|
|
Post by Ratty on Jul 10, 2010 23:30:01 GMT
A word of warning Icefisher ... keep an eye skyward when darkness falls. I expect you will be visited shortly by the black helicopters and the rapelling agents with night-vision goggles.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 11, 2010 0:37:19 GMT
So what is this, a denial of backradiation thread? Backradiation from the atmosphere which is directly measured from the surface by pyrometers? btw one big difference between solar and backradiation is that solar energy is strongly directional whereas backradiation is diffuse. Your so skeptical Socold! Im not skeptical of backradiation |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 11, 2010 11:37:28 GMT
This is a little too easy. The heat is only of use if you can get it to go somewhere other than heating your panel to a point that conductive and radiative losses are large. Moving the heat takes work. You are just describing a more efficient version of techniques that are already in use but assuming that the efficiency is greater than is allowed by physical laws (such as Kirchoff's theorem).
As a dubious way of attempting to relate the description of an impossible machine to a faulty description of the greenhouse effect such that disproving the impossible machine also disproves the GH effect by disproving its faulty description, this is very weak stuff.
Still, if you can stretch it into a 117 page document full of equations, you'll get Excalibur interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 11, 2010 11:41:28 GMT
As a dubious way of attempting to relate the description of an impossible machine to a faulty description of the greenhouse effect such that disproving the impossible machine also disproves the GH effect by disproving its faulty description, this is very weak stuff. Huh? You need to explain how that works. Your "impossible machine" handwaving is just bizarre. You go on and on about how man in his pursuit to a better life has unwittingly modified the planetary systems by accident. Yet you are describing the very engine of progress. Once such a powerful engine is identified mankind does a bangup job of optimizing it and turning it to his own benefit. It seems so appropriate that a Luddite in his zeal to stop human progress that he would provide the very discovery to accelerate that progress beyond imagination. Impossible Machine??? LOL! You must be one of those grant suckers. You can always spot them as their logic is purely monetarily oriented and the physics of the world divides neatly into the profitable and the I don't care to even think about it categories. I actually understand your dilemma. If say my machine fails because despite the argon the machine gives up prodigious amounts of energy due to increasing conduction. . . .that would be a negative feedback. But what you need to do is explain why it is going to fail. Instead you only want to do more handwaving and try to change the subject, maybe toss in a few ad hominem insults and move on. Thats not what you originally claimed saying "so I'm up for this argument  " |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 11, 2010 12:59:13 GMT
I guess it depends on whether it's possible to make a material that allows IR through in one direction, but reflects it from the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 11, 2010 17:48:34 GMT
socold:
That is not only possible, but is being done. In fact, it coats windows in the norhern latitudes. Let it in......then keep it in type thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jul 11, 2010 18:21:35 GMT
Yeah but because its black it will create heat and will contribute to Global Warming. Its not allowed without the proper taxation. Come back when you have found a White "Eco friendly" panel Simple. Just paint them white. After all, 0bama's Secretary of Energy (did you know he has a Nobel Prize?!) said we should paint our roofs white. Solves almost everything. Just add confiscatory taxes, tight regulation and limits on CO2, and the world is saved. It's so simple! That's why icefisher's idea will work. So, can we get Al Gore to buy in? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 11, 2010 19:56:39 GMT
socold: That is not only possible, but is being done. In fact, it coats windows in the norhern latitudes. Let it in......then keep it in type thing. You may be getting confused with glass that lets in sunlight which warms a room, but does not let out all the infrared that results from the warming of the room - so we're talking radiation in separate wavelength bands. That's fine, but icefisher's room is within a panel which additionally gets useful radiation from below it. In reality, the room will warm up such that it warms the IR resistent glass by conduction (above and below). The IR resistent glass then radiates more energy than it is receiving from below because it becomes warmer than below. Icefisher is imagining that the energy absorbed from below is useful energy which it is not. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 11, 2010 21:27:44 GMT
That's fine, but icefisher's room is within a panel which additionally gets useful radiation from below it. In reality, the room will warm up such that it warms the IR resistent glass by conduction (above and below). The IR resistent glass then radiates more energy than it is receiving from below because it becomes warmer than below. I am assuming no heat gain from conduction. Unlike IR radiation, conduction does not travel contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. My design limits heat loss from conduction. The panel has IRvoltaic cells in the middle of the panel. Above and below the middle layers is a space filled with argon gas to limit heat loss from the core to the outer layers. The outer layers are made of polyethylene plastic transparent to IR in the 5 to 15 micrometer wavelength. The inner face of the polyethylene is coated with a mirror finish to reflect IR emanating from the core. The panels are positioned so as to allow solar to light and heat the ground below the panel while collecting solar inside of the panel (198w/m2 note: there will be no surface reflection from the core). In addition IR from the ground will emit an average of 390watt/m2 into the underside of the panel and back radiation will emit 324watt/m2 into the top of the panel. Nothing escapes from the core except through the low conductivity Argon. Should negative feedback from the argon prove excessive then we will modify to a near vacuum to limit the negative feedback. This is nothing but an optimized greenhouse design. We will narrow the IR window and at the same time greatly reduce negative feedback via using low conductivity gas (argon) and low conductivity films (polyethylene) to eliminate negative feedbacks from convection and greatly reduce negative feedback losses from conduction. Cells inside of the core convert the SW and IR to electricity. Initial efficiency targeted for 35% with a plan to increase that efficiency to 65%.  Icefisher is imagining that the energy absorbed from below is useful energy which it is not. Care to explain why? |
|
"
