A Profitable Discharge of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle
Posted by Nasif S. Nahle, February 19th, 2011 - under News, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
Abstract
OSRAM is one of the leading manufacturers of light bulbs in the world. They claim their OSRAM Tungsten light bulb is an “ecological” lamp3 because of a reduction in losses due to thermal radiation.
In particular, they claim that due to a sophisticated coating on the bulb the thermal (infrared) radiation is reflected and the heat emitted from the filament is reflected back to the filament. As a result, the filament is heated further. This means that less electrical energy has to be supplied to the filament.
This is the equivalent argument used by proponents of the man-made global warming hypothesis, that is that a cooler system (the atmosphere) can reflect radiation back and heat up a warmer system (the Earth’s surface).
These claims violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Scientific analysis, not of the misleading marketing blurb from OSRAM, but of the physical Tungsten light bulb, however, show that there is no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Nature behaves as she always does, even in the case of these artificial devices.
Introduction
The second law can be expressed in several ways, but all of them coincide with a common meaning, i.e. an ineludible universal directionality of every process taking place in the Universe.
The way in which the Second Law is expressed depends on what we are considering at a given moment; for example, we could be considering the work done by one system on another system, or the universal entropic directionality, or the process of energy transfer from one system towards another system.
Any of these cases could be the most suitable explanation; however, with respect to the unalterable directionality which leads every process and phenomenon, this definition is the one granted by quantum mechanics1, 2. The context provided by quantum mechanics for the Second Law of Thermodynamics deepens further the gap between pseudoscience and real science.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is enunciated as follows:
“The energy is always dispersed or diffused towards the system or systems with more available microstates.”1
This law applies to every thermodynamic system and to any place in the known universe. Additionally, it considers every association and every contextual function derived from the main statement. For example, we apply this concept to gas diffusion, chemical reactions, biotic processes, work, pressure, etcetera, etcetera.
Bearing this statement in mind, let us examine the Tungsten light bulb that, allegedly, beats this universal law.
Antecedents
OSRAM says that its innovative Tungsten light bulb will provide the benefit of
- A reduction in losses due to thermal radiation (IRC):
Special bulb geometry and a sophisticated coating on the bulb ensure that the thermal (infrared) radiation is reflected and the heat emitted from the filament is reflected back to the filament. As a result the filament is heated further. This means that less electrical energy has to be supplied to the filament. This technology is used for all low-voltage ECO lamps (12 V) because of the optimum geometric conditions 3
And that the consumer will also take advantage from
- A reduction in the thermal losses via the filler gas (xenon):
As the size (mass and diameter) of the gas atoms increases, the thermal conductivity of the filler gas decreases. By using the appropriate lamp filler gas, the heat loss of the tungsten filament via the gas can be reduced. This means that less electrical energy is needed to heat the filament. In addition, the use of a filler gas with atoms as heavy as possible slows down the vaporization of the tungsten atoms from the filament. This prolongs the life of the lamps. Xenon is an extremely rare gas (making up only 0.0000087% of the atmosphere, or 0.087 ppm). Of all the inert gases, xenon best meets these requirements. Despite the high cost we therefore use xenon as the filler gas in al (sic) the OSRAM ECO lamps.3
Scientific Analysis
The first assertion gives us the main characteristics of the lamp:
It has a Tungsten (W, from Latin Wolframium pertaining to “wolf foam”) filament, which is energized by fast unidirectional electrons and is the source of energy for the lamp, and a “special” geometry of the bulb. Additionally, the inner surface of the bulb is layered with a “sophisticated coating”3.
The second description says that the fluorescent gas inside the bulb is Xenon (Xe). 3
What is the “special” geometry of the bulb? From the picture of the product, the bulb’s “special” geometry is that of a paraboloidal integrating mirror; nothing “special” about this particular characteristic which has been exploited for many years in integrating mirror reflectometers, which are highly advantageous over spherical mirrors when the energy source is low.4, 5
Paraboloidal integrating mirrors concentrate the radiation onto a given focal point that is accurately determined by the angle of curvature of the bulb5, which, for this case, works in a similar way to a TV parabolic antenna as it concentrates the reflected quantum/waves (visible, IR, UV, radio) onto a receptor (focal point) that is built in front of the paraboloidal antenna’s surface. Magnifying glasses also work in this way, but work by refracting radiation.
In OSRAM Tungsten light bulbs, the focal point upon which the radiation is concentrated is the Tungsten filament. We, therefore, have the first explanation on the overheating of the Tungsten filament:
It is not warmed up by a colder system inside the bulb, but by IR quantum/waves reflected towards the Tungsten filament by the “special coating” covering the inner surface of the paraboloidal integrating mirror bulb.
Now, does the Tungsten filament have the ability to absorb the reflected IR quantum/waves and reach a higher temperature? The answer is: Yes, Tungsten (W), in pure form, is the metal that has the highest melting point, and it is 3422 °C6. In addition, of all pure metals, Tungsten has the lowest coefficient of thermal expansion7, which is 4.3 x 10-6 m/m K. Consequently, the Tungsten filament can reach very high temperatures, if and only if its internal energy is lower than the reflected emission.
We have seen that the reflected radiation is concentrated on the Tungsten filament by the “sophisticated geometry” of the bulb; the energy reflected by the “special coating” and sent towards the Tungsten filament (the focal point) is, therefore, higher than the energy of the filament. Consequently, the energy in the OSRAM Tungsten light bulb is dispersed from a Tungsten surface in a higher energy state (the point where the radiation is concentrated) to the remaining structure of the filament where the molecules are in an energetically lower state.
The filament will not absorb reflected radiation beyond its limited and limiting available microstates, while the walls will not reflect radiation outgoing from the filament above their reflectance coefficient. Furthermore, the Tungsten filament will not emit radiation beyond its total emissivity power at maximum temperature. Remember that the Tungsten filament is not a blackbody and it does not behave like a blackbody.
So, there is not any violation to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Additionally, the second characteristic of the Tungsten light bulb refers to its content, which OSRAM says is Xenon (Xe). What OSRAM does not specify is that the noble gas Xenon inside the light bulb can be excited by the energy released by the Tungsten filament and transformed into ephemeral Xe dimers, i.e. Xe2.
The noble gas Xenon was first used in strobe lights for high speed photography, but was soon playing an important role in the manufacture of other devices, such as halogen lamps, nuclear reactors, lasers, etcetera.
After receiving a load of energy from the Tungsten filament, the over-energized Xenon fills its outer shell of electrons by taking an electron from a neighboring atom and forms a dimer, which is called an excimer.
After ~3 ns, the excimer returns to its energetic ground state and the absorbed energy is released towards other atoms and the Tungsten filament8. Nevertheless, each ~3 ns, the environment surrounding the Tungsten filament gets warmer than the Tungsten filament8. Consequently, we have again the same case of the reflected and concentrated radiation, i.e. the energy is transferred from a system with a higher energy density towards other systems with a lower energy density.
What we are seeing here is the same process that occurs in auroras, that is, a current of plasma. The plasma created by Xe excimers reaches an energy density that could be 1000 times higher than that of the source of photons9, that is, than the energy density of the Tungsten filament.
To avoid the light bulb overheating and exploding, OSRAM has integrated a resistor, to control the energy transferred to the Tungsten filament, and small magnetic ballasts, integrated in one or both extremes of the light bulb, to absorb the bulk of the excess of heat produced during the functioning of the lamp.
That is how the OSRAM “ECO-lamp” works. We do not see here any violation to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Conclusions
First of all, we notice an incorrect statement in the opening argument from the OSRAM technical description of its Tungsten light bulb.
The first effect of warming of the Tungsten filament is produced by concentrating IR quantum/waves onto the surface of the Tungsten filament, which is caused by a paraboloidal integrating mirror bulb within which the Tungsten filament is placed.
After the focal spot on the Tungsten filament’s surface is heated up, the energy transfer occurs to the remaining molecules of the Tungsten filament, which are energetically “colder” than the focal spot.
Once the Tungsten filament warms up, it starts emitting more radiation toward the volume of “normal” Xe inside the bulb, the “normal” Xe becomes excited and is transformed into an excimer, formed by two atoms of Xe (Xe2), which reaches an energy density state that is higher than that of the Tungsten filament and establishes a plasma current that transfers energy towards the Tungsten filament, i.e. from a warmer system (Xe2) towards the colder system (the Tungsten filament).
There is NOT any violation to the Second Law of Thermodynamics going on inside OSRAM Tungsten ECO-lamps.
In trying to convince potential clients of the ecological benefits of its product, OSRAM presents a misleading explanation that could be wrongly interpreted as a “violation to the Second Law of Thermodynamics”. In fact, as I have demonstrated, this is not what happens in either OSRAM lamps, or in the climate system, nor anywhere in the observable universe.
References
- Lambert, Frank L. Entropy Is Simple, Qualitatively. J. Chem. Educ., 2002, 79 (10), p 1241.
- http://entropysite.oxy.edu
- http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Professionals/General_Lighting/Halogen_lamps/Technologies/HALOGEN_ECO_technology/index.html
- Fried, Michael N. and Unguru, Sabetai. Apollonius of Perga’s Conica. 2001. Koninklijke. Netherlands.
- Modest, Michael F. Radiative Heat Transfer-Second Edition. 2003. Elsevier Science, USA and Academic Press, UK.
- http://www.chemicool.com/elements/tungsten.html
- http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/thexp.html
- Salvermoser, M. and Murnick, D. E. High-efficiency, High-Power, Stable 172 nm Xenon Excimer Light Source. Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, Page 1932 (2003).
- Suplee, Curt. The Plasma Universe. 2009. Division of Plasma Physics of the American Physical Society. Cambridge University Press. NY.
By Nasif S. Nahle
University Professor, Scientist and Director of Scientific Research Division at Biology Cabinet, Mexico
@Val Majkus and All…
Please, read the complete data sheet of the pyrgeometer. Page 12 contains very intersting information and graphs.
@ all…
Here again the information manual:
http://www.wittich.nl/NL/PDF/HANDLEIDINGEN/straling-licht/pyrgeometers/Manual_CGR4.pdf
Page 25 is revealing because it informs us about the field of view of the pyrgeometer, which is 180 °. I told Luke, some messages above, that the device gives lectures of 0 W/m^2 when it is pointed to the sky at an angle of 0° and it’s true. That’s why the manufacturers must what extend the angle of reception to the 180 °. What pyrgeometer it is catching is the hemispherical lateral and diagonal radiation, not the “backradiation” or any downwelling radiation. This is prevented by the radiation pressure and the induced emission.
Nasif – don’t bunk on what your data sheet off the shelf tells you. Tell us about what the serious scientists are using.
You’re not on home hacker hour here mate – this is serious science.
“Fifteen pyregeometers including eight standard Eppley PIRs, six PMOD WRC modified PIRs, and one Kipp and Zonen CG4 pyrgeometer were compared with an Absolute Sky-scanning Radiometer (ASR), with Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) measurements and with radiative-transfer model calculations. Night time inter-comparisons have shown average pyrgeometers long-wave radiance measurements, AERI, and model calculations to agree within 1-2 W/m2 with ASR absolute measurements.” WOW !!!
“The calibration of the ASR is based on a reference blackbody source traced to absolute temperature standards”
@Luke…
Heh! I like your style.
It is just that your friend SoD was giving false numbers for the “downwelling radiation” and I show the data sheet of my pyrgeometer to show that he was not saying truth.
By the way, tell Kipp & Zonen that their pyrgeometer is not serious science.
Your copied information is good, it is a very good pyrgeometer. The problem is that you have not provided any real number to demonstrate what you’re arguing.
The copied information of your “preferred” device says that the accuracy is 1-2 W/m^2 according to their models; however, neither you neither the authors have provided real numbers; for example, an accuracy of 1-2 W/m^2… against what real values? It could be, 12 W/m^2 plus/minus 1-2 W/m^2.
Now, tell me, what the angle of view of the device is?
Well Nasif you see – devices plural – but seems they’re into multiple angle scans. Azimuth and zenith. The olde Gaussian Quadrature Integration.
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-40-15-2376
Knock yourself out. You should look up Rolf and his mates life’s work. Plenty in GRL. You can even email him and tell him where he’s been going wrong.
@Luke…
And your numbers?
@Luke…
You told me it is “serious science” and I liked your phrase; however, you have not provided real numbers, real measurements. None, void, null…
I have real numbers from real measurements. Now tell me your numbers so I could compare your numbers with my numbers. That’s an important part of the scientific methodology, repeatability.
Luke
I think we are making some progress.
….”Bryan sez – “Heat is the vector difference of the two IR fluxes”. If you mean NET effect we can stop arguing !”……..
I would not argue with that, how about this formulation?
The net effect of the two radiative fluxes is what we call HEAT and it always moves from higher to lower temperature.
……”The new absolute sky-scanning radiometer (ASR) allows absolute measurements of atmospheric long-wave radiation and is suggested as a future reference standard for pyrgeometer field calibration.”……
The important point to note here is that as yet there is no internationally recognised standard for such measurements.
All that has happened here is that several pyrgeometers supplied by different users have been brought to one place and pointed skyward at night then adjusted against the reference to make sure that they all give the same reading.
Now this is a major step forward undoubtedly.
As I said to you in a previous post prior pyrgeometer results are useless because different pyrgeometers would give alternative readings for the same conditions.
However this method will require even stricter standards to comply with international reference conditions.
Other physical properties independent of the Stephan Boltzmann Equation will have to used so that the fundamental units of final measurement ( Joules,seconds,metres) are not compromised.
I’ve just deleted the last 10 or so comments. Most were completely off topic.
And just to remind everyone: I’ve no problems with people using a single pen name. I don’t approve of ‘sock puppets’. And I don’t like it when people ‘hog’ the thread.
luke, I’ve looked at your paper on pyrgeometer calibration by Philipona; he says:
“The calibration of the ASR is based on a reference blackbody source traced to absolute temperature standards. The pyroelectric detector has no window to prevent thermal and spectral transmission effects. Scanning the sky with a narrow viewing angle and integrating with the Gaussian quadrature, rather than taking hemispherical measurements, prevent errors related to the cosine effect.”
There are a number of uncertainties here; for instance, Gaussian quadrature is a means of approximating values within a domain or area in the instance of LWd which is defined by the cosine values; however this method of approximation is not suitable for functions which have singularities, or in thecaseof LWd, values which have quantum uncertainty; this is described in kuhnkat’s comment to SoD above:
“Now, how about addressing exactly how many of those probability fronts collapse through other functions before getting to the surface? I mean, if the wave doesn’t interact with the surface it won’t become a “photon” to transfer energy to the surface will it? Or are y’all denying that electromagnetic radiation interferes and cancels other electromagnetic radiation especially at the same wavelengths?”
Given this, the problem remains: is the pyrgeometer taking into account this “cancellation” process and, by not doing so, not giving a true estimation of the NET effect of the radiation exchange between the surface and the atmosphere.
“All that has happened here is that several pyrgeometers supplied by different users have been brought to one place and pointed skyward at night then adjusted against the reference to make sure that they all give the same reading.”
Bryan that is NOT what has happened. That is utter rubbish. And it’s 10 years old work. Hardly new. You have no idea about the reference instruments.
Nasif – the error in the ASR worst case is plus/minus 2.15w/m2
At this point the discussion here has become plain silly.
Cohenite – 4 methods – same answer – give it away.
Luke
I said;
All that has happened here is that several pyrgeometers supplied by different users have been brought to one place and pointed skyward at night then adjusted against the reference to make sure that they all give the same reading.
You said;
Hardly new. You have no idea about the reference instruments.
I did not say that the reference was in any way inaccurate.
However let us look at this question now.
We know that black body radiation is a property of cavities.
Why not put the pyrgeometer inside a cavity say an evacuated oven shape with lamp black walls.
Vary the temperature of the cavity walls carefully over say +50C to -50C and note the response of the thermoelectric device.
This calibration would be independent of the Stephan Boltzmann Equation.
Why not follow this simpleproceedure?
Now we are told by IPCC advocates if we point the same pyrgeometer at the ground we will get a graybody CONTINUOUS spectra with emissivity of perhaps 0.95.
We will accept this figure for the moment.
The problem arises when we point the instrument skyward at night .
The night sky only has 0.003% of atmosphere CO2 radiating
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
For H2O on a clear night perhaps 1%
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
For these graphs you can flick between absorption and emission spectra.
If we are to accept the IPCC narative then a very limited line spectra emission for CO2 and H2O from a colder sky has almost the same energy magnitude as continuous warmer Earth surface spectra.
Hopefully you will understand why a number of people think this is nonsense.
@Luke…
From Bryan post… And we would be measuring not a “greenhouse” effect or a solitary “downwelling radiation, but the radiative transport, which, for gases, is calculated taking into account emissivity, absorptivity, emittance, spectral directionality, hemispherical directionality (Earth is not a flat disk), absorptance, transmittance, radiative intensity, absorption coefficient and scattering coefficient.
Directionality is very important to take into account on this kind of assessments. For those reasons, I assured in one of my articles -and still sustain- that the air works like a conveyor (distributor) of heat before it scapes to the cold space, rather than a warmer of the surface.
The deep analysis of devices and their technical specifications, like this one on OSRAM Tungsten light bulbs, avoid that we raise conclusions that deviate from reality.
“Vary the temperature of the cavity walls carefully over say +50C to -50C and note the response of the thermoelectric device.” – mmmmm indeed what a good idea
That’s what the ASR was calibrated against. Then the pyrgeometers calibrated against that calibrated reference. Agreement is excellent. Also compared was an interferometer and radiative-transfer models.
Readings have been taken multi-directionally.
It’s not an “IPCC narrative” – it’s the results of hundreds of energy balance experiments.
I do suggest you read “Sky-Scanning Radiometer for Absolute Measurements of Atmospheric Long-Wave Radiation” ; Rolf Philipona ; Applied Optics, Vol. 40, Issue 15, pp. 2376-2383 (2001)
Luke
Your lead is behind a pay-wall.
Nasif Nahles in the other hand is not.
If you read page 11 it is quite clear that the Stephan Boltzmann equation is being used to calculate the output values.
Well luke, I was waiting for you to respond to Bryan, but since you haven’t and since you assert that pyrgeometer calibration occurs in blackbody cavity conditions you had better read these papers on the difficulties with assumptions about those blackbody conditions:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0805/0805.1625.pdf
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-01.PDF
By way of assistance I direct you to this: “Ample evidence
exists that radiation in arbitrary cavities is sensitive to the relative position of the detectors.”
@Luke…
You say:
Readings have been taken multi-directionally.
Thanks for supporting my argument. I’m saying: 0° >> 0 W/m^2.
That’s the reason for taking multidirectional readings, specially at 90° = 12.5 kg/s^3 at noon. During nightime, it is 0.6 kg/s^3.
Notice that, at noon, it’s ~0.035 times the figure claimed like the “downwelling” radiation that supposedly warms the surface (~349 kg/s^3).
I think you should try radiation transport instead “greenhouse effect by downwelling radiation”. At least, radiation transport is sustained by empirical and observational -both-engineering and radiative heat transfer.
…And the spectral emittance of CO2 is so small that it not even appears in diagrams.
Note: 1 W = 1 ((kg m^2)/(s^3)). Therefore, 1 W/m^2 = 1 ((kg m^2)/(s^3))/(m^2) = kg/s^3.
Start thinking in radiation pressure. I’m almost sure you’ll find it is highly interesting.
By the way, as Bryan has let you know, the article you suggest is protected by a paywall. I won’t pay 35 bucks for reading something that I can observe, daily, in the backyard.
@Cohenite…
Thank you so much for those brilliant papers. I valued the phrase on page two, from Pierre-Marie Robitaille’s article,”…ideal blackbodies do not exist in nature”…
Luke, or SOD,
this is a more serious question about pyrgeometers. Here is the spec sheet for an apparently good quality unit, the CGR4, from Kipp and Zonen. It is designed to be used for atmosphere and has a view angle of 180deg and recommended to be 10 X the distance from an object of any height. Direct exposure to objects black body will seriously bias the reading. Clouds double the reading.
I have two questions, you and others typically claim about 300w/m2 at night and that this is attributable to CO2. On page 26 of:
http://www.azosensors.com/images/Equipments/EquipmentImage_626.jpg
1) this unit lists -250 to +250 w/m2 as its intended range.
2) its spectral sensitivity lists 8-14um as its intended range.
This would put CO2 at 15um outside of the intended use ranges for this unit. In other words it is primarily reading WATER VAPOR!!!
Could you please post the specs for the units you are using? I don’t plan on spending any money to view spec sheets.
By the way, this spec sheet also explains (Page 10)
“However, if the upward and downward components are to be measured separately it is necessary to record the individual housing temperatures to calculate the radiation values.
Using the combination of a net pyrgeometer (two CGR 3 or CGR 4 instruments) and a CMA 6 or CMA 11 albedometer the net total radiation (energy balance) can be calculated with high accuracy from the four component values.”
Amazing how many assumptions about what is being measured are actually built into the instrument.
Luke,
“Anyway back on bulbs don’t forget Eli’s much simpler tin foil bulb or the humble radiation furnace shield – same principle? ”
I think we all understood that Brer Rabbett used tin foil hats to try and keep the brain temp at operational levels unsuccessfully.
I thought this thread was an analysis of the osram light bulb. If I understand the article correctly the author is saying it is not possible for a coating on the inside of the bulb to reflect light back to the filament because the coating is cooler than the filament.
If that understanding is correct, the argument is totally and utterly false. Here is a simple proof. Take a mirror and hold it in front of a switched on light bulb. Does the mirror reflect the light? Assuming your universe is the same as mine the answer is yes. But the mirror is certainly much colder than the filament of the light bulb so by the argument used in the article it could not be reflecting the light (light and heat are both the same electromagnetic energy – simply of different wavelengths).
Of course the mirror reflects all wavelengths both short (light) and long (heat). However that is not necessary, if we use a dichroic mirror (a form of interference filter) we can selectively reflect heat while passing light, I suspect that is what Osram has done.
However this is not new. Tungsten Halogen down lights have been doing this for years. The back of the lamp is coated with a dichroic filter doing the opposite of the filter n the Osram bulbs. It passes heat (long wavelength) while reflecting short wavelengths (light) Thus the light all emerges out the front of the bulb where it is useful while at least part of the heat goes out the back instead of making the people under the ligths hot. And the dichroic coating is far colder than the filament.
By the way, this is NOT the same as the arguemnt about down welling radiation from the atmosphere because in this case the mechanism is reflection whereas in down welling radiation it is due to emission from the atmosphere not by reflection of energy from the surface
@mike hammer…
It seems you didn’t read the article. See what I said:
We have seen that the reflected radiation is concentrated on the Tungsten filament by the “sophisticated geometry” of the bulb; the energy reflected by the “special coating” and sent towards the Tungsten filament (the focal point) is, therefore, higher than the energy of the filament.