Sentences with phrase «energy radiation sources»

Not exact matches

K - alpha and bremsstrahlung x-ray radiation backlighter sources from short pulse laser driven silver targets as a function of laser pre-pulse energy

Solar radiation is the main energy source driving the earth's atmospheric system.

The country's newest space lab, Tiangong - 2, for example, hosts a number of scientific payloads, including an advanced atomic clock and a $ 3.4 - million detector called POLAR for the study of γ - ray bursts — blasts of high - energy radiation from collapsing stars and other sources.

Instead they showed an increase in energy that started right in the middle of the radiation belts and gradually spread both inward and outward, implying a local acceleration source.

Yet there is no doubt that research into atmospheric aerosols is becoming increasingly important due to the effects that they can have on the global temperature of Earth, given that solar radiation is the main source of energy for Earth - Atmosphere system.

Black holes can not be observed directly, but they are the energy source at the heart of quasars — intense, compact gushers of radiation that can outshine an entire galaxy.

But the high - energy radiation from the source has shown no sign of dying down, which suggests that astronomers may have caught a star in the process of being ripped to shreds by a black hole.

The map, published online in the journal Scientific Reports on September 1, 2015, provides an important baseline image of the energy budget of Earth's interior and could help scientists monitor new and existing human - made sources of radiation.

This model describes three types of forces: electromagnetic interactions, which cause all phenomena associated with electric and magnetic fields and the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation; strong interactions, which bind atomic nuclei; and the weak nuclear force, which governs beta decay — a form of natural radioactivity — and hydrogen fusion, the source of the sun's energy.

They then looked at another source of data: that of the Clouds» and Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) satellite instruments which measure fluxes of reflected and emitted radiation from Earth to space, to help scientists understand how the climate varies over time.

The correlation we observed is compatible with the hypothesis that the highest - energy particles originate from nearby extragalactic sources whose flux has not been substantially reduced by interaction with the cosmic background radiation.

The ultimate energy source for this radiation is the nebula's pulsar.

«The experiments confirm significant endurance gains are possible by leveraging thermal updrafts and incident solar radiation, rather than ignoring these free sources of energy,» Edwards said.

Star, any massive self - luminous celestial body of gas that shines by radiation derived from its internal energy sources.

radiation Energy, emitted by a source, that travels through space in waves or as moving subatomic particles.

The radiation will actually be an useful source of energy / oxidants: http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/3506/europa%E2%80%99s-churn-leads-to-oxygen-burn

Such a telescope would use large arrays of ground - based telescopes to detect blue flashes of Cerenkov radiation, which are caused by very high energy gamma - ray photons from cosmic sources smashing into the atmosphere.

The PBCr developed will be used for the construction of novel light sources of high - energy monochromatic electromagnetic radiation by means of a Crystalline Undulator (CU).

ENERGY SOURCES LEAVE TELLTALE SIGNATURES IN THE FORM OF EXHAUST OR RADIATION This classic principle of physics requires little translation for the financial markets.

In the context of global climate, absorbed solar radiation (about 240 W / m2, with 30 percent of the incident radiation being reflected back to space) is the energy source that keeps the Earth's surface warm.

It does seem at first glance that a warm troposphere would warm the stratosphere, but the explanation that more of the earth - sourced infrared radiation is absorbed lower in the the troposphere by higher levels of CO2 makes sense if one thinks about the thermodynamic losses involved in the CO2 re-radiation processes; some of the earth - sourced infrared is transformed into kinetic energy and only a fraction is reradiated as more infrared radiation (if I'm understanding correctly).

Through appropriate building design, behavioural change and demand management (this does not mean living like a cave - man, just using resources efficiently) and appropriate matching of energy source with demand (i.e using solar radiation, not brown coal fired electricity for water heating), it is possible to eliminate these emissions completely.

The source of the Earth's temperature is the sun, and the only mechanism the Earth (inclusive of the atmoshpere) has to shed that energy is through radiation.

The earth then, receives energy via radiation from a heat source but dissipates it via radiation, conduction and convection (gas and hydrological process for the latter two mediums).

Despite the enthusiasm for nuclear energy as a carbon - zero energy source, there are still issues around radiation, safety, uranium mining, and nuclear weapons through enrichment.

In fact, they reduce the required energy to such an extent that solar radiation is sufficient as an energy source.

The warmer body cools more slowly as a result because a ready source of energy from incident radiation is quicker to just «reflect» back into the atmosphere, rather than have to convert its own thermal energy to radiated energy.

If a black body with a fixed - rate energy source is in radiation - rate - equilibrium with the vacuum of space at 0 Kelvins, placing additional material separate from but surrounding the black body will likely cause the temperature of the surface of the black body to change in such a way that energy - rate - equilibrium is re-established for the black body.

Tom Vonk is correct when he says that the following statements are over-simplifications and need corrections (in caps): «CO2 absorbs AND EMITS the outgoing infrared energy and warms the atmosphere TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE THAN IT WOULD HAVE WITHOUT CO2» — or — «CO2 traps part of the infrared radiation between ground and the upper part of the atmosphere» AND IS THE MAJOR SOURCE OF INFRARED RADIATION FROM THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE radiation between ground and the upper part of the atmosphere» AND IS THE MAJOR SOURCE OF INFRARED RADIATION FROM THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE RADIATION FROM THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE TO SPACE.

If (a) the surfaces of both objects behave like a black body, (b) the surface temperature of each body is everywhere the same, and (c) the internal energy sources are equal (i.e., their rates - of - internal - energy - generation are the same), at radiation - rate - equilibrium the surface temperature of the cube will be lower than the surface temperature of the sphere by the ratio of the fourth root of 1.2407 or 1.0554.

Any emission to the surface will not be absorbed and converted to thermal energy (because it comes from a cooler source) and so all radiation from the atmosphere eventually ends up going to space.

Prof Claes Johnson has proved in Computational Blackbody Radiation * that energy in radiation only gets converted to thermal energy if the peak frequency of the radiation from the source is above the peak frequency of the radiation from the target.

This is a factor of 1.9 times greater than the incoming Sun's radiation without any additional energy source required.

Prof Claes Johnson (see Computational Blackbody Radiation) and I are in total agreement as to the reason being that blackbodies do not convert the energy in radiation that was emitted spontaneously by a cooler source than their own temperature.

The back - radiation can not be more energetic than the source, and in fact, must be of lesser energetic state than the original source, for it has shed some energy by collision with other forms of matter (absorbed, re-radiated, etc...).

If the answer is indeed # 2 (which my gut tells me is not so), then it must, according to the Laws of Thermodynamics, and the laws and properties of radiation physics, matter and energy, act to decreasethe energy of the source radiation.

Back - radiation is in no way capable of increasing the energy of the original source radiation.

It has to keep supplying the kinetic energy required to maintain atmospheric height and it has to still be warm enough to match outgoing radiation with incoming radiation from an external source.

A gold metal layer beaten out to a 100 Angstrom thick film, is also not going to radiate like a solid; it is going to start looking decidedly more gas like, because of its extremely low thermal mass, so that a small radiation can result in a large Temperature drop (unless replenished from some continuous energy source).

Ok, so «sawing a bit off the Sun including it's energy» may sound ridicules, but that is quite a good analogy of what radiation does; it constantly takes a proportion of enrgy away from a heat - source and «throws it away».

However, if radiation from outside (independently on its source) delivers the energy to the surface layer then temperature of the surface layer will not decrease as in the absence of this extra energy.

In the real world; that being the laboratory where CO2 does its dastardly deed on our climate, the source of the energy that purports to do the heating, is (on average) a black body like source of Long wave infrared radiation having a spectral peak at about 10.1 microns wavelength, and containing about 98 % of its energy in a range of about 5.0 to 80 microns wavelength, at an effective Temperature (on average) of 288 Kelvin.

It might help you if you had a few concepds in mind too when considering this subject, like «space» is the big energy «sink» with old sol (and the internal heat generating processes (including nuclear) of the earth) as sources... any mechanism that results in a delay of energy leaving earth, such as a «bounce - back» or a re-rad of energy (like back radiation) certainly is going to increase the «energy flux» in the system, and this in any way you want to frame the argument translates to a «higher» energy state, and a higher so - called temperature» (movement in matter, velocity of air molecules or oscillations in certain «resonant molecules) as well.

more carbon dioxide in the lower atmosphere means more little «point sources» for more absorbed EM in the infrared part of the spectrum, (infrared that re-radiated from the earth's surface after sunlight hit it and got absorbed); and since point sources radiate in a spherical pattern, that means more «back radiation» to earth, on balance... and this changes the «standing pattern» of energy flow in and out of the earth system, creating a time differential, so it starts to re-adjust...

-- Heat is the product of work done by energy provided by an energy source, in this case the Sun's energy via the curtesy of radiation.

The cause of the BB radiation is obviously the energy from the source mediated by the BB Absorbtivity and Emissivity (which at certain wavelengths will be equal once radiative equilibrium is reached)

However, my main point was not so much about the «make up» of ozone but more about the possibility that as long as oxygen atoms and molecules absorb enough energy from UV radiation to alter their structure it may be that they also produce an increase in their heat content, which should be greater at any points nearest to the source — i.e..

The BB radiation doesn't determine the energy level of the source, though it will determine the rate at which the source's energy level will decrease.

Anyone who supports Trenberth's diagram and considers that the back radiation theory is correct should be asked to explain why we are not utilising this fanastic energy source.

The only way you can get around the requirement that the steady - state temperature be such that the energy in from the sun equals the energy out from terrestrial radiation is to have some other significant source of energy.