From: Ray Fischer on
RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>Horrifying how black plastic attracts heat. If you shoot an IR image
>(or even use a bright flash) you can see why.

So you've decided to go to Canon?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Doug McDonald on
On 7/17/2010 8:19 PM, Peter wrote:
> "Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message news:mmj4469l67f7hcf6lvijf880vbglh61io1(a)4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:58:02 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
>> wrote:
>> : "Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message
>> : news:98p346hl4t9752r9774j6db5ioq0b1brjf(a)4ax.com...
>> :
>> : > Rich, did you sleep through high school physics? An object isn't black
>> : > because it absorbs IR; it's black because it absorbs all *other* wavelengths
>> : > and *radiates* in the IR band. That's why if you lay different-colored cloth
>> : > squares on snow, the black square sinks into the snow fastest and the
>> : > white square sinks hardly at all. Canada gets plenty of snow in the
>> : > winter, so they must have showed you that in the seventh grade. Did you
>> : > play hooky that day?
>> :
>> : Uhm! Black is the absence of color.
>>
>> Which is another way of saying that a black object absorbs all visible
>> wavelengths (and reflects none). Which is what I said. Your point is ???
>
>
> Since when does black radiate in any band?
>
>

Since the Big Bang.

Anything radiates if it is hot.

However, a "red hot" piece of silver or aluminum will not radiate
as much as a piece of tungsten at the same temperature, in the visible
region, because they are "whiter", that is, reflect more.

At room temperature the same thing applies, only they radiate
around 10 microns in the IR. This is really true and is why,
for example, the old-fashioned glass Thermos bottles are
silvered on the inside.

The thermodynamic proof of this is one of the classic examples of
physics, and is the obvious (to a physicist) fact that led Hawking
to his Nobel Prize: Black Holes are black, therefore the MUST
radiate.

Doug McDonald

From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
John A <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 21:19:05 -0400, "Peter"

>>Since when does black radiate in any band?

> You've never heard of black body radiation?

Apparently not.

http://www.google.de/search?q=black+body+radiation+definition

Think of a carbon filament lamp. It's black, and if heated
(e.g. electrically) it radiates off heat and some light.

> Heck, even black holes apparently radiate.

Bekenstein-Hawking radiation is a different mechanism, though.

-Wolfgang
From: Robert Coe on
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:51:22 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote:
: John A <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote:
: > On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 21:19:05 -0400, "Peter"
:
: >>Since when does black radiate in any band?
:
: > You've never heard of black body radiation?
:
: Apparently not.
:
: http://www.google.de/search?q=black+body+radiation+definition
:
: Think of a carbon filament lamp. It's black, and if heated
: (e.g. electrically) it radiates off heat and some light.

What makes that a poor example is that black-body radiation doesn't have to be
associated with visible light.

The human body is an excellent black-body radiator. Put a person in a sealed,
lightless room, and the most you'll see is the luminous dial (if any) on his
watch. But look at him through IR-sensitive glasses, and he lights right up.
That phenomenon is the bane of terrorist guerillas sneaking up in the dark to
blow up a target.

Bob
From: Robert Coe on
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 08:18:24 -0500, Doug McDonald
<mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote:
: On 7/17/2010 8:19 PM, Peter wrote:
: > "Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message news:mmj4469l67f7hcf6lvijf880vbglh61io1(a)4ax.com...
: >> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:58:02 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
: >> wrote:
: >> : "Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message
: >> : news:98p346hl4t9752r9774j6db5ioq0b1brjf(a)4ax.com...
: >> :
: >> : > Rich, did you sleep through high school physics? An object isn't black
: >> : > because it absorbs IR; it's black because it absorbs all *other* wavelengths
: >> : > and *radiates* in the IR band. That's why if you lay different-colored cloth
: >> : > squares on snow, the black square sinks into the snow fastest and the
: >> : > white square sinks hardly at all. Canada gets plenty of snow in the
: >> : > winter, so they must have showed you that in the seventh grade. Did you
: >> : > play hooky that day?
: >> :
: >> : Uhm! Black is the absence of color.
: >>
: >> Which is another way of saying that a black object absorbs all visible
: >> wavelengths (and reflects none). Which is what I said. Your point is ???
: >
: >
: > Since when does black radiate in any band?
: >
:
: Since the Big Bang.
:
: Anything radiates if it is hot.
:
: However, a "red hot" piece of silver or aluminum will not radiate
: as much as a piece of tungsten at the same temperature, in the visible
: region, because they are "whiter", that is, reflect more.
:
: At room temperature the same thing applies, only they radiate
: around 10 microns in the IR. This is really true and is why,
: for example, the old-fashioned glass Thermos bottles are
: silvered on the inside.
:
: The thermodynamic proof of this is one of the classic examples of
: physics, and is the obvious (to a physicist) fact that led Hawking
: to his Nobel Prize: Black Holes are black, therefore the MUST
: radiate.

If you're right about that, the Nobel Committee should stop giving prizes in
physics until they get someone on the Committee who knows any. (But we knew
that when they gave one to Albert Gore.)

Black holes are not "black" in the classical sense. They were a theoretical
construct *defined* as emitting nothing at all, not even radiation. They're
called "black" ("unable to radiate in the visible spectrum") because the
English language has no common term for "unable to radiate at all". To turn
around and use that definition to conclude that black holes must radiate
because other "black" objects do is absurd.

What little I know (and it is very little) about the putative radiation of
black holes suggests that the argument is far more subtle and well-reasoned
than what you suggest. The argument may also, by the way, be wrong. No one,
Hawking included, fully understands the ramifications of black holes. Just for
example, note that black hole theory and the current model of the Big Bang are
absolutely contradictory. They can't both be correct, so at least one of them
has to change.

Bob