> > On Jul 14, 9:26 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/9a3b019fabf47cc6

> >> On 07/14/2012 09:23 AM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> >>> On Jul 13, 11:15 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/09a1452ae8f8967...
> >>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:33:21 -0700, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 13, 10:25 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:26:40, Bill Ward
> >>>>>> <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:57:27 -0700, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jul 13, 10:35 am, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka)
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:44:09, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> >>>>>>>>> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 13, 12:23ÿam, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:"
> >>>>>>>>>> Blankets mostly warm by preventing convection"
> >>>>>>>>>> are you in denial of how an insulator stops radiated energy?
> >>>>>>>>> An insulator prevents some of the conductive and convective heat
> >>>>>>>>> transfer, not radiative heat transfer.  Only a reflector can
> >>>>>>>>> prevent radiative heat transfer. CO2 is not reflective.
> >>>>>>>> Double glazed windows filled with argon gas improve the thermal
> >>>>>>>> efficiency of a house, meaning they are better insulators than
> >>>>>>>> standard single pane windows.  So are you claiming the argon gas
> >>>>>>>> molecules are irrelevant in such a case, and have nothing to do
> >>>>>>>> with improving a home’s insulating efficiency when single pane
> >>>>>>>> windows are replace with argon filled double glazed windows?
> >>>>>>> Argon has nothing to do with it.  In fact, nothing (vacuum) would be
> >>>>>>> better.
> >>>>>>> In three clear and concise sentences, Will has exposed cai's abject
> >>>>>>> ignorance of heat transfer for all to see.  Congratulations, Will..
> >>>>>> Thank you Bill.   I can use all the help I can get here.   I am not a
> >>>>>> scientist, but only an ex-engineer,  My analysis must be not only
> >>>>>> correct, but also result in profit, else I are a goner!
> >>>>>> BTW I am wrong most of the time.  Aw shits abound!   -will-
> >>>>> Laughing, na, the two of you seem to be under some false impression that
> >>>>> your opinions validate the idiotic assertion.  Once again how about
> >>>>> filling the area between the 2 layers of glass with co2, now are you
> >>>>> claiming the co2 will not impede the transfer of thermal energy in a
> >>>>> different manner than argon or a vacuum?
> >>>> cai, you are simply wrong.  You show you have no clue as to the
> >>>> difference between heat and EM radiation, and seem proud of the fact.
> >>>> I'd try to explain it to you, but from your posting record I can see it's
> >>>> likely a total waste of time.
> >>>> Suffice it to say heat is molecular motion, EM radiation is light.
> >>>> Will's explanation is entirely and precisely correct.  CO2 would let MORE
> >>>> thermal energy through to the outside air than nothing (a vacuum) would.
> >>> that would be a bs reply,  based on an appeal to your own authority
> >>> which is par from you.  Infrared energy is emitted from all objects
> >>> above 0 deg kelvin, and since the objects in the room are above 0 deg
> >>> k the co2 between the glass would absorb the energy as its passing
> >>> through the window.  Think of it this way bill, the co2 gas would act
> >>> as a filter, impeding the flow of energy in a specific part of the
> >>> electromagnetic spectrum.  The co2 would absorb more IR energy passing
> >>> through the glass/gas/glass barrier, compared to no gas, or argon
> >>> between the two layers of glass.  Absorption then increases the
> >>> average kinetic energy of the co2 molecules, which increases molecular
> >>> collisions with the container wall, resulting in a higher temperature
> >>> of the glass window.
> >> I've been away for a while and so I'm jumping into the thread at various
> >> places. As far as the double glazing thing is concerned, I don't believe
> >> that LW radiation, or absorption thereof, is the primary issue. Windows
> >> lose heat mainly by simple conduction. The relevant thermal
> >> conductivities are -
> >> Air 0.026  (W/mK)
> >> Ar 0.018
> >> CO2 0.017
> >> H2  0.182
> >> N2 0.026
> >> Glass 0.96
> >> In other words, a 1 cm layer of CO2 or Argon will insulate as well as
> >> 1.5 cm of air or 55 cm of glass. Since we don't really want windows
> >> nearly 2 feet thick, it makes sense to use double glazing.
> >>     Why Argon rather than CO2? A good question. According to Wikipedia
> >> the reason is that the  higher viscosity of Argon reduces convection
> >> within the structure. Of course a vacuum would be even better but the
> >> diminishing returns of maintaining the structure against the surrounding
> >> air pressure make it economically less attractive. In the final analysis
> >> there is no point in making the windows better insulators than the walls.

> > I understand thanks, but the point is that co2 may not make a
> > practical efficient insulator, but neither is the atmosphere, thats
> > why the comparison is reasonable.  I am not arguing that argon doesn’t
> > make the best gas to fill the double paned window, it molecular mass,
> > the facts it a noble gas, and its cheap make it practical, but
> > practical is not the point. Bjacoby declared an insulator must be
> > reflective, and i have shown how co2 a non-reflective gas will absorb
> > a portion of the emitted energy from a blackbody source; it will
> > impede the flow of energy.

> > The room (cavity of the blackbody source) has a double walled window
> > transparent to IR say 2-20um (no coatings) which allows thermal
> > emitted energy to pass through.  If the gas between the glass panes is
> > co2, the 15um band will be subtracted out of from the observed
> > spectrum, while a pane filled with argon will not.  This absorption is
> > an impedance to the flow of energy, the co2 in this case acts as an
> > insulator partially due to the fact it absorbs part of the energy
> > passing through.

> The glass itself absorbs IR, which complicates the argument. Like I
> said, heat loss through a single pane glass window is mainly by
> conduction. I don't think that adding a CO2 layer to double glazing is
> going to have a significant effect on the heat loss, but it should be
> possible to do some calculations, given the properties of the glass.
>   Obviously, you are not going to make a double glazed window out of
> glass with high transmissivity in the infrared.