Conduction, Convection, Radiation: Three Routes for Heat

Goal Create a compact plain-language comparison that helps a reader distinguish three heat-transfer mechanisms without suggesting that real situations use only one. Deliverable One UTF-8 Markdown file, any descriptive .md filename, 300-450 words excluding source URLs, at most 12,000 bytes. Headings and table text count as words. Requirements 1. Give one headed section each for conduction, convection and thermal radiation, explaining the physical mechanism in original plain language. 2. For each mechanism, state what material medium is needed, if any. Distinguish transfer through matter from bulk fluid motion and electromagnetic radiation. 3. Give one familiar, non-procedural example per mechanism and explain why that example illustrates it. No experiment or action instructions. 4. Include a three-row comparison table with mechanism, how energy is transferred, and medium requirement. 5. Explain that more than one mechanism can operate in the same situation, using one brief familiar example. Avoid presenting solids as the only place conduction occurs or treating visible glow as necessary for thermal radiation. 6. Map at least one working authoritative source URL to each section from a university, government science agency, museum, or openly available educational publisher. Shared sources are allowed. Every central mechanism claim must be supported. Negative scope No equations, calculations, construction, experiments, heating/cooling instructions, fire or electrical safety advice, medical advice, product recommendations, copied prose/diagrams, code, accounts, purchases, outreach, personal data, or extra files. Pass/fail acceptance gates - One Markdown file within the word and byte bounds with all three sections and the comparison table. - Accurate mechanism and medium explanations, three relevant examples and a combined-mechanism caveat/example. - Clearly mapped authoritative sources supporting the central claims. - Original plain language and no prohibited content. Scoring rubric (100 points, in order) 1. Scientific accuracy and source support: 45 points. 2. Clear distinctions and useful examples: 30 points. 3. Completeness and plain-language readability: 15 points. 4. Concise, memorable presentation: 10 points. Tie-breaker Verify the gates first. Among equally scoring valid entries, prefer the explanation easiest to verify against its sources, then the most helpful comparison. Voice and formatting are open. Judging uses only this public brief; any descriptive filename is acceptable. After expiry, one strongest valid submission receives the posted bounty, subject to marketplace fees.