Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Planetary Nebulea - thoughts following Alan's Lecture
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  5 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
John Murrell  
View profile  
 More options Nov 9 2012, 4:58 pm
From: "John Murrell" <m...@JohnMurrell.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 21:58:39 -0000
Local: Fri, Nov 9 2012 4:58 pm
Subject: Planetary Nebulea - thoughts following Alan's Lecture

In last weeks lecture Alan said the temperature of White Dwarfs range from
around 200k Kelvin to 10k Kelvin. When I thought about it this was rather
odd - the White Dwarf is essentially the core of the star compressed so it
heats up more. The Sun's core burning Hydrogen is at around 15 million
Kelvin. This rises to around 100 million Kelvin when the Helium burns into
Carbon and the outer layers are blown off into the planetary nebula. When
the helium burning stops the core collapses and gets even hotter due to
gravitational energy.

So the question is why is the temperature of the white dwarf only a few
times 10^4 Kelvin rather than over 100 million K ?

The result from looking at various books quite surprised me. The core of the
white dwarf is still at over 100 m Kelvin but the outer ( rather thin)
atmosphere is such a good insulator that the outside ( observable ) surface
is much cooler. As a result of this the core only cools at about 6 Kelvin
per year. Thus takes a long time to cool compared to the life of the
planetary nebula.

Regards

John Murrell

Astronomer Without Portfolio

Website www.JohnMurrell.org.uk


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Discussion subject changed to "{Altair_B - 3360} -: Planetary Nebulea - thoughts following Alan's Lecture" by Roy Easto
Roy Easto  
View profile  
 More options Nov 9 2012, 6:27 pm
From: Roy Easto <roy.ea...@btinternet.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 23:27:10 +0000
Local: Fri, Nov 9 2012 6:27 pm
Subject: Re: {Altair_B - 3360} -: Planetary Nebulea - thoughts following Alan's Lecture

Much like the Earth see attached,

Roy

On 09/11/12 21:58, John Murrell wrote:

  earth_hot.jpg
171K Download

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Discussion subject changed to "{Altair_B - 3361} -: Planetary Nebulea - thoughts following Alan's Lecture" by John Murrell
John Murrell  
View profile  
 More options Nov 10 2012, 3:58 am
From: "John Murrell" <m...@JohnMurrell.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:58:29 -0000
Local: Sat, Nov 10 2012 3:58 am
Subject: RE: {Altair_B - 3361} -: Planetary Nebulea - thoughts following Alan's Lecture

Hello Roy,

The difference is the Earth is still generating heat through radioactive
decay - the white dwarf core is all at the same temperature (Isothermal) due
to the de-generate state of the core. As a result the temperatute falls from
.c. 100 M K at the base of the (thin) atmosphere to a few time 10^4 K at the
top. Sounds like good stuff to insulate your house with ! Also it absorbs
all the X-Rays from the core ( assuming degenerate matter at 100M K
generates X-Rays)

Does anyone know what the Earth's surface temperature would be from core
heating only ? I seem to recall the power loss is around a couple of watts
per square meter on average ?

John Murrell

Astronomer Without Portfolio

Website www.JohnMurrell.org.uk

From: altair_b@googlegroups.com [mailto:altair_b@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Roy Easto
Sent: 09 November 2012 23:27
To: altair_b@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {Altair_B - 3361} -: Planetary Nebulea - thoughts following
Alan's Lecture

Much like the Earth see attached,

Roy

On 09/11/12 21:58, John Murrell wrote:

In last weeks lecture Alan said the temperature of White Dwarfs range from
around 200k Kelvin to 10k Kelvin. When I thought about it this was rather
odd - the White Dwarf is essentially the core of the star compressed so it
heats up more. The Sun's core burning Hydrogen is at around 15 million
Kelvin. This rises to around 100 million Kelvin when the Helium burns into
Carbon and the outer layers are blown off into the planetary nebula. When
the helium burning stops the core collapses and gets even hotter due to
gravitational energy.

So the question is why is the temperature of the white dwarf only a few
times 10^4 Kelvin rather than over 100 million K ?

The result from looking at various books quite surprised me. The core of the
white dwarf is still at over 100 m Kelvin but the outer ( rather thin)
atmosphere is such a good insulator that the outside ( observable ) surface
is much cooler. As a result of this the core only cools at about 6 Kelvin
per year. Thus takes a long time to cool compared to the life of the
planetary nebula.

Regards

John Murrell

Astronomer Without Portfolio

Website www.JohnMurrell.org.uk

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Altair_B" group.
To post to this group, send email to altair_b@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
altair_b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/altair_b?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Altair_B" group.
To post to this group, send email to altair_b@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
altair_b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/altair_b?hl=en.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Discussion subject changed to "{Altair_B - 3362} -: Planetary Nebulea - thoughts following Alan's Lecture" by Roy Easto
Roy Easto  
View profile  
 More options Nov 10 2012, 5:08 am
From: Roy Easto <roy.ea...@btinternet.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:09:02 +0000
Local: Sat, Nov 10 2012 5:09 am
Subject: Re: {Altair_B - 3362} -: Planetary Nebulea - thoughts following Alan's Lecture

I was thinking more about the insulating effect of the crust being so
relatively thin with high temperatures on one side and black space on
the other. And I liked the picture.

There was an article recently about mass loss/gain from the Earth. The
Earth generates 24TW in energy through radioactive decay. If the Earth
has an area of 4 * pi * (6000000)^2 = 4521 trillion square meters then
we would have around 5mW per square meter? The mass loss for the whole
Earth (converted into energy) would be 24*10^12 / (3*10^8)^2 = 0.2 grams
per second. Compared to the Sun's 4 million tons per second although it
does have a mass 330000 times larger than the Earth.

So 4000000/330000/0.0002 = 60000 which is the ratio of heat generated by
1 kg of the Sun compared to 1kg of the Earth (unless I've made a simple
mistake(s) somewhere.

Roy

On 10/11/12 08:58, John Murrell wrote:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Discussion subject changed to "{Altair_B - 3363} -: Planetary Nebulea - thoughts following Alan's Lecture" by John Murrell
John Murrell  
View profile  
 More options Nov 10 2012, 8:02 am
From: "John Murrell" <m...@JohnMurrell.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:02:16 -0000
Local: Sat, Nov 10 2012 8:02 am
Subject: RE: {Altair_B - 3363} -: Planetary Nebulea - thoughts following Alan's Lecture

Hi everyone,

There is a page on Wikipedia about the Earths thermal loss at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient  that quotes 44.2 TW as the
power of which 30TW is from radioactive decay .

People generate far more heat per kg than either the Earth or the Sun about
100 - 120 W thus around 1 to 2 Watts per Kg.

Therefore if you built the Sun out of people ( ignoring the need for Oxygen
& food plus disposal of waste & CO2)  it would be much hotter !

John Murrell

Astronomer Without Portfolio

Website www.JohnMurrell.org.uk

From: altair_b@googlegroups.com [mailto:altair_b@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Roy Easto
Sent: 10 November 2012 10:09
To: altair_b@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {Altair_B - 3363} -: Planetary Nebulea - thoughts following
Alan's Lecture

I was thinking more about the insulating effect of the crust being so
relatively thin with high temperatures on one side and black space on the
other. And I liked the picture.

There was an article recently about mass loss/gain from the Earth. The Earth
generates 24TW in energy through radioactive decay. If the Earth has an area
of 4 * pi * (6000000)^2 = 4521 trillion square meters then we would have
around 5mW per square meter? The mass loss for the whole Earth (converted
into energy) would be 24*10^12 / (3*10^8)^2 = 0.2 grams per second. Compared
to the Sun's 4 million tons per second although it does have a mass 330000
times larger than the Earth.

So 4000000/330000/0.0002 = 60000 which is the ratio of heat generated by 1
kg of the Sun compared to 1kg of the Earth (unless I've made a simple
mistake(s) somewhere.

Roy

On 10/11/12 08:58, John Murrell wrote:

Hello Roy,

The difference is the Earth is still generating heat through radioactive
decay - the white dwarf core is all at the same temperature (Isothermal) due
to the de-generate state of the core. As a result the temperatute falls from
.c. 100 M K at the base of the (thin) atmosphere to a few time 10^4 K at the
top. Sounds like good stuff to insulate your house with ! Also it absorbs
all the X-Rays from the core ( assuming degenerate matter at 100M K
generates X-Rays)

Does anyone know what the Earth's surface temperature would be from core
heating only ? I seem to recall the power loss is around a couple of watts
per square meter on average ?

John Murrell

Astronomer Without Portfolio

Website www.JohnMurrell.org.uk

From: altair_b@googlegroups.com [mailto:altair_b@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Roy Easto
Sent: 09 November 2012 23:27
To: altair_b@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {Altair_B - 3361} -: Planetary Nebulea - thoughts following
Alan's Lecture

Much like the Earth see attached,

Roy

On 09/11/12 21:58, John Murrell wrote:

In last weeks lecture Alan said the temperature of White Dwarfs range from
around 200k Kelvin to 10k Kelvin. When I thought about it this was rather
odd - the White Dwarf is essentially the core of the star compressed so it
heats up more. The Sun's core burning Hydrogen is at around 15 million
Kelvin. This rises to around 100 million Kelvin when the Helium burns into
Carbon and the outer layers are blown off into the planetary nebula. When
the helium burning stops the core collapses and gets even hotter due to
gravitational energy.

So the question is why is the temperature of the white dwarf only a few
times 10^4 Kelvin rather than over 100 million K ?

The result from looking at various books quite surprised me. The core of the
white dwarf is still at over 100 m Kelvin but the outer ( rather thin)
atmosphere is such a good insulator that the outside ( observable ) surface
is much cooler. As a result of this the core only cools at about 6 Kelvin
per year. Thus takes a long time to cool compared to the life of the
planetary nebula.

Regards

John Murrell

Astronomer Without Portfolio

Website www.JohnMurrell.org.uk

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Altair_B" group.
To post to this group, send email to altair_b@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
altair_b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/altair_b?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Altair_B" group.
To post to this group, send email to altair_b@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
altair_b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/altair_b?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Altair_B" group.
To post to this group, send email to altair_b@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
altair_b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/altair_b?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Altair_B" group.
To post to this group, send email to altair_b@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
altair_b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/altair_b?hl=en.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »