Select the OCM.html file to run it now, or download the OCMdemo.zip file.
This article, Energy and Atmosphere, looks at the energy dynamics of the Earth's atmosphere. Since the role of radiative
gasses has become a political issue that is undermining the stability of industrial
economies and denying the many benefits of cheap and reliable energy to billions of people, the
precise nature of the energy dynamics of our atmosphere has become a trillion dollar question.
It shows a new derivation for the adiabatic temperature lapse rate in the atmosphere.
It also points to a possible explanation for why the Earth's water thermostat cuts in so suddenly at 30 Cº.
The IPCC and the Carbon Cycle
We are told by the IPCC that CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are causing atmospheric CO2 levels to rise and that these are causing global warming. Of the two links in this chain of reasoning this article addresses the first.
I show that the IPCC view of the carbon cycle is fundamentally flawed in many ways, and is not supportable at any meaningful level of confidence. This is not esoteric science to be left to specialists or ‘great minds’. Any numerate person who cares to look and think can understand the insignificance of our total industrial era CO2 emissions at less than 1% of the carbon cycle and our annual emissions at just 5% of the air-sea fluxes.
The article Radiative Delay in Context challenges a core assumption of the contemporary climate science consensus, that the Greenhouse (or Radiative Delay) Effect is the sole mechanism by which the Earth's atmosphere raises the Earth's surface temperature above that which would exist without an atmosphere.
In it I show that the Radiative Delay heating of the atmosphere is negligible, and a well established alternative mechanism arising from atmospheric buffering over the diurnal temperature cycle is capable of producing the temperatures we experience.
The role of Carbon Dioxide is shown to be negligible.
Science and technology have never been under greater pressure to come up with some new source of cheap, clean energy than they
are today. Not surprisingly, then, we have a renewed interest in Einstein’s hypothesis, subsequently verified, that physical mass
could be converted to energy – hence nuclear energy.
The extreme nature of this process has become common knowledge. A large power station can use as little as a gram of matter per day.
Also common knowledge is the fact that there are two quite different approaches to tapping this energy source: fission and
fusion – fission being the splitting of large atomic nuclei and fusion the merging of two light nuclei.
Fission has been producing reliable energy for many decades and has, when in competent hands, a relatively good track record
of safety – relative, that is, to comparable industrial activities. Would I live next to a fission plant?
Well, not if I could help it, even though recent evidence suggests that low levels of radioactivity may be good for the health.
But then I’m a self-indulgent, middle-class westerner with plenty of choices and a penchant for green open spaces.
Half a century should have been long enough for the fission industry to establish credentials as cheap and clean.
Has it? Costings of existing plant are uncertain because almost none of the waste has been permanently secured
– a serious problem when we have no idea that ‘secure’ will mean a century, let alone a millennium, into the future.
Complicating this is the need to re-process present wastes to produce fuel when stocks of uranium run low.
Other costs, such as the diversion of fuel into weapons, are incalculable – particularly if nuclear energy is to become widely
available. Rapid expansion of the industry also faces serious problems of skills and materials shortages.
One possible hope for expansion of the fission industry is the current development of small-scale, sealed reactors.
These are planned as maintenance-free, trucking container sized units that
can be sealed, delivered, buried then reclaimed thirty odd years later for refuelling. The small size decreases unit cost
efficiency but this may be more than offset by mass production. With a little ingenuity and cost these could be made tamper-proof,
or at least tamper-aware so that timely protective action can be taken. Another possibility is use of the thorium fuel cycle.
What then of fission’s Cinderella sister – fusion? The only seriously funded contender here is plasma fusion – an attempt to
recreate the conditions of extreme temperatures and pressures found inside the sun in a magnetic bottle (or fiasco).
For the last forty or fifty years researchers have been saying that success is forty or fifty years away.
Plug those numbers into a risk formula and it will tell you there’s Buckley’s chance. A closer examination suggests that
the situation might not be so bad. Over that period of time the goal-posts have shifted. In the 50s the goal of creating
a stable plasma with a high enough temperature to observe some fusion events was an ambitious one and almost beyond speculation.
To a speculation-weary mind, the next step to commercial power would have seemed relatively straight-forward.
That initial goal has been largely achieved – but not simply or cheaply. If the problems that have been encountered along
the way had been anticipated the effort might never have been undertaken. In the mean time the problem of ramping up to
commercial power levels has escalated, or come into sharper focus, and the goal of cheap reliable power is still highly
Should the efforts be continued? I think definitely, yes. Even discounting the possibility of cheap power, the knowledge
that has been accumulated about a new form of matter has been meaningful, interesting and useful, which is more than can
be said for the expensive international race for ever larger particle accelerators.
Are there other contenders for fusion technology? Here the issue becomes even more complex and controversial.
Simply put, the goal of nuclear fusion is to get the nuclei of two hydrogen atoms to combine to form a helium nucleus
which has a slightly lower mass than two hydrogen nuclei – the excess mass being released as energy.
This reaction doesn’t proceed readily. There is a barrier to cross – a barrier that is both physical and psychological,
and perhaps even ideological.
When Einstein showed that the energy of matter could only take certain specific values (was quantised) he opened a window
into the world of the atom and below. By the mid 1920s mathematical equations had been constructed that could accurately
predict the values of these energy levels and their stability.
These equations describe waves and vibrations but give no direct pointer to what, if anything, is actually waving or vibrating.
The most obvious candidate comes from Einstein’s theory of relativity. It says about matter that it bends or distorts space
and that it is directly interchangeable with energy. A small speculative jump gives us matter as bent space with the associated
energy just that needed to do the bending. Quantum Mechanics (QM) suggests vibrations, so we end up with a sub-atomic particles
such as our hydrogen nuclei being vibrations of space. QM also indicates that transitions happen when the vibrations are
synchronised or resonant. The barrier to fusion can now be seen as a lack of resonance – the particles are ‘out of synch’.
Vibration and resonance are ubiquitous in nature. A simple examples are a pendulum or child’s swing. A series of small pushes
can build up the energy of the swing if they are synchronised to the movement of the swing. Too much ‘excitation’ and the child
is flung off the swing, so we quickly place a swimming pool in position to catch them and note the splash produced from the
excess energy of the fall. Alternatively we can imagine two trapeze artists building up their swing until they can reach each
other in the centre of the circus tent – but only if their swings are synchronised. A thin elastic band connecting the swings
could help synchronise the swings – absorbing energy one moment then letting it out the next – acting as a catalyst.
Eventually our trapeze artists will meet in mid air, clasp each other and be united. If they both let go of the swings they
will fall together to the safety net below and the energy of the fall will be dissipated in vibrations of the net.
What our two hydrogen nuclei need, then, is something that will nudge or finesse them into synch then remove the excess
energy so that it doesn’t break the pairing up again – the catalyst. Hot fusion relies on chance for synchronisation. In a hot,
dense plasma particles collide often and some will be in synch. Excess energy is removed by the emission of another particle
such as a photon of light.
The big question, then, is any other approach possible? There are comparable QM transitions. In a laser (Light Amplification
by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation) an excited atom in an intense light beam is coaxed into dropping to a lower energy
level by the vibrations of the light to produce a new photon that adds to (amplifies) the beam.
In the 1950s it was predicted that the muon, a particle much like an electron but with over 200 times the mass, could act as
a catalyst for fusion. This was soon verified experimentally. The catch was that muons are expensive to produce and, though
they are not used up in the reactions, they have a short life span. The reaction does, however, provide a proof of concept
because the reaction happens at temperatures much lower than necessary for plasma fusion.
The question then becomes: are there cheaper alternatives to muons? In metal crystals the metal atoms are arranged in regular
arrays and some of the electrons are free to move about, which is what allows them to conduct electricity. Groups of electrons
can synchronise and these clusters can, in QM, be seen as particles in their own right. These particles can potentially have
the mass of millions of electrons.
Metals can also absorb hydrogen which forms regular arrays in between the metal atoms. In the 1980s, QM calculations suggested
that these might form flat resonant sheets of matter within the crystal. Here adjacent hydrogen nuclei are already synchronised
and the large synchronised sheet can potentially act as the catalyst. One metal, in particular, absorbs hydrogen readily:
palladium. Now if we look beside the road we have followed we see a battered and bullet-holed sign saying ‘Cold Fusion Was Here’.
Respectable, orthodox physicists quickly avert their eyes and cross themselves nervously repeating a few grave incantations:
‘Nuclear fusion in a test-tube? Impossible! It needs high temperatures. It must produce high energy photons or other particles.
We’ve seen so in plasma fusion. That’s how it happens in the sun.’
For a couple of electro-chemist interlopers to suddenly appear centre stage in the Physics tent and put on a poorly rehearsed
performance was too much to bear. They were jeered off the stage and pelted with the academic equivalent of rotten eggs. Overnight
reviews condemned. Cautious reviewers procrastinated. The act went underground. In retrospect, pushing for large scale energy
production – even test-tube scale – was probablty too ambitious. A more conventional approach would be to attempt to set up and
observe single fusion events in an appropriate solid lattice and scale from there. Metals may not be the best place to start.
There are plenty of regualar structures in nature that exhibit large-scale quantum resonance – even structures in the cells of
our bodies. Carbon nanotubes provide a strong, regular structure with interesting electrical properties.
One intriguing possibility for this Lattice Catalysed Fusion is the direct transfer of energy to electrons in the lattice and, hence, the possibility of direct and efficient production of electrical energy. Quick results are unlikely but the potential benefits are too great to be ignored.
This is a personal view of the political nature of the CO2 scare from an environmentalist who has watched on in dismay at the extreme politicisation of the environment. I watched the takeover of the environment movement since the 1970s by the extreme left acting with motives that have nothing to do with reducing our environmental impact.
Moving forward we see the actions of the totalitarian left in the United Nations and associated NGOs forming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and how this has perverted the already corrupted nexus between science and public policy.