How Cold Heats Hot
Thermal refers to temperature which is a function of energy and mass, while what the law refers to is energy. Objects do not transfer mass but only energy. However, the only way to detect energy is when it interacts with matter, just as the only way to detect matter is when it gives off energy. Energy flows from an object with a higher level of energy to an object with a lower level of energy.
The area of space between the Earth and the sun has very little matter to interact with the energy being radiated by the sun.
This means there is little energy being absorbed by matter and the area has no temperature. One can say that this very cold area is heating the Earth because it contains the energy that interacts with the matter that forms the Earth. This causes an increase in the temperature of that matter and the Earth. The sun is radiating that energy and the Earth absorbs that radiated energy equalizing with it.
All objects with energy will radiate energy and all objects will absorb radiated energy. Equilibrium is where the energy radiated by an object is equal to the energy the object absorbs. Radiation is not the transfer of energy from one object to another but the transfer of energy to and from the energy field surrounding the object. What energy an object absorbs and radiates depends on the structure of the object and its bonds.
If one object reflects blue light while another emits blue light, the emitting object will not be able to transfer the blue energy to the other object. Instead both objects are transferring energy to, and absorbing energy from, the surrounding energy field. When they are in equilibrium with that field they will have equal energy.
Convection is the transfer of energy between objects and it occurs when the objects collide. It is described by the law of conservation of momentum, M1V1 + M2V2 -> M1V3 + M2V4. The masses of the objects do not change and energy flows from the object with a higher velocity to the object with the lower velocity, equalizing the level of energy in the objects. The masses of the objects are irrelevant when it comes to energy flow but it is the mass that determines how the energy is distributed.
Since the energy of an object is 1/2MV^2, it is possible for an object with a greater amount of kinetic energy to gain energy from an object with less kinetic energy if the object with the lower velocity has a great enough mass. Picture an object as a spherical container where the size of the container represents the mass or number of atoms of the object. Water in the containers represents the energy of the object.
If equal energy/water were added to two different sized containers the level of energy/water would be different in the two containers. In the smaller container the energy would be distributed to fewer atoms giving each of those atoms more energy than the atoms in the larger container (see image above).
When the two containers touch the water/energy would flow from the atoms in the smaller contain with more energy to the atoms in the larger container with less energy.
Equalization of energy would occur between all the atoms in both containers. Even if the larger container contained more energy/water, as long as the level of energy of the atoms in the smaller container was higher than the energy of the atoms in the larger container, the energy would flow to the larger container equalizing the energy of the atoms in the two containers.
According to the law of conservation of momentum, it is possible for an object with less kinetic energy (cooler) to transfer energy (heat) an object with more kinetic energy (hotter). In the troposphere, where the primary way energy is transferred is through collisions between molecules, a high velocity, low mass, gas molecule will transfer energy to a more massive water droplets or solid if the vibration of the molecules in those objects is less than the velocity of the gas molecule.
Colder air can heat warmer water or solids. The contention, by the Green House Gas Theory, that the Earth is heating the atmosphere because the gases in the atmosphere do not absorb visible or infrared light, is a violation of that part of the law of thermodynamics that mandates that all objects absorb radiated energy.
The energy nitrogen and oxygen absorb is from the ultraviolet wavelengths and the molecules in the atmosphere convert this energy into kinetic energy. Since the ultraviolet
band contains more energy than either the visible or infrared bands the gas molecules in the atmosphere have more velocity/energy than the molecules at the surface of the Earth. This means the Earth’s surface is not only being heated by the visible and infrared light it absorbing being radiated by the sun, but it is also being heated due to gas molecules, with their greater velocity, colliding with the matter on the Earth’s surface.
When sunspot activity on the sun decreases and the amount of uv light emitted by the sun decreases, the Earth will cool as it receives less energy from the atmosphere.
The whole fallacy is a result of people making the unwarranted assertion that the thermometer is measuring the energy of the molecules. It is not. Energy is being transferred to the thermometer by convection, not radiation and the number of collision and amount of energy transferred decreases as the density of the gases decrease. The thermometer is recording the momentum of the molecules striking it.
The hot air mass is less dense than the cool air mass so how can fewer molecules per unit area weigh more? Climatology and meteorology are not sciences because they do not understand the flow of energy in the atmosphere or the fact that most of the energy in the troposphere is contained in the water in it.
Header image: Quizlet
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
richard
| #
All I have to add is I think R. W. Wood explained it best in his Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse:
“Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.”
“Robert Williams Wood (May 2, 1868 – August 11, 1955) was an American physicist and inventor. He is often cited as being a pivotal contributor to the field of optics and a pioneer of infrared and ultraviolet photography. Wood’s patents and theoretical work inform modern understanding of the nature and physics of ultraviolet radiation, and made possible the myriad uses of UV-fluorescence which became popular after World War I.[1][2][3][4] He published many articles on spectroscopy, phosphorescence, diffraction, and ultraviolet light.”
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Thanks, Herb, now fixed the diagram
Reply
Alan
| #
What a load of rubbish!
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Alan,
So you don’t believe in the conservation of momentum where velocity is transferred from the object with higher velocity to the object with lower velocity, regardless of the objects masses?
Herb
Reply
Squidly
| #
No Herb, I don’t. I don’t care what mix of molecules you have, molecule A can only transfer energy to molecule B, if, and only if, molecule A is of greater energy state than molecule B. There are no exceptions. Our universe could not exist otherwise. “momentum” has no factor.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Squidly, your statements here are reflective of a somewhat delusional misinterpretation of the LOTs. In reality all objects at all times are producing EME that is potentially absorbable by other objects. As has been explained here in the forum many, many, many times it is only a NET increase in temperature that goes from hotter object to cooler objects.
Sympathy to those who are incredulous of the Spinning Nanodroplets of Vortice Plasma
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Sympathy-to-those-who-are-incredulous-of-the-Spinning-Nanodroplets-of-Vortice-Plasma-e1ba4r3
James McGinn / Genius
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Max DeLoaches
| #
I don’t believe an ice cube can warm my cup of coffee!!
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Max,
It can’t. That is because the water molecules in the ice cube have less energy than the water molecules in the coffee and the energy flows from high to low. What if you had a small amount of a cold radioactive element and put that in your coffee? If the element was radiating more energy it would heat your coffee. Temperature is a function of both mass and energy but only the energy is transferred to other objects. So if an object with less mass is radiating more intense energy than a large object with less intense energy the small object will transfer energy to the larger object, even though the large object has more kinetic energy because of its mass. When a small speeding sports car runs into the rear of a large slower truck the truck will get a forward push and the sports car will slow down, even if the truck has more kinetic energy.
Herb
Reply
Max DeLoaches
| #
Hi Herb, for you information here is a link to what Feynman has to say on the Laws of T.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_44.html
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Max,
Thanks for the link. I like Feynman because he thinks about things rather than just giving answers. I’ve tried to avoid reading his work because of this. I want to have questions rather than answers so if I read his reasoning it tends to direct my thinking and inhibit my questioning.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
“Thanks for the link. I like Feynman because he thinks about things rather than just giving answers. I’ve tried to avoid reading his work because of this. I want to have questions rather than answers so if I read his reasoning it tends to direct my thinking and inhibit my questioning.”
Hence in Herb’s word asking questions is more important than learning the POSSIBLE answers to questions. POSSIBLE answers because Feynman, certainly acknowledged, over and over: “Scientific knowledge us a body of statements if varying degrees of certainty–some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”
So because Herb doesn’t read what Feynman wrote, Herb doesn’t know what Feynman wrote that Feynman considered so fundamentally important about SCIENCE.
Have a dood day, Jerry.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
” One can say that this very cold area is heating the Earth because it contains the energy that interacts with the matter that forms the Earth.”
Er, not really, as the energy is passing through at the speed of light and not at any time energy of that space’s matter. So, no, cold cannot heat hot.
Nothing says that energy cannot pass through a transparent medium, like an effective vacuum, on its way to a less transparent colder material where it is absorbed. High energy passing through a vacuum is not a vacuum with a lot of energy content. Duh.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
My first comment has nothing to do with your article, Herb. I observe there should be 5 comment but I can only count 4!!! And because of my proofreading problems I looked and looked for the fifth comment. I hope it eventually shows up because I came to Herb’s article because I had read that Micheal Clarke had made a comment here (the 5th comment???).
So now that I’m here I find I do have a comment to make about your article. You began the 2nd paragraph: “Thermal refers to temperature which is a function of energy and mass, while what the law refers to is energy. Objects do not transfer mass but only energy. However, the only way to detect energy is when it interacts with matter, just as the only way to detect matter is when it gives off energy.” I have read more than one that ‘energy is defined as the capacity to do work. And I am aware that there is more than one form of energy. For example, I KNOW there is what is termed kinetic energy and what is termed potential energy. And relative to “the only way to detect matter is when it gives off energy” I ask you: When I am walking along on a sandy beach, and stub a toe on a stone I didn’t see; am I detecting this stone because of the energy it is emitting??? Herb, please answer this question.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
No. You are detecting the stone because of its inertia and its resistance to the energy you are trying to transfer to it. Mass or matter produces a resistance to gaining energy, which is why it radiates it. Energy creates motion (velocity) which is why gravity isa result of energy, not matter.
Have a good day,
Herb
P.S. I want to point out to everyone that the GHGT violates 3 fundamental laws of physics. 1: Thermodynamics that says all matter absorbs radiated energy. This includes the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere. 2. The universal gas law that states when energies added to an unconfined gas the gas will expand and become less dense. 3 The law of conservation of momentum When objects collide velocity (energy) will be transferred from the object with greater velocity (gas molecules) to the object with less velocity.
Reply
Jarry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
Herb just gave context with an wild IDEA I have been pondering. I believe we all can agree that the radiation laws concern radiation being emitted from a surface of either liquid matter or solid matter. Hence, a gas (gaseous matter) has no surface so these radiation law cannot apply to gaseous matter.
In ‘The Feynman Lectures On Physics’ there is a Chapter 42 titled ‘Application s of Kinetic Theory’ in which is a 5th section titled ‘Einstein’s laws of radiation’.
I will not quote anything bur which Feynman considered was the punch line of Einstein’s reasoning: “So Einstein discovered some things that he did not know how to calculate, namely that the induced emission probability and the absorption probability must be equal.” The consequence of which I understand to be that any radiation absorbed by gas atoms and molecules is immediately emitted so there is not energy consequence of the atoms or molecules absorbing photons of radiation.
I don’t claim to understand fully Einstein’s reasoning, but I accept its validity.
For I read and observe that the earth’s atmosphere is composed of tiny particles of liquid and solid matter which can be warmed or cooled by contact which the gaseous atoms and molecules and these tiny particles of solid or liquid matter have surfaces from which energy (radiation) can be emitted according to the radiation laws.
Then there is the known phenomenon of light (radiation) scattering by atom, molecules and the bigger, but still, ting particles of liquid or solid matter. Hence when I measure the temperature of the sky (atmosphere) I conclude that the IR Thermometer is converting the downward flus of IR photons being emitted by the solid and liquid matter of the atmosphere according Feynman’s theory of scattering of water droplets (cloud matter).
I read everyone who claims to a have an idea about radiation and its interactions with the matter of the sky to read what Feynman taught Caltech students as their introduction to the established ideas of physics..
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I don’t understand your claim that gas molecules have no surface. Do atoms have surfaces and since gamma radiation comes from the nucleus is that surface the surface of the nucleus? Objects have both electric and energy fields that they radiate. Is the surface the equilibrium point where these fields meet fields from other objects?
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I have to remind you we are not discussing one gas atom or molecule or an atom’s nucleus. We are discussing the gas STATE (PHASE) of MATTER. Perhaps that is why you don’t understand my claim that gas molecules in the GAS PHASE have no surface.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry, Herb, and readers.
I had to check out the thermosphere according to wiki. Einstein and Feinman did not have the satelites and instruments of today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
Have a good day.
Matt
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH, Herb and PSI Readers,
Herb and PSI Readers, did you go to Matt’s link and read all the could be read there? I did. And what I didn’t read was how the authors of what I read know about the extremely high temperatures being reported that could not be measured with an ordinary thermometer because of the very low density of any matter in space, which was actually and correctly (according to my claimed understanding) explained.
My answer is that temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of this very, very diffuse matter. Hence, some how (I don’t know how) someone claims to know the velocity of the solar wind which results from an explosion observed on the sun’s surface.
So I see I was wrong when I wrote I did not know how know the speed of this diffuse matter. For we see the new sun spot and then sometime later we see a wonderful display of the Northern Lights
Since the distance between the Earth and Sun has been determined by astronomers, we can calculate the average speed and therefore know the temperature of this matter which when measured by a thermometer (in the shade of the satellite) outside of a satellite is close to zero degrees Kelvin.
But Matt, I really do not understand why YOU called this link to our attention.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
What part of the thermometer is storing the data and dividing by the number of molecules to get the average? Thermometer absorbs the momentum of the molecules striking the bulb causing the liquid to expand. The liquid in the body of the thermometer then is suppose to transfer energy to another medium and when equilibrium between the absorbed energy and emitted energy is achieved it gives a temperature. In the atmosphere the liquid in the bulb and the body is exposed to the same medium so where is the flow? A thermometer is completely inaccurate in an unconfined gas: first because it is calibrated in water where it misses 84% of the energy it is suppose to be measuring and secondly as heat is added to the gas molecules, it expands and fewer molecules are transferring energy to and from it.
In order to find the kinetic energy of the molecules in an unconfined gas you must use the universal gas law or the inverse of density. Density is the number of molecules for a constant volume.while the inverse is the volume of a constant number of molecules.
The size of a degree or a calorie is not even close for measuring energy. Another liquid, that doesn’t have water’s huge capacity to convert absorbed energy into internal energy, needs to be used to establish a way to measure energy.
Have a good day,
Herb
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
There is a satelite that sits between Earth and Sun which acts as a monitoring and warning station.
Todays report from https://spaceweather.com/
Solar wind
speed: 444.9 km/sec
density: 7.1 protons/cm3
more data: ACE, DSCOVR
Updated: Today at 1705 UT
FARSIDE SOLAR ACTIVITY: A sunspot group on the farside of the sun is exploding–a lot. At least three CMEs have flown over the southwestern limb this weekend. Here is the brightest so far. The source of this activity is probably sunspot complex AR2898-2900, which rotated off the Earthside of the sun a few days ago.
Cheers Matt
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: ” The liquid in the body of the thermometer then is suppose to transfer energy to another medium and when equilibrium between the absorbed energy and emitted energy is achieved it gives a temperature.” THIS IS CORRECT!!!
But you have not identified how ENERGY is transferred from one part of the thermometer to another part. The transfer mechanism is termed THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY which has nothing to do with radiation.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
The PSI editors have drawn our attentions to a previous May 18, 2020 by Herb as is their policy to do. They have also been criticized from time to time for publishing some of Herb’s articles. And at an earlier time John O’Sullivan, founding editor of PSI (about 2012-13?) was criticized by other founders of PSI for publishing my long articles.
However John and I discussed the fundamental purpose of PSI was to provide a means of publicly publishing scientific ideas which the established Scientific Journals would not publish. Hence, he agreed with me, given the known history of SCIENCE, that no-one is qualified to make a judgment what is acceptable and what is not. So, John began publishing anything which I and others submitted to him. And a fact is Herb’s May 18, 2020 article generated 59 pro-con comments which was the exact purpose for which PSI was founded. My articles, when I was writing relatively long essays, too often never generated one comment and seldom any more than a handful.
And even though my comments are often critical of Herb’s ideas, I know his articles serve a very useful purpose. For Galileo wrote: “I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Whokoo
| #
If you have a 4 day old pile of 23 dead lemmings and a live lemming climbs on top of the pile of deadlingtons the live lemming will not be warmed by the dead lemmings even though they have more mass.
P.S. Somehow I always get caught cheating.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Whokoo,
The lemons are dead and not producing CO2. How could they possibly heat the live one?
Herb
Reply
Whokoo
| #
Hi Herb.
That is a way of cheating I had not considered.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Whokoo,
Miybe it is not, wise to make this comment, but it is a thought which was stimulate by your comment and that you maybe overlooked the dead lemmings were only four days old and possibly emitting carbon dioxide and were actually warmer than the live lemming. This because we commonly observe and smell that dead life matter naturally decomposes.
The obvious is very difficult to actually see (observe)!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Whokoo
| #
Hi Jerry.
A bit like the spontaneous combustion of a hay barn when the hay is stored without being cured enough or the heat generated by a big compost pile which heat sterilizes weed seeds.
I did not set out my experiment with enough precision, satire, or connivance.
Cheers. Whokoo
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
Experiments not done with the upmost care are little better than an experiment not done.
I am going to quote a bit from Richard Feynman’s story titled “the 7 Percent Solution’. (“Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”)
“At that particular time I was not really up to things. I was a little behind. Everybody seemed to be smart, and I didn’t feel I has keeping up. Anyway, I was sharing a room with a guy named Martin Block, an experimenter. And one evening he said to me, “Why are you guys so insistent on this parity rule? Maybe the tau and theta are the same particle. What could be the consequence if the parity rule were wrong.
“I thought a minute and said, “It would mean that nature’s laws are different for the right hand and the left hand, that there’s a way to define the right hand by physical phenomena, I don’t know that that’s so terrible, though there must be some bad consequences of that, but I don’t know. Why don’t you ask the experts tomorrow?” He said, “No, they won’t listen to me. you ask”
“So the next day, at the meeting, when we were discussing the tau-theta puzzle, Oppenheimer said, “We need to hear some new, wilder ideas about this problem.” So I got up and said, “I’m asking this question for Martin Block: What would be the consequence if the parity rule was wrong?” “…
A. page or so later and months Feynman tells about a conversation with three guys at Caltech when he returned there from Brazil and writes: Finally they get all this stuff into me, and they say, “The situation is so mixed up that even some of the things they’ve established for years are being questioned–such as the beta decay of the neutron is S and T. It’s so messed up, Murray says it might even be V and A.” I jump up for the stool and say, “Then I understand EVVVVVERYTHING!”. …
“That night I calculated all kinds of things with this theory. The first thing I calculated was the rate of disintegration of the muon and the neutron. They should be connected together, if this theory was right, by a certain relationship, and it was right to 9 percent. That’s pretty close, 9 percent. It should have been more perfect than that, but it was close enough. I went on and checked some other things, which fit, and new things fit, new things fit, and I was very excited.” …
“The next morning when I got to work I went to [the three guys] and told them, “I’ve got it all worked out. Everything fits.” Christy, who was there , too, said, “What beta-decay constant did you use?” “The one from So-andSo’s book.” “But that’s been found to be wrong. Recent measurements have shown it’s off by 7 percent.” ”
I stop here because my POINT is wrong information and ideas can hinder progress. And that in SCIENCE we must be as precise as possible but with the realization that no experimental result can be absolutely correct.
Feynman discovered at everything fit within 2 percent and that another physicist won a Nobel Prize for explaining this ‘nearly’ 2 percent difference.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
This means there is little energy being absorbed by matter and the area has no temperature. One can say that this very cold area is heating the Earth because it contains the energy that interacts with the matter that forms the Earth.
What flavour of sophistry would you like with your BS sir.
That area of space only has r energy flowing through it in all directions not resident in it, i
It is also why earth does not emit heat to that area or space as nothing gets heated.
Energy without mass/matter to impinge is not heat, it is only potential heat.
Now i will read the next paragraph but your claim that that is an example of cold warming hot is complete and utter bullshit Herb.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
You are confusing hot and cold with ENERGY!
Michael Logician
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
”All objects with energy will radiate energy and all objects will absorb radiated energy.”
Again what flavour sophistry would you like with your bullshit sir.
You need this to be correct for your hot warms cold BS what you are claiming is low intensity energy being emitted by a cool object increases the intensity of the energy in a warmer object.
Again patently false all objects only absorb higher frequency energy than than the frequency of their residual kinetic energy
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gary,
I am not talking about the transfer of energy by radiation but by convection. With radiation energy flows from higher to lower. With convection there is mass associated with the energy and when masses collide the energy flows the object with the greater velocity to the object with lower velocity. This is the conservation of momentum M1V1 + M2V2 = M1V3 + M2V4. You and squiggly may not believe this law is true but what it says is that it is the energy of the molecules that is transferred not the energy of the total object. If you add equal amounts of energy to a liter of water and 2 liters of water the molecules in the one liter will have more energy (hotter) than the molecules in the two liters because the energy is distributed to fewer molecules (less mass). When the water are combined energy will be transferred from the water molecules with more energy to the water molecules with less energy.Temperature is different than energy.
Herb
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Herb and PSI readers,
Herb is right!
Consider the spent radio-active material in the cooling ponds of Nuclear reactors.
It has a Mass, it is heavier than water, it contains more energy than the water, THERFORE the water is heated!
What heats the water?
Why the gamma rays those HIGH energy particles that are being emitted!
The water is Hotter than the spent fuel which is heating the water!
Michael Logician
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
A temperature is the measurement of the residual frequency of an object or environs internal kinetic energy, the frequency of that resident energy dictates the frequency of the objects or environs radiative emissions.
The frequency of those radiative emissions dictate whether those radiative emissions are ”heat’ i.e. thermal[ising] emissions or are just potential thermal[ising] emissions, if nothing is being heated then they are not thermal[ising] emissions, and the radiation is not thermal[ising] radiation.
Nothing cold can increase the temperature of something warmer, delayed cooling is not warming, not that you have said it is.
if you add 1 litre of water at 35c to 2 litres of was at 20c, you end up with 3 litres at 25c, nothing to do velocity, you could pour the water in from what ever hight you chose and it still wont make the 3 litres any warmer than 25c.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You just plainly and simply wrote: “Temperature is different than energy.” I totally agree!!! For TEMPERATURE is MEASURE of the average kinetic energy of matter and it (TEMPERATURE) does not matter upon the mass (or density) of a body or the mass of the thermometer. Temperature only depends upon the fact the temperature of a body is in “THERMAL EQUiLIBRIUM” with its surroundings. If the temperature of matter (a body) is not the same as the surrounding matter energy will be exchanged between the two bodies of different temperatures via the possible mechanisms of conduction, convection, and/or radiation.
Who will disagree with what I have simply written?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I will.
The range of energy is a medium forms a bell curve with the average being the temperature. Water boils at 373 K. In order to convert 1 gram of that 373K water to steam you must add 540 calories. Since 1 calorie is the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water1 C it means the 1 gram of water being converted to steam must have the energy comparable to 917 K. Since the temperature remains at 373 K the bell curve must expand out and the bottom gram of water in the medium must be at -167 K. So much for average.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers.
Do water molecules evaporate when the water’s temperature is about 25C (70F)?
Do water molecules evaporate from the surface of water whose temperature is measured with an ordinary thermometer to be 25C or 70F?
Why do most people sweat vigorously when they exercise vigorously?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Evaporation is not boiling where water is converted into a gas.
When you boil water in a tea kettle the water comes out of the spout as invisible vapor. it then cools and produces water droplets. Those droplets on cooling disappear again but with additional cooling become water droplets (dew) and finally ice. What matter on cooling goes from a gas phase to a liquid phase to a gas phase to a liquid phase to a solid phase? None. Normally on losing energy a gas goes to a liquid to a solid. This is what happens with water, gas – liquid – liquid crystal – solid. The water in the atmosphere are liquid crystal which melt into liquid at a temperature greater than 100 C but lower than the boiling point of water and fall as rain.
Oxygen and nitrogen with molecular weights od 32 and 28 are found in most of the atmosphere. CO2 and Argon with molecular weights of 42 and 40 are restricted to the troposphere. Why is water with a molecular weight of 18 also restricted to the troposphere? Because it never becomes a gas or single molecule and is always exists as a combination of molecules.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Squidly, your statements here are reflective of a somewhat delusional misinterpretation of the LOTs. In reality all objects at all times are producing EME that is potentially absorbable by other objects. As has been explained here in the forum many, many, many times it is only a NET increase in temperature that goes from hotter object to cooler objects.
Sympathy to those who are incredulous of the Spinning Nanodroplets of Vortice Plasma
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Sympathy-to-those-who-are-incredulous-of-the-Spinning-Nanodroplets-of-Vortice-Plasma-e1ba4r3
James McGinn / Genius
James McGinn / Genius
James McGinn
| #
Water is deceptive and extremely poorly understood by science.. Between H2O molecules there is an inverse relationship between connectedness and strength of connectedness. Science has failed to grasp this at this point in time.
One implication of this inverse relationship between H2O molecules is extremely small and extremely hard nanodroplets. Their invisibility leaves people with the impression that moist air contains gaseous H2O when actually this is impossible.
Sympathy to those who are incredulous of the Spinning Nanodroplets of Vortice Plasma
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Sympathy-to-those-who-are-incredulous-of-the-Spinning-Nanodroplets-of-Vortice-Plasma-e1ba4r3
James McGinn / Genius
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and James,
Thank you Matt for informing me about “Lot’s”.
I reviewed what WIKI what unknown authors had to write about Lot’s and what Daniels and Alberty (Physical Chemistry 2nd) wrote about them beginning on pp33 of their text book for my junior physical chemistry course. Both of these sources still become difficult (to impossible) for me to understand the detailed reasoning of this topic.
But I read and understand: “Historically, the second law was an empirical finding that was accepted as an axiom of thermodynamic theory.” (wiki). For I am an experimentalist who studied the simultaneous diffusion of cadmium and lead divalent ions (doubly charged) in solid, highly purified sodium chloride single crystals at temperatures well below the melting temperature of the sodium chloride crystals The same was the case of potassium chloride single crystals.
Figure 4.1, in my thesis “An Investigation of the Simultaneous Diffusion Of Pb++ and Cd++ in NaCl Crystals and KCl Crystals” pictures the most important fact (the diffusion ampoule) which was used in all my experiments. And if was not for James, who maintains that individual water molecules can not evaporate from a liquid water surface whose temperature is far below 100C, I may have never seen the fundamental importance of my simple, elementary experiments.
Unfortunately, I have to describe Fig 4.1 words so any reader has to work harder than necessary if there was the figure to view.
At the beginning there is an empty ampoule, without the top, into which the liquid solutions of the diffusants of CdCl2 and PbCl2 are carefully placed at the bottom of the ampoule.
Next the diffusant solutions are evaporated to dryness with only ‘gentle’ warming and a vacuum evacuation of the ampoule’s air.
Then a 3cm long tubing is placed at its bottom on the dry diffusant powders. This tubing serves to separate the diffusants from the crystals, placed upon the top of the tubing, by at least 3cm (more than an inch). The rest of the procedure involving sealing the top of the ampoule so it is ‘air tight’ is not critical.
For what James must explain how the diffusant Cadmium and Lead ions are transferred from the bottom of the ampoule to the surfaces of the crystals into which the ions are then observed to diffuse according to Fick’s second law of diffusion.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Next
James McGinn
| #
Jerry,
H2O is a solvent for its own polarity, hydrogen bonds being the mechanism thereof. Failure to recognize this back in the 1950s by Linus Pauling is the main reason their is so much confusion in the atmospheric sciences today. Because without this recognition it is impossible to come to the realization that there is an inverse relationship between connectedness and the strength of connectedness between H2O molecules. And without this realization confusion ensues.
James McGinn / Genius
Mervyn
| #
Cold heats hot. If that really could happen, nothing would ever cool down but just get hotter and hotter.
Thank God for the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Mervyn,
Thank God for the 20th Century physicists who have taught Linus Pauling and other chemists about the ideas of QUANTUM MECHANICS which explain what the tiny Atom of Matter, proposed by Dalton, a school teacher, little more than a century earlier, might be considered (IMAGINED)) to look like in our mind”s EYE.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
You arrive at an absurd conclusion because you start with an absurd premise. It’s not a violation of the LOT’s if you don’t assume that heating must involve an increase in temperature of the thing being heated.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Why don’t you clearly write as to whose comment to which your comment is intended? And LOT”S is not a convectional scientific word with which I am familiar. Try harder to effectively communicate with all PSI readers!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
LOTs is Laws Of Thermodynamics.
You are welcome. Matt
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Yes Mervyn i never though of it that way.
The greenhouse effects divide by 4 is -18c at the surface before delayed cooling makes it +15c.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb: . . . the fact that most of the energy in the troposphere is contained in the water in it.
JMcG: Yeah,
Sympathy to those who are incredulous of the Spinning Nanodroplets of Vortice Plasma
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Sympathy-to-those-who-are-incredulous-of-the-Spinning-Nanodroplets-of-Vortice-Plasma-e1ba4r3
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
buy weed online
| #
buy weed online
How Cold Heats Hot | Principia Scientific Intl.
Reply