Timeline for Strength of moonlight
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 14, 2016 at 6:42 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/698759299686920192 | ||
| Feb 14, 2016 at 3:44 | history | edited | Adam Martin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1069 characters in body; deleted 235 characters in body
|
| Feb 14, 2016 at 2:24 | answer | added | Peter Diehr | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 14, 2016 at 0:23 | comment | added | rodrigo | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Feb 14, 2016 at 0:23 | comment | added | Adam Martin | Yeah that was him saying that's what he thought we were saying, and that the sun behaving like stones implies that. He's saying that the limit should be the total energy radiated by the body, not the surface temperature | |
| Feb 14, 2016 at 0:21 | comment | added | rodrigo | Sorry, but that last comment by your father makes no sense. Sun particles (photons?) have no temperature, they have energy. And the Sun does work like my stones. The red hot stones heat the house by radiation, just like the sun (maybe no so hot, the Sun is white hot). And radiation, as any other form or energy, obeys the laws of thermodynamics. | |
| Feb 14, 2016 at 0:18 | history | edited | Adam Martin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 333 characters in body
|
| Feb 14, 2016 at 0:12 | comment | added | Adam Martin | That's the explanation I gave (with an oven instead), but they're (well my dad, my bro is convinced) saying sun rays arent like that. His analogy is that the sun rays hitting the surface don't behave like stones (I.e. each sun particle should reach the earth at the same temperature if you think about it this way, so the magnifying glass should then not work with the sun either) | |
| Feb 14, 2016 at 0:05 | comment | added | rodrigo | No, using multiple points will not reach a hight temperature. Imagine warming your house with a red hot stone, you may think that two red hot stones will heat your house faster, and you'd be right. But once your whole house has reached the temperature of the stones, bringing one hundred more stones to your house will not make it any hotter. | |
| Feb 14, 2016 at 0:05 | comment | added | Adam Martin | They're saying that energy is additive, so you should be able to use a system of mirrors and lenses to get above the surface temperature at a single point | |
| Feb 14, 2016 at 0:04 | history | edited | Adam Martin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Feb 14, 2016 at 0:02 | comment | added | rodrigo | Specifically, the author claims that you cannot heat anything with optic systems to a temperature hight than the light source. | |
| Feb 14, 2016 at 0:00 | comment | added | Adam Martin | I think their point is that you should be able to focus light from multiple points on the moon/sun's surface to reach a higher temp, while Munroe seems to say it's only energy from a single point? Like they think in his final analogy (surrounded by surface) you could use lenses to focus the energy to get a hotter temperature? | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 23:51 | comment | added | Asher | I don't see how they think that Munroe "conflates light and energy." The answer deals with the available energy, and the fact that the energy is carried by light is irrelevant. | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 22:45 | review | First posts | |||
| Feb 13, 2016 at 22:52 | |||||
| Feb 13, 2016 at 22:43 | history | asked | Adam Martin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |