🚀 go-pugleaf

In sci.physics, BradGuth
<bradguth@gmail.com>
 wrote
on 6 May 2007 12:14:23 -0700
<1178478862.992491.72860@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>:
> On 5 May, 16:45, The Ghost In The Machine
> <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> By lucky chance the Moon's apparent size is the same as
>> the Sun's.  A naive model of the luminosity would suggest
>> that the "inlunation" would therefore be about
>> 0.12 * (1350 W/m^2) = 162 W/m^2.
>
> As per damage-control usual, that's excluding the secondary/recoil
> worth of IR/FIR(longwave photons), easily worth more than twice the
> visual albedo spectrum that's reflecting 8~12%, whereas where else do
> you suppose all of that other solar influx (88~92%) that's directly
> impacting our naked moon is going?

Presumably, into outer space.  The Earth does not occupy *that* large a
field in its sky, though it's larger than the Moon in ours.

As for longwave IR...I'd have to study the issue.

>
>>
>> A better model would simply note that an object with
>> apparent magnitude -26.73 would have 1350 W/m^2 insolation,
>> and for every 5 units of increase of apparent magnitude the
>> incoming flux decreases by a factor of 100.  Therefore,
>> since the full Moon's apparent magnitude has been
>> measured at -12.6, it is almost a million times fainter.
>> This yields a value of about 3.01 milliWatts/m^2.  Over the
>> "disk viewing area" of the Earth (which is 1/4 of the
>> real surface area [*]), that translates into an additional
>> 384 gigaWatts worldwide during a full moon, and about 200
>> gigaWatts on average during the entire lunar cycle.
>>
>> (It's not 192 because of Earthshine, so I'm fudging a bit.)
>
> You certainly are fudging, because, that's still excluding the
> secondary/recoil worth of IR~FIR, that's worth twice and possibly as
> much as three fold the 12% visual limited spectrum, which makes that
> 384 gigaWatts become worth 1536 gigaWatts at full moon, and otherwise
> sharing perhaps worth 768 gigaWatts on average, which is still pretty
> much nothing compared to the all-inclusive tidal friction that's
> continually working our environment inside and out, unavoidably
> causing so much other GW trauma, to the tune of having been sharing
> many other teraWatts that's mostly contributed to what's within our
> salty oceans and otherwise deep below our too left dumbfounded feet.
>
> We humans at having supposedly been generating 13.5 TW in addition to
> our body heat, are as such only worth having added 26.41 mw/m2,
> whereas even 10 fold that amount is still only worth 264 mw/m2
> (obviously that's entirely surface limited, thus excluding the whole
> cubic volume worth of Earth, of which our moon's tidal force and
> subsequent friction doesn't exclude).

Ah, but the Moon is generating how much extra then?

>
>>
>> What one can do about these gigaWatts, I for one do not
>> know.  Compared to Sol's contribution of about
>> 1.72 * 10^17 W on the sunlit side of the Earth, a few
>> hundred gigawatts is negligible.
>>
>> [*] if one has a sphere of a certain radius r, and a disc with the same
>> radius, the area of the disc is pi * r^2, and the surface area of the
>> sphere is 4 * pi * r^2, by elementary geometry.
>
> Apparentlty, your "elementary geometry" auto-excludes those pesky IR
> and FIR spectrums, just like it previously and otherwise continues to
> auto-exclude whatever anti-cathode contributions of gamma and hard-
> Xrays.

Geometry is the study of measures and angles.  It does not include
radiation.

>
> The full moon's IR shine is offering a fairly considerable thermal
> budget (especially while orbiting that physically dark moon at 100
> km), that's simply of much greater thermal energy than our atmospheric
> filtered and thus moderated IR planetshine(266 w/m2), as having been
> LEO measured by God/NASA, whereas our moon's IR shine is especially
> extra toasty once we add in the secondary/recoil worth of such raw IR/
> FIR spectrums from all of those pesky longwave photons.
>
> Too bad we still haven't established any science platform within our
> moon's L1.

And how, precisely, are we going to do that since anything that gets
closer than Earth to the Moon is going to automatically melt, according
to you?

> Perhaps China or India will soon enough take care of that,
> especially since doing such will be so fly-by-rocket efficient to
> accomplish and even to interactively station-keep whatever within our
> moon's L1.

Doing so would be deadly, according to you.  Make up your mind.
Or does infrared radiation only burn those of the Judeo-Christian faith
to a crisp?

> -
> Brad Guth
>

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #23291:
void f(item *p) { if(p != 0) delete p; }

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com