Bite Sized NIBLET Number 4: CO2 Dims Tungsten Filament
This is the Fourth in a series of Bite Sized Niblet articles which will quickly and simply deal with a wide array of errors, which the “TALL TALE TEACHERS TELL”, to preach the lies of pretend climate crisis science.
You should all know by now, that the consensus climate theory about carbon dioxide based on the Radiation Greenhouse Effect is a lie and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. One way of demonstrating this is the case is by exposing a tungsten filament in a vacuum and then seeing if it gets warmer or cooler by adding CO2.
Those who read my articles will have seen this one before, it is on my already done list and beats everyone, all school kids should see this, so they know truth and not lies. It is also quick and easy to show and explain so have shortened it into a niblet.
The fake radiation greenhouse effect theory tells us that Earth, in a vacuum in space, is freezing cold, at -18 Deg C, and that ‘greenhouses gas’ (i.e. CO2) and their back radiant effects are the only reason that the Earth is warmer than it should be.
Therefore, using that reasoning an infrared (IR) filament in a Vacuum must be cooler than an IR filament surrounded by CO2. Heated filaments emit in CO2 strongest absorbing band and so therefore must induce the back radiance to warm the filament.
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
This doesn’t happen. All that happens is Conduction and convection cool the filament, just like conduction and convection can only act to cool the Earth. To think the Sun isn’t warm enough to warm the Earth to 288k is childish, infantile thinking at its most ridiculous, yet this nincompoop fantastical nonsense is the exact garbage fake science preachers of doom force feed us on a daily basis. Oh and they tax us to high heaven on the basis of such stupidity as well.
This is what happens.
You can see more detail on this you tube and this link.
See also: theblackdragonsite.wordpress.com
Everyone needs to stop being a baby, wearing diapers and crying your eyes out over a force which doesn’t exist, and having wet dreams about a doom which can never happen.
That is because Radiation Greenhouse Effect IS A LIE and anyone whom says otherwise IS A LIAR, If you have a “TALL TALE TEACHER” at school, college, University or at some pointless climate conference, you know damn well they are fibbing to you. Demand from those fakers the truth, demand they explain this. Watch them squirm, wiggle and worm as the truth shows them up to be nothing but dumb Druids with their wacky witchcraft.
About the author: Geraint Hughes is an award-winning British Incorporated Mechanical Engineer, writer and experimental scientist. His book, Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of THE BIG LIE of Climate is available to buy on Amazon.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Makena James
| #
This is great. Very well done experiment. I’ve seen other experiments on YouTube trying to prove global warming real. One of them is a candle and they’re detecting heat in the candle. When they add CO2, the CO2 takes the heat away from the candle, and so they come to the false conclusion that therefore, CO2 must be absorbing and re-radiating that heat (when obviously it’s not or the candle would have been burning brighter. I commented on this video to explain their false conclusion and was met by a barrage of attacks from climate alarmists.
Reply
Makena James
| #
Actually, I stand corrected. The CO2 does absorb and re-radiate the heat. What I meant to say was that the re-radiation was obviously not going back at the candle, otherwise the candle would be burning brighter.
Reply
Ken Warren
| #
I’ve seen the same or a similar experiment presented by a Scotsman, showing that a candle flame viewed via an IR detector dims as CO2 is introduced into the glass container. Said Scotsman then declares this absorption as proof of the greenhouse effect, adding that the temperature increases in the container. The one thing missing from this experiment however is a thermometer! As ever, we just have to take believers at their word that the GHE is supported by experiment. In fairness, this demonstration is intended for children, who are of course unquestioning.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mekena and Ken,
Increasing the CO2 in a closed container and reducing the O2 causes a candle in the container to burn less brightly. That certainly is surprising. It must be from the green house gas effect. How can people put this stupidity out there with a straight face.
Herb
Reply
Max Polo
| #
Great Geraint…the only point where I’m a bit dubious is : “To think the Sun isn’t warm enough to warm the Earth to 288k is childish, infantile thinking at its most ridiculous”…but a brilliant lady thinks, with well founded reasons that “the sun is not enough” :
https://phzoe.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/
obviously, this has nothing to do with the fake GHE
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Thank you, Max.
I think this is the more relevant article:
http://phzoe.com/2020/02/25/deducing-geothermal/
Reply
D. Boss
| #
Excellent Geraint!
The only thing I would add to your experimental set up, is to measure the True Power delivered to each lamp. A proper skeptic could argue you have reduced power to the CO2 lamp, and if you have power input readouts for each separate lamp as you do the experiment, it would be more complete.
True Power metering for AC circuits can be expensive, however these are purely resistive loads, so you could use RMS power, which the “Kill-A-Watt” meters can provide and they are inexpensive.
http://www.p3international.com/products/p4400.html
Oops, that model is only for USA mains. Here’s one for the UK:
http://www.reuk.co.uk/Buy-UK-Power-Meter.htm
Reply
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
No experiments needed to confirm the already established physics God gave the physical realm:
Greater than 94% of the energy contained within nitrogen and oxygen are unaccounted for by the ‘climate change’ narrative, informing us of the massive scientific fraud taking place, the purpose of the fraud to further weaken the West’s economies.
[On March 16 Trump directed the nation to stay home for 15 days(!), his Marxist economic sabotage directive still in play. Immediately following Trump’s directive, governors/mayors declared illegal Executive Orders to lockdown the nation, thereby proving Marxist coordination between Federal/State/Local governments.
No new investments will be taking place because investments require recouping the investments, and with the spectre of the fake COVID-19 returning, or equally fake new pandemics, future lockdowns are in the future, therefore no investments are on the horizon. In short, the United States has been turned into a Banana Republic overnight.]
Nitrogen and oxygen constitute, by volume, 99.03% of the atmosphere’s gasses, while the trace gases account for 0.97%, or just under 1% of the atmosphere’s gasses. If we include water vapor (H2O) in the atmosphere, which accounts for, on average, 2% of the atmosphere’s gases by volume, we therefore subtract this 2% from the atmosphere’s gasses, where nitrogen and oxygen will constitute 97.0494%, and the trace gasses will constitute 0.9506%.
Nitrogen and oxygen don’t absorb much infrared radiation (IR) emitted from the ground, and assuming they absorb 100% of thermal energy from the surface, constituting approximately 5% of Earth’s energy budget, we’re left with a massive energy deficit for nitrogen and oxygen, confirming that those two molecules derive their energy from thermal ground/ocean emissions instead, but since the ‘climate change’ narrative identifies such emissions as not thermal but IR, we have proof that the energy being emitted isn’t IR but thermal because nitrogen and oxygen absorb a miniscule amount of IR.
Nitrogen and oxygen obtain 5.1% of their heat energy from thermal energy emanating from the surface…
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1200px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
…and another .078% of their heat energy from outgoing infrared radiation, leaving an energy deficit of approximately 94.8%.
Since nitrogen and oxygen constitute by volume 97.0494% of the atmosphere’s gasses (when water vapor is included in the calculations making for a more precise calculation), they must therefore retain that volume amount of heat energy, but 18.4 Wm2 only constitutes 5.1% of the Earth’s energy budget of 358.2 Wm2. Nitrogen and oxygen’s absorption of infrared radiation only infinitesimally affects this missing heat energy.
The missing energy levels for nitrogen and oxygen direct our attention to another aspect of the scientific fraud taking place: Misidentified outgoing energy types. IR is assigned an energy magnitude of 358.2 Wm2, and thermals 18.4 Wm2. The opposite is closer to the truth, where IR is assigned 18.4 Wm2, and thermals 358.2 Wm2.
Hence why:
THERMODYNAMICS IS AWOL
Climate change mechanics conspires to do away with the physics of the atmosphere, where action and reaction is abandoned. When a new gas molecule is introduced into the dense troposphere, dislocation takes place, where if the new molecule is denser than the atmosphere (contains less heat energy), such as carbon dioxide, the gas molecule sinks displacing upwards the warmer nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation. Conversely, if the new gas molecule has more heat energy than the nitrogen-oxygen based atmosphere (such as methane), the new molecule rises, displacing relatively cooler nitrogen and oxygen molecules downwards, which displaces upwards relatively more heat retaining nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation. Thermodynamics in action in the atmosphere that keeps the Earth cool when increased radiation isn’t the new variable introduced.
At my blog, bead the articles…
‘House of Cards: The Collapse of the ‘Collapse’ of the USSR’
‘Playing Hide And Seek In Yugoslavia’
Then read the article, ‘The Marxist Co-Option Of History And The Use Of The Scissors Strategy To Manipulate History Towards The Goal Of Marxist Liberation’
Solution
The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology/blackmail, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.
My blog…
https://djdnotice.blogspot.com/2018/09/d-notice-articles-article-55-7418.html
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
This is a great experiment, of course.
The only problem is that climate scammers will just say that it got dimmer and colder-looking from the OUTSIDE.
According to their religion, CO2 blocks outgoing radiation, AND this forces the inside to get hotter.
Now I know the tubgsten didn’t get hotter, but you don’t provide the evidence for it either way.
This is why I appeal to people’s own bodily feeling, rather than tungsten:
http://phzoe.com/2020/03/04/dumbest-math-theory-ever/
A screen should make you feel much hotter within seconds. It doesn’t, obviously.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Zoe,
I have read about Geraint’s demonstration because of your comment. I believe Geraint would have better achieved the purpose his effort better educated school children.
You wrote: “Now I know the tubgsten didn’t get hotter, but you don’t provide the evidence for it either way.” The brightness and dimness of the filament doesn’t tell you which filament is the ‘hotter’ of the two?
But Geraint wrote: “A. ll that happens is Conduction and convection cool the filament, just like conduction and convection can only act to cool the Earth.” To visibly support this explanations which has nothing to do with the fact that carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse’ gas is to fill the Bell Jar with 0.7 bar of Nitrogen gas, which is not a greenhouse gas, offer a freeze frame showing the result of this demonstration.. Of course I could be wrong because I have never done either of these three demonstrations.
Have a good day, Jerry .
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Jerry,
“The brightness and dimness of the filament doesn’t tell you which filament is the ‘hotter’ of the two?”
Mainstream GH theory says CO2 will block outgoing radiation, does it not? From the outside, the inside appears colder.
The GH theory says that the surface will warm up, but it will still appear colder from the outside.
Geraint shows the outside. I show the outside in my article as well (two people behind screens).
So you see the problem, or not?
There’s 2 steps. First step is agreed by everyone. 2nd step can’t be proven or disproven from an outside view. Only an inside measure can prove or disprove the GH effect.
Reply
MattH
| #
“Mainstream GH theory says CO2 will block outgoing radiation, does it not?”
No it does not. The theory is outgoing radiation will bounce around and ricochet (absorbed and re-emitted) a little more with an increase of atmospheric CO2 before it is eventually emitted into space. It is not blocked.
Like on a pinball machine the radiation bounces around in random directions a bit more with some bouncing back to the surface but in a stream of upward atmospheric convection the radiation will bounce around within that stream until blatting off to space. Same as it always has.
I realize “bouncing and ricocheting” are not technically correct terms but it makes the concept simply understood.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
I agree with you too ways. 1. The interior of the bell jar and it would get hotter and hotter if there was no mechanism by which the energy be produced by the electrical powered filament some how did not escape to the much larger exterior world. 2. There is no need to ‘snow’ nontechnical people with technical terms.
Have a good day, Jerry
Zoe Phin
| #
Sorry, MattH, but mainstream theory says exactly what I said:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png
You can play here as well:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Double the CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm, and watch Tropical Upward IR Heat Flux go from 298.52 down to 295.191 W/m^2.
Only via mathemagics is this outward cooling turned into an inward warming. This we agree on.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Zoe,
From experience the ‘bell jars’I have seen are thick glass to withstand the the pressure of the atmosphere when the bell jar is evacuated of most of the gas inside the jar to form a vacuum inside the jar. And most glass is opaque to the IR radiation to which you refer. But what we see is the visible radiation produced by the very hot filaments. And what we need to recognize is the observed fact that the majority of the radiation being produced by the very hot filament is visible radiation and not IR radiation.
Next we need to recognize that the primary transfer of ‘energy’ from the filament to the inside of the bell jar is radiation which we see being transmitted through the glass of the bell jar. Of course, the small amount of IR radiation will be absorbed by the inside surface of the glass and one can feel the outside of the glass warming when power to heat the filament is turned on.
But when there is a gas in the jar there are the mechanisms of thermal conduction and gas convection to transfer energy from the heated filaments to the interior surface of the bell jar. Hence, I expect (but don’t know because I have not concluded this demonstration)) that the outside of the jar will get much warmer (as felt by one’s hand) than the vacuum case.
The publisher of Galileo’s 1638 classic book, as translated to English by Crew’ and de Sa;vop (1914) wrote in the preface to the reader that a common saying of the early time was: “intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition”. Hence, one needs to define all the common factors known to be involved in this demonstration.
And I agree that Geraint has also failed to do this by not doing a third demonstration with nitrogen gas rather than only with carbon dioxide gas.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
I agree zoe. Not only should a screen make u hotter in seconds, but imagine walking on a road surrounded by flat open grass mowed fields, then come across a sudden row of houses, You should immediately feel much hotter from back radiance from the houses simply by walking past them, but you dont.
Human skin is highly sensitive to changes in radiant heat, how come we dont notice such a sudden supposed increase? Total lies, thats why.
Back radiant heating is a fallacy.,
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi John O’,
My Apple computer tells me that “In the last seven days, Safari has prevented 188 trackers from profiling you.”
Two questions–1. Why would anyone be trying to profile me? 2. I can only imagine that a possible reason that anyone ‘out there’ knows about me is because of the comments I have been making here at PSI. So, based upon your experiences might this be an attempt to censor instead of protecting me?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Joseph F Zeise
| #
To improve the experiment one needs to measure the input power to each chamber and also measure the energy leaving the chamber via conduction through the glass container and any electromagnetic radiation escaping through the walls (glass). Perhaps the CO2 in the chamber is causing the input power to be reduced therefore dimmer filaments.
Good start though.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Joseph,
Do you really believe that the numbers of your proposed will tell you anything more than what your hands can feel about the outside of the ‘bell jar’? Do you really believe that the voltage and amperage of the ‘power’ to the filament well change in a detectable way? My experiences tell me that the answer is no. Do you see that the demostration of even the three cases can explain nothing about the Greenhouse Effect of a carbon dioxide atmosphere. MattH drew attention to the collisions between photons and molecules. Do you know the speed of these photons between collisions. And even the speeds of the ‘hot’ molecules. This ‘trapped’ interior system equilibrates very rapidly even though temperature of the glass bell jar will equilibrate more slowly. And there wiil become a somewhat steady state temperature gradient across the thickness of the solid glass (the only thing of the system which has an appreciable heat capacity.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
DavidW
| #
Perhaps a better experiment would be to compare the brightness of the filament first with the jar filed with N2, or other inert gas, and then with CO2 at the same pressure.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Zoe. I will not waste energy debating the definition of mainstream, but I illustrate the point.
Your first reference is to normal USA atmosphere. Is that at the USA Mexican Border normal, the USA-Canadian Border normal or up Alaska Normal? I mention Alaska because satellite measurements interpret CO2 accelerates atmospheric cooling at the Arctic and Antarctic. Why did you not refer me to a satellite reading that reveals accelerated atmospheric cooling hypothetically contributed to by CO2?
This is mainstream. Geran has taught me not to use averages in thermodynamics. Well the same for geography. The equatorial atmosphere should not be averaged with the arctic atmosphere. Mainstream!!! And clouds are still not clearly understood yet atmospheric water in it’s differing states in the atmosphere renders CO2 relatively insignificant. Mainstream.
Not being a scientist I can not explain how ultraviolet energy absorbed by the earths surface is re-emitted as infrared energy. Understand that and it is likely you may understand how atmospheric water can convert or transport some frequencies of infrared energy to bypass CO2 temperature influences. Define it and make it mainstream
Have a day in the muse-um
Regards Matt
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
“satellite measurements interpret CO2 accelerates atmospheric cooling at the Arctic and Antarctic.”
That’s correct, Matt. But …
The polar regions take up 6.3% of the surface!
“This is mainstream. Geran has taught me not to use averages in thermodynamics. Well the same for geography. The equatorial atmosphere should not be averaged with the arctic atmosphere. Mainstream!!!”
The mainstream also claims the ice will melt. How is that possible, if they also claim CO2 will cool the polar regions?
Very simple. Imagine CO2 causes 1 degree warming outside the poles, and 1 degree cooling inside the poles.
1 * 0.937 – 1 * 0.063 = 0.874 NET global warming.
Then outside warmth is transported to the polar regions via air circulation.
You shouldn’t listen to Geran. He lost his critical thinking faculties after reading Postma.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
“Not being a scientist I can not explain how ultraviolet energy absorbed by the earths surface is re-emitted as infrared energy.”
This is a very wise comment. It doesn’t!!!
I have been collecting proof of this for quite a while, and will eventually write about this.
As we speak, you can find articles and papers of scientists trying to create a NEW material that will convert shortwave to longwave radiation – the very thing climate scientists claim water, dirt and rocks do all the time.
Water, dirt, and rocks do not convert shortwave to longwave, and most of longwave comes from GEOTHERMAL, and the direct longwave portion of solar radiation.
This is a HUGE scientific scandal.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
When an object absorbs radiated energy from a source, at equilibrium, it must radiate an equal amount of energy. Since the object is absorbing energy from a source of greater energy and radiates energy in all directions, in order for the energy emitted to equal the energy absorbed, the wavelength of the emitted energy must be greater than the wavelength of the energy absorbed. This is basic conservation of energy of which you have no knowledge.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
“This is basic conservation of energy of which you have no knowledge.”
Puerile projection. If a, for example, 0.5 micron photon strikes the surface, the molecules will absorb it and start vibrating. Vibration is back-n-forth displacement, i.e. work, i.e. energy.
The 0.5 micron is directly capable of heating. There is no need for the molecules to emit some other wavelength photon to compensate.
And if emission was directly followed by absorption, the molecule would stop moving. You can’t have vibration and emission at the same time.
The sun makes molecules dance in real time. When the sun stops making them dance, they slow down and stop. Luckily, we have geothermal to prevent them from stopping altogether.
You should not make yourself look like a fool, and do a simple google search. You will find scientists trying to figure out how to make materials that convert shortwave to longwave. But if water, dirt and rocks, do it all the time, then why are these scientists wasting their time?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
All objects above absolute zero emit radiated energy. The energy radiated determines the wavelength of the radiation with the higher the energy the shorter the wavelength. As the energy of the object increases towards equilibrium the less energy and longer wavelengths it emits.
Atoms vibrating across a bond will emit energy and the molecule as a whole will also emit energy but at a different wavelength.
Your comment shows that you have no comprehension of thermodynamics
Zoe Phin
| #
0.5 micron photon in => 0.5 micron photon out.
What’s so hard to understand?
Are you suggesting:
0.5 micron photon in => 10 5-micron photons out ?
That’s nice, Herb. Now prove it with experiments. Where’s your evidence?
Herb Rose
| #
Zoe,
What wavelength is absorbed depends on its length matching a bond length just like what radio station you hear on the radio depends on the wavelength matching the length of the antenna. The shorter the wavelength the greater number of molecules will have bonds that absorb that wavelength. (The reason they are putting infrared telescopes into space, even though shorter wavelength have greater energy, is because there are fewer objects in space that absorb the longer IR wavelength and they can see deeper into space). When a bond in a molecule absorbs short wavelength energy it creates flexing across the bond. When the molecule collides with another object that short internal energy is converted into energy for the whole molecule which emits longer wavelength energy.
N2 and O2 in the atmosphere do not absorb visible light or IR. What they do absorb is the shorter UV. This sets up flexing across the bond and when the absorbed energy exceeds 450,000 joules/ mole for oxygen the molecule splits into oxygen atoms which then form the oxygen atom/helium layer in the upper atmosphere, the N2O layer in the atmosphere, and the ozone layer in the stratosphere.
While the gas molecule is absorbing energy it is emitting energy, both from the bond and from the molecule as a whole. As the flexing of the bonds increases the bond length between the atom increases and the wavelength being emitted by the bond increases. Objects convert shorter wavelength radiation into longer wavelength radiation. You’re contention that objects convert longer radiation in shorter wavelengths with increased energy is stupid.
Zoe Phin
| #
“While the gas molecule is absorbing energy it is emitting energy”
Emission drains energy.
So there is no energy left for motion if you presume emission = absorption.
“You’re contention that objects convert longer radiation in shorter wavelengths with increased energy is stupid.”
That’s not even remotely close to what I said.
“Objects convert shorter wavelength radiation into longer wavelength radiation.”
Yeah, SPECIAL objects.
Why don’t you google:
“light infrared down conversion”
All that science and technology just to do what water, dirt, and rocks, do it all the time?
All your blah blah blah can resolved quickly by experiment. So find one!
Zoe Phin
| #
Correction:
And if absorption was directly followed by emission …
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Zoe
“The polar regions take up 6.3% of the surface!”
The external doors of a house only take up a small percentage of surface area yet much is absorbed and re-emitted to and from the house through external doorways.
“1 * 0.937 – 1 * 0.063 = 0.874 NET global warming.” Appears to be averaging.
There is much that is still poorly understood, especially by me, and rather than admit uncertainties the mainstream do have fantasy propositions.
I have run out of time for now so best wishes with your endeavours.
You get ’em..
Matt
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Sure, but by analogy we’re talking about your house being a planetary body …
So there is no convection through your doors and windows.
Reply
MattH
| #
My analogy was referring to beds, tv’s Lounge suites, etc which transposes into the concept of the potential for as yet unidentified mechanisms with the atmosphere.
Be Happy.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Geraint,
As I recall after your first experiment I said that it showed that the GHGT was wrong but that those who are believers will continue to challenge the validity of the experiment on various grounds to preserve their beliefs. It is the same as Joe Postma showing the flat Earth model is invalid. It doesn’t disprove the theory because it challenges reasons supporting the theory rather than the core science of the theory. The fact that one of the core premises of the theory (That because N2 and O2 don’t absorb visible or IR light coming from the sun they don’t absorb radiated energy from the sun) is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics and if they choose to maintain their faith in the theory they must accept that the laws of thermodynamics and all of physics is wrong.
Herb
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Have you ever considered using HITRAN or MODTRAN to figure out your N2/O2 theory?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Have you ever considered actually looking at the composition of the atmosphere at different altitudes and asking how those different gases can be formed?
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
If you magically snap your fingers and remove the atmosphere, the average global surface temperature will become ~57C and a new atmosphere will evaporate from the ocean.
I’ve excluded gases in our plasma part of the atmosphere.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Zoe and Herb,
Have either one of you considered the fact that A. Einstein had some ideas about the issue of absorption and emission?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Joe Zeise
| #
A test to see if anyone is continuing to follow the Hughes Article. Why do the tungsten filaments stop glowing , starting at the bottom of the filament and continuing up, extinguishing more and more of the filament glow as more CO2 is added until enough CO2 is added to extinguish the entire length of the filament glow.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Joe,
The convention tha Geraint mentioned. The gas heated by the filament rises and is cooled by the interior surface of the bell jar. So is heated as it rises again by the hot filament as it rises.. Absorbing pure emergy at the bottom and less at the top. A neat circulation cycle.
But the question proves you were observing and a good scientist must do to learn about questions which need to be asked when the cause of what you observed is not immediately event to one. This is the process by which most scientific knowledge has been discovered. But I hasten to state that my explanation is not absolutely the truth. It just serves until something is observed which cause my explanation to be questioned.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Joe Zeise
| #
Jerry, thanks for the reply. How about the following as an explanation. One molecule of CO2 weighs about 7.3 X 10( exp-23) a very small number. But there are many molecules of CO2 that are released into the vacuum container with the lighted filament. These CO2 molecules occupy the bottom part of the vacuum space because they weigh more then the nothingness of the emptiness of the vacuum. These molecules absorb energy from the lower part of the filament witch lowers the temperature of the filament, and consequently lowers it’s radiated energy. As more CO2 molecules are injected into the vacuum more of the filament glow is extinguished as the CO2 level rises. This suggest that CO2 has a cooling effect not a heat trapping warming effect. What do you think?
Reply
Joe Zeise
| #
How about which vs witch
Reply