Friday, July 21, 2017

The Gassy Messenger

The Gassy Messenger.

Abstract

Modern climate science's fundamental premise (or assumption) is that the greenhouse gases (around 2% of the atmosphere) absorb radiant infrared (IR) heat (as derived by IR spectroscopy), and are a main climate driver because of this specialty. This premise has its origins with the John Tyndall 1859 thermopile infrared detection experiment. The (other) non-greenhouse gases (N2 nitrogen and O2 oxygen) are distinguished from the greenhouse gases by their (said*) inability to absorb (infrared) heat, as deduced from the same experiment: here absorption is confused with opacity.  Raman spectroscopy (a complement to IR spectroscopy) challenges this greenhouse gas non greenhouse gas paradigm, and reveals this assumption and conclusion from any IR spectroscopy measurement to be false. It can be shown that N2 and O2 are, due to their symmetric vibration totally transparent to all IR detectors, but are not transparent to Raman detectors. Ramon Spectroscopy shows: CO2  and the other greenhouse gases to be typical, and not special; and that N2 and O2 to be greenhouse gases. Further claims are also challenged with respect to CO2 special properties in this entry.  The only valid co-efficient or method to measure a gases heat absorption is by Specific Heat Capacity: where CO2 is a poor contender.   

Background

In an earlier entry I cataloged where CO2's heat trapping property should but doesn’t repeat. Having found that CO2 doesn’t repeat (at least at any significant level so as to be measurable or notable) in this entry I am attempting to explain why CO2's heat trapping doesn’t repeat: why is it that we think it does. My conclusion is very disturbing: the foundation argument or premise of 'heat trapping, climate changing, CO2 does not appear to be consistent with the related fundamental laws and textbook knowledge of physics. I have found all of the foundation arguments can be (easily) challenged, just by studying these laws in detail. Inspired by the work of Galileo, I am tempted to call this entry ‘The Gassy Messenger’, but have opted for the said Dark Climate.


Introduction

Below is a typical reference to a greenhouse effect definition:
Although Earth's atmosphere is 90% opaque to long wave IR radiation, the vast majority of the atmosphere is not composed of gases that cause the greenhouse effect. Molecular nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) make up roughly 98% of our atmosphere, and neither is a greenhouse gas. So, although the greenhouse effect is very powerful, a very small fraction of Earth's atmospheric gases generate the effect.



This greenhouse effect definition is developed and argued from the following experiments or theoretical claims (and others).
One by one, in this entry I shall attempt to address all of them. 
1. The 1859 Tyndall experiment: which uncovered and determined specific atmospheric gases as IR 'absorbent', now known as the greenhouse gases; 
2. N2 and O2 have no dipole, so they are not greenhouse gasesreference
3. CO2 heat camber experiments: which demonstrate how the gas of  CO2 temperature rises faster than 'air', when in isolation, and when heated;  
4. CO‘s molecule structure: explanations suggesting it is the molecule structure (internal degrees of freedom) that determines the heat trapping ability of CO2.
5. The far infrared re emission (of heat energy).
6. Emphasis on Radiation, implied low emphasis of conduction and convection.

From these experiments and demonstrations a climate axiom is formed, the greenhouse effect.
However strong the findings of these experiments and demonstrations, they pose an atmospheric problem, paradox, even catastrophe. How can atmospheric convective phenomena - the likes of the sea breeze - be explained with the (heat trapping) greenhouse gas axiom? The greenhouse gases (water vapour, CO2, ozone, and methane) constitute only (around) 2% of the Earths atmosphere compared with the remaining 98% non greenhouse gases (molecular Nitrogen and Oxygen).
This axiom begs the question: if oxygen and nitrogen are non-greenhouse gases because they have no IR heat ‘blocking’/ absorbing signature, then how is it that the atmosphere is warm at all?
The sea-breeze used to be - and still is in any standard geography or aviation meteorology textbook - that when a ‘parcel’ of ‘air’ (which contains all the gases in the atmosphere) is heated by the land, it become less dense, rises, and this rising draws cold air in from the sea.  How can this sea breeze be explained when around 98% of the gases of air are non-heat absorbent, and have no heat relationship?
From other similar paradoxes in physics: the mysterious Dark Energy and Dark Matter, I chose to term this climate greenhouse paradox ‘the dark climate', and its 'dark gases’, and have set out to try and explain how this paradox is so. Where have the gases of our atmosphere gone?’ Why are they thermal neutral? Either the greenhouse gas axiom is right (and if this so, we must except this dark climate paradox), or the axiom are wrong and their founding experiments misinterpreted or misattributed. 

In this (following) entry I shall go through each experiment, one by one, and show that the assumption is wrong, and that each experiment is either wrong, misinterpreted or misattributed. I shall conclude that the (total) atmosphere is made up of only Greenhouse gases – i.e. that oxygen and nitrogen are also heat absorbent. I will show that COis thermally typical, and not at all special - and restore the textbook sea breeze explanation (not that it had changed). 


1. The 1859 Tyndall experiment: IR spectroscopy

 
It was the – little known –1859 Tyndall experiment that first identified and isolated what he interpreted to be, and what we now know as the greenhouse gases. Below is a summary of his experiment, note that oxygen and nitrogen were found not to (what he thought at the time to) ‘absorb’ infrared.  To this day it is inferred by this experiment that greenhouse gases are by nature, infrared absorbing.
Tyndall explained the heat in the Earth's atmosphere in terms of the capacities of the various gases in the air to absorb radiant heat, also known as infrared radiation. His measuring device, which used thermopile technology, is an early landmark in the history of absorption spectroscopy of gases.[7] He was the first to correctly measure the relative infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, etc. (year 1859). He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small. Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth's atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he was the first to prove it. The proof was that water vapor strongly absorbed infrared radiation.[8] Relatedly, Tyndall in 1860 was first to demonstrate and quantify that visually transparent gases are infrared emitters.[9] 




In the following clip Dr. Ian Stewart demonstrates the basic Tyndall experiment.

 Tyndall’s experiment can easily be repeated and his findings reasoned in a modern context – just as we can Galileo’s 1609-1610 telescopic observations of the Moon, Jupiter, and Venus. The apparatus used is the readily, and relatively cheaply available in the from of the non-contact infrared thermometer or by its more advanced relative, as shown in the clip above,  the thermal imaging camera. Though these modern day ‘gadgets’ are more advanced and more adjustable than that available in Tyndall’s time, they operate using the same sensor technology, the thermopile
Youtube clip of the thermopile: 


   

The following gives some detail to the thermopile and makes the link to today’s common IR detectors.
A thermopile is an electronic device that converts thermal energy into electrical energy. It is composed of severalthermocouples connected usually in series or, less commonly, in parallel.
Thermopiles do not respond to absolute temperature, but generate an output voltage proportional to a local temperature difference or temperature gradient.
Thermopiles are used to provide an output in response to temperature as part of a temperature measuring device, such as the infrared thermometers widely used by medical professionals to measure body temperature. They are also used widely in heat flux sensors (such as the Moll thermopile and Eppley pyrheliometer)[1][2][3] and gas burner safety controls. The output of a thermopile is usually in the range of tens or hundreds of millivolts.[4] As well as increasing the signal level, the device may be used to provide spatial temperature averaging.[5]
.
Infrared Thermal Imaging Cameras or Infrared Cameras are essentially infrared radiation thermometers that measure the temperature at many points over a relatively large area to generate a two-dimensional image, called a thermogram, with each pixel representing a temperature.

1.1 Limitations of IR detectors

 Today could be said to be the age of infrared: we use it in many applications including meteorology and astronomy; it allows us to ‘see’ where we are otherwise blind.
But to use it, the operator should have an understanding of the underlying (laws of) physics the IR instrument responds to. They must understand its limitations; just as a pilot understands the limitations of an altimeter or compass and how they too can give misleading information.
To cover this new knowledge these limitations, all IR measuring instruments come with an operating manual, that are readily available to read on the Internet. There are also training videos such as the one below on IR camera's and transparency.

What these publications spell out (among other things such a opacity and transparency) is that the instrument measures infrared radiation and not temperature, and that they only read what the instrument can ‘see’ (at the set frequency). This is to say: if at the set frequency of the instrument something is opaque to IR, it can see it, and it can therefore measure it; and if something is transparent, it cannot see it, and therefore cannot measure it. 
   
As with the above clip, one operating manual that clearly spells this out (and more) is the ‘infrared basics’ manual found on the internet – from which I shall paste the most relevant.

Selective Emitters
“Infrared energy is an electromagnetic energy, just like visible light, radio waves, and x-rays. If I shine a flashlight at my chest it does not go through, but if I shine an x-ray at my chest it goes right through. The only difference between visible light and x-rays is the wavelength. So, by changing the wavelength of measurement, some objects may be more or less transparent at some wavelengths, and more or less opaque at others. Glass is a good example of this. Glass is transparent at short wavelengths, but is opaque at wavelengths longer than about 4.8 microns. Because glass is highly transparent at short wavelengths, this means that thin glass has a low emissivity value at short wavelengths. Because glass is highly opaque at long wavelengths, this means that glass has a high emissivity value at long wavelengths. The reflectivity of glass varies with wavelength, too. Glass is both opaque and highly non-reflective at wavelengths between about 6.6 and 8.2 microns, and so this is the wavelength band where glass has the highest emissivity value and where glass most closely approximates a blackbody material. (Page 7)
Thin film plastics are the classic example of selective emitters. These materials are made up of long chains of hydrogen and carbon atoms. The repetitive and uniform molecular structure of these materials means that the molecules and atoms all vibrate with a uniform series of harmonic frequencies. Infrared wavelengths coincident with these harmonic frequencies are preferentially absorbed (not reflected or transmitted) by the plastic material, and conversely, these materials emit infrared energy preferentially at the wavelengths coincident with these harmonic frequencies. When we look at a plastic sandwich bag we can see right through it, but if our eyes were filtered at 3.43 microns, which is the harmonic frequency for the H-C atomic bond, then the sandwich bag would appear completely opaque. When measuring the temperature of a selective emitter it is critical that a wavelength be selected to coincide with a strong emission band. This is a wavelength where the infrared emissions approach blackbody conditions, and where the material is highly opaque and non-reflective. Other examples of selective emitters are all gasses, and all highly transparent materials. Many crystalline materials, such as silicon and engineered ceramics, are also selective emitters. The uniformity and geometry of the molecular structure dictates the emissive nature of the material. Thin film coatings also act like selective emitters. In the metals industry, metal strips are often coated with a thin film. Oil-based paint, water-based paint, oil and wax are all examples of thin film coatings that can act like selective emitters. These materials are highly transparent at some wavelengths, and they are highly opaque and non-reflective at other wavelengths. The emissivity of the coated material is therefore highly influenced by the wavelength of measurement. The optimum wavelength of operation for an infrared thermometer will vary depending upon the coating material, the thickness, the required temperature range, and the need to view the coating or to view through the coating.

Without this theory, measurement would seem like a kind of magic, especially when measuring the temperature of a warm object through glass as opposed with through thin air.  One only has to look at police night vision images of culprits hiding under plastic covers thing they are safe and hid  - not so in the infrared.
In light of this theory, and application of modern day instruments, the early Tyndall conclusions seem to be outdated: his conclusions need updating.


1.2 The Tyndall / Dr Stewart IR thermopile experiment revisited:

This clip, and the original 1859 Tyndall Experiment, is not a demonstration of heat absorption, but rather a demonstration of the physical transition properties of (infrared) light and its affect on different substances.

What we see is the image of a flicking candle in the IR camera, and as the CO2 is let into the (sealed) cylinder the bright candle image turns to a blue colour. It is concluded, just as Tyndall did that the CO2 absorbs the infrared or is accentually trapping the heat from the candle. From the above literature and application of the instrument and alternative conclusion should/could read: The bright candle image turns to a blue colour as the CO2 is opaque to the infrared the frequency the camera is measuring at and that the gases before the CO2 is let in are transparent at that frequency. To test this reasoning we could have equally placed glass in front of the candle and got the same of similar result as the CO2  It should be noted that Tyndall used rock salt crystal to contain the gases – rock salt crystal is transparent at that frequency. In the Stewart demonstration rock salt is not used, but (IR transparent) thin plastic ‘clean full’ is. This can clearly be seen at time.. That the image colour turned blue shows the detector measuring the IR radiation emitted from the CO2  and thus its temperature. We could deduce from the colour that the CO2  that it is cold (which it should be coming from a pressurized state) or at least the temperature of the ambient gases it displaced.
 If this interpretation is wrong, then we could equally conclude that window glass is a equally ‘greenhouse’ solid just as CO2  is a greenhouse gas. We don’t, it isn't.

2. N2 and O2 have no dipole, so they are not greenhouse gases.

This is the claim that excludes N2 and O2 as being a so called greenhouse gas:

Nitrogen (N2) is symmetrical AND made of identical atoms.Even with rotation or vibration, there is no unequal sharing of electrons between one N atom and the other. So N2 has no dipole, and an EM photon passes by without being absorbed. Similarly, for O2. reference

 
Yes N2 and O2 are both transparent to IR spectroscopy, but this fact it begs the question (as stated above): how can the atmosphere be warm if 98% of it (N2 and O2) are not IR (heat) ‘absorbent'? How can N2 and Obe non greenhouse gas, yet they have a heat capacity coefficient?
Something must be wrong with this conjecture. 
To solve this paradox an alternative measuring instrument or method other than IR spectroscopy must be sourced to reveal the true IR properties of N2 and O2 (and all other gases). Such an instrument does exist, Raman spectroscopy.

2.1 Raman Spectroscopy

Raman Spectroscopy is a known complement to IR spectroscopy for analysing the vibrational properties of substances: it ‘sees’ what IR spectroscopy can't. reference
Raman spectroscopy is well explained in the following clips. I suggest you play them more than once to yourself as they are very insightful and offer perfect solution to the dark climate paradox.


Youtube clip on Raman spectroscopy
Youtube clip on IR vs Raman spectroscopy 

 2.2 N2  and O2 Raman Spectroscopy

A hypothesis was set: N2 and O2 have an infrared signature. To confirm this hypothesis either an experiment with a sample of the  atmosphere would be conducted measuring for  N2 and O2 in the IR region of the EM spectrum, or secondary research would point to a similar result. In the absence of an experiment, secondary results were searched using a google image search with the key words Raman spectcoscopy atmosphere. A positive image ('Fig. 11' below) was quickly found.  This figure and its caption clearly comes from an unrelated journal publication, but the image reveals what many others in the same search reveal - such as:  Heat Treating: Proceedings of the 16th Conference.Jon L. Dossett, Robert E. Luetje, 1996 page 228.

'Figure 11: Resonance Raman spectrum from outdoor measurement on nitro methane in vapor phase at an irradiation wavelength of 220 nm. The sample temperature was approximately 328 K, the outdoor temperature was 274 K, and the atmospheric pressure was about 755 Torr. The spectrum was accumulated during 1000 laser pulses.'http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijs/2012/158715/fig11/

Notable are the Oand Npeaks at wavenumber 1556cm-1 and 2331cm-1 respectively. These wavenumbers correspond to wavelengths 6.43 microns and 4.29 microns respectively - in the near infrared region of the EM.
Another image found is the below (Fig. 18) showing again the 1556 O2,  and other peaks at higher wavelengths along the spectrum.
Fig. 8. 
UV Raman spectra are shown at 300 and 93 K in 18O2 atmosphere for the Fe/MFI sample exchanged with NaOH and then subsequently exchanged with NH4+ and reduced in hydrogen. At 300 K the band corresponding to peroxide oxygen increases and the band corresponding to superoxide decrease relative to their intensities at 93 K (51). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360056406510028

From these images it can be concluded that N2, and O2 (and other gases) are infrared opaque or absorbent, and are too greenhouse gases.  
To verify that the above observation is rational, and predictable a cause or explanation to these 'peaks' should be sourced. To do this I simply had to show the vibration mode for both N2 and O2 are symmetrical. As the quote said at the top of this section said 'Nitrogen (N2) is symmetrical AND made of identical atoms'  I had part of an answer, but with another google search I found this direct to my question academic reference: Chemistry 362 Dr. Jean M. Standard



3 . Are the stretching modes of the diatomic molecules O2 and N2 infrared active? Why or

why not? Are the stretching modes of O2 and N2 Raman active? Why or why not?

The stretching mode of a homonuclear diatomic molecule does not lead to a change in the dipole moment of the
molecule; hence, the stretching mode is not IR active.
The stretching mode of a homonuclear diatomic molecule does lead to a change in polarizability of the molecule;
hence, the stretching mode is Raman active. Another way to consider this is that since O2 and N2 possess
centers of symmetry, the stretching mode must be Raman active because it is IR inactive.


It should be noted that the very fact that Nitrogen (N2) is symmetrical AND made of identical atoms is the reason it is transparent to IR spectroscopy: it is symmetrical by nature, and so will never show up, as a law of physics, even in part, like other molecules such as CO2 .

2.3 Conclusion

I can only conclude that N2 and O2 are not at all IR transparent, it is an instrumentation and knowledge problem.
If this Raman spectroscopy discovery is found true, then the 2% (volume) of said greenhouse gases should be revised and relegated to 100%, by adding N2 and O2 (and others if so). Any assumptions or premises made by any climate models, climate knowledge, or claims that the atmosphere consists of around 2 % (volume) special greenhouse gases will need reviewed – as said above.


3. CO2 heat camber experiments: which demonstrate how the gas of  CO2 temperature rises faster than 'air', when in isolation, and when heated;  

Yet to be developed.
In brief: these experiments demonstrate CO2 's relatively low heat capacity. These experiments should be conducted with a hypothesis testing the heat capacity of CO2 compared to air and rising temperatures.

4. CO‘s molecule structure: explanations suggesting it is the molecule structure (internal degrees of freedom) that determines the heat trapping ability of CO2.

Yet to be developed:
In brief, this claim is halted by the following fact: '...the resulting specific heat capacity is a function of the structure of the substance itself. In particular, it depends on the number of degrees of freedom that are available to the particles in the substance, each of which type of freedom allows substance particles to store energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity

5. The far infrared re emission (of heat energy).

Yet to be developed:
In brief, there is relatively low (heat) energy the far infrared.

6. Emphasis on Radiation, implied low emphasis of conduction and convection.



Friday, May 26, 2017

I picked the 2008 financial market crash.


In response to hearing 'economists didn't pick the crash', I did.

In 2004 I was teaching economics when I saw and recorded this program (below). I would show it to my student's, and spent the next 4 years being very unpopular to my friends and family saying it's going to slide and the global economy will go with it. They would laugh at me. Quite proud of that now. I had, at the time never heard of Austrian Economics, Peter Schiff or Michael Burry.
I argued the crash on the property wealth effect (illusion) and the elasticity of goods in the developed world: if the 'wealth' bubble popped the elastic goods will dry up, and it would be over.

Mortgage Madness (1/3): BBC2 - 29/10/2003  

There is not a moment I don't think about the real slide coming. My current students don't know about 2008 where I live in Sweden, it was paved over; so I have to teach it as a kind of history lesson. And the current property market is rocketing  - everywhere! fuelled on cheap money.
And they are laughing at me again. Cause it's going to slide.

My position on who is the cause; I say everybody, not just the banks were (are) the cause. People took (take) those loans, they cheated themselves and the system, and it came back on them. This is a systematic problem at both ends.

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

That Humans were in America 130 thousand years ago fits.

Humans Lived in North America 130,000 Years Ago, Study Claims.

To me it's no problem they were there; their (Denisovan) DNA is in the 'first' Americans, as it is with the early people  (mostly the melanicians)  east of a line of Indonesia.

It fits with the Toba bottle neck catastrophe theory.

The Toba eruption 75k y.a. cleared humans to the west, and a new 'Eve' migration 'out of Africa' followed there after.  
 
 

Friday, August 5, 2016

To Professor Brian Cox on Facebook on Contradictions

I have placed the following comment on Professor Brian Cox's Facebook sight in response to the following clip; I look forward to review and or feedback.


Professor Cox, yes those laws 'repeat all over the universe', but there are two gaseous molecules that - by 'our' understanding of greenhouse theory - contradict these laws, nitrogen and oxygen - together making up some 99% of Earths atmosphere. In greenhouse theory N2 and O2 are assumed, as if by law, not to absorb or emit radiation, but this, if true, is in violation of both thermodynamics and quantum mechanics where everything above absolute zero and with spectra lines (vibration modes) vibrates and radiates; but conversely, if found wrong of mistaken, would pose a violation of greenhouse theory. So what gives? I have found the solution to the problem, and thermodynamics and QM hold; it is greenhouse theory as we know it that needs to be reviewed. N2 and O2 have (I have discovered) predicted vibration modes (by the QM Schrodinger equation - no less) within the infrared range of the EMS at 2330cm-1 and 1556cm-1 respectively. These predicted modes (I have discovered) cannot be measured by thermoelectric detectors as used in 'IR spectroscopy' (the same used to define the so called greenhouse gases and first used by John Tyndall in 1859) due to a vibration property they - and all the other greenhouse gases actually - share, but they can be (very clearly) measured by Raman spectroscopy - the complementary instrument to IR spectroscopy. If you think these modes, and what I have uncovered is trivial, well they are not, else a CO2 laser would not function. N2, at the said 2330 mode is excited (just as with your hydrogen) so as to 'pump' CO2's (close) 2349cm-1 mode. In laser theory, N2 is said to be metastable, long lasting. Please note I am not suggesting the atmosphere is a laser, it is just that the mode(s) exist.

In advance of the attacks I will no dealt receive over this claim, please tell me where I am directly wrong - everything to my claim is from published work, and is easily accessible and is standard knowledge to any chemist or physicist. And please note, there are no so-called 'climate sceptics' that enjoy my claim, this is a new pillar. If I am right though, this will be the greatest upset to science since the beginning of modern science itself, since Galileo pointed his telescope. The atmosphere only has greenhouse gases, just as Fourier first posited - no special ones - and CO2 is, I'm afraid, trivial.



Friday, May 6, 2016

Lorenz Curve of the Universe's Elements

Update May 2017
I have published a working paper on the Lorenz curve being a fractal property at academia.edu.

Abstract
Global income has increased exponentially over the last two hundred years; while, and at the same time respective Gini coefficients have also increased: this investigation tested whether this pattern is a property of the mathematical geometry termed a fractal attractor. The Koch Snowflake fractal was selected and inverted to best model economic production and growth: all triangle area sizes in the fractal grew with iteration-time from an arbitrary size – growing the total set. Area of triangle the ‘bits’ represented wealth. Kinematic analysis – velocity and acceleration – was undertaken, and it was noted growing triangles propagate in a sinusoidal spiral. Using Lorenz curve and Gini methods, bit size distribution – for each iteration-time – was graphed. The curves produced matched the regular Lorenz curve shape and expanded out to the right with fractal growth – increasing the corresponding Gini coefficients: contradicting Kuznets cycles. The ‘gap’ between iteration triangle sizes (wealth) was found to accelerate apart, just as it is conjectured to do so in reality. It was concluded the wealth (and income) Lorenz distribution – along with acceleration properties – is an aspect of the fractal. Form and change of the Lorenz curve are inextricably linked to the growth and development of a fractal attractor; and from this – given real economic data – it can be deduced an economy – whether cultural or not – behaves as a fractal and can be explained as a fractal. Questions of the discrete and wave properties and the accelerated expansion – similar to that of trees and the conjectured growth of universe at large – of the fractal growth, were discussed.
May 5th 2016
What a time, what a week, what a day – this morning I had the ‘Eureka’ of my life. For years now I’ve had my fractal model matching the evolution of the universe, but with what I discovered this morning, I now have it also matching the evolution of the elements and the periodic table. Everything fits – inextricably – through the geometry of a fractal. If you don't mind, I'm going to share, for the record, how this came about – before I get my head down writing it up. Madness!
Last week I received my paper back from an economics journal on the Lorenz Curve (income and wealth distribution) and it being a universal aspect of the fractal. (see my earlier entries: (1),(2), and (3)
They had questions for me relating to how I get growth, and accelerating growth out of this geometry - I hadn’t included this in my methods ? I replied to them saying: the Lorenz distribution is one aspect of the fractal, and that with all its aspects together (I have discovered) the fractal demonstrates (at least for economists) production, consumption and equilibrium (and other stuff). Can I write everything up in one paper for you with all the aspects? Or?
Anyway, at the same time as all this, I’ve been listening to a podcast (about 10 times actually) on (Rutherford and) Chadwick’s Neutron (prediction and) discovery, and heard the scientists talking on how the atom cannot get larger than Uranium before becoming unstable; and that the lighter elements Hydrogen (H) and Helium (He) 'want' to get larger, and that iron is the ‘sweet spot’. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07...
On about Tuesday I started to think fractal (again). Do the elements of the universe form a Lorenz curve? If they do, this is important. I searched the numbers, and drew a conclusion in quick time. Damn! Yes they do! Of course they do! Hydrogen constitutes 75% of the elements, and Helium some 23% - the rest are small fry compared. They are the ‘one the percent’ – they hold the ‘wealth’ of the elements not dissimilar to any other system. And then I thought about the other aspects of the fractal: equilibrium, production cost… equilibrium ..cost.. equilibrium...?? and then it came to me: Iron is the equilibrium - the ‘sweet spot’! And the lighter elements before iron are out of equilibrium, and so too are the heavier unstable one’s larger than it. This all conforms to my fractal model, and so I then thought about the time involved – because the first bits ( the H and He), of a fractal are the largest and their 'wealth' accelerates with time - think of the trunk of a tree as it grows, they actually do accelerate. Again – a fit. H and He were 'created', one after the other, in the first 1 or 2 seconds of the ‘big bang’. The other small fry element (and us) came later – and the sub-atomic particles earlier.
Now I’m going to try again, and get someone’s (a physicists) attention; because I really don’t want to explain this to an economist.
May 6th 2016
I have created a Lorenz Curve of the (118) known elements in the universe by their abundance. Reference: Abundance in the Universe of the elements
I have been watching the documentary BBC Atom: The Key to the Cosmos for inspiration. Below is an image of Jim Al-Khalili showing iron Fe the most stable and of 'modest' abundance of the elements. And below that the periodic table showing how and when elements were formed. The older the more abundant.




Thermoelectric atmosphere dialog 2

Blair Macdonald A deductive approach to special heat trapping property of CO2 would suggest CO2 should reveal its property where ever it is. It should be a Law of science: known, understand and not a discussion or controversy - like H2O isn't. I have for many years evaluated CO2 for this special property and have found no(!) examples of this special property of CO2. CO2 is next to everywhere, it does not explain or feature in literature where it should. The likes of: cloud formation, met theory, avalanche cause and theory (it is some 5000ppmv in the snowpack), plate tectonics (CO2 mostly subducts) respiration theory explaining how air is warmed from the nose to the lungs from extreme cold temperatures when the CO2 concentrations in the nose are some 45,000ppmv). None! of these make a mention of CO2's apparent special heat trapping property, Venus is not hot because of CO2 alone, it has a 90bar atmosphere pressure, that is enough to explain extreme and unusual temperature. But there is another instance where it doesn't feature and it should. WE WOULD US IT IF IT WERE SO SPECIAL - nothing does. We would have used it through time, and all of life would have evolved to use it. SO lets use it as a solution ( as scientists say it traps heat). I suggest we put it in double glazed windows to trap the heat via the 'greenhouse effect' (as stated by 97% of all scientists) I aim to start a crowd funded business, and call it CO2 FILLED . Would The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (Official) be a patron? If you don't you know you are a denier.
Simon Gigase Didnt read lol
UnlikeReply12 April at 11:30
Benjamin Wenham This reads like procedurally generated glossolalia.

Dude, the fact that CO2 is opaque to chunks of the Infrared section of the EM spectrum has been established since 1859.
But even before that, it was predicted that something would be found that had similar effects, because heat generated by solar irradience alone, could not explain the temperature found on earth. The effect of CO2 on climate is so significant, that scientists knew it had to exist 35 years before the discovery that the effect did exist.

Learn some history of science
LikeReply12 April at 15:36Edited
Blair Macdonald Benjamin Wenham By the '35 years before': are you referring to Fourier? If not who?
Benjamin Wenham Yes, Fourier, and then Claude Servais Mathias Pouillet , to name the two more commonly noted.
UnlikeReply12 April at 16:12
Blair Macdonald So Benjamin, in one (and only one) context CO2 is all powerful, and in all others is benign; that is supernatural. Something is wrong. I think I know where the problem is, and it is right where you are alluding, 1859. This is the year John Tyndall used the thermopile to define what were later to be defined as the GHGs. I have investigated his experiment at length and reinterpreted it: he in fact discovered the thermoelectric gases (N2 and O2 are not thernoelectric) via the electricity