Re: Jupiter (was PERIHELION etc.)

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>]

At 01:04 AM 1/6/2004,  John M. you wrote:
> ///
> You [Ludwik] inferred a net power out of 1x10^19 W which, given Jupiter's mass
> of 2x10^27 kg and radius of 7x10^7 m, could be produced with a
> contraction rate of
>
>    dR/dt ~ 2 Angstrom/s ~ 6x10^6 m/Gyr
>
> This would almost certainly be undetectable, but it also seems
> perhaps an order of magnitude larger than I might find reasonable.
>
> --
> John Mallinckrodt        mailto:ajm@csupomona.edu
> Cal Poly Pomona          http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm

I was a little uneasy that Ludwik used the same radius for computing the Jovian
insolation and the radio-active heating. Different effective radii, I would
 have supposed. Perhaps this could account for some of the discrepancy.
 I don't recall that Kelvin had the Earth shrinking when he computed
Earth's age
 based on thermal cooling, pre radio-active explanations..



Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!