Some thoughts on thermal conductivity

[rlortie]

No need to regret anything, you have advised of of your head injuries, this is no different than me stating I have heart problems or I recently lost my wife.

Their are a number of members here who are handicapped in one form or another. For some I consider a certain amount of compassion is in order, and will PM any member unkindly or without knowledge, abusing said members.

Ralph

[preoccupied]

I guess even a partly handicapped brain that was hit over a dozen times in less than ten years can still think better than a Cambridge University Professor. BURN. #ICallBSonCambridgeUniversity

Weights that change direction with greater force produce lift. Mould Effect is false. In the chain fountain, it's not the table pushing on the beads, it's the beads pushing on their change of direction. You know? It's one thing to have a nice friendly hypothesis about the chain fountain and it's a little more extreme to pass it off as correct right away and teach it to school children as fact! I feel like they are trying to trick me. I know they are wrong!

rlortie, Are you sure you don't want to discuss thermal conductivity? What if I lay it out for you better?

This is how I understand thermal conductivity. If cold molecules tends to trade cold faster with other cold temperatures and warmer temperatures tend to trade heat faster with other warm temperatures, then that is basically thermal conductivity. It has been a while since I saw the data. It's true. It's true for all elements on the periodic table, I'm pretty sure, maybe 70% sure on this one, maybe 100% sure.

One argument is that average ice is not changing and therefore this means there is not global warming. A more thick atmosphere will give cold temperatures to the south pole where it is coldest faster because of thermal conductivity no matter how hot it seems on the planet at any given time. If there is not Arctic ice then all of the planets temperature trading would go to the Antarctic which would double how cool it is potentially. If the Arctic melts it would get very cold because the thermal conductivity managing colder temperatures would be in favor of colder temperatures, that is until the thermal conductivity becomes less extreme by the two poles sharing the extreme cold temperatures. There is always two poles on Earth where there is less radiation from the sun but there has to be extreme cold at both in order to split the thermal conductivity. The more concentrated the cold is, the greater the strength of the thermal conductivity towards cold - like if only the Antarctic had extreme temperature and ice. I am 80% sure that if the Arctic melts that the Antarctic would grow around the entire planet and then melt off when the North and South poles start splitting the thermal conductivity.

Precious natural glaciers and the Arctic is vulnerable to the greater surface area of gas. Each part of the ice will be in contact with more heat energy exponentially when the air is thicker. It doesn't have to be "hotter" to melt the ice such as if the temperature is higher. Although the temperature being higher would be exponentially worse and would definitely melt a lot of ice even with a small temperature increase, if the air is thicker. How does the air become thicker? Human actions. CO2 emissions is only one factor. We dig out probably pretty good size volumes of the Earths crust that becomes gases that contribute to thickening the atmosphere. The next time I hear someone say that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions I will cringe a little because I fundamentally disagree with that assumption. It's instead caused by thermal conductivity behavior and greater surface area from a thicker atmosphere, ie all added gases in the air.

You can't possibly disagree with me rlortie, unless you are not sure if my understanding of thermal conductivity is correct. I am like 70% I understand the trend for thermal conductivity, and that is colder air tends to get colder faster and warmer air tends to get warmer fast. Not just air but all elements on the periodic table have their own unique exchange of heat rate that follows this trend.

It's God's way of permanently preventing a flooding of the Earth, by using the poles on the planet to permanently trap the ice. If you defy God's landscape by destroying the ice on one of the poles, it will not Stop God's will because, he will then freeze the entire planet until it is restored to his grand design. I think my hypothesis is God's ability to enforce his will. God set up this planet to behave this way. It's in the design.

Don't you think that Christians should think twice about changing major landscape traits designed by God, such as the Arctic by melting it, when they know God makes the rules and not them and he created this planet? God is going to have his way either way and there will be ice at the poles one way or another short of removing great quantities of water from the planet. My hypothesis says the planet will freeze over until there are two poles of ice North and South.

In the future I wouldn't recommend taking water to other planets with space travel either because this planet was created by God and the water here was put here by him. It would be disrespectful. You know? maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here.

[Ed]

The next time I hear someone say that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions I will cringe a little because I fundamentally disagree with that assumption.

So scientists have made an assumption that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that too much of it will raise the temperature? I call BS on ridiculous "news" channel propaganda!

Have you ever heard of a little planet called Venus? Look it up.

[preoccupied]

Ed, what are you saying? You are asking questions and your exclamation could be referring to any news station. Are you saying Fox news is bad? Or everybody else? I'd like to really dig into what you want to talk about, once you explain yourself better. Please don't be too vague.

My hypothesis is based on irrefutable thermal conductivity facts. My hypothesis thinks that the worlds climate is controlled mostly by thermal conductivity and the volume of molecules sharing that heat energy. Thermal conductivity to me, means that the rate of heat exchanged between molecules of different temperatures happen at unique speeds, where warmer temperatures exchange to other warmer temperatures more easily and colder temperatures trade cold more easily with other colder temperature. The most important part of my hypothesis is that I think that if the Arctic melts that there won't be enough oxygen to breath, and that the Antarctic will get bigger and bigger until it covers the entire planet. That is not an experiment that I want to prove to be correct with empirical evidence! Lets not wait until the planet freezes over and we suffocate to death.

I didn't say CO2 isn't a green house gas. Do you think a green house gas will control the world's climate? If my hypothesis is correct then if we stop using fuel that puts gases into the atmosphere, it will not fix anything. I think we need to turn gases into solids and freeze and cool the Arctic ice. It might be possible to just freeze the Arctic ice because a really large Arctic might split/divert enough thermal conductivity for a thicker atmosphere. It would make a lot of sense to spend fuel on an industrial process that turns gases into solids in large amounts.

[murilo]

Murilo, yes you did remove most of your post. You had like maybe 12 lines with one broken English sentence in each paragraph. Right now you just have one short sentence that says "Common sense will help a lot.".

I'm not sure but I think you were criticizing me when you made your post with the 12 different broken sentences/paragraphs. I'm okay that you withdrew what you posted. It was frustrating anyways because I didn't understand where you were getting your information from, because you were obviously not talking about my hypothesis.

Thank you Murilo. You amuse me.

Dear,
you had enough time to read me and to consider me on my broken english.
It's OK now.
Easy to see that you try to keep a free weird discussion and, sorry, if I'll be not useful to your intents.
You amuse me too, dear! B]
TC!
M#i#
PS: BTW, if you ask to some of your old teacher, she/he will say that better are 'broken sentences' but a jam/soup of enrolling words, pretending excellence.

[Ed]

Ed, what are you saying? You are asking questions and your exclamation could be referring to any news station. Are you saying Fox news is bad? Or everybody else? I'd like to really dig into what you want to talk about, once you explain yourself better. Please don't be too vague.

Yes, I was vague, and could have been referring to all "news" channels, but you quite clearly made my point by describing it as "Fox news or Everybody else".

My hypothesis is based on irrefutable thermal conductivity facts. ... Thermal conductivity to me, means that ...

These statements are in conflict.

The most important part of my hypothesis is that I think that if the Arctic melts that there won't be enough oxygen to breath,

Yes, but not because of your hypothesis. Increased CO2 makes algae growth increase initially, but ocean temperatures only need to rise by as little as two degrees before the algae becomes stressed and starts a chain reaction, with coral being next in line. It has been estimated that algae is responsible for over fifty percent of the oxygen we breath on this planet, possibly even as high as 70 percent.

Do you think a green house gas will control the world's climate?

Yes! Do you understand why the term "greenhouse" is used? It's pretty hard to distort the fact that a greenhouse is a simple proven structure that is a microcosm of a real finite environment, and that can provide valuable data as to the effects of changes in that environment. It's not an "assumption" that too much greenhouse gases will eventually lead to global warming. Greenhouses here on Earth and other examples, like Venus, illustrate that. We probably will never know though, because we will likely become oxygen-deprived soylent green eaters long before that!

We are billions of little carbon distributors spread across our planet and running continuously, and we can see the evidence of our environmental influence at night from orbit.

You can cringe or you could just blame it all on God's wrath. In which case I will cringe. ;-)

[preoccupied]

Dear,
you had enough time to read me and to consider me on my broken english.
It's OK now.
Easy to see that you try to keep a free weird discussion and, sorry, if I'll be not useful to your intents.
You amuse me too, dear! B]
TC!
M#i#
PS: BTW, if you ask to some of your old teacher, she/he will say that better are 'broken sentences' but a jam/soup of enrolling words, pretending excellence.

ouch!

My soup of words are necessary to describe something new, or some specific terminology that I might not have learned yet. The biggest reason a lot of simple looking writing comes across a lot better to the reader is because it's filled with more information by using vocabulary that represents a lot more information than the space used to write it. I obviously don't have an advanced Chemistry vocabulary to describe a few paragraphs in a few words to the educated reader. I hope that just by, uh, listing a lot of details in my sentences that it's not pretending anything. You could probably use more details in what you say. If you refer to something to show what you mean that helps when you make brief opinions about topics. So there.

Only a skeptic with prejudice should have your attitude. I think the reason you think I'm pretending excellence is because you agree with what I'm saying but don't want to. My hypothesis and how well I've described it, is not bad, it's not great, but it's not bad.

[Ed]

I hope that just by, uh, listing a lot of details in my sentences that it's not pretending anything.

I don't understand... is this an admission of using technobabble to mask a lack of knowledge? Why bring up these subjects then?

[preoccupied]

My hypothesis is based on irrefutable thermal conductivity facts. ... Thermal conductivity to me, means that ...

These statements are in conflict.

The reason these statements look like they are in conflict is because I look like I don't have the background knowledge to prove thermal conductivity exists and behaves a certain way. That is correct. However, it IS a irrefutable scientific fact that thermal conductivity exists and does behave a certain way. If thermal conductivity does tend to trend to trade cold temperatures from colder items to other cold items faster and warmth to other warm temperatures faster then my statement is at least accurate even if my credibility as a chemist is questionable right now. I think you will find that I am right though, I just don't have the data in front of me to look at and share. You are like splitting hairs.

The most important part of my hypothesis is that I think that if the Arctic melts that there won't be enough oxygen to breath,

Yes, but not because of your hypothesis. Increased CO2 makes algae growth increase initially, but ocean temperatures only need to rise by as little as two degrees before the algae becomes stressed and starts a chain reaction, with coral being next in line. It has been estimated that algae is responsible for over fifty percent of the oxygen we breath on this planet, possibly even as high as 70 percent.

I was thinking, in all honesty, that the water cycle feeds the algae nutrients. The Arctic produces that water cycle that feeds most of the algae nutrients. Am I wrong?

The temperature is also important but that does apply to my hypothesis. If I said basically that the density of the atmosphere is way more important than CO2 green house gas effect, then that is exactly what my hypothesis says. Your temperature changes, such as in the ocean, which is obviously very important because I don't want to suffocate to death, is mostly effected by the volume of seasonally warmer air in contact with it. More gases touching the water that are warmer than it are more likely to warm that water. Greenhouse gases contribute some too. I hypothesize that greater air density creates more heat exchange on water than less dense air with greenhouse effect. I dare say I bet that greater air density creates more heat exchange on water than greenhouse effects.

We are basically arguing about how the Earth is warming and not whether it is. I think my hypothesis better explains all of the climate while yours is focused only on CO2. Since the Arctic melts a little more, the difference that makes toe thermal conductivity is more extreme. Instead of a little bit of shift in cooling towards the Antarctic, a much larger amount does because of thick atmosphere. That means less speedy cooling of the arctic because the Antarctic wants it and more speedy melting of Arctic because during the warm season there is higher volume of gases touching the ice. The ocean, which I would really prefer not to warm up that extra 2 degrees because I don't want to suffocate to death, also is more likely to warm up because of the higher volume of gases. Maybe the ocean is more likely to be warmer from greenhouse effects, but I think high air density is worse. I will go one further and say, if the planet cools down its temperature by for example giant refrigeration units shooting into the sky nonstop all over the place (LOL), the ocean might heat up and all life on Earth could die anyways if the air becomes thicker.

Do you think a green house gas will control the world's climate?

Yes! Do you understand why the term "greenhouse" is used? It's pretty hard to distort the fact that a greenhouse is a simple proven structure that is a microcosm of a real finite environment, and that can provide valuable data as to the effects of changes in that environment. It's not an "assumption" that too much greenhouse gases will eventually lead to global warming. Greenhouses here on Earth and other examples, like Venus, illustrate that. We probably will never know though, because we will likely become oxygen-deprived soylent green eaters long before that!

We are billions of little carbon distributors spread across our planet and running continuously, and we can see the evidence of our environmental influence at night from orbit.

You can cringe or you could just blame it all on God's wrath. In which case I will cringe. ;-)

Venus is heated by greenhouse effects. I would never have considered denying that. Your CO2 facts and my hypothesis compliment each other in that they both say that warming is occurring. I think that I am more specifically saying that warming is happening in a specific way and what would happen after all life on Earth dies after the Arctic melts (Antarctic freezes the whole planet). If someone like a retired spaceflight engineer disagrees with you, you would not be able to make an irrefutable argument against him because I think your argument is not complete enough without my hypothesis. They will tell you why you are wrong because you aren't being specific enough to describe all of the climate happenings, like my hypothesis is. If you just say average temperature is increasing that will not be a very strong argument. You have to say, the ecosystem is being damaged and my hypothesis will say specifically why, and your CO2 facts would contribute to the additional heating taking place that will kill us all. Even natural gas consumption could kill all life on Earth if all the CO2 were removed before entering the atmosphere, according to my hypothesis.

If my hypothesis is correct, that means you can't solve the problem by removing CO2. You would have to change large amounts of gases into solids and remove the CO2 at the same time, or we could still die anyways. We could still die anyways if all we do is remove the CO2. We have to make the atmosphere less dense.

[preoccupied]

I hope that just by, uh, listing a lot of details in my sentences that it's not pretending anything.

I don't understand... is this an admission of using technobabble to mask a lack of knowledge? Why bring up these subjects then?

I think that I know what I'm talking about. Even educated people make mistakes. Look at that Cambridge University Professor that wrote a bad paper on the chain fountain? Obviously weights produce lift when they change direction with greater force. #flyingcar #ICallBSonCambridgeUniversity

I think I am using technical terms when I can and then cascading back to trying to describe things based on my own understanding. To an educated person it should look like vocabulary is simple and easy to understand and then the rest is probably more wordy than they would like, but they should understand it anyways. I am not being deceptive. The only technical term that I keep using repeatedly here should be thermal conductivity. Everything else is defining it.

I will admit that I am a little frustrated bringing this topic up and not being able to show you a chart of temperature experiments or a reference in a journal or something. I just don't have the data. You will just have to find out some other way whether thermal conductivity trades heat at different rates at different element temperatures. I'm almost certain it does, maybe 80% sure. Probably 100%. I really want to say 100% sure this time.

[Ed]

If I said basically that the density of the atmosphere is way more important than CO2 green house gas effect, then that is exactly what my hypothesis says.

I never said anything about "only" CO2. I said greenhouse gases. You keep talking about "more dense air" vs greenhouse effect. "Air" is a vague term that can mean anything from mostly Oxygen and Nitrogen to anything that's in the atmosphere that can't be seen.

Tell me what you think the difference is between greenhouse gases building up and the density of air increasing? Does sunlight travel unimpeded through your more dense air? Does sunlight reflect off of it? Does it absorb sunlight? What does this more dense "air" do and what is it composed of?

[rlortie]

I stated that I was not involving myself with this thread, but I cannot help from biting my tongue!

This "more dense air" you keep referring to is not Green house gases. If it is more dense, it will being sitting on the ground with lighter less dense air above it, getting less dense all the way to the stratosphere!

Ralph

[preoccupied]

If I said basically that the density of the atmosphere is way more important than CO2 green house gas effect, then that is exactly what my hypothesis says.

I never said anything about "only" CO2. I said greenhouse gases. You keep talking about "more dense air" vs greenhouse effect. "Air" is a vague term that can mean anything from mostly Oxygen and Nitrogen to anything that's in the atmosphere that can't be seen.

Tell me what you think the difference is between greenhouse gases building up and the density of air increasing? Does sunlight travel unimpeded through your more dense air? Does sunlight reflect off of it? Does it absorb sunlight? What does this more dense "air" do and what is it composed of?

I am drowsy today so I might not say the best possible thing in response here... anyways

The more dense air holds heat energy and gives more surface area contact with that heat energy to water and ice. It also transports the heat to warmer areas faster and cold to colder areas faster by being more dense. When there is less Arctic ice because it is thick air it transports cold to the Antarctic more quickly making the situation worse for the Arctic. So, if the atmosphere is thicker, the delicate balance that keeps life on Earth alive is even more delicate possibly. I could be missing more that it does. Is anybody on the same page as me on this topic?

You are right it's mostly Oxygen and Nitrogen, I think. If there is more of this air at a certain temperature it will have greater surface area contact with the water and ice. Sunlight would not be reflected as much by oxygen and nitrogen, but it would absorb some heat energy. I believe most of what is put in the air by human actions is CO2 but that eventually balances out with the oxygen I think and I think then there is too much oxygen also.

If a lot of unnecessary extra amount of fertilizer is stored in surplus before it can be used, and pure oxygen and nitrogen extra amount is stored in surplus tanks before it can be used for commercial uses then maybe that would cause industrial nations to take steps to store those gases. The surplus storage amount could increase by regulation to keep the atmosphere at a certain density.

CO2 should be encouraged to become oxygen by growing algae in large amounts for commercial use. If all fuel were algae fuel then it would be carbon neutral and atmospheric density neutral. Thermal depolymerization can help and a lot of algae can be biodiesel. Plants and algae could be stored underground over time to reduce the CO2 that goes back into the air as well. So I guess even if not at first because of retrofitting to this type of fuel, possibly surplus algae could be stored before it can be used for fuel.

Industrial chemicals or pollutants that get added to the normal atmosphere should be regularly mined back out of the air because that is extra matter in the gaseous atmosphere that is taking up unnecessary space. We should probably scrub all of that out with air filters all over the world or whatever means that might be able to retrieve this stuff.

Stopping using energy would not correct the atmosphere if we have to remove some of its gases and freeze ice anyways. Correcting the atmosphere will take a lot of energy. I am not a big fan of nuclear but it will probably be a good idea to spend a lot of nuclear energy on this because it is powerful and will get the job done.

I think Stirling Engines could make a come back. Solar heating such as would be used for heating homes could combine with geothermal air and interact with extreme temperatures outdoors. Super heated refrigerant is more efficient and could be heated by solar power to reach that efficiency (according to what I read before - I believe it). So, a place in the heat of the desert could use that heat potentially to produce massive amount of electrical energy. Robots could be powered by electricity and transport cargo to places to do work that have high heat or extreme cold weather that produces their electricity using Stirling engines. Maybe I'm getting a little ahead of myself here.

EDIT

[preoccupied]

Coal could be used as a fuel and be carbon neutral. The flew gas could be chemical free by thermal depolymerizing the coal before it is burned as fuel. Then the CO2 by product would be recycled into algae tanks and then the algae could be buried under the Sarah Desert. This would make coal fuel carbon neutral.

I know that coal is important for a country like China. They could have pollution free coal consumption. Because China is currently using coal and it would be cruel to take it away from them in the name of the environment, if China thermal depolymerizes their coal before burning it as fuel and grows algae using the flew gas and also ships all of its algae to the Sarah desert and bury it there, Then I think the rest of the world should pay them for it. Maybe this is controversial, I don't know, but China could do this and be paid to do it then it would contribute to saving the planet. Most of the coal electrical production in China would be completely carbon neutral if they did do that.

Fuels that I've mentioned to be used to correct the atmosphere:
1. Nuclear
2. Coal
3. Stirling Engines

Any other ideas for energy production? I say that maybe the worlds energy production would have the X5 to correct the atmosphere. Rough estimate. What's on my mind is massive air filters running around the world and refrigeration and the massive energy cost of retrofitting to carbon neutral and air density neutral fuels.

Solar power is very interesting but that will never happen. In order to create massive amounts of solar panels necessary to create a lot of energy is if there is international cooperation to keep the price low on all materials. That's just not going to happen. One supplier somewhere is going to get greedy and then it will be all about the capital.

Do you disagree? I think existing markets like Coal and nuclear could just be used more intelligently and be paid to do so. It doesn't have to be paid a lot, China doesn't have to be overpaid to clean their air. Something, anything, will probably make it happen. Stirling Engines is a long shot but I think it will be found to be long lasting effective energy in extreme temperature climates. I believe it.

Then there is always Bessler's Wheel for energy, if anybody discovers how to steal gravitational energy. Be wary. If you take from gravity, you could possibly kill all life on Earth too. I might have a few good designs for gravity but I'm not certain. I'm wary to share them. What if I'm right and it destroys planet Earth? That would be tragic.

[Ed]

Preoccupied, you do realize that we have tons of coal in this country already, right? We don't need to pay China for it, or anyone else for that matter.

What we do have a problem with is convincing existing users of coal in this country to clean up their process of using it. Trying to even suggest that a company put some of its own finances into cleaning up its own dirty processes and see where that gets you. You socialist wealth redistributor.

If only there was a term for pollution distribution... hey, that's pretty catchy. ;-)

As to your thought that "taking gravity" might be harmful...
If it were an issue, we would already be seeing some strange anomalies due to constant fluctuations caused by millions of grandfather clocks, out of balance tires, etc.