Erik Reuter wrote:
... That way we won't get caught in
> a loop with me making math mistakes and you saying the result doesn't
> make sense to you but you don't want to work out the math.
But actually doing the math makes it like WORK for me. : )
> By the way, how did you know, before working out the equation, that
> the potential function of the spinning habitat had to be approximately
> the same as that due to gravity? Did you intuit that from a principle
> of the equivalence of a gravitational field with that of a centrifugal
> force field in a rotating frame?
Yes. The fields of acceleration vectors are approximately
equal, so everything else must be as well. (A scene from _Consider
Phlebas_ notwithstanding...)
...
> n[h] / n[0] = Exp[ - m g h ( 1 - 0.5 h / R ) / k / T ]
>
> So, assuming I don't make another math mistake, the formula for pressure
> ratio is the same as that for n[h] / n[0] which can be written
...
Looks good. Clever. My way I would have had to solve a
differential equation.
---David
Robert--
You started all this. Am I right in thinking that you
WANT the habitat to have vaguely terrestrial weather? Something
like a layer of clouds a kilometer or two up? Sounds cool!
Going back to physical intuition again, it does seem
to me that we need to say which parts of the habitat are hot,
and which are cold. Weather is essentially a heat engine, so
the direction of heat flow should make a large difference.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
