Seeing The Devils reminded me of how stuffed crocodiles were sometimes hung from the ceilings of churches to symbolize dragons. This seems to have been a 15th-16th century trend.
@h1959837@girthybologna@squeaky2031@MinuteofZombie For your contention to have any meaning whatsoever, the heat transfer formula would not be used in space radiator design, but it is, and you can find the NASA documentation for yourself. Space is treated as a heat sink in practice.
But there is no true vacuum in space, and heat does in fact radiate in space, and it does so following that formula, which reduces to SB when temperature is negligible. Taking what you’re saying to its conclusion would mean there are no heat losses in space, which is objectively false.
You can call space a vacuum, however that doesn’t change what happens in practice. The “transfer” is exactly the power from SB, which is in fact a loss to surroundings. You’re making a semantic argument because I said “transfer” but there is actually no difference here, radiative heat transfer is coupled to the radiation field which is free to permeate.
So you’re arguing that we can’t determine the differences in net heat loss due to black body radiation between an object in space and an object on Earth because space is a pure vacuum at absolute zero? This is ridiculous and untrue. Obviously, as space radiators work.
Net heat loss is derived from SB, when absorption is negligible, it is exactly SB.
@h1959837@girthybologna@squeaky2031@MinuteofZombie You’re making a semantic argument, but in practice there’s not a difference.
Objects radiate heat in space, net heat loss is derived directly from Stephan-Boltzmann. In space T_s ~ CMB temp -> 0 when ^4.
Or do you think those radiators on the ISS were there for aesthetics?
lol? Just because emissivity is one part of the equation doesn’t mean temperature gradient isn’t also part of the equation. Atmospheric scattering modifies the spectrum that can escape but that is on top of the temperature gradient. It absolutely cannot account for the differences in heat loss when in space or Earth alone, nor the majority of it for that matter.
@h1959837@girthybologna@squeaky2031@MinuteofZombie What I mean to say is what I said: radiative cooling is more efficient in space than on Earth, and this is specifically because heat loss approaches full blackbody emission.
@h1959837@girthybologna@squeaky2031@MinuteofZombie You’re making a semantic argument, but in practice there’s not a difference.
Objects radiate heat in space, net heat loss is derived directly from Stephan-Boltzmann. In space T_s ~ CMB temp -> 0 when ^4.
Or do you think those radiators on the ISS were there for aesthetics?
@h1959837@girthybologna@squeaky2031@MinuteofZombie Except objects in space do lose heat efficiently via radiation following the Stefan-Boltzmann law without a dense absorbing medium. Again, this is not new science, and is quite literally the only reason we’re able to have astronauts in space right now.
@girthybologna@squeaky2031@MinuteofZombie This is just objectively false. If only using radiation dissipation, a radiator in space can radiate the same amount of heat as one on Earth but many times smaller.