As a grizzled old electrical engineer, I am a one-flow, one-fluid person. As long as the accounting is done carefully, the results from a one-fluid analysys and a two-fluid analysis will be the same. I don’t like the two-flow analysis with dependent sources because it can lead you into a house of mirrors. It’s too easy to get absurd results like passive sources adding energy to a system. You know where that sad road leads–to perpetual motion and violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamices.
There has been argument over one-fluid and two-fluid analysis for hundreds of years and we probably won’t settle the argument in our lifetime.
Like radiation, there are other mysteries like magnetism. Lines of magnetic flux in and around a bar magnet is created by the strength of the poles. You can bend the lines of flux, but there is nothing a passive object can do to affect the magnitude of the NS flux. No net flux. No summed flux. One flux.
OLR is “built” from the difference in temperature between the Earth’s surface and the 3K of space. It always acts in the same direction as conduction would if conduction was enabled. It always acts in the same direction as convection would if convection was enabled. I don’t buy the idea of net radiation unless the radiation sources are independent. For my view, there’s one radation impelled by a difference of temperatures. Remember, when you tie yourself in knots summing source and dependent radiation sources to get net radiation, don’t blame me. I warned you about going there.
French scientists promoted a two-fluid theory , one positive and the other negative, flowing simultaneously in opposite directions. English scientists generally supported [Benjamin] Franklin’s one-fluid theory, in which electrification results from a surplus of deficit of a single type of charge.
– Alan Hirshfeld, The Electric Life of Michael Faraday
↧
Comment on Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon. Part IV by Ken Coffman
↧