Claim: water in moonlight cools faster than water not in moonlight [False]

[Mick West]

Results are a very clear distinction between sun and shade, as you would expect. I added a few more pairs of objects (screwdrivers at room temp, coins at body temperature from my pocket). Notice the very warm spots of focussed heat from the magnifying glass and the ball.

Later, and with the window covered, so this is all emissive heat.

These are relative temperatures, not absolute. Just showing that there is a difference

 

[Mick West]

Conditions should be good around dec 11th, 9:30pm ish. Let's see if I remember

 

[Abishua]

Sooo? What are the results. Just reminding you!

God bless

 

[Mick West]

Unfortunately the weather has not been cooperating. Very un Californian. Maybe tonight

 

[Abishua]

Sweet

 

[Rory]

What a shame I don't have the gizmo where I live, in Cabo San Lucas. The nights are always clear, and on a full moon it's as bright as daytime.

Hope to see the piccies soon.

 

[Henk001]

When I found out that we had a IR-camera at our school (a "FLIR"), borrowed it and made some observations this evening. Here is the situation

That's a wooden table at the back of my house. Here are some pictures with the FLIR

No moon yet. There is about half an hour in between and you can see the surface has about the same temperature.
Then the moon rose

Gradually more and more of the table's surface got moonlit, but nothing changed in the picture:

Then I created a moonshadow with a plank

and I made some pictures again.

Notice that both the color pattern and the temp reading in the upper left corner don't show any difference between a spot in the shadow or in the moonlight.
Finally I pointed the FLIR towards the moon itself:

Clearly the moon appears as a "hot"spot against the background of the sky. (The sky showed a radiation temp of -40°C) This also somehow seems to contradict the notion of a kind of "cooling" light from the moon.

 

[Mick West]

Notice that both the color pattern and the temp reading in the upper left corner don't show any difference between a spot in the shadow or in the moonlight.

Jolly good, now I don't have to do it

 

[Rory]

Jolly good, now I don't have to do it

Oh, I definitely think you should - I think it would be good to have more than one person look at it, particularly as so many have reported the opposite.

I thought I'd look up others using FLIR cameras to do this measurement and the first one I came to appears to show a pretty drastic difference in temperatures (when measuring copper bars), from 56-58 degrees in the shade (@ 0:45), down to 33 degrees (0:59) (both fahrenheit) in the moonlight.



This one, meanwhile, shows a difference in temperature of around 2 degrees centigrade, measuring asphalt.



What are they doing wrong exactly?

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

Oh, I definitely think you should - I think it would be good to have more than one person look at it, particularly as so many have reported the opposite.

I thought I'd look up others using FLIR cameras to do this measurement and the first one I came to appears to show a pretty drastic difference in temperatures (when measuring copper bars), from 56 degrees in the shade, down to 33 degrees (both fahrenheit) in the moonlight.



This one, meanwhile, shows a difference in temperature of around 2 degrees centigrade, measuring asphalt.



What are they doing wrong exactly?

I don't know enough to say for the asphalt video. Poor visibility means I can't even tell where he is; whether there are other reasons for a temperature gradient, like the first video.

The first video uses his house to shade the copper - the shade bars are about 18-24" from his foundation. They're being warmed by the house, not cooled by the moon. I'd bet the ambient temperature (which was not given in either video - a major flaw when you can't see the relative locations) was around freezing, i.e. The temperature of the moonlit copper.

 

[Mick West]

What are they doing wrong exactly?

Taking spot readings without getting the overall picture. @Henk001's method is how you should do it.

Overcast again here today. Might have to wait a month.

 

[Rory]

I'd bet the ambient temperature (which was not given in either video - a major flaw when you can't see the relative locations) was around freezing, i.e. The temperature of the moonlit copper.

In the first video, at 1:53, he gives the ambient temperature as being around 60 degrees. I believe his location is somewhere near Phoenix, which had a low of 64 degrees on the date he says he did the test, so that seems about right. And I guess conflicts with the theory that the shade bars are being warmed by the house.

As for the second video, I believe he was in Lenoir, North Carolina, which had a high of 23 degrees (centigrade) that day. Although he was measuring the asphalt, which he records at over 30 degrees in the daytime (1:10 in the video), and between 11 and 13 degrees at night (2:20).

The infrared camera the second guy was using, by the way, retails at around $350:

http://www.flir.com/instruments/tg165/

 

[Mick West]

the first one I came to appears to show a pretty drastic difference in temperatures (when measuring copper bars), from 56 degrees in the shade, down to 33 degrees (both fahrenheit) in the moonlight.

Where does it show that? Please give more details.

 

[Rory]

Where does it show that? Please give more details.

Apologies. The shaded bars are shown from around 0:43 in the video - record at 10.30pm - and the moonlit bars from around 0:59, recorded at 10.50pm:

 

[Mick West]

Apologies. The shaded bars are shown from around 0:43 in the video - record at 10.30pm - and the moonlit bars from around 0:59, recorded at 10.50pm:

View attachment 23423
View attachment 23424

Where does he say these were taken on the same day? What does he say they started at?

 

[Rory]

Where does he say these were taken on the same day? What does he say they started at?

At the very beginning of the video he states the date (which is also shown later on his watch):

In addition to the laser thermometer he also uses a Seek thermal camera attached to his smartphone, which shows similar temperatures (taken an hour later):

Now, he doesn't give starting temperatures for the bars, and there are cuts and edits in the video, so it's quite possible that he pulled them out of his freezer and is making the whole thing up. Though, to give him some credit, he does discount a test he made using candles, labelling it "inconclusive" (2:28):

Don't get me wrong: I'm not a believer in this. But I do think it would be good to find out why so many people are getting such similar results, and demonstrating it on video, time and again.

 

[Mick West]

Now, he doesn't give starting temperatures for the bars, and there are cuts and edits in the video, so it's quite possible that he pulled them out of his freezer and is making the whole thing up.

That seems by far the most likely explanation.

 

[Rory]

When I found out that we had a IR-camera at our school (a "FLIR"), I borrowed it and made some observations this evening.

Just looking at your pictures again, Henk. First of all, how awesome that you were able to get your hands on such a lovely piece of kit, and put it to good use.

Second, though, I can see a couple of issues, with which a believer could pick holes:

• There are no time stamps, so someone might say the pictures showing no change in temperature once the table was in moonlight were either not taken in moonlight, or were taken within, say, a second or two of the plank being put into position, therefore not allowing enough time for a temperature change to take place.
• The temperature of the table is first shown as +2C, then -0.3C, then around +1.4C, then +0.4C, while the sequence of the minimum temperatures in the whole picture goes +1.7, -0.8, -0.1, +0.1. These fluctuations and discrepancies may also lend weight to the idea that the photos were taken out of sequence, or not when claimed.

I would think the way around these points would be to film, for a decent length of time, the FLIR screen showing the lack of temperature differential in the moonshadow.

Wish I had one to play around with!

 

[Mick West]

The temperature of the table is first shown as +2C, then -0.3C, then around +1.4C, then +0.4C, while the sequence of the minimum temperatures in the whole picture goes +1.7, -0.8, -0.1, +0.1. These fluctuations and discrepancies may also lend weight to the idea that the photos were taken out of sequence, or not when claimed.

The temperature reading are irrelevant, the point is there's no visible difference on screen between moonlight and shade.

 

[Rory]

The temperature readings are irrelevant, the point is there's no visible difference on screen between moonlight and shade.

Right. But the point of mentioning the readings is that the variance in them could lead to some saying the images had been presented "out of sequence", as without timestamps there's no indication of when they were taken, or how long the plank had been in place.

 

[Bfahome]

So wait… you can use a thermal camera to show the moon radiating heat just by pointing the camera at the moon?

I feel dumb for having overlooked this possible method. Seems a lot more straightforward than a complicated setup with shadows and stuff.

 

[Henk001]

Second, though, I can see a couple of issues, with which a believer could pick holes:

• There are no time stamps, so someone might say the pictures showing no change in temperature once the table was in moonlight were either not taken in moonlight, or were taken within, say, a second or two of the plank being put into position, therefore not allowing enough time for a temperature change to take place.
• The temperature of the table is first shown as +2C, then -0.3C, then around +1.4C, then +0.4C, while the sequence of the minimum temperatures in the whole picture goes +1.7, -0.8, -0.1, +0.1. These fluctuations and discrepancies may also lend weight to the idea that the photos were taken out of sequence, or not when claimed.

I agree. Those readings do differ from moment to moment with the camera recalibrating itself every now and then -- something also to remember when watching a video! Thats why I created the "moonshadow" being able to show no difference between places that are in the moonlight next to places that are not, at the same moment.
And I thought of making a video or something. I'm quite sure that "believers" will come up with things like that. (They did kind of the same when I presented photographs of windmills disappearing behind the horizon from two different standpoints.) Perhaps I will take that trouble someday, but this was a "quicky", unexpectingly getting my hands on this camera combined with a full moon and a clear sky and a bit of spare time. (In the mean time, maybe Mick wants to get out and try doing it all over after all )
On the other hand, I think that there are already enough results contradicting the claim of cooling moonlight for believers to chew on.
And frankly -- even if I made a video and all, I don't have the illusion that true believers will be convinced even with a well prepared video etc..

 

[Henk001]

Oh, I definitely think you should - I think it would be good to have more than one person look at it, particularly as so many have reported the opposite.

I thought I'd look up others using FLIR cameras to do this measurement and the first one I came to appears to show a pretty drastic difference in temperatures (when measuring copper bars), from 56-58 degrees in the shade (@ 0:45), down to 33 degrees (0:59) (both fahrenheit) in the moonlight.

This one, meanwhile, shows a difference in temperature of around 2 degrees centigrade, measuring asphalt.

What are they doing wrong exactly?

First of all the asphalt and the copper bars are at different places that can have different temperatures for a multitude of reasons. Secondly, a reflective surface can distort the measurement.

In the top picture you can see a metal serving dish on the wooden table, not yet moonlit. Below you see the same partly in the moonshadow from two different standpoints. The camera is recieving both the temperature radiation of the dish and the reflected temp rad of the sky (for instance).
from the user manual:

That is another reason why you have to be very careful with interpreting these kinds of readings.

 

[mik]

An IR thermometer, or even a multi thousand dollar thermal camera is by no means a precision instrument in measuring absolute temperatures. What they do incredibly well is measuring (and visualizing) temperature differences. Using copper bars, or any bare metal surface to take IR measurements is extremely inaccurate due to low emission values of less than 0.1 - this means that the emitted IR signal of such an item is only 10% or less it's own. The rest 90% is reflected. It looks like a high current connector to me so I would be even less generous and go with a value between 0.03 and 0.05.

The other glaring mistake I see, is that the measurement distances are different. This reduces the accuracy and comparability of the measurements. Also, while the best readings are acquired with the sensor perpendicular to the test point, care should be taken to avoid a reflection of the measurer's own heat signature, especially with highly reflective materials.

When measuring the temperature rises of high current power rails, we attach non reflective paper stickers to the copper to use as test points which is a lot of fun when the system is live.

 

[Hevach]

Don't get me wrong: I'm not a believer in this. But I do think it would be good to find out why so many people are getting such similar results, and demonstrating it on video, time and again.

Going back in the thread a bit: Radiative cooling. It's easy to see why in Henk's pictures, the sky radiates far colder than anything else in any of the pictures - buildings, metal, masonry, vegetation, etc. Everything radiates at some temperature, but also receives radiated heat from around it. The sky is basically a big heat sink - heat radiated that direction is lost, but where the sky is blocked, radiated heat is absorbed by other things and those things radiated heat is returned.

To fully show what's going on, you'd need three, arguably four sets of data:

Full moon+clear sky (Henk's pictures, and the only test done by the bunk peddlers)
No moon+clear sky (keeping exposure to the sky, but no exposure to moonlight)
Overcast (removing exposure to the open sky)

Arguably, full/no moon overcast sets would also help establish that the moon is not a significant variable compared to sky exposure, even without its light some other mechanism could be argued without the fourth data point.

 

[jaydeehess]

At work so I don't have time to look over the entire thread but:
"concentrated moonlight using a magnifying glass" All this does is take the light hitting the surface of the glass and concentrate it to a smaller area. It is the SAME amount of energy, in fact slightly less as there will be losses in the transmission through the glass.

 

[Henk001]

Going back in the thread a bit: Radiative cooling. It's easy to see why in Henk's pictures, the sky radiates far colder than anything else in any of the pictures - buildings, metal, masonry, vegetation, etc. Everything radiates at some temperature, but also receives radiated heat from around it. The sky is basically a big heat sink - heat radiated that direction is lost, but where the sky is blocked, radiated heat is absorbed by other things and those things radiated heat is returned.

To fully show what's going on, you'd need three, arguably four sets of data:

Full moon+clear sky (Henk's pictures, and the only test done by the bunk peddlers)
No moon+clear sky (keeping exposure to the sky, but no exposure to moonlight)
Overcast (removing exposure to the open sky)

Arguably, full/no moon overcast sets would also help establish that the moon is not a significant variable compared to sky exposure, even without its light some other mechanism could be argued without the fourth data point.

The second request has already been satisfied in #89. Next to the moon-picture there is another part of the sky. Or shouldn't there be any moon at all? In that case I just saw the same. Unfortunately the reading says < - 40°C (I misinterpreted it at first as being -40°C), so it is out off the range of this camera (apparently from -40°C to +180°C). You get the same reading by daylight pointing at the zenith. I cannot take a measurement in the overcast situation yet, because the weather won't cooperate...

 

[Abishua]

At work so I don't have time to look over the entire thread but:
"concentrated moonlight using a magnifying glass" All this does is take the light hitting the surface of the glass and concentrate it to a smaller area. It is the SAME amount of energy, in fact slightly less as there will be losses in the transmission through the glass.

this is why it would be good to put two copper pennies next to eachother.. and focus moonlight on one of them.. the other one can be right next to it.. that way the only difference between them is moonlight itself.. nothing obstructing.. no other variables.. if there is something to it, difference should be obvious.. so for this experiment we need:

1. carboard (to put the pennies on)
2. 2 copper pennies
3. magnifying glass
4. flir cam

very simple..

we can even add third penny and shade it just for the luls..

 

[Abishua]

Here, I even drew it.. dont laugh pls

 

[Mick West]

I retract my assertion that the copper bar video likely faked. What it almost certainly is, as people above have mentioned, is reflecting the sky and the house.

These two images are of the same coin seconds apart (7, 10 and 14 seconds into the video), the coin has not been touched

All I did was put my hand behind the coin, about three inches away.

this did not warm the coin, the reading is the reflection of the heat from my hand.

 

[Abishua]

I retract my assertion that the copper bar video likely faked. What it almost certainly is, as people above have mentioned, is reflecting the sky and the house.

These two images are of the same coin seconds apart (7, 10 and 14 seconds into the video), the coin has not been touched

View attachment 23436
View attachment 23435

View attachment 23437

All I did was put my hand behind the coin, about three inches away.
View attachment 23438

this did not warm the coin, the reading is the reflection of the heat from my hand.

sooo what does this mean? It can't be done with this camera? maybe just use glasses of watter.. or house thermometers.. instead of coppers I sugested above..

 

[Mick West]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmgUUU3AiQM

 

[Trailspotter]

this is why it would be good to put two copper pennies next to each other…

You also need to check the pennies with a magnet. Older ones were made of copper, but more recent ones are copper plated steel

 

[Mick West]

sooo what does this mean? It can't be done with this camera? maybe just use glasses of watter.. or house thermometers.. instead of coppers I propesed above..

Just use any matt surface. The experiment has already been done with the tabletop.
https://www.metabunk.org/claim-wate...ter-not-in-moonlight.t8161/page-3#post-197309

 

[jaydeehess]

That would be fine as long as the magnifying glass is of a much larger surface area than the penny. The cardboard should be painted white on top to reflect as much radiation away rather than absorb it, unpainted on bottom to preserve insulation properties from the table.

BTW this has been studied before on a larger scale

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/10/u...-found-to-play-role-in-warming-the-earth.html

Also not sure by what mechanism anyone could be claiming that moonlight induces a cooling effect.
Whether the Moon is reflecting Sunlight, or sending internally generated light, it would be sending our way, electromagnetic radiation. Absorption of EM can only transfer energy to the object it hits.

 

[Mick West]

You also need to check the pennies with a magnet. Older ones were made of copper, but more recent ones are copper plated steel

Not the US ones. Regardless though the principle is the same. Metal reflects thermal radiation unless it's coated with something. So you are mostly measuring what is reflected. Almost entirely in the case of copper (or copper coated).

 

[jaydeehess]

You also need to check the pennies with a magnet. Older ones were made of copper, but more recent ones are copper plated steel

Same year stamp on each penny. Best to use new pennies, cleaned with a solvent, and as uncorrupted with varying amounts of oxidation and other surface contaminants as possible.
Doing this over three nights, switching up which penny gets which treatment would also be a good idea.
You are looking for delta Temp rather than absolute temp.

 

[jaydeehess]

Not the US ones. Regardless though the principle is the same. Metal reflects thermal radiation unless it's coated with something. So you are mostly measuring what is reflected. Almost entirely in the case of copper (or copper coated).

Then after cleaning, spray paint them black.

 

[Henk001]

this is why it would be good to put two copper pennies next to eachother.. and focus moonlight on one of them.. the other one can be right next to it.. that way the only difference between them is moonlight itself.. nothing obstructing.. no other variables.. if there is something to it, difference should be obvious.. so for this experiment we need:

1. carboard (to put the pennies on)
2. 2 copper pennies
3. magnifying glass
4. flir cam

very simple..

we can even add third penny and shade it just for the luls..

I don't have a magnifying glass. But I can concentrate the moonlight with this table telescope. I couldn't find a proper piece of cartboard either so I think of using a white piece of paper lying on a black star atlas.

Here you see the table telescope concentrating the light of a street lantern on a copper coin. (I will add a third one in the shade of the plank . A first null measurement gives this FLIR picture

The problem is that the coins have a low emissivity so they give less radiation according to their temperature and reflect the radiation from the surroundings, the one in front mainly the heat radiation coming from the table telescope and the one in the back mainly the sky. I will have to wait a few hours before the moon rises and in the mean time the telescope will cool down.

 

[Mick West]

Same year stamp on each penny. Best to use new pennies, cleaned with a solvent, and as uncorrupted with varying amounts of oxidation and other surface contaminants as possible.
Doing this over three nights, switching up which penny gets which treatment would also be a good idea.
You are looking for delta Temp rather than absolute temp.

Perhaps overthinking it a little here. If the moon has a thermal effect then the best way of demonstrating this is to have a surface of non-reflective consistent material partly in shadow. Copper is pretty irrelevant.

Of course the Moon does NOT have a cooling effect, it has a minuscule heating effect (too small to measure using home instruments). What were are doing here is mostly pointing out the flaws in the various Youtube experiments.

What might be interesting would be if you could actually measure the heat with a sufficiently large magnifying glass on a thin black surface that's also a good insulator. Something that could absorb enough heat that when you momentarily blocked the moon you still got a faint dot of heat.

I suspect to get a 0.1°C change (still measurable by FLIR) you'd need a very large magnifier.