+- Global Warming Skeptics (http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info)
+-- Forum: Our Blue Marble (/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Consensus Science (/forum-24.html)
+---- Forum: Comment discussions from outside the forum (/forum-83.html)
+---- Thread: Steveta_Uk comment. (/thread-841.html)
Steveta_Uk comment. - Derek - 07-23-2010 02:39 AM
From here post 42.
Steveta_Uk Wrote:July 19, 2010 at 8:35 am
Someone invented a microscope attachment some time ago which included a heat sink, basically a curved mirrored bowl in which ice was placed near the ‘focus’, and claimed this allowed frozen sections to remain frozen for longer when being examined by pathologists.
This design was poo-pooed all over the place are being absurd, as violating various laws of thermodynamics, and for assuming the somehow you could radiate “cold”.
All the skeptics simply didn’t believe the inventor, who simply demonstrated that it worked.
Is this a potential (AGW) "show stopper". ?
Has anyone else heard of this.?
Has anyone a link for the mentioned microscope attachment.?
I hope the attachment is not merely something that reduces conduction / convection.
If I read the post correctly however the attachment is described as producing a cold beam onto the sample....
RE: Steveta_Uk comment. - Climate Realist - 07-23-2010 03:27 AM
Sounds like pure nonsense to me, an urban myth. There is no such thing as a "cold" beam.
Cold in itself does not exist, there is only heat and what we experience as cold is is just less heat energy. Cold matter is less energetic than hot matter.
RE: Steveta_Uk comment. - Derek - 07-23-2010 07:52 AM
(07-23-2010 03:27 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: There is no such thing as a "cold" beam.
An assertion on your part CR and,
I am not aware of a beam hotter than it's source.
I explained why I think it is still worth discussing in the linked to thread.
I see no need to repeat that here, people can go and read my posts there if they wish.
Time will tell.
RE: Steveta_Uk comment. - Climate Realist - 07-23-2010 08:44 AM
There are no such things as "cold beams", cold cannot be transmitted. The details of this invention are so sketchy, that post proves nothing but sounds highly suspect. Chinese whispers. Show me the source! (I followed the link and read the post but that references nothing.)
It says there is ice near the focus, presumably the focus point where the sample is viewed under a slide. Well, possibly the ice cools the sample by cooling the air between the ice and sample and the sample is cooled by the now cooled air. Heat is still moving from a hotter body to a cooler one so the laws of thermodynamics are not broken.
RE: Steveta_Uk comment. - Derek - 07-23-2010 10:52 AM
You start with the same assertion CR. Repeating does not make something more right.
Would you consider a lower energy beam, than a "cold" beam, which is the same thing really.
Your second paragraph is merely rephrasing what I had already said.
AND, have you seen / considered this article yet. ?
Written by a professor of applied mathematics no less...
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-cold-body-cannot-heat-warm-body.html
I assume you have as I have seen other articles of his from his blog linked to / featured at Climate Realists.
Yes, I now know they changed to that name, and the site / blog / forum is owned by CO2 Skeptic.
RE: Steveta_Uk comment. - Sunsettommy - 07-23-2010 12:26 PM
(07-23-2010 08:44 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: There are no such things as "cold beams", cold cannot be transmitted. The details of this invention are so sketchy, that post proves nothing but sounds highly suspect. Chinese whispers. Show me the source! (I followed the link and read the post but that references nothing.)
It says there is ice near the focus, presumably the focus point where the sample is viewed under a slide. Well, possibly the ice cools the sample by cooling the air between the ice and sample and the sample is cooled by the now cooled air. Heat is still moving from a hotter body to a cooler one so the laws of thermodynamics are not broken.
"Cold beams" make no sense to me either.
It is the degree of heat transfer is what is measured.The presence of ice could speed up the cooling of the sample.Then keep it cold as long as there is ice there.
If you were to grab a metal pole that is zero degrees F,with your bare hand,it will hurt because heat is being rapidly transferred into the pole.Thus explains the "burning" feel.
The cold of that pole is NOT being transferred into the hand at all!
Heat transfer is one way.
RE: Steveta_Uk comment. - Sunsettommy - 07-23-2010 12:29 PM
Quote:Someone invented a microscope attachment some time ago which included a heat sink, basically a curved mirrored bowl in which ice was placed near the ‘focus’, and claimed this allowed frozen sections to remain frozen for longer when being examined by pathologists.
A heat sink was installed.
That should explain itself right there.
RE: Steveta_Uk comment. - Derek - 07-23-2010 01:27 PM
I repeat.
(07-23-2010 10:52 AM)Derek Wrote: Would you consider a lower energy beam, than a "cold" beam, which is the same thing really.
That is why I included the above link to Claes Johnson's article.
RE: Steveta_Uk comment. - Climate Realist - 07-23-2010 02:11 PM
(07-23-2010 12:26 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:(07-23-2010 08:44 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: There are no such things as "cold beams", cold cannot be transmitted.-snip-
"Cold beams" make no sense to me either.
It is the degree of heat transfer is what is measured.The presence of ice could speed up the cooling of the sample.Then keep it cold as long as there is ice there.
If you were to grab a metal pole that is zero degrees F,with your bare hand,it will hurt because heat is being rapidly transferred into the pole.Thus explains the "burning" feel.
The cold of that pole is NOT being transferred into the hand at all!
Heat transfer is one way.
Exactly. In physics there is really no such thing as "cold". That is only a perception we have from our senses. There are only varying levels of heat energy. So 1kg of Ice at 0C still has heat, but it has less heat than 1L of liquid water at 20C and both the 0C Ice and 20C water have less heat than 1kg of steam at 120C.
When we feel that one item is more "cold" than another, we are merely feeling the difference to our senses of less heat energy. A less hot item feels "colder" to us than a hotter item. The only true cold is the theoretical absolute zero; 0K or -273.15C. Which can never be reached.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero
At this temperature, all atoms and molecules would have no movement or vibration. Thus matter which is at theoretical absolute zero would have no heat and its temperature would be 0K. So cold is merely the absence of heat, or less heat, i.e. the atoms and molecules are vibrating less in a colder piece of matter than in a hotter piece of matter.
Therefore you can have a beam of heat radiation as IR, which, when an IR photon in this beam collides with a molecule that can absorb IR at that frequency, the molecule can vibrate more and therefore it gets hotter. But you cannot have a beam of "cold" - there is no analogous beam of radiation that makes atoms and molecules vibrate less and thus takes away their heat. This is not an assertion of mine, this is basic thermodynamics! Maybe, being highly speculative- in a parallel universe or dark energy can do this if it can interact with normal matter, but this has never been observed in our universe, nor is the thermodynamic theory there to support a "cold" beam. Thus I cannot see this alleged "cold beaming" happening in a microscope.
RE: Steveta_Uk comment. - Derek - 07-23-2010 02:32 PM
(07-23-2010 02:11 PM)Climate Realist Wrote: - there is no analogous beam of radiation that makes atoms and molecules vibrate less and thus takes away their heat.
This is not an assertion of mine, this is basic thermodynamics!
Are you sure? Have you read and considered the Claes Johnson article I previously linked to.
Basic thermodynamics show a cool thing does cool a warm thing,
just as a warm thing does warm a cooler thing.
Please consider my example in post 47
It's all (seemingly) relative.
RE: Steveta_Uk comment. - Climate Realist - 07-24-2010 12:05 AM
(07-23-2010 02:32 PM)Derek Wrote:(07-23-2010 02:11 PM)Climate Realist Wrote: - there is no analogous beam of radiation that makes atoms and molecules vibrate less and thus takes away their heat.
This is not an assertion of mine, this is basic thermodynamics!
Are you sure? Have you read and considered the Claes Johnson article I previously linked to.
Basic thermodynamics show a cool thing does cool a warm thing,
just as a warm thing does warm a cooler thing.
Please consider my example in post 47
It's all (seemingly) relative.
Yes I have read that article. It is nothing new, he is just explaining the concept of entropy (entropy/disorder always increases in the universe) to explain why a hot body always heats a colder body and why heat can never move from cold to hot (without some work energy input- eg a refridgerator). He is explaining it in laymans terms for folk who have not studied physics and chemistry to degree level. I have also just read your post. The microscope with it's "concentrated cold" does not make sense. SOmething else is going on here, such as the ice acting as a heat sink, so heat is still moving from hot object to less hot object. It has no bearing on AGW as far as I can see.
When studying for my chemistry degree, physical chemistry was the toughest module to learn, so I had to put more work into it than the others. Never would have guessed it would come in useful now!
I really do think that thermodynamics is the final nail in the coffin for AGW. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a colder body to give up it's heat to a warmer body. The air above the earths surface that contains CO2 CANNOT heat the ground further. This is pure nonsense in thermodynamic terms. All CO2 and water vapour do is scatter IR photons, slowing very slightly the loss of IR from the atmosphere at night.
There are beams of heat (IR radiation) that can heat a body, there are no analogous beams of photons that cause a body to lose its heat. Heat is like a water, it always flows down hill, unless work energy is inputted to the system.
If AGW is true, then rivers will flow up hill.
RE: Steveta_Uk comment. - Derek - 07-24-2010 12:36 AM
(07-24-2010 12:05 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: It is IMPOSSIBLE for a colder body to give up it's heat to a warmer body.
Unless you view radiation as all positively absorbed.....As Climate Realist (and most people to be honest) seem/s to do. ?
OK, OK, I did not intend to get dragged into a debate on this central point,
(ie, is thermal radiation "all positively absorbed", or "relatively absorbed".)
I was hoping it would be discussed.
I think I have explained enough the view point I think makes more sense.
AND, thank you Climate Realist you have motivated me to do a post on
The unresolved controversies and misconceptions of AGW "science" and mainstream skeptics.