Sentences with phrase «emitting less radiation»

Idea being that the panel with the highest temperature is either absorbing more radiation or emitting less radiation (or some combination of the two) is the best absorber paint candidate?

Such a material could also allow heaters to maintain a constant temperature by emitting less radiation in cold conditions and more in hot conditions.

Its star emits less radiation than many other red dwarfs, making LHS 1140b more likely to have kept its atmosphere.

This system emits less radiation to your pet and hospital personnel, while decreasing your pet's time under anesthesia.

An added bonus to digital radiology is the fact that it emits less radiation than traditional radiology.

in the first case, if for some reason the temperature of the Earth drops, it emits less radiation and the temperature tend to recover because the energy that is radiating is less that the energy it is absorbing.

Not exact matches

«The older an organism's remains are, the less beta radiation it emits because its C - 14 is steadily dwindling at a predictable rate.»

The new (Cordless Anti-Radiation Environment) technology in the SmartNova Baby Monitor achieves the same clear and private communication, while emitting 97 % less radiation and no pulsing radiation.

Avocados, for example, gave off 0.16 μGy / hr of gamma radiation — slightly less than the 0.17 μGy / hr emitted by a banana.

In fact, a typical coal - fired power plant exposes local residents to as many as 18 millirems of radiation yearly, whereas a nuclear power plant emits less than six millirems per annum, according to researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Life could eventually spread farther when such stars evolve pass their flare stage, since spectral - type M stars emit much less ultraviolet radiation once they quiet down.

However, scientists have observed that the radiation being emitted by the accretion disk around Sagittarius A * is much less than one would expect.

The frequency at which photons are emitted or absorbed is small relative to the rate of energy redistribution among molecules and their modes, so the fraction of some molecules that are excited in some way is only slightly more or less than the characteristic fraction for that temperature (depending on whether photons absorption to generate that particular state is greater than photon emission from that state or vice versa, which depends on the brightness temperature of the incident radiation relative to the local temperature).

Actually, though, most of the OLR originates from below the tropopause (can get up around 18 km in the tropics, generally lower)-- with a majority of solar radiation absorbed at the surface, a crude approximation can be made that the area emitting to space is less than 2 * (20/6371) * 100 % ~ = 0.628 % more than the area heated by the sun, so the OLR per unit area should be well within about 0.6 % of the value calculated without the Earth's curvature (I'm guessing it would actually be closer to if not less than 0.3 % different).

Actually to reach a new, higher equilibrium temperature, the Earth surface (including oceans) must warm and thus the radiative budget MUST be unbalanced, less radiation must be emitted in space compared to the (unchanged) incoming solar radiation.

What I meant was that Planck radiation increases with body or amb ient temperature, but higher temperature, per the Boltzmann distribution, makes it more probable that rotation, vibration, and / or electronic levels will be excited, and therefore less likely to emit relaxation energy, though as you point out this may not be exactly what happens physically — emission radiation is more flat than anything with increasing temperatures.

If the ice is a lower temperature than the liquid water, and as a general rule ice usually is colder than liquid water, then the ice emits less infrared radiation.

That way the collector absorbs solar radiation with high efficiency but emits far less thermal radiation.

It stands to reason that if a human optimum emites 100w / m2 of radiation through a duration, that earth is emitting much less per square metre.

For this reason, the shell will receive less W / sqm from Earth radiation than is emitted by the surface, because the radiation will spread out by the inverse square law just as sunlight gets less intense the further from the sun you get, and the shell will radiate more to space than back to Earth.

That jibes with the idea of a cooling trend during solar minimum; fewer spots means fewer faculae, so the Sun emits less Earth - warming radiation.

They will willfully fail to understand science's judgement that there is no safe level of radiation exposure, the less the better (And By God never reveal that nuke plants emit routinely release radiation into the unsuspecting surrounding communities).

over 90 % of downwelling radiation striking the ocean surface has been emitted a kilometre or less above it, because of re-absorption and re-emission.

-- Yes, it may be correct in so far as they can say that; «around 10 % of the wavebands emitted by IR radiation are made up of wave - lengths that can not be absorbed by «Greenhouse Gases» (GHGs), but that can not possibly mean that 0.04 %, in the case of CO2 concentration but certainly less than 10 % of the Atmosphere as a total has got what must be a «supernatural» ability to stop LWR.

EVEN IF we attribute ALL that radiation between 8 - 14 um to N2 & O2, the much more common N2 & O2 molecules are emitting much less energy.

The system is also as safe as any other Wi - Fi device, emitting less than 1 percent of the radiation from a regular smartphone.