© Lloyd

[2] Exotic Star Formation by Natural Tokamak
[3] Galaxy and Quasar Natural Tokamaks
[1] Star Formation by Compressive Ionization

[2] Exotic Star Formation by Natural Tokamak
--- CONTENTS of this page
--- Two Kinds of Stars: CI and Tokamak
--- CI Stars and Tokamak Stars
--- Life by Tokamak Stars
--- Tokamak Rotation/Tornado
--- Celestial Rotation --- Plasmoids
--- Celestial Rotation
--- Bipolar Jets
--- Jets Magnetically Confined
--- Tokamak Jets
--- Maximum Density, Supernovae, Stellar Tokamaks
--- Supernovae
--- Stellar Tokamak Density, Pulsars, Atomic Oscillators
--- Pulsars
--- INDEX

--- Two Kinds of Stars: CI and Tokamak
Postby CharlesChandler» Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:05 am
- Lloyd wrote: Do you say that tokamaks transform into CI material?
- Or do tokamaks remain within CI material?
- No — I think that there are two types of stars: 1) slowly spinning stars (like our Sun) that are held together by CI, and 2) fast spinning stars that are held together by magnetic confinement (i.e., nat-tokamaks, including black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, quasars, and white dwarfs).
- I think that when CI stars lose enough mass to drop below the threshold for CI, they bloat out into red giants, while nat-tokamaks whittle down to white dwarfs, still spinning really fast, and with powerful magnetic fields, and still generating the gamma rays indicative of nuclear fusion, but on a much smaller scale.

--- CI Stars and Tokamak Stars
Postby CharlesChandler» Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:10 pm
- LK: So tokamaks produce CI material in both the slow and fast spinning stars.
- But, the slow ones eventually expand, while the fast ones stay small. Right?
- CC: Actually, CI and natural tokamaks (NT) are two totally different constructs, and they explain two totally different types of stars.
- A CI star spins slowly, and eventually, due to mass loss in stellar winds, drops below the threshold for CI, at which time the binding force falls apart, and the star expands into a red giant, achieving the hydrostatic equilibrium it would have always had, if not for the attractive force of charged double-layers.
- NT stars don't have a minimum mass in the same sense, as they don't need for gravity to be up to a certain level to help maintain the compressive ionization.
- Rather, NT stars are held together by magnetic confinement, and since there is no friction to slow them down, they'll just keep spinning forever, or at least until they eventually collide with something else.
- You're probably recalling an earlier stage in this theoretical development, in which I had NT's in the core of all stars.
- But in the end, there just isn't any evidence of relativistic rotation inside the Sun, nor of the magnetic fields that it would generate.
- So that piece had to come out.
- Now there are CI stars and NT stars, depending on the rotation rate, and both have very different characteristics.
- But that's not a problem — it's a fix.
- There is no continuum between the "normal" main sequence stars and the exotic stars (black holes, neutron stars, etc.).
- In other words, there isn't a cluster of black holes at one end or the other of the main sequence, nor is there any other pattern to them.
- And no matter what I did, I just couldn't get one construct to explain both property sets.
- But sorting stars into two groups, one of them explained by CI, and the other as NT's, accounts for the lack of continuity between them, and for the distinctive properties of each type. [-------]

--- Life by Tokamak Stars
Postby CharlesChandler» Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:25 am
- Lloyd wrote: So the faster rotation of NT stars prevents enough gravitational pressure from building up inside to form CI material. Right?
- Yes.
- Lloyd wrote: Do you think the Sun's expansion would be fatal to life on Earth?
- I think Thornhill has suggested that red giants are merely regular stars under so much electrical stress that the surface boundary has to form at a larger than usual radius;
- and the outer shell is so thin that planets can orbit within it, and life can even exist on such planets, and the star's outer envelope can help keep the planets warm enough for life.
- Do you see any plausibility in that theory?
- In your theory, would a red giant's distinct outer envelope also be caused by electrical stress?
- If gravity were the only force on the outer shell, there would be no distinct boundary or envelope; would there?
- I don't understand what kind of "electrical stress" would cause a larger-than-usual radius.
- In the model I'm using, the expansion represents a weakening of the electrostatic forces binding the star together.
- In other words, the attraction between charged double-layers pulls them together, creating a star more compact than it has a Newtonian right to be.
- Then, it is the discharging of those potentials that generates the heat and light that we see.
- But "if" the star is losing mass to its stellar wind, the compressive ionization relaxes, the charges recombine, and the attraction between the charged double-layers goes away, because they're not charged anymore.
- Without the electric force, the whole thing comes unglued, and it expands.
- Would life be possible inside the envelope of a red giant?
- I dunno. The radius is bigger but the temperature within that radius is lower.
- So I agree that it's possible that life would continue.
- Of course, life as we know it exists only within an extremely narrow range of temperatures, so I wouldn't be[t] the farm on it. ;)
- Lloyd wrote: Could NT stars radiate enough heat to permit life to exist on nearby planets?
- There could potentially be plenty of heat, but it would all be delivered via x-rays and gamma rays.
- Life as we know it wouldn't last long, unless everybody wore space suits anytime they had to go outside. :)
- Lloyd wrote: Would the magnetic field be too strong near a pulsar for any life form?
- If a pulsar is a natural tokamak, and if you were on the plane of rotation, there wouldn't be any net acceleration of magnetized particles (such as iron in your blood).
- Magnetic fields only accelerate particles where the lines of force are converging, and on the axis of rotation, at some distance away, the lines of force would be parallel, hence no acceleration.
- But every iron atom in your body would be polarized by the field, and as you walked around, maybe this would keep the iron atoms all facing in one direction.
- Perhaps that would break up the molecules, and maybe that would be bad.
- If somebody offers you tickets for a trip to a pulsar, give them to somebody you don't like. :)

--- Tokamak Tornado
Postby CharlesChandler» Sun Nov 11, 2012 7:57 pm
- Lloyd wrote: Is it possible for your tokamak to be compatible with tornadic motion?
- Offhand, they seem to be opposites, since the first makes matter dense and the second makes it sparse at the center.
- Yes, tornadoes are a type of vacuum vortex, which gets its energy from a low pressure aloft.
- The low pressure wouldn't be significant if it were not for the ambient atmospheric pressure.
- So the pressure gradient supplies the energy for the flow.
- Out in space, it's all a vacuum, so there isn't any pressure gradient, and hence, no vortexes.
- So if the "natural tokamak" thing is correct, it's magnetic confinement due to relativistic velocities of charged particles, and fundamentally different from vacuum vortexes.
- As concerns "hollow planet" theories, I'm not sure that I fully understand them.
- Lamprecht is correct that centrifugal force increases with distance from the center, assuming solid body rotation, meaning that the tangential velocity is greater.
- He's also correct that gravity increases with distance from the center, out to the edge of the planet.
- And he's right that this might initially form a ring-like structure, or a planet with "open poles" as he calls it.
- But how do the poles get closed into a sphere with a hollow center?

--- Celestial Rotation --- Plasmoids
Postby CharlesChandler» Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:14 pm
- Lloyd wrote: How sure are you that tornadoes cannot form in the "vacuum" of space?
- How thin does air or gases have to be before they are incapable of hosting tornadoes?
- The atmosphere of Mars is said to be less than 1% as dense as Earth's and yet huge dust devils form there I think as much as 5 miles tall; sometimes numerous such dust devils form in a line and move across the surface, shrouding much of the planet in dust.
- Suction vortexes are evidence of a pressure deficit.
- In a pure vacuum, there isn't any way of getting the pressure any lower. :)
- As concerns Martian dust devils, that's an interesting observation, and yet another one of those things that isn't mentioned much in the literature, because there isn't an existing explanation.
- Indeed, how that much mechanical work is done, in such a thin atmosphere, is an interesting question.
- In my paper on tornadoes, I maintain that this can only be evidence of a photo-ionized surface, where the electrons that escaped were captured by CO2 molecules, which then create a dense double-layer clinging to the surface.
- The energy that drives the dust devil is then regular hydrostatic pressure, plus thermal energy that builds up from the CO2 being close to the surface.
- But the CO2 can only break away from the surface if it mixes with positively charged dust from the surface, which effectively neutralizes the charge.
- The flashes that we see at the base of such dust devils are from charge recombination, between the negative CO2 and the positive dust.
- So unlike a standard suction vortex, the energy source isn't at the top of the vortex, where a low pressure motivates the flow field, but rather, it's at the base of the vortex, and there is no "top" — the vortex randomizes above the surface.
- Tornadoes have a similar energy conversion at the surface, where charged air is clinging to an induced opposite charge in the Earth, and lofted dust and/or an electric current inside the vortex neutralizes the charge, allowing the air to break away from the surface.
- But tornadoes usually also have a low pressure aloft.
- So they are a cross between a standard vacuum vortex and a dust devil.
- Lloyd wrote: Would not a nebula in space be capable of becoming as dense as Mars' atmosphere?
- I'm not sure about the density of a nebula.
- I'm just looking for the energy sources and conversions, and wondering what's gonna happen next. ;)
- Lloyd wrote: And how do planets and stars get their rotational motions?
- Good question. I know of two possible answers.
- First, if there is an external magnetic field, a radial inflow will get an induced rotation due to the Lorentz force.
- In other words, if our Sun condensed from a dusty plasma, it did so in the presence of the Milky Way's magnetic field, which runs parallel to the spiral arms.
- For this reason, everything in our solar system rotates on an axis that is less than 30 degrees from being parallel to the spiral arm.
- Similarly, the axes of planetary nebulae are aligned with the external magnetic field.
- So the first answer is the Lorentz force.
- Second, we have to answer for why there was rotation, before there was rotation to generate external magnetic fields. :)
- For this I looked at the magnetic forces just in the radial inflow.
- With everything converging straight toward the center, there will be magnetic pressure between the lines of convergence, because they are not parallel.
- If the implosion falls into a spiral, the magnetic pressure is relaxed.
- Here's the image, that (sorta) shows the clash of magnetic fields: Spiral Induction I actually think that this would be a weak force, where the inertial forces of the matter would be far greater.
- So I'm thinking that it would take several or many implosion cycles for the angular momentum to build up.
- But I think that this is the origin of all rotation in the Universe.
- I'm convinced that in The Beginning, there were nothing but peculiar galaxies.
- If these imploded, the explosion would be just about as random as the stuff was before the implosion.
- But a little bit of angular momentum would have been imparted, due to magnetic conflicts, and this momentum would be preserved through the explosion.
- So the next implosion would begin with just a little rotation.
- I'm not going to guess how many times this would have to happen, for a peculiar to get organized into an elliptical galaxy, and then ultimately into a spiral galaxy.
- I "think" that if the galaxy ages are anywhere near correct, 13.7 billion years is nowhere near enough time.
- 72% of all galaxies are spirals, wherein almost all of the motion has been converted to angular momentum.
- And these are thought to be at least 5 billion years old.
- If it took 3 implosion/explosion cycles, that would be 15 billion years, and I think it would take many more than 3 cycles.
- So something isn't right.
- (Some would say that there isn't anything that isn't wrong about standard cosmological chronologies, but anyway...)
- So once you get the galaxies rotating, and generating external magnetic fields, smaller-scale rotations (planetary nebulae, our solar system, etc.) are induced by the Lorentz force.
- Lloyd wrote: Does your tokamak form only toward the center of a nebula, or would the entire nebula become a tokamak?
- The "tokamak" part of the whole system is just the toroidal plasmoid at the very center, where relativistic circular speeds are accomplishing magnetic confinement, and nuclear fusion.
- The accretion disc is the fuel supply feeding in along the equator, and the bipolar jets are the exhaust.
- Lloyd wrote: Wikipedia states [...] that gravity is zero at the center, increases to the maximum strength at half the radius, then tapers off just a little up to the surface, then decreases by almost 90% by 1 radius above the surface and continues to decline gradually above that height.
- Oops, I said that gravity increases all of the way out to the edge, and then starts falling off.
- Thanks for the clarification.
- Lloyd wrote: Do you consider bead lightning and or ball lightning to be plasmoids?
- I don't know about ball lightning.
- As concerns bead lightning, one theory is that the "beads" are merely brightenings that correspond to the stepped leaders which advanced the discharge channel.
- At the ends of the existing channel, relativistic electrons slam into STP air.
- The high-energy collisions produce x-rays, gamma rays, and free neutrons, which suggest that the initial collisions are energetic enough for nuclear fusion.
- The stepped leaders are actually something like 100 meters long, so the electrons still have enough energy, even after the initial collisions, to extend the arc discharge 100 meters.
- The next surge of electrons zips through all of that, and then slams into the STP air at the end of the new channel, extending it another 100 meters.
- It's possible that the "beads" are just hotter temperatures at the beginning of each stepped leader.
- I don't have anything to contribute to that.

--- Celestial Rotation
Postby CharlesChandler» Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:46 pm
- Lloyd wrote: Getting back to tornadic activity in your initial nebula, do you contend that there would be none of that at all at any point within the nebula?
- One of the mainstream conceptions of accretion discs is that they need the outflow in the bipolar jets to relieve the pressure at the point of convergence, otherwise, the pressure would simply continue to build up, and then stuff wouldn't flow in anymore.
- That's similar to the concept of a vacuum vortex pulling stuff inward, and then outward through the jets.
- But if we trace it all back to the primary forces, we see that gravity and the "like-likes-like" force are pulling in, while hydrostatic pressure and the centrifugal force are pushing out.
- So the push isn't polar — it's equatorial.
- And the pull isn't cylindrical — it's radial.
- While the cyclonic pattern in an accretion disc is visually reminiscent of the inflow to a tornado or hurricane, the centripetal force isn't a vacuum in the center, and the flow field is fundamentally different.
- A vacuum vortex can occur in a pressurized fluid, but it cannot occur in a vacuum.

--- Bipolar Jets
Postby CharlesChandler» Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:18 pm
- The "Butterfly Wings" planetary nebula has been well-studied, as it is fairly near, and fairly bright.
- The axis of its bipolar jets is nearly perpendicular to our line of sight, so motion along the axis cannot be determined directly by redshift.
- So these researchers studied light scattered from the nearby dust: Schwarz, H. E.; Aspin, C.; Corradi, R. L.; Reipurth, B., 2012: M 2-9: moving dust in a fast bipolar outflow. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 319: 267-273
- Using optical images and spectra of the bipolar nebula M 2-9 we show that, in addition to the well-known bright inner nebula, the object has fast, highly collimated outflows reaching a total extent of 115".
- These radially opposed and point-symmetric outer lobes are both redshifted, leading us to model the radiation from them in terms of light reflected from moving dust, rather than intrinsic emission.
- Our polarization images show that the lobes are 60% linearly polarized in a direction perpendicular to the long axis of M 2-9.
- This high polarization indicates optically thin scattering, and lends weight to our dust scattering model.
- Use of this model then allows us to determine the distance to M 2-9 directly from the measured proper motions on images taken over a period of more than 16 yrs.
- The physical and geometrical parameters of the nebula then follow.
- M 2-9 is at a distance of 650pc, is 0.4pc long, has a luminosity of 550Lsun_, and its outer nebula has a dynamical age of 1200yrs, in round numbers.
- Using the fact that the central object has been constrained to be of low luminosity but of a sufficiently high temperature to make the observed OIII, we argue that the central object of M 2-9 has to contain a compact, hot source, and is probably a binary.
- I disagree with their conclusion that the source is a binary, as no one has demonstrated how two stars could get together and produce such a phenomenon.
- I think that astronomers are fond of binary models simply because they know that a single star could never produce such collimated structures.
- But I never found the binary model any more convincing, and my ongoing quest for answers eventually turned up the toroidal plasmoid construct.
- As always, the interpretation of the data can be challenged, and sometimes, just separating the actual data from the "model data" can be difficult, depending on how the research is written up.
- But before you lock down on an alternative interpretation, question it.

--- Jets Magnetically Confined
Postby CharlesChandler» Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:28 pm
- Hey Sparky! Sparky wrote: Have you addressed the "field lines" inexactness issue some where?
- Which field lines, and what inexactness?
- Sparky wrote: Will plasma find a minimal flux density, be confined by it, and follow it?
- Bipolar jets appear to stay collimated by virtue of their magnetic fields.
- First, there isn't any obvious reason for plasma with a net charge to not get dispersed by electrostatic repulsion.
- This strongly suggests that a force is opposing the repulsion, and the likely candidate would be the magnetic pinch effect.
- Second, bipolar jets appear to be parallel to whatever external magnetic field is present.
- In the case of planetary nebulae, they are lined up with the spiral arm B-field.
- In the case of galactic jets, they are lined up with the cluster field.
- If they weren't charged particles generating magnetic fields, they wouldn't be influenced by an external field.
- Third, galactic jets eventually get wobbly, and then they break up.
- Clearly, the organizing principle somehow lost force.
- If they were high-pressure jets being shot into a viscous fluid, the "beaming" effect in fluid dynamics would act like that.
- But it's hard to believe how there is that much friction in the intergalactic medium to create this fluid dynamic effect.
- My thought is that the jet stays organized due to the magnetic field it generates, but even just a little bit of friction over a long period of time will slow down the jet.
- The significance is that reduced velocities produce reduced magnetic pinch effects.
- So the jets convert from laminar beams to turbulent dispersions not because they exceeded some sort of galactic Reynolds number, but because they slowed down, and the magnetic fields were no longer strong enough to contain the plasma.
- At least that's my take on it, though I'm no an expert on AGNs.

--- Tokamak Jets
Postby CharlesChandler» Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:09 am
- GaryN wrote: I just came across this abstract from a professor I will be E-Mailing with some questions.
- Please post any additional information you gain (within the limits of the confidentiality of your offline correspondence, of course), as this is of interest to all of us.
- You might also mention to the professor that there is a proposed schematic diagram for the plasma gun responsible for such "currents".
- Section of a toroidal explosion - Anybody who says that bipolar jets are electromagnetic (even scientists!) have to explain the charge separation mechanism responsible for the currents.
- In a "natural tokamak", that mechanism is magnetic pressure, as relativistic rotational velocities in the tokamak generate magnetic fields capable of pushing like charges together, and pushing opposite charges apart, hence the initial charge separation.
- Positive charges that collide forcefully enough will fuse into heavier elements, and 50% of the ejecta will get collimated by the geometry of the open-air tokamak.
- As these are all ions, their extreme velocities in a collimated outflow will generate a magnetic pinch effect that will keep them collimated as they move away.
- Electrons attracted to this positive charge would have to fight magnetic pressure to get inside the stream.
- So they will prefer to loop back around, such that they can enter the positive charge stream traveling in the opposite direction, thus eliminating the magnetic conflict.
- Electric Currents around a Natural Tokamak This produces a local current, with positive charges flowing out from the center, and negative charges flowing inward, down through the collimated jet.

--- Maximum Density, Supernovae, Stellar Tokamaks
Postby CharlesChandler» Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:39 pm
- Hey Lloyd! As usual, you ask tough, thought-provoking questions. :)
- Lloyd wrote: Have you made any predictions about what might be the maximum density of matter that's possible and what would be able to produce such density?
- Neutronium certainly exists during the nuclear fusion process, and a supernova would seem to be capable of generating it, at least at first.
- What I don't understand is why a supernova doesn't split as many atoms as it fuses.
- During the initial phase of the explosion, you'd get a lot of fusion.
- But once the thing started to expand, I'd think that collisions between relativistic particles would split heavy atoms.
- In other words, the only difference between fusion and fission is how confined the particles are.
- If you smash two atoms together, and there is a great surrounding pressure, the pieces can't go anywhere, and if they are still within the range of the strong & weak nuclear forces, all of the pieces will clank back together into an even bigger atom.
- That's fusion.
- But without a great surrounding pressure, the pieces all fly apart in different directions.
- That's fission.
- So during the expansion phase of a supernova, I don't understand how heavy elements survive.
- Hence I'm questioning the conventional wisdom that supernovae are a major source of heavier elements.
- This puts me in agreement with Thornhill, though I'm introducing an objection to the standard model other than a lack of perfect symmetry.
- It is certainly true that whatever neutronium is produced in a supernova will either get used up in the formation of heavier elements, or it will undergo beta decay with 15 minutes.
- So there isn't any neutronium floating around in space.
- But what about inside the cores of heavy stars?
- Your guess is as good as mine, but here's what I'm thinking.
- If you instantaneously compress neutrally charged matter, there are plenty of protons and electrons in there, which can be fused into neutrons.
- But I'm not sure that this is what happens inside stars.
- I'd tend to think that the accretion occurred over a period of time, and thus the compression would not be instantaneous.
- Therefore, we have to consider the effects of slow compression.
- It seems possible that at extreme temperatures, all of the electrons are unbound.
- So you just have one big proton/electron soup, but no atomic structures.
- With gravity exerting 1836 times more force on the protons than on the electrons, the core will be proton-rich and electron-poor, to the limits of electrostatic repulsion between like charges.
- Personally, I think that this is what prevents gravitational collapse.
- Anyway, despite the charge separation, is it possible to get protons and electrons packed close enough together that they start to fuse into neutrons, just from the force of gravity?
- Sure it is, theoretically at least, if the star is heavy enough.
- But that's not going to produce pure neutronium.
- If you have the pressure to fuse protons & electrons, you certainly have the pressure, with the help of the weak nuclear force, to fuse neutrons & protons into heavier elements.
- So even if you have exactly the same number of protons & electrons (which I don't think is the case), I don't think that you'd get free neutrons floating around in there.
- Furthermore, if you did, what would prevent the gravitational collapse of the star?
- Neutronium has the density of an atomic nucleus, which is way, way greater than normal matter, which is mainly empty space.
- The increase in density would create a more powerful gravitational field, which would increase the rate of neutronium production.
- So once this threshold is crossed, there won't be any stopping it, until all of the matter in the star had been crushed down into neutronium.
- Supposedly this is what happens in neutron stars.
- But a typical neutron star has a mass between about 1.4 and 3.2 solar masses.
- Why are there much more massive stars than that, which haven't collapsed into neutron stars?
- Neutron stars are thought to be the remnants of supernovae.
- But when scientists tested thermonuclear bombs in the 1950s, did they ever find a little remnant left in the center?
- No! The extreme temperatures forced the expansion of the matter.
- Once expanded, neutrons decay within 15 minutes.
- So it really isn't reasonable to think that neutrons stars are supernova remnants.
- Such considerations put neutronium, as a bulk substance outside of a fusion chain, on short notice.
- Without it, the densest matter possible would be matter compressed to the threshold of the failure of the Coulomb barrier, where the protons are about to give way to the nuclear forces that will pull them in, despite the electrostatic repulsion.
- I haven't figured out how to calculate this yet, nor have I seen this number quoted anywhere.
- Lloyd wrote: Thornhill also says that supernovae are electrical double layer explosions, rather than nuclear or other kinds of explosions.
- Do you agree that supernovae are likely double layer explosions?
- What's a "double-layer explosion"? :)
- In the model that I'm using, there is going to be some sort of threshold, above which there is sufficient gravity to maintain compressive ionization, and thus charged double-layers.
- The electric force between the layers further compacts the matter, which makes the gravity field more dense, which increases the compressive ionization.
- Hence this is a force feedback loop, and this accounts for the coherency of plasma in a star, at temperatures that would seem to preclude condensed matter.
- OK…. so as time goes on, mass loss due to stellar winds is going to whittle the thing down.
- As the pressure relaxes, charges are able to recombine, and this produces the heat and light that we get from stars.
- Maybe as the mass approaches the minimum threshold for the compressive ionization, more and more charge recombination occurs.
- As the temperature increases, the plasma expands, reducing the density of the gravitational field, and thus enabling even more charge recombination.
- Could this produce a catastrophic failure of the force feedback loop that is holding the star together? Perhaps.
- Would it be so catastrophic as to be explosive? Well, maybe.
- Would it be catastrophic on the scale of a supernova? That wouldn't be my first guess, but it might be possible.
- Aside from catastrophic charge recombination, there is one other possible cause for supernovae: stellar collisions.
- In cases where there is a dimming, or a brightening, in the last couple of days before the supernova, it's possible that a planet or a star on final approach subtracted from, or added to, the brightness of the primary star.
- Hence models of normal stellar life cycles don't necessarily have to include a self-destruct mechanism at the end of the cycle — the "normal" cycle might typically end just in a brief flash due to catastrophic charge recombination, followed by a red giant phase for a while, or the star might simply go dark.
- Lloyd wrote: Do you think the size and density of nebulae would primarily determine the maximum possible density of a star core that forms from a nebula?
- If so, do you have any clues about what might be the maximum possible size and density of a nebula?
- I haven't made a detailed study of planetary nebulae — I just looked at them briefly when I was studying bipolar jets, and then I put them in the "natural tokamak" category.
- I don't see any reason why there would be a theoretical limit.
- Nor do I see (perhaps in my ignorance?) a difference in kind between planetary nebulae, white dwarfs, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, black holes, quasars, and AGNs.
- I think that those are all natural tokamaks, at different scales, and with different properties, depending on whether or not they're currently feeding, how fast they're spinning, etc.
- But I don't have any reason to believe that it wouldn't be possible for an entire galaxy to implode into one of these things.
- Lloyd wrote: Have you stated on your website what the conditions would likely be for formation of your natural tokamak within your collapsing nebula?
- Do you know what would be about the minimum size and density possible for such a tokamak?
- The critical factor would be the angular velocities.
- If the matter is rotating fast enough, it will generate powerful enough magnetic fields to confine the plasma.
- White dwarfs fit into this category, being small, but rotating fast enough to generate magnetic fields of over a million Gauss.
- Lloyd wrote: Do you have any reason to doubt Arp's and Thornhill's models of galaxy formation from quasars, and quasar formation within galactic nuclei?
- Since they consider that the nuclei act as plasma guns that shoot out low-mass high-speed highly ionized quasars, which then gain mass and lose velocity and ionization, I assume those conclusions are based on their observations of quasars.
- So would your tokamak also be able to shoot out plasmoids like that, such as quasars or stars?
- I "think" that Arp was just observing that the redshifts of quasars suggest that they're moving away from the AGNs, which by extension suggests that the AGNs ejected the quasars.
- Aside from the fact that the extreme redshift data have been challenged, calling the AGN a plasma gun doesn't add much specificity. - :)
- My "natural tokamak" construct provides for bipolar jets, which could sputter if the fuel supply from the accretion disc was unsteady.
- But it doesn't provide for an accretion in the ejecta.
- There "seems" to be evidence that the bipolar jets are ionized, so the Coulomb force should discourage condensation.
- For there to be any post-ejection pinching (much less any "focus fusion"), the jets would have to accelerate, such that the magnetic fields would increase.
- None of the jets show pinching, nor acceleration.
- The eventual randomization of the jets at some distance away is evidence that the organizing principle (i.e., the magnetic field) diminished, which means that the plasma stream is decelerating.
- So I don't see any evidence of star or quasar formation in bipolar jets (nebular or galactic).
- Doesn't mean it isn't there — just means that there isn't any evidence of it.
- Lloyd wrote: I just found this site about plasma astronomy, but have only skimmed through it a bit.
- Looks potentially interesting.
- That looks like a great site! I added it to my catalog, and I'll check it out in the next couple of days.

--- Supernovae
Postby CharlesChandler» Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:25 pm
- Sparky wrote: How do you explain a supernova?
- The quick answer is, "I don't." :D
- This is not something that I have studied in depth.
- Maybe one day I will.
- But it's possible that a supernova has nothing to do with the stellar life cycle — it might be caused by a collision with another star, or with a large planet.
- One of these days I'll try to see if anybody has estimated the rate at which stellar collisions occur, compared to the frequency of supernovae.
- Another possibility is that a star still gaining mass might develop the pressure necessary for nuclear fusion in its core.
- My calcs show that the Sun isn't massive enough for this, but a star 2~3 times bigger might.
- With the plasma confined simply by the inertial forces of the overlying plasma, it's theoretically possible that a runaway thermonuclear explosion could occur.
- But I think I agree with Thornhill that the explosion would have to start at the very center of the star for the explosion to get back-loaded perfectly, resulting in a large-scale explosion.
- For the explosion to start right in the center, the star would have to be in a perfectly quiescent state before the explosion, or the explosion would have started wherever there was a random peak in pressure, which wouldn't likely be perfectly in the center.
- The Sun certainly isn't quiet enough for that.

--- Stellar Tokamak Density, Pulsars, Atomic Oscillators
Postby CharlesChandler» Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:21 am
 Lloyd wrote: How many neutrons do you figure clump together when fusion produces neutronium?
- I'm not sure — I'm just vaguely aware that when the available particles fuse, whatever individual neutrons are present, that would make a reasonably stable isotope, are included in the final aggregate.
- I guess if the neutrons clumped together, this would help.
- But I don't know.
- Lloyd wrote: When you use the term "black hole", you probably confuse people, who are likely to suppose that you mean the conventional definition of black hole.
- Whereas, I believe your definition is considerably different, although the result is fairly similar. [...]
- Then how about a black star?
- How about "natural tokamak"? :D
- Pretty much all of the existing terms (planetary nebulae, white dwarfs, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, black holes, and quasars) become misnomers if there is a theoretical shift.
- So I use the existing terms to refer to the known property sets, but explain them as toroidal plasmoids doing nuclear fusion without gravitational pressure.
- Lloyd wrote: Do you still think pulsars are neutron stars?
- That's how they're conventionally defined.
- Note that I don't even think that neutron stars are neutron stars. :)
- Cassiopia A TPOD wrote: Flares are the result of double layers that form and explode in one or a few of the Birkeland currents in a star's corona or photosphere.
- Those double layers arise from current surges that are generated in local instabilities.
- What's a "local instability"? ;)
- I actually agree with every word of that, but there's such a difference in granularity, I'm not sure that I'm agreeing with that, or just with myself. :D
- The model of flares that I'm using starts with the same solar~heliospheric current that lights up the quiet Sun, and drives the convection in the granules.
- At increased current densities, cathode spots form, which on the Sun are known as sunspots.
- These form where the overall magnetic field is perpendicular to the surface, and hence the solar~heliospheric current follows the magnetic field lines out into space.
- In other words, they're Birkeland currents.
- The more robust electric current generates a far more powerful local magnetic field, which insulates the electrons from the surrounding plasma.
- Hence a positive double-layer can build up around the charge stream, but the magnetic pressure prevents charge recombination.
- But if the current relaxes, the magnetic insulation weakens, and the electrons can abandon their solar~heliospheric pathway, in lieu of a greater attraction to the positive ions that built up around the charge stream.
- Hence I totally agree that surges in Birkeland currents form double-layers that can explode.
- But would the TPOD author agree with me? ;)
- Cassiopia A TPOD wrote: Novas and supernovas may be double layers that explode from the entire surface of a star.
- They are like cosmic sparks that "jump the gap" when instabilities switch off the current in galactic Birkeland filaments.
- The sudden interruption of current in such transmission lines will cause the energy that is distributed throughout the circuit to be dumped into the spark that bridges the gap.
- The resulting explosion will dissipate more energy than was originally present in the circuit element that "blew"—in this case, the star.
- I don't understand this.
- What separates the charges?
- What is the current density?
- Where is the dielectric?
- What is the switching mechanism?
- Lloyd wrote: I'm skeptical that he based the idea of quasars' initial high velocity on the red shift data.
- How sure are you about that?
- I'm really not sure at all about that.
- Lloyd wrote: Your stellar model has a dense positive core stripped of electrons by gravitational compressive ionization.
- I mentioned to you before that I don't think electrons orbit atomic nuclei, but Kanarev's model of atoms would still allow electrons to be stripped off, even though his electrons don't orbit.
- This is outside of my field of focus.
- I'll stand up and applaud anybody taking a swipe at quantum mechanics, as little of it is fully quantized, none of it is mechanical, and not a lick of it makes any sense whatsoever! :D
- I took a look at Bill Lucas' work (http://www.commonsensescience.org) and was thoroughly impressed.
- Maybe I'll ask him about the expected behaviors of supercritical fluids in his model.
- But that's a whole 'nuther story right there. :)
- I'm doing my part in the war against quantum heuristics by attacking its cornerstone: black-body theory.
- It's starting to look like atomic oscillators can completely account for continuous stellar spectra.
- It's ridiculously simple, but the implications are devastating, both for QM and for existing stellar theories.
- So nobody will touch it with a 10-foot pole.
- Yet in order to make a full accounting of the solar energy budget, and to identify where the radiation originates, I need a mechanistic model of BB radiation.
- So I've got that piece.
- I'll leave the rest up to Lucas, Kanarev, et al. ;)

--- Pulsars
Postby Lloyd » Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:21 pm
- Pulsars Web said: Regarding the standard pulsar explanation [not that I buy it...
- I don't], the rotating pulsar beams being aligned with earth observers are not such a big issue as you might think, because it would be assumed that these are not laser like beams, rather net-ly directional, conical beams which could conceivably intersect earth from a variety of angles.
- I figured that, even if a "beam" is pretty wide, the greatest intensity should be at the center, and it should fall off considerably toward the periphery.
- And, in that case, I think the intensities of many pulsar "beams" should vary considerably over months and years.
- I suppose my idea is naive, since the change in position of Earth on opposite sides of its orbit would be a tiny angle from the great distances of pulsars.
- Better Astronomical Distance Measurements - Looks like pulsars may make it possible to more accurately determine distances to the arms and center of our galaxy.
- The pulsar distance scale http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2001-5&a~
- From the sky distribution shown in Fig. 6 it is immediately apparent that pulsars are strongly concentrated along the Galactic plane.
- This indicates that pulsars populate the disk of our Galaxy.
- Unlike most other classes of astrophysical objects, quantitative estimates of the distances to each pulsar can be made from an effect known as pulse dispersion, the delay in pulse arrival times across a finite bandwidth.
- Dispersion occurs because the group velocity of the pulsed radiation through the ionised component of the interstellar medium is frequency dependent: pulses emitted at higher radio frequencies travel faster through the interstellar medium, arriving earlier than those emitted at lower frequencies.
- And now back to Pulsar Beam Intensity Variations - Pulsar beam radiant intensity distribution http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25716/pulsar-beam-radiant-intensit y-distribution
- I'm curious about the radiant intensity distribution of pulsars: what's the general dependence of intensity on angle, and what are typical angular beam widths?
- How much does the beam width vary between pulsars?
- (Presumably this is tied to magnetic field strength.)
- Even something as simple as a very sketchy plot of intensity vs. angle would be great.
- It's easy enough to find plots of observed intensity vs. time for individual pulsars, but it takes a bit to get from those to the distribution at the source.
- pulsars asked Nov 3 '11 at 20:12, Jefromi - My incomplete understanding is that the width of pulsars generally seems to depend on their periods and the angle between their magnetic axes and rotational axes.
- The general trend is for shorter period pulsars to have pulse widths that are a larger fraction of their periods.
- See On the pulse-width statistics in radio pulsars [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.1444M] for some more detail.
- It looks like there are pulse half widths as narrow as a few degrees (~1/100 of a period), and some that are as wide as ninety degrees (1/4 of a period, meaning that if we were able to see both pulsing sides, the pulsar is on ~1/2 the time).
- Given that level of variation, I'm not sure if there is a very general sort of plot of intensity versus phase.
- Some are nicely Gaussian pulses, with a nice interpulse at 180 degree phase separation, whereas others have much more structure.
- Take a look at some of the figure[s] in Multi-frequency integrated profiles of pulsars [http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3838]
- (there are a total of 34 pulsar profiles plotted, and it should be available to all as it was posted to arXiv).
- answered Feb 5 at 1:21, jdmcbr - Intrinsic Variability of the Vela Pulsar
- http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/563/1/L65/fulltext/
- ABSTRACT - Individual pulses from pulsars have intensity phase profiles that differ widely from pulse to pulse, from the average profile, and from phase to phase within a pulse.
- Widely accepted explanations for pulsar radio emission and its time variability do not exist.
- In this Letter, by analyzing data near the peak of the Vela pulsar's average profile, we show that the variability of the Vela pulsar corresponds to lognormal field statistics, consistent with the prediction of stochastic growth theory (SGT) for a purely linear system close to marginal stability.
- The variability of the Vela pulsar is therefore a direct manifestation of an SGT state, and the field statistics constrain the emission mechanism to be linear (either direct or indirect), ruling out nonlinear mechanisms such as wave collapse.
- Field statistics are thus a powerful and potentially widely applicable tool for understanding variability and constraining mechanisms and source characteristics of coherent astrophysical and space emissions. ...
- DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
- The foregoing analyses are the first applications of SGT to propagating electromagnetic radiation and, simultaneously, to extrasolar system sources.
- Their success implies that radiation statistics are an underappreciated and potentially very powerful tool in astrophysics (and space physics), and it suggests that SGT may well be widely applicable to coherent astrophysical sources.
- As to whether the Vela pulsar results are representative of other pulsars, analyses are ongoing.
- Our results to date for pulsar PSR 1641-45 (see also Johnston & Romani 2001) suggest that the variability near the peak of the average profile also corresponds to lognormal statistics and is thereby consistent with SGT and the Vela pulsar results above.

INDEX

--- Two Kinds of Stars: CI and Tokamak
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- CI Stars and Tokamak Stars
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Life by Tokamak Stars
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Tokamak Rotation/Tornado
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Celestial Rotation --- Plasmoids
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Celestial Rotation
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Bipolar Jets
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Jets Magnetically Confined
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Tokamak Jets
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Maximum Density, Supernovae, Stellar Tokamaks
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Supernovae
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Stellar Tokamak Density, Pulsars, Atomic Oscillators
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Pulsars
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~