Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (22361)	7/19/2008 10:37:06 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

IIRC, Watson once claimed that Heat didn't have units of energy, although that might have been his sidekick Hugh.

To: maceng2 who wrote (22361)	7/19/2008 11:31:50 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

The theory that a cold body radiates as does a warm one stems from Prévost's theory of exchanges of 1792. The theory of heat has developed much since then, but Prevost's theory remains. A cold body does not "know" it's been put in hot surroundings and visa versa. answers.com I remember my old physics teacher really stressing the point. At the time I wondered why he made such a big deal about it. It's become obvious over the years why the detail is important.

To: maceng2 who wrote (22361)	7/20/2008 12:21:53 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

You are attempting to parse a difference that does not exists. net heat flow is defined as the sum of all components making up the tranfer. It can be the conduction of heat, the convection of heat or the heat transferred by radiation. What is pointed out is that you cannot parse out the the heat transfer by radiation and then separate it into vectors in some net energy flow. This is the G and T explanation, 3.9.3 A paradox Rahmstorf's reference to the second law of thermodynamics is plainly wrong. The second law is a statement about heat, not about energy. Furthermore the author introduces an obscure notion of "net energy flow". The relevant quantity is the "net heat flow", which, of course, is the sum of the upward and the downward heat flow within a fixed system, here the atmospheric system. It is inadmissible to apply the second law for the upward and downward heat separately redefining the thermodynamic system on the fly. It is obvious to me. I see no error. I believe the German scientists are stating the physics correctly. But some have little regard for what German scientists know about radiation, relativity and rocket science and such. After all Einstein and Von Braun were Americans. American scientist developed the A-bomb not the Germans. LOL...

To: maceng2 who wrote (22361)	7/23/2008 1:29:15 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Consider the case to a dark red colored Honda car, parked in Scotland overnight. The night sky has been clear yet the surface air temperature did not drop below 3 degrees C. Radiant heat from the car roof lowers the temperature to below freezing to such an extent that water condensed onto the cold surface freezes. The sleepy engineer, not wanting to be late for work, wonders why there is no frost around except on the roof of his car. It includes the windscreen too... how annoying! Maybe this is why Rahmstorf talks of energy flow rather then heat flow. Both the windscreen and roof were next to air that was above freezing point. Was the second law of thermodynamics defied? The evil demons that introduce Murphy's laws into all engineers lives, have they even broken the sacred second law of thermodynamics just to try and make him late for work ???????????????? No my friends, Rahmstorf was correct, only the demon that is the internet itself hinders this morning. So I must be gone. The caloric (liquid flow) theory of heat is dead, but Pierre Prévost and his theory of exchanges rule the night sky under the auspices of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics!