 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » A Thermodynamically Valid Equation of Greenhouse... |
|
Page 6 of 14 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 12, 13, 14 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 7:49 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
Really? What did I take out of context"
go back to the thread you chopped from and find out. The amazing thig
is you are so lazy that wont post science, you just post bs over and
over again blaming others for your ignorance, now you are too lazy to
go back and see what you snipped. One thing you are not hiding, is
how stupid you really are. Now show the known properties of "green
house gasses" or gases that transmit visible light, but absorb and
reemit infrared energy (that includes and is not limited to their
quantum properties, molar heat capacities etc...), no excuse show the
information... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 7:49 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 10:08 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:00 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Claudius Denk:
You are such a desperate retard you have to hide the subject line.
Columbiawhackoinvestigation:
dude, you are so desperate that you had to cut and snip this thread
from another, taking my words out of context, all in an attempt to
excuse your idiocy.
Claudius Denk:
Really? What did I take out of context. Your behavior proves that
you have something to hide.
***** Repost *****
Columbiawhackoinvestigation:
Given the extensive science that has been done in the world of
quantum
mechanics, molar heat capacities, spectroscopy all since woods
experiment, don’t you think you are on thin ice by stating the
question in the manner you have.
Timothy Casey
You are never on thin ice by stating a question, unless people have
something
to hide.
None of the science I've seen adresses the question and a
thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties is non-existant. If someone
can
prove me wrong without violating the laws of thermodynamics
(particularly
Kirchhoff's Law), I'd be truly delighted.
Claudius Denk:
AGW advocates have everything to hide. Not only do they refuse to
attempt to achieve a valid equation of greenhouse properties but they
refuse to define what a greenhouse property is. By keeping it
informal and vague they can pretend that they have a sound scientific
hypothesis when really all they have is amorphous nonsense.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 7:57 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 7:49 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
Really? What did I take out of context"
go back to the thread you chopped from and find out.
[/quote]
I wouldn't pretend to compete with your imagination. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 9:06 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
I wouldn't pretend to compete"
just stop there, dont bother because you know you are a loser, now run
along.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 9:08 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 9:06 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
I wouldn't pretend to compete"
just stop there, dont bother because you know you are a loser, now run
along....
[/quote]
You should find a hobby that doesn't involve complex things, like
facts. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 9:28 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 9:08 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 9:06 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
I wouldn't pretend to compete"
just stop there, dont bother because you know you are a loser, now run
along....
You should find a hobby that doesn't involve complex things, like
facts.
[/quote]
crushing trolls like you isnt a hobby, its more like relaxation, now
run along.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JohnM... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 2:42 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[quote]"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in messagenews:4318f270-c3de-4faa-beef-e58037479c35 at (no spam) r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 10:27 pm, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey"... and without the equation, you can't falsify
those greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific."
.>so you really had not question at all, it was a lame attempt to make a
point.
.
Not necessarily.
If I get what I ask for, I get something useful and my point is then one of
gratitude.
If I do not get what I ask for, there is obviously a point to be made about
the nature of science, considering the abundance of rather confident claims
that greenhouse "theory" is indeed scientific.
.
In this case:
1. I ask for the equation.
2. I get no equation.
3. Ergo, the associated theory is untestable,
4. and therefore the associated theory is unscientific.
Q.E.D.
[/quote]
Except your conclusion is based on a non-sequitur. Because you ask
for, but don't receive, an equation to describe a piece of science
does not falsify the hypothesis. Hypothesis testing can be undertaken
without involvement of algebra or associated mathematics. Hand me a
"philosopher's stone" and I'll destroy the hypothesis in a second by
touching it to a piece of lead. The metal's failure to change colour
shows transmutation to gold has not taken place. And the theory was a
valid scientific theory, too, because it was testable.
[quote]This is a point well worth making if nobody is willing or able to give up
the equation. The requirement of Karl Popper's falsifiability is far from
lame. Science is based on it; so is engineering.
[/quote]
Science is based on no such thing. Sir Karl tells us a hypothesis can
never be proved, merely made more robust by continued failure to
falsify it. The continual failure to falsify the central tenet of AGW,
that GHGs slow the flux of I/R to space, actually strengthens the
hypothesis every time denialists open their mouths here on alt.g-w
without delivering the fatal blow.
Science is based on the strength and integrity of its entire
foundation. Creationists are currently finding this out the hard way,
as each of their attempts to find an explanation for 'Biology' always
fails to interlock at some point with the vast body of interdependent
knowledge in that discipline.
[quote]Everything useful is based on principles that can be tested in the real
world. Pretend sciences are based on things that cannot be tested in the
real world. Every fraud is based to some degree on pretend science and the
acceptance of untestable propositions. If you were an investigator, surely
you would understand this first principle of "Trust AND verify" - and the
fact that evidence speaks more truthfully than experts.
.
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software:http://software-1011.com;Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Securityhttp://web-design-1011.comhttp://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology:http://geologist-1011.com;http://geologist-1011.net[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 2:20 pm, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 2:42 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in messagenews:4318f270-c3de-4faa-beef-e58037479c35 at (no spam) r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 10:27 pm, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey"... and without the equation, you can't falsify
those greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific."
.>so you really had not question at all, it was a lame attempt to make a
point.
.
Not necessarily.
If I get what I ask for, I get something useful and my point is then one of
gratitude.
If I do not get what I ask for, there is obviously a point to be made about
the nature of science, considering the abundance of rather confident claims
that greenhouse "theory" is indeed scientific.
.
In this case:
1. I ask for the equation.
2. I get no equation.
3. Ergo, the associated theory is untestable,
4. and therefore the associated theory is unscientific.
Q.E.D.
Except your conclusion is based on a non-sequitur. Because you ask
for, but don't receive, an equation to describe a piece of science
does not falsify the hypothesis.
[/quote]
Brilliant!
BTW, it does make it non-falsifyable. And if it's non-falsifyable it
ain't science.
Funny how that works.
[quote]Hypothesis testing can be undertaken
without involvement of algebra or associated mathematics.
[/quote]
Irrelevant.
[quote]Hand me a
"philosopher's stone" and I'll destroy the hypothesis in a second by
touching it to a piece of lead. The metal's failure to change colour
shows transmutation to gold has not taken place. And the theory was a
valid scientific theory, too, because it was testable.
[/quote]
Uh . . er, you lost me.
[quote]This is a point well worth making if nobody is willing or able to give up
the equation. The requirement of Karl Popper's falsifiability is far from
lame. Science is based on it; so is engineering.
Science is based on no such thing.
[/quote]
You are wrong.
[quote]Sir Karl tells us a hypothesis can
never be proved, merely made more robust by continued failure to
falsify it. The continual failure to falsify the central tenet of AGW,
[/quote]
First it has to be falsifyable, dumbass.
[quote]that GHGs slow the flux of I/R to space, actually strengthens the
hypothesis every time denialists open their mouths here on alt.g-w
without delivering the fatal blow.
Science is based on the strength and integrity of its entire
foundation.
[/quote]
You are scientifically illiterate.
[quote]Creationists are currently finding this out the hard way,
as each of their attempts to find an explanation for 'Biology' always
fails to interlock at some point with the vast body of interdependent
knowledge in that discipline.
[/quote]
Creationism is a perfect example. Creationism is nonfalsifiable, like
AGW theory.
[quote]Everything useful is based on principles that can be tested in the real
world. Pretend sciences are based on things that cannot be tested in the
real world. Every fraud is based to some degree on pretend science and the
acceptance of untestable propositions. If you were an investigator, surely
you would understand this first principle of "Trust AND verify" - and the
fact that evidence speaks more truthfully than experts.
.
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software:http://software-1011.com;ScientificIQ Test, Web Menus, Securityhttp://web-design-1011.comhttp://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology:http://geologist-1011.com;http://geologist-1011.net- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
You don't get it. First a hypothesis has to be falsifyable. Then it
has to tested. If it fails to be refuted it, eventually, becomes a
theory. But if it can never achieve falsifyability it can never be
tested and can never be a valid scientific theory. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Timothy Casey... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigation at (no spam) yahoo.com>
wrote in message
news:6f785d6c-b90b-4822-a076-4d161ff5c30a at (no spam) 37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
..
[quote]So you cited the woods experiment, so now why dont you catch up and
show the experiments that show the known quantum properties & molar
heat capacities of properties of "green house gasses" or gases that
transmit visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared energy. Asking
the question, does not excuse you from doing your own work...
..[/quote]
Been there done that:
Ullman's Encyclopaedia of Industrial Chemistry. Ever heard of it?
The fifth edition has heat capacities and thermal conductivity with
exception of thermal conductivity for Ozone. Who needs dodgy conjectures
when published measurments will suffice!
..
That still leaves emissivities.
..
Oh, and so sorry, I forgot to remind you that your ad hominem doesn't answer
the question - whatever that was. Satisfied? Too bad - it came back to me...
....and the subject line!
..
Gonna do your psychic thing with me? You know - like you did with Bill. Give
in to temptation - tell me: what am I thinking?
..
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software: http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JohnM... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 5:59 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 2:20 pm, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Nov 1, 2:42 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in messagenews:4318f270-c3de-4faa-beef-e58037479c35 at (no spam) r24g2000yqd..googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 10:27 pm, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey"... and without the equation, you can't falsify
those greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific."
.>so you really had not question at all, it was a lame attempt to make a
point.
.
Not necessarily.
If I get what I ask for, I get something useful and my point is then one of
gratitude.
If I do not get what I ask for, there is obviously a point to be made about
the nature of science, considering the abundance of rather confident claims
that greenhouse "theory" is indeed scientific.
.
In this case:
1. I ask for the equation.
2. I get no equation.
3. Ergo, the associated theory is untestable,
4. and therefore the associated theory is unscientific.
Q.E.D.
Except your conclusion is based on a non-sequitur. Because you ask
for, but don't receive, an equation to describe a piece of science
does not falsify the hypothesis.
Brilliant!
[/quote]
Thanks.
<snip> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Brown... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Timothy Casey wrote:
[quote]"JohnM" <john_howard_morgan at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da6d337b-5f5f-4372-a46a-ff4723c233cc at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Did nobody explain to you that GHGs possess the properties they have
because of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps you should read up a bit -
unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.
.
That might well be true. No doubt they have these properties because of
the values of the constants of the universe, because of the conservation
of matter and energy, and also because of thermodynamics; but that does
not answer the question does it?
.
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
[/quote]
I suspect the equation you seek is a variant of Schwarzchild's equation
for radiative transfer in a non-scattering medium. A fairly good basic
introductory treatment of it is online at Oxford University, UK:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation.
BTW Don't let the cover page put you off.
It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
Regards,
Martin Brown |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JohnM... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 2:39 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]Timothy Casey wrote:
"JohnM" <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da6d337b-5f5f-4372-a46a-ff4723c233cc at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com....
[SNIP]
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Did nobody explain to you that GHGs possess the properties they have
because of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps you should read up a bit -
unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.
.
That might well be true. No doubt they have these properties because of
the values of the constants of the universe, because of the conservation
of matter and energy, and also because of thermodynamics; but that does
not answer the question does it?
.
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
I suspect the equation you seek is a variant of Schwarzchild's equation
for radiative transfer in a non-scattering medium. A fairly good basic
introductory treatment of it is online at Oxford University, UK:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
[/quote]
That's going to take a while to digest! But I doubt Denkipoo will even
try.
[quote]It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation.
BTW Don't let the cover page put you off.
It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
[/quote]
Thanks, Martin. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 12:39 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]Timothy Casey wrote:
"JohnM" <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da6d337b-5f5f-4372-a46a-ff4723c233cc at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com....
[SNIP]
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Did nobody explain to you that GHGs possess the properties they have
because of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps you should read up a bit -
unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.
.
That might well be true. No doubt they have these properties because of
the values of the constants of the universe, because of the conservation
of matter and energy, and also because of thermodynamics; but that does
not answer the question does it?
.
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
I suspect the equation you seek is a variant of Schwarzchild's equation
for radiative transfer in a non-scattering medium. A fairly good basic
introductory treatment of it is online at Oxford University, UK:
[/quote]
Aha! So it's not like the AGW alarmists can claim that the theory
doesn't exists. Right?
[quote]
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation.
BTW Don't let the cover page put you off.
It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
Regards,
Martin Brown
[/quote]
So, Martin, now that you've determined that they underpinnings of the
theory are available online and were found by you with minimal effort
don't you wonder why the AGW alarmist have, it seems, been unable to
find it despite have twenty years and billions of dollars of resources! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 9:03 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 2:39 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Timothy Casey wrote:
"JohnM" <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da6d337b-5f5f-4372-a46a-ff4723c233cc at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com....
[SNIP]
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Did nobody explain to you that GHGs possess the properties they have
because of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps you should read up a bit -
unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.
.
That might well be true. No doubt they have these properties because of
the values of the constants of the universe, because of the conservation
of matter and energy, and also because of thermodynamics; but that does
not answer the question does it?
.
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
I suspect the equation you seek is a variant of Schwarzchild's equation
for radiative transfer in a non-scattering medium. A fairly good basic
introductory treatment of it is online at Oxford University, UK:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
That's going to take a while to digest! But I doubt Denkipoo will even
try.
[/quote]
I saw it. But it's not me you should be concerned with. Keep in
mind, I'm not making any extraordinary claims about impending climatic
disaster. And, in case you've forgotten, in science the burden of
proof lies squarely on the shoulders of those making extraordinary
claims.
Don't let the AGW whackos tell you otherwise.
[quote]It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation.
BTW Don't let the cover page put you off.
It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
Thanks, Martin.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 12:39 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam... at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]Timothy Casey wrote:
"JohnM" <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da6d337b-5f5f-4372-a46a-ff4723c233cc at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com....
[SNIP]
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Did nobody explain to you that GHGs possess the properties they have
because of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps you should read up a bit -
unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.
.
That might well be true. No doubt they have these properties because of
the values of the constants of the universe, because of the conservation
of matter and energy, and also because of thermodynamics; but that does
not answer the question does it?
.
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
I suspect the equation you seek is a variant of Schwarzchild's equation
for radiative transfer in a non-scattering medium. A fairly good basic
introductory treatment of it is online at Oxford University, UK:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/irwin/radlectures/Radiation.pdf
It gathers together most of the relevant physical equations and
transmission graphs for various GHGs into a single presentation.
BTW Don't let the cover page put you off.
It is usually dealt with in the context of stellar atmospheres so a
treatment of the solution of the equation is online at:
http://ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fsa..book/AbookC10.pdf
Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Thanks Martin, here is a link a little older than your sources but I
find it find helpful…
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710021465_1971021465..pdf
"NASA SP-164
THERMAL RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER Volume Ill
Radiation Transfer With Absorbing, Emitting, and Scattering Media
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Robert Siegel and John R. Howell Lewis Research Center Cleveland,
Ohio" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:05 pm
|
|