I got a figure of 340 W/sq m...
340 MW/sq km 510 million sq km 340 * 510 TW = 173 400 TW 173400TWh per h about 150 megatons per hour.Mmm. That figure agrees with yours.
the 633 000 Mt per year is out by a factor of 2000. Odd.
The hole it left looked more like 20-50MT. I guess only time will tell.
We may get some very pretty volcanic haze sunsets in due course.
Please watch out for and report any bright colourful polar stratospheric clouds before dawn or after dusk. This month and next are the typical peak for seeing them (about once a decade if you are lucky - last decent display seen in England that I know of was Feb 2016).
It's partly the ball aspect, and partly the whizzing aspect.
I think I'll have a nap, and see if it's a weird dream. Then if it is I'll be able to wake up from it. I think it probably is. And I mean, this newsgroup. And the internet generally. And Mozart. And being made of flesh. And evolution. And pi. And the transmission of electromagnetic energy without a medium. And the age of the universe. And the fact that I passed Maths O Level when I didn't do the paper; I mean, that's truly weird.
If I'm wrong I'll let you know. But of course, you'll already know. Because you'll exist.
Bill
You mean, as in why don't the Aussies fall off the bottom? Or the Kiwis, come to that. And why isn't the whizzing noisy? And so on.
Some of them evolved into birds...
Andy
Sound goes roughly in straight lines.
The sound that went along the great circle routes got to us.
The sound that went off in a different direction never got here, it went somewhere else.
Andy
[Dionysius Lardner] You'll be telling me next that trains will not break into pieces and reach speeds of 120 mph if their brakes fail when they go through Box Tunnel. [/Dionysius Lardner]
:-)
Didn't he also contradict his own comments on that by saying that the air resistance of the broad gauge locomotives was too great and that they'd be too slow compared to standard gauge?
He did indeed. It sounds as if he may have been correct, because Daniel Gooch increased the size of the blast pipe on North Star, the loco that Lardner was referring to.
But his biggest cockup was in asserting that there was a maximum distance that coal-powered ships could travel between ports (refuelling) because the larger the ship, the more coal it needed to carry to overcome friction. Brunel pointed out to him that coal-carrying (and cargo-carrying) capacity increases with the cube of the size whereas cross-section (resistance) increases with the square of the size, so a large ship is more fuel-efficient in relation to its size.
I'd thought that he also asserted that people would be suffocated if they travelled at more than 30 mph, but that must have been someone else. It may even have been a common myth, not attributable to one person.
That has nothing to do with track gauge, though.
Congratulations! You seem to have (almost) rediscovered path integrals :-)
#Paul
No, not really. It's more the improbability of the whole idea. When I was a kid I used to speculate about the possibility of a world where the inhabited surface was the inside of a ball, with gravity pulling outwards at every location. The sea would slope upwards in the distance, and children would ask their parents why the water didn't rush downhill towards them (along with the ships). At night there would be no stars, but there'd be light from the great cities of the Far East and Australia. Rockets would travel across the void above the atmosphere and keep going, to land in foreign lands.
Bill
My grandma clearly believed that. It was a nightmare driving her to bingo.
Bill
How can you form a theory if you haven't got a mind?
Bill
Have you read "At the Earth's Core" by Edgar Rice Burroughs?
Actually there would be no gravity inside a hollow earth if the thickness and density of the crust was constant so the people would float around inside. Other physical impossibilities in the novel are a central sun in equilibrium and a moon in geosynchronous orbit.
You're as big a bullshitter as Boris! And what makes you think I'm stupid? Been talking to my old maths teacher?
Bill
No. I don't need to read fiction. I get enough of it when I sleep.
But since gravity obeys the inverse square law surely the ground beneath one's feet would have more gravitational attraction to one than the gravity from the far side. So the strength of gravity would be the difference between the gravitational fields.
Bill
No. Inside a hollow sphere there is no gravitational effect from the sphere you are in. You need to do the sums, which involve calculus and I've forgotten how to do that. Just remember there is more of it "on the far side" than under your feet.
If you want outwards gravity inside your hollw Earth, just rotate it. Then you get 1G at the "equator", if spun at the right rate, and zero at the "poles". Read "Rendezvous with Rama" which describes a large [1] cylinder showing this effect, with cylindrical oceans inside.
Inside a solid Earth (or any such object), gravity is 1G at the surface and decreases linearly to zero at the centre.
[1] Large: perhaps a mile or two across and 10 miles or more long, I forget.HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.