Re: Dave Keeling: Global warming expert shares 50 years of research

From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.ca)
Date: 08/22/04 

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:03:04 -0400

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
> August 21, 2004
>
> "Ian St. John" wrote:
>
>>>> "Heat cannot be transformed into mechanical energy. Temperature
>>>> differences can..."
>>>> In what way is this statement wrong?
>>>
>>> It's wrong in the mathematical and the experimental way, i.e. - the
>>> scientific way.
>>>
>>> It might help if you actually read up on thermodynamics. I supplied
>>> some links.
>>>
>>> Did you get all of your scientific training from the usenet?
>>
>> Thomas. I have to agree with Thomas on this one.
>
> Then you would be wrong too.

No. I would be right no matter who else agrees.

>
>> You cannot extract energy from a uniform temperature no matter how
>> hot.
>
> That is not what he said. Temperature is not heat. Energy comes in
> many forms, almost all of them are abstractions.

Temperature is a measure of heat energy in a material. Try again.

>
>> You
>> must have a cold side and a hot side to use the FLOW of energy to
>> convert to mechanical force.
>
> You have just defined 'heat'.

No. I have defined a difference in temperature. Heat is just disordered
energy. Mechanical motion is ordered energy. Look up entropy.

> It would help if you guys would do a
> little research on your own now and then. I supplied some useful
> links, but apparently neither of you ever bothered to read them.

Your arguments should be sufficient if they were meaningful but the issuance
of a 'stand and deliver' as your only argument is somewhat ditzy.

>
> Furthermore, one also requires a cleverly designed 'devices', with
> which to convert energy from one form to another,

The devices used to extract the energy do not detract from the fact that the
energy is available to extract only when there is a difference in
temperature to utilise.

> preferably not a
> 'heat engine', if you truly want to solve the global warming and
> global pollution problems.

non-sequitor. The issue here was that heat does not supply energy, a
difference in heat supplies energy.

> I really don't think you care one way or
> the other, you all seem to too busy engaging in a pissing contest, to
> worry about pesky little scientific and technical details of the
> actual problem solving process.

They won't be solved by people that cannot understand or agree with basic
physics so count yourself out.

>
>>> Thomas Lee Elifritz
>>> http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

Relevant Pages