Planetary retention of atmospheres

  • Thread starter Thread starter rieman zeta
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Planetary
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the retention of planetary atmospheres, specifically the factor of 1/6 related to the mean thermal speed of atmospheric molecules compared to escape speed. It explains that particles in an atmosphere settle into a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, with some achieving speeds greater than escape velocity, leading to atmospheric loss over time. The process of thermalization allows the atmosphere to return to this distribution, but heavier particles are retained more effectively due to their lower average speeds. The conversation also notes that external factors, like volcanic activity, can influence atmospheric composition. There is a request for references to actual analyses, but no specific sources are provided.
rieman zeta
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
To all: By memory I have seen in the literature the factor 1/6 when analytically discussing the retention of a planetary atmosphere (more correctly a particular specie of molecule in the atmosphere).


The relation would go something like this:

Atmospheric mean thermal speed of molecule < 1/6 escape speed of the planet.

How is this factor calculated?

I am familiar with the Maxwell distribution of velocites and its high end tail.
Thanks
Rieman Zeta
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
rieman zeta said:
How is this factor calculated?

The basic idea is that the particles, given enough time, will settle into a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. This distribution will always have some particles with speeds greater than the escape speed and mean free paths that take them to infinity (effectively). Once these particles are lost, the distribution is no longer Maxwell-Boltzmann (the high-velocity tail is missing), so there won't be anymore escaping. However, the atmosphere will eventually thermalize again and return to a MB distribution, after which time more particles will be lost. This process will repeat throughout the Earth's lifetime and if there are no particles of a particular species left after that time, then you won't have them in the atmosphere.

Basically, you just need to calculate the thermal timescale (relaxation time of the particles) and fraction of the MB distribution with speeds greater than the escape speed. Since heavier particles will thermalize to lower average speeds, it will be easier for atmospheres to retain them. This is why, despite it being the most abundant element in the universe, there is very little hydrogen in our atmosphere.

Note that this analysis neglects input from outside sources, such as volcanoes. This can be very important for some species.
 
Last edited:
Sir: "Basically, you just need to calculate the thermal timescale (relaxation time of
the particles) and fraction of the MB distribution with speeds greater than the
escape speed. Since heavier particles will thermalize to lower average speeds,
it will be easier for atmospheres to retain them. This is why, despite it being
the most abundant element in the universe, there is very little hydrogen in our
atmosphere."
This puts some teeth into an analysis. thank you.
Do you have a web or other reference showing an actual analysis.
zeta rieman
 
rieman zeta said:
Do you have a web or other reference showing an actual analysis.

Unfortunately not. I remember doing the calculation in one of my undergrad classes, but I no longer have the notes.
 
Is a homemade radio telescope realistic? There seems to be a confluence of multiple technologies that makes the situation better than when I was a wee lad: software-defined radio (SDR), the easy availability of satellite dishes, surveillance drives, and fast CPUs. Let's take a step back - it is trivial to see the sun in radio. An old analog TV, a set of "rabbit ears" antenna, and you're good to go. Point the antenna at the sun (i.e. the ears are perpendicular to it) and there is...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
How does light maintain enough energy in the visible part of the spectrum for the naked eye to see in the night sky. Also, how did it start of in the visible frequency part of the spectrum. Was it, for example, photons being ejected at that frequency after high energy particle interaction. Or does the light become visible (spectrum) after hitting our atmosphere or space dust or something? EDIT: Actually I just thought. Maybe the EM starts off as very high energy (outside the visible...

Similar threads

Back
Top