astro-seanwhy
commented
1 year ago Hi Steve, thanks for the feedback and suggestions.
Indeed, it requires a presumption that your input planet needs to be potentially rocky -- as a rule of thumb, R<1.5R_Earth and M<10M_Earth. Since the code can generate a modelling M, which is self-consistent with the calculated mineralogy and input R, then one can compare the modelling M with the measure one, to gauge the underlying discrepancy. If the discrepancy is beyond, say, 2 sigma, probably the assumption of being 'rocky/terrestrial-like' is broken. Due to the limitation of the current devol. model, as you know, it won't reflect properly the weird cases, such as super-Mercuries, although i have given the user an option to adjust the devol. scale by 3 or 5 sigma upward/downward. There are indeed many aspects to improve the devol. part as well as the more self-consistent constraints from M and R. These are all salts for a future work!
I've also corrected the typos -- thanks for spotting them!
Cheers!
mojzsis
Hi Haiyang and Fabian! I think I speak for many of us that we are thrilled to have this new resource available in the field of Geoastronomy. Congratulations on your achievements. I have read through the header notes, and have some suggestions:
stoicmetric should be stoichiometric
in the references, Linweaver should be Lineweaver
Comment: If you can only input R and not Mass, then this is a big assumption about composition, right? Given the observed range of densities vs. R it is apparent that we need to concern ourselves with some wildly different planets than just the rock+metal. For example, there is a general trend that density decreases as R increases. Some rather low R planets have absurdly high densities (more than can be accounted for even by weird compositions, like pure Osmium!).
This should be looked at more closely by us.