Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#92
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 11/2/2014 6:06 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jeff wrote in : ...or looking at it another way the dissipation in the radiation resistance is not in the form of heat it is the power radiated into space. Well, I did say I didn't know the terminology. On the other hand, I'm not talking about antenna's radiation resistance. The only thing I'm sure of here is that some body, at some temperature, can not emit heat faster than some rate, and that superconductors in space will warm up too fast to stay superconducting without support to cool them. What is going to warm them up? The point of using them for the antenna is because they have no resistance which means the signal is not turned into heat. This discussion looked like it had strayed some way from the earlier talk of antennas and radiation resistance. No, the topic was antenna radiating all the power fed to them. The other two things that happen to the power is to be reflected back to the source or dissipated as heat. Superconductors eliminate the heat dissipation. -- Rick |
#93
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
rickman wrote in :
You are aware that a standing wave still moves up and down, no? Sorry about this.. even after my last post, I have a thought I can't drop easily. A few years ago someone showed me a speaker cone in a video, driven by AC current, and it had ferrofluid on it, but I think there was soem comment that any thixotropic fluid will do. It had peaks and troughs, in a sort of semi-random 2D form across the cone that held it. These peaks and troughs did not oscillate up and down on the spot, they stood rigid as merings peaks after drying in an oven. (Actually they did shift a little, but not a lot, and that was mainly due to erratic vibrations in the whole doings.) Anyway, would that effect not also be called a standing wave? |
#94
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m36bbu$pou$1@dont-
email.me: I also don't know how steerable the solar panels are - but I would expect them to be somewhat steerable. That;s something I did see once, I think on a BBC article. They are a bit like louvre windows, fairly limited movement of each panel on its own axis, but enoughm given the gaps between their edges. And I think an entire branch array can be rotated on its own axis too, but I'm less sure about that bit. |
#95
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 11/2/2014 4:55 PM, wrote:
Lostgallifreyan wrote: wrote in : There is no undiscovered magic in superconductors. There was no magic in any of the materials used for Gemini and Apollo either, but countelss things were learned just by using them out there. Care to name a few specifically from Genini and Apollo? And BTW, 99.9% of the materials used is aluminum. Much of the medical monitoring technology came out of the early space program, for one thing. So did advances in propulsion systems and remote controls (more than just model planes and cars) for another. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
#96
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
rickman wrote in :
No, the topic was antenna radiating all the power fed to them. Specifically, doing it efficiently. ![]() Never mind the other bits, beginning to look like old ground already today. What I might be missing about my comment on some body at some temperature being limited in its rate of dissipation might be flawed anyway. Never mind the risk of confusion between an antenna's radiation resistance and what I'm trying to get at, there's another angle to this... Am I wrong? Could it be that just as an antenna is efficient regardless of size, IF you can feed it all the energy you're trying to transmit, is it also true that regardless of size, that hot body will also equally transmit all its heat? In other words, is the 'limit' analogous to matching, as in getting the heat from the bulk volume out to its surface? I'm hoping that answer(s) to this one might help solve a heap of confusion for me.. |
#97
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 11/2/2014 3:08 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m36209$kk3$1@dont- email.me: No, I don't think any part of the ISS is in "constant shadow". I believe it rotates as it orbits the earth, and different parts of it are in the shade at different times. I could be wrong, though - I've never been there ![]() Fair enough. I know that Apollo used to do the 'barbeque roll', but as far as I know there's less need of it on the ISS for whatever reason. Maybe they use the solar panels for shade part of the time, there's a lot of those... Or maybe it's in Earth's shadow often enough to get by... Or maybe it rolls constantly and I just had no idea. I think the barbeque effect is because the capsule does not spread the heat very evenly. The temperature of space (including the sun's radiation) at earth's orbit is about the temperature of the surface of the earth. Here is the page where I found this. http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad5.html ***** For the special case of a perfectly black, highly conductive sphere in the Solar System a distance R from the Sun, absorbing solar radiation from one side, but radiating in all directions equally, it turns out that the temperature drops with distance from the Sun as the square root of 1/R: T = 277 K (1 AU/R)½ ***** Assuming this equation is correct, the temperature of the object described is just 4 °C at Earth's orbit. Of course the earth is warmer because it is warmed from the inside as well as from the sun. Somewhere around 13 AUs the temperature reaches 77 °K, the boiling point of N2, which is much cooler than the critical temperature of a number of superconductors. -- Rick |
#98
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
rickman wrote in :
I think the barbeque effect is because the capsule does not spread the heat very evenly. The temperature of space (including the sun's radiation) at earth's orbit is about the temperature of the surface of the earth. That fits. I think they were just averaging it on that basic principle. (And specifically, protecting the oxygen tanks above pretty much all else, if I remember the books right, I read a few at one point, over ten years ago). |
#99
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
rickman wrote in :
Somewhere around 13 AUs the temperature reaches 77 °K, the boiling point of N2, which is much cooler than the critical temperature of a number of superconductors. Ok, but that goes with what I was saying about variable margins. Until there is much going on out that far, there will likely be a development more locally, of higher temperature materials that are useful enough somehow to justify putting them there. I don't doubt that shading them will help but that is more weight to haul out there too, so experiment will likely be needed to find compromises. The modelling might be harder than just doing it, starting small. |
#100
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 11/2/2014 5:49 PM, rickman wrote:
On 11/2/2014 3:08 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m36209$kk3$1@dont- email.me: No, I don't think any part of the ISS is in "constant shadow". I believe it rotates as it orbits the earth, and different parts of it are in the shade at different times. I could be wrong, though - I've never been there ![]() Fair enough. I know that Apollo used to do the 'barbeque roll', but as far as I know there's less need of it on the ISS for whatever reason. Maybe they use the solar panels for shade part of the time, there's a lot of those... Or maybe it's in Earth's shadow often enough to get by... Or maybe it rolls constantly and I just had no idea. I think the barbeque effect is because the capsule does not spread the heat very evenly. The temperature of space (including the sun's radiation) at earth's orbit is about the temperature of the surface of the earth. Here is the page where I found this. http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad5.html ***** For the special case of a perfectly black, highly conductive sphere in the Solar System a distance R from the Sun, absorbing solar radiation from one side, but radiating in all directions equally, it turns out that the temperature drops with distance from the Sun as the square root of 1/R: T = 277 K (1 AU/R)½ ***** Assuming this equation is correct, the temperature of the object described is just 4 °C at Earth's orbit. Of course the earth is warmer because it is warmed from the inside as well as from the sun. That's part of it. But it's also because the Earth doesn't radiate all that well, either. It holds a fair amount of the heat that strikes it. Air is a great insulator ![]() Somewhere around 13 AUs the temperature reaches 77 °K, the boiling point of N2, which is much cooler than the critical temperature of a number of superconductors. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The inefficiency of short antennae compared to long antennae, as previously discussed. | Antenna | |||
Reductio ad absurdum - short antennae do not radiate well | Antenna | |||
Radiate Power Question ? | Antenna | |||
How much does a counterpoise radiate? | Antenna | |||
Antennae base | Homebrew |