This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GabrielVelasquez (talk | contribs) at 02:01, 1 January 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:01, 1 January 2008 by GabrielVelasquez (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| en | This user is a native speaker of the English language. |
.svg){kind=small} | This user comes from Canada. |
Gabriel D. Velasquez (- van Diest)
DOB: July 11, 1969
POB: Santiago, Chile
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Interests/Hobbies:
Planetology, Extrasolar Planets, Habitable moons, Astrophysics, Climatology, Cosmochemistry.
I enjoy photography, nature and wildlife.
I am also artistic and creative.
I started on this learning adventure because of the lack of any good freeware random solar system generators.
After I wrote "The 101 errors of Stargen" I found I had the time to help with exposition on real planets.
Some non-original-research using known values and basic algebra:
I disagree that the figures at Solar Constant are accurate,
I've read various different quotation of the value. A little accuracy wouldn't hurt:
R= 6.96e8 Km (Sun's radius)
T= 5780 °K (Sun's photosphere or Effective temperature)
a= 5.6704e-8 (Stefan-Boltzmann Constant)
d= 149597876600 meters (Earth's average distance, Mariner 10), 1 AU
f= flux or Insolation.
L= 4pi·R2aT4 = 4pi·d2f
Therefore, f=(R2aT4) / d2
Then ((6.96e8 Km)2 (5.6704e-8) (5780°K)4) / (149597876600)2 = 1369.912 W/m2
This is the average. If you factor in the Earths's eccentricity, then the range is 1325.278 W/m2 to 1416.839 W/m2
- If I recalculate using more accurate figures, using ((695950000)^2*(0.000000056704)*(5778^4) )/(149597876600^2), then I get 1367.8204 W/m2, which is only off by 0.1333% The so called satellite mesured solar constant. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
