![]() |
Question for theoretical physics about gases
Black body radiation is only relevant at red hot temperatures or in a
vacuum. In a fluid media like air or water heat is transported by convection. You must be a newbie to these groups. Don't you remember Dr. Convection who was the nemesis of the Jim Hansen crowd? wrote in message ... It is a most basic fact that objects in a room will all reach the same temperature as the air in a room. So how does the air transfer the energy to the solid substances such as metal? It is not denied that a piece of metal radiates according to Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law, which describes the distribution of the energy of the radiation. The total energy radiated from the surface conforms with the Boltzman Stefan equation. If the air brings the metal to it's temperature at equilibrium, the metal will be radiating from it's surface the infrared energy according to the Boltzman Stefan equation, which for 300K, (81F) is 460Wm-2. So a steel ball with 1 meter surface area will be radiating this quantity of energy per second. If this quantity of energy is leaving the surface of the metal at c and in this quantity per second, the metal must be absorbing this quantity of energy at this rate from the gases in the air. A situation could be devised wherein it could be clearly shown that the energy is not received as radiation from other solid surfaces. This energy cannot be transmitted to the metal merely by the collisions or conduction through the air molecules. A quantification of the energy of the gas molecules and the transfer of energy to the metal must be achieved in order to have valid theoretical physics of this most basic of phenomena of physics. This means the gas molecules are not transparent to the infrared as is often believed, but are absorbing and radiating the full continous spectrum of the infrared in the distribution similar to the Planck Radiation Law. It is only this absorption and emission through the full spectrum that the quantity of energy being transfered per second can be achieved which is equivalent to the energy leaving the surface of the metal. It is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the theory of greenhouse gases, that N2 and O2 are absolutely transparent and non-reactive to infrared radiation energy. Otherwise, there is no rational that the trace gases or the very minute changes in concentrations of trace gases can have such theorized impact upon atmospheric temperatures. If the theory of greenhouse gases were correct, very great differences in the temperature of a piece of the metal would occur depending upon which gases or combination of gases are used in experimentation. This is certainly not the case. As it stands, there is no valid theoretical theory of gases which can be shown by experiment to support the widely held belief in the existence of the property of 'greenhouse' gases. KD |
Question for theoretical physics about gases
kiloVolts wrote: Black body radiation is only relevant at red hot temperatures or in a vacuum. In a fluid media like air or water heat is transported by convection. You must be a newbie to these groups. Don't you remember Dr. Convection who was the nemesis of the Jim Hansen crowd? Your confidence is not proportional to your knowledge. Study some thermodynamics. wrote in message ... It is a most basic fact that objects in a room will all reach the same temperature as the air in a room. So how does the air transfer the energy to the solid substances such as metal? It is not denied that a piece of metal radiates according to Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law, which describes the distribution of the energy of the radiation. The total energy radiated from the surface conforms with the Boltzman Stefan equation. If the air brings the metal to it's temperature at equilibrium, the metal will be radiating from it's surface the infrared energy according to the Boltzman Stefan equation, which for 300K, (81F) is 460Wm-2. So a steel ball with 1 meter surface area will be radiating this quantity of energy per second. If this quantity of energy is leaving the surface of the metal at c and in this quantity per second, the metal must be absorbing this quantity of energy at this rate from the gases in the air. A situation could be devised wherein it could be clearly shown that the energy is not received as radiation from other solid surfaces. This energy cannot be transmitted to the metal merely by the collisions or conduction through the air molecules. A quantification of the energy of the gas molecules and the transfer of energy to the metal must be achieved in order to have valid theoretical physics of this most basic of phenomena of physics. This means the gas molecules are not transparent to the infrared as is often believed, but are absorbing and radiating the full continous spectrum of the infrared in the distribution similar to the Planck Radiation Law. It is only this absorption and emission through the full spectrum that the quantity of energy being transfered per second can be achieved which is equivalent to the energy leaving the surface of the metal. It is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the theory of greenhouse gases, that N2 and O2 are absolutely transparent and non-reactive to infrared radiation energy. Otherwise, there is no rational that the trace gases or the very minute changes in concentrations of trace gases can have such theorized impact upon atmospheric temperatures. If the theory of greenhouse gases were correct, very great differences in the temperature of a piece of the metal would occur depending upon which gases or combination of gases are used in experimentation. This is certainly not the case. As it stands, there is no valid theoretical theory of gases which can be shown by experiment to support the widely held belief in the existence of the property of 'greenhouse' gases. KD |
Question for theoretical physics about gases
On Feb 19, 8:00 pm, "kiloVolts" mant...@u6t3s0s3A6s1e4Z4V7rH3h5b7q3a3s2aX7A2D9y6j 1z.com wrote: Black body radiation is only relevant at red hot temperatures or in a vacuum. In a fluid media like air or water heat is transported by convection. You must be a newbie to these groups. Don't you remember Dr. Convection who was the nemesis of the Jim Hansen crowd? Convection only exist in gases because they are absobing and emitting the infrared of all frequencies and maintain this radiation field. Obviously you have no mathematics for the energy of which you are speaking or the mathematics for the motion of the molecules in a gas. Thanks for stating clearly this false idea, which is accepted by the schools of theoretical physics which shows clearly that they have entirely departed from actual laboratory analysis and any claim at all to mathematical capability. The energy of 1 mole of gas per deg K is R. The mean kinetic energy of a molecule for it's velocity is therefore kT. Kinetic energy is derived by Newtons equation, 1/2mv^2 Since the average kinetic energy is equal for different molecules, the average value of the square of the velocity is seen to be inversely proportional to the mass of the molecule, and hence the average velocity (root mean square average), is inveresely proportional to the square root of the molecular weight. Therefore at 0degC, hydrogen molecules have the velocity of, 1.84 x 10^3 m s-1 at 0degC oxygen molecules have the average speed of, ..46 x 10^3 m s-1 Botzman Stefan applies to all temperatures. T^4 x 5.67E-8 = Wm-2. This is the derivative for the overall energy, So a steel ball with 1sq. meter of surface area, has this overall quantity of energy, (460 Joules per second), leaving it's surface per second which is in Joules. The Planck Radiation Law only defines how this energy is distributed at each frequency, and is entirely complaint and derived directly and encompasses the Boltzman-Stefan equation. The term, BLACKBODY, is actually not so important.The distribution defined by Planck with the curve for each temperature, actually only is valid when temperature is at equilibrium or not changing. Only then does Planck's mathematics define the probability for the energy of the oscillator at the time of emission of a photon. In Planck's actual theory before it is abused by the theoretical schools, he meant to define emissions as the product of electron oscillators, and to define the probability of the energy of the oscillator at each specific moment of emisison. An oscillator emits a quantity of energy and then must recompense it's energy in a time interval which is called the time of continuance. The distribution curve is defined merely by the probabilities or statistics of a system at thermodynamic equilibrium, such as the sun. This radiation law also applies to gases and low temperatures. This can be proved by the simple analysis of the steel ball which reaches the same temperature as the air or gas in which it exists. If the ball were placed in pure nitrogen, and conditions were devised that radiation from other solid surfaces could not be affecting temperature, there is no valid application of the theory that the gas molecules are transfering energy to the metal by collisions, as is absoutely required if it is considered that the N2 is transparent to infrared radiation. The metal ball radiates according to Boltzman Stefan, which is 460 Joules per second per sq meter at 300K. The energy of 1 mole of gas of RT at 300K is R = 8.31 Joules, RT for 300K is 2493Joules. Although the heat capacity of monatomic gases is 3/2 R, the 2493Joules is actually the total kinetic energy for the sum of the velocities of the molecules for 1 mole of gas. Therefore, it can be considered that this is the energy of the mole of gas above absolute zero. This is the sum energy which can be delivered by direct contact with all of the molecules of the mole of gas at 300K. Of course there is the total energy of the heat capacity, which is not more than 4.5R at lower temperatures for most gases. A steel ball with 1 sq meter surface area has a radius of, 28.209cm and occupies 94,024 cubic centimeters of volume. 1 mole of gas @stp occupies 22,400cc of volume. Adding volume of steel ball to volume of 1 mole of gas, = 116,429cc Radius of sphere with this volume, = 30.29cm 30.29 radius minus 28.209 (radius of steel ball with surface area of 1 sq meter), = 2.08 centimeters. So 1 mole of gas surrounding a steel ball with surface area of 1 sq meter will encompass 2.08 cm of radius in it's volume around the ball. The steel is at temperature equilibrium with the air. It radiates from it's surface 460 Joules per second of infrared radiation energy regardless of the specific distribution at each frequency. If the gas around the ball is 'transparent' to the radiation, this quantity of energy LEAVES THE VICINITY AT C. At this rate of energy transfer per second and with the kinetic energy of the velocities of the molecules being 2493 Joules, THE ENTIRE ENERGY ABOVE ABSOLUTE ZERO FOR THE VELOCITIES OF THE MOLE OF GAS IS ACHIEVED IN 5.4 SECONDS. Incorporate the increase of radiated energy for increasing temperature (which increases as a fourth power), and the increase of kinetic energy for the molecular velocities (which increases as a direct proportion to temperature), and it is even more clear that the contemporary idea is clearly false, that it is merely the collisions and kinetic energy of the molecules of gas which holds and transfers energy. The energy simply cannot be transfered through the motions of the molecules at the rate which experimentaion proves the energy IS being transfered. The gases trap a radiation field, although the absorption and emission of these photons occurs at the velocity of light. At equilibrium, if the gases were transparent to the infrared, there is no means that this energy is being supplanted to the metal at the rate it is leaving the surface. For the metal and the 'non-greenhouse' gas to be at or near temperature equilibrium, THE GAS IS ABSORBING AND RADIATING EQUIVALENT ENERGY OF THE ENERGY RADIATION FROM THE METAL.. When a gas molecule absorbs an infrared photon of lower energies, the direction of the subsequent emission is random. At lower temperatures, individual emission of photons is normally at or near the energy level of an absorbed photon. Infrared thus can 'appear' to travel unabsorbed through low density gases, but do not traverse through the gas as do high energy visible frequencies to which many gases ARE mostly transparent. Very simple experiments with pure nitrogen very simply PROVE IT TO BE INVALID, the concept that this gas is transparent or non-reactive to infrared. Your denial of Stefans Law being applicable at low temperatures in which energy increases as a fourth power to the temperature shows your lack of education due to the entire lack of valid theoretical physics in present schools and entire disregard for actual direct science on which theory should be based. The steel ball radiates according to Stefans law. You can forgoe quoting the dogma of the eternal need of the schools to abuse Planck and do their normal redefintion of the term, 'blackbody', as their approach to doing physics with no mathematics at all. And be a part of the hoax of theoretical physics to have a valid theory of gases, in which they merely use semantics and redefinition of the terminology to encourage the mere superstition and psuedo religous belief in the false concept of 'greenhouse gases'. Otherwise submit some Gdamn direct science with some form of mathematics which in can some way demonstrate some direct science for this widely used term. As it is now, you only have theoretical calculations from a FALSE Planck curve which entirely is an invalid application of his mathematic for probability at temperature equilibrium for the oscillators energy at each subsequent time of emission according to temperature. Energy is not specified or 'quantized' to be in this distribution, and the dark bands of CO2 have NO EFFECT AT ALL in retaining outgoing infrared energy as is supposed by this theoretical application which has NO DIRECT LABORATORY science to support it's assertions. CO2 radiates absorbed energy at other frequencies than it's dark bands and has no trouble at all doing this, as the CO2 laser can demonstrate. Or explain this most simple and basic phenomena of physics and chemistry is some terms that make sense on how the energy is supplanted to the surface of the metal which supposedly leaves through the damn, TRANSPARENT gas. KD |
Question for theoretical physics about gases
On Feb 21, 7:25*am, wrote:
Therefore at 0degC, hydrogen molecules have the velocity of, 1.84 x 10^3 m s-1 at 0degC oxygen molecules have the average speed of, .46 x 10^3 *m s-1 An important note to this to keep in perspective the idea of the velocities and collisions and supposed transfer of kinetic energy, the mean free path or distance a molecule moves between collisions @stp is only 500 Angstroms, or 200 times it's own diameter So 1 mole of gas surrounding a steel ball with surface area of 1 sq meter will encompass 2.08 cm of radius in it's volume around the ball. Actually at 300K, the volume of the gas is 300/273 = 1.0989 x 22,400 = 24,615cc 92,024+ 24,615 = 30.31 cm radius of 1 mole of air around sphere of 1sq meter surface area. 30.31 - 28.209 = 2.1 centimeter of added radius for the volume of 1 mole of gas around the sphere of 1 sq meter surface area @300degK, or 81F. |
Question for theoretical physics about gases
On Feb 19, 6:00*pm, "kiloVolts"
mant...@u6t3s0s3A6s1e4Z4V7rH3h5b7q3a3s2aX7A2D9y6j 1z.com wrote: Black body radiation is only relevant at red hot temperatures or in a vacuum. In a fluid media like air or water heat is transported by convection. You must be a newbie to these groups. Don't you remember Dr. Convection who was the nemesis of the Jim Hansen crowd? wrote in message ... It is a most basic fact that objects in a room will all reach the same temperature as the air in a room. So how does the air transfer the energy to the solid substances such as metal? It is not denied that a piece of metal radiates according to Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law, which describes the distribution of the energy of the radiation. The total energy radiated from the surface conforms with the Boltzman Stefan equation. If the air brings the metal to it's temperature at equilibrium, the metal will be radiating from it's surface the infrared energy according to the Boltzman Stefan equation, which for 300K, (81F) is 460Wm-2. So a steel ball with 1 meter surface area will be radiating this quantity of energy per second. If this quantity of energy is leaving the surface of the metal at c and in this quantity per second, the metal must be absorbing this quantity of energy at this rate from the gases in the air. A situation could be devised wherein it could be clearly shown that the energy is not received as radiation from other solid surfaces. This energy cannot be transmitted to the metal merely by the collisions or conduction through the air molecules. A quantification of the energy of the gas molecules and the transfer of energy to the metal must be achieved in order to have valid theoretical physics of this most basic of phenomena of physics. This means the gas molecules are not transparent to the infrared as is often believed, but are absorbing and radiating the full continous spectrum of the infrared in the distribution similar to the Planck Radiation Law. It is only this absorption and emission through the full spectrum that the quantity of energy being transfered per second can be achieved which is equivalent to the energy leaving the surface of the metal. It is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the theory of greenhouse gases, that N2 and O2 are absolutely transparent and non-reactive to infrared radiation energy. Otherwise, there is no rational that the trace gases or the very minute changes in concentrations of trace gases can have such theorized impact upon atmospheric temperatures. If the theory of greenhouse gases were correct, very great differences in the temperature of a piece of the metal would occur depending upon which gases or combination of gases are used in experimentation. This is certainly not the case. As it stands, there is no valid theoretical theory of gases which can be shown by experiment to support the widely held belief in the existence of the property of 'greenhouse' gases. KD You are plain flat wrong |
Question for theoretical physics about gases
On Feb 21, 5:45*pm, rich wrote:
On Feb 19, 6:00*pm, "kiloVolts" mant...@u6t3s0s3A6s1e4Z4V7rH3h5b7q3a3s2aX7A2D9y6j 1z.com wrote: Black body radiation is only relevant at red hot temperatures or in a vacuum. In a fluid media like air or water heat is transported by convection. You must be a newbie to these groups. Don't you remember Dr.. Convection who was the nemesis of the Jim Hansen crowd? wrote in message .... It is a most basic fact that objects in a room will all reach the same temperature as the air in a room. So how does the air transfer the energy to the solid substances such as metal? It is not denied that a piece of metal radiates according to Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law, which describes the distribution of the energy of the radiation. The total energy radiated from the surface conforms with the Boltzman Stefan equation. If the air brings the metal to it's temperature at equilibrium, the metal will be radiating from it's surface the infrared energy according to the Boltzman Stefan equation, which for 300K, (81F) is 460Wm-2. So a steel ball with 1 meter surface area will be radiating this quantity of energy per second. If this quantity of energy is leaving the surface of the metal at c and in this quantity per second, the metal must be absorbing this quantity of energy at this rate from the gases in the air. A situation could be devised wherein it could be clearly shown that the energy is not received as radiation from other solid surfaces. This energy cannot be transmitted to the metal merely by the collisions or conduction through the air molecules. A quantification of the energy of the gas molecules and the transfer of energy to the metal must be achieved in order to have valid theoretical physics of this most basic of phenomena of physics. This means the gas molecules are not transparent to the infrared as is often believed, but are absorbing and radiating the full continous spectrum of the infrared in the distribution similar to the Planck Radiation Law. It is only this absorption and emission through the full spectrum that the quantity of energy being transfered per second can be achieved which is equivalent to the energy leaving the surface of the metal. It is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the theory of greenhouse gases, that N2 and O2 are absolutely transparent and non-reactive to infrared radiation energy. Otherwise, there is no rational that the trace gases or the very minute changes in concentrations of trace gases can have such theorized impact upon atmospheric temperatures. If the theory of greenhouse gases were correct, very great differences in the temperature of a piece of the metal would occur depending upon which gases or combination of gases are used in experimentation. This is certainly not the case. As it stands, there is no valid theoretical theory of gases which can be shown by experiment to support the widely held belief in the existence of the property of 'greenhouse' gases. KD ' You are plain flat wrong- Hide quoted text - Proof is in the pudding. Although most of greenie weenie science is based upon psychological evaluation of anyone who does not likewise repeat the invalid dogma as they, there are times in life when one can devise and obtain an actual SCIENTIFIC PROOF. But since you do not rely on PROOF for your beliefs, we can understand that this concept is foreign to you, and we should not expect you to trouble your little mind to attempt to understand what a PROOF is or how this concept relates to science. So right and wrong for you is a subjective concept and when it is your communal insanity, you are assured that you are right and have no need to apply science or mathematics. KD 'http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/ thread/f6cd38eff8d1777b/bc868a4e83400a37?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup %2Falt.global-warming%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Ff6cd38eff8d1777b%3 Fhl %3Den%26scoring%3Dd%26&scoring=d#doc_bc868a4e83400 a37 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 WeatherBanter.co.uk