Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

ScienceNOW Daily News: The Ozone Layer's Unwelcome Return?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Sam Wormley - 13 Jun 2008 19:11 GMT
The Ozone Layer's Unwelcome Return?
  http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/612/2

By Phil Berardelli
ScienceNOW Daily News
12 June 2008

Once greeted as good news, the recovery of the ozone layer is increasingly seen
as a mixed blessing. In April, researchers found that a healing ozone hole could
amplify global warming by trapping more heat in the atmosphere (ScienceNOW, 24
April). And in tomorrow's issue of Science, climatologists report that ozone
recovery could disrupt wind patterns in the Southern Hemisphere, potentially
leading to a warming of Antarctica. The findings suggest that actions taken by
humans to protect the planet from the harmful effects of solar radiation could
accelerate climate change on the frozen continent.
Ever since most nations signed the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which banned the
manufacture of ozone-destroying chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons, the
fragile ozone layer has been set on a slow path to recovery. The layer's return
to health is estimated to take another 60 years. By then, the so-called ozone
hole should no longer appear over Antarctica every polar spring and persist
until autumn. And the cancer-causing ultraviolet (UV) rays that ozone filters
out of sunlight will largely be blocked from hitting the surface.

But there's a catch. The appearance of the ozone hole actually created a unique
wind pattern called the Southern Annular Mode (SAM), which prevents warmer air
from reaching Antarctica. The pattern results from two competing conditions: a
cooling of the stratosphere, 12 to 50 kilometers above Earth's surface, due to
the depletion of its heat-absorbing ozone layer; and a warming troposphere,
which lies below the stratosphere and which has seen its temperature rise thanks
to greenhouse-gas accumulation.

As the ozone hole recovers, the stratosphere will once again warm up over the
Southern Hemisphere, with unpredictable effects on SAM. In the new study, an
international team of researchers compared standard climate change computer
models with newer versions that take atmospheric chemistry into account. The
comparison showed that ozone-induced stratospheric warming could reduce the role
of SAM in blocking tropical air from migrating to the pole. That's worrisome,
the team says, because the wind pattern affects, among other things, the
Southern Hemisphere's climate, the extent of its sea ice, the variability of its
storm tracks, and its patterns of rainfall and drought.

Monitoring ozone's effects will be critical to making future climate change
predictions, says atmospheric scientist Judith Perlwitz of the University of
Colorado, Boulder. As to how a dwindling SAM will affect Antarctica, Perlwitz
says it's impossible to know exactly what will happen: "We can't draw
conclusions right now."
dlzc - 13 Jun 2008 21:07 GMT
Dear Sam Wormley:

...
> Monitoring ozone's effects will be critical to making
> future climate change predictions, says atmospheric
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> know exactly what will happen: "We can't draw
> conclusions right now."

Don't worry.  The natural decay of ozone with time increases with
increasing temperature, as do all the rate constants for those things
that either catalytically destroy ozone or are consumed by it.  And
additional heating will (eventually) loft more water vapor, further
negatively feeding back.

It is funny though...

David A. Smith
tadchem - 13 Jun 2008 21:36 GMT
> Dear Sam Wormley:
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> David A. Smith

First we are told that the hole in the ozone will destroy the planet,
so we abandon our affordable refrigerants and buy the pricey
"alternatives" because they are not "ozone depleting substances".

A few years pass, the ozone hole doesn't change - it keeps coming and
going like it always has since "Dobson units" were invented - and
everybody forgets about it while "global warming" becomes the great
media and political bogeyman.

Now that it is becoming evident that a lot of respectable scientists
and others didn't drink the Green Kool-Aid, and matured into "global
warming deniers", we need a new bogeyman for the Socialists and ex-
Communists (neo-Fascists all) to use to scare us all and intimidate us
into giving them more power and a lot of money to "solve" the problem
for us.

Why not take the old "ozone layer" and dust it off, make it the new
bogeyman, and plant the seeds of a new paranoia?

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
hanson - 13 Jun 2008 22:22 GMT
On Jun 13, 11:11 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com>
cited in news:qLy4k.152615$TT4.145861@attbi_s22...
<http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/612/2>
" Once greeted as good news, the recovery of the ozone layer/
hole could amplify global warming by trapping more heat in the
atmosphere (ScienceNOW, 24 April). Science, climatologists
report that ozone recovery could disrupt wind patterns in the
Southern Hemisphere, potentially leading to a warming of Antarctica.
The appearance of the ozone hole actually created a unique wind
pattern called the Southern Annular Mode (SAM),  with unpredictable
effects on SAM. That's worrisome... says atmospheric scientist
Judith Perlwitz of the University of Colorado, Boulder: "We can't draw
conclusions right now."

On Jun 13, 4:07 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
Don't worry.  The natural decay of ozone with time increases with
increasing temperature, as do all the rate constants for those things
that either catalytically destroy ozone or are consumed by it.  And
additional heating will (eventually) loft more water vapor, further
negatively feeding back.  It is funny though...   === David A. Smith

"tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote
First we are told that the hole in the ozone will destroy the planet,
so we abandon our affordable refrigerants and buy the pricey
"alternatives" because they are not "ozone depleting substances".

A few years pass, the ozone hole doesn't change - it keeps coming and
going like it always has since "Dobson units" were invented - and
everybody forgets about it while "global warming" becomes the great
media and political bogeyman.

Now that it is becoming evident that a lot of respectable scientists
and others didn't drink the Green Kool-Aid, and matured into "global
warming deniers", we need a new bogeyman for the Socialists and ex-
Communists (neo-Fascists all) to use to scare us all and intimidate us
into giving them more power and a lot of money to "solve" the problem
for us.

Why not take the old "ozone layer" and dust it off, make it the new
bogeyman, and plant the seeds of a new paranoia?

> Tom Davidson, Richmond, VA

hanson wrote:
.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... Don't worry. It's all in the script. It's all
covered and protected by the edicts of the green Bible that says:

Green Genesis:
1 "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, &...
2 "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." --  Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
3 "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
= up on the spot... for the mass-media today... the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.

Revelations:
4 "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
5 "to attract great funding you have to scare the public by making
= things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
= --Petr Chylek, Prof. Atmospheric Sci., Dalhousie Uni, Halifax
6 "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the
= right thing" -- Sen.Tim Wirth, Admin of Ted Turner's $1Billion UN-gift.
7 "No matter if the science is all phony, Climate change [provides]
= equality in the world." -- Christine Stewart, Can. Enviro Minister
8 "It is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presen-
= tations" -- Al Gore, Chairman, Gen. Investment Management Bank

Eric Gisin expressed his vision slightly different. Said Eric:
"f.cking Greens should be shot for making the world so stupid".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.org.sierra-club/msg/5bf027613f44f4fa

Unfortunately, there is no test for stupidity, rationality, nor intelligence
for being a Green sh.t. So, all Greenies pass... happily singeing
their pinko-green L'interantionale:
====  "It's green, green, green
====  on the far side of the hill
====  and when we get the carbon tax
====  life will be greener still...
Thanks for the laughs, y'all... ahaha... ahahahanson
Tunderbar - 13 Jun 2008 22:25 GMT
> On Jun 13, 11:11 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com>
> cited innews:qLy4k.152615$TT4.145861@attbi_s22...
[quoted text clipped - 80 lines]
> ====  life will be greener still...
> Thanks for the laughs, y'all... ahaha... ahahahanson

You know who was involved at center stage in the Great Ozone Layer
Scare? Susan Solomon.

You know who is now involved at high levels of the IPCC on the Great
Global Warming Scare? Susan Solomon.

How many times will she and other activists cry wolf before we all see
it for the fraud it that it is?
Tunderbar - 13 Jun 2008 22:28 GMT
> > "tadchem" <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 95 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Solomon
V for Vendicar - 02 Jul 2008 04:35 GMT
"Tunderbar" <tdcomeau@gmail.com> wrote
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Solomon

Susan Solomon (born 1956 in Chicago)[1] is an atmospheric chemist working
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.[2] Solomon was one
of the first to propose chlorofluorocarbons as the cause of the Antarctic
ozone hole.[2]

Solomon is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the European
Academy of Sciences, and the Academy of Sciences of France.[3]

Oh My Gawd, She really is a f.cking Science Commie.
V for Vendicar - 02 Jul 2008 04:34 GMT
> You know who was involved at center stage in the Great Ozone Layer
> Scare? Susan Solomon.
>
> You know who is now involved at high levels of the IPCC on the Great
> Global Warming Scare? Susan Solomon.

Oh my Gawd, it really is a Global Conspiracy among the worlds scientists to
intall a one world - new world order - "Gubberment", headed by the U.N. and
with Lucifer on it's throne.
Androcles - 14 Jun 2008 00:15 GMT
| On Jun 13, 11:11 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com>
| cited in news:qLy4k.152615$TT4.145861@attbi_s22...
[quoted text clipped - 79 lines]
| ====  life will be greener still...
| Thanks for the laughs, y'all... ahaha... ahahahanson

The buck is greener on the other side. That's why the call them greenbacks.
This whole green shenanigan started with the Anti-Gaia hypothesis, a theory
that James Lovelock CH, CBE, FRS could make more money if the Earth
didn't change.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock

"After the development of his electron capture detector in the late 1960s,
Lovelock was the first to detect the widespread presence of CFCs in the
atmosphere[4]. He found a concentration of 60 parts per trillion of CFC-11
over Ireland and, in a partially self-funded research expedition in 1972,
went on to measure the concentration of CFC-11 from the northern hemisphere
to the Antarctic aboard the research vessel RV Shackleton.

Wackypedia then incorrectly reports:

He found the gas in each of the 50 air samples that he collected but, not
knowing of the risk that chlorine posed to the ozone layer, incorrectly
concluded that the level of CFCs constituted "no conceivable hazard".

What does ozone do? It blocks sunlight from creating ozone out of oxygen.
What does the hole do? It allows sunlight in to create ozone. That's a
perfectly normal negative feedback system.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback

What is REALLY funny is that there is no hole in equatorial regions where
sunlight blocking ozone is needed and the sun's rays are most intense,
having
the least amount of atmosphere to penetrate.

Forest fires from lightning strikes have been with us since there
were forests, yet man has to put them out to save the trees, building
up a huge backlog of dead wood until the fire is so huge he can't put
it out.
If you dam the stream you'll make a lake and the village will have a water
supply that you can pipe into every home and save people from going to
the stream for water. If the dam bursts you'll lose the village.

It even works in politics, the baby-kissing do-gooder you elected 8 years
ago has to be booted out, he's now a paedophile still kissing the same kid
and a new baby-kissing do-gooder has to replace him to save the world
from doing what is has been doing for the last 65 million years.

Signature

Androcles

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt

Ref:  http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.

Patriot Game - 14 Jun 2008 03:07 GMT
Androcles <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:

> 1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
> where
> A = (0,0,0,t)
> A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
> B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> x' = x-vt

Please explain the above in basic terms.

And don't cut and paste Albert if you are out of your league.
Androcles - 14 Jun 2008 04:35 GMT
| > 1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
| > where
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
| >
| Please explain the above in basic terms.

Certainly. In basic terms it says:
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same;
but written in the shorthand of algebra.

The f.cking idiot Einstein said it and I asked why.

Hence I already did as you asked before I broke down Einstein's equation
that
you stupidly snipped.

| And don't cut and paste Albert if you are out of your league.

I'm not out of anyone's league, little ignorant and stupid punk, you and
the cretin Albert are out of MY league.

Signature

Androcles

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt

Ref:  http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.

hanson - 14 Jun 2008 05:30 GMT
AHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
Andro, but least this "Pat riot game" was better then  the
earlier responses from the Einstein Dingleberries who
where so f.cking stupid to say "Einstein didn't say that".
You should ask "Pat riot" to answer it. He is itching to
explain the mystery to you and shine. Encourage him!
ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA....Thanks for the laughs!

> | > 1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
> | > where
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> I'm not out of anyone's league, little ignorant and stupid punk, you and
> the cretin Albert are out of MY league.
Androcles - 14 Jun 2008 11:24 GMT
| AHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
| Andro, but least this "Pat riot game" was better then  the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
| explain the mystery to you and shine. Encourage him!
| ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA....Thanks for the laughs!

The clown imagines changing his name will disguise who he is, that's the
funny
part.

If you go to <File><Properties><Details> you get all this as well,
not that I usually bother, but it's an open book. It's just as easy to
answer the idiot and then plonk the silly bastard.

Path:
s01-b008!cyclone03.ams!news.ams.newshosting.com!npeersf02.ams!newsfe13.ams2.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.environment,alt.global-warming
References: <qLy4k.152615$TT4.145861@attbi_s22>
<0c6e8b33-9da6-44e5-a1b4-70a719dfd83f@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
<d6f6e6a9-d95a-4912-a755-d434eff97ed0@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
<4yB4k.20$TL6.16@trnddc01> <hcD4k.167374$zc6.9113@newsfe29.ams2>
<MPG.22bcf1e58fcd3a2698ab18@news.individual.net>
Subject: Re: ScienceNOW Daily News: The Ozone Layer's Unwelcome Return?
Lines: 55
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Message-ID: <41H4k.126985$%B6.70914@newsfe13.ams2>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.34.70.125
X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com
X-Trace: newsfe13.ams2 1213414592 82.34.70.125 (Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:36:32
EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:36:32 EDT
Organization: virginmedia.com
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:35:54 +0100
Xref: Hurricane-Charley sci.physics:640918 sci.chem:137336
sci.environment:303507 alt.global-warming:239625
X-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 03:36:33 Local time zone must be set--see
zic manual page (s01-b008)

| > | > 1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
| > | > where
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
| > I'm not out of anyone's league, little ignorant and stupid punk, you and
| > the cretin Albert are out of MY league.
chemist - 14 Jun 2008 05:38 GMT
" Once greeted as good news, the recovery of the ozone layer/
hole could amplify global warming by trapping more heat in the
atmosphere (ScienceNOW, 24 April). Science, climatologists
report that ozone recovery could disrupt wind patterns in the
Southern Hemisphere, potentially leading to a warming of Antarctica.
The appearance of the ozone hole actually created a unique wind
pattern called the Southern Annular Mode (SAM),  with unpredictable
effects on SAM. That's worrisome... says atmospheric scientist
Judith Perlwitz of the University of Colorado, Boulder: "We can't draw
conclusions right now."

The increase in SAM has nothing to to do with the Ozone Hole and
everything to do with increasing temperature differentials.
hanson - 14 Jun 2008 06:03 GMT
"hanson" <han...@quick.net>  CITED/QUOTED from:
<http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/612/2>
" Once greeted as good news, the recovery of the ozone layer/
hole could amplify global warming by trapping more heat in the
atmosphere (ScienceNOW, 24 April). Science, climatologists
report that ozone recovery could disrupt wind patterns in the
Southern Hemisphere, potentially leading to a warming of Antarctica.
The appearance of the ozone hole actually created a unique wind
> pattern called the Southern Annular Mode (SAM),  with unpredictable
effects on SAM. That's worrisome... says atmospheric scientist
Judith Perlwitz of the University of Colorado, Boulder: "We can't draw
conclusions right now."

"chemist" <tom-bolger@ntlworld.com> wrote
The increase in SAM has nothing to to do with the Ozone Hole and
everything to do with increasing temperature differentials.

hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha.. if so, Tom, then these O3-hole researchers
are classical examples executing the edicts of  their Green
Bible that says:

1 "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, &...
2 "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." --  Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
3 "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
= up on the spot... for the mass-media today... the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
4 "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
5 "to attract great funding you have to scare the public by making
= things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
= --Petr Chylek, Prof. Atmospheric Sci., Dalhousie Uni, Halifax
6 "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the
= right thing" -- Sen.Tim Wirth, Admin of Ted Turner's $1Billion UN-gift.
7 "No matter if the science is all phony, Climate change [provides]
= equality in the world." -- Christine Stewart, Can. Enviro Minister
8 "It is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presen-
= tations" -- Al Gore, Chairman, Gen. Investment Management Bank

Eric Gisin expressed his vision slightly different. Said Eric:
"f.cking Greens should be shot for making the world so stupid".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.org.sierra-club/msg/5bf027613f44f4fa

Unfortunately, there is no test for stupidity, rationality, nor intelligence
for being a Green sh.t. So, all Greenies pass... happily singeing
their pinko-green L'interantionale:
====  "It's green, green, green
====  on the far side of the hill
====  and when we get the carbon tax
====  life will be greener still...
Thanks for the laughs, y'all... ahaha... ahahahanson
hhc314@yahoo.com - 14 Jun 2008 02:04 GMT
> > Dear Sam Wormley:
>
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree with you Tom.  This years boogeyman appears to be the
milliwatts of radiation emitted by cell phones. I'm now seeing posts
from the clueless asking if their cell phone can fry an egg!  Gimme a
break, the milliwatt radiation from most cell phones are damn lucky if
they can reach a cell phone tower half a mile away!

Still, the ozone thing seems to be financially motivated in it
entiretly.  As the concept begins to lack any and all credibility, the
fact is that is has driven the price of Freon 12 to roughly 10 times
its value, and the damn stuff now has to be purchased on todays Black
Market.  For the poor consumer, this means that the price of
recharging your automobile air conditioner has now risen from $4.95 to
around $40 a pop.

Quite honestly, I have never yet seen a liberal cause that was heavily
promoted while not making one of its key promoters rich!

Second hand smoke for example, Hugh Rodham Clinton is now worth
millions, simply from second hand smoke.

It's hard to identify many of these 'feel good' perps, because most of
them stay safely out of the limelight.

Al Gore is one of the few exceptions. expcept that is "Green"
promotion has destroyed any chance that he would ever become
president.

Harry C.

p.s., I am a physicist and an environmentalst, and I truly believe
that acid rain is the big threat, and the only way to avert this
threat is though the increasing use of pollution free nuclear energy.

I say this simply because I have frequently traveled by air from
Boston to LA, and on passing the big fossil fueled power plant in the
near west you can see the results of their exhaust  from their sources
all the way to the Atlantic Ocean.

Nobody want to focus on this, which is an easily observable fact.

Harry C.
bz - 14 Jun 2008 02:48 GMT
"hhc314@yahoo.com" <hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in news:6436549a-6a9b-4f86-
bc3c-d8fbea7192b2@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

> This years boogeyman appears to be the
> milliwatts of radiation emitted by cell phones. I'm now seeing posts
> from the clueless asking if their cell phone can fry an egg!  Gimme a
> break, the milliwatt radiation from most cell phones are damn lucky if
> they can reach a cell phone tower half a mile away!

Get your facts straight. A cell phone puts out .75 to 1 watt. That is 750
to 1000 milliwatts.
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone-radiation1.htm

Can one fry an egg? Not in any reasonable length of time.

Could 4 of them pop a Kernel of pop corn? According to my calculations, the
answer is yes.

Let us assume each puts out 1 watt at about 1 GHz (900 MHz cell phone band
is
very close to the X band radar and microwave oven frequency range.)

4 watts represents 0.955 cal/sec, round that to 1 cal/sec

It takes 1 cal to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree.
Room temp is about 25 degC  but we need to go to about 175 C to 'pop' the
corn.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1486854/posts
About 15 % of the corn is water.

It would take 150 seconds to raise 1 gram of water from to 175 C [gotta
keep
it under pressure] at 1 cal/second.
If there was .1 grams of water, it would take 15 seconds.
If there was .01 grams of water, it would take 1.5 second.

According to one source, an average kernel weighs 0.25 gm so 0.035 gm of
water in a
kernel.  http://www.reddit.com/info/6mep9/comments/c049r5q

So, you _could_ pop a kernel with 4 phones in less than 10 seconds, but not
fry an egg.

Signature

bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu   remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 14 Jun 2008 03:25 GMT
> "hhc314@yahoo.com" <hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in news:6436549a-6a9b-4f86-
> bc3c-d8fbea7192b2@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

> > This years boogeyman appears to be the
> > milliwatts of radiation emitted by cell phones. I'm now seeing posts
> > from the clueless asking if their cell phone can fry an egg!  Gimme a
> > break, the milliwatt radiation from most cell phones are damn lucky if
> > they can reach a cell phone tower half a mile away!

> Get your facts straight. A cell phone puts out .75 to 1 watt. That is 750
> to 1000 milliwatts.
> http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone-radiation1.htm

> Can one fry an egg? Not in any reasonable length of time.

> Could 4 of them pop a Kernel of pop corn? According to my calculations, the
> answer is yes.

> Let us assume each puts out 1 watt at about 1 GHz (900 MHz cell phone band
> is
> very close to the X band radar and microwave oven frequency range.)

> 4 watts represents 0.955 cal/sec, round that to 1 cal/sec

> It takes 1 cal to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree.
> Room temp is about 25 degC  but we need to go to about 175 C to 'pop' the
> corn.
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1486854/posts
> About 15 % of the corn is water.

> It would take 150 seconds to raise 1 gram of water from to 175 C [gotta
> keep
> it under pressure] at 1 cal/second.
> If there was .1 grams of water, it would take 15 seconds.
> If there was .01 grams of water, it would take 1.5 second.

> According to one source, an average kernel weighs 0.25 gm so 0.035 gm of
> water in a
> kernel.  http://www.reddit.com/info/6mep9/comments/c049r5q

> So, you _could_ pop a kernel with 4 phones in less than 10 seconds, but not
> fry an egg.

Except...

X-band is 10 GHz and microwave ovens run at 2.7 GHz.

Current phones put out more like 250 milliwatts.

There is no way to get a kernel of corn to absorb all the energy of
the phones.

Other than that, you sorta got it right.

Signature

Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

bz - 14 Jun 2008 11:39 GMT
>> "hhc314@yahoo.com" <hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in news:6436549a-6a9b-4f86-
>> bc3c-d8fbea7192b2@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>
> X-band is 10 GHz and microwave ovens run at 2.7 GHz.

Yep. Sorry. 7 to 12.5 GHz. is X band. Been a while since I worked on one. I
was wrong.

I should have double checked my memory.

The S band ranges from 2 to 4 GHz, "microwave oven works by passing non-
ionizing microwave radiation, usually at a frequency of 2.45 GHz (a
wavelength of 12.24 cm)".

> Current phones put out more like 250 milliwatts.

That is not what my sources said. Documentation?
I do find that I was also wrong about the cell phone frequencies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM_frequency_bands shows that there are
several cell bands, clustered around 900 MHz and 1800 MHz.

> There is no way to get a kernel of corn to absorb all the energy of
> the phones.

Of course not. But water is a very good absorber of radiation in the cell
phone frequency range so if you have only a very small amount of water and
nothing else that absorbs that frequency nearby, you could get rapid
heating.
The most important factor is the mass of the water and the proximity to the
transmitters.
All 4 cell phones being activated at the same time by incoming calls is
also important.
The cell phones were establishing the amount of power they needed to
transmit to reach the tower, and they would then reduce power to the
minimum needed to maintain contact.

The average user has a lot more water in their hand/brain and is only using
one phone so they are not likely to fry their brain or burn their hand.

> Other than that, you sorta got it right.

Well, not as right as I would have liked.
Thanks for the corrections.

Signature

bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu   remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 14 Jun 2008 17:25 GMT
> >> "hhc314@yahoo.com" <hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in news:6436549a-6a9b-4f86-
> >> bc3c-d8fbea7192b2@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> >
> > X-band is 10 GHz and microwave ovens run at 2.7 GHz.

> Yep. Sorry. 7 to 12.5 GHz. is X band. Been a while since I worked on one. I
> was wrong.

> I should have double checked my memory.

> The S band ranges from 2 to 4 GHz, "microwave oven works by passing non-
> ionizing microwave radiation, usually at a frequency of 2.45 GHz (a
> wavelength of 12.24 cm)".

> > Current phones put out more like 250 milliwatts.

> That is not what my sources said. Documentation?
> I do find that I was also wrong about the cell phone frequencies
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM_frequency_bands shows that there are
> several cell bands, clustered around 900 MHz and 1800 MHz.

> > There is no way to get a kernel of corn to absorb all the energy of
> > the phones.

> Of course not. But water is a very good absorber of radiation in the cell
> phone frequency range so if you have only a very small amount of water and
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> transmit to reach the tower, and they would then reduce power to the
> minimum needed to maintain contact.

> The average user has a lot more water in their hand/brain and is only using
> one phone so they are not likely to fry their brain or burn their hand.

> > Other than that, you sorta got it right.

> Well, not as right as I would have liked.
> Thanks for the corrections.

Output power of current cellphones; see the manual of any current
cellphone.

I will grant there are probably still some old phones around that
would put out up to 2W peak.

Validity of the base supposition; see:

http://www.snopes.com/science/cookegg.asp

Popcorn is a poor absorber of RF.

The only reason microwave popcorn works is the foil in the bag and the
"pop this side down" label. The microwave oven is heating the foil which
heats the popcorn. The direct heating is minimal.

Signature

Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

bz - 14 Jun 2008 19:37 GMT
> Popcorn is a poor absorber of RF.

if the corn doesn't have enough moisture.

> The only reason microwave popcorn works is the foil in the bag and the
> "pop this side down" label. The microwave oven is heating the foil which
> heats the popcorn. The direct heating is minimal.

I have examined several popcorn bags. No metal in the bag. Not even a
resistive element to act as a heater.

Check your bags. Neither ACT II nor Orville Redenbacher bags have any kind
of metal in them.

Signature

bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu   remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 14 Jun 2008 20:55 GMT
> > Popcorn is a poor absorber of RF.

> if the corn doesn't have enough moisture.

> > The only reason microwave popcorn works is the foil in the bag and the
> > "pop this side down" label. The microwave oven is heating the foil which
> > heats the popcorn. The direct heating is minimal.

> I have examined several popcorn bags. No metal in the bag. Not even a
> resistive element to act as a heater.

> Check your bags. Neither ACT II nor Orville Redenbacher bags have any kind
> of metal in them.

Look again and rip the bag apart.

One side is just paper.

The other side has an embedded layer of conductive material.

On most brands you can see it as a dark rectangle on one side, i.e. the
side you are supposed to put down.

Signature

Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

jmfbahciv - 14 Jun 2008 13:21 GMT
>> Dear Sam Wormley:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> Why not take the old "ozone layer" and dust it off, make it the new
> bogeyman, and plant the seeds of a new paranoia?

That topic isn't a long-term topic.  The next one they will use
is drugs and health insurance (except they will never utter the
word insurance).

For a real live example, look at Massachusetts.  Fascism is working
and people here are asking for more.

/BAH
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.