Light Recycling Disproves Greenhouse Gas Theory

Glowing light bulb background - Fox Graphics

There are many fake scientists and lying professors in the world. They like to spread the lies that greenhouses work by back-radiation.

They then use this false explanation to further explain that the atmosphere works in the same way, that Greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide, are contributors to this false phenomenon and therefore we must all pay taxes to stop anything which emits CO2.

They even extend this to farm yard animals wanting to stop cows from farting and burping, they emit greenhouses gases, are therefore evil and must go, whatever the cost whatever the effort required, regardless to how fruitless such efforts will be.

These fakers have been beaten in the past, with the simple example of my light filament in a CO2 vacuum chamber, where a tungsten filament clearly dims when CO2 is added to the vacuum chamber, showing that when compared to a vacuum, CO2 does not have any back heating properties, did not slow the rate of cooling from the filament and did not offer forth any “blanket of insulation.”  What happened is that filament simply cooled and dimmed.  Just what else would happen?

Well GHE advocates would have you believe that the temperature would rise, yet it doesn’t.  That experiment proves conclusively that CO2 doesn’t cause back radiance to warm objects, this is one way to show a heat source can’t be warmed by itself, but there are other ways too.  Another way is:-

How Light Recycling Prove Back Radiant Heating to a Heat Source to be Non-sense.

Instead of adding a gas to the lighting filament, an array of parabolic mirrors can be added so that all the energy emitted from the light is reflected right back to it.  This has the effect of increasing the brightness, but not due to an increase in peak temperature of the filament, but due to a difference in emissivity of the tungsten and that of a black body object, which enables reflected light to share the same phase space as newly emitted light.  The peak temperature of the filament is unchanged, despite ALL the energy being reflected back to it.  What happens is the energy absorbed offsets the energy emitted, so that the total output emitted remains the same, but because some of the energy was absorbed there is a reduction in entropy.  This is explained in more detail below.

How Second Law of Thermodynamics can be applied to increase lighting efficiency.

Tungsten filament will emit light if an electric current is passed through them, due the resistance of the filament causing the filament to heat, resistance which increases as the temperature of the filament increases, needing yet more current to get it even hotter and brighter.

If we have two incandescent lights and one of them was cooler than the other, the cooler one will give out less light, all other things being equal.  However, if we were to place a mirror (& or heat mirror) near the hot light to reflect some of the energy to the cooler filament, the cooler filament would warm as it is now in receipt of electromagnetic radiation of a higher intensity from the hotter filament.  As it warms, it would get brighter and we find we have increased the light output without increasing the amount of electricity being used.

It is possible to extend this principle to the original filament itself, this is because a typical tungsten lighting filament is not of uniform temperature across its entire length.  The middle of the filaments tend to be hotter and brighter and the ends cooler.

This is as indicated in this drawing and link below:-

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/31/4/022/meta

The cooler ends of the filament are emitting light and IR at intensity levels relevant to their cooler surface temperature.  This means, that if we carefully placed heat mirrors around the original filament we could re-use the IR energy to send back from the hotter parts of the filament to the cooler parts of the filament, to increase the uniformity of temperature of the filament.

This means that we would increase the temperature of the cooler parts using recycled energy from the hotter parts and in so doing, would increase the brightness of the cooler part of the filament to be more in line with the hotter parts, without increasing the electrical usage.  This gives more light for the same power.  This is how improving light output using heat mirrors work.

There have been unsuccessful attempts at doing this in the past.  An unsuccessful example is the Duro-Test, which failed firstly because its IR heat mirror is reflecting in a globular fashion which is sending heat back not to the centre where the filament is, because to do that you would need parabolic reflectors.  This means that energy is missing the filament.

Also, the reflector is sending heat back not only to the filament but to all the component parts connecting to the filament.  This creates problems as those materials will break and crack and cause the filament to dislodge, which is the problem these bulbs used to suffer from.

Note the error in the websites explanation if you follow the link, sending IR back to a heat source doesn’t cause it to get hotter, the efficiency improvement when using heat mirrors comes from increasing the temperature of the cooler parts of the filament so that they are uniform with the hotter parts, which is the cause of increased brightness related to heat mirrors and incandescent filaments.

Now I have received comments from stupid ignorant people in the past, saying things like, if you covered a light bulb in aluminium foil the resistance of the filament increases meaning that the temperature has risen.  NO!  What is happening is the peak temperature is the same, but the temperature of the cooler parts has risen, this is why the resistance reading has increased YOU DIMWITTED ALARMISTS!

Light Recycling to Increase Brightness

The extracts below in Bold Italic I found on the internet explains light recycling perfectly.

“Imagine one part of the solid angle reflected through the source as shown in Figure 1. Direct light and recycled light are superposed in the same phase space, because they come from the same location. The lamp appears to shine more brightly.”

http://spie.org/newsroom/0463-light-recycling-contributes-to-brightness-in-filament-lamps?SSO=1

“The total radiance of the lamp, however, has not changed. In fact, the amount of light emitted is reduced by the quantity absorbed by the source during the transit of the reflected light.”

“We define the geometrical recycling factor ξ as that fraction of the emitted light from a surface element that returns to the source, with the assumption of Lambertian emittance. In this sense, light recycling is a purely geometrical phenomenon.”

In this study it was also found that the temperature of the filament remained constant between the inside and outside of the coil, yet the brightness of light from the inside of the coil was 30{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} brighter due this recycling effect.

“The brightness distribution of the filament in operation is shown in a photographic negative in Figure 3. Dark gray means high brightness. Clearly, the brighter parts of the coil, which lie within, are subject to geometrical light recycling. Note, however, that temperatures outside and inside the wire are nearly equal due to high conductivity thinness (0.1mm). Intensified brightness could not result from temperature differences.”

“Our model predicts spectral radiance in good agreement with measurements, as indicated in Figure 4 The light originating from inside the coil is approximately 30{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} brighter than the light from the surfaces on the outside of the coil. There is a significant dependence of the material properties on wavelength.”

I find this interesting because the study above replicated the findings of a much earlier study conducted in 1917 as indicated below.

“The intensity of the radiation from within the turn of the helix is from 90 to 100 per cent greater than from a similar area on the outside of the turn. This is accounted for on the basis of multiple reflection within the helix. This modifies the quality of the light so that it is redder than the light from the outside of the turn.”

 “There is no indication that the temperature within the helix is higher than on the outside of the turn. A difference in temperature of 200 would be required to account for the observed difference in brightness of 90 per cent, whereas pyrometric, thermal conductivity and other measurements place this temperature difference at less than 5.”

Washington, December 27, 1916

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/bulletin/14/nbsbulletinv14n1p115_A2b.pdf

Yes, that’s right, light recycling was known about in 1917, and that brightness could be increased without any temperature rise at all.

Yet, for some god-forsaken reason, the outright liars and deceivers of the carbon alarmist movement, like to pretend to the whole world, even themselves, that the smallest slightest irradiance back from a trace gas, will have devastating runaway heating consequences for the entire planet.  In short, they are all full of BS.

And if two examples wasn’t enough, have a third.

“Light recycling involves recirculating part of the emitted light through the source repeatedly and extracting the reflected or transmitted light in the same space phase as the originally emitted light, resulting in a brightness enhancement at a reduced solid angle compared with systems without light recycling.”

https://d-nb.info/982573987/34

This is a very comprehensive study into the effects of light recycling and how to induce it using parabolic reflectors arranged into a carambolic star shape.  The study goes onto explain light recycling in detail.

“The radiance theorem states that it is impossible to increase the radiance of light by means of passive optical devices. This seems intuitively right because the spectral radiance is connected to temperature. Any increase of the radiance would imply an increase in temperature and therefore violate the second law of thermodynamics.”

“Is it possible to increase the brightness of the source higher than the intrinsic brightness via light recycling?”  “The answer is yes! This does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics, because light recycling reduces the irreversible entropy production inherent to the radiation process.”

By this, what is meant is that the total output has reduced slightly remains, but some of the absorbed energy has offset the emitted energy, and brightness has increased due to reflection entering the same phase space as the original energy as shown in figure 1 previously.

This is only possible, because tungsten has a much lower emissivity than 1, if the emissivity of tungsten was 1, there would be no possibility of light recycling and reflected light wouldn’t increase brightness because the amount absorbed would exactly match the amount emitted, total output would remain the same and so nothing would occur.  It would be a waste of time and energy.  However, because tungsten emits with an emissivity less than 1, the difference between black body unity 1 and the emissivity of tungsten at high temperatures at roughly 0.3 means that it is possible to add reflected light, to this 0.3 emissive light, to boost light output (because of the reflective portion) to be more than 0.3.

This diagram illustrates from this same study illustrates this.

And the drawing below explains the process more directly.

“Principle of light recycling. A source (non-black body) emits light in all directions. Assume that part of the light is reflected back to the source with an absorptivity less than unity. Part of the returned light escapes absorption and re-emerges from the source and is superimposed into the same phase space as radiation directly emitted by the source, leading to an increased brightness in this phase space. As a downside of this principle, the total luminous flux is reduced by the amount absorbed.”

The radiation being emitted from the light source after recycling is not only brighter, it is hotter also, which makes perfect sense.  Because if we say, held our hands up to the radiation after it had been reflected back to the heat source, we would be receiving more energy than without the reflection.  If the emitter was a black body, no increase in brightness or temperature of the emitted energy would occur.

In essence the effective emissivity has risen if light recycling is utilised.  This effect would fool an inexperienced person, whom was using a remote IR reader to think the temperature of the filament has increased, it has not, only the radiation at the receiver has increased, due to the reflected portion of light.

So, now we know how light recycling works and how this shows Greenhouse Effect to be a non-sense.  If back radiation caused an increase in temperature, light recycling would be impossible, because the filament would simply heat up and melt, becoming unusable and therefore any increases in light output would not be possible.   The thing is, light recycling is real and the BS talk of the Frizzle Frazzle, twaddle talking Carbon Alarmists, is all lies.


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.

 

Comments (17)

  • Avatar

    John Harrison

    |

    Geraint. I think I detect a note of desperation in this item judging by the over-complex hypotheses accompanied by a dearth of observational data. and a large dose of vitriolic abuse aimed at those who have the audacity not to agree with you. Again you resort, in your desperation, to putting your very own opinion on what those who recognise and acknowledge the slight if not insignificant. effect that back-radiation may have on global temperatures. Your interpretation has little or no relation to what is actually being proposed and I find that somewhat disingenuous. Instead of all this business with lamp filaments, reflectors etc, forget about that because all you are trying to prove is that reflected or back-radiation cannot directly raise the temperature of a surface but every worthwhile scientist, sadly I must also include climate scientists, is already fully aware of this. You are not countering the actual proposition which is that back-radiation redu es the cooling rate of the Earth’s surface after being warmed during the day. Increasing the amount of back-radiation simply further reduces the cooling rate. Depending on the time scales involved in the various processes this could, in theory, result in surface temperatures being higher than they would otherwise have been at the start of the next day when a new cycle commences. Try a considerably more simple experiment than your lamp filament set-ups. One which you can try yourself in a few minutes. Place two similar plates facing one another with different starting temperatures and monitor the cooling rate of the hottest plate. Next raise the temperature of the the cooler plate such that its temperature is still below that of the hotter plate which is then allowed to cool from the same starting temperature as in the previous experiment. The hotter plate, which is now receiving more “back-radiation” from the cooler plate will, you will observe, cool more slowly. The explanation is obvious as is its analogy to the increased “back-radiation” from higher GHG concentrations in the atmosphere reducing the cooling rate of the Earth’s surface. Now can we put an end to this nonsense and concentrate on important factors.

    • Avatar

      Geaint Hughes

      |

      John Harrison, you are clearly full of crap. No-one gives a damn what liars like you think. Con-artists will get their come upance, Jail is the sentence all Climate Alarmists deserve.

      • Avatar

        John Harrison

        |

        Geraint. Not exactly a scientific rebuttal then? I thought I had made it quite clear that I do not, by any means, subscribe to the ridiculous arguments proposed by alarmists in their CAGW hype which is based, almost entirely, upon computer programs which have been compiled by climate alarmists. If the outputs bore any resemblance to reality I might be prepared to pay some attention. However, this hype needs to be contradicted using sound science arguments; yours aren’t sound but there are a wealth of alternatives. Being abusive puts you down to the same level as many alarmist responses when somebody disagrees with them and is not helpful.

        • Avatar

          Geraint Hughes

          |

          John Harrison,

          I show you contempt, because that is what you deserve. You think CO2 has some natural property which reduces the “rate of cooling” do you? Eh? You bang your head today did you?

          Where is the “reduction in the rate of cooling?” resulting in warmer temperatures. Here is simple proof, watch the video. Where is it? Go on, where is it? The answer is….. ITS NOT THERE. The filament cools. There is no warming as a result of reduced rate of cooling. Anyone who then argues that this is what CO2 does after seeing this, is “FULL OF CRAP!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgjT_665T6U

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        John Harrison refuses to learn.

        He continues to push the false idea that back-radiation can “slow the cooling”. That’s not how things work. The photons from the atmosphere may not even be absorbed.

        But, it gets worse.

        John Harrison goes on to state: “Depending on the time scales involved in the various processes this could, in theory, result in surface temperatures being higher than they would otherwise have been at the start of the next day when a new cycle commences.”

        So now, John Harrison has the fictitious “slowed cooling” transformed into “higher temperatures”.

        Pure pseudoscience.

        • Avatar

          John Harrison

          |

          Geran. “Photons from the atmosphere may not even be absorbed” That is a pretty desperate call and so wrong. Will the Earth’s surface only absorb incident photons provided they don’t come from the atmosphere? Do these photons come with particular markers so the can be recognised as unwelcome?And you accuse me of peddling pseudoscience. Dear me; I have to say I am not at all impressed with the quality of science peddled by yourself and Geraint. If yours is the true science the heaven help us: I think I would stick with my pseudoscience as it makes a great deal more sense.

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Harrison, are you telling me you don’t know that photons have “particular markers”?

            No wonder you’re not impressed when someone tries to help you. You don’t even know enough to understand the basics!

            Geran. “Photons from the atmosphere may not even be absorbed” That is a pretty desperate call and so wrong. Will the Earth’s surface only absorb incident photons provided they don’t come from the atmosphere? Do these photons come with particular markers so the can be recognised as unwelcome?And you accuse me of peddling pseudoscience. Dear me; I have to say I am not at all impressed with the quality of science peddled by yourself and Geraint. If yours is the true science the heaven help us: I think I would stick with my pseudoscience as it makes a great deal more sense.

  • Avatar

    richard

    |

    Kind of obvious really, if I give you ten pence and you return it to me ……….. and on and on……..

    • Avatar

      John Harrison

      |

      Richard. Not a bad analogy but it is more like:- I’ll give you 100p then you give me back 90p then I give you 80p of which you give me back 70p etc and so my wealth diminishes rapidly. However if it was a case of:- I give you 100p then you give me back 95p then I give you 90p and you give me back 85p etc. The my wealth still diminishes but more slowly and within a given time period I might finish up with a little more cash than I did before. Not by any means a perfect analogy but you get the idea.

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Plates ; filaments and blankets….
    They are solids.
    CO2 is a gas.
    Is it not true that when CO2 absorbs IR it thermalizes; expands and rises?
    And… thus is a coolant. No?

    • Avatar

      John Harrison

      |

      Al. There is some confusion in your arguments. When a CO2 molecule absorbs a LWIR photon its internal energy is raised by the photon causing changes in the vibrational mode of the atoms in the molecule (let’s call this activation). In this instance the translational kinetic energy of the molecule, and hence its temperature, remains unchanged. How thermalisation is supposed proceed from this in the atmosphere is a puzzle to me as when an activated molecule returns to its lower energy state by emitting a LWIR photon, the N2 and O2 molecules are supposed to be transparent these photons. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. The CO2 molecules are kept fairly well evenly distributed by the Brownian motion arising from molecular collisions with N2 and O2. If by some means they could coalesce then that mass of CO2 formed would sink unless there was an impossibly large temperature difference between that mass of CO2 and the remainder of the atmosphere.

  • Avatar

    Geraint Hughes

    |

    Concepts such as “The Truth” get in the way of Carbon Taxes, “Fake” climate research and the public media scam, so it is pushed aside and ignored. Zero tolerance of the alarmist lies is required and all Countries need to be urged to withdraw from Paris Climate Change treaty and to state that they are doing so out of disgust as being lied to by BS Alarmists scientists.

  • Avatar

    Shawn Marshall

    |

    A direct experiment (in a building to shield all other incident radiation) disproving the back radiation effect of CO2 is easily designed. Have posted it before but it gets deleted. Then no one has to understand any physics or thermo. Nothing left to argue about.

  • Avatar

    Steve Titcombe

    |

    Apologies for the rogue “20.25” figure – I intended it to be read as 2^0.25 (but I edited my reply in Word and used the superscript font for the 0.25 when I should have remembered to use the ^ exponent symobol instead).

    And to explain that figure further for those that might be confused: if the radiant exitance (as W/m^2) from a blackbody is doubled, then it isn’t necessary for the temperature of that blackbody surface to have been doubled to achieve this increase, but instead it’s only necessary to increase the temperature by a factor of 2^0.25 (due to the T^4 in the S-B law).

Comments are closed

Share via