and "the whole of Latour's argument" are wrong. Net heat transfer doesn't have to flow from plate to source in order to cause the heat source to be hotter. Just reducing the net heat flow from source to plate is sufficient to warm the plate, as long as electrical heating power is constant.
... you're conflating electrical power with "emissive power" or irradiance, which are different things, in different units. Sheesh. You'd at least expect a "physicist" to get that much right. So I gave that much away. And you still didn't deserve it.
... Now I have given you your bone, doggie. GO AWAY. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-28]
No. As I originally said: "Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation... Sage solves Eq. 1 for a constant electric input of 509 W/m^2."
So the variable "electricity" has always been in the same units as irradiance, which made the equations simpler. The electrical power used by the heater is "electricity" times the surface area of the heated plate. I've repeatedly noted that electrical heating power is constant, which means that the variable "electricity" is also constant unless the heated plate shape-shifts to change its surface area. Just to be clear, I haven't been considering shapeshifting plates.
Again, it's fascinating that Jane keeps wrongly implying my previous calculations had units confused, but didn't point out the actual units confusion in the eq. 4 I posted.
... I'm not in the slightest confused.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-28]
That's what I told Demena.
... I still know things you don't. Why do you think I've felt free to be so glib? I've been watching you make a fool of yourself, ever since you revealed what a despicable human being you are (again, just my opinion of course, but I've had some confirmation). My advice to go do something more worthwhile was sincere. Because if you don't, after you are gone, I will quite happily reveal those things and your "legacy" won't be quite what you thought it was. That's not a threat in any way, it's just a description of the truth.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-28]
Empty bluster won't stop me from continuing to debunk your civilization-paralyzing misinformation as long as I can.
... you still have yet to share with us what this "civilization-paralyzing misinformation" is. It isn't in the links you provided above. And you're still wrong about Spencer and Latour. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-28]
Yes it was. And you're still spreading Dr. Latour's civilization-paralyzing Slayer misinformation:
... The plate cannot cause the heat source to be hotter because that would require NET heat transfer in the other direction.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-20]
No. Again, warming the heat source doesn't require net heat transfer from the plate to the source. At equilibrium, power in = power out. Because electrical heating power is constant, the heat source warms even if net "power out" decreases. It doesn't have to reverse direction (plate to source) in order to warm the source.
Maybe an analogy would help. Suppose water flows from a bathtub faucet at a rate of 1 liter/minute. The drain is open, letting water out at 1 liter/minute. Since water in = water out, the bathtub water level is constant.
Now partially close the drain so water only leaves at 0.5 liter/minute. Since water in > water out, the bathtub water level rises.
Raising the bathtub water level doesn't require that the drain reverse direction and start pumping water up from the drain into the bathtub. Because the faucet pours a constant 1 liter/minute into the tub, raising the water level only requires reducing the water out.
... I was only partly wrong about the NATO rounds.
... I wasn't wrong, my information was just old. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]
Condescendingly lecturing a veteran like this was wrong: "Bullshit, dude. Maybe where your tour was... Just plain bullshit.
... So sure, I've made some small errors. And admitted them when I did. But that is only a minority of links above, which you are apparently trying to claim are all "nonsense". Like the beta decay: after some initial confusion I asked how the oscillations take place, and someone answered. I admitted that I was wrong.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]
No, after delt0r answered, you insisted he must not have understood your point. After I repeated delt0r's point, you claimed that you had got yourself sorted out already and accused me of butting in and insulting you.
You've repeated this pattern ad nauseum. After your neutrino rant, you repeatedly claimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong and asked me "why didn't you bother to repeat the part...?" when I actually had repeated that part and responded to it.
In fact, the more I read of these old streams, the more I've found where I was actually correct. (Like the one on bicycle stability for instance.) I have a copy of that paper right here and it says I was correct.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]
It's more likely that your Sauron-class Morton's demon told you that it says you were correct. Just like you've insisted you were still correct about punctuation despite never providing sentences with the plurals of i, a, and u.
... YOUR problem is that you claim these things are nonsense, but you haven't disproved a single one of them. Why not?
... in a lot of it I wasn't wrong at all, you just think I was. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]
Because you're galloping faster than any Gish Gallop I've ever seen, and because despite your protests you seldom accept refutations for longer than about 5 minutes anyway.
... One last thing, to anybody else who has bothered to wade through all his bullshit: ask yourselves why he's keeping a record of ALL the comments I made on Slashdot over a period of years that he thinks were wrong. Do YOU do that to people? No, you don't, do you? That's because YOU are probably a normal human being, who doesn't stalk or obsess over strangers. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]
I probably don't have more than about a month to live, so I'm obsessing over my legacy. The misinformation you're spreading seems like the biggest current threat to humanity, so I'll spend my final days debunking you.
... Your attempts to shame me haven't been coming off too well, you know. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]
One disturbing possibility is that you can't experience shame, which is why I'm trying to figure out why you're shamelessly posing as a woman. Maybe the way you were raised could help answer this question.
... I was seriously concerned that my dad might start thinking I was gay or something.
:0) [Lonny Eachus, 2009-11-01]
I was sure by then my father must have been convinced I was gay or something. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-03-07]
... seriously thinking: "Oh, shit. My father probably thinks I'm gay or something now." [Lonny Eachus, 2011-12-23]
Well, you would have to know too that my father was a pretty serious bigot and gay-basher, both. It's how HE was raised. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-12-23]
I meant what I said to Demena. I dismissed the possibility that you're transgendered after you claimed that was quite literally not your problem. But if your gay-bashing bigot father left you confused about your gender then I'll apologize, retract my accusations, and support you as you experiment with your gender identity.
Releasing this burden might even let you stop spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. Jane/Lonny Eachus would have fewer stains on his legacy, and civilization would be less paralyzed. Win-win.
My point is that you've been spreading nonsense like a firehose for years, and each time your Sauron-class Morton's demon convinces you that you're right and the other person isn't very good at refutation. This doesn't just apply to your nonsense about climate change, dark matter, neutrino oscillation, the Casimir effect and Maxwell's equations, creationists, Obama birthers and 9/11 Truthers.
It also applies to your nonsense about conservation of energy, beta decay, quantum computing, nuclear isomers, Cherenkov radiation, virtual particles, infinities, string theory, cold fusion, R o s s i ' s E - C a t L E N R h o a x, peltier coolers, GPS, bicycle stability, control theory, hyperbolic trajectories, relativistic slingshots, replicators, the Kessel run, x-rays, gene therapy, Dr. Bur z y n s k i, ferret superflu, fluo ride, ethanol, petaflops, correlation/causation, failure probabilities, slavery, h o m o p h o b i a, the transgendered, punctuation, space flight, thrust, specific impulse, fly-by-wire, the FAA, airspace, inflation and the gold standard, capitalism, bitcoins, atom bombs, AK-74's, NATO rounds, firearm laws, state laws, Shock and Awe, naval bases, paranoia, Layzej's link, etc.
That still doesn't explain why the owner of the building himself said that they blew it up. Or why the BBC reported its fall 20 minutes before it actually fell.
... blah blah [Jane Q. Public, 2008-08-24]
... Kinda hard to argue with the owner of the building when he publicly says he did it on purpose!
... why did the OWNER say that it was done on purpose? ... A NY radio station was told beforehand that the building was going to be demolished. The BBC reported the fall of the building 20 minutes before it actually fell. ... the odds are strongly against the idea that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire. ... Does this prove that WTC 7 did not collapse because of the fire? No, of course not. But the credibility of any "official" story by now is very, very thin. [Jane Q. Public, 2008-08-24]
... for example lumping 9/11 together with the moon landing. Those are not even remotely the same class of questions.
... On 9/11, for example, there are some very serious questions, raised by very reputable scientists. Not "conspiracy theorists". [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-10]
Your "examples" should not all be grouped together, since some of them are at vastly different levels of "known", compared to the others. For example, some (but by no means all) of the "9/11 truthers" (a very derogatory phrase) have some good evidence to cite. This is hardly something an area that is "unequivocally known".
... Further, while flouride may not be a communist plot, there are some very serious ethical issues involved with putting it in drinking water. [Jane Q. Public, 2010-02-24]
... it goes on to say that fluoridated products should NEVER be ingested by children, because of possible adverse effects. Then it goes on further to say that THERE IS EVIDENCE of other harmful effects from fluoride, PARTICULARLY the form that is commonly put in drinking water. Now, I want to emphasize something: I am not a “conspiracy theorist”, and I do not believe there is some giant conspiracy to stupidify America via the drinking water. But this is what I very much **DO** believe: When there are serious, scientifically valid questions about adverse physical effects of a substance (as their are with fluoride), you’re a moron if you want to put it in the drinking water. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-10-19]
... One thing working in the conspiracy theorists' favor is the fact (discovered by reputable scientists with expertise in the subject and no conflict of interest, and independently verified) that the dust from the buildings contained bits of high-tech thermite. Not your everyday garage variety, either, but real high-tech stuff that is usually only available to government and military.
... there is documented, solid and confirmed evidence, by university scientists, that not only was there thermite, it was of a particular, restricted commercial variety. ... The 9/11 Commission report is nothing but a joke. The later NIST report ignores many important factors. ... burning jet fuel cannot "melt" structural steel. It's not even remotely hot enough. It's not even hot enough to seriously weaken it. But don't take my word for it. Regarding the thermite: see my reply and the link I provided a few comments up. Unless you are qualified to refute reputable experts in the field, then the fact remains that it is well-established that not only thermite, but a particular BRAND of thermite, was present in quantity. ... jet fuel does not burn anywhere near that hot. If you can melt a section of 12" steel I-beam with any quantity of jet fuel you want to use -- type A or B, I don't care -- I will personally lobby to get you the Nobel Prize. ... blah blah blah [Jane Q. Public, 2012-06-15]
... there are truckloads of good evidence re: 9/11, yet most people just shrugged it off.
... Like university researchers (not crackpot nobodies) finding specialized, high-tech thermite in dust from 3 different locations. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-04-23]
This is very interesting. There is A LOT of evidence contradicting government accounts of 9/11. consensus911.org/the-911-consen... [Lonny Eachus, 2013-08-11]
Hint: rabidly claiming that Obama was born elsewhere is what makes somebody a "birther". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]
In True Scotsman style, you can't be a "birther" unless you have rabies. Except you've previously implied that what makes someone a "birther" is claiming Obama's birth certificate is fake:
I was not a "birther". But I might have been... I thought the President had already proven his birth situation. Apparently not. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]
I was not a "birther". But now I am tempted. Apparently there is pretty good evidence that Obama's new birth certificate is fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]
I have to admit: most of my doubts are now gone. The President's birth certificate (shown so prominently on Oprah) is a fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]
Now, look. I'm not trying to say that Obama was not born in the United States. However, the preponderance of the evidence does suggest that. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]
The publisher's website said Obama was born in Kenya until 2 months AFTER he announced he was running for President. exm.nr/LksgJ9 [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]
... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]
Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]
Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]
... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]
That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]
... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake?
... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]
Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]
... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]
... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]
One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]
Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]
I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]
... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]
... I don't claim that he's not a citizen. I have claimed that all the evidence we have strongly suggests that his documents are forgeries.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]
... I did not say Obama was born in a foreign land.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]
Now, look. I'm not trying to say that Obama was not born in the United States. However, the preponderance of the evidence does suggest that. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]
... I do not pretend to know where Obama was or was not born.
... I don't claim Obama is not an American. I'm just saying that the White House, for reasons of its own, has put up a faked document. ... that does not in itself prove he's not an American citizen. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-09]
The publisher's website said Obama was born in Kenya until 2 months AFTER he announced he was running for President. exm.nr/LksgJ9 [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]
Obama's "Birth Certificate" lists race as African. In 1961, it would have said "Negro". The word "African" was not used to describe race. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]
I was not a "birther". But I might have been... I thought the President had already proven his birth situation. Apparently not. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]
I was not a "birther". But now I am tempted. Apparently there is pretty good evidence that Obama's new birth certificate is fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]
I have to admit: most of my doubts are now gone. The President's birth certificate (shown so prominently on Oprah) is a fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]
"[the real question is] not the sanity of the "birthers", but why the President did not produce his birth certificate long ago." [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]
No, the real question is the sanity of the birthers. But my favorite is Jane/Lonny Eachus's 9/11 Truther conspiracy theory.
... since you mention power... are you sure you don't have your units confused somewhere? But oops... I told you I wouldn't give you any more hints.
... I know they [the PSI Slayers] will (quite correctly) tear your arguments to shreds, and I even know how they'll do it. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]
... I know where you're making at least one mistake, but I already told you that you're going to have to discover it on your own. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-07]
It's fascinating that you'd wrongly implied my previous calculations had units confused somewhere, but haven't pointed out the actual units confusion in the eq. 4 I posted yesterday.
I made a mistake by forgetting to divide by the 1mm thickness "x" of the enclosing shell:
electricity = k*(T_h - T_c)/x (Eq. 4)
Here's the corrected Sage worksheet; the old wrong worksheet is here. I'm sorry for any confusion this caused, and I've corrected the equation at Dumb Scientist.
The corrected temperatures with the aluminum enclosing shell are so close to those with the superconducting shell that the differences don't show up with the four significant figures I'm using. So my original thermal superconductor approximation was even more accurate than I thought.
"... non-person... disingenuous and intended to mislead
Jane, instead of typing all those charming statements, have you considered that it might be quicker and easier to just write down the equation describing conservation of energy around the heated plate at equilibrium? You'd quickly see that adding a passive enclosing plate reduces the net heat flow out, which warms the heated plate.
"Jesus, you're a dumbshit.
Again, your telepathy isn't working correctly. I don't think you're being stupid. I just think you either haven't thought deeply enough about the equation describing conservation of energy at equilibrium, or that you've betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
That's why I wanted to stress that admitting mistakes isn't the end of the world. I just admitted a mistake in my most recent calculation, and I'm okay. In fact, one way to convince posterity that you're honestly confused rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation would be to show that you have the courage to stop being wrong.
"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest." -- Anonymous [Lonny Eachus, 2013-09-27]
... Pathetic. You've tried to argue with people who really matter (I don't claim to be one of them, but I've seen it a number of times) and you've come out the loser in every case. Even if you had the courage (haha... that's a laugh) of your convictions, you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-27]
... since you mention power... are you sure you don't have your units confused somewhere? But oops... I told you I wouldn't give you any more hints. It is now triply hilarious to me that now I have stopped guiding you by the nose through this problem, you have turned hostile and ad-hominem again. Why do you need my guidance?
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]
You either need guidance, or you've betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
... Regarding your calculations: you're making mistakes that others have already made -- and which have subsequently been shot down -- when trying to refute Latour. I could point a couple of them out now, but I'm not going to. This was amusing at first but I'm done babysitting you. You really need to do your homework. I know you think you're right. But among other things, you're conflating... oops but I said I wouldn't do that. So good bye. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]
You won't point out mistakes because you can't.
Jesus, you're a dumbshit. (That's just a statement of opinion. But an honest one.) I told you before I'm not going to tell you why you're wrong. But here's another hint you don't deserve: I don't dispute your Equation 1, and never have (in a hypothetical ideal context, that is). You're just applying it in a way that doesn't actually apply.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-20]
You won't point out how this simple equation 1 doesn't apply because you can't.
Oh, hell. I'll just give it away, since you're being such a dumbass (my opinion). Among other mistakes, you're making the same one that Watts did when he tried to refute Latour. I have noticed a couple of other mistakes, but that by itself shows you are wrong. [Jane Q. Public]
You won't point out other mistakes because you can't.
... your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck. Here's another hint: I have told you several times where you're wrong, but you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid. Go where this has been debated before if you want your answers. Because you keep demanding them from me even though you were too goddamned stupid to realize that I gave you the clue a long time ago. No more replies. I am through. Again. [Jane Q. Public]
Again, I'd rather not go to that pedophile's website and debate with a child rapist. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.
Why did you wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? If you actually understand how conservation of energy at equilibrium works, then you must be able to recognize that enclosing a heated plate warms it. So why do you keep insisting otherwise? Do you need physics lessons, or have you betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation?
I have done nothing of the sort. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-20]
This is one reason why "conversations" with you are so stressful and unproductive. As usual, you're either lying or suffering from premature dementia. Of course you claimed the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures (power in = power out) is irrelevant. Of course you've wrongly insisted that enclosing a heated plate doesn't warm it.
Which is it? Have you betrayed humanity by lying and deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation, or are you suffering from premature dementia? Sadly, the result isn't too different either way.
"... non-person... disingenuous and intended to mislead
"Jesus, you're a dumbshit.
Getting on the road for Burning Man. Probably won't get another chance to check in. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you if you want to continue the dialogue, but I probably won't be able to respond for two weeks.
Why would you think the experiment has changed? Of course it's still in vacuum. It's the same experiment I described here, based on Dr. Spencer's description of the passive plate enclosing the heated plate. Maybe you should read it again, then explain why you think it just changed.
I've repeatedly explained that net heat flows from the electrical heater to the heated plate, to the enclosing shell. I've repeatedly explained that adding the enclosing shell reduces the net heat flow away from the heated plate, which warms it. I've explained that your bizarre focus on the exact final outer temperature of the enclosing shell relative to the initial temperature of the heated plate is completely irrelevant to the fact that enclosing the heated plate warms it.
The only way you'll be able to understand this is if you write down the equation governing equilibrium temperature. That's why I did that for you. If you still insist that the heated plate doesn't warm when it's enclosed, then write down the equation that you think describes the equilibrium temperature of the heated plate after the enclosing shell is added. If your equation is different than mine, explain why.
As long as you keep insisting that the heated plate doesn't warm when the passive enclosing plate is added, my argument is with you, so I'll keep asking you why you're spreading this civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
Why did you wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? If you actually understand how conservation of energy at equilibrium works, then you must be able to recognize that enclosing a heated plate warms it. So why do you keep insisting otherwise? Do you need physics lessons, or have you betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation?
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken
