|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Heat in front of moving object
"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: "Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message ... Richard Fangnail wrote: A fast-moving object like a meteorite compresses the air in front of it, causing heat. Does an ordinary plane have a problem with this or is it not moving fast enough? Others have confirmed that supersonic aircraft need to have an allowance for expansion built into their designs. Passenger airliners fly at speeds of c 400-500 mph and there is certainly some frictional heating. The Siberian meteor of 1908 exploded in midair. Why do you suppose it did, as opposed to hitting the earth? It was moving at several km/sec and at that sort of speed, air resistance generates a shockwave that will propagate through the rock/ice/whatever and if the tensile strength is not great enough it will break up. I don't think there was time for frictional heating to cause an explosion via ice evaporation--the passage through the air lasted only a few seconds, and heating propagates very slowly through rock. Let me see if I have this right... If it moves slowly through air then it doesn't heat up, but if it moves quickly through air it doesn't have time to heat up. Is that what you are saying? I rather think the heat shield tiles on the shuttle will not agree with you. E = m . 1/2v^2 only if v goes to zero, otherwise it remains kinetic energy. Shuttle reentry lasts several minutes. Heat does not have time to get from the outside to the inside of the large object falling to Earth at several km/sec. Yeah, you've already said that. Repeating it won't make it true either. Obviously you have a reading comprehension problem. Not at all, I fully comprehend your ridiculous bull****. If it moves slowly through air then it doesn't heat up, but if it moves quickly through air it doesn't have time to heat up. So it doesn't heat up. Obviously you have a illogical problem. An asteroid is not a supersonic aircraft, which is hollow and flies for hours at a time, hence of course its skin heats up during flight. One favourite ploy of the illogical twerp is to say "A {object/expression} is not a {different object/expression} " as in "An asteroid is not a supersonic aircraft!" or "A sausage is not a dog's breakfast!" The dog may conclude otherwise and prove it by eating the sausage. Obviously you have a illogicality problem. For a large solid asteroid entering the atmosphere, the surface layer heats to incandescence and breaks up or evaporates (carrying off a large amount of the heat via ablation). The bulk of the interior remains at the temperature it had in interplanetary space. The reason is, that the rate at which heat is transmitted through a solid body is rather slow, and the passage through the atmosphere only lasts a few seconds. If the asteroid has a weak structure, as many comet nuclei and asteroids appear to have from in-situ investigations, it is likely to be disrupted by shock waves from the hypersonic entry speed into the atmosphere. I have no illogical problems with these concepts from basic thermodynamics, but you have several. I think That's not the first time you've made that claim. Do you have any empirical evidence to support the ludicrous assertion that you are capable of actually thinking? everyone else who has read the thread understands this point. What, slow and fast heat transfer? Let's see... object moves through air at v1 mph. surface temperate rises 1 degree a second. core temperature rises 1 degree a second, delayed by 100 seconds for heat transfer. After 10 seconds the surface temperate is 10 degrees. After 10 seconds the core temperate is 0 degrees. After 100 seconds the surface temperate is 100 degrees. After 100 seconds the core temperate is 0 degrees. After 200 seconds the surface temperate is 200 degrees. After 200 seconds the core temperate is 100 degrees. Water boils at 100 degrees, object explodes after 200 seconds. Object moves through air at v2 mph. surface temperate rises 10 degrees a second. After 50 seconds the surface temperate is 500 degrees. core temperature rises 10 degrees a second, delayed by 50 seconds for heat transfer. After 50 seconds the core temperate is 0 degrees. After 60 seconds the surface temperate is 600 degrees. After 60 seconds the core temperate is 100 degrees. Water boils at 100 degrees, object explodes after 60 seconds. object moves through air at v3 mph. surface temperature rises at 100 degrees / second. After 10 seconds the surface temperate is 1000 degrees. core temperature rises 100 degrees a second, delayed by 10 seconds for heat transfer. After 10 seconds the core temperate is 0 degrees, it takes 10 seconds for the heat to transfer After 20 seconds the surface temperate is 2000 degrees. After 11 seconds the core temperate is 100 degrees. After 12 seconds the core temperate is 200 degrees. After 13 seconds nothing, the core exploded. The surface temperature never got to 2000 degrees, there is no surface. Are you aware that fresh meteorites have been found that have frost on the outside, because the interiors were at very low temperatures in space and only the outer crust was heated by atmospheric entry. Are you aware that energy and heat can be exchanged, we've only been making steam trains running on coal fires and capable of 100 mph for 200 years? E = m . v^2/2 only if v goes to zero, otherwise it remains kinetic energy. That means deceleration is converted to heat, no matter how long it takes. Obviously you have a physics problem. I don't think At least you admit that now. I am the one with the physics problem here. An asteroid entering the atmosphere at 10 km/s is not a steam train. One favourite ploy of the illogical twerp is to say "A {object/expression} is not a {different object/expression} " as in "An asteroid travelling at 10 km/s is not a steam train!" or "Eight hotdogs are not a dog's breakfast!" The dog may conclude otherwise and prove it by eating all the hotdogs. Obviously you have a thermal transfer problem, but you are correct in one respect: the boiler of the steam train would definitely explode within seconds if it travelled in air at 10 km/s, as was so tragically demonstrated by the shuttle Columbia. Learn about heat transfer which is faster if there is a greater temperature gradient, as anyone with a lick of common sense would know. If it was a stony object, like some asteroids that have been studied close up, it may have had a fairly loose structure so it is not hard to see why it would break up. I understand this is what is generally postulated. In contrast, consider an iron meteorite, which would have held together. They never found any indications of iron in the composition. -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MEASURING THE LENGTH OF A MOVING OBJECT (was: The Nanometre Twin) | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 5th 07 08:18 AM |
Gravitation can be stirred up by a fast moving/rotating object | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 30th 06 03:28 AM |
FMO (Fast Moving Object) in foreground of NGC891 core. | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | December 5th 05 12:54 PM |
Slow moving object spotted near M11 | Stephen Paul | Amateur Astronomy | 12 | September 3rd 05 02:36 AM |
Slow moving object on images? | Chris Taylor | UK Astronomy | 1 | August 14th 05 08:58 AM |