|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 27, 2015 19:50:41 GMT
Precisely! And takes that heat from the source that it was in contact with. Hence, evaporative cooling. OK for the purposes of lack of argument and a less stressful life 1. All objects are cooling 2. The planets do not cause the Sun to move 3. You can warm things up by freezing water 4. You can cool water by heating it Over here there are coolers called swamp coolers that do just as you say. Remember IR does not heat water as it only provides the energy to the top layer of faster moving (i.e. higher kinetic energy/temperature) molecules sufficient for them to escape into the atmosphere removing the energy from the water which is therefore cooler (less energy). See * Evaporative cooler - how it works * How Swamp Coolers Work[font color=* How an evaporative cooler works - You Tube
|
|
|
Post by juancarnuba on Oct 27, 2015 20:56:01 GMT
Precisely! And takes that heat from the source that it was in contact with. Hence, evaporative cooling. OK for the purposes of lack of argument and a less stressful life 1. All objects are cooling 2. The planets do not cause the Sun to move 3. You can warm things up by freezing water 4. You can cool water by heating it 3. The Doppler Wobble is caused by the planets gravitational influence on the Sun.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Oct 27, 2015 22:24:14 GMT
OK for the purposes of lack of argument and a less stressful life 1. All objects are cooling 2. The planets do not cause the Sun to move 3. You can warm things up by freezing water 4. You can cool water by heating it 3. The Doppler Wobble is caused by the planets gravitational influence on the Sun. Easy there juancarnuba, there's a butterfly effect caused by using the words 'wobble, sun and planets' all in the same sentence. ..if you include words like 'gravitational influence' or even the 'B' word........you essentially split an atom.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 30, 2015 2:40:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 30, 2015 3:46:44 GMT
But we were told there was a grand conspiracy between GM and the oil companies to kill the electric car. With this news, it is obvious Americans are getting paid off by Exxon and GM (although the government buys their cars to keep GM afloat). www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-01/mysterious-source-surging-demand-gm-cars-revealedGM has been channel stuffing since 2009. Oh, and that $15B debt write off? GM thanks you for that as well. Isn't Fascism Crony Capitalism great? Who killed the electric car?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 30, 2015 13:15:10 GMT
The electric car killed the electric car.
There are too many illogicalities in using them as a major form of transport. The power grids are close to the edge of failure thanks to 'green' energy. So charging thousands of electric vehicles from power generation stations miles away was never going to work.
'Charging' a normal gasoline or diesel car takes about 2 - 3 minutes. Charging an electric car can take 20 - 30 minutes. A lot of your time on a short shopping trip.
If you run out of gas in a normal car in the open country you can be loaned some by a passing driver or get a lift/walk to and from a gas station and get a gallon to get going again. If you run out of power in an electric car it's a brick and needs to be recovered/towed to a charging point. You cannot carry an 'emergency' gallon in the back.
The batteries in an electric car have a finite life well less than the 200,000 miles routinely available from a normal combustion engine. The batteries are hugely expensive.
The nightmare of an electric car driver is a slow moving traffic jam in heavy snow at night on a long interstate section between turnoffs. The heating, lights, motive power all draining the battery more than allowed for.
These vehicles only make sense for townies and then only in small numbers.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Oct 30, 2015 13:53:53 GMT
That's a very good point re:electric cars and snowy weather. ..renders them completely impractical.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Oct 30, 2015 14:37:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 30, 2015 21:23:03 GMT
OK for the purposes of lack of argument and a less stressful life 1. All objects are cooling 2. The planets do not cause the Sun to move 3. You can warm things up by freezing water 4. You can cool water by heating it Over here there are coolers called swamp coolers that do just as you say. Remember IR does not heat water as it only provides the energy to the top layer of faster moving (i.e. higher kinetic energy/temperature) molecules sufficient for them to escape into the atmosphere removing the energy from the water which is therefore cooler (less energy). See * Evaporative cooler - how it works * How Swamp Coolers Work[font color=* How an evaporative cooler works - You TubeYou guys are just too much. The ocean is already evaporating before you begin heating it up. You cannot get more evaporation from heating the water unless the water is hotter or some environmental change happens as a result of the heating as for example, the heating causes the wind to blow stronger upon the water.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 30, 2015 23:19:40 GMT
You guys are just too much. The ocean is already evaporating before you begin heating it up. You cannot get more evaporation from heating the water unless the water is hotter or some environmental change happens as a result of the heating as for example, the heating causes the wind to blow stronger upon the water. Yes the water is evaporating - in fact even ice will evaporate (sublimate) into dry air. But the infrared energy hitting molecules with not quite enough energy to evaporate will provide that energy and the molecules and their associated energy will leave the surface of the water cooling the water. This will happen at all water temperatures. At the same time condensation is occurring at all temperatures it is a case of balance between to two processes.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 31, 2015 20:37:35 GMT
You guys are just too much. The ocean is already evaporating before you begin heating it up. You cannot get more evaporation from heating the water unless the water is hotter or some environmental change happens as a result of the heating as for example, the heating causes the wind to blow stronger upon the water. Yes the water is evaporating - in fact even ice will evaporate (sublimate) into dry air. But the infrared energy hitting molecules with not quite enough energy to evaporate will provide that energy and the molecules and their associated energy will leave the surface of the water cooling the water. This will happen at all water temperatures. At the same time condensation is occurring at all temperatures it is a case of balance between to two processes. Why do you find it necessary to focus on those molecules which are almost ready and able to evaporate when there are millions of water molecules that are thousands of water molecule thickness under the surface that are being heated by infra red that have no chance whatsoever of very quickly evaporating?? I think you need to stop with the lectures where you like pointing out the obvious and think about what you are proposing where you are suggesting you can cool water by heating it! Yes evaporation cools water. Yes even ice 'evaporates' Yes you can make an electrical air cooler with a wet cloth when the air is dry. So what?? To get your nobel prize for novel cooling methods you need to come up with a mechanism that you have not so far proposed where (at the moment) cooling water by heating it is unknown to science. And just for the record a few months ago you were once again attempting to get me to believe that you know more about solar science than Lief Svaalgaard who you seem to think is a complete moron. Where the f**k do you get these ideas from?? Who actually came up with the idea you can cool water by heating it?? Presumably some f**kwit on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 31, 2015 21:28:23 GMT
Scientists me man......scientists. link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00376-015-5016-8The climatological mean state, seasonal variation and long-term upward trend of 1979–2005 latent heat flux (LHF) in historical runs of 14 coupled general circulation models from CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) are evaluated against OAFlux (Objectively Analyzed air–sea Fluxes) data.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Nov 1, 2015 6:58:20 GMT
Scientists me man......scientists. link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00376-015-5016-8The climatological mean state, seasonal variation and long-term upward trend of 1979–2005 latent heat flux (LHF) in historical runs of 14 coupled general circulation models from CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) are evaluated against OAFlux (Objectively Analyzed air–sea Fluxes) data. And how is that relevant?? You guys need to grasp that for a given set of environmental conditions where water is, for example, maintained at a constant temperature, water evaporates and because water vapour contains more energy than liquid water there must be a continually added heat source from somewhere to maintain the current temperature of the water and the current rate of evaporation. If you then provide additional heating to the water it will get hotter until the evaporation rate increases to bring the system back into balance again. If you guys want a nobel prize for novel cooling mechanisms using water you need to provide some mechanism to justify your theory that you have not so far provided. In a night time situation where the air is colder than the water the heat source for a constant surface temperature would be the deeper ocean water. If infra red then shines upon the water you cannot get more evaporation (to cause cooling) until the water rises in temperature - unless you propose some other mechanism that causes the extra evaporation that does not involve bog standard ir adsorption and instead for example proposes some kind of cascading photochemical bond breaking effect or something else not yet discussed here.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 1, 2015 9:44:33 GMT
Yes the water is evaporating - in fact even ice will evaporate (sublimate) into dry air. But the infrared energy hitting molecules with not quite enough energy to evaporate will provide that energy and the molecules and their associated energy will leave the surface of the water cooling the water. This will happen at all water temperatures. At the same time condensation is occurring at all temperatures it is a case of balance between to two processes. Why do you find it necessary to focus on those molecules which are almost ready and able to evaporate when there are millions of water molecules that are thousands of water molecule thickness under the surface that are being heated by infra red that have no chance whatsoever of very quickly evaporating??I think you need to stop with the lectures where you like pointing out the obvious and think about what you are proposing where you are suggesting you can cool water by heating it! Yes evaporation cools water. Yes even ice 'evaporates' Yes you can make an electrical air cooler with a wet cloth when the air is dry. So what?? To get your nobel prize for novel cooling methods you need to come up with a mechanism that you have not so far proposed where (at the moment) cooling water by heating it is unknown to science. And just for the record a few months ago you were once again attempting to get me to believe that you know more about solar science than Lief Svaalgaard who you seem to think is a complete moron. Where the f**k do you get these ideas from?? Who actually came up with the idea you can cool water by heating it?? Presumably some f**kwit on the internet. The focus is on the surface molecules because the infrared does not get past the surface molecules it is all absorbed by them. These molecules then escape taking more energy with them than was supplied by the infrared alone as they were already at high energy. But please, if you disagree set up an infrared lamp over water with air free to pass over the water and escape (so not a contained system) with the amount of infrared no more than the level of 'downwelling' infrared, and show that the water gets hotter compared to an identical experiment without the infrared lamp. Should be simple to set up and you could be as famous as Arrhenius, well in the event that it warms of course.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Nov 1, 2015 10:30:31 GMT
Why do you find it necessary to focus on those molecules which are almost ready and able to evaporate when there are millions of water molecules that are thousands of water molecule thickness under the surface that are being heated by infra red that have no chance whatsoever of very quickly evaporating?? The focus is on the surface molecules because the infrared does not get past the surface molecules it is all absorbed by them. The surface layer of water molecules is about 5 Angstrom thick, which is 50,000,000 times smaller than a millimeter thick layer of water so there is almost no absorption at all in the top layer of water at the surface.
|
|