On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:46:05 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
>
> "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.
Of course that happens as it must __**eventually**__. But we are all
quite sure that the non PAR light is also reflected and refracted. If the
algae appear green then we all agree that much of the green light is
reflected. But what _actually_ happens to the light that could be used by
the algae but for the fact that the algae cannot create carbohydrate fast
enough. The reaction is what it is and we see that given a proper light
source the algae will create carbohydrate but excess PAR light is not used
in the process. I am inclined to think that some of that excess light is
turned to heat but that much of the light is refracted.
>> 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 ?
Excess photons can be absorbed and re-radiated or they may simply pass
through the algae (that may be the same thing). If you hold a piece of
white paper between your eyes and the sun the light will not all be
reflected back at the sun or turned to heat by the paper. Some of the
light makes it past the paper. Much of it is refracted by the paper.
The paper does not catch on fire.
> 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.)
I am not claiming that the excess power is being _used_ by the algae in
any way.
>>> 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 ?
No. I am agreeing with the notion that the algae needs more than the bare
minimum of power that will have been stored in the carbohydrate.
>
>> 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.
The accumulation of carbohydrate over time is reduced by the amount of
energy needed for "life" of the organism. Over time means over a year.
>> but it is not really part of my argument against this paper.
>
> Mmm. Then what is ?
That the excess PAR energy not used by ONE algae is still available to be
used by a different algae. It is not just converted to heat. The
fact that 8 photons will be gobbled up in the process of making the
carbohydrate is not telling us what happens to photons in excess of 8.
>>>> 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
> ?
How many times do I need to repeat it? The paper just ASSUMES that the
available energy not needed by the organism is all converted to heat and
lost forever. I am saying that most of those rascal photons passed
through the algae or were refracted by the algae and were not consumed in
heat. That does not contradict anything he has said about the power
actually used by an algae to make a carbohydrate. He has simply not
accounted for all the energy.
>>>> 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 ?
I accept that light that is indigestible to the organism is either
refracted, passed through, or turned to heat when it comes into contact
with the organism. You show me a picture of the fact that light in certain
frequencies can produce carbohydrate. I assume that the reaction of the
algae to this stimulus has been measured and it has been noted that given
ENOUGH of this PAR light that the algae will produce carbohydrate. This
is proved, I suppose, by filtering out all but a narrow band on light and
witnessing the actual response of the algae. Then we chose another band
and repeat. And the conclusions tell us which frequencies are used to make
the carbohydrates. But this does not tell us what happens to excess
amounts of light in these bands. The organism cannot USE the excess
because that is not the natural rate of reaction for the organism.
Dimitrov just assumes that the algae is going to capture any excess and
turn it to heat and dissipate it.
>>>> 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
