Talk:HD 20367 b

Removed table
I removed the following table from the article on the basis that it is misleading: it is not clear what the term "average" in this table means (it looks like it means the flux received when the planet is at the distance given by its semimajor axis), the values are given to far too many significant figures and it is not clear what the source for the values in the formula is, or where the formula came from. Furthermore, according to a study of climates of planets on eccentric orbits, the time-averaged flux is what is relevant, which is increased by a factor of $$\textstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-e^2}}$$ over the case for a circular orbit, see, e.g. (page 10, equation 19). Icalanise (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed from article
Main articles: thermodynamic equilibrium & Climate modeling [1] $$f_p= \frac{( (1.18\times 6.955 \times 10^8 )^2 ) \times (5.67051 \times 10^{-8}) \times (5929^4)} { ( ( 1.25- ( 1.25\times 0.23 ) ) \times 149597876600 )^2 }$$

- -


 * (1) You need to pay $20 to the Cambridge University Press to look at the first reference you bring against this chart, what kind of reference is that for this encyclopedia, $20!? - useless.
 * (2) Average distance is average distance, and is not meaningless. You make no point with your time average idea as, for example, even a planet like Gl 581 c gets up to 90 degrees celcius (before GHG effect) at perihelion, and time averaging that over the 12 day orbit is what is meaningless. Where as the average distance has even it's own name, as you mention, semi-major axis.
 * (3) it is shameless of you to pretend to be ignorant of what insolation is: there is a complete article on insolation and solar constant, 1366 watts per square meter is the AVERAGE for the Earth, I don't know why you would want to make yourself out to be so stupid except to vandalize this encyclopedia. 142.161.14.183 (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I have removed it again. The formula used to justify it is meaningless as it is just a bunch of numbers - there's no way to check whether the formula is physically reasonable, or any reference for these quantities. The averaging is misleading - note that the semimajor axis is NOT the average distance from the star if you average over time. The precision of the quantities in the table is totally unwarranted. In effect, much of this table is fantasy. Icalanise (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the pay-reference, this is an irrelevant consideration. It is perfectly valid to cite books, for which you need to pay money, and leave your computer! Note also that the relevant point about time-averaging being relevant is in the abstract of the paper for which you don't need to pay the money. Icalanise (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)