|
Post by Andrew on Oct 13, 2016 8:27:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 13, 2016 4:52:00 GMT
Nautonnier, this comment must be meant for another post. Actually no. As water freezes into ice the weak hydrogen bonds stop the molecule vibrating. The latent heat was held as rotational and vibrational movements of the two hydrogen atoms. For this to become sensible heat the molecule either releases a photon - which is radiating heat, or, the molecule starts vibrating again and that energy is transferred to another molecule by collision/conduction. The photon seems more likely but I am sure I will be corrected. 1. I am not seeing how ice formation can stop vibration when it is vibration that causes melting and ice cannot spontaneously freeze until a large amount of a particular kind of vibration has been removed from the water. Ice might be bonding with molecules with low energy that are not vibrating in a particular way - bonds fail otherwise. Importantly we must be talking about a reversible equilibrium process here, where ice bonds are constantly forming and breaking, but once the direction of freezing in the equilibrium process is underway, more ice bonds form than are broken. 2. EM Radiation release when bonds form is very unusual rather than typical and here we are talking about bonds which are mainly electrostatic in nature and have very little ability to cause quantum energy jumps of the kind that create EMR.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 12, 2016 14:56:49 GMT
The heat must go somewhere If I ruled the World I would have you put in front of a firing squad for crimes against humanity.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 12, 2016 5:21:18 GMT
In the process of condensation the latent heat is converted to sensible heat. So the ice lattice somehow starts vibrating again to provide sensible heat? But it just stopped vibrating to form the lattice. A bucket of water has rotational energy that ice does not possess. Water cannot freeze unless it loses that energy. The only way it can lose the energy is via a process that involves a sensible heat flow out of the water, to another place. Freezing water, however, remains the same temperature even while it is losing sensible heat so therefore it must have a source of sensible heating from within the freezing water that exactly matches the flow of sensible heat out of the water. How do new hydrogen bonds release heat when ice forms? I have no idea of the mechanism, but what is totally clear, is water is losing energy and yet something is causing it to remain exactly the same temperature.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 12, 2016 3:58:39 GMT
I have explained this to you about 6 times and each time you have become childishly abusive. Likewise with Barycenters where you regard orbital physics as 'waffle' and you think the worlds top solar scientists are morons. On the contrary Andrew you repeatedly stated that heat is not released when water freezes to ice. So please explain how the heat is released as you appear to have had an epiphany. The world's top astronomers are detecting stars with planets by their 'wobble' in orbit (among other methods). But for some reason the Sun is considered special as not wobbling despite the presence of the masses of Jupiter (almost a star in its own right), Saturn and Uranus. This is not a logical position to take. You will note Theo uses the path of the barycenter to forecast what is happening with a better track record than weather forecasters at Boulder and the National Weather Service. In fact even the (Old) Farmers' Almanacs have a better track record than professional weather forecasters in long range weather forecasting - they also use similar pointers from the motions of the planets in the solar system. Nautonnier, >>On the contrary Andrew you repeatedly stated that heat is not released when water freezes to ice. Words just fail me that you can keep saying the same shit for brains stupidity no matter how I object. >>for some reason the Sun is considered special as not wobbling False. It has been repeatedly explained to you in the frame of reference of the Earth the Sun is not wobbling. We wobble with the Sun so in our frame of reference the Sun is not wobbling.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 11, 2016 6:15:20 GMT
I have explained this to you about 6 times and each time you have become childishly abusive. Likewise with Barycenters where you regard orbital physics as 'waffle' and you think the worlds top solar scientists are morons.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 10, 2016 14:46:41 GMT
Nautonnier, as you know pretty much everything emits IR including water vapor and water droplets without changing phases. But more to the point can you provide us with any reputable reference which says that latent heat is emitted as photons when water vapor condenses. It is actually very difficult to find something detailing the release of energy although from K12 up the statement is always as water condenses or freezes it releases heat. FFS! It does not release heat, it releases latent heat. theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/468/ "When water freezes it gives up some of the water's energy. This energy that is given up is the latent heat of freezing. When the water was freezing latent heat of freezing energy was being released. Heat energy was actually being released. It is this heat energy that prevented the temperature from continuing to cool once the temperature reached 32 F. The way to think of this is that the heat energy does not warm the temperature but rather stops the cooling. The cooling that would have occurred is perfectly offset by the latent heat energy release and thus the temperature remains constant." That statement is true in a glass of water or high in the atmosphere, and of course energy is passing out of the cup of water or the water vapour high in the atmosphere, but there are no IR beams or puffs of warm air created, there is no sensible heating created that was not already present before the phase change began, unless, sigh, there is super cooling.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 10, 2016 10:40:58 GMT
the term sensible heat meaning conduction of heat which is not radiation but vibration of molecules, False. Sensible heat just mean a heat which can be sensed or felt. A radiant heater provides sensible heating at a distance by radiation. During a phase change you do not feel any increase in heating because the rate of sensible heat release remains the same as before the phase change began, unless, yawn, there is supercooling.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 10, 2016 10:17:58 GMT
1. The energy 'given up' is the latent heat of fusion. Andrew believes this just 'goes away' and energy is destroyed. How many more times are you going to repeat the same stupidity?? Latent heat causes objects to be warmer than they would otherwise be. I have exhaustively and painfully explained to you that I know that warmer objects can heat other objects and produce radiation and you keep repeating the same shit for brains responses. At no point whatsoever have I ever claimed the energy is destroyed you f**king idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 10, 2016 10:03:23 GMT
1. Photons output due to emission of latent heat of phase change are not proportional to temperature. It _is_ specifically to do with latent heat. Photons emitted due to heating a metal to a 'red heat' are obviously proportional to temperature. Latent heat of phase change is NOTHING to do with temperature and is a fixed value (Latent heat of fusion of a gram of water ~ 334 joules; vaporization ~2,230 joules). So if you drop a gram of liquid water into liquid nitrogen it will emit 334 joules of heat, if you slowly let it cool in an ice cube tray in the refrigerator it will emit 334 joules of heat, if liquid water in an updraft in a hurricane ends in ambient air of -55C a gram will emit 334 joules of heat. Latent heat of a particular state change is constant and is measured in joules. It therefore follows that the more water changing state the more IR is emitted. 2 If there is a phase change that results in emission of a photon that has nothing to do with ambient temperature. So yes a photon is emitted by a molecule of water changing state. What are you claiming is true?? Are you claiming the rate of photon release during a phase change increases? I must have asked you this same question in different ways about 6 times and I still do not know what you are believing is true. Surely you can do better than continually play these stupid games?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 10, 2016 7:07:39 GMT
If I wanted America to fail I would nominate two of the worst candidates in our history and make a reality TV show out of the election process My wife was telling me this morning: 1. Trump says he wants America to be great again, and Clinton is saying America is great because it is good. 2. Trump thinks he can take p.ussy when he wants - even when newly married - because he is great, and Clinton wants to cover up her husbands p.ussy activities because they do not look so good? Did I get that right?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 10, 2016 6:29:08 GMT
Photons are energy, but they have no temperature. Right ... I'm being verbally incorrect when I substitute heat for emitted IR radiation. Not really. 1 50 years ago they were known as heat rays. Today many people insist that heat is only a mathematical quantity that is transferred from one object to another. These people insist objects contain thermal energy and insist heat is a reserved word with a specific meaning. 150 years ago thermal energy was regarded as matter in motion, and was called heat by everybody (Nautonniers definition it seems) but today it is known part of the thermal energy is contained within the atomic structure rather than contained only as kinetic energy of moving atoms. The idea radiation has no temperature is a bit meaningless for our purposes. We can say also that hot water does not have a temperature. Temperature is typically measured using a thermometer. Hot water feels hot to our hand and IR feels hot to our hand. My radiation thermometer, with no correction for emissivity, instantly tells me it is -18C in my freezer, whereas my resistive digital thermometer tells me it -20C if left in the freezer overnight. Black body radiation is also known as temperature radiation. We measure temperature with a thermometer, so it seems perfectly legitimate to say a radiation field has a temperature. The ISS is orbiting in the thermosphere, a shaded thermometer will show -135C and it will show about 120C in the Sun. However, the extremely sparingly populated particles in the thermosphere are 2000C by day, where that high temperature has not been found using a standard thermometer - it is more of a calculated temperature that applies only to the particles rather than the volume surrounding the ISS. www.google.fi/search?q=temperature+of+cosmic+background+radiation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=ZDr7V_3iBPTk8AeJvJiwBQThe temperature of the cosmic background radiation is 2.7K
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 10, 2016 1:44:49 GMT
You are just trolling. It is acknowledged by all educated people that latent heat causes objects to be warmer than they otherwise would be, and an IR detector can see the difference between hotter things and colder things. You must already know that so why are you persisting with the stupid questions and strawmen? Andrew - what does an IR detector detect? Where do the IR photons that it detects come from? More stupid questions??? You are being asked to justify a weird belief and all you can do is ask stupid questions that you have no need to ask. All objects which are not absolutely cold produce IR. What is the point of your stupid questions? ?? You are just trolling. It is acknowledged by all educated people that latent heat causes objects to be warmer than they otherwise would be, and an IR detector can see the difference between hotter things and colder things. You must already know that so why are you persisting with the stupid questions and strawmen?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 10, 2016 1:40:12 GMT
You quoting wiki is not going to help me understand why you think the velocity vector is being curved. Neither will it help me understand what you mean by the Earths "current vector" See my more recent edits Like this one for example? The centripetal force that causes the planets to stay in orbit in a continual acceleration has got to be considerable and if its vector changes more rapidly than normal one would expect some distortion of our thin skinned bubble of liquid rock What do you mean by 'its vector'? You have said " the velocity vector is being curved", " current vector", " its vector"
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Oct 10, 2016 1:28:07 GMT
Transverse acceleration (perpendicular to velocity) causes change in direction. If it is constant in magnitude and changing in direction with the velocity, we get a circular motion. For this centripetal acceleration we have a = v 2/r = w 2r v, is orbital velocity of orbiting body, r, is radius of the circle w is angular speed, measured in radians per unit time. The formula is dimensionless, describing a ratio true for all units of measure applied uniformly across the formula. If the numerical value of a is measured in meters per second per second, then the numerical values for v, will be in meters per second, r, in meters, and w in radians per second. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_orbitYou quoting wiki is not going to help me understand why you think the velocity vector is being curved. Neither will it help me understand what you mean by the Earths "current vector" How much force do you think would be required to move the Earth 1mm off its current vector
|
|