Thermal Conductivity , Ice & Me (or You, too)

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:18:37 GMT, "Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com
wrote in NkgPd.2805$uc.202@trnddc01::

So it is the thermal emissivity of the
wing surface that really matters -- not the molecular conductivity.

If the molecular conductivity is unimportant, once the surface changes
temperature, how does the rest of the material change temperature
without conduction?

Go back and read it in context. I didn't say there was no conduction.
What I said was (in different words) that conduction is not the process of
the wing surface losing thermal energy. Here, I'll put it in another term so
you can do some more nit picking: Because the atomosphere is transparent in
certain important wavelengths, the heat of the wing is being sucked into
outer space.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 04:34:40 GMT, "Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com
wrote in ANAPd.26325$uc.19139@trnddc04::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:18:37 GMT, "Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com
wrote in NkgPd.2805$uc.202@trnddc01::

So it is the thermal emissivity of the
wing surface that really matters -- not the molecular conductivity.

If the molecular conductivity is unimportant, once the surface changes
temperature, how does the rest of the material change temperature
without conduction?

Go back and read it in context. I didn't say there was no conduction.
What I said was (in different words) that conduction is not the process of
the wing surface losing thermal energy. Here, I'll put it in another term so
you can do some more nit picking: Because the atomosphere is transparent in
certain important wavelengths, the heat of the wing is being sucked into
outer space.


Yes. I understood what you said. And I thank you for the insight
into the arcana of IR radiation.

However, I believe the question that I posed provides further insight
into the RATE of temperature change that we were discussing.
Obviously conduction is required to move the heat to the surface.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 04:34:40 GMT, "Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com
wrote in ANAPd.26325$uc.19139@trnddc04::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:18:37 GMT, "Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com
wrote in NkgPd.2805$uc.202@trnddc01::

So it is the thermal emissivity of the
wing surface that really matters -- not the molecular conductivity.

If the molecular conductivity is unimportant, once the surface changes
temperature, how does the rest of the material change temperature
without conduction?

Go back and read it in context. I didn't say there was no conduction.
What I said was (in different words) that conduction is not the process
of
the wing surface losing thermal energy. Here, I'll put it in another term
so
you can do some more nit picking: Because the atomosphere is transparent
in
certain important wavelengths, the heat of the wing is being sucked into
outer space.


Yes. I understood what you said. And I thank you for the insight
into the arcana of IR radiation.

However, I believe the question that I posed provides further insight
into the RATE of temperature change that we were discussing.
Obviously conduction is required to move the heat to the surface.

Ahh, now I see your point. You are obviously correct that it is
a systemic process.

In article ANAPd.26325$uc.19139@trnddc04,
"Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com wrote:

Go back and read it in context. I didn't say there was no conduction.
What I said was (in different words) that conduction is not the process of
the wing surface losing thermal energy. Here, I'll put it in another term so
you can do some more nit picking: Because the atomosphere is transparent in
certain important wavelengths, the heat of the wing is being sucked into
outer space.

Well, I'll pick a tiny, purely semantic nit:

The heat of the wing isn't being "sucked" into space; it's being
actively _radiated_ into space -- but space, being cold (3 degrees K in
the limiting case), isn't radiating back.

But this is only to quarrel with your phrasing, not at all with your
basic argument.

The heat of the wing isn't being "sucked" into space; it's being
actively _radiated_ into space -- but space, being cold (3 degrees K in
the limiting case), isn't radiating back.

But this is only to quarrel with your phrasing, not at all with your
basic argument.

Actually, I like the imagery of the heat being sucked into space.

Jose