Energy and resource crisis in the future

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Technology > Energy and resource crisis in the future > Page 6

Page 6 of 10

22-12-2019 01:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	James___ wrote: Natural vs synthetic. The lab simulates natural geological processes with the exact same elements and conditions, and it takes hours to produce. James___ wrote: Water is drawn into the ground. That's how aquifers are replenished. An oil well might be nothing more than compost from a wetland or marsh migrating into the earth's mantle over a period of many years/eons. We understand how hydrocarbons are formed and we recreate those conditions in labs, producing hydrocarbons. Heat and pressure are required. It is not merely a process of rotting compost. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-12-2019 05:01
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Xadoman wrote:I also happen to have 50 hectars of forest Lucky! And trees can be replanted to grow again. Xadoman wrote: People can manufacture hydro carbons. Using coal etc. quickly depleting resource. It is a dead end. Not necessarily. You can use plants. What you need to know about plant-based plastics
22-12-2019 05:37
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: Xadoman wrote:I also happen to have 50 hectars of forest Lucky! And trees can be replanted to grow again. Xadoman wrote: People can manufacture hydro carbons. Using coal etc. quickly depleting resource. It is a dead end. Not necessarily. You can use plants. What you need to know about plant-based plastics The link was confusing. 8% of petroleum is used to make plastic. What is the alternative use for that byproduct? They don't say. They don't even say how plants are a source of bioplastic. If plants can replace polystyrene then they will. They won't need literature promoting their worth.
22-12-2019 05:38
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Ya'all, hate knowing what polystyrene is. It's not environmentally friendly. It's just something from reducing the waste that comes from crude oil.
22-12-2019 05:50
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	James___ wrote: They don't even say how plants are a source of bioplastic. If plants can replace polystyrene then they will. They won't need literature promoting their worth. "Bioplastic simply refers to plastic made from plant or other biological material instead of petroleum. It is also often called bio-based plastic." They DO make plastic out of plants. What's confusing about that fact? BioenterpriseCanada The majority of plastics today are oil-based. Not only does plastic consume 10% of the world's oil supply, but it also increases global warming, and can take over 1000 year to degrade. Plastic made from corn is biodegradable, carbon neutral, renewable and even edible.

22-12-2019 11:25
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Lucky! And trees can be replanted to grow again. It has mostly a sentimental value. To let it to clear cut by foresting companies gives so little profit that it is pointless. I only cut firewood for myself and sell a little by side. Not necessarily. You can use plants. Plants need soil to grow. Heavy farming quickly depletes soil fertility. We have 60 years of farming left on this planet if things continue as they do now. It takes a whole millenium to form and inch of topsoil and the rate it disappears now is 100 times faster than it forms. See what happens with heavy farming: The average topsoil depth in Iowa decreased from around 14-18 inches (35-45cm) at the start of the 20th Century to 6-8 inches (15-20cm) by its end. Relentless tilling and disturbance from farm vehicles have allowed wind and water to whisk away this priceless resource. I would also like to point out that wind and water alone are not the culprits. The simple fact that each and every year you move away thousands of tons of plant matter containing minerals and nutrients from the land itself should ring a bell that this is not sustainable. Edited on 22-12-2019 11:36
22-12-2019 19:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	James___ wrote: Ya'all, hate knowing what polystyrene is. It's not environmentally friendly. It's just something from reducing the waste that comes from crude oil. Nothing wrong with polystyrene. It is not made from waste products that come from crude oil either. There are no waste products when refining crude oil. ALL of it is used for something. Polystyrene is used to make both foam and hard plastics. It appears in house insulation (known as 'blue foam'), various rigid automotive parts (typically cabin interior parts and license plate frames), some food containers (it is a food safe plastic), housings for electronics (smoke detectors, Raspberry PI cases, bezels for displays and TV sets, etc), keyboard housings (you might very well be typing on such a keyboard right now!), coin sorters, and even pens. It's used in quite a few products because it's cheap to produce (the styrene monomer naturally occurs in beef, several berries, and other fruit. We synthesize the styrene monomer industrially from the lighter distillates of crude oil (the same as around naptha) known as benzine. It breaks down (like most plastics) on exposure to UV light, but it is slow and somewhat resistant to it. It is consumable by naturally occurring bacteria in the oceans. It burns with a somewhat sooty flame in open air (the soot is carbon). Old cars that are no longer useful in the wrecking yards are crushed for their steel, and the interior components are just burned in an high temperature firebox that injects a bit of oxygen (to reduce soot). It is typically the UV that causes cabin interiors and license plate frames to crack over time. The car windows stop most of the damaging UV to this plastic, but not all of it. Actually a plastic that is pretty friendly for the environment. The benzine raw material is somewhat dangerous to be around, but quite safe once processed into the styrene monomer and polymerized. Better isolation of the process to personal operating the process has improved things greatly. Even modern methods of making the stuff is pretty friendly now. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-12-2019 20:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote: They don't even say how plants are a source of bioplastic. If plants can replace polystyrene then they will. They won't need literature promoting their worth. "Bioplastic simply refers to plastic made from plant or other biological material instead of petroleum. It is also often called bio-based plastic." They DO make plastic out of plants. What's confusing about that fact? BioenterpriseCanada The majority of plastics today are oil-based. Not only does plastic consume 10% of the world's oil supply, but it also increases global warming, and can take over 1000 year to degrade. Plastic made from corn is biodegradable, carbon neutral, renewable and even edible. Plastics made from plant material are fairly common. The first plastics were made from plants (phenolic, bakelite, etc). Phenol resin is made by reacting alcohol (which can come from plants) with formaldehyde, which itself comes from methane (swamp gas). Today, that alcohol is derived from crude oil (there's that benzine again!), and the methane is often obtained from the driller themselves since it often accompanies oil. It is also easily synthesized (along with crude oil) using the Fischer-Tropsche process, now modified. These plastics, while cheap, break down too quickly for many products. It can act as an electrical insulator, but better ones using polystyrene and polyester are available now, making high power high frequency circuits possible (radar was possible because of this). Today phenols are also used to make PLA plastics, a popular food grade plastic used for 3D printing. This is a fairly weak plastic, and degrades fairly quickly on exposure to UV light or even steam, but it is useful for making figurines, temporary parts and fixtures, etc. due to it's low melting point. Another plastic, also with a low melting point (and mineral based), is much more resilient and tougher (ABS), but is not a food safe plastic. ABS can also be machined. Plant based plastics do tend to have the unfortunate disadvantage in that most of them break down in UV pretty quickly, and do not handle abrasion well (limiting their use in machine parts). No plastic takes 1000 years to degrade. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 22-12-2019 20:10
22-12-2019 20:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Xadoman wrote: Lucky! And trees can be replanted to grow again. It has mostly a sentimental value. To let it to clear cut by foresting companies gives so little profit that it is pointless. I only cut firewood for myself and sell a little by side. Not necessarily. You can use plants. Plants need soil to grow. Heavy farming quickly depletes soil fertility. We have 60 years of farming left on this planet if things continue as they do now. It takes a whole millenium to form and inch of topsoil and the rate it disappears now is 100 times faster than it forms. See what happens with heavy farming: The average topsoil depth in Iowa decreased from around 14-18 inches (35-45cm) at the start of the 20th Century to 6-8 inches (15-20cm) by its end. Relentless tilling and disturbance from farm vehicles have allowed wind and water to whisk away this priceless resource. I would also like to point out that wind and water alone are not the culprits. The simple fact that each and every year you move away thousands of tons of plant matter containing minerals and nutrients from the land itself should ring a bell that this is not sustainable. Argument from randU fallacy. Modern farming is quite sustainable. Only poor farming practices lead to soil erosion. Soil is created each year. We have this thing called worms and bugs, you see. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 22-12-2019 20:15
23-12-2019 08:25
Amanbir Grewal★☆☆☆☆ (123)	Xadoman wrote: few trillion years The oil age is over after a few decades and after that the game is over. now, now, now some CIA is outpour into our common room. NO OIL means NO ARABS, firstly. The head aches a lot, a lot. and then, uhm, its the Skorpion, the SKORPION. yeah!!! Watford 2 - 0 Manchester United. You're really not following this co-political movement that causes geographical damages to the city flood situation. period. period. Edited on 23-12-2019 08:26
23-12-2019 14:12
MarcusR★☆☆☆☆ (111)	[b]IBdaMann He's not the one insisting that photons are thermal energy. . A Joule is a joule is a joule.
23-12-2019 14:12
MarcusR★☆☆☆☆ (111)	[b]IBdaMann He's not the one insisting that photons are thermal energy. . A Joule is a joule is a joule.
23-12-2019 15:01
Amanbir Grewal★☆☆☆☆ (123)	MarcusR wrote: IBdaMann He's not the one insisting that photons are thermal energy. . A Joule is a joule is a joule. watford 2 man u 0. a joule is not a goal. Forward Strikers!!! Edited on 23-12-2019 15:02
23-12-2019 20:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	MarcusR wrote: [b]IBdaMann He's not the one insisting that photons are thermal energy. . A Joule is a joule is a joule. A joule is not thermal energy. A joule is a measurement of energy in general. Any energy. You can't use that to say electromagnetic energy is the same as thermal energy. Electromagnetic energy has no temperature. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-12-2019 23:44
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Argument from randU fallacy. Modern farming is quite sustainable. Only poor farming practices lead to soil erosion. Soil is created each year. We have this thing called worms and bugs, you see. Losing half of the topsoil during 100 years is due to modern farming. We have under 100 years of farming left.

24-12-2019 00:04
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: MarcusR wrote: [b]IBdaMann He's not the one insisting that photons are thermal energy. . A Joule is a joule is a joule. A joule is not thermal energy. A joule is a measurement of energy in general. Any energy. You can't use that to say electromagnetic energy is the same as thermal energy. Electromagnetic energy has no temperature. Ironically the thermal heat given off by a black body is in the form of photons. It is what both Planck's and the Stefan-Boltzmann constants are based on.
24-12-2019 00:37
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Xadoman wrote: The average topsoil depth in Iowa decreased from around 14-18 inches (35-45cm) at the start of the 20th Century to 6-8 inches (15-20cm) by its end. Relentless tilling and disturbance from farm vehicles have allowed wind and water to whisk away this priceless resource. I would also like to point out that wind and water alone are not the culprits. The simple fact that each and every year you move away thousands of tons of plant matter containing minerals and nutrients from the land itself should ring a bell that this is not sustainable. Wow that makes a lot of sense. I hadn't thought of that. Reversible but you'd need to suck it up here and there and let the plant's rot into the soil right? MarcusR wrote: A Joule is a joule is a joule. Yep! I just checked wikipedia for you guys, ITN/IBD, Marcus is right as usual. Into the Night wrote: A joule is not thermal energy. A joule is a measurement of energy in general. Any energy. One confused bird. Any Energy would include Thermal Energy ITN. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
24-12-2019 04:52
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: Xadoman wrote: The average topsoil depth in Iowa decreased from around 14-18 inches (35-45cm) at the start of the 20th Century to 6-8 inches (15-20cm) by its end. Relentless tilling and disturbance from farm vehicles have allowed wind and water to whisk away this priceless resource. I would also like to point out that wind and water alone are not the culprits. The simple fact that each and every year you move away thousands of tons of plant matter containing minerals and nutrients from the land itself should ring a bell that this is not sustainable. Wow that makes a lot of sense. I hadn't thought of that. Reversible but you'd need to suck it up here and there and let the plant's rot into the soil right? MarcusR wrote: A Joule is a joule is a joule. Yep! I just checked wikipedia for you guys, ITN/IBD, Marcus is right as usual. Into the Night wrote: A joule is not thermal energy. A joule is a measurement of energy in general. Any energy. One confused bird. Any Energy would include Thermal Energy ITN. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them Sometimes I wonder what ITN might actually know. A watt/joule of power out of a speaker is a sound wave and not thermal energy. At the same time a watt/joule of a microwave vibrates water which causes food in a microwave oven to heat. And in his own technical argument, he is agreeing that when CO2 conserves IR because it becomes excited like a water molecule absorbing microwave energy that a CO2 molecule is heated. You got him on that one TMid. Now he has to say that microwave ovens or molecule rearrangers (Australian) don't heat or cook food. They only excite water molecules which give off heat. And the next thing you know is that Hedy Lamarr, a famous American actress will be famous because of science. Hedy Lamarr wasn't just a beautiful movie star. According to a new play, Frequency Hopping, she was also a shrewd inventor who devised a signal technology that millions of people use every day. Her invention was used during WW II. I think in WW II that frequency hopping was used to prevent torpedoes from having their radio signals jammed. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hedy-lamarr-not-just-a-pr/ Guess I was wrong about that. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46848978/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/hedy-lamarr-hollywoods-secret-weapon-inventor/ Edited on 24-12-2019 05:50
24-12-2019 09:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Xadoman wrote: Argument from randU fallacy. Modern farming is quite sustainable. Only poor farming practices lead to soil erosion. Soil is created each year. We have this thing called worms and bugs, you see. Losing half of the topsoil during 100 years is due to modern farming. We have under 100 years of farming left. Argument from randU fallacy. Compositional error fallacy. Soil is created continuously. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-12-2019 10:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: MarcusR wrote: [b]IBdaMann He's not the one insisting that photons are thermal energy. . A Joule is a joule is a joule. A joule is not thermal energy. A joule is a measurement of energy in general. Any energy. You can't use that to say electromagnetic energy is the same as thermal energy. Electromagnetic energy has no temperature. Ironically the thermal heat given off by a black body is in the form of photons. It is what both Planck's and the Stefan-Boltzmann constants are based on. Buzzword fallacies. There is no such thing as 'thermal heat'. There is only heat, or there is not. A constant is not an equation. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-12-2019 10:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: Xadoman wrote: The average topsoil depth in Iowa decreased from around 14-18 inches (35-45cm) at the start of the 20th Century to 6-8 inches (15-20cm) by its end. Relentless tilling and disturbance from farm vehicles have allowed wind and water to whisk away this priceless resource. I would also like to point out that wind and water alone are not the culprits. The simple fact that each and every year you move away thousands of tons of plant matter containing minerals and nutrients from the land itself should ring a bell that this is not sustainable. Wow that makes a lot of sense. Only if you are clueless. Soil is created continuously. tmiddles wrote: I hadn't thought of that. Reversible but you'd need to suck it up here and there and let the plant's rot into the soil right? Nope. Soil is created continuously. tmiddles wrote: MarcusR wrote: A Joule is a joule is a joule. Yep! I just checked wikipedia for you guys, ITN/IBD, Marcus is right as usual. Neither Wikipedia is right nor Marcus. Wikipedia is not a science reference. You can't use it as one. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: A joule is not thermal energy. A joule is a measurement of energy in general. Any energy. One confused bird. Any Energy would include Thermal Energy ITN. Compositional error fallacy. Contextomy fallacy. Pay attention to the conversion, dumbass. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-12-2019 10:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	James___ wrote: tmiddles wrote: Xadoman wrote: The average topsoil depth in Iowa decreased from around 14-18 inches (35-45cm) at the start of the 20th Century to 6-8 inches (15-20cm) by its end. Relentless tilling and disturbance from farm vehicles have allowed wind and water to whisk away this priceless resource. I would also like to point out that wind and water alone are not the culprits. The simple fact that each and every year you move away thousands of tons of plant matter containing minerals and nutrients from the land itself should ring a bell that this is not sustainable. Wow that makes a lot of sense. I hadn't thought of that. Reversible but you'd need to suck it up here and there and let the plant's rot into the soil right? MarcusR wrote: A Joule is a joule is a joule. Yep! I just checked wikipedia for you guys, ITN/IBD, Marcus is right as usual. Into the Night wrote: A joule is not thermal energy. A joule is a measurement of energy in general. Any energy. One confused bird. Any Energy would include Thermal Energy ITN. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them Sometimes I wonder what ITN might actually know. A watt/joule of power out of a speaker is a sound wave and not thermal energy. At the same time a watt/joule of a microwave vibrates water which causes food in a microwave oven to heat. And in his own technical argument, he is agreeing that when CO2 conserves IR because it becomes excited like a water molecule absorbing microwave energy that a CO2 molecule is heated. You got him on that one TMid. Now he has to say that microwave ovens or molecule rearrangers (Australian) don't heat or cook food. They only excite water molecules which give off heat. And the next thing you know is that Hedy Lamarr, a famous American actress will be famous because of science. Hedy Lamarr wasn't just a beautiful movie star. According to a new play, Frequency Hopping, she was also a shrewd inventor who devised a signal technology that millions of people use every day. Her invention was used during WW II. I think in WW II that frequency hopping was used to prevent torpedoes from having their radio signals jammed. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hedy-lamarr-not-just-a-pr/ Guess I was wrong about that. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46848978/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/hedy-lamarr-hollywoods-secret-weapon-inventor/ Random word salad. Buzzword fallacies. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-12-2019 10:11
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Wow that makes a lot of sense. I hadn't thought of that. Reversible but you'd need to suck it up here and there and let the plant's rot into the soil right? Basically yes. Minerals get into the soil from rocks that are decomposted by weather, plants etc but that is a long process. Farmers use a lot of fertilizers to compensate but that is eventually a dead end because the layer of the topsoil gets thinner each and every year because of heavy farming. One day the thickness of the topsoil is too thin to grow crops, corn, potatoes etc. The land needs to rest. Ironically the thermal heat given off by a black body is in the form of photons. It is what both Planck's and the Stefan-Boltzmann constants are based on. In highschool we learned that besides conduction and convection heat is lost via radiation. We never digged deeper than that though. I have learned a lot from this forum so far. Could somebody explain what is the conflict with photons , Planck "s and Stefan-Boltzmann constant and global warming.
24-12-2019 10:31
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Soil is created continuously. Does not mean the soil thickness grows. Cancerous cells are also produced by our bodies continuosly but the immune system destroys them. A lot of soil lost from erosion end up in rivers and is carried to lakes and oceans. It is also one of the reasons for sea level rise.
24-12-2019 12:41
Amanbir Grewal★☆☆☆☆ (123)	holocaust science! my bones make the soil i need, like jefferson dawg. why did i ever enroll up for this, cuz the douche the douche, lmao, wait, she just died. why wud you ever, EVER, sit next to a Negro? i mean, why?
24-12-2019 17:24
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Xadoman wrote: Wow that makes a lot of sense. I hadn't thought of that. Reversible but you'd need to suck it up here and there and let the plant's rot into the soil right? Basically yes. Minerals get into the soil from rocks that are decomposted by weather, plants etc but that is a long process. Farmers use a lot of fertilizers to compensate but that is eventually a dead end because the layer of the topsoil gets thinner each and every year because of heavy farming. One day the thickness of the topsoil is too thin to grow crops, corn, potatoes etc. The land needs to rest. Ironically the thermal heat given off by a black body is in the form of photons. It is what both Planck's and the Stefan-Boltzmann constants are based on. In highschool we learned that besides conduction and convection heat is lost via radiation. We never digged deeper than that though. I have learned a lot from this forum so far. Could somebody explain what is the conflict with photons , Planck "s and Stefan-Boltzmann constant and global warming. Basically Infrared Radiation (IR) causes CO2 to generate heat using the same principle as a microwave oven uses to heat food. Is enough of that happening to cause global warming? CO2 is about 0.04% of our atmosphere. For more information about IR, search "Earth's energy budget". I hope this helps.
24-12-2019 20:02
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	James___ wrote:Basically Infrared Radiation (IR) causes CO2 to generate heat using the same principle as a microwave oven uses to heat food. This is information I've been looking for. Can you tell me more about this? Is this how solar panels work? It would seem like based upon the small amount of CO2 required to generate heat that it would be useful for powering electric cars. You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
24-12-2019 20:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Xadoman wrote: Wow that makes a lot of sense. I hadn't thought of that. Reversible but you'd need to suck it up here and there and let the plant's rot into the soil right? Basically yes. Minerals get into the soil from rocks that are decomposted by weather, plants etc but that is a long process. Not that long. Soil is made continuously. Xadoman wrote: Farmers use a lot of fertilizers Quite a few of the ones around here use pig shit. Xadoman wrote: to compensate but that is eventually a dead end because the layer of the topsoil gets thinner each and every year because of heavy farming. The topsoil is not getting thinner. Xadoman wrote: One day the thickness of the topsoil is too thin to grow crops, corn, potatoes etc. The land needs to rest. Farmers today have no trouble growing crops, year after year. Each year produces bountiful harvests. The United States literally feeds the world. Xadoman wrote: Ironically the thermal heat given off by a black body is in the form of photons. It is what both Planck's and the Stefan-Boltzmann constants are based on. In highschool we learned that besides conduction and convection heat is lost via radiation. Heat is not something you can lose. It simply is. Xadoman wrote: We never digged deeper than that though. I have learned a lot from this forum so far. Could somebody explain what is the conflict with photons , Planck "s and Stefan-Boltzmann constant and global warming. Sure. photons have nothing to do with constants. A constant of nature, such as Planck's constant, the Stefan-Boltzman constant, or even the Boltzman constant are constants in laws of physics that essentially convert the law to our units of measurement. That's all they do. They are constants and do not change. One you mentioned is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The law this is used in is called the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. This law stems from a theory of science that has been formalized into an equation. This equation is: r = C * e * t^4 This equation relates radiance and temperature. r = radiance in watts per square meter. t = temperature in deg K of the radiating surface. e = the ability of the surface to emit light compared to an ideal black body, expressed as a percentage. This is a measured constant. C = the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, or the value ‎5.670 374 419 x 10^-8. In other words, the hotter something is, the more it radiates. The colder something is, the less it radiates. Emissivity is sometimes confused with albedo. It isn't. It is the inverse of albedo. This is a measured value. The way you measure it is to first determine the temperature of the emitting surface very accurately. You then compare it's radiance to that of an ideal black body that is at the same temperature. The ideal black body is a theoretical concept used as one end of a scale. No ideal black body actually exists anywhere. The equation is over all frequencies of light integrated into a single value. The emissivity is also integrated over all frequencies of light into a single value. A photon itself is a packet of energy in the form of electromagnetic energy. It has no temperature. Not all photons are equal. Lower frequency photons have less energy than high frequency photons. This is shown by Planck's law (I'll let you look that one up ). Absorption of a photon by a molecule or atom accepts that packet of energy and converts it to something else. It might show up as ionizing the atom or molecule, cause a chemical reaction, or be converted to thermal energy. Infrared light typically converts to thermal energy when absorbed. Visible bands of light generally cause chemical reactions instead (allowing you to see, for instance, or allowing plants to utilize these frequencies to grow). UV light on up to X rays can cause not only chemical reactions, but direct ionization of an atom or molecule. Only thermal energy has a temperature. No other form of energy has a temperature. A photon that strikes an atom or molecule may or may not be absorbed. There might be several reasons for this, but one of them is that the molecule may have more energy than the photon itself has. No molecule or atom will accept a photon that has less energy than the molecule or atom itself already has. In such a case, the photon continues on. It is as if the atom or molecule was transparent or reflective. Only a photon that is emitted by something as a result of blackbody radiance, then absorbed AND converted to thermal energy (as opposed to some other kind of energy) is heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is nothing else. Heat is like the current in a river. Current is not the water itself, but the flow of the water. Heat is not thermal energy itself, but the flow of thermal energy. Thermal energy can flow from one place to another by conduction, convection, or radiance. Radiance follows the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Can a colder gas such as atmospheric CO2 warm a surface that is already warmer than the gas? No. Heat always flows from hot to cold. This is a function of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and a thing called entropy (the randomness of a system). Warm things are concentrations of energy. Cold things are lack of energy (by comparison). Heat, if it occurs at all, will always flow from concentrations of energy and dissipate to areas that lack energy until everything is the same energy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is: e(t+1) >= e(t) where e is entropy. t is time. In other words, entropy will never decrease in any system. It must always increase or stay the same, even in a system as large as the universe itself (the ultimate open system, yet described in a closed context). In thermodynamics, the system must be closed; that is, the boundaries of that system must be consistently defined. One common mistake made by the Church of Global Warming is to consider two completely different system as the same system. This is a false equivalence and is a fallacy (an error in logic). In the end, there is no conflict. Photons and their behavior associated with thermal energy are easily described, and their relation to things like temperature, color (frequency), and power are all described by laws of physics (the equations that result by formalizing a theory of science into mathematics. It is also possible to formalize a theory of science into that other closed function system, logic. The result is still called a law, and it again results in an equation, but this time a logical equation rather than a mathematical one. A theory of science is just a falsifiable theory. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a conclusion and a set of predicates. There is such a thing as a nonscientific theory. These are theories, but they are not falsifiable...in other words they cannot be tested using a test that is specific, and that produces a specific result, and that is available to conduct. No theory is ever proven True. This includes any theory of science. A theory of science, however, CAN be shown to be False. If any such test against the theory is True, the theory itself is False. It therefore has been falsified, and that theory is utterly destroyed. Hopefully this clears up some of the confusion about photons for you, but here's the rub: There is no theory of science about 'global warming'. The problem is that there is no definition of 'global warming'. It's a meaningless phrase. The problem lies in defining the 'warming' aspect of it. 'Warming' of course means temperature is increasing. This necessitates two readings of temperature, taken at two different times for the same object. Nothing about 'warming' specifies when these two times are or how far apart they are. Is the warming over 1000 years? 100 years? 10 years? 1 year? A month? A day? An hour? A second? What makes these two points in time significant? What makes any other two points in time NOT significant? All these things must be declared before the word 'warming' as any meaning at all. There is a second problem, and this is a mathematical one, having to do with statistical math. It is that there are simply not enough thermometers on the Earth to measure a global temperature. NOAA and NASA both claim they have enough thermometers, but the number they use in the their database (NASA uses the larger number) is the equivalent of trying to measure a State the size of Virginia with a SINGLE thermometer. Even worse, the thermometers they DO use tend to be located in cities or on roads (thermometers must be serviced). They are not uniformly spread over the measured area. Location grouping is a significant factor. Surface temperature can and does vary by as much as 20 deg F per mile. This can occur across storm fronts, forested areas compared to asphalted areas, compression waves coming from winds through mountains, even a passing cloud. Putting 100 thermometers in a city tells you nothing about the countryside even a mile or so away. Simply averaging them as if they WERE uniformly distributed and read at the same time by the same authority (time is a signicant factor too!), is a mathematical error. Statistical math requires the calculation of the margin of error value to accompany the mean value. Without the margin of error, the average has no meaning. This margin of error is not instrument tolerance. It is calculate from the possible variance of values. That variance must be declared and justified. In the case of temperature, a variance of 20 deg F per mile is easily justified. Satellites are often claimed to measure global temperatures, but there is a problem with that, too. It has to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann law again, and also a concept in mathematics known as the Dependent variable and the Independent variable. This is NOT taught in high school (indeed mathematics is VERY poorly handled in K-12 education these days!). As I've described above, the Stefan-Boltzmann law relates temperature to radiance (light). It cannot, however, do the reverse. Yes, there is algebra, but to use algebra in that manner is actually a mathematical error. Here is why: Light is more than just what is radiated from an object by blackbody radiance. It might have come from somewhere else (the Sun or a star?), and what you see coming from an object is simply reflected light as well as the light emitted by that object's temperature. What you see is not what the object is emitting, isolated from all other sources of light. Stefan-Boltzmann again: r = C * e * t^4 Here t is known as an Independent variable. It can change freely, and produce an r that is known. However, r is a Dependent variable. It can change to produce a temperature (algebra), but is the r you are using a valid one? Is it all related to temperature? That is unknown. The radiance you see might be simply reflected light and has nothing to do with the temperature of your object. Even worse, blackbody radiance isn't the only way to emit light. It is possible to emit light without temperature, by emitting so-called harmonic light. Cold sources of light include bioluminecence such as algae and certain worms do, LED lighting, etc. These sources of light are not dependent on the temperature. The also tend to emit only certain frequencies, giving them their characteristic color. Even with LEDs, this LEDs are white because of several LEDs (red, green, and blue) emitting at the same time. This is how we can design a 'warm' white or a 'cold' looking white with LEDs. So the light you see might be from blackbody radiance, or the result of a reflection, or the result of the emission of a 'cold' light. You don't know which or by how much. Thus, a satellite in orbit around Earth really can't get any idea of an absolute temperature by looking at light coming from Earth. Since the satellite is not in physical contact with the Earth, it can't measure its temperature by conduction or convection either. Satellites can measure relative temperatures, but even that is assuming the two temperatures are from objects of the same emissivity. Since the emissivity of Earth is unknown, a satellite has no idea of the absolute temperature of anything on Earth. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-12-2019 21:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Xadoman wrote: Soil is created continuously. Does not mean the soil thickness grows. Cancerous cells are also produced by our bodies continuosly but the immune system destroys them. A false equivalence fallacy. Cancer cells are not soil. There is no immune system trying to destroy soil. Xadoman wrote: A lot of soil lost from erosion end up in rivers and is carried to lakes and oceans. Rivers and streams has always washed away soil. Air can erode the land too. That's been around for as long as the wind and the water, yet there is plenty of soil to grow plants in. You can see that in the vast grasslands, the forests, and even the plants in the desert. Xadoman wrote: It is also one of the reasons for sea level rise. The sea isn't rising as far as anyone can tell. It really is not possible to measure a global sea level. There is no valid reference point to call 'zero'. Land moves, you see. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-12-2019 21:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	James___ wrote: Xadoman wrote: Wow that makes a lot of sense. I hadn't thought of that. Reversible but you'd need to suck it up here and there and let the plant's rot into the soil right? Basically yes. Minerals get into the soil from rocks that are decomposted by weather, plants etc but that is a long process. Farmers use a lot of fertilizers to compensate but that is eventually a dead end because the layer of the topsoil gets thinner each and every year because of heavy farming. One day the thickness of the topsoil is too thin to grow crops, corn, potatoes etc. The land needs to rest. Ironically the thermal heat given off by a black body is in the form of photons. It is what both Planck's and the Stefan-Boltzmann constants are based on. In highschool we learned that besides conduction and convection heat is lost via radiation. We never digged deeper than that though. I have learned a lot from this forum so far. Could somebody explain what is the conflict with photons , Planck "s and Stefan-Boltzmann constant and global warming. Basically Infrared Radiation (IR) causes CO2 to generate heat It is not possible to 'generate' heat anymore than it is possible to 'generate' a flow in a river. Heat simply is. James___ wrote: using the same principle as a microwave oven uses to heat food. In both cases, you have to use energy to do that. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Does CO2 absorb infrared light emitted from Earth's surface? Certainly. It takes energy to emit that light though, and the surface is cooled by this action. Like the warmer surface heating the atmosphere by conduction, heating it by radiance is possible and does happen. This does not warm the Earth. James___ wrote: Is enough of that happening to cause global warming? CO2 is about 0.04% of our atmosphere. Define 'global warming'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using Earth's own emitted IR. James___ wrote: For more information about IR, search "Earth's energy budget". I hope this helps. These diagrams are egregious violations of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. * You cannot create energy out of nothing. * You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. * You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

24-12-2019 23:11
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Harry C wrote: James___ wrote:Basically Infrared Radiation (IR) causes CO2 to generate heat using the same principle as a microwave oven uses to heat food. This is information I've been looking for. Can you tell me more about this? Is this how solar panels work? It would seem like based upon the small amount of CO2 required to generate heat that it would be useful for powering electric cars. Using a microwave oven as an example, most of the microwaves pass through the food without heating it. When a water molecule absorbs microwave radiation it becomes excited. With solar panels, the concept is similar to a basic capacitor. If you wrap aluminum foil and plastic wrap around something, the plastic wrap does need to be stretched, it creates a negative charge. And when grounded it will absorb electrons until it has a sufficient charge. With solar panels, they have crystals in a film to convert solar radiation into electrons. Beneath that they have a ground plate that is wired for current. It might be possible to have gases like CO2 or CH4 in the film or wrapping to see if they can increase the amount of solar radiation that's converted into electrons. I think a better solar panel might be one of the more important things for the future. With that said, what one company has already done. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=137489034333500&id=110812717001132
25-12-2019 05:35
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	James___ wrote: Using a microwave oven as an example, most of the microwaves pass through the food without heating it. When a water molecule absorbs microwave radiation it becomes excited. With solar panels, the concept is similar to a basic capacitor. If you wrap aluminum foil and plastic wrap around something, the plastic wrap does need to be stretched, it creates a negative charge. And when grounded it will absorb electrons until it has a sufficient charge. With solar panels, they have crystals in a film to convert solar radiation into electrons. Beneath that they have a ground plate that is wired for current. It might be possible to have gases like CO2 or CH4 in the film or wrapping to see if they can increase the amount of solar radiation that's converted into electrons. I think a better solar panel might be one of the more important things for the future. With that said, what one company has already done. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=137489034333500&id=110812717001132 Now I'm more confused. I did some reading about how a microwave works. It's function is reliant upon electromagnetic radiation to induce polar molecules in the food, based upon high water content, to rotate and produce thermal energy. Whereas the dipole moment of water is 1.85D, for carbon dioxide it's zero (0). Perhaps I'm mistaken but it wouldn't appear that CO2 would "excite" based upon infrared radiation. You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
25-12-2019 06:40
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Harry C wrote: James___ wrote: Using a microwave oven as an example, most of the microwaves pass through the food without heating it. When a water molecule absorbs microwave radiation it becomes excited. With solar panels, the concept is similar to a basic capacitor. If you wrap aluminum foil and plastic wrap around something, the plastic wrap does need to be stretched, it creates a negative charge. And when grounded it will absorb electrons until it has a sufficient charge. With solar panels, they have crystals in a film to convert solar radiation into electrons. Beneath that they have a ground plate that is wired for current. It might be possible to have gases like CO2 or CH4 in the film or wrapping to see if they can increase the amount of solar radiation that's converted into electrons. I think a better solar panel might be one of the more important things for the future. With that said, what one company has already done. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=137489034333500&id=110812717001132 Now I'm more confused. I did some reading about how a microwave works. It's function is reliant upon electromagnetic radiation to induce polar molecules in the food, based upon high water content, to rotate and produce thermal energy. Whereas the dipole moment of water is 1.85D, for carbon dioxide it's zero (0). Perhaps I'm mistaken but it wouldn't appear that CO2 would "excite" based upon infrared radiation. Microwaves causes water to vibrate/rotate , that creates friction. http://www.iapws.org/faq1/mwave.html With IR and CO2, CO2 vibrates https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation I just read a story the other day where they can make electric motors on the scale of microns. Could've been on TV. With water, when it's used to generate hydrogen oxygen is positively charged while hydrogen is negatively charged. That could be what allows for a water molecule to spin. And since it's not balanced it will vibrate. It is kind of interesting to think of a water molecule as an electric motor.
25-12-2019 14:21
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	[quote]Into the Night wrote: Thanks for the long exlpanation. I like a lot that nowadays it is possible to learn from forums more than from highschool. The problem with highschool is that pupils often just remember the equation and make calculations but they do not have a full understanding what that equation means in real life. It may be that the teacher also does not fully comprehend all those things and avoids conversations about it. For example I had a conversation in other forum about closed systems and impulse moments. Some phd made an argument in the tv talk show that the energy from windmills is actually at the expence of the earth rotational movement as the windmill is going to have a dragging effect on earth rotation and therefore it cannot be considered as green energy. Me and my opponent had an argument in the forum whether the windmills are slowing down the earth rotations or not and my argument at that moment was that the net effect of all windmills is zero , because some will drag the earth and others will push it. Later , when I digged deeper into this subject, I understood that it is not possible to change the impulse moment without loosing or getting mass. My opponent who claimed to be a phd, did not even understood how reactive engines work. I explained to him that when you take a reactive engine and put it inside the spacehip so that the exhaust gases can not get out, the spaceship will not move. He insisted that it moves till the tempretaure in the spaceship rises to the point it is not possible for a heat engine to operate. I said to him many times that even my mother who is a complete zero in math and physics agreed with me that the plane or spaceship will not move when the engine is inside of it. He insisted me to go to school and study physics and math. He recommended me many books , talked about entropy, entalpia and quoted many equations. I was amazed that he knew so many formulas, equations etc but could not comprehend the simplest principle how the rocket engine works. He called me fool and flat earther many times and the majoroty of the forum was on his side because his talk sounded educated and smart. I gave up on educating him because at that point I had found from another forum a study that said that it is almost impossible to change people minds when they have their own stronger inner opinion which disagrees with you. In order to agree with you they have to have their inner opinion already agreed with you before the argument is even made. I try to analyze myself from that point of view every time I have an argument with others. When it comes to global warming I think it is almost the same as once was with the invention of the perpetuum mobile. People endlessly filed patents for it and specialists had a lot of trouble to understand and explain why they do not work. Eventually the law of perpetum mobile was formulated and patents were not accepted. With global warming we also have so many scenarios, feedbacks etc etc. Clathrate guns, methan dragons and so on. I do not belive in it anymore. I see earth as a perfect thermos. No conduction and no convection in space( conduction and convection are basically the same). Only radiation. In order to trap heat the earth should absorb heat better than it emits it. I think in practice it is a self regulating process - if the absortion gets better, the emissivity also gets better and if the absorbtion gets smaller the emissivity also gets smaller.
25-12-2019 15:01
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	The sea isn't rising as far as anyone can tell. It really is not possible to measure a global sea level. There is no valid reference point to call 'zero'. Land moves, you see. It is a simple law of archimedes. Massive amount of soil that ends up in ocean causes a sea level rise. The topsoil is not getting thinner. Unfortunately it is . Modern farming is not sustainable the way it is now. Farmers today have no trouble growing crops, year after year. Each year produces bountiful harvests. The United States literally feeds the world. As long as they use fertilizers and the thickness of the topsoil is adequate to produce they seemingly have no problems. Does not mean there is no problem as the thickness of the topsoil gets thinner year by year till the topsoil thickness reaches to a critical point where plants are no longer able to survive. After that game is over. A false equivalence fallacy. Cancer cells are not soil. There is no immune system trying to destroy soil. Just wanted to point out that in there has to be a balance between soild destruction and soil formation. At present the soil that is used by farmers to produce plant matter gets thinner year by year. Rivers and streams has always washed away soil. Air can erode the land too. I just wanted to point out where the soil goes after erosion by wind etc. After tilling and cultivating the soil is extremely susceptible for erosion from wind and rain. But that is only one part of the problem. Majoroty of the soil nutrients and minerals end up on our table and we consume it and the feces end up berried on the landfills. That is a direct loss of soil fertility. Also the bodies of humans are berried deeply under ground that is also a direct loss of soil fertility.
25-12-2019 16:33
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	James___ wrote: With IR and CO2, CO2 vibrates https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation Yes I've heard that information before and seen the animations. There was nothing in there that explains the reaction which is what I'm searching for. People say that's what happens but no one explains how it actually happens, like the microwave example above. What physical properties are at work to cause that reaction? You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
25-12-2019 17:13
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Harry C wrote: James___ wrote: With IR and CO2, CO2 vibrates https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation Yes I've heard that information before and seen the animations. There was nothing in there that explains the reaction which is what I'm searching for. People say that's what happens but no one explains how it actually happens, like the microwave example above. What physical properties are at work to cause that reaction? This might get into atomic physics. When a molecule changes its "state" or how excited it is, its nuclei/nucleus needs to change states as well. The least energetic state for an atom is n0 which is its ground state. And as a nucleus becomes more excited it has n1, n2, etc. Both CO2 and water has covalent bonds (share electrons). If we think of molecules as being little electric motors, they develop a field around them. The same thing happens with an electric motor when current runs through it, its spin is relative to its field. I guess in this aspect that a nucleus is like an armature or field windings. And that when different molecules bond, it changes the state of their nuclei (armature/field windings).
25-12-2019 19:30
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	James___ wrote: This might get into atomic physics. When a molecule changes its "state" or how excited it is, its nuclei/nucleus needs to change states as well. The least energetic state for an atom is n0 which is its ground state. And as a nucleus becomes more excited it has n1, n2, etc. Both CO2 and water has covalent bonds (share electrons). If we think of molecules as being little electric motors, they develop a field around them. The same thing happens with an electric motor when current runs through it, its spin is relative to its field. I guess in this aspect that a nucleus is like an armature or field windings. And that when different molecules bond, it changes the state of their nuclei (armature/field windings). Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to do more research on this but have a couple of quick thoughts that relate to the most dominant point made here consistently about the 2LOT. There is a finite amount of IR incoming to the CO2 molecule. Is energy consumed during the change of state? What type of work product is created, how to quantify the output of the change? You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
25-12-2019 20:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	James___ wrote: Harry C wrote: James___ wrote:Basically Infrared Radiation (IR) causes CO2 to generate heat using the same principle as a microwave oven uses to heat food. This is information I've been looking for. Can you tell me more about this? Is this how solar panels work? It would seem like based upon the small amount of CO2 required to generate heat that it would be useful for powering electric cars. Using a microwave oven as an example, most of the microwaves pass through the food without heating it. When a water molecule absorbs microwave radiation it becomes excited. Correct. James___ wrote: With solar panels, the concept is similar to a basic capacitor. No. There is no capacitor in a solar panel (intentionally). James___ wrote: If you wrap aluminum foil and plastic wrap around something, the plastic wrap does need to be stretched, it creates a negative charge. And when grounded it will absorb electrons until it has a sufficient charge. WRONG. James___ wrote: With solar panels, they have crystals in a film to convert solar radiation into electrons. Beneath that they have a ground plate that is wired for current. That crystal is silicon, doped to introduce a few extra electrons on one side and a few space for electrons on the other (electron 'holes'). In other words, it's built like a giant diode. ALL diodes are sensitive to light. That's why they are usually put in opaque plastic housings. A bipolar transistor is the same way. James___ wrote: It might be possible to have gases like CO2 or CH4 in the film or wrapping to see if they can increase the amount of solar radiation that's converted into electrons. The wrapping does nothing. It is there to protect the diode from the elements, nothing more. Magick gases would do nothing. You can't create energy out of nothing. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-12-2019 20:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Harry C wrote: James___ wrote: Using a microwave oven as an example, most of the microwaves pass through the food without heating it. When a water molecule absorbs microwave radiation it becomes excited. With solar panels, the concept is similar to a basic capacitor. If you wrap aluminum foil and plastic wrap around something, the plastic wrap does need to be stretched, it creates a negative charge. And when grounded it will absorb electrons until it has a sufficient charge. With solar panels, they have crystals in a film to convert solar radiation into electrons. Beneath that they have a ground plate that is wired for current. It might be possible to have gases like CO2 or CH4 in the film or wrapping to see if they can increase the amount of solar radiation that's converted into electrons. I think a better solar panel might be one of the more important things for the future. With that said, what one company has already done. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=137489034333500&id=110812717001132 Now I'm more confused. I did some reading about how a microwave works. It's function is reliant upon electromagnetic radiation to induce polar molecules in the food, based upon high water content, to rotate and produce thermal energy. Whereas the dipole moment of water is 1.85D, for carbon dioxide it's zero (0). Perhaps I'm mistaken but it wouldn't appear that CO2 would "excite" based upon infrared radiation. Most things, including both CO2 and water, absorb infrared light and convert it to thermal energy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 6 of 10

Join the debate Energy and resource crisis in the future:

Threads	Replies	Last post
THE FUTURE OF HYDROGEN POWER	31	09-08-2023 19:29
The 'crisis' that will 'steal' the 2024 election.	2	15-05-2023 05:02
Climate Change: The Science of Global Warming and Our Energy Future, just $133.79	4	19-02-2023 14:09
Climate Crisis!	8	04-12-2022 07:10
Make Natural Resource Currency Great Again	1	30-07-2022 22:43