Remember me
▼ Content

Atmospheric Heat Entropy



Page 1 of 212>
Atmospheric Heat Entropy10-03-2018 19:34
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
...If everyone doesn't know it by now I believe that our atmosphere stores heat. This would be because ideal gasses are effected by the laws of conservation of momentum.
..What has been over looked is if less oxygen in the atmosphere increases the amount of kinetic energy necessary to allow for heat to be released back out into space. Everyone knows that on a clear night when it is 15°F or -10° C. that with snow covering the ground it can become much colder.
..This is because the white wavelength hv 390 to 700, white is not considered a color as it is considered to be composed of all colors.
Basically, something is "white" if it stimulates these cells equally.

We normally model human vision as 3 different "stimulus" values:

Blue 420–440 nm
Green: 530–540 nm
Red: 560–580

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1jienv/what_wavelength_is_white_light/

..And yet white light escapes our atmosphere the easiest. And with O2 (oxygen), it's % as a gas in our atmosphere continues to decrease. As far as I know, no scientist has considered our atmosphere as a gaseous prism. Because different levels of gasses can change the wavelength of light, maybe it's time.

https://www.livescience.com/56219-earth-atmospheric-oxygen-levels-declining.html
Edited on 10-03-2018 19:35
10-03-2018 20:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
...If everyone doesn't know it by now I believe that our atmosphere stores heat.

It is not possible to store, trap, or slow heat.
It is also not possible to store thermal energy. There is always heat.

Our atmosphere is mass. Like any mass, it takes time for it to heat up and cool down. This is not storing heat or thermal energy. It is, however, a buffer of thermal energy as it moves in and out of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
This would be because ideal gasses are effected by the laws of conservation of momentum.
..What has been over looked is if less oxygen in the atmosphere increases the amount of kinetic energy necessary to allow for heat to be released back out into space.

Oxygen does not affect thermal energy. It does not have the capability to slow, stop, or reduce heat. You are now violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Earth's radiance is not affected by oxygen.
James___ wrote:
Everyone knows that on a clear night when it is 15°F or -10° C. that with snow covering the ground it can become much colder.

The ground is actually much warmer in such conditions. It is the air that is cooling off, not the ground.
James___ wrote:
..This is because the white wavelength hv 390 to 700, white is not considered a color as it is considered to be composed of all colors.
Basically, something is "white" if it stimulates these cells equally.
...deleted Holy Link and Quote...
..And yet white light escapes our atmosphere the easiest.

Nope. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. This law is colorblind. There is no term for frequency or band of frequencies in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Earth's radiance is composed of ALL colors, including UV, visible light, IR, and even radio frequencies.
James___ wrote:
And with O2 (oxygen), it's % as a gas in our atmosphere continues to decrease.

Oxygen in the atmosphere is not decreasing.
James___ wrote:
As far as I know, no scientist has considered our atmosphere as a gaseous prism.

Some do. They use that model to describe the scattering of blue light, and the color of the Sun for example. Most consider the atmosphere a filter of various frequencies of light rather than a prism.
James___ wrote:
Because different levels of gasses can change the wavelength of light, maybe it's time.
...deleted Holy Link...

No gas or vapor changes the wavelength of light.


The Parrot Killer
10-03-2018 20:33
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(997)
ITN,
I get it. If I put on a coat or a blanket I am reducing heat and therefore staying warmer.
You have said a couple times lately you cannot slow Heat. Please explain how slowing heat and reducing heat are two different things.
Thanks.
10-03-2018 21:18
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(997)
I also get that you can't trap heat. Makes sense. I do remember you saying you can only slow the outward progression. That makes sense too, but seems a bit at odds with your current statements.
11-03-2018 01:51
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
James___ wrote:
Because different levels of gasses can change the wavelength of light, maybe it's time.


Into the Night wrote:

No gas or vapor changes the wavelength of light.


How do you think a lightbulb works ? Electrons have a wave/ particle duality so are light.
Kind of why I think you should learn some basic science.
11-03-2018 16:12
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.
11-03-2018 19:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN,
I get it. If I put on a coat or a blanket I am reducing heat and therefore staying warmer.
You have said a couple times lately you cannot slow Heat. Please explain how slowing heat and reducing heat are two different things.
Thanks.


Heat is a function of the difference between the two temperatures and the coefficient of coupling between them.

Putting on a coat reduces the coefficient of coupling.

This reduces heat.


The Parrot Killer
11-03-2018 19:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I also get that you can't trap heat. Makes sense. I do remember you saying you can only slow the outward progression. That makes sense too, but seems a bit at odds with your current statements.


It doesn't slow heat. That is not possible. What you are slowing is the loss of thermal energy by reducing heat.


The Parrot Killer
11-03-2018 20:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
Because different levels of gasses can change the wavelength of light, maybe it's time.


Into the Night wrote:

No gas or vapor changes the wavelength of light.


How do you think a lightbulb works ? Electrons have a wave/ particle duality so are light.
Kind of why I think you should learn some basic science.


Electrons are not photons.

Both light and all particles of mass have a wave/particle duality. That does not make everything light.

Now about the lightbulb. There are many kinds.

An incandescent lightbulb works by creating a source of heat by running a high current through a small carbonized thread. Normally, the thread would instantly burn, but it is enclosed in an oxygen free envelope (usually of glass). The thread instead gets very hot, and begins to glow.

According to Planck's law, which relates temperature and light, this glow will first begin in the infrared band, then as the thread gets hotter, will begin emitting in the lower (red) visible band as well. As the thread becomes hotter, this glow will emit higher and higher frequencies (in addition to what it's already emitting) and enter the green and blue colors as well. What we see is a warm white light (that's warm if you put your hand near it).

The light is the result of electrons being raised to a high energy state (by heating), and falling back to a rest state. Any time you do that to an electron, you emit a photon of light.

A fluorescent bulb does not use heat to generate light. Instead, it uses highly excited gas molecules to produce the light. The gas is actually mercury vapor. That's why fluorescent tubes have a tiny amount of mercury in them. All you really need to produce light is to essentially shake an electron or proton quickly (the so-called excited to rest state). Electrons are easier to shake around. That can come by heat, or in this case by exciting ionized gas molecules (which contain electrons and protons).

This bulb uses a 'starter' circuit (like a capacitor) and a coil of wire known as a 'ballast'. When power is applied, the starter circuit acts like a dead short for current moving through the ballast. This builds up a field in the ballast rather quickly. At the zero-crossing of the AC current, the starter opens, causing the field built up by the ballast to collapse, adding to the now reversing current. This produces a tremendously high voltage spike at either end of the fluorescent tube.

The tube is filled with gas and mercury vapor under low pressure. From the high voltage, an arc is struck from one end of the tube to the other. This current flow through the tube ionizes the gas into that fourth state of matter known as a plasma. The excited, charged gas molecules will emit UV-A and some UV-B light. That light is used to excite phosphors on the inside of the tube that absorb that energy and emit it again in visible form. Without those phosphors, the tube just puts out UV light.

The Auroras above each pole of the Earth operate in exactly the same way. Each emitting gas puts out a different color, producing the rather haunting effect of the Auroras as each gas becomes excited. When the electrons in that gas drop to their rest position again, they put out a photon of a certain frequency depending on the material. All materials will emit light on a certain set of frequencies and nothing else. This is what spectrometers use to determine the chemical makeup of a material. Each chemical has it's own 'signature' of frequencies it will emit light in.

An LED bulb emits light not by using excited gases, but by using excited electrons themselves.

Putting a current across a PN junction causes the emission of electromagnetic energy. This occurs because a PN junction normally separates the extra electrons in the N crystal from the positive ions (or 'holes') in the P material. A current flow across the junction (in either direction!) will produce light as electrons fall into the holes. The holes are emptied again and more electrons are provided again by the current flowing through the diode.

Normally, an LED uses forward current flow (which requires far less voltage). The more current, the more light (until the junction burns out).

Reverse current flow will also produce light, but the voltage required to obtain this flow (known as the zener voltage) is so high that when flow begins, current will almost immediately destroy the diode junction. In both cases, current must be limited to prevent destroying the diode junction.

All diodes produce light. That light is on a narrow band of frequencies depending on the material used to dope the diode. All diodes will zener. An LED is a diode DESIGNED to produce light in the visible range, by doping the material with different chemicals. A white LED is one that is actually three diodes, each putting out red, green, and blue light. You can get them with more blue light (the so-called 'cold' white light...which is actually higher energy...go figure), or ones that put out less blue light (the so-called 'warm' white light). Well...that's marketing for you.

Diodes, because they put out such organized light, can even be made to lase. The laser diode inside your CD, DVD or Blue-ray player is just an LED designed to be used in the lasing mode (which requires higher current across the junction).

Biological critters living in dark places also can produce light. This is by chemical reaction producing the excitement of electrons instead of using electrical currents directly like we do. Most of these fall into the green or blue range of frequencies.

Light itself is quite misunderstood by a lot of people. It's mysterious stuff. People hear of photons (the particle model of light) and frequencies (the wave model of light) and the speed of light, but what exactly is it? Why can light travel without something to travel IN, like other waves do?

Light is electromagnetic energy. It is both electrostatic forces and magnetic forces combined into a single wave 'cell'. Each supports the other. It must be a wave or there is no 'cell' to support. Because it must be a wave, it has a frequency.

But light can also act like a particle. Huh??

Heisenberg answered this question mathematically. The Heisenberg theory of light (known as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) is actually a mathematical equation.

If you combine several frequencies near each other, each with an intensity that follow a paired randN (known as a bell curve), you can get an idea of where a collection of these wave 'cells' are in space at a particular moment. The result is not a wave, but a wavelet...a bit of wave that increases in intensity and drops off again as it's frozen in space. Essentially, the 'peak' of an individual wave 'cell'. This is what we call a 'photon'.

As the photon moves, the different frequencies move in different phases in relation to each other. The light becomes a 'wave'.

Thus, we can see where a photon is, or we can see how it moves, but we can't see both.

Turns out all matter works this way. Photons, electrons, protons, even atoms which combine them, ALL have this characteristic. Absolute zero is where matter ceases to vibrate. It also ceases to exist as anything like normal matter. Theoretically, matter, light, and everything becomes one at this point. You couldn't call it matter, and you couldn't call it energy. It's just...what?? Light with zero frequency? Matter with zero vibration? If E=mc^2, what happens when E=0??

No one will ever know. To take ALL the energy out of a system, you must reach a zero entropy. This will require external energy of an infinite amount to achieve. It's why it's so damn hard to extract that last bit of energy to get down to fractions of a degree above absolute zero. Some pretty weird things happen at such low temperatures also.

Light and matter are interconnected. They are BOTH particles and 'waves', just different kinds.

A photon, an electron, a proton...all are different particles. They each have their own character unique to them.


The Parrot Killer
11-03-2018 20:14
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I also get that you can't trap heat. Makes sense. I do remember you saying you can only slow the outward progression. That makes sense too, but seems a bit at odds with your current statements.


It doesn't slow heat. That is not possible. What you are slowing is the loss of thermal energy by reducing heat.


..I suppose that's why light bulbs get hot after they've been on a while. You need to get away from psychology and philosophy, it's not working. For a lot of what you have said isn't a simple light bulb shows you to be wrong. Yet post after post you will say "accept my words" while you omit any reference to accepted principles in physics.
..And I know, you'll say Stefan-Boltzmann. You don't get it though and that makes it difficult to discuss anything with you when you want to be right before you learn to understand what things like Stefan-Boltzmann are applied to in science.
Edited on 11-03-2018 20:20
11-03-2018 20:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.


You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.


The Parrot Killer
11-03-2018 20:29
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.


You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.


..ITN,
.You should call yourself "The Thread Killer". For all you post in here you seem to have no point of view and have falsified science more than once. And now what ? Are you trying to legitimize yourself so you can go back to fallacy inversion or the appeal to the stone fallacy ? I think that's about it.
.Anymore I think this is your forum. The simple reason is because litesong accepts that climate change is happening. And yet you haven't learned anything about our environment or why there is a debate over climate change.
.Instead you stick with arguments that are based on semantics and are quite circular in nature. An example is if you a person does not like oranges then they do not like fruit because an orange is a fruit.
.Also scientists do accept that an electron can be a wave. That is something that you reject. I think this is because of an electron's dual nature. You can't consider that but can only consider one thing and that is your own opinion.
11-03-2018 20:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.


You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.


..ITN,
.You should call yourself "The Thread Killer". For all you post in here you seem to have no point of view and have falsified science more than once.

My point of view is by theories of science. Science is not a thing you can falsify, science is a set of falsifiable theories. I have falsified no theory of science in my discussions here.
James___ wrote:
And now what ? Are you trying to legitimize yourself so you can go back to fallacy inversion or the appeal to the stone fallacy ? I think that's about it.

Since people like you tend to ignore or deny theories of science even when they are explained to you, you often fall into these fallacies. These are YOUR problem, not mine. A fallacy is an error in logic, just like an error in mathematics.
James___ wrote:
.Anymore I think this is your forum.

Nope. I didn't write it, and I don't maintain it. Branner does an excellent job. All the kudos (or the blame!) go to him and him alone.
James___ wrote:
The simple reason is because litesong accepts that climate change is happening.

Just as you do. Just as so many people here do.
James___ wrote:
And yet you haven't learned anything about our environment or why there is a debate over climate change.

I know quite a bit about the environment and how it works. I also know why the Church of Global Warming insists on using a buzzword like 'climate change' to gain money and power.
James___ wrote:
.Instead you stick with arguments that are based on semantics and are quite circular in nature. An example is if you a person does not like oranges then they do not like fruit because an orange is a fruit.

I think you had better look up what a compositional error is, and what a circular argument is. In other words, go learn logic.
James___ wrote:
.Also scientists do accept that an electron can be a wave. That is something that you reject.

I don't reject it. See my explanation I recently posted about the nature of light and particles.
James___ wrote:
I think this is because of an electron's dual nature.

It isn't, an electron has it's own unique set of properties, but the particle/wave models of electrons are just different manifestations of the same properties.
James___ wrote:
You can't consider that but can only consider one thing and that is your own opinion.

Nope. Not just my opinion. Go see what I posted on the nature of light and particles. That comes from the works of Einstein, Planck, and Heisenberg. The theories they have presented are theories of science. They are falsifiable. They have so far not been falsified.


The Parrot Killer
11-03-2018 22:24
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
Thread Killer,
You're psychology got old a long time ago. That's no way to consider science.
What litesong posted has more to do with climate debate than what you posted and now you're not letting litesong post. You like Wake that much ? ROFLMAO !!!
12-03-2018 10:22
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.


You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.


You are using words, heat inparticular, in ways that the rest of the world does not use them.

Inertia of mass has nothing to do with heat on any scale other than the atomic.

In S.I. lots of things are measured in Joules. The knietic energy of an atom for example of the potential energy of a brick at the top of a tower about to be dropped to the ground or the energy stored in a spring under compression or the potential chemical energy to be released by the explosive in a bullet before it is fired.

https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-specific-heat-capacity-605672

Specific heat capacity is the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of a substance per unit of mass. The specific heat capacity of a material is a physical property. It is also an example of an extensive property since its value is proportional to the size of the system being examined.
12-03-2018 21:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.


You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.


You are using words, heat inparticular, in ways that the rest of the world does not use them.

Nope. The definition of heat is the way any physicist or chemist would use it.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Inertia of mass has nothing to do with heat on any scale other than the atomic.

Correct.
Tim the plumber wrote:
In S.I. lots of things are measured in Joules. The knietic energy of an atom for example of the potential energy of a brick at the top of a tower about to be dropped to the ground or the energy stored in a spring under compression or the potential chemical energy to be released by the explosive in a bullet before it is fired.
...deleted duplicate link and quote...

WRONG. The 'joules' in potential energy is the amount of energy available to perform work, if that potential energy were put into kinetic energy.

A cartridge before it is fired, for example, has no more joules than the temperature of the cartridge (bullets have no explosives normally). The brick at the top of the tower has no more joules than a brick of the same temperature at the bottom of the tower. The 'joules' is what it CAN do if it were released.

Question for you. If you hold a brick a fixed height above the average ground level, then dig a hole underneath the brick, does it gain energy because it can drop further?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-03-2018 21:15
12-03-2018 21:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
Thread Killer,
You're psychology got old a long time ago. That's no way to consider science.
What litesong posted has more to do with climate debate than what you posted and now you're not letting litesong post. You like Wake that much ? ROFLMAO !!!


I didn't ban litebeer. Branner did.


The Parrot Killer
13-03-2018 15:35
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Thread Killer,
You're psychology got old a long time ago. That's no way to consider science.
What litesong posted has more to do with climate debate than what you posted and now you're not letting litesong post. You like Wake that much ? ROFLMAO !!!


I didn't ban litebeer. Branner did.



Whatever you say.
13-03-2018 15:40
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
Since ITN claims that heat can't be stored there is a simple device that stores it rather well. It's called a capacitor. A car battery is a capacitor as it can absorb and release energy. And to see one release it's heat merely touch a screw driver from the positive to the negative. The battery will get quite hot before exploding. Yet ITN would say that is not storing heating when it is. A charge does not have to be released as a current of electricity. And maybe one day ITN will learn some basic science ? I doubt it. everything has to fit into his logic or way of thinking and he does need to be right. Kind of why he can't learn. It's not about being right but is about understanding something. He doesn't seem to understand anything. Kind of like Wake. And this is why trying to discuss anything in here is pointless unless it's Jewish history and culture.
Edited on 13-03-2018 15:41
13-03-2018 18:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
Since ITN claims that heat can't be stored there is a simple device that stores it rather well. It's called a capacitor.

A capacitor doesn't store heat. It stores an electrostatic charge as potential energy.
James___ wrote:
A car battery is a capacitor
Nope. A car battery is a battery. It is not a capacitor. Batteries do store an electrostatic charge like a capacitor does, but a battery stores it in chemical form rather than using the electrostatic field like a capacitor does.
James___ wrote:
as it can absorb and release energy.

True, by conversion to potential energy. But batteries don't store heat either.
James___ wrote:
And to see one release it's heat merely touch a screw driver from the positive to the negative.

Current through a conductor produces heat. All conductors are also resistors. The battery is not putting heat through the screwdriver. It is putting a high current through the screwdriver.
James___ wrote:
The battery will get quite hot before exploding.

Typically the battery won't explode. It can get hot though, because putting converting chemical energy to current is an exothermic reaction, but usually the battery survives. The idiot that put the screwdriver across its terminals usually gets damaged though. What usually happens is a lot of sparks (the connection isn't perfect) and the electrolyte can boil (in a vented battery, not usually a problem).

One source of an 'explosion' (it's not really an explosion) when doing this to a battery is the hydrogen gas given off by the electrolyte in large quantities in the presence of sparks (from the screwdriver). The battery itself doesn't explode, but the hydrogen gas conflagrates, further damaging the idiot with the screwdriver.

James___ wrote:
Yet ITN would say that is not storing heating when it is.

A battery does not store heat.
James___ wrote:
A charge does not have to be released as a current of electricity.

A charge is not a current of electricity. It is voltage. A moving charge is current.
A current through a conductor meets resistance (all conductors are also resistors).
voltage (pressure) * current (flow) = power (work). That power can be heat.

I suggest you at least study up on basic electricity, dude.

James___ wrote:
And maybe one day ITN will learn some basic science ?
...deleted psychobabble...


Go study electricity. Go study what voltage, current, and power are. Go learn about capacitors, inductors, and resistors.

Having done that, you might find battery technology rather an interesting subject.


The Parrot Killer
13-03-2018 20:39
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Since ITN claims that heat can't be stored there is a simple device that stores it rather well. It's called a capacitor.

A capacitor doesn't store heat. It stores an electrostatic charge as potential energy.
James___ wrote:
A car battery is a capacitor
Nope. A car battery is a battery. It is not a capacitor. Batteries do store an electrostatic charge like a capacitor does, but a battery stores it in chemical form rather than using the electrostatic field like a capacitor does.
James___ wrote:
as it can absorb and release energy.

True, by conversion to potential energy. But batteries don't store heat either.
James___ wrote:
And to see one release it's heat merely touch a screw driver from the positive to the negative.

Current through a conductor produces heat. All conductors are also resistors. The battery is not putting heat through the screwdriver. It is putting a high current through the screwdriver.
James___ wrote:
The battery will get quite hot before exploding.

Typically the battery won't explode. It can get hot though, because putting converting chemical energy to current is an exothermic reaction, but usually the battery survives. The idiot that put the screwdriver across its terminals usually gets damaged though. What usually happens is a lot of sparks (the connection isn't perfect) and the electrolyte can boil (in a vented battery, not usually a problem).

One source of an 'explosion' (it's not really an explosion) when doing this to a battery is the hydrogen gas given off by the electrolyte in large quantities in the presence of sparks (from the screwdriver). The battery itself doesn't explode, but the hydrogen gas conflagrates, further damaging the idiot with the screwdriver.

James___ wrote:
Yet ITN would say that is not storing heating when it is.

A battery does not store heat.
James___ wrote:
A charge does not have to be released as a current of electricity.

A charge is not a current of electricity. It is voltage. A moving charge is current.
A current through a conductor meets resistance (all conductors are also resistors).
voltage (pressure) * current (flow) = power (work). That power can be heat.

I suggest you at least study up on basic electricity, dude.

James___ wrote:
And maybe one day ITN will learn some basic science ?
...deleted psychobabble...


Go study electricity. Go study what voltage, current, and power are. Go learn about capacitors, inductors, and resistors.

Having done that, you might find battery technology rather an interesting subject.


More of the same circular arguments trying to define what something is.
Isn't it funny how ITN can go on and on and on about definitions ? Anyone can look up definitions. All textbooks have them. Even wikipedia, etc. Doesn't show anything to post a definition.
ITN, that's what still learning got on me about. I consider more than what I can read in a book. Have studied physics. it shows that you haven't. Not my problem. Yet you're smart because you stick with definitions. Definitions you probably looked up online.
I've kind of noticed that about you ITN, you can't discuss how something works but only how it's defined. In one physics forum a student would get mad at me for saying hz instead of nm. Yet no 2 frequencies share the same wavelength. He could only consider one aspect of wave energy at a time.
I dunno ITN, am kind of tired of debating nothing.
Edited on 13-03-2018 20:54
13-03-2018 22:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
Since ITN claims that heat can't be stored there is a simple device that stores it rather well. It's called a capacitor.

A capacitor doesn't store heat. It stores an electrostatic charge as potential energy.
James___ wrote:
A car battery is a capacitor
Nope. A car battery is a battery. It is not a capacitor. Batteries do store an electrostatic charge like a capacitor does, but a battery stores it in chemical form rather than using the electrostatic field like a capacitor does.
James___ wrote:
as it can absorb and release energy.

True, by conversion to potential energy. But batteries don't store heat either.
James___ wrote:
And to see one release it's heat merely touch a screw driver from the positive to the negative.

Current through a conductor produces heat. All conductors are also resistors. The battery is not putting heat through the screwdriver. It is putting a high current through the screwdriver.
James___ wrote:
The battery will get quite hot before exploding.

Typically the battery won't explode. It can get hot though, because putting converting chemical energy to current is an exothermic reaction, but usually the battery survives. The idiot that put the screwdriver across its terminals usually gets damaged though. What usually happens is a lot of sparks (the connection isn't perfect) and the electrolyte can boil (in a vented battery, not usually a problem).

One source of an 'explosion' (it's not really an explosion) when doing this to a battery is the hydrogen gas given off by the electrolyte in large quantities in the presence of sparks (from the screwdriver). The battery itself doesn't explode, but the hydrogen gas conflagrates, further damaging the idiot with the screwdriver.

James___ wrote:
Yet ITN would say that is not storing heating when it is.

A battery does not store heat.
James___ wrote:
A charge does not have to be released as a current of electricity.

A charge is not a current of electricity. It is voltage. A moving charge is current.
A current through a conductor meets resistance (all conductors are also resistors).
voltage (pressure) * current (flow) = power (work). That power can be heat.

I suggest you at least study up on basic electricity, dude.

James___ wrote:
And maybe one day ITN will learn some basic science ?
...deleted psychobabble...


Go study electricity. Go study what voltage, current, and power are. Go learn about capacitors, inductors, and resistors.

Having done that, you might find battery technology rather an interesting subject.


More of the same circular arguments trying to define what something is.
James___ wrote:
Isn't it funny how ITN can go on and on and on about definitions ?

Electricity follows Ohm's law, a law equally suitable for plumbing as well as electricity

Voltage is like pressure. It is not anything flowing or producing work, is is the pressure that makes it possible to flow. You can shut off a hose with a twist nozzle and have no flow but lots of pressure. Voltage is the same way.

Flow is the movement of water (or electrons). Nothing flows without the pressure to make it flow in the first place. The pressure in a hose, the pressure on electrons in a wire, or the pressure on a river due to elevation drop all make the flow happen. Flow is is also known as 'current'.

The reason you must have pressure for anything to flow is because all conductors, pipes, river bottoms, etc. are resistance to that flow. Resistance is measured in Ohms (the name of the law). This can be true for not just electricity but for plumbing as well (although in plumbing they tend to incorrectly refer to it as 'back' pressure, as if there was an opposing pressure).

Only if you have pressure and flow can you stick a waterwheel in a river and get power out of it. Pressure * flow = power. The same is true for electricity. Only with voltage * current can you get power (or work), which is measured in watts, or joules per second.

Heating something is one thing you can do with that work. You can also use it to make something move (motors and solenoids), light something up, put out waves of pressure (audio output to speakers), or any of other useful things to do. Like a waterwheel, what you hook it up to is the purpose of the power.

Voltage is pressure. It is not heat.
Current is flow. It is not heat.
Power is work. It CAN BE heat.
James___ wrote:
Anyone can look up definitions.

True. Go read a good book and electricity and look them up.
James___ wrote:
All textbooks have them.

Not true. Many 'textbooks' are horrible.
James___ wrote:
Even wikipedia, etc. Doesn't show anything to post a definition.

Even Wikipedian managed to get electricity basically right. Go read the articles on it.
James___ wrote:
ITN, that's what still learning got on me about. I consider more than what I can read in a book.

You might want to start there.
James___ wrote:
Have studied physics.

Obviously not. You make too many basic errors in physics, including this one.
James___ wrote:
it shows that you haven't.

Don't fly on any aircraft I have repaired!
James___ wrote:
Not my problem.

Not knowing physics is YOUR PROBLEM.
James___ wrote:
Yet you're smart because you stick with definitions.

No, because I know my subject.
James___ wrote:
Definitions you probably looked up online.

You just SAID online definitions are better than what I've described! Welcome to your new paradox.

James___ wrote:
I've kind of noticed that about you ITN, you can't discuss how something works but only how it's defined.

I just showed you Ohm's law. That is how it works. I also introduced battery technology (briefly) to you. That is how it works. I also introduced capacitors (briefly) to you. That is how they work.
James___ wrote:
In one physics forum a student would get mad at me for saying hz instead of nm.

Meh. He probably got mad at you for something else, and you took it this way. You have a tendency to do that.
James___ wrote:
Yet no 2 frequencies share the same wavelength.

They do if they are the same frequency from two different sources.
James___ wrote:
He could only consider one aspect of wave energy at a time.

I put little weight on that statement. I know how much you misunderstand what was said.
James___ wrote:
I dunno ITN, am kind of tired of debating nothing.

Really?? Then why the long post???


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2018 00:52
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
Since ITN claims that heat can't be stored there is a simple device that stores it rather well. It's called a capacitor. A car battery is a capacitor as it can absorb and release energy. And to see one release it's heat merely touch a screw driver from the positive to the negative. The battery will get quite hot before exploding. Yet ITN would say that is not storing heating when it is. A charge does not have to be released as a current of electricity. And maybe one day ITN will learn some basic science ? I doubt it. everything has to fit into his logic or way of thinking and he does need to be right. Kind of why he can't learn. It's not about being right but is about understanding something. He doesn't seem to understand anything. Kind of like Wake. And this is why trying to discuss anything in here is pointless unless it's Jewish history and culture.


Heat can't be stored in a capacitor. A battery doesn't store heat but converts chemical reactions to electricity. (or visa versa) Since these chemical reactions are not perfectly steady they are a source of "battery noise". For very low voltage high power applications it requires delicate design to keep this noise from causing problems.

A light bulb can produce light in a number of ways: It can produce a high temperature due to electron flow in a wire with a high resistance. Being in a vacuum prevents the wire from oxidizing and "burning up". This appears to be the light bulb type you were speaking of. These bulbs are of poor efficiency and break down too rapidly since the heating of the filament causes an expansion and bending mechanical action which eventually fatigues the area held steady by the support beams - and it breaks. This is called "burning out" but is not.

A screwdriver placed across contacts of a car battery effectively demonstrates the same thing - a high enough current source can overheat a conductor. If the screwdriver is thin enough it will grow too hot to hold without the battery exploding from too rapid a chemical reaction. This rapid chemical reaction can break down the chemical components causing combustible materials to form and the heat detonate them. Or they can cause a sealed case to have heat expansion building up mechanical pressure until the casing fails and depending on the forces anything from simply failing to a violent explosion.

You CAN store electric energy in a capacitor but they are a very inefficient storage device (they leak too rapidly across the dielectric material). Instead are used more as current fluctuation mediators. These are called "filters" though capacitor size and the alternating current frequency can cause these filters to look nothing like the classical filter.

You can store heat in an insulated container - you might be familiar with a "water heater". Because a water heater has metal input and output connections it is not a perfect heat storage device. Thermos bottles are better but they too are imperfect. There are no perfect insulators and hence heat storage is always imperfect.

Don't argue with nightmare. When you make silly claims he believes he has won some prize by pointing them out.
14-03-2018 02:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Since ITN claims that heat can't be stored there is a simple device that stores it rather well. It's called a capacitor. A car battery is a capacitor as it can absorb and release energy. And to see one release it's heat merely touch a screw driver from the positive to the negative. The battery will get quite hot before exploding. Yet ITN would say that is not storing heating when it is. A charge does not have to be released as a current of electricity. And maybe one day ITN will learn some basic science ? I doubt it. everything has to fit into his logic or way of thinking and he does need to be right. Kind of why he can't learn. It's not about being right but is about understanding something. He doesn't seem to understand anything. Kind of like Wake. And this is why trying to discuss anything in here is pointless unless it's Jewish history and culture.


Heat can't be stored in a capacitor. A battery doesn't store heat but converts chemical reactions to electricity. (or visa versa) Since these chemical reactions are not perfectly steady they are a source of "battery noise". For very low voltage high power applications it requires delicate design to keep this noise from causing problems.

A light bulb can produce light in a number of ways: It can produce a high temperature due to electron flow in a wire with a high resistance. Being in a vacuum prevents the wire from oxidizing and "burning up". This appears to be the light bulb type you were speaking of. These bulbs are of poor efficiency and break down too rapidly since the heating of the filament causes an expansion and bending mechanical action which eventually fatigues the area held steady by the support beams - and it breaks. This is called "burning out" but is not.

While many incandescent bulbs do 'burn out' this way, there are some that have lasted many decades without burning out. They sure don't build 'em like they used to.
Wake wrote:
A screwdriver placed across contacts of a car battery effectively demonstrates the same thing - a high enough current source can overheat a conductor. If the screwdriver is thin enough it will grow too hot to hold without the battery exploding from too rapid a chemical reaction. This rapid chemical reaction can break down the chemical components causing combustible materials to form and the heat detonate them. Or they can cause a sealed case to have heat expansion building up mechanical pressure until the casing fails and depending on the forces anything from simply failing to a violent explosion.

Sealed cases can definitely explode. Most sealed cases have vents that blow open to prevent or limit the actual explosion by failure of the case. These vents are essentially blow-out plugs.
Wake wrote:
You CAN store electric energy in a capacitor but they are a very inefficient storage device (they leak too rapidly across the dielectric material). Instead are used more as current fluctuation mediators.

Guess you never played catch with a charged electrolytic capacitor, have you?
Wake wrote:
These are called "filters" though capacitor size and the alternating current frequency can cause these filters to look nothing like the classical filter.

What do you consider a 'classical' filter?
Wake wrote:
You can store heat in an insulated container

Nope. You can't store or trap heat.
Wake wrote:
- you might be familiar with a "water heater". Because a water heater has metal input and output connections it is not a perfect heat storage device.

A water heater does not store or trap heat either.
Wake wrote:
Thermos bottles are better but they too are imperfect.

Thermos bottles do not store or trap heat either.
Wake wrote:
There are no perfect insulators and hence heat storage is always imperfect.

It is not possible to store or trap heat at all.
Wake wrote:
Don't argue with nightmare. When you make silly claims he believes he has won some prize by pointing them out.

Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2018 09:19
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.


You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.


You are using words, heat inparticular, in ways that the rest of the world does not use them.

Nope. The definition of heat is the way any physicist or chemist would use it.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Inertia of mass has nothing to do with heat on any scale other than the atomic.

Correct.
Tim the plumber wrote:
In S.I. lots of things are measured in Joules. The knietic energy of an atom for example of the potential energy of a brick at the top of a tower about to be dropped to the ground or the energy stored in a spring under compression or the potential chemical energy to be released by the explosive in a bullet before it is fired.
...deleted duplicate link and quote...

WRONG. The 'joules' in potential energy is the amount of energy available to perform work, if that potential energy were put into kinetic energy.

A cartridge before it is fired, for example, has no more joules than the temperature of the cartridge (bullets have no explosives normally). The brick at the top of the tower has no more joules than a brick of the same temperature at the bottom of the tower. The 'joules' is what it CAN do if it were released.

Question for you. If you hold a brick a fixed height above the average ground level, then dig a hole underneath the brick, does it gain energy because it can drop further?


The loss of potential energy from the fall would be greater if it fell.

The way the high level physicists balance the energy of the universe at zero is to consider all potential energy due to gravity as a negative. That is that if a body is floating around far away from any gravity well, not techincallpossible but.., the it would have zero potential energy due to gravity. As it fall it loses potential energy, has a negative number, which is converted into kinetic energy as it accelerates.

The potential energy of the bullet due to gravity is one thing. The potential energy of the chemical explosive is another. They are both measured in Joules.

The falling brick would lose potential energy as it fell and gain kinetic energy. Once it hit the ground the kinetic energy would be changed into heat and breaking chemical bonds of the ground and bonds in the brick if bits broke off it or cracks happened.
14-03-2018 15:24
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
Into the Night wrote:

Really?? Then why the long post???


ITN,
..I think when you claimed to have a Jewish wife and your friend Wake claimed to be Jewish, kind of shows how much this forum is about discussing climate change or even science.
..And on a bit more personal level ITN, banning litesong because ? Is she your wife or other family member ? I think she is yet you trash her to impress Wake.
So typically American.
..I do have other ways in which I can make better use of my time.


..@All,
.To understand some of the basic principles involved with gases, heat, etc. how a light bulb works shows how electrons can be converted into both photons and heat. But can't discuss here. Darwin shows his ugly head in the forms of ITN and Wake.
Edited on 14-03-2018 15:29
14-03-2018 17:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.


You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.


You are using words, heat inparticular, in ways that the rest of the world does not use them.

Nope. The definition of heat is the way any physicist or chemist would use it.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Inertia of mass has nothing to do with heat on any scale other than the atomic.

Correct.
Tim the plumber wrote:
In S.I. lots of things are measured in Joules. The knietic energy of an atom for example of the potential energy of a brick at the top of a tower about to be dropped to the ground or the energy stored in a spring under compression or the potential chemical energy to be released by the explosive in a bullet before it is fired.
...deleted duplicate link and quote...

WRONG. The 'joules' in potential energy is the amount of energy available to perform work, if that potential energy were put into kinetic energy.

A cartridge before it is fired, for example, has no more joules than the temperature of the cartridge (bullets have no explosives normally). The brick at the top of the tower has no more joules than a brick of the same temperature at the bottom of the tower. The 'joules' is what it CAN do if it were released.

Question for you. If you hold a brick a fixed height above the average ground level, then dig a hole underneath the brick, does it gain energy because it can drop further?


The loss of potential energy from the fall would be greater if it fell.

The way the high level physicists balance the energy of the universe at zero is to consider all potential energy due to gravity as a negative. That is that if a body is floating around far away from any gravity well, not techincallpossible but.., the it would have zero potential energy due to gravity. As it fall it loses potential energy, has a negative number, which is converted into kinetic energy as it accelerates.

The potential energy of the bullet due to gravity is one thing. The potential energy of the chemical explosive is another. They are both measured in Joules.

The falling brick would lose potential energy as it fell and gain kinetic energy. Once it hit the ground the kinetic energy would be changed into heat and breaking chemical bonds of the ground and bonds in the brick if bits broke off it or cracks happened.


So you are saying the brick DOES gain energy, simply because a hole was opened under the brick??? WTF??? You are creating energy out of NOTHING???

Potential energy is measured in the joules of kinetic energy it can convert into.

Here's another question for you:
How do you calculate the potential energy of an explosive that doesn't go off if it, when held above the ground like the brick? Can you just treat it like the brick?


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2018 17:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Really?? Then why the long post???


ITN,
..I think when you claimed to have a Jewish wife and your friend Wake claimed to be Jewish,

Wake never claimed he was Jewish. You DO have problems with attention span, don't you?
James___ wrote:
kind of shows how much this forum is about discussing climate change or even science.
YOU brought up the whole Jewish thing. This 'distraction' is caused by YOU.
James___ wrote:
..And on a bit more personal level ITN, banning litesong because ? Is she your wife or other family member ? I think she is yet you trash her to impress Wake.

All fabrications of your imagination.
James___ wrote:
So typically American.

Bigotry.
James___ wrote:
..I do have other ways in which I can make better use of my time.

Apparently not.
James___ wrote:
..@All,
.To understand some of the basic principles involved with gases, heat, etc. how a light bulb works shows how electrons can be converted into both photons and heat.

Electrons stay electrons. They can't be converted into photons or heat.

Photons are CREATED when an electron returns from a higher state of energy to a lower state of energy. Photons are DESTROYED by pushing an electron into a higher state of energy. In both cases, the electron itself is unchanged.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. That has nothing to do with electrons at all, but entire molecules. The electrons in those molecules remain unchanged. They are still electrons.

James___ wrote:
But can't discuss here.

I will call you your bad science from time to time.
James___ wrote:
Darwin shows his ugly head in the forms of ITN and Wake.

Darwin is dead. Haven't seen his ugly head around lately.


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2018 18:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.


You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.


You are using words, heat inparticular, in ways that the rest of the world does not use them.

Nope. The definition of heat is the way any physicist or chemist would use it.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Inertia of mass has nothing to do with heat on any scale other than the atomic.

Correct.
Tim the plumber wrote:
In S.I. lots of things are measured in Joules. The knietic energy of an atom for example of the potential energy of a brick at the top of a tower about to be dropped to the ground or the energy stored in a spring under compression or the potential chemical energy to be released by the explosive in a bullet before it is fired.
...deleted duplicate link and quote...

WRONG. The 'joules' in potential energy is the amount of energy available to perform work, if that potential energy were put into kinetic energy.

A cartridge before it is fired, for example, has no more joules than the temperature of the cartridge (bullets have no explosives normally). The brick at the top of the tower has no more joules than a brick of the same temperature at the bottom of the tower. The 'joules' is what it CAN do if it were released.

Question for you. If you hold a brick a fixed height above the average ground level, then dig a hole underneath the brick, does it gain energy because it can drop further?


The loss of potential energy from the fall would be greater if it fell.

The way the high level physicists balance the energy of the universe at zero is to consider all potential energy due to gravity as a negative. That is that if a body is floating around far away from any gravity well, not techincallpossible but.., the it would have zero potential energy due to gravity. As it fall it loses potential energy, has a negative number, which is converted into kinetic energy as it accelerates.

The potential energy of the bullet due to gravity is one thing. The potential energy of the chemical explosive is another. They are both measured in Joules.

The falling brick would lose potential energy as it fell and gain kinetic energy. Once it hit the ground the kinetic energy would be changed into heat and breaking chemical bonds of the ground and bonds in the brick if bits broke off it or cracks happened.


So you are saying the brick DOES gain energy, simply because a hole was opened under the brick??? WTF??? You are creating energy out of NOTHING???

Potential energy is measured in the joules of kinetic energy it can convert into.

Here's another question for you:
How do you calculate the potential energy of an explosive that doesn't go off if it, when held above the ground like the brick? Can you just treat it like the brick?


No, the capacity for it to lose potential energy due to gravity is increased. The amount of work it does when it hits is more.

The potential energy of an explosive, it's potential chemical energy, is calculated from the amount of work that it can do when it goes off;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_(explosive)

The strength, or potential, of an explosive is the total work that can be performed by the gas resulting from its explosion


If it is up high then the potential chemical energy will be unaffected, except by the changes in air pressure that may change things slightly, but the potential energy due to gravity will be less negative. Not that you will notice that number compared to the bang potential.
14-03-2018 19:04
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Tim the plumber wrote:
No, the capacity for it to lose potential energy due to gravity is increased. The amount of work it does when it hits is more.

The potential energy of an explosive, it's potential chemical energy, is calculated from the amount of work that it can do when it goes off;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_(explosive)

The strength, or potential, of an explosive is the total work that can be performed by the gas resulting from its explosion


If it is up high then the potential chemical energy will be unaffected, except by the changes in air pressure that may change things slightly, but the potential energy due to gravity will be less negative. Not that you will notice that number compared to the bang potential.


You're not really trying to discuss something with the guy that said a college textbook on statistical math is wrong because he disagrees with it are you?
14-03-2018 22:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.


You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.


You are using words, heat inparticular, in ways that the rest of the world does not use them.

Nope. The definition of heat is the way any physicist or chemist would use it.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Inertia of mass has nothing to do with heat on any scale other than the atomic.

Correct.
Tim the plumber wrote:
In S.I. lots of things are measured in Joules. The knietic energy of an atom for example of the potential energy of a brick at the top of a tower about to be dropped to the ground or the energy stored in a spring under compression or the potential chemical energy to be released by the explosive in a bullet before it is fired.
...deleted duplicate link and quote...

WRONG. The 'joules' in potential energy is the amount of energy available to perform work, if that potential energy were put into kinetic energy.

A cartridge before it is fired, for example, has no more joules than the temperature of the cartridge (bullets have no explosives normally). The brick at the top of the tower has no more joules than a brick of the same temperature at the bottom of the tower. The 'joules' is what it CAN do if it were released.

Question for you. If you hold a brick a fixed height above the average ground level, then dig a hole underneath the brick, does it gain energy because it can drop further?


The loss of potential energy from the fall would be greater if it fell.

The way the high level physicists balance the energy of the universe at zero is to consider all potential energy due to gravity as a negative. That is that if a body is floating around far away from any gravity well, not techincallpossible but.., the it would have zero potential energy due to gravity. As it fall it loses potential energy, has a negative number, which is converted into kinetic energy as it accelerates.

The potential energy of the bullet due to gravity is one thing. The potential energy of the chemical explosive is another. They are both measured in Joules.

The falling brick would lose potential energy as it fell and gain kinetic energy. Once it hit the ground the kinetic energy would be changed into heat and breaking chemical bonds of the ground and bonds in the brick if bits broke off it or cracks happened.


So you are saying the brick DOES gain energy, simply because a hole was opened under the brick??? WTF??? You are creating energy out of NOTHING???

Potential energy is measured in the joules of kinetic energy it can convert into.

Here's another question for you:
How do you calculate the potential energy of an explosive that doesn't go off if it, when held above the ground like the brick? Can you just treat it like the brick?


No, the capacity for it to lose potential energy due to gravity is increased. The amount of work it does when it hits is more.

You are starting to get it. This is the most correct thing you've said so far.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The potential energy of an explosive, it's potential chemical energy, is calculated from the amount of work that it can do when it goes off;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_(explosive)

What if it never goes off?
Tim the plumber wrote:
The strength, or potential, of an explosive is the total work that can be performed by the gas resulting from its explosion

Only if it goes off.
Tim the plumber wrote:
If it is up high then the potential chemical energy will be unaffected, except by the changes in air pressure that may change things slightly, but the potential energy due to gravity will be less negative. Not that you will notice that number compared to the bang potential.

That is just one number. What about the potential energy due to the height of the explosive above the ground if you drop it?


The Parrot Killer
14-03-2018 22:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
No, the capacity for it to lose potential energy due to gravity is increased. The amount of work it does when it hits is more.

The potential energy of an explosive, it's potential chemical energy, is calculated from the amount of work that it can do when it goes off;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_(explosive)

The strength, or potential, of an explosive is the total work that can be performed by the gas resulting from its explosion


If it is up high then the potential chemical energy will be unaffected, except by the changes in air pressure that may change things slightly, but the potential energy due to gravity will be less negative. Not that you will notice that number compared to the bang potential.


You're not really trying to discuss something with the guy that said a college textbook on statistical math is wrong because he disagrees with it are you?


Go learn statistical math from a textbook that is actually correct on the subject. Remember any idiot can write a textbook.


The Parrot Killer
15-03-2018 10:16
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
No, the capacity for it to lose potential energy due to gravity is increased. The amount of work it does when it hits is more.

The potential energy of an explosive, it's potential chemical energy, is calculated from the amount of work that it can do when it goes off;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_(explosive)

The strength, or potential, of an explosive is the total work that can be performed by the gas resulting from its explosion


If it is up high then the potential chemical energy will be unaffected, except by the changes in air pressure that may change things slightly, but the potential energy due to gravity will be less negative. Not that you will notice that number compared to the bang potential.


You're not really trying to discuss something with the guy that said a college textbook on statistical math is wrong because he disagrees with it are you?


I am hoping that a basic understanding of the terms and stuff will clear up lots of the arguemnets.
15-03-2018 10:17
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1132)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.


You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.


You are using words, heat inparticular, in ways that the rest of the world does not use them.

Nope. The definition of heat is the way any physicist or chemist would use it.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Inertia of mass has nothing to do with heat on any scale other than the atomic.

Correct.
Tim the plumber wrote:
In S.I. lots of things are measured in Joules. The knietic energy of an atom for example of the potential energy of a brick at the top of a tower about to be dropped to the ground or the energy stored in a spring under compression or the potential chemical energy to be released by the explosive in a bullet before it is fired.
...deleted duplicate link and quote...

WRONG. The 'joules' in potential energy is the amount of energy available to perform work, if that potential energy were put into kinetic energy.

A cartridge before it is fired, for example, has no more joules than the temperature of the cartridge (bullets have no explosives normally). The brick at the top of the tower has no more joules than a brick of the same temperature at the bottom of the tower. The 'joules' is what it CAN do if it were released.

Question for you. If you hold a brick a fixed height above the average ground level, then dig a hole underneath the brick, does it gain energy because it can drop further?


The loss of potential energy from the fall would be greater if it fell.

The way the high level physicists balance the energy of the universe at zero is to consider all potential energy due to gravity as a negative. That is that if a body is floating around far away from any gravity well, not techincallpossible but.., the it would have zero potential energy due to gravity. As it fall it loses potential energy, has a negative number, which is converted into kinetic energy as it accelerates.

The potential energy of the bullet due to gravity is one thing. The potential energy of the chemical explosive is another. They are both measured in Joules.

The falling brick would lose potential energy as it fell and gain kinetic energy. Once it hit the ground the kinetic energy would be changed into heat and breaking chemical bonds of the ground and bonds in the brick if bits broke off it or cracks happened.


So you are saying the brick DOES gain energy, simply because a hole was opened under the brick??? WTF??? You are creating energy out of NOTHING???

Potential energy is measured in the joules of kinetic energy it can convert into.

Here's another question for you:
How do you calculate the potential energy of an explosive that doesn't go off if it, when held above the ground like the brick? Can you just treat it like the brick?


No, the capacity for it to lose potential energy due to gravity is increased. The amount of work it does when it hits is more.

You are starting to get it. This is the most correct thing you've said so far.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The potential energy of an explosive, it's potential chemical energy, is calculated from the amount of work that it can do when it goes off;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_(explosive)

What if it never goes off?
Tim the plumber wrote:
The strength, or potential, of an explosive is the total work that can be performed by the gas resulting from its explosion

Only if it goes off.
Tim the plumber wrote:
If it is up high then the potential chemical energy will be unaffected, except by the changes in air pressure that may change things slightly, but the potential energy due to gravity will be less negative. Not that you will notice that number compared to the bang potential.

That is just one number. What about the potential energy due to the height of the explosive above the ground if you drop it?


Tim the plumber wrote:
If it is up high then the potential chemical energy will be unaffected, except by the changes in air pressure that may change things slightly, but the potential energy due to gravity will be less negative. Not that you will notice that number compared to the bang potential.


See above.
15-03-2018 16:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The heat capacity for air is about 1kJ per kg per degree K (or c);

https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html

There are about 10 tonnes of air above each square meter of earth.

Thus the total heat energy required to change the temperature of air by 1c in the air above each square meter of earth is (average)

10,000kg x 1 kJ x 1 K so that is 10MJ per square meter. Sounds a lot.

The Pacific is 6km deep and the atlantic 4km deep. The average depth of water over the whole earth is about 4km if it was evenly spread around.

4km x 4.2(kJ per kg, the specific heat capacity of water) x 1000(kg per meter of depth) per degree c of temperature change

That is 16.4 thousand MJ. 16.4 GJ.

So the heat stored in the air is 10/16.4 thousand. Or less than a thousanth of the amount.

This is somewhat unkind to the air as the ocean water will never change temperature because the temperature of the deep water is governed by the way water has a maximum density at 4c and the fact that the vast amount of heat required to change the temperature of the ocean will take far too long to happen.

The air also has the impact of rain water in it condensing adn the effect of water evaporating into it. These will bring the effective heat being played about with in the atmosphere up but still nothing compared to the oceans.


You can't store heat. What you are describing is the inertia of mass as it relates to thermal energy over time. This is otherwise known as 'work'. That's why it is measured in Joules.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It takes more work to add or remove thermal energy to different substances. It takes the same heat but over a longer period of time. Heat is not the total energy moved, but the rate at which it moves.


You are using words, heat inparticular, in ways that the rest of the world does not use them.

Nope. The definition of heat is the way any physicist or chemist would use it.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Inertia of mass has nothing to do with heat on any scale other than the atomic.

Correct.
Tim the plumber wrote:
In S.I. lots of things are measured in Joules. The knietic energy of an atom for example of the potential energy of a brick at the top of a tower about to be dropped to the ground or the energy stored in a spring under compression or the potential chemical energy to be released by the explosive in a bullet before it is fired.
...deleted duplicate link and quote...

WRONG. The 'joules' in potential energy is the amount of energy available to perform work, if that potential energy were put into kinetic energy.

A cartridge before it is fired, for example, has no more joules than the temperature of the cartridge (bullets have no explosives normally). The brick at the top of the tower has no more joules than a brick of the same temperature at the bottom of the tower. The 'joules' is what it CAN do if it were released.

Question for you. If you hold a brick a fixed height above the average ground level, then dig a hole underneath the brick, does it gain energy because it can drop further?


The loss of potential energy from the fall would be greater if it fell.

The way the high level physicists balance the energy of the universe at zero is to consider all potential energy due to gravity as a negative. That is that if a body is floating around far away from any gravity well, not techincallpossible but.., the it would have zero potential energy due to gravity. As it fall it loses potential energy, has a negative number, which is converted into kinetic energy as it accelerates.

The potential energy of the bullet due to gravity is one thing. The potential energy of the chemical explosive is another. They are both measured in Joules.

The falling brick would lose potential energy as it fell and gain kinetic energy. Once it hit the ground the kinetic energy would be changed into heat and breaking chemical bonds of the ground and bonds in the brick if bits broke off it or cracks happened.


So you are saying the brick DOES gain energy, simply because a hole was opened under the brick??? WTF??? You are creating energy out of NOTHING???

Potential energy is measured in the joules of kinetic energy it can convert into.

Here's another question for you:
How do you calculate the potential energy of an explosive that doesn't go off if it, when held above the ground like the brick? Can you just treat it like the brick?


No, the capacity for it to lose potential energy due to gravity is increased. The amount of work it does when it hits is more.

You are starting to get it. This is the most correct thing you've said so far.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The potential energy of an explosive, it's potential chemical energy, is calculated from the amount of work that it can do when it goes off;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_(explosive)

What if it never goes off?
Tim the plumber wrote:
The strength, or potential, of an explosive is the total work that can be performed by the gas resulting from its explosion

Only if it goes off.
Tim the plumber wrote:
If it is up high then the potential chemical energy will be unaffected, except by the changes in air pressure that may change things slightly, but the potential energy due to gravity will be less negative. Not that you will notice that number compared to the bang potential.

That is just one number. What about the potential energy due to the height of the explosive above the ground if you drop it?


Tim the plumber wrote:
If it is up high then the potential chemical energy will be unaffected, except by the changes in air pressure that may change things slightly, but the potential energy due to gravity will be less negative. Not that you will notice that number compared to the bang potential.


See above.

Agreed.


The Parrot Killer
19-03-2018 17:42
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
Because different levels of gasses can change the wavelength of light, maybe it's time.


Into the Night wrote:

No gas or vapor changes the wavelength of light.


How do you think a lightbulb works ? Electrons have a wave/ particle duality so are light.
Kind of why I think you should learn some basic science.


You'll have to explain this James, the absorption and emission lines of a gas are the same.

Now you CAN conduct heat from one gas to another and then if that gas gains enough energy it can conduct at its emission frequency. But per se gases don't change the frequency of light and since most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via conduction having more or less oxygen doesn't have any noticeable effect.
19-03-2018 21:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
Because different levels of gasses can change the wavelength of light, maybe it's time.


Into the Night wrote:

No gas or vapor changes the wavelength of light.


How do you think a lightbulb works ? Electrons have a wave/ particle duality so are light.
Kind of why I think you should learn some basic science.


You'll have to explain this James, the absorption and emission lines of a gas are the same.

True, and I've already given a response to James. Why are YOU bringing it up again?
Wake wrote:
Now you CAN conduct heat from one gas to another and then if that gas gains enough energy it can conduct at its emission frequency.

Gases don't have one emission frequency. There are many of them. There is no 'trigger' point for emission. Radiance occurs for anything above absolute zero. Radiance isn't conduction.
Wake wrote:
But per se gases don't change the frequency of light and since most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via conduction having more or less oxygen doesn't have any noticeable effect.

Actually, most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via convection, not conduction.

Most of the radiance comes from the surface of the Earth, not the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
22-03-2018 14:45
James___
★★★☆☆
(447)
Wake wrote:

But per se gases don't change the frequency of light and since most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via conduction having more or less oxygen doesn't have any noticeable effect.

Into the Night wrote:
Actually, most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via convection, not conduction.

Most of the radiance comes from the surface of the Earth, not the atmosphere.



ITN,
..This is an example of you getting caught up in semantics. If you understood what he meant then convection/conduction doesn't matter.
..Your statement that most of the earth's radiance comes from the earth and not the Sun is wrong. Well over 99.9% of the energy in the earth's atmosphere comes from the Sun. This is what the earth radiates. But all you have are definitions and no understanding.
..Still, I disagree with what most of it is that the 2 of you has to say. I have my own thoughts. A book can only take a person so far. He must travel the rest of the way on his own understanding.
22-03-2018 16:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5417)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:

But per se gases don't change the frequency of light and since most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via conduction having more or less oxygen doesn't have any noticeable effect.

Into the Night wrote:
Actually, most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via convection, not conduction.

Most of the radiance comes from the surface of the Earth, not the atmosphere.



ITN,
..This is an example of you getting caught up in semantics. If you understood what he meant then convection/conduction doesn't matter.

No, Wake was trying to use convection and conduction as a means to cool the Earth. It doesn't. All conduction and convection do is to move thermal energy around on the Earth.
James___ wrote:
..Your statement that most of the earth's radiance comes from the earth and not the Sun is wrong.

Never said that. Go read the post again and pay attention this time.
James___ wrote:
..Still, I disagree with what most of it is that the 2 of you has to say.
I have my own thoughts.

That's obvious.
James___ wrote:
A book can only take a person so far.

You haven't even gone as far as the book. You threw away the book before you read it.
James___ wrote:
He must travel the rest of the way on his own understanding.

You have no understanding because you never read the book to begin with.


The Parrot Killer
22-03-2018 16:16
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:

But per se gases don't change the frequency of light and since most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via conduction having more or less oxygen doesn't have any noticeable effect.

Into the Night wrote:
Actually, most of the energy in the troposphere is moved via convection, not conduction.

Most of the radiance comes from the surface of the Earth, not the atmosphere.



ITN,
..This is an example of you getting caught up in semantics. If you understood what he meant then convection/conduction doesn't matter.
..Your statement that most of the earth's radiance comes from the earth and not the Sun is wrong. Well over 99.9% of the energy in the earth's atmosphere comes from the Sun. This is what the earth radiates. But all you have are definitions and no understanding.
..Still, I disagree with what most of it is that the 2 of you has to say. I have my own thoughts. A book can only take a person so far. He must travel the rest of the way on his own understanding.


Nightmare talks to hear his own voice.

While YES over 99.9% if the energy on Earth comes from the emissions of the Sun and so this is almost the percentage of energy emitted by the Earth. It is absorbed on the order of over 75% by the oceans and land areas and not the atmosphere even though it does end up be radiated into the atmosphere and then through the act of conduction.

Conduction is the process of moving heat through a non-moving material - the surface layers of the atmosphere. And convection is the process of moving heat by the material itself moving. Nightmare being technically correct has an empty argument since we were talking about the same thing and he is relying on semantics to pretend he is smart.

I agree with you that many times you can only learn so much from books. But if you read one book and gain some knowledge you cannot pretend that through other's you cannot attain more.

Pardon me James but you simply are too low on the knowledge totem pole to try to be inventing new theories. You obviously have the ability but you refuse to acknowledge that you don't have enough general knowledge.

Just to be an EE I had to learn:

ENGL.1010 College Writing I (3cr) - Available Summer 2018!
MATH.1200 Precalculus Mathematics I (3cr)
ENGL.1020 College Writing II (3cr)
MATH.1230 Precalculus Mathematics II (3cr)
INFO.2670 C Programming (3cr) (Plus four other programming languages)
ETEC.2130 Electric Circuits I (3cr)
MATH.1250 Calculus A (3cr)
MTEC.2260 Technical Communications for Engineering Technology (3cr)
ETEC.2140 Circuits II and Laboratory (2cr)
MATH.1260 Calculus B (3cr)
PHYS.1310 Technical Physics I (3cr)
ETEC.2150 Circuits III and Laboratory (2cr)
ETEC.3550 Electronics I and Laboratory (2cr)
PHYS.1320 Technical Physics II (3cr)
ETEC.2160 Circuits IV (3cr)
ETEC.3560 Electronics II and Laboratory (2cr)
ETEC.3540 PSPICE Simulation (3cr)
PSYC.1010 Introduction to Psychological Science (3cr)
ETEC.3570 Electronics III and Laboratory (2cr)
ETEC.3830 Microprocessors A (3cr)
ETEC.3610 Project Laboratory A (2cr)
ETEC.3580 Electronics IV and Laboratory (2cr)
ETEC.3840 Microprocessors B (2cr)
ETEC.3410 Logic Design I and Laboratory (3cr)
ETEC.3220 Signals and Systems I (3cr)
MATH.2250 Calculus C (3cr)
ETEC.3650 Applied Linear Devices (3cr)
INFO.2680 C++ Programming (3cr)
MATH.2260 Calculus D (3cr)
ETEC.3420 Logic Design II and Laboratory (3cr)
MATH.2340 Differential Equations (3cr)
ETEC.3600 Mathematics and Statistics/E.E.T. (3cr)
ETEC.3680 Data Conversion and Laboratory (2cr)
ETEC.3760 Electromagnetic Theory (3cr)
ETEC.3500 Control Systems I (3cr)
PHIL.2030 Introduction to Ethics (3cr)
OR
PHIL.3340 Engineering and Ethics (3cr)
ECON.2010 Economics I (Microeconomics) (3cr)
ETEC.3910 Project Laboratory B (2cr)
ETEC.---- EET Elective (3cr) (see below)
ETEC.3920 Project Laboratory (2cr)

And because I worked in robotics I had to learn some mechanical engineering and because medical and biological engineering I had to learn a good deal of that as well.

While you may think that I pretend to know it all I am not even close. But I had to have learned these things so that I could be recognized, by the PhDs for whom I worked, as a competent engineer.

And while I'm looking for a job now do you know what sort of questions they are asking? Do I know how to use an oscilloscope. Exactly what sort of engineers are they turning out of colleges these days?

When I correct you why do you assume that I am trying to insult you? Most of the time it is things so obvious that a first year science student could have told you the same thing. As I said, because you don't have sufficient knowledge of both the science and interactions between sciences you too often seize upon a single thing and try to use that as an explanation when those things are very few and very far between.

This is not the political world. Might doesn't make right. One right person overrules a thousand wrong. If you are part of a large group saying something that doesn't make you automatically right. Though it also doesn't make you automatically wrong.

Nightmare is trying to prove his superiority despite the fact that he hasn't any. While he is correct a lot of the time he is doing nothing but repeating what he read somewhere without the knowledge of why. His math skills are deplorable and unfortunately science is almost entirely mathematics based.

You wouldn't stand a single chance of passing even one college course if you went into it with the attitude that you were being insulted by being given knowledge that you don't agree with. So why are you doing so here? Do you have the idea that everyone else posting here is much less knowledgeable than you?
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Atmospheric Heat Entropy:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Work and Heat8126-06-2018 20:52
Is there an equation available for black body irradiated heat loss vs. font?023-06-2018 08:01
Gulf of Mexico as heat sink2106-06-2018 20:41
Heat324-05-2018 20:48
Radio Ecoshock: The Heat Goes On324-05-2018 18:10
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact