|RE: Definition22-05-2023 21:01|
I have showed, that scientific sources like Enrico Fermi and Richard Feynman define dQ as heat with unit of energy. I have also made citation from my material from university in danish, that define dQ as heat ("varme" in danish).
You on the other hand has no sources, yet you claim, your definition is correct, and that it is different. It is your claim, that I am wrong, and that I don't understand the concept of heat.
Are you alone with your definition?
Can you point to any source, that has your definition?
I would like to know, if dQ has some other definition, so I can better understand others, if I should come across this again, or maybe if you got it wrong from your sources (where you saw it first).
Redigeret d. 22-05-2023 21:03
John Niclasen skrev:I have showed, that scientific sources like Enrico Fermi and Richard Feynman define dQ as ...
John, at some point you are going to have to learn what science is. It is not determined by consensus or democratic vote. It is not a subjective matter of opinion.
Stop quoting people! The only definitions that matter in science are the models themselves. It does not matter what any human has to say when you are discussing a specific science model. If you and I are discussing E = m*c^2 then that is the only definition that matters. It doesn't matter if half the earth's population believes that the relationship is something else.
The law of conservation of energy states that energy must be conserved. Do you understand this or do you not? This is represented mathematically as E(t) = E(t+1). You are free to work all the algebra you wish, night and day, all week, all year. If your initial amount of energy equals your final amount of energy, you have adhered to the 1st law of thermodynamics, regardless of how you personally defined "Q." Perhaps you are aware that you are free to use "Q" to mean whatever you want it to mean in your own calculations, and you can use any variable to represent "thermal energy." You only restriction is that you must always adhere to the law of conservation of energy.
"Heat" occurs over time and is measured in Watts (power); however, due to translation errors (physics lectures are often translated between languages), certain technical terms are mistranslated, and "heat" is one of them. As you wisely say, the science is what is important. "Heat" is a flow of thermal energy and is measured in Watts. When you eventually begin addressing Stefan-Boltzmann and "radiance", you will need to understand that both heating and cooling are the result of flowing thermal energy which is Watts, not Joules.
John Niclasen skrev: I have also made citation from my material from university in danish, that define dQ as heat ("varme" in danish).
I have noticed that "heat" is always mistranslated between English and Danish, and between English and German. Max Planck's book "Treatise on Thermodynamics" (English translation) translates everything as "heat," regardless of what Max Planck is discussing. Heat (power/Watts), thermal energy (energy/Joules), temperature (kelvin), and others are all translated into English as "heat" ... and then other English-speakers simply copy that.
John Niclasen skrev:You on the other hand has no sources, yet you claim, your definition is correct,
Yes, I claim the science model is what is always correct, not what anyone has to say. I will claim that E = m*c^2 is the correct definition, no matter how many people you quote who say otherwise.
You still haven't provided a science model for "heat." You have only quoted people. Let's discuss actual science. Remember, the science is what is important.
John Niclasen skrev: It is your claim, that I am wrong, and that I don't understand the concept of heat.
Yes. It appears you do not understand what "heat" is. I'm trying to help you learn. Work with me.
John Niclasen skrev:Are you alone with your definition?
I think you are almost there. You need to walk through the logic.
* Thermal energy is measured in Joules and gives matter temperature
* Adding thermal energy increases the temperature of matter
* Removing thermal energy decreases the temperature of matter
* The second law of thermodynamics says that thermal energy will flow from a warmer body to a cooler body, and will not flow between bodies of equal temperature. A flow of thermal energy (like a flow of any energy) is measured in power, i.e. energy/time ... Watts = Joules / time
Now, considering the above, how does conduction work, as an example? That is a model for heat, i.e. one body is cooled by heating another. It is a flow of thermal energy measured in Watts.
Q = -kA(dT/dx) ... rewritten is:
Heat (Watts) = - conductivity (Watts/Kelvin*meter) * Area (meter^2) * Temperature_Difference_per_Distance (Kelvin/meter)
John Niclasen skrev:I would like to know, if dQ has some other definition
You have to start with a science model. That will serve as your definition. You can change the variables but the definitions will remain because they come from the model.
I repeat, science stands on its own. It doesn't matter what anyone says. The model says it all. Science is not determined by consensus.
I 100% agree with that.
Energy can not be created nor destroyed.
Energy is just transformed from one form to another.
Sure. But it is easier to communicate, when people agree on some common terms, like Pi is defined to mean a certain number. That is why Tau is used to mean 2 times Pi. We could redefine Pi to mean 2 * Pi, but that would lead to a lot of confusion.
I go for: Keep it simple. Less confusion.
But communication is hard, especially when dealing with people, who don't know the language, refuse to try to understand, what the writer wrote, and constantly search conflict.
Oh, so 'your' 'consensus' is defined by Planck and is formulated in German.
And you knew this all along!?
Still you wanted conflict. As you wrote:
IBDaMann, are you an idiot?
No, really! I don't say, you are, I'm asking you.
Are you an idiot?
Are you aware of the full equation?
E^2 = (m c^2)^2 + (p c)^2
I agree. "Thermal energy" is another term for the kinetic part (the translation) of energy of molecules, where also rotational and vibrational energy can be present. Therefore dQ in the thermodynamic version of the 1st law,
dU = dQ + dW,
is not "thermal energy".
I have tried to point out your possible error here, but you cannot cope with the possibility, you are in error. Why is that?
Adding thermal energy can do more than increase the temperature. And adding more than thermal energy can end up as just thermal energy.
Two examples of this:
1) Use an amount of helium gas with a high temperature to heat an amount of e.g. methane with a very low temperature. The helium gas has only thermal energy, as it can not rotate and vibrate, which methane can.
2) Use an amount of e.g. methane with a high temperature to heat an amount of helium with a very low temperature. Some of the rotation and vibration energy from the methane (which is not thermal energy) will end up as thermal energy in the helium.
Did you figure out yet, that I account for all energy in my adiabatic posts? And that you therefore jumped to conclusion and were wrong?
Did you take the time to read my paper, "The Lapse Rate Atmospheric Model", in english, I gave to you? This might help you to understand my thoughts, and you would save a lot of time and writing of false claims.
Redigeret d. 23-05-2023 09:36
Is it this book, you have your definitions from?
Vorlesungen über thermodynamik
by Planck, Max, 1858-1947
Publication date: 1897
Publisher: Leipzig, Veit & comp.
John Niclasen skrev:IBDaMann skrev:
Jeg er lige blevet færdig med at forklare, at definitionerne af videnskab kommer fra selve modellerne. De kommer ikke fra mennesker, bøger eller journaler eller andet end modellerne. Selvfølgelig kan definitioner komme fra bøger, hvis disse bøger ligner Max Plancks bog om termodynamik.
For at besvare dit spørgsmål, ja, bogen ser ud til at være den bog, jeg refererede til. Indholdsfortegnelsen er den samme. Det er en fremragende bog. De modeller, den indeholder, er, hvad du har brug for.
I just finished explaining that the definitions of science come from the models themselves. They don't come from people, books or journals or anything other than the models. Of course, definitions can come from books if those books resemble Max Planck's book on thermodynamics.
To answer your question, yes, the book appears to be the book I referenced. The table of contents is the same. It is an excellent book. The models it contains are what you need.
IBDaMann wrote:John Niclasen skrev:and does work on it, then its energy is increased by the heat put in and the work done.
W is the work done on the system, not work the system do.
Planck takes the same view in his book, Vorlesungen über thermodynamik, §63 on page 39 and 40:
The explanation by Feynman is in agreement with the explanation by Planck.
IBDaMann, you wrote: "This is an error."
IBDaMann, it seems, you are writing nonsense.
Did you figure out yet, that I account for all energy in my adiabatic posts? And that you therefore jumped to conclusion and were wrong?
Did you take the time to read my paper, "The Lapse Rate Atmospheric Model", in english, I gave to you?
I guess not.
John Niclasen skrev:W is the work done on the system, not work the system do.
Then yes, that would be my mistake. What you had was correct then.
John Niclasen skrev:Did you take the time to read my paper, "The Lapse Rate Atmospheric Model", in english, I gave to you?
I have not seen it. I would like to read it. Where can I find it?
IBDaMann skrev:John Niclasen skrev:Did you take the time to read my paper, "The Lapse Rate Atmospheric Model", in english, I gave to you?
Wouldn't a rational adult be able to scroll up some posts and find the link?
Why is it, you don't do that?
Showing my good will, I will link you to it again:
The Lapse Rate Atmospheric Model @ researchgate.net
John Niclasen skrev:IBDaMann skrev:John Niclasen skrev:Did you take the time to read my paper, "The Lapse Rate Atmospheric Model", in english, I gave to you?
Jeg ville have scrollet op, hvis du havde svaret på mit spørgsmål "Hvor kan jeg finde det?"
I would have scrolled up if you had answered my question "Where can I find it?"
John Niclasen skrev: Showing my good will, I will link you to it again:
This is a very good paper, although I have a few questions and comments. I was hoping to use the material in your paper to discuss your comment "I concluded that a good 350 kJ of work was done by the surrounding atmosphere on the 1 kg of gas in this example." ... but I could not find where you discuss this in your paper, although I did see "W" listed as "work done on surroundings."
If you could direct my attention to that I would appreciate it. Until then, the following are my questions/comments:
1. The paper is called Lapse Rate Atmospheric Model. Should it be called Specific Heat Model for Atmospheric Lapse Rate? I don't see any Lapse Rate equation nor any Lapse Rate variable.
2. You use the term "flux". Do you mean "radiance"? You should clarify. Equation (1) appears to calculate total incident power (correct) but claims to be calculating incoming flux (I believe this is incorrect).
3. How do you establish atmospheric layers for planets? What defines the troposphere for Mars or for Neptune? Is there a formula for this?
4. How do you establish the liquid/ice core for the gas giants? How does this alter the lapse rate?
5. Stars are very large relative to planets. Planets such as Mercury, Earth and Venus have more than their cross-sections incident to solar radiation. Should this be considered?
6. Why do you use "Albedo"? The Black body science that you wish to use uses "Emissivity" but you chose "1 - Albedo" instead. Do you have a specific reason for using this complication? Otherwise I recommend using "Emissivity" instead of "1-Albedo" (Also, I know many people who see the term "Albedo" and immediately presume you are going to try to prove "global warming" with sneaky math errors).
- 6a. Regarding equation (1), if I rewrite what you have, I get: (Note: planetary cross-section is Pi * R^2)
F(in) = Luminosity * Emissivity * R^2 / (Distance^2 * 4)
Is that what you want? Why is it not:
F(in) = Luminosity * Emissivity * Pi * R^2 / Distance^2 ?
7. Also, I'm interested to learn how you compute the Emissivity values since no one is able to compute any, not even for Earth. You declare Venus' Albedo to be 0.9, making Venus colder than Mars, but how do you justify this? Why should anyone believe this?
8. r* - Distance from star ... how do you determine the surface of a star? Don't you mean from the center of mass of the star?
9. Two variable Rs are listed. I don't think it's that important but you shouldn't have any variables with multiple meanings.
10. The temperature of the "rocky surface" of Venus is not uniform any more than the earth's solid surface is uniform in temperature. Also, the accuracy of most of the temperature measurements on Venus taken by probes is highly suspect since the equpment was in distress and in the process of being destroyed after enduring many decalibrating forces on its space journey from earth. Nobody knows where the probes were exactly, at what elevation they were, in what condition was the instrumentation or how the data might have been altered at some point in the transmission stage. Nobody can say what the true temperatures were at the specific locations of the probes, much less at all of the other points and elevations across the planet.
11. You are quoting NASA for some reason. Why don't you quote the IPCC? NASA is not a science organization, neither is IPCC. Both are highly political in nature. NASA is an active supporter of the "Big Lie." All data listed by NASA supports Global Warming and catastrophic Climate Change. Any data that does not support the "Big Lie" is altered or completely fabricated to support the "Big Lie." NASA's objective is to increase the government's power, not to provide correct information to the public. The USA has other organizations whose purpose is to provide correct information to the public. NASA is not one of them. For example, you noticed that NASA's planetary fact sheet pretends to know Venus' diurnal range, and that it is 0K. Nobody at NASA has any idea about anything about Venus beyond what they can observe from Earth, just like anybody else. NASA is just a government bureaucracy that manages contracts. However, the world strangely believes that NASA is the center of human science wisdom. NASA is just a government organization following a closely controlled political agenda.
Any claims you make based on NASA data could very easily be discarded by your audience.
12. Equation (17) has me confused. I don't think that is the correct equation, but I could be mistaken (it has been a long time). I don't think the 1/2 should be there. That isn't important. What I was trying to figure out is where you are claiming that the atmosphere is doing work, but I can't find where you specify this. You list "W" as "Work done on surroundings" but I must have missed where you show this.
The paper describes the model, which can be used to calculate temperature- and pressure-profiles for planets like Venus. The paper (from 2015) is the result of a project, I did at the Niels Bohr Institute, when I studied there. My first time posting the adiabat posts here was a year later in September, 2016:
Adiabat 1 21-09-2016 12:27
These posts are a result of continued thoughts about the model and doing energy calculations.
Yes, as I wrote to you in this post, there are two sign conventions regarding the work term (work done by or on the system). In the paper I used one, and I have later switched to the other. Both are fine and can be used to calculate the same.
It was you, who stated, one sign convention is wrong.
It is not.
Look at section "1.2 Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate". This is the lapse rate for planets without or just little water in the atmospheres.
In astronomy, flux is total energy received per second per square meter. I do calculate total power flowing through the cross-section of the planet, so probably not the best wording in this project paper. I was a student at that time, and should maybe use another more precise term. I was doing this project as a combo of astronomy study and thermodynamics (if I remember correctly), and it can be a challenge to find the right term from different fields.
It is easy to see on the temperature profile for Venus. You have very close to the dry adiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere. The temperature becomes almost constant with altitude in the cloud layer (as is measured in clouds on Earth, and in tropopauses). The ideal gas is a good approximation in the troposphere, because of enough pressure, so the molecules collide often. The ideal gas law breaks down in the tropopause, because the pressure gets too low.
(This is my current understanding.)
If you mean, how do we know, there are solid planets below the huge atmospheres, it can be measured from the form of the planet in relation to how fast, it is rotating. Jupiter is estimated to have a rocky core about 8 times the mass of the Earth. Those large planets would have more flat shapes, if they were just gas.
How does this alter the lapse rate?
The lapse rates, I look at in my model, are in the atmospheres. The rocky cores and "ices" adds to the mass of the planet influencing the gravitational acceleration, and therefore the lapse rate, as can be seen in eq. (10) in the paper.
If you wanna be very precise, you can put that and many other things in. My version is simple and show pretty good agreement with measurements from Venus.
It is common in astronomy, where we talk stars and planets. Absorptivity equals emissivity at the same wavelength. As starlight is at one end of the spectrum, and planetlight at the other with little overlap, it is much easier with just one number for albedo, instead of having to integrate over wavelengths. So albedo is only used for incoming starlight. Of course emissivity can be included when calculating with the planet radiation. Albedo is reflection, so (1 - albedo) is absorption (equals emissivity at the same wavelengths).
(I have a feeling, you will always have a problem with this, because you come from another background and lack the ability to see things in other perspectives.)
Luminosity of a star is the total amount of energy it emits per second, so in e.g. Watt.
This luminosity divided by (2 * Tau * Distance^2), where Tau is (2 * Pi), gives Watt per square meter (the flux) at the Distance from the star. I correct for albedo and multiply by the area of the cross-section of the planet. Result is without Tau (or Pi), as they cancel out.
(Regarding Tau as 2 * Pi, I started to eliminate (2 * Pi) from my writings around the time of this paper, as (2 * Pi) is everywhere in many physics disciplines, and it is often a problem, as for one thing people tend to split (2 * Pi), and valuable information is lost. I later found out, a Michael Harti independently formulated The Tau Manifesto. I dislike Pi, and I like Tau.)
Don't believe it! Be skeptical!
Albedo for Venus was given a new value after my paper from 2015. In 2016, it was changed to 0.77, as I mentioned in this post:
Venus fact sheet 02-09-2016 13:11
It seems to be pretty hard to measure albedo for Venus, as it changed by 17%.
This changes the effective temperature for Venus from 184K in the paper to 227K. This doesn't change the temperature profile for Venus in the paper, as it is fixed to 737K at the ground.
And the planet orbits are not circular. You can add lots of extras to the model and make it more complex. In the paper, I showed a first simple version, and how well it compares to measurements.
I carefully state, which I mean, when I use them in equations, like after eq. (22) and eq. (23). Maybe in the future, I could put a little circle after the R to mean radius of planet, and not gas constant. It is normally not a problem, as readers easily figure it out, I think. "e" for Euler's number and many other things is an example. When writing pure thermodynamics, I would probably not use the gas constant, but equations with kT, which is often seen.
Ok, how do you know?
Look around this site, and you will see, I often quote IPCC, ... when I point out their propaganda and pseudoscience for example.
We need others to visit the planets and do measurements. As many independent as possible. It might come, as there seems to be happening new things with space exploration again.
Yeah, me too! It's been a while.
|RE: Smear27-05-2023 11:02|
The same day, you first posted in this thread, you made a smear of me and the model in the english mirror-site:
Thread: Global warming is not anthropogenic 17-05-2023 20:42
You start with:
, and you end with:
Given your misunderstandings due to things like crappy translation of danish to english, lack of knowledge regarding sign conventions, false claims of creating energy out of nothing, etc.:
Are you going to sort things out in the english mirror site?
do you expect me to clean up after your mess?
|Sammenligning: Jorden og Venus||5||14-04-2020 23:40|
|Hvad fortæller Venus os om CO2 som drivhusgas på Jorden?||436||28-09-2016 22:29|
|Klimaet på Venus og Jorden||437||04-09-2016 13:34|
|Venus - igen igen||7||19-07-2013 22:11|
|Metan fundet for let til at være en farlig drivhusgas||3||02-08-2007 16:45|
|Ib Lundgaard Rasmussen: Klimaet på Venus - en løbsk drivhuseffekt?|
|4 procent mere drivhusgas fra USA i 2020||03-06-2010 07:56|
|USA vil skære udledningen af drivhusgas med 17 procent||25-05-2009 09:57|
|Nu kan amerikanerne lovgive om drivhusgas||20-04-2009 06:22|
|Fladskærme udleder kraftig drivhusgas||31-10-2008 11:18|
|Ny drivhusgas i kraftig stigning||24-10-2008 16:53|