[meteorite-list] Cali chondrite fell extremely cold!
From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:06:16 -0500 Message-ID: <05af01c7d18d$6ee20a90$ac2ee146_at_ATARIENGINE> Dear Alex, Mike, List, Alex said: > several posts about this on the list in the past... Mexico Doug has done more work on this than anyone else I can think of. Go to the website http://www.diogenite.com/ and click on the item "Meteoroid" in the left-hand menu. There is Doug's graph of the space equilibrium temperatures for irons, ordinary condrites, and carbonaceous chondrites for any distance from the sun. From the graph, we can see that an OC orbiting at about the same distance from the Sun as the Earth would have a "natural" temperature of about -10 degrees C. The heating of ablation is too brief to penetrate far into the stone, and the cooling of dark fall is likely to completely nullify exterior heating (as Marcin said). Above the graph, Doug provides a link to his post to The List where he detailed the assumptions the graph is based on, but the List archives no longer go back that far. Mine do, however, so here's Doug's full explanation: Part I There is no minimum size to absorb energy from the Sun, even a molecule can do it - heat of everything is actually principally caused by molecular vibrational motion in the Infrared range under normal circumstances - molecular vibrations. So that answers the easy question. On the temperature of a meteoroid traveling in space, that is a complicated question because the question is really millions of questions in one depending on what temperature you mean - and where you measure it. But I think I can give a shot at a satisfying at everything you wanted to know on the first question and weren't afraid to ask, with the following calculations you kept me awake doing. You can make a lot of interesting observations here. I'd add a Eucrite and an Enstatite Achondrite, which I expect the former would not be closer to OC, and the later more on the way to the irons. I guess:) Distance Energy flux <-------T (degrees C)--------> T(Planet av. Surf.) AU W/m2 CC OC Fe-Ni "ideal" note 0.31 14,214 216 195 378 227 Mercury (p) 167 0.47 6,184 124 107 255 133 Mercury (ap) 167 0.72 2,635 48 34 154 55 Venus 464 1.00 1,366 -1 -12 89 6 Earth 15 1.52 591 -52 -62 21 -47 Mars -63 2.80 174 -110 -117 -57 -107 3.00 152 -116 -123 -64 -112 4.00 85 -137 -143 -92 -134 5.00 55 -151 -156 -111 -148 5.2 51 -154 -159 -114 -151 Jupiter -144 9.5 15 -185 -188 -155 -183 Saturn -176 19.2 3.7 -211 -214 -190 -209 Uranus -215 29.7 1.5 -223 -225 -207 -222 Pluto (p) -223 30.1 1.5 -223 -226 -207 -222 Neptune -215 49.3 0.6 -234 -236 -221 -233 Pluto (ap) -223 Kuiper, Comets (ap) 50K 0.000001 -272 -272 -271 -272 Oort Cloud (Table may not display well in text, but if you copy it into excel and use text-to-columns it should look great.) Part II Assumptions & Discussion: T = [(absorptivity/emissivity)*(Energy flux/sigma)*(a/A)]^(1/4) where: Emissivity = energy ratio emitted at a temperature = compositional property. Absorptivity = energy fraction absorbed at a temperature = compositional property. Temperature is proportional to absorptivity but proportional to the inverse of emissivity, i.e. T^(4)=k*(absorptivity/emissivity). The useful form of this law is called the Stephan-Boltzmann Law: Energy = sigma*T^4 (S-B law constant, sigma = 5.67*10^-8*Wm^-2*K^-4) That the integrated energy radiated from a black booty is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. This "law" is useful to convert the energy hitting an object into the temperature and is really the scientific key to address your question approximately. Kirchoff's (other) Law: For a body in radiative equilibrium energy absorption = energy emission. So we consider the very plausible scenario that the meteoroid's position in orbit doesn't alter radically (it doesn't travel near light speed!) Solar energy is mainly provided for absorption in the UV-Visible range. Energy is emitted in the IR range (vibrational energy, the meteoroid doesn't emit much light energy:-). Meteoroide is spherical in shape (OK not generality, so could vary maybe 50% either way for example when a planar shaped meteoroid had verrry low rotational energy w/r to the Sun) ABSORPTIVITY = CC = 0.8, OC = 0.65, Fe-Ni = 0.80, "ideal" = 1 EMISSIVITY = CC = 0.88, OC = 0.85, weathered Fe-Ni = 0.28, "ideal" = 1 Assumed constant emissivities, but actually they vary, for example, decreasing somewhat (and then only by a square root) as the AU's increase for Iron, and a lot for Nickel, though I expect the "weathered" surface might somewhat mitigate this. The temperature of a meteoroid in space will of course depend on the latitude, depth, it's cross sectional exposure vs. overall mass distribution and distance to the Sun, just like any other non-radioactive cooled body whether in orbit or passing through. Part III So the directional answer is best gotten to by a bunch of assumptions and simplifications, including that the thing is rotating on a nice skewer and isn't too big so that depth becomes an issue, which adds some calculus for all those onion rinds. So sticking to something say a couple of meters in diameter... Otherwise we deal with things like what is the temperature of Mercury (Solar side, mass, backside, transition zone, latitude, rotation, greenhouse effect if any, and composition which will affect what radiation can be absorbed and converted into heat. A simple way to think about the latter is thinking about a microwave oven. If the object to be heated is made with lots of water, it has a strong absorbance in that range, but the glass door doesn't (even on the inside). So a Tektite sent in orbit very well could have a lower temperature than a cometary water containing carbonaceous type body which in turn creates nice effects in part due to these warmings in the estelas. An example like Mercury, of one not rotating with respect to the Sun causes other complications. So best to think of an ant in a spacesuit when asking your question. The center of the meteoroid will be cooler at its equilibrium temperature so wherever the ant walks or burrows will depend on the temperature. Average temperature is a much easier proposition, but knowing that wouldn't help the ant's survival chances at all if he ends up in the Ant:-)arctic vs. Sahara of the meteoroid. If one assumes that a meteoroid has no greenhouse effect and is made of stone or iron-nickel, and absorbs typically a full spectrum in the range of what the sun mainly radiates for heating i.e. UV-Visible light, lots of simplifying assumptions can be made. You can look at Venus and see what a Greenhouse effect does, or even Jupiter, which I suspect is somehat warmer still than the NASA page reference I used, because it actually puts out more energy than it received that little stunted star...or figure out at what distance comets get tails (snowball's sublimation temperature). You get the idea:) The basics would include the following, I would think, calling the meteoroid shape a sphere for simplification, which of course is not true but good enough, also that the Sun is like a Black Body at 5800 degrees K from Wein's Law. Taken together with the idea that radiation from any source drops off as the square of the distance from the source. (Which is understandable by knowing that the surface area of a sphere, ie, non-directional emmiting source, 4*Pi*r^2 increases by the square of the radius.), you can get a handle on temperature caused by the Sun on objects floating in the Solar System. And in the case of the meteroid, we only get a quarter of the total area exposed to the Sun in the simplified case of a spherical meteoroid (area sphere = 4*pi*r^2 vs. great circle exposed = pi*r^2, a factor of 1/4). Using the two laws in a numer of ways, but sparing the the tedious math, the Sun's photosphere ("surface") clocks at near 5800 degrees K being basically a heat source (150,000,000 km from earth minus Sun's radius, aww lets just say the center of the Sun since we can then measure in AU and are not dealing generally with the inner Solar System to make a huge difference with the Sun's 700,000 km or so radius. Using the inverse square law then you get the energies in my table I gave you. Then, I derived the temperature in the above table (all in an excel spreadsheet) using the Stephan-Boltzmann Law, for you with this exact formula: T = [R/sigma*(a/e)*(areacrosssec/areatot)*(1/R^2)]^(1/4) and substituded the differewnt absorptivities and emissivities...presto, a solar meteorite thermometer. You can graph them too and it is easy to look at, but I couldn't figure out how to graph in plain text for the list:) [End of Doug's explanation] Sterling K. Webb ------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Seidel" <gsac at gmx.net> To: "Michael Farmer" <meteoriteguy at yahoo.com>; <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 9:18 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Cali chondrite fell extremely cold! Mike, your comment was obviously triggered by my earlier post to the list this day. I always thought stones of a meteorite fall would be rather "cold" after touchdown. Then again one has to look at typical equilibrium temps for a tumbling stone meteoroid at a typical Earth orbit cruising distance before encounter with the Earth atmosphere. There were several posts about this on the list in the past, may be someone can retrieve them from the archives. The hot phase of atmospheric entry, before reaching the retardation point, will most likely only affect the very outer zones of a meteoroid large enough to not disintegrate, while the inner parts will remain effectively at the former equilibriums temps due to a rather low heat transfer process for typical stony meteorites in the few seconds or minutes of atmospheric transit. And the final dark flight will cool down the former temporary high temps on the outsides of the stone pretty soon. If I ever had the chance to pick up a freshly fallen stone immediately after the event, I would expect it to be rather "cold" to the touch.... :) Alex Berlin/Germany Received on Sat 28 Jul 2007 11:06:16 PM PDT |
StumbleUpon del.icio.us Yahoo MyWeb |