Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    rec.arts.sf.science    |    Real and speculative aspects of SF scien    |    45,986 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 44,590 of 45,986    |
|    Mikkel Haaheim to All    |
|    Re: James S.A. Corey's answer to There A    |
|    27 Oct 16 07:47:57    |
      From: mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com              Le mardi 4 octobre 2016 23:29:50 UTC+2, nu...@bid.nes a écrit :                     > > BTW: another option, which also decreases efficiency a little, is to curve       > > the radiator concavely.       >        > If by that you mean to reduce the emission angle by making the radiating       surface concave, that won't work for two reasons.       >        > First, every point on the radiating surface is radiating in all       directions. Curving the radiator just effectively reduces the radiating       surface area as seen by distant, heat-absorbing space. It does not reduce       total emission angle.       >               This actually isn't the reason it won't work. It will ATTEMPT to radiate in       all directions, but it won't be able to radiate effectively through the mass       of the material around it. That said, it WILL reduce efficiency considerably.       You ARE correct that it won't work, because of your second reason...              > Second, you now have all points on the radiating surface "looking at"       other points on the radiating surface reducing their ability to lose heat.       Heat emitted by any point that impacts those other points is reabsorbed and       has to be re-emitted, raising        the temperature of the whole emitting surface. While that helps radiativity       because heat flows better from a hotter radiator to cold space, it becomes a       choke point for heat flow.              Quite correct. I was thinking about that almost as soon as I sent the message.       I was not considering the opposite side, which will now be angling in the       direction of the proximal lip.       A flat surface will be best, angled away from suspected platform positions.       While there WILL be emissions in all available directions, on edge emissions       will be quite weak.                            On a completely unrelated note: I would like to remind everyone that my       schedule is quite erratic at the moment. I don't know when I will be able to       find time to respond.        I still have more responses I would like to make. I will get back to them when       I can. Don't be surprised if several days or more pass between responses.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca