site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   2602 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 17, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm trying to calculate the strength of solar radiation for a given latitude as a simple factor from 1 (equatorial) to 0 (polar), assuming no axial tilt or any other complications. My trigonometry is weak. How do I do this?

Arccos curve looks good. Is it arccos? Arccos(latitude / 90) * (2 / pi) looks pretty decent.

Edit: It was Cos all along!

Why arccos? Like ignoring diffuse horizontal irradiance, .......

The insolation is just proportional to the incident cross-section, or sin(90° - ϕ) = cos(ϕ), where ϕ is the latitude.

you can check for yourself though. The instantaneous insolation is given by

Q = S_0 * (d_bar / d)^2 * (sin ϕ sin δ + cos ϕ cos δ cos h)

In your case S_0, d_bar, and d are constant (the solar constant, mean distance, actual distance)

δ is the declination angle, 0 in your case, so sin δ -> 0, cos δ -> 1.

The hour angle h, or deviation from local solar noon you can consider for h = 0, since you can scale to the max if everyone has a 12 hour day. Or cos h -> 1

giving Q ∝ cos ϕ.

Edit: I see @JhanicManifold already answered and got the same thing. Obviously I mean like cos of degrees latitude and he was working in cos of radians and converting the degrees with the factor of 1/90 * pi/2

Thanks, that will come in handy when I decide to complicate matters.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats