A practising Engineer explains over unity or free energy misconceptions

[MrAl]

Yes, and a lot of experts say the hysteria is a hoax. The UN (Useless Nuisance) Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) had legal action taken against them some time back to force them to drop a lot a scientist's names from their climate warming report endorsement. Their names were tacked on without permission even when they disagreed with the report's conclusion. Anyway, numbers don't count. Correct interpretation of the facts do. So far, I haven't seen any total correlation with what is happening to why it is happening. Mostly the proponents are saying "trust us, we know better".

Ratch

Hello again,

Ok, then in your opinion what do you think we should right NOW, if anything?
Lets say you are the overseer of man made global warming in the USA. What do you tell the president to do, knowing he will implement whatever policies you say should go into effect right now without question?
It must be based on what you know now not sometime in the future, because that's all you have.

 

[Ratchit]

Infrared can be related to heat, but it is not heat. When objects absorb infrared, they heat up because they convert the radiant electromagnetic energy to molecular kinetic energy.

Yes, and not just infrared. All electromagnetic radiation including radar frequencies, like microwaves.

Without greenhouse gases, far more of the infrared light energy would go directly to outer space, without conversion to heat energy. Hence, it is CO2's absorption properties, not its insulation properties that matter.

Well, that is not the way GH gas is described. The conventional description is that the visible light is first absorbed by the planetary mass and converted into infrared, which gets trapped by the CO2's insulation properties. You say that CO2 absorbs EM radiation directly? OK, then it would be a shield to incoming EM radiation from the Sun, and it helps cool down the Earth. If CO2 can absorb heat, doesn't that make it an insulator, too? After all, it prevents heat from transferring as fast as it normally would.

Definition of Heat: Heat is the transfer of kinetic energy from one medium or object to another, or from an energy source to a medium or object. Such energy transfer can occur in three ways: radiation, conduction, and convection.

Definition of heat: A measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules of a mass. Heat can transfer, but the transfer process itself is not heat.

Yes, later, after the temperature rises. This is black-body radiation theory.

Yes, heat transfer is dependent on a temperature differential.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

Hello again,

Ok, then in your opinion what do you think we should right NOW, if anything?
Lets say you are the overseer of man made global warming in the USA. What do you tell the president to do, knowing he will implement whatever policies you say should go into effect right now without question?
It must be based on what you know now not sometime in the future, because that's all you have.

First and foremost, recognize the facts. Look at where the money flows. Do inexpensive fact finding research. Don't get stampeded into expensive programs and policies. Be skeptical of every lobbying effort on both sides of the issue.

Ratch

 

[steveB]

Ratch,

I don't know what to say here. Maybe you are spouting all this small stuff now to cover your blunder that you completely missed the mark. You argued that this subject is easy to figure out, after I mentioned that I think that it takes a lot of time to understand the theories and data. Yet, you don't get the most important point about GH which relates to infrared absorption.

The bottom line here is not these details. The bottom line is that you have totally misrepresented the GH effect. You argued that CO2 cant possibly matter because small amounts of CO2 can't create a significantly different insulation effect. The GH worry is based on the principle that small amounts of green-house gas most certainly have a significant effect. Their effect is to create the wonderful earth climate we have. Without that effect the earth surface would be very much cooler. Some GH effect is definitely a good thing. Insulation of CO2 does not explain the effect but infrared absorption of CO2 does.

Yes, and not just infrared. All electromagnetic radiation including radar frequencies, like microwaves.

Yes, this one is correct. Did you think I didn't know that? Is it in any way relevant to the issue here? Anyway, correct for whatever it is worth to you.

Well, that is not the way GH gas is described. The conventional description is that the visible light is first absorbed by the planetary mass and converted into infrared, which gets trapped by the CO2's insulation properties. You say that CO2 absorbs EM radiation directly. OK, then it would be a shield to incoming EM radiation from the Sun, and it helps cool down the Earth. If CO2 can absorb heat, doesn't that make it an insulator, too? After all, it prevents heat from transferring as fast as it normally would.

OMG Ratch. I didn't say CO2 absorbs EM radiation directly from the sun. Certainly, it can, but that's not the concern. The primary energy from the sun is not in the infrared (> 1000 nm wavelength) initially incoming. Visible light and some infrared (< 1000 nm wavelength) is absorbed at the surface and converted to infrared light (> 1000 nm) in a down-conversion process. The re-radiation of infrared back would go back to space, and does go back to space. However, green-house gases absorb some of the infrared that is trying to go back to space, which then heats the atmosphere. This is the basic description I've heard. Insulation is not the prime consideration here. Heat conduction is not how the earth cools and I don't see how GH people would ever argue that small amounts of CO2 would significantly change the insulation due to air. It is primarily a black-body radiation cooling which depends on absolute temperature. If more heat is trapped in the atmosphere (through infrared absorption), the equilibrium requires the temperature of the earth go up so that black-body radiation can match the net incoming absorbed radiation.

Definition of heat: A measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules of a mass. Heat can transfer, but the transfer process itself is not heat.

This is not correct. In thermodynamics, the measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules of a mass is called "internal energy". Heat is the amount of energy transferred.

Yes, heat transfer is dependent on a temperature differential.

Not quite right here too. Blackbody radiation does not depend on temperature differential, it is dependent on absolute temperature. Hotter objects radiate more energy and at higher frequency. If more photons are absorbed in the atmosphere, then the earth needs so be hotter so that black-body radiation can maintain an equilibrium.

 

[tvtech]

For what it's worth:

 

[MrAl]

First and foremost, recognize the facts. Look at where the money flows. Do inexpensive fact finding research. Don't get stampeded into expensive programs and policies. Be skeptical of every lobbying effort on both sides of the issue.

Ratch

Hi,

But all that suggests research, i am not talking about research because we all know we need more of that. What i am talking about is what you would do in the hear and now, right one this very day, about pollution control lets say on automobiles. For example:
1. Tighten restrictions on automobile emissions
2. Make them more flexible (ie reduce the restrictions)
3. Eliminate them entirely

We need an answer today because we have to put them into law as soon as tomorrow.

Note i am not saying you are wrong about your opinion i am just asking that now that you've established that opinion what would you do if you could manage the government control. You could be entirely correct, or wrong, but i am not judging your decision i just want to know what your implementation would be, in simple terms.

 

[Ratchit]

Ratch,

I don't know what to say here. Maybe you are spouting all this small stuff now to cover your blunder that you completely missed the mark. You argued that this subject is easy to figure out, after I mentioned that I think that it takes a lot of time to understand the theories and data. Yet, you don't get the most important point about GH which relates to infrared absorption.

What blunder are you talking about, and how did I miss the mark? When I said the subject was easy to figure out, I meant whether it was true or not. Not the details of all the theories that have been proposed.

The bottom line here is not these details. The bottom line is that you have totally misrepresented the GH effect. You argued that CO2 cant possibly matter because small amounts of CO2 can't create a significantly different insulation effect. The GH worry is based on the principle that small amounts of green-house gas most certainly have a significant effect. Their effect is to create the wonderful earth climate we have. Without that effect the earth surface would be very much cooler. Some GH effect is definitely a good thing. Insulation of CO2 does not explain the effect but infrared absorption of CO2 does.

Why does absorption explain things any better than insulation? Doesn't absorption cause an insulating effect? Isn't that one of the ways besides reflection that insulation works?

Yes, this one is correct. Did you think I didn't know that? Is it in any way relevant to the issue here? Anyway, correct for whatever it is worth to you.

You mentioned infrared specifically. I just want to make sure that the other EM frequencies were included also.

OMG Ratch. I didn't say CO2 absorbs EM radiation directly from the sun. Certainly, it can, but that's not the concern. The primary energy from the sun is not in the infrared (> 1000 nm wavelength) initially incoming. Visible light and some infrared (< 1000 nm wavelength) is absorbed at the surface and converted to infrared light (> 1000 nm) in a down-conversion process. The re-radiation of infrared back would go back to space, and does go back to space. However, green-house gases absorb some of the infrared that is trying to go back to space, which then heats the atmosphere. This is the basic description I've heard. Insulation is not the prime consideration here.

You did not make it clear that you were referring to CO2 absorption of only infrared. The rest of the description of absorption of visible light and conversion to infrared is identical to what I have been saying all along. It is fine that you describe CO2 as absorbing infrared, but that is, in effect, insulating the heat within the atmosphere. So insulation is a final consideration.

Heat conduction is not how the earth cools and I don't see how GH people would ever argue that small amounts of CO2 would significantly change the insulation due to air. It is primarily a black-body radiation cooling which depends on absolute temperature. If more heat is trapped in the atmosphere (through infrared absorption), the equilibrium requires the temperature of the earth go up so that black-body radiation can match the net incoming absorbed radiation.

Correct, there is no conduction to outer space. I never argued that the insulation stopped the conductive transfer of heat to outer space. But when the insulation heats up, the radiation transfer increases. The question remains as to how much the CO2 causes the temperature to rise.

This is not correct. In thermodynamics, the measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules of a mass is called "internal energy". Heat is the amount of energy transferred.

Yes, in thermodynamics that is the definition, but I did not say I was giving a thermodynamic definition. Another term for "internal energy" in thermodynamics is "thermal energy".

Not quite right here too. Blackbody radiation does not depend on temperature differential, it is dependent on absolute temperature. Hotter objects radiate more energy and at higher frequency. If more photons are absorbed in the atmosphere, then the earth needs so be hotter so that black-body radiation can maintain an equilibrium.

Is not any temperature above absolute zero a temperature difference or differential?

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

Hi,

But all that suggests research, i am not talking about research because we all know we need more of that. What i am talking about is what you would do in the hear and now, right one this very day, about pollution control lets say on automobiles. For example:
1. Tighten restrictions on automobile emissions
2. Make them more flexible (ie reduce the restrictions)
3. Eliminate them entirely

We need an answer today because we have to put them into law as soon as tomorrow.

Note i am not saying you are wrong about your opinion i am just asking that now that you've established that opinion what would you do if you could manage the government control. You could be entirely correct, or wrong, but i am not judging your decision i just want to know what your implementation would be, in simple terms.

Yes, I would recommend further restrictions on emissions. Things like better gas mileage, CO, sulfur, and particulates. I would not worry too much about the plant food they omit.

Ratch

 

[tvtech]

What was I thinking when I started this thread?

At least it has remained civil. And has turned into an epic debate.

Stay well Guys.
tv

 

[steveB]

What blunder are you talking about, and how did I miss the mark? When I said the subject was easy to figure out, I meant whether it was true or not. Not the details of all the theories that have been proposed.

OK, feel free to make your easy deductions about what is true or not and get the physics all wrong in the process. It's fine with me if you find it easy to figure out the theory is false without even understanding the theory.

And proof that your physics explanation is a blunder came when you talked about "insulation factor" as if it had any importance. The insulation factor of air and it's dependence on CO2 (which I expect is insignificant by the way), has no bearing on anything in GH explanations. Perhaps the value of the factor shows up in some simple computer models, but CO2 concentration will not affect the number. Sorry ratch, it's wrong physics you describe.

Anyway, carry on with your view. I just point out these things for the benefit of others.

 

[tcmtech]

I think the laughing comes when people go in talking nonsense and using nonsense to argue that there is no problem.

Actually its the other way around. The people questioning if there even is a problem are not he ones being laughed at. I'ts the one siteing any and every possible excuse or event that can be even most remotely weakly linked as proof it's real are who get laughed at.

As is generally said in these debates there are two camps. Those who believe and those who are deniers.
According the believers anyone who is not on their side is a denier being there is no room for question and anyone who is sceptical need not speak.

I don't know what will happen but I do know that when certain groups cite that thousands of scientists say they are right yet thousands more scientists have asked to have their names taken off of official documents because they do not believe and want to have nothing to do with the claims I have to doubt the people who are claiming its real likely are lying about a lot more than just who is supposedly on their side.
That and if politicians are all over it for taxation purposes anyone who knows anything about world history should know better than to believe them or their agendas without question.

I am not a believer and I am not a denier. I am a sceptic that sees both sides and fits into the third unspoken about group that has a pile of reasons to want the changes to come. Not try and stop them even though I know full well that mathematically my efforts are for the most part pointless.

 

[Ratchit]

OK, feel free to make your easy deductions about what is true or not and get the physics all wrong in the process. It's fine with me if you find it easy to figure out the theory is false without even understanding the theory.

I believe you still don't understand. It is not about determining whether a theory is true or false. It is determining how it fits into the overall explanation of the problem. For example, suppose we propose a theory that man-made infusion of CO2 is causing a unnatural rise in the atmosphere temp. We can give all kinds of highly technical details about why the CO2 in insulating or absorbing. But, we can also look back and see that the same rise in temp was present long ago before man put CO2 into the air in a wholesale manner. Therefore, although we don't know and understand all the details of the theory, we can still look at the theory askance.

And proof that your physics explanation is a blunder came when you talked about "insulation factor" as if it had any importance. The insulation factor of air and it's dependence on CO2 (which I expect is insignificant by the way), has no bearing on anything in GH explanations. Perhaps the value of the factor shows up in some simple computer models, but CO2 concentration will not affect the number. Sorry ratch, it's wrong physics you describe.

If insulation has no importance, then neither does adsorption. They are two facets of the same thing. If a gas is absorbing heat, then it is impeding the heat's transfer path and the heat will accumulate. That is what insulation does, right? I thought I explained that in my previous post. Isn't that what the CO2 controversy is all about?

Anyway, carry on with your view. I just point out these things for the benefit of others.

Thank you, I will. I just explain these things so others will have a different viewpoint.

Ratch

 

[steveB]

Actually its the other way around. The people questioning if there even is a problem are not he ones being laughed at. I'ts the one siteing any and every possible excuse or event that can be even most remotely weakly linked as proof it's real are who get laughed at.

As is generally said in these debates there are two camps. Those who believe and those who are deniers.
According the believers anyone who is not on their side is a denier being there is no room for question and anyone who is sceptical need not speak.

I don't know what will happen but I do know that when certain groups cite that thousands of scientists say they are right yet thousands more scientists have asked to have their names taken off of official documents because they do not believe and want to have nothing to do with the claims I have to doubt the people who are claiming its real likely are lying about a lot more than just who is supposedly on their side.
That and if politicians are all over it for taxation purposes anyone who knows anything about world history should know better than to believe them or their agendas without question.

I am not a believer and I am not a denier. I am a sceptic that sees both sides and fits into the third unspoken about group that has a pile of reasons to want the changes to come. Not try and stop them even though I know full well that mathematically my efforts are for the most part pointless.

OK, I never really saw the laughing and what it is all about. Basically, I like to do science in a reasonable way. I sometimes go to PF, but not often lately. I think I'll do a search there and see what goes on with this subject.

Any question should be valid to ask, and skepticism is a key ingredient in science. There are many questions I would like to ask a real climatologist that has worked on computer models and tried to make sense of this question. I'm too skeptical of books and on-line articles. There are too many extremists dealing with this subject. It's not the way science is supposed to be done. But, a face to face conversation with a true scientist working on climate modeling and well versed in all the literature on the subject, would be a useful thing to me.

 

[steveB]

If insulation has no importance, then neither does adsorption. They are two facets of the same thing. If a gas is absorbing heat, then it is impeding the heat's transfer path and the heat will accumulate. That is what insulation does, right? I thought I explained that in my previous post. Isn't that what the CO2 controversy is all about?

No, you are not getting the point. Insulation is present no matter what the concentration of CO2 is. Once the energy is absorbed, it is in the atmosphere and basically insulated because there is no conduction of heat to space. and it has to be radiated away which can only happen if the temperature goes up. The amount of energy absorbed is determined by the GH effect. You keep saying CO2 concentration is too low and hence it can't be important. You say this all over this thread and then have one post talking about "insulation factor" and it's dependence on CO2 concentration, as if it matters. It's just wrong physics. CO2 has 10-25 % contribution to GH effect. It is not a small amount. You say double or tripling does not matter, but if we have 10-25% now, what will happen if we double or triple the CO2? I really don't know, but neither do you and I don't believe you when you say it will not matter.

But, your physics is wrong. Insulation is not different for different levels of CO2, but optical absorption of infrared radiation coming from the earth and heading back to space is highly dependent on CO2 concentration.

 

[tcmtech]

Any question should be valid to ask, and skepticism is a key ingredient in science. There are many questions I would like to ask a real climatologist that has worked on computer models and tried to make sense of this question. I'm too skeptical of books and on-line articles. There are too many extremists dealing with this subject. It's not the way science is supposed to be done. But, a face to face conversation with a true scientist working on climate modeling and well versed in all the literature on the subject, would be a useful thing to me.

Believe me I too would like to have a good honest sit down talk with the guys who do work with this stuff every day as a profession.

I have strong suspicions that their work is much like mine in oil fraccing where even though I have worked with it every day and had to learn a great deal about it to be able to do my ob well trying to explain it and get a honest listen online is almost impossible.
When I say anything positive about it and what really does go on I am automatically thought of as to be the liar or to be hiding something in the equation even though the very media and political sources that create all the negative hype about what I do have a huge and long running record of being nothing more than talking idiots who know nothing about what ever it is that is coming out of their own mouths.

Oh ya never mind that everyone who is against fraccing and my job is one of the end consumers that benefits and ultimately makes my job and work possible. We won't talk about that part.

 

[Ratchit]

No, you are not getting the point. Insulation is present no matter what the concentration of CO2 is. Once the energy is absorbed, it is in the atmosphere and basically insulated because there is no conduction of heat to space. and it has to be radiated away which can only happen if the temperature goes up. The amount of energy absorbed is determined by the GH effect. You keep saying CO2 concentration is too low and hence it can't be important. You say this all over this thread and then have one post talking about "insulation factor" and it's dependence on CO2 concentration, as if it matters. It's just wrong physics. CO2 has 10-25 % contribution to GH effect. It is not a small amount. You say double or tripling does not matter, but if we have 10-25% now, what will happen if we double or triple the CO2? I really don't know, but neither do you and I don't believe you when you say it will not matter.

But, your physics is wrong. Insulation is not different for different levels of CO2, but optical absorption of infrared radiation coming from the earth and heading back to space is highly dependent on CO2 concentration.

I think the last sentence is the crux of our disagreement. It is a matter of semantics. I agree that optical absorption of infrared radiation is dependent on CO2 concentration. How much it matters is still open for discussion. But, I also aver that the optical absorption is equivalent to a insulating effect. Not a conductive insulation, instead a radiation insulation or shield that keeps the infrared from going out to space as fast as it normally would. It is all a matter of perspective.

Ratch

 

[JoeJester]

According to merrian-webster... infrared

1: situated outside the visible spectrum at its red end —used of radiation having a wavelength between about 700 nanometers and 1 millimeter

2: relating to, producing, or employing infrared radiation <infrared therapy>

3: sensitive to infrared radiation <infrared sensors that detect body heat>

 

[JoeJester]

tcm,

There were quite a few "earthquakes" in nearby Irving, TX this year. Some were adamant about blaming fracking. The news reported within the last few days there was a previously unknown fault line in the area of the "earthquakes" and it wasn't related to fracking after all.

I wonder how the cities that banned fracking feel now, but, were acting out of "fear" or was it "prudence" as the cause of those recent earthquakes were unknown.

 

[tcmtech]

tcm,

There were quite a few "earthquakes" in nearby Irving, TX this year. Some were adamant about blaming fracking. The news reported within the last few days there was a previously unknown fault line in the area of the "earthquakes" and it wasn't related to fracking after all.

I wonder how the cities that banned fracking feel now, but, were acting out of "fear" or was it "prudence" as the cause of those recent earthquakes were unknown.

That's one of the topics that rubs me the wrong way. Modern real time passive microseismic mapping (Geologic or seismic tomography) and tracking can literally watch a oil rigs drill head travel through the ground and can just as easily watch the fractures from the fracc work breaking open in real time with resolutions around a meter or so even though the actual seismic sensors are miles above and away.

The only reason I know about this tech is because I have had the luck of seeing it being done first hand a few years ago.
The thing was they were watching multiple oil wells and other oil drilling related jobs with a grid of simple geophones hooked up to a trailer loaded with a lot of high end computers. Not only could they map exactly where each ones drill heads was in near real time to within a few feet even while some 3 - 5 miles away and 2 miles down they also joked around with me that their sensors can see every vehicle on the roads well enough to pick out which cars and pickups from heavy rigs.

My point is if an earthquake happens the real seismologists and geologists can easily see exactly where it came from and if its not in the very close vicinity of any oil well or fracking jobs- latitude, longitude and depth correlations- the odds are it's natural and they knew exactly where and how deep it was when it happened.

If you want to do some rather educational reading I suggest reading up on seismic and geological tomography plus check out the YouTube videos of it. It's almost scary to find out how well they can see whats going on under our feet now. (When they want too)

 

[steveB]

But, I also aver that the optical absorption is equivalent to a insulating effect. Not a conductive insulation, instead a radiation insulation or shield that keeps the infrared from going out to space as fast as it normally would. It is all a matter of perspective.

Ratch

OK, I'll take you at your word for this. But, what I find strange is that you are the one always telling us to use correct terminology and phrasing and pointing out language that is imprecise. You mentioned "insulation factor" which as far as I can tell would mean R-factor or K-factor that is discussed with insulators, and which relates to thermal conduction. I've never heard "insulation" or "radiation insulation" or "insulation factor" used to mean optical absorption, and I worked for 20 years in the optical communications field, attending conferences and reading and publishing papers.

But, since I'm usually one of the guys saying relax and don't get too hung up on the semantics, I guess I have to let it go.