Ram Jet and Gobal Warming - is the physics similar?

You might think for a moment that is a silly question but I want to explore the science of both and see if there is a common aspect for both use energy to make gas molecules go faster.

How does the simplest ram jet work?
How does infra red radiation (IR) heat or add kinetic energy to a gas molecule?
Is there a similarity?
Can this similarity be used to explain why the atmospheres on other planets are circling so fast?

These are the questions I want this thread to answer. If by using logic and research we can come to a conclusion we will then get someone to experimentally check the result. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramjet

I don't see any connection to global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramjet

I don't see any connection to global warming.Must admit that was an article that looked more at the uses of the ram jet to power aircraft. But when we look at the very basics of the ram jet and see why it wont work when not moving forward I think you might get the picture. :)

This has the making of a complete and utter train wreck.

This has the making of a complete and utter train wreck.I was involved in a real life train wreck, so I know what you mean. I will do what is required to keep the wheels of science on track.

Why won't a ram jet work if it is not moving forward? :)

The atmosphere of Jupiter is moving forward as well, and even faster than the center of the planet moves. That must mean whatever powers the atmosphere also drives the planet spin rate.

This is typical Robittybobbity.

This is typical Robittybobbity. typically obscure and weird but often right, is that what you mean.
Argue the science please Alex. :)

typically obscure and weird but often right, is that what you mean.
Argue the science please Alex. :)

Robbitty, you've never been right yet.

Robbitty, you've never been right yet.Because you have never argued the science but rather just pulled me down.

Tell me what you know regarding Jupiter's atmosphere and why it spins so fast? :)

Tell me what you know regarding Jupiter's atmosphere and why it spins so fast?

Jupiter's atmosphere is primarily hydrogen and helium, in the primordial ratio, and clouds of ammonia.

Jupiter radiates more heat than it receives from the sun, and this heat, the residual heat from formation, is thought to drive the atmospheric movement via convection, just as the winds on earth are driven. Since the gravity is so much higher, and the atmosphere so much lighter (molecularly), and the interior radiated heat is so high, the winds are so violent.

Why won't a ram jet work if it is not moving forward? :)
Putting forth a hypothesis based on a process, then asking how the process works.

See a problem there?



The atmosphere of Jupiter is moving forward as well, and even faster than the center of the planet moves. That must mean whatever powers the atmosphere also drives the planet spin rate.
Since you confess to not understanding how a ramjet works, how are you managing to draw analogies?


I want to explore the science of both...By all means you should. That would usually precede forming hypotheses...

Jupiter's atmosphere is primarily hydrogen and helium, in the primordial ratio, and clouds of ammonia.

Jupiter radiates more heat than it receives from the sun, and this heat, the residual heat from formation, is thought to drive the atmospheric movement via convection, just as the winds on earth are driven. Since the gravity is so much higher, and the atmosphere so much lighter (molecularly), and the interior radiated heat is so high, the winds are so violent.
OK gravitational collapse causing a compression of the core - releases heat energy.
So the photons of that will be multi-directional, but conservation of inertia would mean the core could spin faster as it collapses. If that happened or was the main driver the wind would be slower than the center not the other way around.
I agree the stormy atmosphere would be a result, but that too should not cause a net atmospheric rotation.

The surface of Jupiter is moving at more than 45,000 km/h. What happens to the incident solar radiation? Which molecules absorb the energy and which direction do they go? That is where the ram jet principle will be useful.
Look at the ram jet - let's understand how the molecules in the ram jet speed up predominantly with a velocity to the rear (unidirectional). :)

The surface of Jupiter is moving at more than 45,000 km/h.
Earth is moving at more than twice Jupiter's orbital speed. What of it?

Putting forth a hypothesis based on a process, then asking how the process works.

See a problem there?



Since you confess to not understanding how a ramjet works, how are you managing to draw analogies?

By all means you should. That would usually precede forming hypotheses...

I know what you mean Dave but for the benefit of all who read this forum I wanted to spell it out very simply so that we are all reading from the same page. I want you to imagine the simplest ram jet as a simple tube like a pipe 300mm in diameter and 2 meters long with a fan exterior to it driving air through it.

And a source of heating placed midway in the draught going through it.

Will there be the beginnings of the ram jet principle?

Will there be more gases (volume and strength of wind) leaving the exhaust end than before the heating source was fired up?

Earth is moving at more than twice Jupiter's orbital speed. What of it?Sorry we are talking of surface velocity at the equatorial regions. Like I think it is 1000 km/h for Earth.
Spinning rotation not the oribital speed. :)

Sorry we are talking of surface velocity at the equatorial regions. Like I think it is 1000 km/h for Earth.
Spinning rotation not the oribital speed. :)

What does the rotation of Jupiter as a whole have to do with ramjets? Ramjets are an enclosed space. Large volume of air compressed into a small volume. Jupiter is not an enclosed space.

I was afraid you meant that. Jupiter's surface is not moving at 45,000 km/h. where do you get your facts from?
It was a quote we were using the other day. (I'll post it soon) It is not the extreme outer atmosphere but at a defined depth. I have feeling it is hard to talk about surfaces on Jupiter as the atmosphere it just gets gradually denser till it forms a liquid. There is no specific boundary from my understanding. :)

What does the rotation of Jupiter as a whole have to do with ramjets? Ramjets are an enclosed space. Large volume of air compressed into a small volume. Jupiter is not an enclosed space.

Well yes, ram jets for ease of manufacture are enclosed but what would happen if someone did try and build one that "reached to the sky" so to speak. :) Scale it up, how big could it get? The global warming experiments are performed in tubes but then we relate the principles discovered to the whole atmosphere don't we? :)

It was a quote we were using the other day. (I'll post it soon) It is not the extreme outer atmosphere but at a defined depth. I have feeling it is hard to talk about surfaces on Jupiter as the atmosphere it just gets gradually denser till it forms a liquid. There is no specific boundary from my understanding. :)

Never mind. Retracted.

Jupiter's circumference is 445,000km and its day is 10 hours. Thus, 44,500km/h.

Well yes, ram jets for ease of manufacture are enclosed


Wrong. A ramjet works because it is enclosed. Atmospheres do not do this.

Again, it would behoove you to understand the basic principles of a process before building hypotheses on it. Do you not see a problem with this?

Never mind. Retracted.

Jupiter's circumference is 445,000km and its day is 10 hours. Thus, 44,500km/h.That is a good way to remember it, and the same principle applies to the Earth.

from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter

Sidereal rotation
period 9.925 h[11] (9 h 55 m 30 s)
Equatorial rotation velocity 12.6 km/s
45,300 km/h

Wrong. A ramjet works because it is enclosed. Atmospheres do not do this.

Again, it would behoove you to understand the basic principles of a process before building hypotheses on it. Do you not see a problem with this?
Sorry Dave, we are skipping along with this discussion quite well, covering lots of points and then you spring this ultimatum on me by saying a ram jet must be enclosed, without even proving that is a fact.

We get all sorts of atmospheric effects because the air is contained in a band between the ground and space it is held together by gravity, so in some ways the atmosphere is contained. High pressure zones spread out sideways to get the pressure build up seems to imply a degree of containment. No physical walls but do you need them? This is what we are trying to discuss. :)

Again, it would behoove you to understand the basic principles of a process before building hypotheses on it. Do you not see a problem with this?

Robitty doesn't work that way. He just makes stuff up and then goes quote mining .

Another case of forum cross-contamination from Physforum.

Robitty doesn't work that way. He just makes stuff up and then goes quote mining .

Another case of forum cross-contamination from Physforum.Are you and I both cross contamination too? As I said I believe there will be a chance we need to check the results experimentally. To me it sounded quite an exciting idea to run an experiment once we had discussed what we thought the outcome could be. Like there would be no need for the expenditure if someone could show me I was entirely wrong.
I bet you can't match me! I feel as if I am ahead of you on this one. I wouldn't argue "space or relativity" with you, but the reason for the winds and the physics of the ram jet engine, I think I can match you in the debate. :)

Like there would be no need for the expenditure

So there would be no need for you to find out anything about the subject you're posting on?:spank:

So there would be no need for you to find out anything about the subject you're posting on?:spank:No doubt you will try and beat me into submission. I am sure you will be able to teach me something. :bawl:

There's not enough content here to justify presence in P&M. Thread moved to alt theories.

There's not enough content here to justify presence in P&M. Thread moved to alt theories.Well that does give me a little more freedom to explore this as a possible "new" theory.
Cheers Prometheus.
:)

Sorry Dave, we are skipping along with this discussion quite well, covering lots of points and then you spring this ultimatum on me by saying a ram jet must be enclosed, without even proving that is a fact.

We get all sorts of atmospheric effects because the air is contained in a band between the ground and space it is held together by gravity, so in some ways the atmosphere is contained. High pressure zones spread out sideways to get the pressure build up seems to imply a degree of containment. No physical walls but do you need them? This is what we are trying to discuss. :)

In my theory you get a ramjet through the ozone hole down the sides of the magnetic outflow, but my theory is currently on hold.

In my theory you get a ramjet through the ozone hole down the sides of the magnetic outflow, but my theory is currently on hold.Well to be honest I am glad to hear that. As we explore this alternative theory, I hope to crack the reason the gas covered planets have atmospheres that are roaring around them faster than the planet is spining in the first place. I believe the Ram Jet Effect (RJE) is the reason for this, and it is the duration of the RJE that makes the planets attain their rotational velocities. :)

Well to be honest I am glad to hear that. As we explore this alternative theory, I hope to crack the reason the gas covered planets have atmospheres that are roaring around them faster than the planet is spining in the first place. I believe the Ram Jet Effect (RJE) is the reason for this, and it is the duration of the RJE that makes the planets attain their rotational velocities. :)

Ramjet theory is one of the reasons that I keep posting about my theory. I thought it would be useful years ago, but never got enough people to take it to Ramjet theory. I've never got far into any thread to cover everything. I won't ruin your thread with the other things.

Wrong. A ramjet works because it is enclosed. Atmospheres do not do this.

Again, it would behoove you to understand the basic principles of a process before building hypotheses on it. Do you not see a problem with this?

Dave, robitty does not let thaings like facts and physics get in the way of a good idea!:rolleyes:

Dave, robitty does not let thaings like facts and physics get in the way of a good idea!:rolleyes:

I am slightly encouraged that you say it is a good idea, but I do hope to show the RJE with facts and figures before we are finished.

It isn't a simple feat to come up with an idea and then set out to prove it. :)

I am slightly encouraged that you say it is a good idea, but I do hope to show the RJE with facts and figures before we are finished.

Sorry, what I meant is "robitty thinks is a good idea". Frankly the idea is a turd - you're comparing apples and armadillos.


It isn't a simple feat to come up with an idea and then set out to prove it. :)

That is correct. What's more, is that it is next to impossible to come up with an idea when you do not have the background in the field. You might as well give a major league pitcher tips on his throwing motion, or tell a brain surgeon how to best remove a tumor while minimizing damage.

Sorry, what I meant is "robitty thinks is a good idea". Frankly the idea is a turd - you're comparing apples and armadillos.



That is correct. What's more, is that it is next to impossible to come up with an idea when you do not have the background in the field. You might as well give a major league pitcher tips on his throwing motion, or tell a brain surgeon how to best remove a tumor while minimizing damage.
Well I do know you have an interest in these planetary topics as well, for you came on with ideas on the "Expanding Earth" threads. So if you feel inclined to disprove the things I say you are welcome for it is the curly bits that have to be ironed out as well.
I want to know what causes the extreme winds on Jupiter and Venus in particular, and the reason I chose the Ram Jet was the physics may have had a similarity. So it is the physics that are similar not the Ram Jet compared to the planet.

So if you compared "apples and armadillos" as you say, if you looked at them from the point of DNA and genes you might be surprised how much they had in common. :)

Sorry Dave, we are skipping along with this discussion quite well, covering lots of points and then you spring this ultimatum on me by saying a ram jet must be enclosed, without even proving that is a fact.
Why would I be the only one around here who has to produce facts? :bugeye: :bugeye: :bugeye:

Jupiter's high winds are surely caused by pixie dust. That is my theory.

Why would I be the only one around here who has to produce facts?

Jupiter's high winds are surely caused by pixie dust. That is my theory.You are not the only one to provide facts, but every thing I claim as a fact I will endeavour to back it up with a reference.
And what can't be solved by a search of the available data I'll run an experiment to see if it works.
The design I have in mind is a straight 300 mm diameter pipe 2 meters long.
This has an electrical heating coil attached to it, (wound around it). It is then insulated so that the coil heats just the pipe.
An electrical current is passed through the cable and the tube can heat up.

A fan positioned at one end of the tube blows air through the pipe. A wind flow meter is at the other end measuring the outflow.

As the temperature of the tube heats up the wind flow meter will measure the changes in throughput. Hopefully heat is radiated or conducted to the air moving through the tube.
Do you think the wind flow meter will record an increase or a decrease in the wind flow speed proportional (or some relationship) to the temperature of the tube walls?

Or do you think the heating of the moving air will have no effect on the air flow speed.?

(It can't increase the volume unless the fan can blow warmed air quicker.) :)

Experiment.
The design I have in mind is a straight 300 mm diameter pipe 2 meters long.
This has an electrical heating coil attached to it, (wound around it). It is then insulated so that the coil heats just the pipe.
An electrical current is passed through the cable and the tube can heat up.

A fan positioned at one end of the tube blows air through the pipe. A wind flow meter is at the other end measuring the outflow.

As the temperature of the tube heats up the wind flow meter will measure the changes in throughput. Hopefully heat is radiated or conducted to the air moving through the tube.
Do you think the wind flow meter will record an increase or a decrease in the wind flow speed proportional (or some relationship) to the temperature of the tube walls?

Or do you think the heating of the moving air will have no effect on the air flow speed.?

(It can't increase the volume unless the fan can blow warmed air quicker.)

Now if the fan was not working and the tube was absolutely level, the air in the tube would just heat up and some of it would be displaced. Cold air would enter both ends and as it warmed would rise and flow out at the tops of both ends. These would be described as convection currents.

Now no one would disagree with this would they?

Heating the air will most definitely increase the speed and pressure of the "wind" if not conventional gas turbines would not work. One might mention that adding fuel and burning it with the air is causing the thrust, but fundamentally its the increase temperature of the air not simply the addition of fuel molecules converted from liquid to gas that is the primary source of thrust. Look up "Project Pluto" for demonstration of this, it was a nuclear powered ramjet engine.

Heating the air will most definitely increase the speed and pressure of the "wind" if not conventional gas turbines would not work. One might mention that adding fuel and burning it with the air is causing the thrust, but fundamentally its the increase temperature of the air not simply the addition of fuel molecules converted from liquid to gas that is the primary source of thrust. Look up "Project Pluto" for demonstration of this, it was a nuclear powered ramjet engine.I will do that, but could you picture the heated tube experiment? I want to keep it technically simple so that people can see the similarity between a simple Ram Jet (as exampled by the heated tube) and what happens in the atmosphere of these gas covered planets.

Sometimes I don't describe things that clearly so I am asking you? Please can you understand the heated tube experiment?

Has anyone looked at it yet?

I'm not sure if you have a ram jet there. You need a second tube inside the first tube... I think. The second tube should probably also be cold. Then you need to seal the fan to direct the flow into the tube, because I think that the sun is also using pressure.

I'm not sure if you have a ram jet there. You need a second tube inside the first tube... I think. The second tube should probably also be cold.I'm not trying to construct a ram jet that will power anything but just to see what the minimum is to create an increase in the air current moving out of one end of the tube due to the heating.
I would then say at the equatorial regions of these planets the atmosphere is gravitationally contained and heated by the Sun. And because of prior motion the energy absorbed makes the atmosphere move faster in the direction it is already moving.
:)

I'm not trying to construct a ram jet that will power anything but just to see what the minimum is to create an increase in the air current moving out of one end of the tube due to the heating.
I would then say at the equatorial regions of these planets the atmosphere is gravitationally contained and heated by the Sun. And because of prior motion the energy absorbed makes the atmosphere move faster in the direction it is already moving.
:)

Of course you are right that you need a complete simulation. I was just adapting you first experiment. If I was making it from scratch without adapting yours I would do this...


Ball for the Earth.
Tight Gauze with a large hole at the front, small hole at the back for ozone layer.
Large Chinese lantern type object for space (self constructed from sticks, and paper) With fan sized hole at one end, small hole at other end.
Fan with heater behind it for sun. Sealed with Chinese lantern.
Cold metal rod for magnetic outflow in the middle of ozone gauze hole.

Then you test to see how much hot air goes through the gauze, how much goes along the cold rod, and how much spreads around the Chinese lantern.

Of course you are right that you need a complete simulation. I was just adapting you first experiment. If I was making it from scratch without adapting yours I would do this...


Ball for the Earth.
Tight Gauze with a large hole at the front, small hole at the back for ozone layer.
Large Chinese lantern type object for space (self constructed from sticks, and paper) With fan sized hole at one end, small hole at other end.
Fan with heater behind it for sun. Sealed with Chinese lantern.
Cold metal rod for magnetic outflow in the middle of ozone gauze hole.

Then you test to see how much hot air goes through the gauze, how much goes along the cold rod, and how much spreads around the Chinese lantern.
Is there any ozone on Jupiter? Is there an ozone hole? These atmospheric effects long precede any thinning of the ozone layer on Earth.

Is there any ozone on Jupiter? Is there an ozone hole? These atmospheric effects long precede any thinning of the ozone layer on Earth.

So what are you using as a Ramjet then? I thought this was about Ramjets? You need a hole for a Ramjet, and a central rod. Maybe your title is misleading? Anyway, without the ozone hole I see no other similar physics. The physics you are talking about is a greenhouse effect.

So what are you using as a Ramjet then? ....
The physics you are talking about is a greenhouse effect.

This is the simplistic design:
"The design I have in mind is a straight 300 mm diameter pipe 2 meters long.
This has an electrical heating coil attached to it, (wound around it). It is then insulated so that the coil heats just the pipe.
An electrical current is passed through the cable and the tube can heat up.

A fan positioned at one end of the tube blows air through the pipe. A wind flow meter is at the other end measuring the outflow.

As the temperature of the tube heats up the wind flow meter will measure the changes in throughput. Hopefully heat is radiated or conducted to the air moving through the tube."

And these are the questions I want you to answer:

Do you think the wind flow meter will record an increase or a decrease in the wind flow speed proportional (or some relationship) to the temperature of the tube walls?

Or do you think the heating of the moving air will have no effect on the air flow speed?

And it may not be qite the same as the Greenhouse Gas Effect as in the GHG situation the light strikes the land surface which then radiates infra red photons some of which are then picked up by certain molecules.

In my set up heat is produced and by contact the energy is transferred to moving gas molecules. Due to the requirement of conservation of energy and momentum, molecules going in the same direction as the forces will be speed up (wind). This intensifies the wind and doesn't tend to slow it down.

If the collisions decelerated the gas molecules you would be struggling to see how energy and momentum can be conserved.

This is the simplistic design:
"The design I have in mind is a straight 300 mm diameter pipe 2 meters long.
This has an electrical heating coil attached to it, (wound around it). It is then insulated so that the coil heats just the pipe.
An electrical current is passed through the cable and the tube can heat up.

A fan positioned at one end of the tube blows air through the pipe. A wind flow meter is at the other end measuring the outflow.

As the temperature of the tube heats up the wind flow meter will measure the changes in throughput. Hopefully heat is radiated or conducted to the air moving through the tube."

And these are the questions I want you to answer:

Do you think the wind flow meter will record an increase or a decrease in the wind flow speed proportional (or some relationship) to the temperature of the tube walls?

Or do you think the heating of the moving air will have no effect on the air flow speed?

And it may not be qite the same as the Greenhouse Gas Effect as in the GHG situation the light strikes the land surface which then radiates infra red photons some of which are then picked up by certain molecules.

In my set up heat is produced and by contact the energy is transferred to moving gas molecules. Due to the requirement of conservation of energy and momentum, molecules going in the same direction as the forces will be speed up (wind). This intensifies the wind and doesn't tend to slow it down.

If the collisions decelerated the gas molecules you would be struggling to see how energy and momentum can be conserved.

Well in your version, the hot air should attempt to rise, and expand causing friction along the tube, a sort of rolling due to the friction, and slow the air down. If you keep raising the temperature, eventually the experiment should flip around, because the pressure will become so great that the hot air suddenly gets crushed into smaller particles.

because the pressure will become so great that the hot air suddenly gets crushed into smaller particles

:shrug:

:shrug:

Yes my theory has chameleon particles. Hence Gravity becomes Magnetism.

Well in your version, the hot air should attempt to rise, and expand causing friction along the tube, a sort of rolling due to the friction, and slow the air down. If you keep raising the temperature, eventually the experiment should flip around, because the pressure will become so great that the hot air suddenly gets crushed into smaller particles.
Hot air rises if it is displaced by colder air taking its place. Colder air is denser than warm air. But each molecule of air does immediately want to go up just because it is hot. The molecule itself is not lighter but faster. The kinetic energy it has gained makes it bump the other molecules out of the way so the gas expands and hence density drops and then is displaced by colder air.

Right, so along the length of the tube we expect to see some degree of stratification, but remember the air is being fanned along the tube and there will be so much turbulence the stratification maybe not be appreciable. :)

Yes my theory has chameleon particles. Hence Gravity becomes Magnetism.

This experiment is limited by the strength of the tube. I would make it from steel, and it would never be heated to over 1000 degrees centigrade. Atmospheric temperatures on the planets in question can be quite high but I doubt if it would go higher that what is required to melt steel.

We need to see what the temperature of Jupiter's atmosphere is on average.
The effects you speak of may only happen at much higher temperatures if at all.

This experiment is limited by the strength of the tube. I would make it from steel, and it would never be heated to over 1000 degrees centigrade. Atmospheric temperatures on the planets in question can be quite high but I doubt if it would go higher that what is required to melt steel.

We need to see what the temperature of Jupiter's atmosphere is on average.
The effects you speak of may only happen at much higher temperatures if at all.

Yes I don't know when they switch around. Gravity may be easier to work out to magnetism because of the new Data from the moon.

Great the insane leading the... insane!

Heating air causes it to expand, expansion is motion, thus heating air causes motion, heat differentials cause direction of motion, planets do this, ram jets do this, thread over... but no don't let me get in the way of talking more about the chameleon particles.

Great the insane leading the... insane!

Heating air causes it to expand, expansion is motion, thus heating air causes motion, heat differentials cause direction of motion, planets do this, ram jets do this, thread over... but no don't let me get in the way of talking more about the chameleon particles.

Well I did want to complete the physics without less vague interpretations. I wanted to add what was missing. So what happens in the tube then, because you say expansion, and motion without saying pressure? This is an open tube with a fan at the end. The tube is being heated, and air can flow all around it.

Great the insane leading the... insane!

Heating air causes it to expand, expansion is motion, thus heating air causes motion, heat differentials cause direction of motion, planets do this, ram jets do this, thread over... but no don't let me get in the way of talking more about the chameleon particles.I know Pincho's ideas are a bit odd, but he keeps the thread moving.
But you are so sort of cut and dried and yet so wrong just to dismiss it like that.

What I want to know in the end is how a molecule of gas can speed up (get hotter without having to be in contact with a solid? What is the mechanism to the transfer of energy?
Heating air causes the molecules to speed up. Secondary effect is expansion.
Motion causes expansion in all directions. The pipe will have the same temperature all the way along the tube. So where are the heat differentials coming from?

Thread is not over for you have not explained your science. :)

Any gas that is colourless to light should not really heat up when visible light or infrared light is shone through it. Greenhouse gases (GHG) on the other hand absorb certain wavelengths of the spectrum. So is the only way to excite a free gas into having a higher temperature by having a mixture with GHG in it?
Usually to heat a gas you heat the container so the gas molecule must be kicked away faster than when it arrived (more kinetic energy). I understand conduction of heat but not so much radiant heat.

We don't seem to have a problem in thinking a solid material warms up when radiant energy shines on to it. Maybe we even accept a liquid will do the same. But when it comes to a gas we struggle to think that it warms up directly from the radiant energy.
Obviously this is partly from the fact that if a medium was 100% transparent or 100% reflective it would not heat up. So a gas being very transparent lets the radiation through and does not heat up (much??? or not at all???).

But what happens when the atmosphere becomes dirty or opaque will fine particles suspended in the atmosphere heat as if they were a solid or a liquid?

Interesting and well written article on "Air Pollution".
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/air-pollution-introduction.html
:)

Take a moment and look at this picture. "This image was selected as picture of the day on the English Wikipedia for July 11, 2009."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:790106-0203_Voyager_58M_to_31M_reduced.gif

Any thoughts on how after combustion the gases get hot and expand? What is the order of events in combustion?
Atoms collide ..... what next?

We don't seem to have a problem in thinking a solid material warms up when radiant energy shines on to it. Maybe we even accept a liquid will do the same. But when it comes to a gas we struggle to think that it warms up directly from the radiant energy.
Obviously this is partly from the fact that if a medium was 100% transparent or 100% reflective it would not heat up. So a gas being very transparent lets the radiation through and does not heat up (much??? or not at all???).

But what happens when the atmosphere becomes dirty or opaque will fine particles suspended in the atmosphere heat as if they were a solid or a liquid?

Interesting and well written article on "Air Pollution".
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/air-pollution-introduction.html
:)

Think Venus.., a green house gone wild....

Any thoughts on how after combustion the gases get hot and expand? What is the order of events in combustion?
Atoms collide ..... what next?

Depends on who you are asking. In my theory, particles are spheres that do not like to overlap. If they overlap, they scale down. But this allows other sphere to take advantage of this extra space, so they scale up. This is a cause, and effect situation that is circular. I found that the mathematics is circular (even spherical), and a particle will scale down until it becomes negative, then it will scale up negatively until it becomes positive. I believe that this is called ring mathematics. I developed this ring mathematics into something more like knot mathematics. Knot mathematics is like ring mathematics but works better with sphere. You get an electron orbit naturally, and you get the electron paths very accurately when energy is lost through entropy. The connected knots have very distinct paths that look like waves, but are particles. So...

The electron is a hole with a spin around it. Expand the hole, slow the spin, but expand the sphere. It's very difficult to do in your head. The best way to think about the change from positive no negative is to think of a bunch of basketballs cut in half. Now use those as imaginary particles. The convex faces bump one another, and are far apart. Convex to concave fit together like snake skin. Concave to concave also push apart, but are a bit more flexible. And to switch them around you just squeeze on the basketball, and turn it inside out. This is such a close analogy of the physics that you can use it as a template.

EDIT: I have just found on Wikipedia that Knot Mathematics already exists. My version is different to that, so I will call it Kissing Knot Mathematics. My knots are energy dependant, so can be sometimes open ended, and sometimes closed ended.

Depends on who you are asking. In my theory, particles are spheres that do not like to overlap. If they overlap, they scale down. But this allows other sphere to take advantage of this extra space, so they scale up. This is a cause, and effect situation that is circular. I found that the mathematics is circular (even spherical), and a particle will scale down until it becomes negative, then it will scale up negatively until it becomes positive. I believe that this is called ring mathematics. I developed this ring mathematics into something more like knot mathematics. Knot mathematics is like ring mathematics but works better with sphere. You get an electron orbit naturally, and you get the electron paths very accurately when energy is lost through entropy. The connected knots have very distinct paths that look like waves, but are particles. So...

The electron is a hole with a spin around it. Expand the hole, slow the spin, but expand the sphere. It's very difficult to do in your head. The best way to think about the change from positive no negative is to think of a bunch of basketballs cut in half. Now use those as imaginary particles. The convex faces bump one another, and are far apart. Convex to concave fit together like snake skin. Concave to concave also push apart, but are a bit more flexible. And to switch them around you just squeeze on the basketball, and turn it inside out. This is such a close analogy of the physics that you can use it as a template.

EDIT: I have just found on Wikipedia that Knot Mathematics already exists. My version is different to that, so I will call it Kissing Knot Mathematics. My knots are energy dependant, so can be sometimes open ended, and sometimes closed ended.
Explain to me the reaction or combustion of hydrogen and oxygen. Do you agree it is an exothermic reaction? The heat energy given off by the reaction, how is that linked to the velocity of the reactants?
Explain it in your way but please answer the question. :)

Explain to me the reaction or combustion of hydrogen and oxygen. Do you agree it is an exothermic reaction? The heat energy given off by the reaction, how is that linked to the velocity of the reactants?
Explain it in your way but please answer the question. :)

You would need new words to describe it. Yes it's a release of light, but only because the flip of particles is a barrier. It's more to do with time, which is a sink hole that stores energy. If you have X/Y/Z then you also have In/Out in the middle. Each particle resets X/Y/Z back to zero, so true X/Y/Z is...

X,Y,Z,In,Out,-X,-Y,-Z.

Which creates a complete Newton's Law of opposites. Then you put them in the right order to create a Kissing Knot.

And Time is a word that doesn't work in English. So that's why I said you need new words. Time is a vortex hole type of thing. It's like looking down a well.

...
And Time is a word that doesn't work in English. So that's why I said you need new words. Time is a vortex hole type of thing. It's like looking down a well.
That was powerful thought to say time is like looking down a well.

That was powerful thought to say time is like looking down a well.

I can make the model in 3D by scaling time down in the middle particle, and repeatedly putting particles in the well scaling them down, and then using that energy as though it were a bump force. So you are looking in a mirror facing another mirror, but the energy is real. And it happens inside every particle, so space time is all disjointed. And the well works in both directions, so time has no arrow. Time can either flow down the well, and pull everything in.. a snowflake, a hand, a neutrino, or it can flow out of the well to produce energy, and heat.. a sun, a photon, most puffy type objects. Then you can also use it for momentum with some knot mathematics.

Time .... can flow out of the well to produce energy, and heat.. a sun, a photon, most puffy type objects. ...

You very close to a description of combustion ... "produce energy and heat..."
Does this energy unite dirrectly to the particles or do they have to be absorbed into solids first.

Like inside an internal combustion engine, the fuel is burned in air and heat is used to drive the piston. The heat of combustion that heats the gas does it heat the metal surrounding it before heating the gas that drives the piston? Or is the gas heated directly without having to bounce of the side of the metal? :)

You very close to a description of combustion ... "produce energy and heat..."
Does this energy unite dirrectly to the particles or do they have to be absorbed into solids first.

Like inside an internal combustion engine, the fuel is burned in air and heat is used to drive the piston. The heat of combustion that heats the gas does it heat the metal surrounding it before heating the gas that drives the piston? Or is the gas heated directly without having to bounce of the side of the metal? :)

The energy heads towards the area of least resistance, which will eventually circle around a hole.. an electron. The best way to trap heat, and energy is to position the holes so that they feed each other. When the particles bump, they shrink, and lose energy, but small particles like neutrinos can knock that energy back up again. A really efficient engine would somehow steer the neutrinos as a feed flow. You can make a complete knot out of this somehow, but the steering of particles would have to be exact.

I use this in my computer...

+ bump + = shrink

- bump - = grow

everything else = 0

So by mixing the right bump forces you can make a knot. But the particles have to also knot their own entropy. I can't see anyone doing that for a long time.

The energy heads towards the area of least resistance, which will eventually circle around a hole.. an electron. The best way to trap heat, and energy is to position the holes so that they feed each other. When the particles bump, they shrink, and lose energy, but small particles like neutrinos can knock that energy back up again. A really efficient engine would somehow steer the neutrinos as a feed flow. You can make a complete knot out of this somehow, but the steering of particles would have to be exact.

I'm sure the neutrinos would escape before you could use them. They travel so fast and go through solid matter as if it was just space. :)

I'm sure the neutrinos would escape before you could use them. They travel so fast and go through solid matter as if it was just space. :)

They are negative mass, and should bump negative mass, so you need negative mass to steer them. Anyway that's why they add energy to complete the energy knot.

They are negative mass, and should bump negative mass, so you need negative mass to steer them.I've got plenty of mass, but lack negative mass sorry.

I've got plenty of mass, but lack negative mass sorry.

Yeah its all backwards for me anyway. I am trying to switch it to what you call mass... I call negative mass. That makes life difficult. In my theory, heavy objects have less mass. They are heavy because they are acting like sponges with the gravity.

Yeah its all backwards for me anyway. I am trying to switch it to what you call mass... I call negative mass. That makes life difficult. In my theory, heavy objects have less mass. They are heavy because they are acting like sponges with the gravity.It sounds more like an alternative reality to me. It sounds like the beginnings of a novel, where you are describing another place and time.
Could you be living in a time warp or something? :)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/15/air-pollution-biggest-killer-water?newsfeed=true

Air pollution 'will become bigger global killer than dirty water'
OECD report says pollution will become biggest cause of premature death, killing an estimated 3.6 million people a year by 2050

.....

If current policies are allowed to carry on, the world will far exceed the levels of greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say are safe, the report found. "I call it the surrender scenario – where we would be if governments do nothing more than what they have pledged already?" said Simon Upton, environment director at the OECD. "But it could be even worse than that, we've found."

Air pollution will increase the rate of global warming. The winds on Earth are going to get like those on Venus if we don't watch out. :)

It sounds more like an alternative reality to me. It sounds like the beginnings of a novel, where you are describing another place and time.
Could you be living in a time warp or something? :)

It's the Da Vinci code. :)

It's the Da Vinci code. :)Dan brown made millions out of that yet the story I could tell would be a lot more accurate and controversial.
:)

Dan brown made millions out of that yet the story I could tell would be a lot more accurate and controversial.
:)

But Dan Brown is a good writer.

But Dan Brown is a good writer.I know that is an important difference, his use of words and tense can't be matched. I can't do it, I know it.

The one poster I do always enjoy reading is Aqueous ID. To me he is the most logical thinker/writer I have ever come across. How do you find him/her? :)

I know that is an imprtant difference, his use of words and tense can't be matched. I can't do it, I know it.

The one poster I do always enjoy reading is Aqueous ID. To me he is the most logical thinker/writer I have ever come across. How do you find him/her? :)

Well I say, don't ask questions just to blame something on the answer. It's a catch 22 for me to bother replying. I can make a computer model of the things that I have said, so the ideas work. And you can see the ideas in nature, so my ideas are backed up by nature.