| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
On Oct 28, 2021, at 1:21 PM, Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
SF6 is the most potent greenhouse gas known. It is 22,800 times more effective at trapping infrared radiation than an equivalent amount of CO2 and stays in the atmosphere for 3,200 years.
https://www.epa.gov/eps-partnership/sulfur-hexafluoride-sf6-basics
Brian On Thursday, October 28, 2021, 11:35:37 AM CDT, Zani, Gerald via Phys-l <phys-l@mail.phys-l.org> wrote:
I will do my best to answer you quickly now and then later will try to get
you some references soon but I have to work on a project first.
There are * TWO! *outstanding, published physics resource letters about
global warming which is where I did research and learned about the amazing
and horrible SF6.
This article discusses CO2 and the physical aspects of the global warming
potential criteria;
A Demonstration of the Infrared Activity of Carbon Dioxide
TPT. 57, 246 (2019).
Let me know if you need a copy. It does not discuss SF6.
My wording "storing energy" is misleading, in this context.
Better to describe it as the "quantum mechanical atomic interaction of SF6
molecule with a particular IR band", the small IR that is most important
for measuring the global warming potential of a gas.
The value for the specific heat doesn't really help to understand the
Global Warming Potential behavior in this context. It is the vibrational
frequencies of a gas that couple with a IR frequency band and the electric
dipole moment of a quantum operator that participates in this interaction.
SF6 over a 100-year period is 22,800 times more effective at trapping IR
than an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide. My 40,000 number was wrong.
But my point was, order-of-magnitude, a correct point; A tiny bit of
SF6 has a disproportionate impact on global warming potential, compared
with CO2.
For years I did the standard greenhouse effect demo that most others also
do. It is a misleading demo that shows more about convection as a way to
trap heat. It is not really a true demo of global warming potential.
A better greenhouse effect demo is described in the published TPT article
cited above.
Best, - Jerry
--
Gerald Zani
Senior Engineering Technician
Brown University School of Engineering
(401) 863-9571
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
https://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
https://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l