Originally posted by @humyDoes it do any useful work as far as removing heat load from a specific area?
-along with every atmospheric physicist, we believe, for good reason, some of the heat is radiated directly to space, yes.
It is a well known undisputed scientific fact that some, not all, heat from surfaces (water included) does radiated directly to outer space. This happens mainly when there is little cloud as cloud tends to partly block it. I have s ...[text shortened]... e air above. Without the pump the resulting cold water in the panel won't go where it is needed.
4 edits
Originally posted by @joe-shmoyes. The panel on the roof and, with the pump on, also the interior of the building. In effect, it is a heat transporting system that transports heat from inside the building to outer space.
Does it do any useful work as far as removing heat load from a specific area?
7 edits
Originally posted by @humyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#/media/File:NASA_earth_energy_budget.gif
-along with every atmospheric physicist, we believe, for good reason, some of the heat is radiated directly to space, yes.
It is a well known undisputed scientific fact that some, not all, heat from surfaces (water included) does radiated directly to outer space. This happens mainly when there is little cloud as cloud tends to partly block it. I have s ...[text shortened]... pump the resulting cold water in the panel won't go where it is needed which is in the building.
"some" you got me there. A whopping 6% of all IR is directly radiated to space. Do you think this is the dominant mode of heat transfer for this device, or is it more likely the 64% radiated by clouds and atmosphere that is driving it?
Me: "What is the water giving its heat off to?"
humy: "-outer space."
Me: "Directly so - it does not"
humy: "yes it does."
According to NASA (with this statement) you are wrong by a factor of 10.7:1
Originally posted by @humyI meant without the pump?
yes. The panel on the roof and, with the pump on, also the interior of the building. In effect, it is a heat transporting system that transports heat from inside the building to outer space.
Originally posted by @joe-shmoI imagine they could use convective pumping using heat pipes perhaps, no electricity needed in that case.
"That tiny amount of electric used for the pump is not what causes the the actual cooling and that pump could be run on non-electric sources of energy. That's obviously what they meant by the cooling system not using electricity (no electricity used for the actual cooling element) thus it is no lie."
Does it cool anything without that pump?
Originally posted by @humyMy point is the effect is predominantly driven by convection, not direct radiation to deep space. It's doubtful the 6% alone would be noticible, when the 70% only produces a temperature differential of a few degrees.
and that 6% is all that is needed for this cooling system to do some cooling.
3 edits
Originally posted by @joe-shmoin what sense "doubtful" when we very clearly observed it to be noticable!?
It's doubtful the 6% alone would be noticible,
That 6% is observed to be enough to make noticable cooling in a cooling system and also observed to cause frost pockets etc. It is "noticable".
Reminder of that;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_cooling
"...The same radiative cooling mechanism can sometimes cause frost or black ice to form on surfaces exposed to the clear night sky, even when the ambient temperature does not fall below freezing....
Cool roofs combine high optical reflectance with high infrared emissivity, thereby simultaneously reducing heat transfer from the sun and increasing heat removal through radiation. Radiative cooling thus offers immense potential for supplementary passive cooling to residential and commercial buildings.....
In India before the invention of artificial refrigeration technology, ice making by nocturnal cooling was common. The apparatus consisted of a shallow ceramic tray with a thin layer of water, placed outdoors with a clear exposure to the night sky. The bottom and sides were insulated with a thick layer of hay. On a clear night the water would lose heat by radiation upwards. Provided the air was calm and not too far above freezing, heat gain from the surrounding air by convection was low enough to freeze the water
"
-that is "noticable" by any definition of that word.
5 edits
Originally posted by @humyThe cooling mechanism of this device is the creation ( by way of visible light reflection) of a localized cool region under the ultra reflective surface to which heat can flow from the load.
in what sense "doubtful" when we very clearly observed it to be noticable!?
That 6% is observed to be enough to make noticable cooling in a cooling system and also observed to cause frost pockets etc. It is "noticable".
Reminder of that;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_cooling
"...The same radiative cooling mechanism can sometimes cause frost ...[text shortened]... ow enough to [b]freeze the water
"
-that is "noticable" by any definition of that word.[/b]
It is not a special surface that radiates IR directly to space at a greater rate or converts IR into visible light to be radiated through the atmosphere without absorption! The IR that is absorbed into that cool region is leaving that surface in the same way that ALL IR leaves the Earth. 64% through atmospheric radiation ( through which the atmosphere warms), and 6% to deep space (through which the atmosphere is unaffected).
The amount of IR absorbed in the atmosphere is independent of the surface which is emitting the IR. Why are you not understanding this?
3 edits
Originally posted by @joe-shmoI think you might misunderstand depending on whether I correctly interpret that statement; it isn't "by way of visible light reflection". It reflecting light is not what causes the cooling but rather is necessary to avoid heating via light absorption; if that what you are saying here?
The cooling mechanism of this device is the creation ( by way of visible light reflection)
It is not a special surface that radiates IR directly to space at a greater rate
what has that got to do with it?
or converts IR into visible light
who said/implied this?
The amount of IR absorbed in the atmosphere is independent of the surface which is emitting the IR.
IR conducted and convection or IR radiation absorbed?
It is important to consider each without confusing one with the other to properly understand.
OK;
Do you deny or dispute the evidence of radiative sky cooling effect in the links I have shown? Do you deny this well-documented and measured natural physical cooling effect is real?
If so, do you want be to show you references to the evidence in the links yet again? -did you not understand what was in those links?
If not, then do you dispute there can be a cooling system that uses this known cooling effect? In short, exactly what is your point of contention here? -this is what I don't understand.
Originally posted by @humyHoly hell... I give up.
I think you might misunderstand; it isn't "by way of visible light reflection". It reflecting light is not what causes the cooling but rather is necessary to avoid heating via light absorption.
🙄
Originally posted by @humyOK;
I think you might misunderstand depending on whether I correctly interpret that statement; it isn't "by way of visible light reflection". It reflecting light is not what causes the cooling but rather is necessary to avoid heating via light absorption; if that what you are saying here?
[quote] It is not a special surface that radiates IR directly to space at ...[text shortened]... fect? In short, exactly what is your point of contention here? -this is what I don't understand.
"Do you deny or dispute the evidence of radiative sky cooling effect in the links I have shown?" - No
"Do you deny this well-documented and measured natural physical cooling effect is real?" - No
"In short, exactly what is your point of contention here? -this is what I don't understand."
My contention:
Before I had given it much though I asked: What is the water giving its heat off to?
To which you replied: "- outer space"
I replied: "Directly so - it does not." - This is not a completely accurate statement appx. 6% is Directly radiated to deep space...my bad.
To which you replied: "yes it does" - This is also not an accurate statement ( and much less accurate I might add) as appx. 64% of its heat is indirectly radiated to space ( via atmospheric warming)...that is your bad.
I ask you a simple question. Which is greater 6% or 64%? Which mode of heat transfer has the greater bearing on the effectiveness of the technology?
5 edits
Originally posted by @joe-shmothe OP cooling system relies 100% on that 6% for the cooling effect and that 6% is the only bit relevant here for it to work because it is only that part it uses. I did earlier repeatedly use the word "some" so it isn't as if you wouldn't know I knew this.
To which you replied: "yes it does" - This is also not an accurate statement ( and much less accurate I might add) as appx. 64% of its heat is [b]indirectly radiated to space[/b]
Which is greater 6% or 64%? Which mode of heat transfer has the greater bearing on the effectiveness of the technology?
the '6% one' as the other doesn't help here.
5 edits
Originally posted by @humylets go over a few things.
the OP cooling system relies 100% on that 6% for the cooling effect and that 6% is the only bit relevant here for it to work because it is only that part it uses. I did earlier repeatedly use the word "some" so it isn't as if you wouldn't know I knew this.Which is greater 6% or 64%? Which mode of heat transfer has the greater bearing on the effectiveness of the technology?
the '6% one' as the other doesn't help here.
In order for this to work all the heat from the load has to leave the system. Agree/ Disagree?
All the heat from the load is IR. Agree/Disagree?
IR is IR is IR. Agree/Disagree?
According to NASA only 6% of IR is directly radiated to space without being absorbed by the atmosphere. Agree/Disagree?
If its too cool to give off its heat by conduction/convection with its surroundings ( which may be plausible) it is giving off nearly 100% of its heat (IR) as radiation. Agree/Disagree?
The percentage of IR radiation absorbed by the atmosphere is dependent on the temperature differential between the emitter and the absorber and the properties of the absorber. Agree/Disagree?
Again, IR is IR is IR. Agree/Disagree?
Where is the other 94% of the IR being radiated to?
That is, what makes IR radiation from this object so special that 100% is radiated directly to space, as opposed to the average 6%?