Jump to content


Photo

Hydroplates And Meteorites

brown hydroplate flood noah meteorite astronomy

  • Please log in to reply
322 replies to this topic

#321 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,397 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 January 2017 - 09:26 PM

With reference to Indy's "space shuttle" comment.....

>>The question is which arbitrary claim most closely matches reality.>>

 

If you liken it to an internal combustion engine, then of course your view more closely matches up to THAT.  But it is nothing at all like that.  Let me ask this...when the returning space shuttle first begins to hit the thinnest part of the atmosphere, and travels for (say) 100 horizontal miles, how much of its speed is lost to friction?  NOT MUCH.  And it would be even LESS if there were a train of 1000 shuttles right behind one another.  The last one would lose very little of its energy to the atmosphere. 

The comparison is not to an internal combustion engine, but to a steam engine.  The steam could be provided by internal combustion, nuclear power, geothermal heat, or tidal flexing.  Steam processes are typically much less than 50% efficient at delivering their energy to the end result.   There is no reason to think Brown's process will be any better.

 

Not all of the material is going to be in the "thinnest part of the atmosphere."  There is a lot of it that's going to be along the boundary layer between the rising column and the atmosphere.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by your Shuttle analogy other than a stream of material near the center of the rising column will have no interaction with the atmosphere on its way up.  I think that's pretty much a given.



#322 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,397 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 January 2017 - 10:01 PM

Pi>>Of course one side will be warmer than the other. How much difference is the question. You have claimed the same kind of temperature differences as the moon would have based on little more than the rotation period you arbitrarily chose being the same as the moon's. You also ignore the vastly different thermal properties of rocks and clouds.<<

If I ever made the assertion that these clouds or swarms would have a 70% efficiency then I will withdraw that right now. I don't think I did say that but rather I used that calculator as an example to show what the efficiency would be if indeed the temperature difference was the same as the Moon. Now I asked you about a 10% efficiency. Do you think that is reasonable? You have agreed there would be some amount of Carnot engine effect but I guess you want to stay uncommitted so you can have plausible deniability if even as little as 10% efficiency is the case. Also, I am not sure that the temperature below the surface of the cloud is relevant. That is not the case with objects that have been observed for the Yarkovsky effect. And my guess is that it would apply also to the Carnot engine effect. If so, then your argument about each particle radiating toward the center of the cloud and then the heat being transferred to the cold side of the cloud is irrelevant. What might be most relevant is only that portion of the cloud which is exposed to space. That is, of course, where the push would take place.

You repeatedly used 70% efficiency in examples, but that's OK as we are now in agreement that is unrealistic.

 

One thing, you don't need to have the same temperature difference as the moon  to get 70% efficiency.  A warm side at 100k and a cold side at 30K would still be 70% efficient.... though the 70% wouldn't produce anywhere near the same amount of energy.

 

I honestly have no idea if 10% or 1% or 20% is "realistic."  I guess it could be modeled or calculated but the calculation would be far beyond my capability.  It shouldn't take very long for the temperature of a cloud of widely spaced small particles to equalize throughout greatly reducing the potential heat difference between the hot and cold sides.

 

We can be pretty sure the maximum temperature of one of these "swarms" would be around -50 or -60C.  In space at that temperature, water would sublime from ice to a gas and escape.

 

You are correct that it's the surface temperature, not internal temperatures that matter.

 

BTW, I find it interesting you would use this as a way to push asteroids to a higher orbit while rejecting it as a cause of the "Pioneer effect."



#323 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,397 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 January 2017 - 10:58 PM

With respect to Brown's claims about Pluto ....

 

Brown:

......

Swarms were large. For example, particles 1 AU from the Sun and less than 7,500 miles from the center of the swarm that became Pluto were more attracted gravitationally to the swarm than to the Sun. Therefore, Pluto’s swarm, early in its outward spiral, was almost twice (7,500/4,000 ª 2) Earth’s diameter, so the swarm intercepted four times (22 = 4) more solar energy than Earth.

Captured energy is useless unless it is converted to work—in this case outward movement (or thrust). The Carnot efficiency (referred to on page 359) for producing outward thrust of Pluto’s slowly spinning swarm was about 15 times greater than that of Earth.176

The more massive an object, the less a given force can accelerate it. Earth is 460 times more massive than Pluto. Therefore, Pluto’s swarm early in its spiral received about 27,600 (4×15×460ª27,600) times more outward acceleration from solar energy than Earth. While this outward acceleration on the Earth is too small to be detected (and for most purposes is insignificant), it is some small number greater than zero. Soon after the flood, Pluto’s outward acceleration would have been 27,600 times greater than that small number. Because displacements grow exponentially over time from accelerations, Pluto and other TNOs moved great distances.

So far as I can tell, the claimed size of the "swarm that became Pluto" is completely arbitrary and without justification.

 

In footnote 176, Brown claims, again without justification, that the Pluto "swarm" would have had a temperature difference similar to Earth's moon.

 

Brown claims 27,600 times some measurement that is "too small to be detected (and for most purposes is insignificant), it is some small number greater than zero" is sufficient to propel the Plutonian swarm beyond the orbit of Neptune.

 

I see little justification for any of Brown's claims about Pluto's formation and orbit than:  "That's what Brown says."

 

 

Brown:

 

The Carnot efficiency (referred to on page 359) for producing outward thrust of Pluto’s slowly spinning swarm was about 15 times greater than that of Earth.176

 

So I went to the Carnot efficiency page LINK and using 70F for day and 50F for night (for Earth), the efficiency is 3.77%.  15 times that is 56.55%.  So my estimate of it being similar to the Moon (70%) was not far off from Brown's.  This means he would agree with my assumption that temperature differences for the cloud's hot/cold sides would be very similar to the Moon's. 

 

If you use 70F for day and 45F for night that is 4.72% efficient and 15x that is 70.8% efficient!

That might be because Brown uses the moon as his reference point. 

 

See footnote 176.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: brown, hydroplate, flood, noah, meteorite, astronomy

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users