On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 07:40:38PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > What I have been saying is that if I were to perform the experiment by > obtaining a 2-meter or so probe with a sharp end, mount a thermocouple > at that end, and drive it into the ground, then place an identical > thermocouple at on the surface, the one on the surface would record > substantial variations in temperature both diurnally and annually, > while the one a couple of meters below the surface would report a > nearly constant temperature in the neighborhood of 288K,
Agreed > and that the primary reason for this is that the soil does not conduct > heat well. Last time. This is a silly argument. You are oversimplifying, AS I SAID I WAS IN MY FIRST POST. Houses are insulated well, but they vary in temperature quite a bit more than the earth. Thermal conductivity by itself explains little about this situation. Heat flow is proportional to temperature gradient and thermal conductivity. Rise in temperature is proportional to energy absorbed and inversely proportional to specific heat and mass. Putting these together, rise in temperature is proportional to temperature gradient and thermal conductivity and inversely proportional to specific heat and mass. The lower the thermal conductivity and the higher the mass and the specific heat, the less the temperature will change. AS I (partly) SAID IN MY FIRST POST. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
