Re: Jupiter (was PERIHELION etc.)

[Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskil@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

On Tuesday, Jan 6, 2004, Brian Whatcott wrote:

> 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..

The question about the radius is not trivial. Perhaps
somebody knows how to answer it. What troubles
me is this:

Solar constant of 120 W/m^2 does not change
significantly when one goes away from the
"surface" of Jupiter by another radius or two.
But the estimated number of W/m^2 emitted from
the center (?) of the planet is reduced by the factor
of four when the radius is doubled.

Therefore the estimated energy emission density
changes rapidly with the radius.  I used 180 W/m^2
and assumed that this average number is valid at
"my textbook radius",  7*10^7 m. In other words,
Jupiter, in my Fermi-like estimation model, was a
solid sphere in a vacuum. For a larger radius (still
using 180 W/m^2) the amount of  K-40 would be
larger.

Please show how to make a more accurate
estimate of "joules per seconds" attributed to a
source of energy in Jupiter on the basis of
known experimental facts.
Ludwik Kowalski