Honestly, still my hero! but, at the scale you are working with, you will have a really hard time with controlling the experiment.
The logistics of getting accurate measurements is going to do your head in really quickly. I am all for it but I suggest a really good set of welders gloves.
So roughly it will go up a bit but not a ton… wondering how to figure out what the theoretical would be.
I think according to the Quantumville math it should be much more than 200 watt equivalent, like 400 or even more. So maybe I could measure how hot it gets uncovered with higher energy rating and we see if it’s close …
Tricky tho there’s so many variables. Hard to design good experiment
I am not in anyway trying to rain on your parade. I just spent the last week fantasising about an IR detector and a virtual model.
I wonder if there is indeed a Nobel Prize in this somehow?
Experimentally, what we want is to leverage unsuspecting data. Data from sources which are in no way connected with “climate science”.
I am thinking of geology, various data available behind “pay walls”.
My son, being a uni student, can get to all those papers which are otherwise not available on the net (abstracts only stuff).
I spoke with him about formulating a question for the climatology professors. Something innocent.
The basics are pretty simple, there is no such thing as free energy.
The question is whether the starting point is -18c.
That’s the entire issue, right there.
All of the other numbers depend on this being factual. They are either “fudging” all of the data to match this starting point, or are being absolute asshats in not providing the experimental results.
I am loathed to say it, but I am now 95% convinced there are no experimental results.
I wasn’t trying to build a thesis, so I didn’t save any links or references; however, watching a video on a young scientist explain how there is only two validation stations on the entire continent of Africa, and they have otherwise found satellite data to be up to 20c OUT from actual ground measurements…
I just about spontaneously combusted.
Not at all! The reason I made the thread is to find any issues with the experiment. I want it to actually mean something when I do it. If the answer wouldn’t change anything then no reason to do it and I’ll return all the equipment or something
Oh , you already bought it!
Props.
I would say to run the experiment exactly how you envision it.
Then, like a good scientist, see what can be improved.
I think, you will have issues with the scale you are working at.
However, with that equipment, you can devise other experiments.
Either that, or you are going to have some wonderful chicken dinners very soon.
You just upped the ante, now I am either going to have to plant that tree in the back yard, or but an IR detector…
Or both.
Ah so it may be similar to an actual greenhouse in that with “Open” it’s losing heat due to convection, so the surface will get hotter once it’s covered because no longer losing that heat. If that is the case then I would expect adding the foil to not do anything since the convection effect should already be ‘full’ by then …
I might have posted this in the wrong thread. Will the administrators detach my post in a new topic? Claudio, I’ll get to your comment soon.
Yes, @lexej. Done.
Your post and @claudiu’s answer have been moved to the existing topic Global warming/climate change
Please write your subsequent comments there (of course, you can continue commenting here about this other topic). I will then delete the post with your request (“I might have posted this in the wrong thread…”)
Hey @claudiu ,
Now you have the IR sensor, I am going to get one too.
And I am going to plant the tree I said I would in celebration of finally doing the wondering Richard talked about.
I reckon we can indeed have some fun.
Hah came up with an even simpler one
Take a metal rod and run a current through it such that it gets to say 50C. Keep the energy input constant.
Now take the same rod and wrap it in many layers of aluminum foil which reflects 95% of IR light. Run the same current through it.
Quantumville math says it will end up with 20x more power input such that the aluminum foil itself gets to 50C (as it absorbs only 5% of the IR energy it takes that much more). The metal rod will get ridiculously hotter (same as running 20x of the energy through it).
Might be off a few multiples, maybe 5x or 10x. But still the back radiation should get it up way more!
Common sense says … it’ll stay at about 50C won’t it??? 
EDIT: and basically this is what an induction stovetop and skillet do. So I can use the pan and just wrap it in aluminum foil directly … much simpler!!
It will rise to overcome any inefficiency in the system, and then stop.
So at a given input power, the thermal inefficiencies of the induction process, the metal skillet will be somewhat compensated for.
It may get to 60 degrees. But only because the system was inefficient.
A perfectly efficient power to heat conversation (or heat to power) is the holy grail of thermodynamics.
Also, with a single layer of foil in contact with the skillet; it will be receiving conducted heat. So it would just heat up to 50 degrees, and maybe raise the skillet very slightly (overcoming a miniscule amount of inefficiency)
One would need an air gap, and multiple layers of aluminium to get the radiative effect.
You initial experiment would work I think. Just take measurements off the side of the skillet.
With exactly the same power input, I would expect a slight rise in the skillet temperature.
The conclusion is here: