An atmosphere of helium

[Moontanman]

I'm not sure why you would postulate an atmosphere of pure helium, any planet large enough or massive enough to hold onto helium would almost certainly have lots of neon, hydrogen, methane, CO and CO2, nitrogen and or nitrogen compounds as well, oxygen if it has life that is photosynthetic.

[TransformerRobot]

I'm not sure why you would postulate an atmosphere of pure helium, any planet large enough or massive enough to hold onto helium would almost certainly have lots of neon, hydrogen, methane, CO and CO2, nitrogen and or nitrogen compounds as well, oxygen if it has life that is photosynthetic.

 

What I wanted to know is what would the planet's temperature be?

[granpa]

teh hydrogen could be entirely converted to metallic hydrogen and teh heavier gases could sink to the very bottom of the atmopshere.

 

I would like to know what the temperature would be right above those heavier elements.

Edited April 21, 2012 by granpa

[TransformerRobot]

Well I don't know, I'm not good with weather science, so I came here to ask anybody here about it.

[granpa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#Forcing_Due_to_Atmospheric_Gas

 

Edited May 6, 2012 by granpa

[John Cuthber]

I thought we were talking about this:

I can't access it either, but I can read the last bit where it says they couldn't observe any IR absorption at all.

 

Helium really shouldn't have any IR activity (nor visible nor microwave nor UV up to fairly high energy)

[granpa]

thats really interesting.

 

I was assuming that 10,000 km of liquid helium would be far too thick but now I'm not so sure.

[John Cuthber]

Also, helium (liquid or gas) is an excellent conductor of heat.

[TransformerRobot]

Also, helium (liquid or gas) is an excellent conductor of heat.

 

You mean helium would trap more heat on the planet than oxygen or carbon dioxide?

[John Cuthber]

You mean helium would trap more heat on the planet than oxygen or carbon dioxide?

No. That's pretty much the opposite of what I meant.

[TransformerRobot]

No. That's pretty much the opposite of what I meant.

 

But you said helium is an excellent conductor of heat.

[John Cuthber]

If you wanted a blanket on your bed to keep you warm, would you want it to be a good conductor, or a bad conductor, of heat?

[TransformerRobot]

If you wanted a blanket on your bed to keep you warm, would you want it to be a good conductor, or a bad conductor, of heat?

 

So if I had more helium in my blood I'd get more heat drawn into my body?

[hypervalent_iodine]

Do you understand what is meant when something is said to be a good conductor of heat? I suppose what I am getting at is, could you explain what you think it means, as I rather suspect that you don't (no offense intended).

[John Cuthber]

Conductor in this case isn't the same as a lightning conductor. It doesn't draw heat towards it.

It might help if you actually answered the question I asked.

[TransformerRobot]

I thought by conducting you meant drawing heat towards the host, as opposed to controlling and maintaining it.

[John Cuthber]

This might clarify things a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conductivity