"The Trucker"
verizon.net> wrote in message news:pan.2008.07.01.01.38.26.101936@verizon.net...
.....>
> Well.... He claims that 27%% is REQUIRED to create the carbohydrate. I am
> giving this based on all the stuff he and you have presented. I do not
> claim to understand it. But I will accept it.
>
>> The other 73%% of energy in PAR gets
>> lost in heat (heats up the plant).
>
> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> This is the part that is in dispute.
>
OK. I'm paying attention.
>> There is NO MORE energy available.
>> Once a photon is absorbed, that's it. C'est ca. End of story.
>
> That is fine. But you have not shown that the rest of the energy got
> turned into heat.
All unused energy from photons turns to heat eventually.
> He says that since the plant produces carbohydrates
> and we know how much energy is in a carbohydrate then the plant must have
> sucked up that much the energy (and more) to make a carbohydrate.
> I can go along with that even if the absolute numbers are off somewhat.
>
OK. So are you saying that the 8 photons create not just a carbohydrate molecule, but also something else that the plant can use ?
Some other molecule ?
I'm not sure about that. I don't think there is, but once again, I'm not a photobiologist.
I'm sure he would have mentioned it (most scientists fear their own kind more than anyone. They fear to overlook something.)
>> In reality, there are many, many other losses, and he makes a pretty
>> compelling argument (explains all the other steps to get to biodiesel)
>> that realistic upper bound, for highly optimized systems, is 10%% of PAR.
>
> What he claims and what I have no real argument with is that the plant
> must use a good bit of the energy it sucks up to respirate and procreate.
> The energy isn't all devoted to making carbohydrates. The reality seems
> to be that the plant sucks up more than 27%% of the available energy in
> order to sustain itself while making carbohydrate units.
OK. are you repeating the same point ?
> He chooses to
> show this as an efficiency loss after the fact for some reason,
Yes, he mentions this about that (with a reference) :
"At night, when the ATP is depleted, the PO will break down carbohydrates to provide energy for its living needs."
So the plant uses the carbohydrate. No other molecules involved.
> but it is not really part of my argument against this paper.
Mmm. Then what is ?
>
>>> But I will leave that aside for sake of argument and just "give" him
>>> his "givens".
>>>
>>> I am going to guess at this because that is what I do. I am not a
>>> scientist. I am a poker player.
>>
>> Pretty bold move to try to call his bluff. Problem is : he was not
>> bluffing. He has a royal flush (that's the best hand right?). Sorry. You
>> loose.
>
> He has a busted straight.
I don't think so. All his points remain unchallenged. What is your point ?
>
>>> What is missing from this frame job is that great and wonderful
>>> realization in economics of the "unseen". Yes, we can "see" that these
>>> photons were absorbed by the algae as the algae made these CH2O things.
>>> But what happened to the rest of the energy? Did George Bush spend it
>>> on imperialism? Did those thieving Democrats use it to bribe the
>>> welfare bums?
>>
>> People only see what they understand. You should know that as a poker
>> player. There is nothing "unseen" if you understand the basic physics.
>
> You are obviously _NOT_ a poker player. Most is not seen.
Indeed I am NOT a poker player.
But my point is that good poker understands what it means when they see someone sweating, or pull some facial expression, or look at
a spectator that can see another person's hand.
The see a lot more because they understand a lot more.
Same with physics. If you understand the basic principles, then you see a lot more.
>
> You are telling me that the grand wizard of physics will not allow the
> energy to pass through the plant and also that the grand wizard of physics
> will not allow the light to be reflected unless it is indigestible light.
> That is the part I don't accept.
Mmmm. Now do you go back to before PAR ?
The step from white light to PAR already accounts for the light that is reflected.
Here is the spectrum :
http://www.life.uiuc.edu/govindjee/paper/fig5.gif
Note that this spectrum is the absorption spectrum for a (hypothetical) solid chlorophyl surface.
What's not absorbed is reflected. Since that's mostly the middle spectrum, and that's why plants are green.
Which part do you not accept from this ?
>
>>> The envelope please:
>>>
>>> It says here that the rest of the energy bounced off or passed through
>>> this particular algae or this square micrometer of algae or this bag
>>> full of algae and it is still available. It did not run away and join
>>> the circus. It is still available to be used by a different algae.
>>> That's right! 73%% of the energy is still hopping around in the
>>> immediate vicinity and available to be used by another fuel producing
>>> algae. And if we can just manage to get this algae into the vicinity
>>> of this available energy then it too will suck up 27%% of what is left
>>> on the way to being 10%% efficient in making some fuel.
>>>
>>> Later in the document he uses the 27%% to produce the 10%% because we all
>>> know that the algae are going to use some of the energy (some of the
>>> 27%%) for reproduction and respiration. But the problem will inevitably
>>> trace back to the 27%% false framing and the assumption that the rest of
>>> the energy just disappeared.
>>>
>>> Still later in the document he speaks of the patent awarded GreenFuels
>>> for a system that seems to do the conversion at more than 40%% (of the
>>> 10%% or the 27%% or whatever) and accuses the patent office of
>>> malfeasance. The truth is that bio-reactors _USE_ that reflected/passed
>>> through energy that was not used by the first plane of algae. Even in
>>> a pond the second plane of algae will use the energy that passed
>>> through the first plane. Most of the energy is actually reflected and
>>> that is how we are able to _see_ the pond scum.
>>>
>>> It seems a good probability that this guy's last job was as a
>>> consulting scientist to a tobacco company. He has now been hired by the
>>> league of oil and nuclear fascists to fight the competitive free market
>>> algae farming economy.
>>
>> Sorry dude. He has a royal flush. Bad move to call his bluff. You loose,
>> regardless of your disrespectful words.
>>
>> What were you thinking man ? The guy has a Phd in microbiology !
>
> I don't care if he is the queen of England. Unless there really is a law
> of reality that says the light energy can't be refracted or just pass
> through and that it _MUST_ be turned to heat, then he is simply wrong in
> his conclusion.
>
> --
> "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
> of society but the people themselves; and
> if we think them not enlightened enough to
> exercise their control with a wholesome
> discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
> them, but to inform their discretion by
> education." - Thomas Jefferson
>
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
>
