Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
You're just not spelling it right: F-I-Z-Z-I-X ⚛ On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 12:46 AM H LV wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:59 PM Robin > wrote: > >> In reply to H LV's message of Tue, 15 Sep 2020 14:31:04 -0400: >> Hi Harry, >> >> Are you getting bored because of the low level of activity on Vortex? :) >> >> > Physics needs some fizzle. > > Harry >
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:59 PM Robin wrote: > In reply to H LV's message of Tue, 15 Sep 2020 14:31:04 -0400: > Hi Harry, > > Are you getting bored because of the low level of activity on Vortex? :) > > Physics needs some fizzle. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
In reply to H LV's message of Tue, 15 Sep 2020 14:31:04 -0400: Hi Harry, Are you getting bored because of the low level of activity on Vortex? :)
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
I wrote: > Count Rumfordd would say on the nightside the Earth is cooled by > frigorific rays from space, whereby the frigorific rays > slow the movements of atoms. He had this interesting conception of > radiation as being capable of either heating or cooling, i.e. accelerating > or dampening the motion of atoms depending on the ray's 'frequency' and the > mass of the atoms. > > > eg. A ray which cooled atoms would work like a tuned mass damper. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 3:22 PM Robin wrote: > In reply to H LV's message of Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:13:59 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >She isn't interested in how the heat is conveyed to the surface. Her > >argument is that it can`t be discounted. > > Whether or not it can be discounted depends on how much of it there is. > One would need to estimate the average power > output of a "black smoker", and multiply by an estimate of their number to > determine that. > An estimate of their number can be obtained by taking some random samples > of their density (number per km) along the > "ring of fire". > > > > >>However, in her mind heat is _only_ kinetic > >> >energy so it can't be radiated into space unless that radiation is > >> >received by a relatively cooler body in space. > >> > >> The relatively cooler body is space itself. > > > > > >She doesn`t think space is an entity that is capable having of a > >temperature. In her mind kinetic energy can only reside in material > bodies. > > Kinetic energy can only reside in material bodies, however radiant energy > and kinetic energy are interchangeable. > Every body at a temperature above absolute zero radiates, and cools down > as it does so. This is why night is colder than > day. > If the Earth didn't radiate heat into space at night the temperature > wouldn't drop. > If it didn't accept radiant energy from the Sun during the day, it > wouldn't get warmer during the day. > Obviously radiant energy can be converted into kinetic energy and vice > versa. > > I find her conception of energy to be thought provoking. Unfortunately, I don't think she realises that it raises 10 times more questions then it answers. Count Rumfordd would say on the nightside the Earth is cooled by frigorific rays from space, whereby the frigorific rays slow the movements of atoms. He had this interesting conception of radiation as being capable of either heating or cooling, i.e. accelerating or dampening the motion of atoms depending on the ray's 'frequency' and the mass of the atoms. Harry > > >Theoretically in a universe with only one black body with given > >temperature, she would say it will shine indefinitely at the same > >temperature unless there is another cooler or hotter black body somewhere > >else in the universe with which it can exchange kinetic energy. > > Nonsense. > > > > > > >The only incoming energy of any significance is from other nearby bodies, > >> i.e. the Sun, and the Moon, and thousands of orbiting satellites. ;) > >> By far the most significant of these being the Sun (obviously). > >> Note the temperature on the Moon when the thermometer is in shadow. > >> ( > >> > https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/168-What-is-the-temperature-on-the-Moon- > >> ) > >> > > > > > > > >She would say that is because the moon has accepted kinetic energy from > the > >Sun. If the moon wasn`t there the Sun would have shed less kinetic energy. > > ...and exactly how is that kinetic energy supposed to be transferred from > the Sun to the Moon if not via radiation? > Let's get real, you can feel yourself getting warmer when you stand in > sunlight. Step into the shade and the effect > diminishes. The difference between the two positions is the > presence/absence of direct radiant energy from the Sun. > [snip] > >
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
In reply to H LV's message of Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:13:59 -0400: Hi, [snip] >She isn't interested in how the heat is conveyed to the surface. Her >argument is that it can`t be discounted. Whether or not it can be discounted depends on how much of it there is. One would need to estimate the average power output of a "black smoker", and multiply by an estimate of their number to determine that. An estimate of their number can be obtained by taking some random samples of their density (number per km) along the "ring of fire". > >>However, in her mind heat is _only_ kinetic >> >energy so it can't be radiated into space unless that radiation is >> >received by a relatively cooler body in space. >> >> The relatively cooler body is space itself. > > >She doesn`t think space is an entity that is capable having of a >temperature. In her mind kinetic energy can only reside in material bodies. Kinetic energy can only reside in material bodies, however radiant energy and kinetic energy are interchangeable. Every body at a temperature above absolute zero radiates, and cools down as it does so. This is why night is colder than day. If the Earth didn't radiate heat into space at night the temperature wouldn't drop. If it didn't accept radiant energy from the Sun during the day, it wouldn't get warmer during the day. Obviously radiant energy can be converted into kinetic energy and vice versa. >Theoretically in a universe with only one black body with given >temperature, she would say it will shine indefinitely at the same >temperature unless there is another cooler or hotter black body somewhere >else in the universe with which it can exchange kinetic energy. Nonsense. > > >The only incoming energy of any significance is from other nearby bodies, >> i.e. the Sun, and the Moon, and thousands of orbiting satellites. ;) >> By far the most significant of these being the Sun (obviously). >> Note the temperature on the Moon when the thermometer is in shadow. >> ( >> https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/168-What-is-the-temperature-on-the-Moon- >> ) >> > > > >She would say that is because the moon has accepted kinetic energy from the >Sun. If the moon wasn`t there the Sun would have shed less kinetic energy. ...and exactly how is that kinetic energy supposed to be transferred from the Sun to the Moon if not via radiation? Let's get real, you can feel yourself getting warmer when you stand in sunlight. Step into the shade and the effect diminishes. The difference between the two positions is the presence/absence of direct radiant energy from the Sun. [snip]
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 3:14 AM Robin wrote: > In reply to H LV's message of Sun, 13 Sep 2020 23:52:03 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >The heat flux from the Earth has been estimated, and she agrees with > >the value, but it is way too small to contribute to global warming > >according to the standard view of heat and radiation which is why it is > >ignored by climatologists. > > Her argument appears at first glance to involve the miscalculation of > radiation. So how is that supposed to be connected > to heating of the oceans from below? I'm not even sure which radiation she > is talking about, but I'm assuming she is > referring to the Earth as whole, as a radiating body. > > She isn't interested in how the heat is conveyed to the surface. Her argument is that it can`t be discounted. >However, in her mind heat is _only_ kinetic > >energy so it can't be radiated into space unless that radiation is > >received by a relatively cooler body in space. > > The relatively cooler body is space itself. She doesn`t think space is an entity that is capable having of a temperature. In her mind kinetic energy can only reside in material bodies. Theoretically in a universe with only one black body with given temperature, she would say it will shine indefinitely at the same temperature unless there is another cooler or hotter black body somewhere else in the universe with which it can exchange kinetic energy. The only incoming energy of any significance is from other nearby bodies, > i.e. the Sun, and the Moon, and thousands of orbiting satellites. ;) > By far the most significant of these being the Sun (obviously). > Note the temperature on the Moon when the thermometer is in shadow. > ( > https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/168-What-is-the-temperature-on-the-Moon- > ) > She would say that is because the moon has accepted kinetic energy from the Sun. If the moon wasn`t there the Sun would have shed less kinetic energy. This proves that heat can radiate into space quite nicely. Note that the reason it doesn't get even colder is because > the Lunar night is about 2 weeks, which isn't long enough for it to cool > down any further before the Sun starts heating > it up again. > Alternatively the moon is very endothermic. !?!? The huge difference between day and night on the Moon is because it has no > atmosphere. With significant thermal storage, > the difference between day and night could make a pretty effective energy > source, given the maximum Carnot efficiency of > about 76%. > > > >Because space is mostly > >empty this mean the internal heat of the Earth can contribute to global > >warming rather than escaping into space. > > It's not because space can't accept the heat, it's because the atmosphere > prevents it from escaping, note the difference > with the Moon here above. Or for heat added to ocean water from below, > because the oceans themselves mix the warm water > with cold spreading it out and raising the average temperature a bit. > > > > >(Following her logic this could explain why the sun's corona is much > hotter > >than the surface of the sun.) > > No it doesn't. > > Harry
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
In reply to H LV's message of Sun, 13 Sep 2020 23:52:03 -0400: Hi, [snip] >The heat flux from the Earth has been estimated, and she agrees with >the value, but it is way too small to contribute to global warming >according to the standard view of heat and radiation which is why it is >ignored by climatologists. Her argument appears at first glance to involve the miscalculation of radiation. So how is that supposed to be connected to heating of the oceans from below? I'm not even sure which radiation she is talking about, but I'm assuming she is referring to the Earth as whole, as a radiating body. >However, in her mind heat is _only_ kinetic >energy so it can't be radiated into space unless that radiation is >received by a relatively cooler body in space. The relatively cooler body is space itself. The only incoming energy of any significance is from other nearby bodies, i.e. the Sun, and the Moon, and thousands of orbiting satellites. ;) By far the most significant of these being the Sun (obviously). Note the temperature on the Moon when the thermometer is in shadow. (https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/168-What-is-the-temperature-on-the-Moon-) This proves that heat can radiate into space quite nicely. Note that the reason it doesn't get even colder is because the Lunar night is about 2 weeks, which isn't long enough for it to cool down any further before the Sun starts heating it up again. The huge difference between day and night on the Moon is because it has no atmosphere. With significant thermal storage, the difference between day and night could make a pretty effective energy source, given the maximum Carnot efficiency of about 76%. >Because space is mostly >empty this mean the internal heat of the Earth can contribute to global >warming rather than escaping into space. It's not because space can't accept the heat, it's because the atmosphere prevents it from escaping, note the difference with the Moon here above. Or for heat added to ocean water from below, because the oceans themselves mix the warm water with cold spreading it out and raising the average temperature a bit. >(Following her logic this could explain why the sun's corona is much hotter >than the surface of the sun.) No it doesn't.
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 10:35 PM Robin wrote: > In reply to H LV's message of Sun, 13 Sep 2020 22:23:13 -0400: > Hi Harry, > [snip] > >As I scan Zoe's various posts and her responses to her critics it seems > she > >insists that heat and radiation are related but also maintains that they > >are not equivalent or convertible. She maintains that a body can shine > >alone, but it will only shed heat as well if a relatively cooler body is > >nearby which can receive it. > >harry > Radiation has nothing to do with it at all. If the heat source is the > mantel, then the source is the mid-Atlantic ridge > where the crust is quite thin, and ocean water is readily heated resulting > in hot plumes, that are well known to exist > and bring dissolved minerals up to the ocean bottom. This is conduction & > convection. Nothing to do with radiation. > > I don't know whether or not anyone has taken the trouble to calculate the > amount of heat thus added to the ocean. > > BTW the web site you quoted used an erroneous value for the volume of the > ocean AFAIK. It was too small by a factor of > thousands. > The heat flux from the Earth has been estimated, and she agrees with the value, but it is way too small to contribute to global warming according to the standard view of heat and radiation which is why it is ignored by climatologists. However, in her mind heat is _only_ kinetic energy so it can't be radiated into space unless that radiation is received by a relatively cooler body in space. Because space is mostly empty this mean the internal heat of the Earth can contribute to global warming rather than escaping into space. (Following her logic this could explain why the sun's corona is much hotter than the surface of the sun.) harry Harry
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
In reply to H LV's message of Sun, 13 Sep 2020 22:23:13 -0400: Hi Harry, [snip] >As I scan Zoe's various posts and her responses to her critics it seems she >insists that heat and radiation are related but also maintains that they >are not equivalent or convertible. She maintains that a body can shine >alone, but it will only shed heat as well if a relatively cooler body is >nearby which can receive it. >harry Radiation has nothing to do with it at all. If the heat source is the mantel, then the source is the mid-Atlantic ridge where the crust is quite thin, and ocean water is readily heated resulting in hot plumes, that are well known to exist and bring dissolved minerals up to the ocean bottom. This is conduction & convection. Nothing to do with radiation. I don't know whether or not anyone has taken the trouble to calculate the amount of heat thus added to the ocean. BTW the web site you quoted used an erroneous value for the volume of the ocean AFAIK. It was too small by a factor of thousands.
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
As I scan Zoe's various posts and her responses to her critics it seems she insists that heat and radiation are related but also maintains that they are not equivalent or convertible. She maintains that a body can shine alone, but it will only shed heat as well if a relatively cooler body is nearby which can receive it. harry On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 6:08 PM H LV wrote: > Since this involves heat flow, LENR experimenters should be able to assess > this claim. > harry > > < Insolation, see that it’s pitiful and then exclude Geothermal from the > energy budget. I have touched on this subject several times: here, here, > and here. Today I will again show that this idea is plain nonsense.>> . > see > > https://phzoe.com/2020/05/22/equating-perpendicular-planes-is-plain-nonsense/ > > >> >>
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
Since this involves heat flow, LENR experimenters should be able to assess this claim. harry <> . see https://phzoe.com/2020/05/22/equating-perpendicular-planes-is-plain-nonsense/ On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 6:09 PM Jones Beene wrote: > Terry Blanton wrote: > > Frank Znidarsic wrote: Even Jane Fonda wrote a book on climate change. > > > Still looks good at 82; although, the makeup artist for G *did* win > an award... > > More to the point ... the China Syndrome is still a persistent meme. Some > may remember the old bumper sticker, seen on many a vehicle around ORNL in > the seventies... > > > https://imged.com/what-spreads-faster-than-radiation-jane-fonda-vintage-bumper-sticker-vietnam-54956947.html > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
Terry Blanton wrote: Frank Znidarsic wrote: Even Jane Fonda wrote a book on climate change. > Still looks good at 82; although, the makeup artist for G did win an > award... More to the point ... the China Syndrome is still a persistent meme. Some may remember the old bumper sticker, seen on many a vehicle around ORNL in the seventies... https://imged.com/what-spreads-faster-than-radiation-jane-fonda-vintage-bumper-sticker-vietnam-54956947.html
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 3:52 PM Frank Znidarsic wrote: > Even Jane Fonda wrote a book on climate change. > And she begins shooting her 7th season of "Grace & Frankie" after she loses the 10 lbs she gained during quarentining. https://www.prevention.com/fitness/a20686775/jane-fonda-age/ Still looks good at 82; although, the makeup artist for G *did* win an award. Lily Tomlin plays Frankie. I binged the first six seasons sometimes laughing out loud. Martin Sheen plays Jane's gay ex-husband.
Re: [Vo]:Heat from under our feet?
Even Jane Fonda wrote a book on climate change. I'm sure she did not mention the solution of lattice enabled nuclear reactions. https://www.amazon.com/What-Can-Do-Signed-Autographed/dp/0593297679/ref=pd_lpo_14_img_0/130-9447910-1866137?_encoding=UTF8_rd_i=0593297679_rd_r=1cd094a7-5605-4b9f-b93b-1a1054fb462a_rd_w=hrLCO_rd_wg=vE99C_rd_p=7b36d496-f366-4631-94d3-61b87b52511b_rd_r=8N1EZPF28EJ4HVR1B52M=1=8N1EZPF28EJ4HVR1B52M
