Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GabrielVelasquez (talk | contribs) at 02:13, 1 January 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user comes from Canada.

"Empathy is Memory, Compassion, and Conscience: E=mc"

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.

http://home.comcast.net/~brons/NerdCorner/StarGen/StarGen.html

Some non-original-research using known values and basic algebra:
I disagree that the figure for the Earth's Solar constant at Solar Constant are accurate,
I've read various different quotations of the value in texts and on the net. 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·RaT = 4pi·df
Therefore, f=(RaT) / d2
Then ((6.96e8 Km)2 (5.6704e-8) (5780°K)4) / (149597876600)2 = 1369.912 W/m
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/m, which is only off by 0.1333% the so called satellite mesured solar constant. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• User en-N
• Canadian Wikipedians