Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 255 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
01/07/20 09:26 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#56154 - 07/01/16 02:54 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
so the sun emits infrared light and from the video we see that co2 blocks infrared light.

ROFL .. only in Paul physics does the sun emit infrared light and it's significant smile
I am not touching this ... bye bye Paul.


Edited by Orac (07/01/16 02:56 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
.
#56155 - 07/01/16 02:58 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: Orac
Yes you have gone to far and are now completely wrong.
...
Paul simplifies that to the CO2 reverts back to its original state and gives the photon back. Yes that can and does occur but the elephant in the room he won't talk about is that is but one of a pile (probably hundreds) of other things that can and do happen as well.
All I said was...
“the photon re-emitted …doesn't need to be the same frequency as the original absorbed photon.”
That doesn’t preclude it could be the same frequency, but indicates that there are other likely options
…especially since correcting that error (of thinking it must be the same frequency) was the point of the comment.

How is that “completely wrong?” To me, it means the same as when you say, “the CO2 reverts back to its original state
and gives the [an equal] photon back. …that can and does occur but
…that is but one of a pile (probably hundreds) of other things that can and do happen as well.” -similarities emphasized--is that fair?

Or maybe you were saying my focus on noting the difference between atomic and molecular absorption was completely wrong
(since Paul had described what sounded more like atomic absorption/emission ... more like fluorescence or phosphorescence).

Well whichever was wrong, please feel free to say whatever, as I mentioned in my pm,
so long as it spurs you on into more of these “interesting and instructive” descriptions of yours.
My goal, from the OP, is realized; so thanks again!
~ smile

Originally Posted By: Orac
The fun frequencies to look at for climate change are 7um where water is king and 15um where both water and especially CO2 play a role. What you call global warming is actually what is happening pretty much solely in those two frequency (wavelength) ranges.
...yes!
I've tried to explain the "atmospheric window" to Paul on several occasions, such as
in his thread "Sex Climate Change and CO2 Trapping," but I didn't get very far.

~ wink
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#56156 - 07/01/16 02:58 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Did you also notice that the IR didn't re-emit like you claim it should? It also didn't absorb a fixed amount and then get saturated ... so where is the IR going?


exactly !!! thank you again orac.

the important thing that has relevance to this thread is that
the IR doesnt simply pass through the co2 to the camera.

the co2 absorbs the IR just like I said.
and Im glad you pointed out the fact that the energy of
the IR light from the candle spreads or scatters within
the tube of co2 molecules as the co2 molecules re emit
photons or are involved in collisions both of which would
remove the heat signature that the camera could pick up.

because the energy of a photon that is absorbed by a
co2 molecule is used up in the energy level change
and therefore is not seen as heat by the camera.

likewise the transfer of energy between co2 molecules
is used up by the molecules in energy level changes
and cannot be seen as heat by the camera.

so adding more co2 into the atmosphere would block
more of the IR light (heat) from the sun.







_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56157 - 07/01/16 03:05 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: samwik]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: samwik
…that is but one of a pile (probably hundreds) of other things that can and do happen as well.” - similarities emphasized--is that fair?

Of those hundreds of other options very few involve emission of any photons at all most are chemical or kinetic exchanges.

There is no simple way for example to change a red laser beam to a green beam etc. I am not saying it's impossible, but you would go thru a very elaborate setup to match up atomic energies in a series of interactions but it's not something you are ever going to see in nature and as a scientist I would be hard pressed to do it in the lab. Essentially I would have to take x amount of red photons and join them in some process that released less than x photons in the higher energy color ... a very tall order.

So the re-emission of the same frequency is a possibility and hundreds of other choices most of which generally don't involve emission of a photon at all.


Edited by Orac (07/01/16 03:24 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56158 - 07/01/16 03:07 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
so adding more co2 into the atmosphere would block
more of the IR light (heat) from the sun.

Until I add nitrogen in with the CO2 and then no amount of CO2 will block the IR smile

Shame we can't ask the guy to show you that. That is the problem with reading to much into that experiment.

However a CO2 laser can't work unless the IR can leave the tube something your claim above says doesn't happen. You just made a CO2 laser tube impossible using your physics smile

As I said it's complex you can't use layman physics on this stuff.


Edited by Orac (07/01/16 03:22 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56159 - 07/01/16 03:24 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: Orac
I understood what you were trying to do Samwik, and I could at least follow your argument, I could just see the simplification wouldn't work as I think you have now worked out.

The problem is that "greenhouse effect" is not a simple thing to understand and indeed the greenhouse effect on earth as a planet doesn't even work the same way as the greenhouse after which it is named. I would argue the name of the effect should actually should be changed which would help layman. It took months of arguing to get wikipedia to actually accept the analogy was faulty and the article still contains some errors.

As the process is very complicated and then you get the next problem you correctly identified in this quote
Originally Posted By: samwik
It’s become apparent, in discussing the greenhouse effect with Paul on the climate-science forum, (as you may notice on this forum) that he doesn’t correctly or completely enough, understand the actual processes or mechanisms by which physical reality operates; and yet he uses his misconceptions as proof …to disprove the validity of the physical sciences needed to understand climate.

That is true of every layman discussion I have ever seen on the subject, it's just the how out of depth that varies.

As you probably guessed my background is hard sciences and I care little about the result and politics, what I care about is that people don't butcher the physics.

The problem with the photon story is that a photon in the range of 4-100um has the mean free path of about 25 meters here at around sea level. You guys didn't even discuss and I suggest even know what that means. It basically mans an IR photon emitted off the earth as such won't make it 25m before it is absorbed by the atmosphere. Do you see the problem with the bouncing photon you are trying to tell me its going to climb up thru a couple of km of atmosphere 25 meters at a time. That isn't remotely what happens.

The story is the same as a garden hose or an electron in a wire you can't follow the movement of an individual electron or molecule of water.

A related question we sometimes get asked is how fast does an electron move thru a wire. That we we can answer and it's called drift velocity and it has simple mathematics.
http://resources.schoolscience.co.uk/cda/16plus/copelech2pg3.html

It's funny Layman imagine electrons flying thru wires at some incredible speed the reality is like in the worked example 5 amps in 0.5mm area cross section wire the electron moves at a slow tenth of a mm per second. The same situation exists for H2O molecule in a hose.

The movement of the IR energy thru the atmosphere looks much more like the hose or wire situation and I can always tell peoples understanding of the physics in how they discuss it. One of my concerns with climate scientists is many don't themselves understand the movement of the energy.

For example the roll of Nitrogen (which makes up 78% of the atmosphere as N2) is important. It shares a resonant frequency with CO2 and the two can easily kinetically exchange energy. The N2 can not emit the energy as a photon (its a Homonuclear molecule) and it stays in the N2 a long time ... hint it might move a fair way in that time in the atmosphere before it bumps into another CO2 molecule and gives the energy back.

There are in fact hundreds of these pathways and they do not all change the same with changing CO2 levels.

The reason the Earth doesn't rapidly change between -180 and 300 deg C is also telling you the energy isn't just transparently moving thru the atmosphere. The atmosphere itself must be holding onto some of the energy so it has the thermal equivalent of inertia. That is also obvious in that the temperature profile thru the height of the atmosphere.

The lesson here is the free mean path of an IR photon in the atmosphere is small and the photon bounce story thru the atmosphere as some fully transparent media is fanciful.


...to recap.
Originally Posted By: Orac
...As you probably guessed my background is hard sciences and I care little about the result and politics, what I care about is that people don't butcher the physics.

The problem with the photon story is that a photon in the range of 4-100um has the mean free path of about 25 meters here at around sea level.

...and I can always tell peoples understanding of the physics in how they discuss it. One of my concerns with climate scientists is many don't themselves understand the movement of the energy.
...
There are in fact hundreds of these pathways and they do not all change the same with changing CO2 levels.
...

The atmosphere itself must be holding onto some of the energy so it has the thermal equivalent of inertia.

Orac! That was just beautiful ...and interesting and instructive!

Thank you for sharing a more detailed description of the many paths those long wave photons can follow, as they worm their way into and throughout the atmosphere, building that thermal inertia. cool

I imagine it is somewhat analogous to the way a photon can take many multiple millennia to travel from the core of the sun up through to the surface, to finally “escape” into deep space.
===

Some climate scientists probably do understand that stuff you describe better than others, depending on from which of the specialized disciplines they came into climate science. There are so many contributors, such as atmospheric physics, or glacial and/or cryosphere studies, or ocean dynamics, or soil/biosphere dynamics, or paleogeological studies, or even from the modelling/computer specialty, it makes sense that some would know different levels of detail than others.

I know my professor, Dr. Scott Denning at CSU, knows that stuff you just described so nicely, because he described those same things in class, in much the same way you did above here; but when he talks to general audiences, he conjures up fairly simplified or cartoonlike images of how a CO2 molecule can “store” heat.

I hope you’re not judging climate scientists by the sort of lowest common denominator type of shorthand speech that people can use in daily life, especially when they are speaking to a diverse or unknown audience.

Any scientist, who relates to people on the level that you seem to insist upon here, probably isn’t addressing too many diverse or unknown audiences. But some scientists have a talent for conveying fairly complex concepts in simple, easily relatable language. Of course an expert could easily point out flaws in their oversimplified description, but that isn’t the point if you’re trying to broadly reach the layman.

But you’re probably right that many climate science specialists don’t know the details of radiative heat transfer, and they just rely on the physics experts to assure them that yes, adding extra heat to the atmosphere, on a 24/7/365 basis, from pole to pole for decades or centuries on end, will make the global average temperature rise over time. For the purposes of their specialization, that is probably good enough.
===

And as Paul himself noted above, “…solar irradiance graph shows that infrared radiation is stored in H20 (mostly in water vapor , clouds and in surface water etc) ... the graph does reference co2 absorbtion as tiny amounts.”
So CO2 would probably only contribute a few degrees F to that total of roughly 60 degrees of greenhouse heating, which occurs here near the surface.

But remember also, for every degree of warming (from total greenhouse effect) we get
another
4% extra, new water vapor added on average to the atmosphere.
And since that extra water vapor is where the photon spends most of its time, it’ll be down here
near the surface even a little longer, as we metaphorically follow its path, before it can escape.
===

I’d like to ask a question, hoping to get more detail from your description of how “a photon in the range of 4-100um has the mean free path of about 25 meters here at around sea level” and the “hundreds of these pathways” that photons may follow. I am familiar with the mean free path and the many options or pathways….

But I don’t know if a photon tends to become longer in wavelength, with each “re-emission,” after being absorbed, in successive encounters along its mean free path, though I suspect so.
To be clear, I do know it’s not the “same” photon being “re-emitted” after being absorbed, but for the sake of this cartoonlike description, it is the “only” photon we’re following.

I expect that (after being absorbed and ‘re-emitted’) it would be of a somewhat longer wavelength over 80% of the time or maybe even 95% of the time, and only re-emitted at the same frequency less than 20% of the time and more likely less than 5% of the time.

I also wonder if the “re-emitted” photon could be of a somewhat shorter wavelength than the absorbed photon, on rare occasions (probably less than 1% of the time), if a newly energized CO2 molecule (with recently absorbed photon) were to be kinetically bumped with enough force at the right time and angle.

So, do these notions of mine, about how heat changes (usually getting longer) as it undergoes successive radiative transfer, have any meaning or validity or utility? Thanks for your time!
~ smile
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#56160 - 07/01/16 03:34 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Until I add nitrogen in with the CO2 and then no amount of CO2 will block the IR


could you explain that a little bit at least so that sam
and myself can understand the process?

also do you know of a web site where the concentrations
of co2 and the concentrations of nitrogen
in reference to altitude can be found?
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56161 - 07/01/16 04:03 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
I expect that (after being absorbed and ‘re-emitted’) it would be of a somewhat longer wavelength over 80% of the time or maybe even 95% of the time, and only re-emitted at the same frequency less than 20% of the time and more likely less than 5% of the time.


if a co2 molecule emits a photon of a different frequency
then another co2 molecule cannot absorb that photon because
the frequency of the emitted photon would be different from the frequency of the co2 molecule.

the above cannot happen because all co2 energized molecules
that have absorbed a IR photon have the same frequency.

and in order for them to return to their previous energy level
through photon emission they must emit a photon of the same
frequency that they absorbed.

this is why a co2 molecule that has absorbed a IR photon
cannot absorb another photon of the same frequency.

thats the way I understand it.
hope that helps.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56162 - 07/01/16 04:16 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
ROFL .. only in Paul physics does the sun emit infrared light and it's significant
I am not touching this ... bye bye Paul.


I can assure you that its not just myself that knows that
the sun emits infrared light.

and this part of physics is not paul physics. laugh


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56163 - 07/01/16 04:34 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: samwik]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: samwik
But I don’t know if a photon tends to become longer in wavelength, with each “re-emission,” after being absorbed, in successive encounters along its mean free path, though I suspect so.
To be clear, I do know it’s not the “same” photon being “re-emitted” after being absorbed, but for the sake of this cartoonlike description, it is the “only” photon we’re following.

If it was always one way the temperature gradient vertically thru the atmosphere would be simple. The answer is the chemistry, pressure and conditions change vertically and so the pathways change. Some pathways don't go all the way to the top because conditions change. You also have other energies coming from the incoming radiation. So no that statement won't work and has no real meaning as an overall statement.

Originally Posted By: samwik
I expect that (after being absorbed and ‘re-emitted’) it would be of a somewhat longer wavelength over 80% of the time or maybe even 95% of the time, and only re-emitted at the same frequency less than 20% of the time and more likely less than 5% of the time.

That is a question for a climate scientist I have no real world data and no real guidance I could guess at.

Originally Posted By: samwik
I also wonder if the “re-emitted” photon could be of a somewhat shorter wavelength than the absorbed photon, on rare occasions (probably less than 1% of the time), if a newly energized CO2 molecule (with recently absorbed photon) were to be kinetically bumped with enough force at the right time and angle.

You are correct it can and does happen rarely and is called an anti-Stokes conversion. The red and blue graphs would be reversed in an anti-stokes.


You also missed a different option which is two photons get absorbed at exactly the same time to a molecule which is called photon up conversion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_upconversion

These will be extremely rare in the atmosphere, I am not sure anyone has even measured. However in semiconductors using some QM we can make that process as high as 70%.

One of the more tricky ways you could geo-engineer climate is have a plastic meta material that basically uses those processes to take blocked IR heat pathways and push it into the 10um window.

That is one of my complaints about climate science they select solutions based around a green/eco/natural criteria not what is the cheapest way to solve the problem. I find Geo-engineering is not popular in green politics.

Originally Posted By: samwik
So, do these notions of mine, about how heat changes (usually getting longer) as it undergoes successive radiative transfer, have any meaning or validity or utility.

Yes all your ideas are all valid, how important or relevant they are to any given pathway will vary and I am not sure you can use them as a general rule.


Edited by Orac (07/01/16 04:39 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56164 - 07/01/16 04:59 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
I can assure you that its not just myself that knows that the sun emits infrared light.

Paul I used the word significant ... I am aware the sun emit IR but it does not emit in 10um (10000 nanometer) we are talking about with CO2 absorbing. On your graph above it ends at 2500 on the right so its 4 times that out of scale to the right.

Your comment was about the IR camera and experiment that camera is centred at 10um .. look at the link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography

Thermographic cameras usually detect radiation in the long-infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum (roughly 9,000–14,000 nanometers or 9–14 µm)

So I am going to give you the sun emits IR ... but that has nothing to do with the video and experiment. You statement that the IR from the sun has a relationship to that video is WRONG, STUPID, DUMB, FOOLISH and any other term you care to add ... THE END.



Edited by Orac (07/01/16 05:01 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56165 - 07/01/16 05:00 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
However a CO2 laser can't work unless the IR can leave the tube something your claim above says doesn't happen. You just made a CO2 laser tube impossible using your physics


the co2 laser does not utilize photon emission it utilizes
electron impacts to nitrogen

nitrogen cannot emit a photon so the excited nitrogen
transfers energy through collisions with co2 molecules
and the nitrogen is left in its lower energy state
then the nitrogen transitions to ground state through
collisions with cold helium atoms.

the result being a gas discharge.

according to this page.
no photon activity is mentioned taking place at all...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_laser

Quote:
The population inversion in the laser is achieved by the following sequence: electron impact excites vibrational motion of the nitrogen. Because nitrogen is a homonuclear molecule, it cannot lose this energy by photon emission, and its excited vibrational levels are therefore metastable and live for a long time. Collisional energy transfer between the nitrogen and the carbon dioxide molecule causes vibrational excitation of the carbon dioxide, with sufficient efficiency to lead to the desired population inversion necessary for laser operation. The nitrogen molecules are left in a lower excited state. Their transition to ground state takes place by collision with cold helium atoms. The resulting hot helium atoms must be cooled in order to sustain the ability to produce a population inversion in the carbon dioxide molecules. In sealed lasers, this takes place as the helium atoms strike the walls of the container. In flow-through lasers, a continuous stream of CO2 and nitrogen is excited by the plasma discharge and the hot gas mixture is exhausted from the resonator by pumps.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56166 - 07/01/16 05:03 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
So basically no photons leave a CO2 laser tube and it doesn't work .... right Paul laugh

The page doesn't photons because it assumes your IQ is higher than an imbecile and you realize the output beam is a stream of photons.

Sorry I don't do stupid discussion please talk to someone else who cares. Really I am done you are now on total ignore like Marosz you have reached that level of stupid.


Edited by Orac (07/01/16 05:17 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56167 - 07/01/16 05:35 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
then why does the page state the the co2 laser has a
gas discharge rather that saying it has a light discharge?

Im confused now if a gas discharge also means
a light discharge !!!

Quote:
The active laser medium (laser gain/amplification medium) is a gas discharge which is air-cooled (water-cooled in higher power applications). The filling gas within the discharge tube consists of around 10–20% carbon dioxide


if something is being discharged it means that is is
being put out.

if gas is being discharged then that means that gas is
being put out.

the filling gas within the discharge chamber also suggest that this is the chamber where gas is discharged.

Quote:
The filling gas within the discharge tube consists of around 10–20% carbon dioxide


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56168 - 07/01/16 05:48 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Ignoring .. ask someone who cares or you could try reading "Stimulated emission" smile


Edited by Orac (07/01/16 05:51 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56169 - 07/01/16 05:52 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Ignoring ..


then I would also be ignoring you especially if
you want to make comments that you dont care to
have examined for clarity nor do you want to provide
clarity of those comments for validity concerns.

I can simply say that I jumped over the moon ...

but providing any evidence would be difficult.
especially if there is no evidence to provide.



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56170 - 07/01/16 06:00 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Paul you are clearly playing stupid or as they say the clown.

Even the acronym for LASER is Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation

It's a pretty dam obvious connection its how the process and device gets its name.

Your article didn't mention the words Light Amplification, Stimulated Emission or Radiation either ... wow pretty strange hey given how the name comes about.

Lets give you a laser without any electrons at all .. the good old Ruby laser the first laser ever built
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_laser
The excitor there is light from a xenon flashtube ... no electrons or electricity in the laser at all.

So yeah lets just not talk because I am over the stupidity which would not even entertain a 12 year old.


Edited by Orac (07/01/16 06:48 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56171 - 07/01/16 07:34 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
I thought for a second while I was reading this reply of yours
that you were going to break down and admit that you were wrong.

fat chance huh?

Quote:
However a CO2 laser can't work unless the IR can leave the tube something your claim above says doesn't happen. You just made a CO2 laser tube impossible using your physics


Quote:
Until I add nitrogen in with the CO2 and then no amount of CO2 will block the IR


you used the above knowing that by adding nitrogen to the
picture the nitrogen would ALLOW you to erroneously use a
co2 laser to try and claim that I was wrong when I wrote this.


Quote:
so adding more co2 into the atmosphere would block
more of the IR light (heat) from the sun.


knowing full well that the nitrogen in the laser requires
stimulation by electrons...

there seems to be something in what you wrote below.
talking about the experiment or even the atmosphere
I presume.

Quote:
Until I add nitrogen in with the CO2 and then no amount of CO2 will block the IR


were you saying that the nitrogen would change its energy level
because the nitrogen would absorb IR through photon absorption
and that would cause the co2 to not block the IR?

do you have access to nitrogen that will absorb IR?

perhaps you also have access to oxygen that will absorb IR?

I may be wrong about the sunlight being blocked by the co2
I havent checked that yet but if I am I will admit it
dont worry I dont expect that you will admit your mistakes
after all its present in your tag line sort of like a
perpetual admission or warning to the readers.

but using a laser to dispute something as simple as
an interaction between sunlight and co2 is a little bit much
I think.

of course it didnt work your way and it really proved nothing
but it does bring your character out into view a little clearer.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56172 - 07/01/16 10:30 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: paul
of course it didnt
...really proved nothing
but it does bring your character out into view a little clearer.
Paul, I think this “does bring [Orac’s] character out into view a little clearer,” as you say;
because, for someone who (I suspect) does not usually suffer fools so lightly,
it is obvious that Orac cares enough to spend more time on this than would most,
and that he is being especially patient with your (real, or feigned) conceptual dyslexia.
~ tired


Originally Posted By: Orac
...it can and does happen rarely and is called an anti-Stokes conversion. The red and blue graphs would be reversed in an anti-stokes.
...
You also missed a different option which is two photons get absorbed at exactly the same time to a molecule which is called photon up conversion.
Orac, Thank You Very Much!
Very interesting and instructive....
~ cool
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#56173 - 07/02/16 01:06 AM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Paul I used the word significant ... I am aware the sun emit IR but it does not emit in 10um (10000 nanometer) we are talking about with CO2 absorbing. On your graph above it ends at 2500 on the right so its 4 times that out of scale to the right.


co2 absorbs wavelengths of

2.7 microns
in this range of wavelengths there are apx 3um of wavelengths
that extend mostly from apx 1.8um to 2.7um

4.3 microns
in this range of wavelengths there are apx .7um of wavelengths
that extend mostly from apx 4.3um to 5um

15 microns

in this range of wavelengths there are apx 6 um of wavelengths
that extend mostly from apx 14um to 20 um

that is a grand total of 9.7um of wavelengths that can
absorb IR !!!

it took a while to find the above information.

but its not simply 10um

I must admit that sunlight really doesnt have much
incoming IR light that could be absorbed by co2.

here is an absorption graph that shows the wavelengths that
co2 molecules absorb.

[img]http://nov79.com/gbwm/atmo.html[/img]


http://nov79.com/gbwm/atmo.html

so I suppose that in order for a IR photon to be absorbed
by a co2 molecule after it is emitted from the earth would require that the emitted photon have a wavelength of one of
the three ranges of wavelengths 9.7um in total that can be absorbed by a co2 molecule.

2.7 microns
4.3 microns
15 microns

it doesnt look as if there is a serious threat because
there might not be a large number of objects on the earth
that would emit a photon of the required wavelengths.

so that at least comforts me in knowing that the requirements
are so narrow.

I suppose the next thing that I need to find out is the
percentage of emitted photons that are emitted in that really
narrow range of the 3 wavelength ranges.

but you guys have a nice time calling people names like the
real scientist that you obviously are. LOL

besides as a real scientist thats really the only tool that
you own anyway.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.