Hot Water Unit

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Hot Water Unit

Page 1 of 4

Hot Water Unit05-07-2021 11:30
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I was just getting cleaned up after changing out my Jeep Shock Absorbers and it occurred to me as This morning I switched out a natural gas 135 litre Vulcan unit.The units have insulation around the tank to slow down the cooling process and it also takes less energy to get the water to the temperature set by the controller.This explains the CO2 insulating effect and why extra energy is not needed to raise the temperature.I will finish with 280ppm-400ppm does not give 2.C more like 0.00014.C I am guessing as we can not measure it.Tear me a new one but CO2 does something duncan61
05-07-2021 17:52
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2933)	duncan61 wrote: This explains the CO2 insulating effect and why extra energy is not needed to raise the temperature. Slight problem with your theory. CO2 is a conductor, not an insulator. Just another pathway for heat to flow from the surface to the atmosphere. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 05-07-2021 17:55
05-07-2021 19:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	GasGuzzler wrote:Slight problem with your theory. There is more than a slight problem. Duncan is discussing insulation ... for earth ... which is surrounded by a vacuum. Insulation doesn't apply. Insulation pertains to heat via conduction (and thus convection as well). There is no conduction (and thus no convection) in a vacuum. Atmospheric CO2 has no insulating effect on conduction that is not occurring because of the vacuum surrounding earth. CO2 cannot thwart any of earth's thermal energy escaping into space via conduction (or convection) because there isn't any. Insulation doesn't apply. Who knows what Duncan was thinking? GasGuzzler wrote:CO2 is a conductor, not an insulator. Correct. CO2 is such a good conductor for thermal energy that it is used as a commercial refrigerant in industrial CO2 refrigeration units.
05-07-2021 19:09
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Is the CO2 theory not based on energy that should escape being radiated back.
05-07-2021 19:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	duncan61 wrote:Tear me a new one but CO2 does something Nope. Consider a new one torn because CO2 does nothing to alter earth's average planetary temperature. Temperature can only increase by adding energy. If there is no additional energy then temperature cannot increase. Let me know when you can cook food by spraying it with enough CO2. Duncan, if you take a warm rock that has been sitting in the sun and you wrap it in a blanket, when does the rock's temperature increase?

05-07-2021 19:33
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote:Tear me a new one but CO2 does something Nope. Consider a new one torn because CO2 does nothing to alter earth's average planetary temperature. Temperature can only increase by adding energy. If there is no additional energy then temperature cannot increase. Let me know when you can cook food by spraying it with enough CO2. Duncan, if you take a warm rock that has been sitting in the sun and you wrap it in a blanket, when does the rock's temperature increase? So what you're saying IBDM is that CO2 is good at capturing heat? And that the tropopause is like an insulating blanket? After all, it is as cold as -56º C. which shows it does not let much heat out. So what you're saying is that both a blanket and a "vacuum" seal (lack of molecules that allow the transfer of heat or cold) in a thermos, right? I think I get it now, CO2 is causing global warming because CO2 absorbs heat and the tropopause doesn't allow it to radiate back out to space as quickly. You sure are smart IBDM.
05-07-2021 20:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	James___ wrote:So what you're saying IBDM is that CO2 is good at capturing heat? Heat cannot be captured. Learn what heat is. James___ wrote:And that the tropopause is like an insulating blanket? Insulation does not apply in a vacuum because there is no conduction (and hence, no convection) in a vacuum. James___ wrote:So what you're saying is that both a blanket and a "vacuum" seal (lack of molecules that allow the transfer of heat or cold) in a thermos, right? Heat cannot be sealed. Learn what heat is. James___ wrote:I think I get it now, CO2 is causing global warming because CO2 absorbs heat Heat is never absorbed. Learn what heat is. Electromagnetic energy is "absorbed." Thermal energy flows and is transferred from one body of matter to another. James___ wrote: ... and the tropopause doesn't allow it to radiate back out to space as quickly. ... because of all the formaldehyde created by the Van Allen belt causing the tectonic plates to dislodge and to disrupt the Norwegian Jet Stream. I hate when that happens.
05-07-2021 21:18
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	I have got a question that is on my mind lately. Which way a human body cools down quicker in the space - being naked or wearing a coat?
05-07-2021 21:36
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: Heat cannot be captured. Learn what heat is. Didn't you just post that CO2 is used as an industrial coolant? That pretty much says it absorbs heat. Just did a quick read, when it goes from liquid to gas, it releases heat. This means that as CO2 is pressurized to become liquid, it absorbs heat. And now you've just changed the debate from "what can CO2 do?" to if it moves to a lower quantum state it can convert heat energy into heat content. You just showed a way that CO2 can transport heat from the upper troposphere to the lower troposphere. And if you check, I don't think that anyone has ever considered this possibility until you brought it into play. I wonder if this explains why along with ozone depletion the ozone layer is cooling. But you're not well read on what the debate entails.
05-07-2021 22:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	Xadoman wrote:I have got a question that is on my mind lately. Which way a human body cools down quicker in the space - being naked or wearing a coat? You should be asking yourself why you are confusing the earth with something (e.g. human body) that is its own heat source. You should be asking yourself why you weren't capable of immediately recognizing the huge difference between the two cases.
05-07-2021 22:19
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	You should be asking yourself why you are confusing the earth with something (e.g. human body) that is its own heat source. You should be asking yourself why you weren't capable of immediately recognizing the huge difference between the two cases. The earth has a molten core. It is a heat source. Would insulating the earth slow down the cooling of the molten core or it would not matter?
05-07-2021 22:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Heat cannot be captured. Learn what heat is. Didn't you just post that CO2 is used as an industrial coolant? No. I wrote that CO2 is used as a commercial refrigerant in industrial CO2 refrigeration units. James___ wrote:That pretty much says it absorbs heat. Heat cannot be absorbed. Learn what heat is. James___ wrote:Just did a quick read, when it goes from liquid to gas, it releases heat. You should have been more careful in selecting your source for quick reading. Heat cannot be "released" because heat can never be trapped/contained in the first place. Learn what heat is. When CO2 expands its temperature decreases causing external thermal energy to flow into it. James___ wrote: This means that as CO2 is pressurized to become liquid, it absorbs heat. Incorrect. Heat cannot be absorbed. Learn what heat is. When CO2 is pressurized, its temperature increases and thermal energy flows out of it into surrounding matter. James___ wrote: And now you've just changed the debate from "what can CO2 do?" to if it moves to a lower quantum state it can convert heat energy into heat content. I can assure you that I did no such thing ... however you clearly just did. James___ wrote:You just showed a way that CO2 can transport heat from the upper troposphere to the lower troposphere. Can you explain this in a way that shows that you know what heat is? James___ wrote: I wonder if this explains why along with ozone depletion the ozone layer is cooling. Well ... let's see if your explanation explains it. [center] [/center]
05-07-2021 22:38
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Xadoman wrote: You should be asking yourself why you are confusing the earth with something (e.g. human body) that is its own heat source. You should be asking yourself why you weren't capable of immediately recognizing the huge difference between the two cases. The earth has a molten core. It is a heat source. Would insulating the earth slow down the cooling of the molten core or it would not matter? With the Earth's core, heat is a byproduct of gravity compressing matter. Gravity would need to be slowed. p.s., always possible someone will figure out how to do that. Edited on 05-07-2021 22:38
05-07-2021 22:43
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: No. I wrote that CO2 is used as a commercial refrigerant in industrial CO2 refrigeration units. James___ wrote:That pretty much says it absorbs heat. Heat cannot be absorbed. Learn what heat is. Heat is a flow of energy such as in E = hf. With photosynthesis, it is often stated as CO2 + H2O + h > CH2O and O2. This demonstrates that when "heat" is absorbed that it becomes "heat content". Still, you have your word games, right? You should try moving past definitions to learning something about science. Who knows, you might find things to be more interesting.
05-07-2021 23:12
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Initally, the heat came from the energy of the material as it condensed to form the Earth. Additional heat is added by the radioactive elements as already mentioned. As the Surface of the Earth cooled, and the Crust formed, the molten interior was surrounded by a natural insulator. This insulation, in the form of solid rock, traps the heat inside pretty effectively. The gas giants don't have a solid surface, and as such, can lose heat faster. Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-the-core-of-our-earth-so-hot.583/ I copied it from the physics forum. This explanation about solid surface acting as an insulator and trapping heat seems fishy to me.

05-07-2021 23:26
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Xadoman wrote: Initally, the heat came from the energy of the material as it condensed to form the Earth. Additional heat is added by the radioactive elements as already mentioned. As the Surface of the Earth cooled, and the Crust formed, the molten interior was surrounded by a natural insulator. This insulation, in the form of solid rock, traps the heat inside pretty effectively. The gas giants don't have a solid surface, and as such, can lose heat faster. Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-the-core-of-our-earth-so-hot.583/ I copied it from the physics forum. This explanation about solid surface acting as an insulator and trapping heat seems fishy to me. And yet a rock can be heated by the Sun. This is getting into black body radiation. Just checked and a basic number is that temperature increases about 25º C. for every km of depth. That's from the surface going down. I'd say that's what's to be expected with gravity. It's potential increases at depth because of the mass of the Earth. p.s., if you consider the torus around a cold fusion reactor, it's hot inside the toroidal field. The heat is contained. How to know when a natural process like the Earth does the same thing? Edited on 05-07-2021 23:50
05-07-2021 23:30
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	James___ wrote:Heat is a flow of energy Correct, specifically, heat is a flow of thermal energy. When we speak of a river's current, we are speaking of the flow of the water, not of the water. James___ wrote: This demonstrates that when "heat" is absorbed ... Heat cannot be absorbed. The flow cannot be absorbed. The energy is what is absorbed, not the flow, not the heat. James___ wrote: Still, you have your word games, right? He who is using words incorrectly is the one playing the word games. James___ wrote: You should try moving past definitions ... You should try sticking with definitions. You should try saying what you mean and meaning what you say ... and then try saying and meaning things that are correct.
05-07-2021 23:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	Xadoman wrote:The earth has a molten core. The earth has a crust. Xadoman wrote: It is a heat source. The crust precludes the mantle from heating the surface. Check the ocean temperature the next time you go to the beach. Xadoman wrote:Would insulating the earth slow down the cooling of the molten core or it would not matter? If the earth's crust were stripped away and the earth's mantle exposed, yes, the earth would radiate much more thermal radiation out to space ... and a new crust would eventually form. The earth's core (likely) generates heat by converting chemical energy to thermal energy via nuclear reaction. However, I have not witnessed this myself and can neither confirm nor deny that this is the case. Presuming this to be the case, however, the earth's core will continue to create heat as long as there is nuclear fuel to do so. If, on the other hand, you were to wrap the earth in a blanket, the "cooling" would become that of the blanket. The blanket would be the earth's new surface.
05-07-2021 23:55
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	And yet a rock can be heated by the Sun. This is getting into black body radiation. It is said that in space all the bodies lose heat only via radiation. So does adding insulation to earth help to retain heat in molten core or not? Lets say we insulate the earth with rigid foam all over the earth. Would it take longer for the molten core to lose heat in this case or would it be the same as without insulation? If it indeed prolongs the cooling of the molten core then we could say that adding insulation in fact acts as reducing radiation ergo reducing emissivity. Edited on 05-07-2021 23:55
05-07-2021 23:55
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: This demonstrates that when "heat" is absorbed ... Heat cannot be absorbed. The flow cannot be absorbed. The energy is what is absorbed, not the flow, not the heat. And yet heat is once again E = hv while E is 1/2mv^2. One is a wave (ie., a radio wave or a microwave is wave energy) while the other is matter such as an element or a molecule in motion. Just for you IBDM; 1/2mv^2 = hv. The basic relationship between energy and heat. Edited on 05-07-2021 23:56
06-07-2021 00:44
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	James___ wrote:And yet heat is once again E = hv Nope. It is not. That is the formula for computing energy, not for computing any flow of energy. James___ wrote: ... while E is 1/2mv^2. That is another equation for energy, specifically kinetic energy. It is not an equation for any flow of energy. James___ wrote: Just for you IBDM; 1/2mv^2 = hv. The basic relationship between energy and heat. Nope. The formula for conduction is: Energy/Time = Conductivity(Temp1 - Temp2) / Thickness
06-07-2021 01:09
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	As IBDM knows, clouds don't trap heat, they block cold Must be why, every time clouds roll in, we get a higher low. Edited on 06-07-2021 01:11
06-07-2021 01:16
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:And yet heat is once again E = hv Nope. It is not. That is the formula for computing energy, not for computing any flow of energy. Just can't accept it when you're wrong, can you? A "flow" of energy will have a wavelength. With plasma energy, highly ionized particles. But as you said; for computing Okay, you know your way around a computer. With a flow of energy, that is caused by a source emitting that energy. It will be in wave form. There are different types of emissions. The Sun has solar radiation which consists mostly of particles. Why it's called the solar wind. With matter or atmospheric gasses, electromagnetic radiation is emitted. And since this is a climate debate forum, solar radiation and collision between gaseous molecules (KE = 3/2 kRT for example) applies. Refracted solar radiation off of a lunar surface like the Moon is determined by the type of matter on its surface. This is why I am completely lost that you can't grasp a principle as basic as; E = MC^2 = 1/2mv^2 = hv. Did the doctor forget to spank you when you were born and you've yet to take your first breath of air? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiGbH_D2S-A Edited on 06-07-2021 01:58
06-07-2021 03:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	James___ wrote:Just can't accept it when you're wrong, can you? A flow is measured in Watts (power) and energy is measured in Joules. They are different things entirely. James___ wrote: A "flow" of energy will have a wavelength. Nope. A flow will have a power value, not a wavelength value. James___ wrote:With a flow of energy, that is caused by a source emitting that energy. It will be in wave form. There are different types of emissions. James__, power units of measure are not energy units of measure. James___ wrote: The Sun has solar radiation which consists mostly of particles. The sun's radiation is mostly comprised of photons. James___ wrote:Why it's called the solar wind. The solar wind is only a small part of the sun's total emission. James___ wrote:With matter or atmospheric gasses, electromagnetic radiation is emitted. And since this is a climate debate forum, solar radiation and collision between gaseous molecules (KE = 3/2 kRT for example) applies. You'll get no argument from me ... at least until I figure out what your point is. James___ wrote: Refracted solar radiation off of a lunar surface like the Moon is determined by the type of matter on its surface. James__, radiation is reflected off a surface and refracted through a medium. James___ wrote:This is why I am completely lost that you can't grasp a principle as basic as; E = MC^2 = 1/2mv^2 = hv. You're right James__, I don't know how I missed that one. James___ wrote: Did the doctor forget to spank you when you were born and you've yet to take your first breath of air? Aaaaaah, so BREATHING is what I was supposed to be doing all this time! Why didn't anybody say something earlier?
06-07-2021 03:27
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:Just can't accept it when you're wrong, can you? A flow is measured in Watts (power) and energy is measured in Joules. They are different things entirely. A basic explanation is that 1 joule for 1 second is 1 watt. Your post is simply wrong.
06-07-2021 03:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:Just can't accept it when you're wrong, can you? A flow is measured in Watts (power) and energy is measured in Joules.They are different things entirely. A basic explanation is that 1 joule for 1 second is 1 watt. Your post is simply wrong. My post is entirely correct. You are simply boneheaded. One Joule is not the same thing as one Joule per second. The former is a measure of energy and the latter is a measure of power. They are different things that have different units of measure. Try pulling your finger out of your nose. You are sounding like One Punch Man. Let me know if you have any questions.
06-07-2021 03:50
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: One Joule is not the same thing as one Joule per second. That's because it is 1 watt. 1 joule has 1 W=1 j/s=1 N⋅ms=1 kg⋅m2s^3 Ever wonder why a kg/m^2 cubed is a definition of energy? Check out the engineers tool box. Most values they use are based on m^3. With m^2, etc. just a variation.
06-07-2021 04:01
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:Just can't accept it when you're wrong, can you? A flow is measured in Watts (power) and energy is measured in Joules.They are different things entirely. A basic explanation is that 1 joule for 1 second is 1 watt. Your post is simply wrong. My post is entirely correct. You are simply boneheaded. One Joule is not the same thing as one Joule per second. The former is a measure of energy and the latter is a measure of power. That's because it is 1 watt. ... and around and around we go.
06-07-2021 04:11
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:Just can't accept it when you're wrong, can you? A flow is measured in Watts (power) and energy is measured in Joules.They are different things entirely. A basic explanation is that 1 joule for 1 second is 1 watt. Your post is simply wrong. My post is entirely correct. You are simply boneheaded. One Joule is not the same thing as one Joule per second. The former is a measure of energy and the latter is a measure of power. That's because it is 1 watt. ... and around and around we go. There's this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u8teXR8VE4 And then there is Jewel; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WW4qcmrJ3E So we're going "round" about what a "jewel" is, right? It is sad that you equate d/t divided by E = v/jc as something meaningful. p.s., if reincarnation is possible, I'll go with daughters. Edited on 06-07-2021 04:13
06-07-2021 18:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	duncan61 wrote: I was just getting cleaned up after changing out my Jeep Shock Absorbers and it occurred to me as This morning I switched out a natural gas 135 litre Vulcan unit.The units have insulation around the tank to slow down the cooling process and it also takes less energy to get the water to the temperature set by the controller.This explains the CO2 insulating effect and why extra energy is not needed to raise the temperature.I will finish with 280ppm-400ppm does not give 2.C more like 0.00014.C I am guessing as we can not measure it.Tear me a new one but CO2 does something In terms of temperature, nothing. Absolutely nothing. CO2 is not even a good thermal insulator either. It conducts thermal energy better than any other common gas. 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

06-07-2021 18:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	GasGuzzler wrote: duncan61 wrote: This explains the CO2 insulating effect and why extra energy is not needed to raise the temperature. Slight problem with your theory. CO2 is a conductor, not an insulator. Just another pathway for heat to flow from the surface to the atmosphere. Bingo. 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
06-07-2021 18:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	duncan61 wrote: Is the CO2 theory not based on energy that should escape being radiated back. CO2 is a gas, not a theory. There is no theory of greenhouse gas either. You cannot have a theory about something you cannot define. Define 'global warming'. You cannot trap light. 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
06-07-2021 18:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: So what you're saying IBDM is that CO2 is good at capturing heat? He never said that. It is not possible to trap heat. James___ wrote: And that the tropopause is like an insulating blanket? He never said that either. The tropopause isn't space. James___ wrote: After all, it is as cold as -56º C. which shows it does not let much heat out. Heat has no temperature. It is not possible to trap heat. James___ wrote: So what you're saying is that both a blanket and a "vacuum" seal (lack of molecules that allow the transfer of heat or cold) in a thermos, right? He never said that either. The only method of Earth losing energy into space is by electromagnetic radiation (light). It is not possible to trap light either. 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
06-07-2021 18:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Xadoman wrote: I have got a question that is on my mind lately. Which way a human body cools down quicker in the space - being naked or wearing a coat? No difference. A coat does not keep you warm in space at all. Coats depend on trapped air between the layers of the coat. In space, there is no significant amount of air. The insulation in the coat would absolutely worthless. 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
06-07-2021 18:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Heat cannot be captured. Learn what heat is. Didn't you just post that CO2 is used as an industrial coolant? That pretty much says it absorbs heat. Nope. You cannot trap heat. Anything liquid or gas can be used as an industrial coolant. James___ wrote: Just did a quick read, when it goes from liquid to gas, it releases heat. Nope. You cannot trap heat. You apparently deny the ideal gas law as well. James___ wrote: This means that as CO2 is pressurized to become liquid, it absorbs heat. Nope. You cannot trap heat. When you pressurize any gas, it gets hotter. That is not trapping heat. Temperature is not total thermal energy. See the 0th law of thermodynamics. 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
06-07-2021 18:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Xadoman wrote: You should be asking yourself why you are confusing the earth with something (e.g. human body) that is its own heat source. You should be asking yourself why you weren't capable of immediately recognizing the huge difference between the two cases. The earth has a molten core. It is a heat source. Would insulating the earth slow down the cooling of the molten core or it would not matter? The Earth has a molten core due to nuclear fission. The Earth is in space. Space will not allow conductive or convective heating. It only allows radiant heating. The thermal energy that results from absorbing sunlight, along with any the results from nuclear fission at the core, is ALL converted to light and radiated away into space. 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
06-07-2021 18:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: Xadoman wrote: You should be asking yourself why you are confusing the earth with something (e.g. human body) that is its own heat source. You should be asking yourself why you weren't capable of immediately recognizing the huge difference between the two cases. The earth has a molten core. It is a heat source. Would insulating the earth slow down the cooling of the molten core or it would not matter? With the Earth's core, heat is a byproduct of gravity compressing matter. Gravity would need to be slowed. p.s., always possible someone will figure out how to do that. Gravity has no speed. 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
06-07-2021 18:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: No. I wrote that CO2 is used as a commercial refrigerant in industrial CO2 refrigeration units. James___ wrote:That pretty much says it absorbs heat. Heat cannot be absorbed. Learn what heat is. Heat is a flow of energy such as in E = hf. With photosynthesis, it is often stated as CO2 + H2O + h > CH2O and O2. This demonstrates that when "heat" is absorbed that it becomes "heat content". Still, you have your word games, right? You should try moving past definitions to learning something about science. Who knows, you might find things to be more interesting. Heat is not a flow of energy. Heat is a flow of [i]thermal]/i] energy only. It is not possible to trap heat. 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
06-07-2021 18:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Xadoman wrote: Initally, the heat came from the energy of the material as it condensed to form the Earth. Additional heat is added by the radioactive elements as already mentioned. As the Surface of the Earth cooled, and the Crust formed, the molten interior was surrounded by a natural insulator. This insulation, in the form of solid rock, traps the heat inside pretty effectively. The gas giants don't have a solid surface, and as such, can lose heat faster. Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-the-core-of-our-earth-so-hot.583/ I copied it from the physics forum. This explanation about solid surface acting as an insulator and trapping heat seems fishy to me. It is not possible to trap heat. 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
06-07-2021 18:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: This demonstrates that when "heat" is absorbed ... Heat cannot be absorbed. The flow cannot be absorbed. The energy is what is absorbed, not the flow, not the heat. And yet heat is once again E = hv while E is 1/2mv^2. One is a wave (ie., a radio wave or a microwave is wave energy) while the other is matter such as an element or a molecule in motion. Just for you IBDM; 1/2mv^2 = hv. The basic relationship between energy and heat. Heat is not 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 1 of 4

Join the debate Hot Water Unit:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The Lake Mead water level is still rising in August, when it is ALWAYS falling. So snow melt is not the	155	16-09-2023 13:46
Scientists say Florida Keys coral reefs are already bleaching as water temperatures hit record highs	14	29-07-2023 20:14
Florida in hot water as ocean temperatures rise along with the humidity	2	13-07-2023 15:50
Lake Mead Water Levels Stage A Comeback?	4	31-05-2023 23:03
LOL, California has way way way too much water at this point	17	02-05-2023 20:59