Sadly, lgw still hasn't objected to Jane's Slayer misinformation even though I gave lgw a generous two days to show that he's a true skeptic. So let's review the basic physics in this thought experiment. A source is heated by constant electrical power inside a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Here's how to use the principle of conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
For a simple example, blackbody cold walls are at 0F (T_c = 255K) and the heated blackbody source is at 150F (T_h = 339K). Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
See? Applying conservation of energy isn't that complicated. In contrast, Jane's incorrect Sky Dragon Slayer equation violates conservation of energy:
My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]
Jane got the very first equation wrong, because Jane refuses to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms.
... pick up a textbook on heat transfer, and see what the accepted, textbook, "consensus" science says about it. Hint: they don't agree with you. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-05]
Once again, mainstream physics is based on conservation of energy. That means power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing.
... I have no obligation -- or reason -- to engage in your game of "No, but you HAVE TO do it this way...". Especially when "mainstream physicists" and textbooks on the subject say I don't. No, I don't have to do it according to your own ill-conceived notions. I already did it, my way... that is to say, the "mainstream physics" way. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]
... My textbooks do agree with Latour about his main point, which is that direct warming of a surface via back-radiation from a cooler atmosphere is impossible, just as Spencer's warming of the only heat source by a cooler passive plate is impossible. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]
Once again, I'm trying to point out that you and the other Slayers misunderstood your textbooks. Electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. "Radiant power output" doesn't. Sky Dragon Slayers have confused two completely different fundamental concepts.
... When I showed him that the mainstream physics, textbook solutions to the temperatures in Spencer's experiment disagreed with his (and Spencer's) conclusions, he hasn't ceased demanding that I solve it a different way of his own devising, which doesn't appear in any textbook on radiative heat transfer, anywhere. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]
Once again, it's not an ill-conceived notion of my own devising. It's a general principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).
Well, the fact is that mainstream textbooks which deal with radiative heat transfer (I have at least 3 of them, maybe 4 if I look around) show Spencer's conclusion about his little gedankeneksperiment to be quite wrong. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]
Once again, Jane just has 4 textbooks that say "radiative power out = (epsilon * sigma)*T^4*area". I bet Jane $100 that his textbooks don't claim that electrical heating power = radiative power out. That's Jane's incorrect Slayer assumption. Even Jane should be able to recognize that his 4 unnamed textbooks don't support him, because deep down even Jane should be able to tell that he's just endlessly blustering to cover up the fact that he can't produce any textbook quotes saying that electrical heating power = radiative power out.
Jane also completely ignores Prof. Grant Petty, Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, and Prof. Steve Carson who also tried to educate a Sky Dragon Slayer. Notice that his eqn 9 with negligibly similar areas is equivalent to my equation, not Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer equation.
Jane, don't you see how absurd it is for you to simultaneously insist that your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is "mainstream physics" while completely ignoring the fact that mainstream physicists are telling you the Sky Dragon Slayers are wrong? Doesn't that self-contradiction bother you even a little bit?
Yep, the guy's at least 800 milli-Timecubes! The interesting thing to me is that Spencer seems to be missing the point. Direct radiative heating of the Earth's surface by CO2 in the atmosphere is a Lie-to-children in the first place, and people who defend it based on religious faith really make themselves look silly. ... [lgw, 2014-12-07]
Like most physicists, I accept that energy is conserved. I'm defending this fundamental principle not because of "religious faith" but because of Noether's first theorem and the fact that our Universe exhibits time translation symmetry. If lgw seriously thinks defending one of the most fundamental principles in physics makes me look silly and at least 80% Timecube, then that says more about lgw than about me.