Jump to content

new cooling system


Recommended Posts

I told you I made that number up on the spot

https://phys.org/news/2016-07-curious-case-earth-leaking-atmosphere.html

they say 90 tonnes per day

so thats 90 tonnes of loss plus all of the interactions that result in energy loss without actual mass loss because it takes more energy to  reach escape velocity.  this results in higher energy particles gaining energy as they leave depleting the system behind them.  This is the basis behind modern cooling yes?

to wit, the energy lost is carried on a ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm done here, until/unless you provide a source for your claim that there's an important link between the 64% radiation from clouds/atmosphere and the ongoing mass balance.

p.s.

(My understanding,  from other articles, is that the 90 tons per day is not actually the hydrogen/helium loss, but the best estimate delta loss for hydrogen/helium loss - asteroid/incoming particle gains, which is glossed over in the above article because it appears to have been written by an English major)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

important link between the 64% radiation from clouds/atmosphere and the ongoing mass balance

the exact numbers of the mass balance are a bit of a side point now, we're looking for a source that contains the above, I've bolded it for emphasis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mass =/= mass transfer.  Clouds and atmosphere sitting there reflecting light is not mass transfer.  Clouds and atmosphere sitting there absorbing and re-emitting light is not mass transfer.  Clouds and atmosphere moving around is mass transfer, but it's not mass transfer between the earth and outer space, which is the kind of mass transfer you originally raised.  Still waiting for a source to support your actual claim, bolded for emphasis above.  I.e., this all came up because you stated that radiating heat into outer space was difficult, and defined mass transfer so that only fluid escaping into space counted as mass transfer.   You've now moved the goalposts so that radiating heat into outer space is easy, because the chilled ammonia fluid inside the radiator moving around constitutes mass transfer.  If you'd prefer to move the goalposts and abandon your original position, because the chilled ammonia fluid moving around inside the radiator is mass transfer, then sure, do that instead.  Just pick one spot and put the goalposts down.  (I'm sure you can see the functional analogy here between the clouds and the chilled ammonia, closed system vs open system, etc)  I'm looking for a source that supports your entire claim, not a source that defines only one word of it :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the amonnia isn't leaving the ship, the special paint, afaik, is to A) Prevent the radiator from absorbing heat from light by reflecting it. B) Conduct heat readily.  The problem is the lack of ambient atmosphere for the craft on its "darkside" as most of the energy transfered is via particles, most of which are riding that stellar wind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's interesting, but it's yet another side point, you keep flying off on side points instead of backing up and giving sources for your initial claim. It doesn't appear that you're ever going to provide a relevant citation, so I'm just going to block and move on.   I don't have any more time to waste in discussions with people who would rather hurl insults than provide sources.  Best of luck to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

×
  • Create New...