Bite Sized NIBLETS Number 3: The tungsten lighting filament coil proof
This is the Third in a series of Bite Sized Niblet articles which will quickly and simply deal with a wide array of errors, which the “TALL TALE TEACHERS TELL”, to preach the lies of pretend climate crisis science.
Here we show the public that the Green Climate Con-artist industry is indeed lying to them. How do we do this? By showing that when a coiled lighting filament coil is switched on, the inside of the coil is the same temperature as the outside of the coil. This occurs, despite the inside receiving the full reflections from itself of all the IR and Lighting radiation it is emitting.
What is actually proven to happen in real world of applied science (not the fantasy world of academic climate computer models) is that the inside of the coil is simply brighter (not warmer) due to light reflections.
It is demonstrably shown that the material absorbs reflected light and then instantly re-emits it again, without experiencing an increase in temperature, whilst also emitting the light it would have emitted without the reflections.
This has the effect of increasing the apparent emissivity of that surface from say 0.5 to 0.8 or more. The lower the emissivity, the more potential for improvements in brightness are available due to light reflections and the higher the emissivity the less potential for improvements with 1, black body being the maximum available. When a blackbody material experiences full reflections, no increase in brightness occurs.
For proof you can read this research paper conducted in 1918.
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/bulletin/14/nbsbulletinv14n1p115_A2b.pdf
Yes that’s right, this one example, which is over 100 years old, which is direct proof that back radiant heating as a concept is a total lie and this is one such demonstration which shows that. This experiment not only compared the inside of the coiled filament with the outside, it also was compared with a straight filament.
Here is a picture of the type of helical loop which was investigated in the experiment, you can actually see the increase in brightness from inside the loops quite clearly. This increase being due to light reflections.
This picture, from the same study explains more:
The aforementioned study mentions that the temperature difference between the outside and the inside of the coil is but 1 degree and that the differences under most unfavourable conditions did not exceed 5 degrees at 2900 Kelvin; whereas an increase in temperature of 200 degrees would be needed to explain the increased brightness.
Such an increase in temperature also shifts the shortwave blue maximum emissions upwards along the black body curve which is not observed to occur.
“This would shift the maximum emission by the amount of 0.06/x to 0.09/x toward the short wave lengths as compared with the maximum of the radiation from the outside of the turn. Such a large shift has not been observed.”
“These data appear to furnish conclusive proof that the phenomenon of increased brightness within the helical filament can be accounted for by multiple reflections within the helix. A slight blackening of the radiation may be produced by crimping in case the filament is wound upon a small mandrel, but there is little or no evidence that the temperature within the helix is higher than on the outside of the turn of the wire. While the increased radiation from within the helix can be accounted for on the basis of multiple reflection, the quality of the radiation in the infra-red is quite different from that of a black body at the same temperature. “
The conclusion is the most interesting take home point:
“There is no indication that the temperature within the helix is higher than on the outside of the turn. A difference in temperature of 200 would be required to account for the observed differ- ence in brightness of 90 per cent, whereas pyrometric, thermal conductivity and other measurements place this temperature dif- ference at less than 5 .”
So there we have it. If you have a material like tungsten which we use in lights to emit IR and light – coiled so that it reflects that IR energy upon itself – NO INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE FROM BACK RADIANCE OCCURS, when compared to straight filament or the outside of the coil.
The absence of any ‘back radiant heating’ is a death blow to the consensus Radiative Greenhouse Effect theory. It is shown to be false by real-world applied science examples such as the above. As such, any so-called ‘expert’ having knowledge of such facts and who insists the theory is still valid is quite simply a FRAUD! Oh and this has been known about for over 100 years, if you have a “TALL TALE TEACHER” telling you the lies of radiation greenhouse effect, you might want to ask them to explain this.
About the author: Geraint Hughes is an independent British climate researcher and experimental scientist who has written Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Zoe Phin
| #
Nice job, Geraint.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Geraint,
Thank you for this — I loved reading the 1918 paper!
“…light from some parts of the inside of the filament is highly polarized, indicating that the quality of the light is quite different from that of a black body.” Well, reflecting alone can polarize light (not off a cold metal though), while “yellow-hot” tungsten may not behave as such — so there may not be any need for absorption and re-emission of that portion of light after all… Just a thought; and I would love to instigate an investigation into that.
I wish that we could wake up from this plandemic/scamdemic just like from a bad dream and we could go on to (re)discovering of our world again…
JaKo
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
“the temperature difference between the outside and the inside of the coil is but 1 degree”
Meaning that the conductive flux from inside to outside it very tiny, thereby proving (by analogy) that geothermal heat flux is an irrelevant measure and should never be compared to insolation and excluded from energy budget.
http://phzoe.com/2020/02/20/two-theories-one-ideological-other-verified/
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Hi Geraint, I have enjoyed reading your niblets. The theoretical physics and mechanisms underlying how in theory extra greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere cause global or ocean warming has always eluded me. Your niblets help me understand it better by demonstrating that radiative heating is an unlikely option. So if I am in a warm pub drinking a cold beer, then I know the beer is predominately warming due to convective(?) not radiative heat transfer. It is interesting that the IPCC climate models predict more tropospheric warming than is observed (0.2 C modeled per decade vs 0.1 C observed). My ultimate take on that is that the oceans are heating by 0.1 C per decade, and they are convectively heating the atmosphere rather than vice versa. But – in IPCC theory – the extra greenhouse gasses cause the heat capacity (?) of the troposphere to increase, warming the atmosphere which then convectively (?) warms the oceans, something which to me makes no sense as a global warming mechanism as the energy balance doesn’t work. Are there any other heating mechanisms that IPCC claim are operative?
Reply
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
Anyone have a link to Joe Olson’s fauxscienceslayer my browser must be censuring it.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi C Bigfoot,
None of my browsers on three different platforms could find the server/IP address:
fauxscienceslayer may not be active…
JaKo
Reply
geraint hughes
| #
Thanks guys for comments. No 4 should be in a few weeks time.
Reply