Again, we'll have to agree to disagree about thermal superconductors. That's why I've repeatedly pointed out that I've already solved [dumbscientist.com] this problem with an aluminum enclosing shell, and it also warms the heated plate (aka Jane's "source") to ~233.8F.
You solved part of the problem, under different conditions, as I have repeatedly pointed out.
Let's get this straight: rather than tackling the actual problem you claimed to have refuted, you solved a different problem under different conditions, and called that refutation.
Even if your analysis of that problem were 100% correct, this is the very definition of a straw-man argument.
So why do you refuse to just take Spencer's original challenge, with two non-enclosing plates (i.e., the challenge I originally presented to you), and simply show me where Latour was wrong about it, as you have so often claimed? After 2 years I can only conclude that you are not able to do it. I don't know of a single other plausible reason why you have refused to do this.
Again, Dr. Spencer's actual, original experiment included the possibility of a fully-enclosing passive plate.
That got a minor mention later in his article, is not included in his diagrams, and is NOT the problem I originally presented to you. As I have said many times before, AFTER you refute Latour's calculations regarding Spencer's original challenge, which did not have the passive body enclosing the heat source, I would be happy to move on to the other issue... with no additional stipulations or additions to the problem Spencer describes. But you haven't gotten there yet. Cart before the horse, with a straw-man riding the cart.
That was the challenge I presented you you. For 2 years now, you have been going far out of your way to do everything BUT that, which leads me to believe that is your new custom definition of "rebut". (I would say that last sentence is a jest, but in fact it is only partly so.)
We can agree that one should solve simpler problems before moving on to more complex problems, but we seem to disagree about which of the scenarios in Dr. Spencer's original experiment is simpler.
That wasn't my point. I'm not saying we should solve simpler problems before moving on to more complex problems. I'm saying the challenge originally given to you is to be met before moving on to something else and claiming it irrelevant. I only wrote that "in a way" it's not simpler. But again that is beside the point, which you appear to be attempting to sidestep again.
Again, solving a problem without spherical symmetry means you'll have to solve for equilibrium temperatures which aren't constant across the heated and passive plates. Those equilibrium temperatures wouldn't be simple numbers. They'd be complicated functions that would vary across the plate surfaces. Contrast that with a spherically symmetric enclosing plate, where equilibrium temperatures are just simple numbers.
I only claimed Latour was correct "with a reasonable degree of precision". He states himself in his original article that these are working approximations used for engineering, which in practice must have minor adjustments made experimentally for final product (when dealing with things like furnaces, which often have complex internal geometry). It's good enough for real world engineering, according to both Latour and the textbooks. So you don't get a pass on that basis, either.
Why don't you just shut up and do it? Why have you been so mightily struggling, like a fish on a hook, to avoid it?
