Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
- From: Cliff <Clhuprich@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:18:32 -0400
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:58:10 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
>"Cliff" <Clhuprich@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:rb7qj1hvs6qfnd8lha5q3i33542jug3juh@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:21:24 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
>> <jschel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>"Cliff" <Clhuprich@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:h5ioj15jpi8k54u6496jro36iujlhhmqtl@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:24:27 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
>>>> <jschel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> And many may be misusing the term "conduction". It's a bit
>>>>>> like billet, right?
>>>>>Conduction is kinetic, when free electrons are conducted from the
>>>>>stored unit of potential of "heat" in the water.
>>>> Free electrons have little to do with the conduction of
>>>> heat. Don't confuse it with electricity or electrical conduction.
>>>Electromagnetic radiation is made when an atom absorbs energy.
>> No, John.
>> In some cases that would be "absorbs electromagnetic energy"
>> (a photon).
>No, No Cliff.
John, you said "Electromagnetic radiation" which only impacts
electrons and protons, usually.
The electron cloud about the nucleus of atoms (not to mention
possible nuclear forces) "shield" the protons in the nucleus
from EM radiation, usually.
That leaves only the bound electrons to be impacted.
For them to accept energy must not their Quantum State also change?
When you accelerate a single neutrally charged atom (thus adding
energy to it) by some unknown means does it radiate EM radiation?
And if the atom were to gain energy in the transaction why would
you consider this net loss of EM radiation TO the atom to be a
creation of EM radiation?
>> Most such energy (thermal) is transferred by collisions between
>> the atoms & molecules or propagated by lattice vibrations in the
>> case(s) under disussion.
>I thought that article was a well written piece, which described things
>we were discussing and in a simple to understand context be made clear
>for HS students.
It seemed to have left some confusion in it's wake.
>There are many, many websites to describe the same thing.
Perhaps. Like I said, I did not look at your link. I was offline
when I wrote my response post.
>You to now mention lattice vibrations, after I brought them up,
Where & when?
>as you stated in previous post you did not at that time understand the
>context of conduction as it applies to automotive radiators,
Conduction is conduction. Magical autos don't enter into it.
Perhaps you have conduction confused with other things.
>or do you
>want me to that up and crosspost this thread to your groups so we may
>>>The absorbed energy causes one or more electrons to change their
>>>locale within the atom. When the electron returns to its original
>>>position, an electromagnetic wave is produced. Depending on the
>>>kind of atom and the amount of energy, this electromagnetic radiation
>>>can take the form of heat, light, ultraviolet, or other electromagnetic waves.
>> You have this confused with events that can change the quantum
>> states of electrons.
In the context of conductive energy transfer?
>>>> Diamond is about the best thermal conductor yet
>>>> is an electrical insulator.
>>>> It's such a good insulator that it's Dielectric Strength is
>>>> (for natural diamond) 2,5400,000 Volts per inch yet
>>>> it's thermal conductivity is 13,900 BTU-in/hr-ft²-°F,
>>>> compared with Silver's 2,910 BTU-in/hr-ft²-°F.
>>>Hmm? what does this have to do with auto radiators ?
>> It clearly demonstrates that your claims about electron
>> conduction of heat are incorrect or the good thermal
>> conductor would also be a good electrical conductor.
>It clearly demonstrates as Bob said that as an elder fellow you
>are sure skilled at making a fool of yourself. I'm sure you can
>find the very same claims written elsewhere but do you need
>more cites, if so I can help ?
Did you understand any of that?
>>>> Heat is *molecular* or *atomic* motions, not that
>>>> of electrons alone.
>>>Can you expand on this a little bit ?
>> Compare the mass of an electron to that of an atom or molecule.
>> Consider Newton's energy & momentum things.
>> What *IS* heat a measure of?
>That's the best you can do following my research and what I have written ?
You need to understand it a bit first I expect.
>>>> Just compare the mass of of electron to about any atom ....
>>>> Then think of Newton's energy & momentum ....
- Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
- From: John Scheldroup
- Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
- Prev by Date: Re: Oops!
- Next by Date: Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
- Previous by thread: Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
- Next by thread: Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited