A practising Engineer explains over unity or free energy misconceptions

[steveB]

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.

So, I went over to PF to look at what they say about global warming. If I'm reading correctly, it looks like they banned the subject from discussion, at least in the forums where it would matter. Perhaps they can talk about it in the political section, but the science sections (earth forum for example) appears to ban the topic. Apparently, they can't manage the discussions and they get too heated.

EDIT: It looks like the earth forum at PF recently started to allow the global warming topic to be discussed again, but with restrictions to not discuss the politics, and stick to peer reviewed references.

 

[tcmtech]

EDIT: It looks like the earth forum at PF recently started to allow the global warming topic to be discussed again, but with restrictions to not discuss the politics, and stick to peer reviewed references.

That's pretty much what every decent forum has went to on the topic. Either bring valid credible info or shut up.

I agree as well. I am always happy to listen and learn but you have to be talking about something that is valid and credible before I am going to take you serious. If your here to tell me its real because your back yard felt warmer last summer but that the fact that my back yard was cooler and thus my observations are meaningless well I have to take the same stance as the rest of the skeptics and say shut up too.

 

[MrAl]

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

Hi,

You mean you would not worry about emission of CO2 (carbon dioxide) so you would not recommend tighter emission control on that or even recommend no control on that ?

 

[Ratchit]

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.

Well, I visited EPA's website and found this phrase;

"Greenhouse gases (GHGs) like water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4) absorb energy, slowing or preventing the loss of heat to space. In this way, GHGs act like a blanket, making Earth warmer than it would otherwise be. This process is commonly known as the “greenhouse effect”.

The bold type is my editing. Scientific American's site had this phrase;

" Because the carbon dioxide blanket prevents its escape into space, the trapped radiation warms up the atmosphere."

I don't see why its insulating effect could not be converted into R values like conduction resistance is. Just because it is not normally done does not mean that it is not valid or precise.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

Hi,

You mean you would not worry about emission of CO2 (carbon dioxide) so you would not recommend tighter emission control on that or even recommend no control on that ?

I would not spend a lot of money or effort on it. Especially since some evidence suggests that the problem in not with the industrialized world.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/science/new-nasa-satellite-data-flips-climate-science-on-its-head/

Ratch

PS. I would not destroy the rainforests either.

 

[steveB]

The bold type is my editing. Scientific American's site had this phrase;

" Because the carbon dioxide blanket prevents its escape into space, the trapped radiation warms up the atmosphere."

I don't see why its insulating effect could not be converted into R values like conduction resistance is. Just because it is not normally done does not mean that it is not valid or precise.

Yes, these types of layman's analogies do show up in articles. Analogies to blankets, or other things make it easier for the public to understand. The blanket analogy is actually not too bad because a sleeping person does radiate quite a bit of infrared/heat, and the blanket can absorb that infrared energy and keep it to help warm the air under the blanket. The blanket also has insulation effects in that it traps the still air inside and still air is a great insulator. Finally, the fact that the air is still means that convection cooling is minimized. Thus, there are three mechanisms that the blanket uses to help keep us warm; infrared absorption, conduction insulation and convection minimization. And, one of those mechanisms is a good analogy to the green-house effect. (guess which one )

But, I do see why it's not an insulating effect (in the thermal conduction sense) that warms the atmosphere and the physics can not and should not be converted to an R-value. It's not normally done, as you say, and I don't see how it could be done. The reason why it can't be done is that conduction/convection is not the cooling mechanism for the earth. It is black-body radiation that cools the earth, and various processes (including infrared absorption) heat it. Even if you could do it by some math trick, why would you do it? It just obscures the relatively basic physics that is easy to understand.

 

[JoeJester]

When I read things like this, I become more skeptical of the issue and the politics of the issue.

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

more at https://www.climatedepot.com/2013/0...imate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/

from https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...-s-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change/

Political summary editing processes usually progress through a series of drafts that become increasingly media-worthy. For example, the original text of an April 2000 Third Assessment Report (TAR) draft stated: “There has been a discernible human influence on global climate.” That was followed by an October version that concluded: “It is likely that increasing concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to observed warming over the past 50 years.” Then in the final official summary, the language was toughened up even more: “Most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Yes, climate change, whether warming or cooling, is a political football. Follow the money ... or more importantly cut the funding. Crowdfunding is a good source for the UN to fund these efforts. Then they can compete with the overunity crowd. If Bill Gates gives them a few million, good for him. We can all thank him for his efforts. Same with any of the movie stars who seem intent on commenting on these issues .... by commenting, I mean tell us all what to do. Then we have Al Gore, flying around in his private jet, driving big vehicles, promoting the selling of "carbon units" so everyone can be "green" with a net zero change ... for a price.

 

[JoeJester]

It looks like the earth forum at PF recently started to allow the global warming topic to be discussed again, but with restrictions to not discuss the politics, and stick to peer reviewed references.

https://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.short
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Below is the article for your viewing pleasure.

 

[cowboybob]

Why am I not surprised...

 

[steveB]

There is no doubt that the peer review process is far from perfect. However, for forums, with a controversial topic like global warming that is so "charged", requiring the discussion to be restricted to the science contained in peer reviewed articles or accepted texts allows the moderators to keep the subject open and manageable.

Despite the many issues, peer review is a useful process, and there are journals and conferences that are not peer reviewed. So, good ideas can get out to the public, and if they have merit, the ideas will gain traction and eventually get into the mainstream.

I've published in both peer reviewed and "open" journals and conferences. There are pros and cons to each format.

I had a bad experience with the peer review process when I published papers for my dissertation. One of my submissions to a journal was sent to two researchers for peer review. One of those reviewers was working in the same exact field as I. He rejected the paper, while the other reviewer accepted it. Hence, the paper was rejected. When I got the comments back, I could see it was a bogus rejection, and by a fortunate quirk of fate, the company of the reviewer was in the fax header, when the photocopy was made. Hence, I knew who the guy was. I contacted the editor and protested telling him that the guy rejected it so that he could publish his work first. The editor did not believe that a scientist would ever act this way, but I convinced him to send the paper to another reviewer. The paper was accepted, but was significantly delayed. While in the process, the other guy published a paper that was almost identical to my paper, and it was clear he even stole some of my material for his paper. I sent a copy of this paper to the editor and he could not believe it, but he saw the proof in front of him and was very disgusted. So, my paper came out later, even though I submitted first. This could have literally invalidated my entire Ph.D. work because PhD work is supposed to be original work. What saved me was that the submission dates of both papers were present in both publications, and submission date is what actually sets the priority of which is "original".

The problem is not really the process, but the people involved in the process. It can be good or bad depending on if the people are good or bad. Scientists are human, and can do good or bad, just like any other group of people. However, the scientific process can correct for a lot of the bad that people do. Not all, but a lot of it. This global warming issue will eventually be sorted out. The real answers will be known eventually, despite the flaws of the people involved.

 

[JoeJester]

Steve,

There is a certain amount of "trust" or "belief" in the peer-review process. Yes, we all "want to" believe the process is good, however, when evidence shows up it's not, the "belief" in that system degrades.

When you throw a lot of money in the mix, some humans do the unthinkable.

That article I posted did a decent job of the process and the pitfalls. With the odds as good as "chance", the peer review system works is "hopeful". Too many people have the utmost belief in the peer review, assuming the highest ethics of the reviewers, assuming they execute due diligence in the review. Unfortunately, assume has the ugly side of making an ASS - U - ME. I'm sure that editor who initially rejected your paper developed a "loss of confidence" in that reviewer. With each exposure to the darker side of the peer-review, we all develop a loss of confidence in the processes involved, even though we intellectually know it's the people and not the process. .

Like all the cases involving copyright, it was up to the owner to seek the remedy. I'm glad you got your PHD. It makes one wonder how many other's didn't achieve their PHD because of a poor review by their competition.

 

[Ratchit]

To the Ineffable All,

Here is a very good paper that was peer reviewed and rejected by the IEEE. I analyzed the rejection and posted my opinion in the following link. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/superposition-with-dependent-sources.549933/ . That paper contains a lot of examples with a good explanation of the solutions. The submission and rejection appears at the end of the paper. Don't miss reading the paper.

Ratch

 

[MrAl]

I would not spend a lot of money or effort on it. Especially since some evidence suggests that the problem in not with the industrialized world.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/science/new-nasa-satellite-data-flips-climate-science-on-its-head/

Ratch

PS. I would not destroy the rainforests either.

Hello again,

I looked outside and i did not see any scientists standing on their heads so I am sure you will forgive me if i dont believe in conspiracy web sites. "globalclimatescam" and "science" should not be used in the same web address

I dont think it is that hard to check up on these silly sites, but im not about to waste my time doing that.
I am happy to hear that you would not try to get rid of the rain forests though, and hope that doesnt happen anyway in the future.

I think IEEE has changed over the years.

 

[steveB]

When you throw a lot of money in the mix, some humans do the unthinkable.

Yes, I believe that's true. In my example above, I eventually learned what ( I think) the motivation of that bad reviewer was. Some time after that incident, the lab sub-division of his company was shut down and the researcher was laid-off. His company was a fairly large company with a large research budget working in many different areas. My professor and I then realized that the guy was probably under a lot of pressure to show his work was useful to his company, or he would be out of a job.

To say I lost some confidence, not only in the peer review process, but also in the academic and industry research environments, would be an understatement. This was one of many experiences that eroded my idealism and innocence. But, I still have confidence in the scientific process itself, and also in the determination of good scientists to eventually win the battle, and find the truth.

 

[steveB]

To the Ineffable All,

Here is a very good paper that was peer reviewed and rejected by the IEEE. I analyzed the rejection and posted my opinion in the following link. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/superposition-with-dependent-sources.549933/ . That paper contains a lot of examples with a good explanation of the solutions. The submission and rejection appears at the end of the paper. Don't miss reading the paper.

Ratch

I've seen that paper before and also commented on it, similarly as you have. I think it was TheElectrician that first showed it to me. This is another example of an injustice, but here again, the truth is eventually out and the details of what happened are known.

 

[JoeJester]

Steve,

I still have confidence in the scientific process, but become skeptical of reports the atto second it shows a shadier side. A very big grain of NaCI is always near when reading controversial topics. It will become worse if the scientific community gives credence to theories that are "eloquently written".

Most times people rely on their innermost test equipment ....

 

[steveB]

Skepticism is good !!! It means the scientific process is working.

 

[moty22]

I'm very pleased with the global warming, maybe it's the beginning of the end of the ice age we are in.

 

[JoeJester]

Moty22 must be in the Boston area where global warming dropped over 90 inches of snow so far in February.

 

[moty22]

Moty22 must be in the Boston area where global warming dropped over 90 inches of snow so far in February.

No, but I sympathize with the people of Boston.
There is a hope though, scientists say that the global warming is mostly noticeable in the poles, the people of Boston can move to the north pole.