Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Does a planets orientation contribute to its internal heat?

Does a planets orientation contribute to its internal heat?

There are two planets, Venus and Uranus that are not in counter clock wise rotation. Venus is boiling hot and about 180 degrees off of rotating the way most planets do. Uranus produces more heat internally than it receives from the Sun and it is tilted about 98 degrees. I think this extra heat production is due to magnetic conflicts with the Sun and would disappear if, say Venus, is to assume a normal counter clockwise rotation. If this contention is correct there should be a mathematical solution determine the relative heat produced in each planet by some relationship to the degree the planet disagrees with the proper counter clockwise rotation of the other planets. Venus is the extreme at 180 degrees any other being something less. This opens the possibility of a fairly large planet in the outer regions of the Solar System rotating clockwise and producing enough heat to sustain life even in the coldest regions.
I think there must be a way to calculate this effect but I can not do it.
Can you?
jw

Describe in detail the approach(es) you have
made in calculating any contribution jjw004.

Thanks

Garry asks:
Describe in detail the approach(es) you have made in calculating the contribution jjw004.
Rep.

First of all I must confess I am neither learned nor skilled in physics. When very young I began an electrician apprentice course at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard but did not finish due to the length of the course (you could get a B.A. degree in the same time.) While working with the "test gang" running temperature readings and RPM's on large electric motors I became acquainted with the heat increase in some motors related to things like uneven mounts, excessive friction on shafts and inadequate voltage supply.

Now, to the question, I am certain in my own mind that Venus is super hot due to its retrograde rotation and not simply due to a greenhouse effect as currently offered. This effect is seen in Uranus and to a much lesser extent here at Earth (we are only 23 degrees off of perpendicular to the elliptic.). That is another point of interest. We are, it seems, still in an Earth focused Solar System using the earth as the source of the elliptic. My approach was very simplistic. I start with the assumption that the real center point of the system is at the Sun's equator. All planets positions are assumed to be proper if their axis is perpendicular to the plane created by the Suns equator plane. I then start by listing the published data for each planet (satellites later) and use that data to created a chart providing the opportunity for comparisons. I have not done it on this issue yet but I do at times write a BASIC program with a loop that lets me replay the data over and over to seek a uniform meaningful result that appears to work. This by my simplistic method would hopefully equate a given degree of tilt to an observed temperature of the object. The method must then provide for a potential enlargement of temperature, not necessarily evenly progressive, that works for all of the planets. The first handicap is that we do not have that kind of data for all of the planets, not even for the Earth that I know of, but I am sure it is there.
I had to give you more than you wanted because I have no thermal formulae that I know how to apply and no assurance such formulae would work in this instance. When time permits I will get on with the computer projections.

You may have a better idea since you are a geologist.
jw

My research yielded "Not Published" jjw004,
if important to you, properly publish first.

Good luck with it.

The Tilted Sapce Time Creates a New Space Time Force Other than Dragging and Attracting
Thus some regions become more deformed than other.Any heat is always countered by Equal Cold.
Creating an Evolutionary Entropy Charge.
Thus Dimensional Explanation can be exchanged with Quantum Explanation.
Which means Universe scaling is possible and Speed of Light can be Increase with time.By exchanging Quantum Expalnation with Extra Dimensions.
Thus there are beings which live in higher Dimensions.

Beings which live in higher dimensions? That's a high flying conclusion. Would you care to back it up with something more substantial than your aery-faery flights of lousy logic? How about some concrete evidence of some kind? Even droppings would help. A footprint perhaps.

And besides, You're WAY off topic.

Why? What's the point of going through the hassle of getting something published, especially when one is a non-academic non-scientist who simply has an idea and wants to see if it's a viable idea.

Seems to me that the best thing to do in that case would be to post the idea on a dedicated science forum where knowledgeable types could comment on the idea.

So jjw's only error, it seems, was choosing this forum to post on.

Your idea, if I understand it correctly, is that (1) a planet's rotation around its axis has an effect on its magnetic field; (2) that the more extreme the deviation from the perpendicular (in relation to the plane of the orbit), the more extreme the effect on the magnetic field; (3) that a rotation in a direction opposite to the common direction of most planets has a significant effect on the magnetic field; (4) that these effects on the planet's magnetic field encounter resistance or otherwise interact with the sun's magnetic field or solar wind or cosmic radiation or something, so that (5) the planet's core generates heat.

I'm not sure I buy it. Do you have any analogous observations about the interplay of magnetic fields that would indicate (a) that heat would be generated this way and (b) that any such heat would arise within the planet rather than out in its magnetic lines of force in space? Do you have any analogous observations about magnetic fields created by physical forces similar to a planet's rotation, which would indicate that the angle or direction of rotation have any significant effect on the magnetic field so created?

While you're answering these questions, you might also want to ponder the fact that Venus doesn't appear to be throwing off more heat than it is absorbing (so its atmosphere and proximity to the sun would appear to explain its temperature).

And you might also want to ponder the likelihood of fusion occurring in the cores of the gas giants, which is widely supposed to be occurring at least within Jupiter, and not improbably within the other three.

Hi YAC:

I am on my way to the beach area this morning so I do not have time now to respond to your post. I like your approach though. I will be in touch soon from the beach area. If Venus was putting out more heat than it was getting from the sun how would you know?
jw

The more reason to protect it,
if jjw004 is interested in credit.

Publishing is easy.

While you're answering these questions, you might also want to ponder the fact that Venus doesn't appear to be throwing off more heat than it is absorbing (so its atmosphere and proximity to the sun would appear to explain its temperature).
REP:Probably she never belonged to this Solar System.She is the pure relic of the ancient Collosion which had taken palce between Sun and that Ultra Cold Planet.

Please don't be offended, but I'm guessing you're ten or eleven years old. Am I correct?

Now you have said I am not.
I am 11 year old if you want.
But seriously there is nothing wrong in my suggestion.Infact if I am not wrong this happened long time ago.
That debris must also have struck the Earth.

Hi all:

It is 11:10 PM here at the beach and I have had a large dinner, which always drains s some needed blood from my brain, but I will try a preliminary response.

DKV: I am surprised to learn you?re 11 years old and even more surprised to find that you admit it. Never shake the mysterious from your mantle. From my standpoint I am impressed if for no other reason than that you survive the hassle.

To G. Denke: Yes I propose to publish when I make a break through. I have published one book on the solar system with new stuff but done too early.
Academics publish to enhance their credentials; I have none- to advance.

To the Crank: I am going to provide as serious a response as possible to you posting that I can. OTOH we must start with the realization that the criteria you want me to provide is not available from any one ? no academic ? not Newton and not likely from me. However, since I am probably the first person to ever raise the issue in the first place I want to pursue it the best way I know how. It is now going on 11:30 PM. My lady has already gone bye-bye so I will too. I have a busy day tomorrow because I sold my boat and must conclude paper work meetings first.

You will get your response.
jw

I am surprised to learn you?re 11 years old and even more surprised to find that you admit it. Never shake the mysterious from your mantle. From my standpoint I am impressed if for no other reason than that you survive the hassle.
REP:I hope I do not go against your theory.
But going by the defintion of forum I have put my point of view.Apart from a genuine objection, once raised during the Group Intelligence Discussion, I have not found a fruitful reasoning which could have resulted in a better understanding of us as a group..

Originally posted by jjw004:
Does a planets orientation contribute to its internal heat?

Reply by JAC
?Your idea, if I understand it correctly, is that (1) a planet's rotation around its axis has an effect on its magnetic field; (2) that the more extreme the deviation from the perpendicular (in relation to the plane of the orbit), the more extreme the effect on the magnetic field; (3) that a rotation in a direction opposite to the common direction of most planets has a significant effect on the magnetic field; (4) that these effects on the planet's magnetic field encounter resistance or otherwise interact with the sun's magnetic field or solar wind or cosmic radiation or something, so that (5) the planet's core generates heat.

I'm not sure I buy it. Do you have any analogous observations about the interplay of magnetic fields that would indicate (a) that heat would be generated this way and (b) that any such heat would arise within the planet rather than out in its magnetic lines of force in space? Do you have any analogous observations about magnetic fields created by physical forces similar to a planet's rotation, which would indicate that the angle or direction of rotation have any significant effect on the magnetic field so created?

While you're answering these questions, you might also want to ponder the fact that Venus doesn't appear to be throwing off more heat than it is absorbing (so its atmosphere and proximity to the sun would appear to explain its temperature). ?

JJw Rep;

I will stay with the objects I referred to. It is common knowledge that astronomers blame the extraordinary heat of Venus on a Greenhouse effect along the lines of which you would like me to ponder. I pondered that issue long ago and feel it is simply a conclusion due to a lack of imagination as to other possible causes. On the surface it appears to work and academics cannot leave things in Limbo, they must have an answer so why not a Greenhouse effect? As I see it if the heat from the sun can get in through the clouds then a lot can get out again. We are talking temperatures that could melt lead not a place where plants can flourish.

As to your re-statement of my proposal the basics are right on target. If you?re not into it then you must feel that planets and satellites do not affect one another. The moon Io is literally bursting with volcanic action, as so well depicted by NASA efforts and that is believed to be due to interplanetary action. There is also the prospect for more than one circumstance effecting Venus. A very hat planet due to magnetically generated heat and some contribution of a Greenhouse effect. My point is that it is worth my time to seek an explanation and if it is possible mathematically all the better.

As to publishing I fail to understand your point. If some one has a worthwhile idea they would normally want the credit for the discovery. If they are wrong there will be no credit anyway. I doubt further discussion on my part would be useful for you.
jw

And returning to the topic..............

I have read reputable scientific papers proposing that the reasons for earths internal heat are threefold.

The first is from the nuclear reaction of radioactive elements in the earths core, however this one is not considered to be the major contributor of thermal energy. There is, however, some disagreement on this from the fringes of the scientific community.

The second is the tidal forces exerted by the moon. This is the one that is thought to contribute the most to the internal stresses that drive plate tectonics and therefore cause earthquakes through plate interactions. This stress also generates heat. The combination of heat and plate stress helps drive volcanic activity.

The earth has the largest moon to planet mass ratio and therefore the strongest moon induced tidal forces.

The third is the current generated by the differential spin of the various layers of the earths core and mantle through it's own magnetic field. As far as I know the amount this contributes to the internal heat is unknown and a subject of speculation.

The tilt of the earth's axis out of alignment with the orbital plane is not considered to be a major factor in anything but the seasons. The earth, at 93,000,000 miles from the sun and only 5000 miles in diameter, would be subjected to only trivial variations in force due to it's tilt on it's axis as it revolves around the sun.

If solar radiation were a contributor of any apreciable amount of the earths internal heat the surface would be unlivable and we would not be here. Just look at mercury for an example. Mercury does not rotate in relation to the sun (the same face always faces the sun) and the sunward side is extremely hot while the side away from the sun is a frozen wasteland well below any temperatures found on earth.

The greenhouse effect is not about heat in only one form that can pass as easily through the atmosphere in the outward direction as the inward direction.

It is about energy from the sun that comes in as radiation that interacts with the planet's surface and is converted to thermal energy that is re-radiated as mostly infrared radiation.

The incoming solar radiation (mostly ultraviolet) can pass easily into the planet's atmosphere, however when it becomes infrared energy the greenhouse gasses cause it to be reflected back down to the surface.

It is this one way effect that traps the heat in the planet's atmosphere and surface and drives the extreme temperature found on Venus.

That is why scientists are worried about increasing greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. It doesn't matter if they are manmade, natural, or a combination; they will have the same effect either way.

Also, Venus is a lot closer to the sun than Earth and therefore recieves more energy per square mile of surface than the earth. Don't forget the square of the distance law for any radiated energy (other than coherent energy as from a laser) that says that if the earth were twice the distance from the sun as venus it would not recieve half the energy concentration but rather one fourth as much per square mile of surface. So while the earth will probably never reach the temperature of Venus regardless of the amount of greenhouse gasses; it still could get pretty warm and change our climate and the locations where man could survive. Imagine having to move closer to the arctic and antarctic areas because the equatorial band became too hot to allow us to live life as we know it in the open atmosphere.

Thank you YOGI for your replies.

Your first reply is on point and except for the one comment about solar radiation that has nothing to do with my contention about heat being generated in solar objects by their orientation to the plane of the suns equator. The three current propositions you offer from your readings do represent the mainstream view of the causes for the Earths internal heat. They seem to have some doubts as to all of the possible causes so they may have more explanations than they need to answer the heat question or it may reflect a little insecurity in the conclusions. You have a typo when you refer to the Earth as 5,000 miles in diameter. There is a little conflict in the published data that I have reviewed and that is not even close to the polar diameter. The equatorial diameter of earth is about 7,926 miles.

Your second response about the Greenhouse effect on Venus by infrared energy is well taken. Your comment that Venus is closer to the sun than Earth is also noted. It is about 67 million miles average compared to Earths at about 93 million miles average. I think the planet Mercury is estimated to rotate about 1.58 times as it revolves the 360 degrees around the sun. The difference with your statement is nominal and I mention it to keep us on tract. To my limited knowledge NO ONE has offered a formula to calculate the factors involved with the alleged Greenhouse effect attributed to Venus. There is always the likelihood of more than one explanation. Science is not supposed to stop investigating because one possible conclusion is offered. I am not concluding anything and that is the way things should be done. I postulate that with the knowledge we have of the planets and comparing two objects we know are extremely hot and finding that both of those objects are in retrograde rotation there may be a common effect that may not be universal to all solar objects because the others rotate counterclockwise.
I am seeking a mathematical formula to determine if the heat generated can be equated to the retrograde rotation and/or the tilt of objects to the suns plane.

For you to insist on a Greenhouse effect for which no mathematical proof has been offered is not a viable response to my conjecture. It remains a conclusion until proof is provided. Even if the Greenhouse contention were correct that of itself would not rule out the contribution of other causes unless every degree of hest measured was covered by the proposed formula for the Greenhouse effect.

Thank you for your interest and the historical review.
jjw

I return to this topic to note a source of some information that deals with the effect of motors overheating due to polarity inconsistencies. In this instance a planet rotating clockwise when the Sun and the other planets rotate counterclockwise. I am aware that motors are not the same as planets but it does bear on my point.


http://www.aosmithmotors.com/html/motorDoctor/magneticsheatmotorefficiency.htm


Magnetics, heat, and motor efficiency
"Motor efficiency remains one of the top issues in our industry, but when you talk about efficiency, often you're talking about trade-offs. In other words, it is relatively easy to make a motor more efficient, if money is no object. But since cost is a factor, motor manufacturers keep seeking the right balance of increasing motor output without driving up the price of the product.
Occasionally, a technician or service person will ask me, "why not just increase the output by increasing the voltage (the current flow) to the motor?" While that may seem logical, increasing the voltage (in effect, creating an over voltage situation) will not necessarily boost the output of the device. To understand why, you need to become familiar with a physical characteristic called "hysteresis loss."

"Think of the atoms of magnetic material as an unruly herd of cattle. Running electric current through the material will polarize these atoms,
creating the magnetic field. But as I mentioned, this is an unruly herd. It takes time for the current to bring all those atoms into formation.

As you might suspect, when you reverse the current in an alternating current motor, it takes time for those atoms to get going in the opposite direction. And the amount of time is not necessarily the same as the time it took to get the herd moving properly in the first place.

"Without getting into a lengthy physics lecture, this process of reversing polarity produces heat (or wasted energy). This is known as hysteresis loss. And that helps explain why increasing the voltage into the motor will not necessarily increase the output. Instead, it can fight the resistance of magnetic materials to reverse polarity--and simply heat iron."

I know that Ac Vs Dc has nothing to do,with my contention, it is the reversing of the magnetics that I feel makes the point relevant.
jjw