How Filament Light Bulbs Cast a Shadow on the Greenhouse Gas Theory
A simple two bulb single filament comparison bulb test shows that the CO2 gas ‘back radiation effect’ claimed in the greenhouse gas theory just does not occur.
The test relies on a well-established principle in applied science; the filming effect of gases on a filament, discovered by Dr. Irving Langmuir (the ‘Langmuir Sheath’ effect).
A modern-day light bulb works by passing an electric current through a tungsten filament. This energy transmitted heats up the filament so it reaches a high temperature and glows red or white hot. As it glows, approximately 10 percent of the energy radiated is given off as light and the remaining 90 percent is given off as Thermal Radiation.
This high heat causes the filament to burn and thin over time as the heat applied drives off molecules from the filament. This causes the lifespan of the bulb to reduce and as the wire gets thinner, it gets hotter which then further reduces the lifespan.
To overcome this effect manufacturer’s realized they can add a gas to the bulb. This reduces the temperature of the wire as heat energy is transferred away from the wire via conduction and convection.
This transfer of heat causes the wire to cool and glow less brightly, but as the gas heats up it can cause the bulb surface to be hotter than if the gas wasn’t present; as energy is transferred more rapidly from the wire to the glass bulb with the gas present than if the gas was not present.
Oxygen is a highly reactive gas, so air which contains oxygen is not used because this would burn the filament more quickly. Therefore, inert gases such as helium, argon, neon and xenon are used instead.
Now the take away point shown here is that the conductive and convective effects of these gases lowers temperature. Applied scientists and industrialists understand the practicalities that academics may overlook (especially self-serving academics involved in climate ‘science’). The empirical proofs discrediting the greenhouse gas theory once again have come from pragmatism learned in industry. These important clues to exposing junk science are detailed further in the book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon:Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’ Using such simple applied science examples even laypersons can identify the cause of what makes the temperature of the filament drop and glow less brightly. As can be seen in the picture below:
A vacuum lamp is bright, whereas a gas filled lamp is dim, even when the same wattage is used. This proves that the filament is losing heat to the gas. If the bulbs are touched, the gas filled bulb is much hotter, even though the filament is clearly colder, as it isn’t glowing as brightly.
The colder filament exists because it is convecting and conducting heat away from itself, into the gas and then from the gas into the physical glass bulb.
The gas convection effect on the filament can also be further tested, because convection causes heat to rise to the top, which is why the top of the filament glows more brightly than the bottom. If we tip the lamp upside down, the movement causes this effect to reverse, with the lower portion of the filament now glowing as it has become the top (as the gas again moves upwards.) A shimmering of the filament can also be seen from this convective effect.
This same effect is happening on planet earth, as the atmosphere transfers heat away from the surface and transfers it around the globe and to the atmosphere above where it gets emitted away into space.
The cooling effect of gases can be demonstrated with this following example, too.
Three in One Coils in a Gas.
In the above picture of a bulb containing a gas, showing the coils arranged differently, we clearly see the cooling effect of gases. Looking at the straight wire, we see the highest rate of air cooling, but with a single coil the rate of cooling is less and so it glows brightly, but with a coiled coil, it glows the brightest.
However, when this same test is done in a pure vacuum bulb, all three types of wire glow with equal brightness because they all reach the same temperature due to the current flowing through them. In a vacuum the three wires have only radiation to cool them, so they glow equally as bright. This is because they don’t experience different rates of convective cooling, because there is no convective cooling.
But in the gas-filled bulb they experience differences in convective cooling due to a film of stationary gas which forms around the filament. If the coil is coiled this film of stationary gas gets larger and so there is less contact with the gas and the filament. A coiled coil has the largest film and thus the least convective cooling effect.
It is beyond debate that the presence of the gas is having a convective cooling effect on the wire. This fact is known industry-wide and manufacturers make use of this information to better design their bulbs to increase life expectancy. This filming effect of gases on a filament was discovered by Dr. Irving Langmuir hence the reason this film is known as the Langmuir Sheath.
So what we can then say is, that if we had a vacuum light bulb, with a straight wire as the lighting filament, it would glow brightly, but if we then added a carbon dioxide gas to the bulb to replace the vacuum, it would glow less brightly. It would do this, because the CO2 is causing the wire to cool, because it is taking heat away from the wire due to conductive and convective effects.
Greenhouse gas believers (including ‘lukewarmers’) would have us believe in some ‘back-radiation; heating/delayed cooling nonsense. By their reasoning the addition of gas inside the light bulb would actually cause the temperature of the filament to increase due to ‘back radiation/ from the gas back to the filament, causing it to glow more brightly and to get warmer. But reality proves the opposite – the addition of the gas causes the filament to remain cool.
What happens is the gas itself draws the heat energy from the filament and the coil cools; energy is transferred from the wire, into the gas which then gets transferred to the surface of the bulb. The presence of CO2 cools the filament and this effect can only be reduced by coiling the filament. (Or seriously increasing the pressure of the gas.)
In fact, this principle could be extended to the glass bulb itself. However, adding extra bulbs to the bulb in full vacuum has no effect on brightening the filament, if it did all manufacturers would increase the brightness of their bulbs by supplying them with 10 layered glass bulbs and fill them with CO2. But they do not! And why would that be, Dear Greenhouse Gas theory promoters?
Principia Scientific International has again shown compelling proof discrediting the carbon-dioxide obsessed ‘theory’ of climate. The two-bulb single filament comparison bulb test is an excellent simple demonstration disproving the so-called back radiation heating/delayed cooling effect. It is an ‘effect’ that exists only in the mind of self-serving academics reliant on junk computer models.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Please DONATE TODAY to help our non-profit mission to defend the scientific method.
Trackback from your site.
Geraint Hughes
| #
That was a very long winded rant over nothing? Do you agree that greenhouse effect is nonsense or not, I couldn’t tell. On the subject of Venus. You should read my explanation as to what is going on in Venus. It is highly volcanic, it has a thin crust and it has a crazy high pressure. These all explain why it is the high temperature that it is. I also thought the slayer book mentioned the atmospheric pressure also. https://principia-scientific.com/whats-really-going-on-with-venus-two-gas-planets-comparison/
Reply
Max Michael
| #
Joseph Fourier was the first to recognise that greenhouse gases cool the Earth, not warm it.
“When light from the Sun strikes the Earth’s surface and warms it up, why doesn’t the planet keep heating up until it is as hot as the Sun itself? Fourier’s answer was that the heated surface emits invisible infrared radiation, which carries the heat energy away into space.”
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
I like the “rant”.
I am sending it to my lukewarmist friends
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
It appears the rant has been deleted, oh well, it didn’t make much sense anyway.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Geraint:
I’m afraid you make some serious errors in your comparisons.
The light bulb is in an ambient setting where it can conduct heat away to the ambient. This means that gas inside the bulb can continuously conduct thermal energy away from the hot filament (there is not significant convection inside the bulb), conduct that energy to the bulb glass, which transfers that energy by conduction to the external atmosphere, which convects it away.
However, by contrast, the earth and its atmosphere reside in the vacuum of space. The earth’s atmosphere CANNOT transfer any energy to its ambient environment (space) by conduction or convection. This means that a transparent atmosphere (say, composed of argon as in most light bulbs) CANNOT continuously conduct thermal energy away from the surface, as it would have no subsequent “sink” to transfer that energy to. Once it got to the temperature of the surface, it would stop absorbing energy from the surface.
Further, you say that “on planet earth, … the atmosphere transfers heat away from the surface and transfers it around the globe and to the atmosphere above where it gets emitted away into space.”
But the only way the atmosphere can transfer heat to space is by radiative means. An argon or similar transparent atmosphere cannot do that. For the atmosphere to emit energy to space requires radiatively active (a.k.a. “greenhouse”) gases, such as H2O and CO2. And substances that emit radiation energy also absorb radiation energy — including radiation energy from the surface that would transfer directly to space with a transparent atmosphere.
Unfortunately, these errors completely undermine your entire argument.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Ed Bo, I can do it in a vacuum chamber too. Which nullifies your argument about ambience. Your talk is nothing but rubbish. If there was any back radiation at all the element would brighten. But it doesn’t. And an atmosphere obtains most of its energy on Earth via latent heat gain and convection, and elements in the atmosphere which radiate act to cool the atmosphere not warm it. Where’d you get your education? The stinking EU or the pathetic UN?
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
There are still multiple problems with your analysis.
All the gases you mention are noble gases, which are completely transparent to both shortwave and longwave radiation. (Everyone uses argon, which is plentiful and cheap.)
Even CO2 is highly transparent to the shortwave radiation from the filament, absorbing virtually nothing in ~2cm of travel.
The glass cover of the bulb is an excellent longwave radiator. So the gas inside the bulb provides a conduction path to the cover, which can then radiate that energy away even across a vacuum.
So all you have done, even in a vacuum chamber (which I strongly doubt you have actually tried) is to add a new energy-loss mechanism for the filament, with no countervailing energy gain mechanism.
When I studied thermodynamics at MIT (not the EU or UN), my professors insisted we very carefully define all parts of the system, including ambient conditions, and all transfer mechanisms, before we even started our analysis. They would have come down very hard on me if I had used your slapdash style of analysis.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Your education at MIT is worthless, if it makes you think doing the same thing in a larger chamber (to supposedly prevent conduction being a factor), where the convection current would be much larger and therefore a greater rate of convective cooling would occur, is somehow offset by an increase in back radiance of a larger column of CO2, which would then somehow result in a hotter and brighter filament. All that would happen is losses due to convection would increase and the filament would be cooler still. And my vacuum chamber version is scheduled for manufacturing completion later this year. I will probably post pictures of that too. I imagine your professor teachers would be most upset that your a believer in the “ten bulbs bulb”.
Reply
geran
| #
Ed Bo rambles: “Once it got to the temperature of the surface, it would stop absorbing energy from the surface.”
Ed, just earlier you had admitted that the atmosphere was transparent. First it is transparent, then it “would stop absorbing energy”.
You appear seriously confused.
Hilarious.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
I see you have never heard of conduction.
Your attempts to mock others out of a foundation of complete ignorance are pretty pathetic.
Reply
geran
| #
Why do you believe I am trying to mock you, Ed Bo?
I’m only trying to help you out of your confusion. When I mock you, you will know it.
A transparent atmosphere remains transparent even if it is conductively warmed.
BTW, the only blogs I have been banned from are ones that censor truth.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
Before you presume to comment on what you assume is someone else’s confusion, you need to overcome your own (profound) confusion. You also need to get yourself above elementary-school reading comprehension level (but I fear that it is beyond you).
You say: “A transparent atmosphere remains transparent even if it is conductively warmed.”
NOTHING I have said could be construed by any reasonable person to state otherwise.
You would be well advised to remember the old adage:
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
geran
| #
Perhaps you’re right. It may be foolish to try to help you. So, I’ll just stand aside and watch you wallow in your own confusion.
After all, this is a great year in climate-comedy.
SteveB
| #
Radiation only plays an important part in shedding heat in the upper atmosphere. In the troposphere, where greenhouse gas induced warming is supposed to conduction and convection are the dominant means of energy movement by a vast margin.
The idea of a radiative greenhouse effect controlling the climate in a troposphere so completely dominated by conduction and convection is, frankly, laughable.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
A planet/atmosphere system can ONLY exchange energy with the rest of the universe by radiation, unlike Geraint’s light bulb in a room.
A transparent atmosphere — as one composed only of the argon in Geraint’s light bulb — therefore cannot transfer any energy to space.
Such an atmosphere cannot continually receive energy from the surface, because that would quickly make it hotter than the surface, and it would then transfer energy to the surface by conduction.
This is unlike Geraint’s light bulb, where the bulb’s argon “atmosphere” is continually conducting energy away from the surface filament, and conducting it to the room ambient.
The comparison does not hold for the argument Geraint is trying to make.
Reply
geran
| #
Ed Bo, almost every one of your sentences is wrong.
Let’s just consider the first example:
“A planet/atmosphere system can ONLY exchange energy with the rest of the universe by radiation, unlike Geraint’s light bulb in a room.”
Do you not understand that the light bulbs are emitting visible light? Do you not understand that visible light is energy?
Obviously I don’t need to go any further, until you start making sense.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Geran:
Seriously??? I know 3rd graders with better reading comprehension and logical thinking skills than you.
Since a compound sentence is obviously too difficult for you, I will break it down into pieces. First I said:
“A planet/atmosphere system can ONLY exchange energy with the rest of the universe by radiation”.
Absolutely true. No conduction or convection possible with the vacuum of space.
Next:
“unlike Geraint’s light bulb in a room.”
Here’s where it gets tricky for the average 1st grader. This states that the light bulb is NOT limited to ONLY radiative transfer. It does not state that that there is no radiative transfer from a light bulb in a room.
Maybe by the time you achieve 3rd grade standards, you will understand the distinction.
Reply
geran
| #
So what you meant to state was:
“A planet/atmosphere system can ONLY transfer energy to the universe by radiation, but Geraint’s light bulb can transfer energy by radiation, conduction, and convection.”
Maybe you would like to correct your remaining sentences.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
No need to rewrite that sentence, or any of the other sentences. Anyone of normal intelligence could understand them properly.
I see that, as always, you have absolutely nothing of substance to contribute.
Reply
geran
| #
You’re not offering any substance, only humor.
For example, your second sentence:
“A transparent atmosphere — as one composed only of the argon in Geraint’s light bulb — therefore cannot transfer any energy to space.”
A transparent atmosphere would allow direct radiative heat transfer to space from the surface. So, your sentence is completely WRONG.
But, it’s hilarious.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Once again you prove yourself utterly incapable of following a simple logical argument. I was clearly referring to the argon atmosphere itself, which cannot output power to space because it can’t radiate.
Are you actually going to contribute anything of substance to the discussion, or you just going to play the game of figuring out how you can willfully misinterpret clear English?
Since you don’t understand even the basics of thermodynamics, misinterpretation looks like your only tactic.
geran
| #
Each sentence just gets funnier. Here’s #3:
“Such an atmosphere cannot continually receive energy from the surface, because that would quickly make it hotter than the surface, and it would then transfer energy to the surface by conduction.”
How can a transparent atmosphere absorb energy to get “hotter than the surface”?
Hilarious.
More please.
Ed Bo
| #
Strike 3 — you’re out!
In any planet with a day/night cycle (and they all have them), once night started, the surface would radiate away enough energy that it would get colder than the atmosphere, and the atmosphere would transfer energy to the surface.
We even get these conditions on earth when the absolute humidity is low. We call these temperature inversions. They happen for months on end in the Antarctic winter night. Another issue you are completely unaware of.
geran
| #
Ed, you just used the same joke as earlier:
“…and the atmosphere would transfer energy to the surface.”
As I explained, a transparent atmosphere cannot do that.
Think up some new jokes, please.
Ed Bo
| #
Now a 4th strike! You say: “a transparent atmosphere cannot do that [transfer energy to the surface]”.
Of course it can! By conduction! From the collisions of the gas molecules with the surface molecules. If the atmosphere is a higher temperature than the surface, which often happens at night, this will result in a transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the surface, regardless of the radiative properties of the gas molecules.
But a transparent atmosphere cannot transfer energy to space (letting surface radiation through is another issue that you confuse) because the vacuum of space provides no conductive mechanism.
Basic, basic thermodynamics, and you cannot understand it. No wonder you just try pedantic nitpicking over phrasing.
geran
| #
Funny, especially since it’s all here for all to see.
“How can a transparent atmosphere absorb energy to get ‘hotter than the surface’?”
Ed Bo
| #
I already explained in my “Strike 3” comment above how it could happen. Any variation to the input, such as a day/night cycle, would cause that condition.
Maybe you were limiting your thinking (without stating it) to the steady-state case of constant and evenly distributed input (what JP calls the “flat earth fallacy). So, I’ll humor you and rephrase my statement for your special case:
Once a transparent atmosphere reaches the surface temperature, it ceases to conduct any more energy from the surface.
Happy now?
When are you actually going to contribute anything substantive to the discussion? I don’t think you’re capable of it…
geran
| #
I just did.
Ed Bo
| #
Misguided pedantry over phrasing is substantive?
You have not addressed a single actual argument.
No wonder you keep getting banned from blogs…
geran
| #
I started with “Ed Bo, almost every one of your sentences is wrong.”
And, that’s a good place to end:
Ed Bo, almost every one of your sentences is wrong.
Ed Bo
| #
Then why have you failed miserably in every single attempt to demonstrate it?
Geraint Hughes
| #
Ed Bo. Theres something you don’t understand. A highly emissive atmosphere, is freezing cold because it emits away all its energy, whereas a neutral atmosphere such as argon, does not. Therefore a neutral atmosphere maintains higher atmospheric and higher surface temperatures because the rate of heat loss is lower. As an example. A pure Oxygen gas planet (no rock) is hot and a pure CO2 gas planet is freezing cold (again no rock.) If we had a perfect sphere at 279k steady state temperature and inserted this into Oxy, the sphere warms, however if we inserted into CO2 gas planet, the sphere cools. Read this if you don’t understand. https://principia-scientific.com/whats-really-going-on-with-venus-two-gas-planets-comparison/
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Geraint:
An emissive atmosphere is automatically also an absorptive atmosphere, so it will absorb some of the energy from the surface’s upward radiation.
A transparent atmosphere, like Argon, simply lets the surface radiation pass directly to space with no resistance.
By contrast, an absorptive/emissive atmosphere provides thermal resistance to the surface energy passing to space, so for the same solar input, it results in a higher surface temperature than a transparent atmosphere.
geran
| #
Ed Bo gets it wrong again: “it results in a higher surface temperature than a transparent atmosphere.”
Ed, If you drop some coins on the ground, do you get richer?
Ed Bo
| #
And Geran as usual makes no sense at all, and doesn’t even try to contribute.
Reply
geran
| #
Ed, if you expect to “contribute”, you should first learn how to place your comments.
After that, it gets worse. Science is hard.
The coins falling represent infrared emitted from Earth. Like the coins, it does not return and multiply.
Learn or not, your choice.
Reply
Ed Bo
| #
Coins falling from you to me do increase my wealth. You obviously have never done actual thermodynamics problems with properly defined control masses.
Reply