Thunderbolts Forum

'12-02-26, 13:09 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Lloyd wrote: A lot of the section on sunspots sounds much like what you've said, except I don't think you mentioned the connection to the Sun's magnetic poles. From my sunspot page: The next question is, "What induces the rotation in the electrons as they rise up through the sunspot?" The most plausible answer is that it's the Lorentz force. Electrons shooting straight up through a sunspot will generate magnetic fields in conflict with the Sun's overall magnetic field in that hemisphere. If they spin as they go, the fields come into agreement. We can then go on to develop a more complete understanding of sunspot pairs. The primary sunspot's field has the same polarity as that hemisphere's pole, but the secondary sunspot's polarity is always reversed. This is because the secondary sunspot forms in the context of a field that is opposite. While the Sun's overall magnetic field sets up the Lorentz force that induces the rotation in the first sunspot, the electric current generates a field 4,000 times more powerful than the Sun's. (See Figure 1.) Where its closing lines of force dive back through the photosphere, the dominant magnetic field is opposite from the Sun's overall field in that hemisphere. If another sunspot forms in the presence of that polarity, its solenoidal current will rotate in the opposite direction, to generate a magnetic field that will agree with those lines of force. Solenoid Figure 1. In a solenoid, a rotating electric current generates axial lines of magnetic force. The two sunspots then make a pair that is much stronger, as neither has to fight back-pressure in the surrounding photosphere. (See Figure 5.) In both cases, the prime mover is the electric force that induces a flow of electrons upward, and the physical characteristics (i.e., width, Evershed flow, depressed surface, etc.) are roughly the same for either polarity. The only difference is which way the electrons rotate as they climb up through the convective zone. Sunspot Pair Figure 5. Closing field lines in reversed solenoids. Now onto a response to Michael M...
'12-02-26, 14:08 Michael Mozina	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/85 ... rcomputers Hey Charles, If you haven't taken a looked at that this phenomenal work on sunspot computer modeling, I encourage you to do so. IMO they got the details right with UNBELIEVABLE precision. I'm impressed with their code. FYI, One of the key "predictions" of a Birkeland solar model is that the surface of the photosphere should show polarized points where coronal loops come and back into the photosphere, and sunspots should congregate near highly polarized active regions. Indeed that's exactly what we observe in the magnetic field image overlays. The light and dark points in the magnetic field images correspond to bright points in the 1600A and 1700A images. You can build composite images on helioviewer by the way. You may already be familiar with the link, but for all the readers, it can be found here below. You might try overlaying a 1700A AIA image with HMI magnetogram image and you'll see what I mean. http://helioviewer.org/# There are also "tornadoes' that play a role in solar atmospheric activity. There are some early Trace images on the blog page of my website, and there are some recent SDO images of these same formations that you can find on youtube. This is one without a funky or strange music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsJPNYWg458
'12-02-26, 14:55 Michael Mozina	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient http://solarb.msfc.nasa.gov/movies/ You might also take a gander at these two videos that show the relationship between the coronal loops seen in XRT images and the gband filter showing the surface of the photosphere. The loops follow the contours of the penumbral filaments, and the magnetogram overlay image shows the polarization effect of those loops coming through the photosphere. http://solarb.msfc.nasa.gov/movies/xrt_ ... 061113.mpg http://solarb.msfc.nasa.gov/movies/xrt_ ... 061113.mpg
'12-02-26, 15:39 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Michael Mozina wrote: Halpha emissions are tricky IMO. They come from EVERY area of the solar atmosphere and many of them come from coronal loop activity near the surface. They also come from the every layer, as they move up and through the atmosphere toward the corona. IMO the hydrogen production is a byproduct of the HAlpha release taking place in coronal loops. Can you explain this image of the Sun in terms of h-alpha emissions from coronal loops? Michael Mozina wrote: The [coronal] loops themselves are "Bennett Pinches" that literally pinch free neutron from the plasmas in the loop. What do you mean by "pinch free neutron from plasmas"? Bennett Pinches are inward magnetic pressure exerted on moving electric charges, right? If so, what do neutrons have to do with it? I guess you're talking about the CNO cycle, but I wouldn't call that "pinching neutrons". I'd call it field-aligned currents with rotating charged particles that cause high-energy collisions. Michael Mozina wrote: The spectral data also shows LARGE amounts HIGHLY IONIZED iron, that simply doesn't jive with a "simple black body" calculation. Ditto for Neon and Silicon and Nickel, etc. This is interesting. I'm in no way theoretically committed to the entire convective zone being hydrogen and helium. I was already convinced that an element cannot exist below the level at which its density equals that of its liquid state, as the density reported by helioseismology below that level would either flat-line, because of the incompressibility of the liquid, or the density would continue to increase, due to the presence of heavier elements, in which case the lighter elements would bubble up. For this reason, going just on the basis of the standard density gradient, hydrogen cannot exist at all below the midpoint of the "convective" zone. So the standard model is already in the garbage can, without introducing any new info. Now if you say that a lot more elements are present, a lot closer to the photosphere, I see no reason to disagree in principle. But I'm still not convinced that the photosphere is not principally hydrogen and helium. Michael Mozina wrote: That same heliosiesmology data shows that there is a "stratification subsurface" sitting about about 4800KM under the photosphere. That is the number I have used in relationship to the location of the layer we observe in RD images. [...] The numbers I got from the SDO images are within 32KM of that same 4800KM number I got from Kosovichev's data. [...] That composite image says VOLUMES IMO. [...] That is NOT a coincidence. I find this to be compelling. So there is a distinct change at 4800 km below the edge of the photosphere. The Dalsgaard Model doesn't show a ledge there, but the SDO images certainly do. Below 4800 km, what other information do we have about the density? Do we have only Dalsgaard's interpretation of the helioseismic data? Michael Mozina wrote: The behaviors of RD images show a LONGEVITY of structure, and pole to pole rotation pattern that is completely UNLIKE the behaviors of the structures of the photosphere. [...] RD and even Doppler images show features that simply don't jive with a "light plasma" behavior. I agree that "light plasma" doesn't really describe features that can last for days on end. But I disagree that "longevity" (measured in days) equals solid. I would believe that molten iron would display that degree of longevity, but if it was solid, I would expect the forms to last for decades, not just days. But that's just a knee-jerk opinion. I'll study the RD images more before making any kind of assertion. Michael Mozina wrote: As the volcanic activity spews non ionized materials into the atmosphere, they are immediately ionized by the currents in the atmosphere and form current carrying threads into and through that region. Are the volcanoes erupting through the iron crust? If so, are you saying that silicon from below the crust is forcing its way upward? And if sunspots are volcanoes, can you explain the Butterfly Effect? Is that a tectonic plate thing, between the polar cap and the equatorial band? Michael Mozina wrote: https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/850/sunspots-revealed-striking-detail-supercomputers UCAR is famous for fancy "numeric descriptions" of things, but when they start making statements like this... Michael Knölker wrote: With this breakthrough simulation, an overall comprehensive physical picture is emerging for everything that observers have associated with the appearance, formation, dynamics, and the decay of sunspots on the Sun's surface. ...I start calling it fraud. What "physical picture"? They printed out the results of an MHD simulation, and now they have a "physical picture"? Creating such detailed simulations would not have been possible even as recently as a few years ago, before the latest generation of supercomputers and a growing array of instruments to observe the Sun. Partly because of such new technology, scientists have made advances in solving the equations that describe the physics of solar processes. What "physics of solar processes"? I can write computer code that draws pretty pictures too. But I'm not going to pass off best-fit heuristic creativity as physics. That's fraud. It's time the general public be informed of the true meaning of the term "numeric description". These simulations cost money, and they don't teach us anything about what's actually going on. They just get the scientists more firmly entrenched in their make-believe maths, and the general public becomes more convinced that the scientists have it all worked out. Then people like us come along, looking to address the anomalies in the existing models, and the scientists have locked down because they've already generated all of the multimedia presentations, and the general public won't consider that the scientists are hiding the fact that they really don't understand what's going on. We're paying them to deceive us.
'12-02-26, 17:18 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient May I interject? RD Images' Longevity Charles said: Michael Mozina wrote:The behaviors of RD images show a LONGEVITY of structure, and pole to pole rotation pattern that is completely UNLIKE the behaviors of the structures of the photosphere. [...] RD and even Doppler images show features that simply don't jive with a "light plasma" behavior.I agree that "light plasma" doesn't really describe features that can last for days on end. But I disagree that "longevity" (measured in days) equals solid. I would believe that molten iron would display that degree of longevity, but if it was solid, I would expect the forms to last for decades, not just days. But that's just a knee-jerk opinion. I'll study the RD images more before making any kind of assertion. * I believe Michael M. said initially that such RD images' longevity is also measured in weeks and even years. And the features in these images are usually just the most interesting ones that are taller mountain-like structures. These are what Brant says are the hot spots on the iron surface, where the iron slag is more molten. The surface between the hot spots is much cooler, estimated at 1,200K or so. Brant also seems to be an expert at spectroscopy, or works with experts, and I think he says the Sun's primarily blackbody spectrum is typical of solids, not liquid, or gas. You can review Brant's info here: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~. Iron Surface Volcanoes Charles said: Michael Mozina wrote: As the volcanic activity spews non ionized materials into the atmosphere, they are immediately ionized by the currents in the atmosphere and form current carrying threads into and through that region.Are the volcanoes erupting through the iron crust? If so, are you saying that silicon from below the crust is forcing its way upward? And if sunspots are volcanoes, can you explain the Butterfly Effect? Is that a tectonic plate thing, between the polar cap and the equatorial band? * I've quoted Michael earlier as saying that the deep plasma silicon layer is like an ocean that overlies the thin (crusty) calcium layer, which overlies the ferrite surface. The plasma neon photosphere overlies this silicon layer. Michael says the volcanic activity on the ferrite surface heats the silicon, which rises through the neon layer, making sunspots. Brant says the vulcanism is more like the geysers on the moon Io and that it also shoots iron plasma up (electrically or magnetically?), forming coronal loops at very high velocity, which plasma cools and falls as coronal rain back to the loop footprints on the iron-calcium surface. He says solar flares also originate at these hot spots.
'12-02-27, 10:24 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Charles on Sun Formation http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure/?top=6031,5237,6723 * Sounds like you have your model almost completed now in a manner that makes a lot of sense. There are only a few thousand minor details left to attend to, besides one or two major questions, perhaps. The "like-likes-like" principle could provide enough force to cause a dust cloud to condense [as described here, I think: http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure/?top=6031,5972], and once aggregates have developed inward momenta, collisions will form larger aggregates. Initially, the denser the cluster becomes, the more violent the collisions, producing heat that reduces the density. In other words, the cluster behaves like gas under hydrostatic pressure, except that the collisions are planetary instead of molecular. And like a gas, it will not fully condense until heat loss allows it. But in free space there is nothing to contain the heat, so the compression continues. When the force of gravity becomes great enough to ionize the core, electrostatic double-layers form, and the net inward force increases by many orders of magnitude. * Charles, it seems like it might be worth mentioning the need for the collapsing cloud to rotate at a few km/s at the center in order to get the layers to maintain charge separation. Don't you think? By double layers, do you mean your earlier theory of layers of opposite charge? Is rotational velocity still needed to maintain that charge separation? This further concentrates the gravitational force, which increases the ionization, which increases the electric force, which increases the pressure. Now any matter within the gravitational field of the central aggregate will eventually be added. And all of this can happen without the benefit of magnetic charge separation. But the point remains that if magnetic forces are present, all of this will happen faster. And as we have seen, there are many things about stars that simply would not be possible without magnetic confinement. So the "natural tokamak" is a necessary component in the overarching construct, and for the sake of simplicity, it will continue to be presented as the primary charge separator in a star, even though ionization by compression is probably the more powerful force in the final stage of stellar formation. * Does your site explain your idea of a natural tokamak somewhere? You say there may be heavy radioactive elements at the core, like uranium. Do you think there could be any fissioning of it that could provide some of the Sun's energy output? By the way, did you explain somewhere how the heavy elements form?
'12-03-01, 15:44 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Lloyd wrote: The "like-likes-like" principle could provide enough force to cause a dust cloud to condense [as described here, I think: http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure/?top=6031,5972], and once aggregates have developed inward momenta, collisions will form larger aggregates. Initially, the denser the cluster becomes, the more violent the collisions, producing heat that reduces the density. In other words, the cluster behaves like gas under hydrostatic pressure, except that the collisions are planetary instead of molecular. And like a gas, it will not fully condense until heat loss allows it. But in free space there is nothing to contain the heat, so the compression continues. When the force of gravity becomes great enough to ionize the core, electrostatic double-layers form, and the net inward force increases by many orders of magnitude. * Charles, it seems like it might be worth mentioning the need for the collapsing cloud to rotate at a few km/s at the center in order to get the layers to maintain charge separation. Don't you think? Here is the rest of that paragraph. I have edited it since you quoted me, but here is how it was at the time (saved 2012-02-27, 10:48): CharlesChandler wrote: This further concentrates the gravitational force, which increases the ionization, which increases the electric force, which increases the pressure. Now any matter within the gravitational field of the central aggregate will eventually be added. And all of this can happen without the benefit of magnetic charge separation. But the point remains that if magnetic forces are present, all of this will happen faster. And as we have seen, there are many things about stars that simply would not be possible without magnetic confinement. So the "natural tokamak" is a necessary component in the overarching construct, and for the sake of simplicity, it will continue to be presented as the primary charge separator in a star, even though ionization by compression is probably the more powerful force in the final stage of stellar formation. So the contention is that there are two charge separation mechanisms, magnetic confinement and ionization by compression. Lloyd wrote: By double layers, do you mean your earlier theory of layers of opposite charge? Is rotational velocity still needed to maintain that charge separation? Yes, I'm talking about layers of opposite charges. Rotational velocity is one way of separating charges, because magnetic fields are generated that send oppositely charged particles in different directions. But I'm also saying that compression can force the electrons out of the matter, leaving positively charged matter behind. So this is another charge separation mechanism. Lloyd wrote: Does your site explain your idea of a natural tokamak somewhere? Not really. I guess maybe I could elaborate on that. Briefly, a tokamak compresses plasma with a magnetic pinch that is artificially applied. I'm saying that the same sort of pinch can be achieved if the matter is accelerated to relativistic speeds, where the plasma's own magnetic fields do the pinching. But note that I'm not looking for fusion out of these "natural tokamaks" — I'm just looking for a partial charge separation. So I'm not saying that matter in an accretion disc is approaching the speed of light, where the strength of its own magnetic field would be sufficient for fusion. I'm just saying that even a barely relativistic speed will accomplish some charge separation. And it's the charge separation (by whatever means) that sets up the electrostatic layering, which binds the matter together much more forcefully. Lloyd wrote: You say there may be heavy radioactive elements at the core, like uranium. I'm saying that in the Dalsgaard model, the core of the Sun is 5 times heavier than uranium, and that this is suspicious. It's much more believable that the core is not denser than uranium. So it could be uranium, and lighter elements. There are precious few facts to constrain the speculation here, but we do know the mass and volume of the Sun, and we know that compressing elements beyond their liquid density takes a degree of force that simply isn't present. Speculate all you want — within those constraints. By my calculations, if the convective zone is hydrogen and helium, then the average density below the convective zone is 52 times heavier than liquid hydrogen. Iron is 55 times heavier. So we might say that everything below the convective zone is pure iron. If the convective zone has heavier elements than hydrogen, then not all of the core and radiative zones would have to be iron. In other words, with what little information we have, you could whip up any number of different soups that would have the correct density. Lloyd wrote: Do you think there could be any fissioning of it that could provide some of the Sun's energy output? It's certainly possible, for all we know, but asserting the presence of radioactive elements begs your next question... Lloyd wrote: By the way, did you explain somewhere how the heavy elements form? I think that they're formed by fusion in the core of stars simply by compression. I don't know that much about fusion, but it's my understanding that the fusion of elements heavier than helium would take more pressure than the Sun has. This means that the heavier elements in the Sun came from either one of two places. 1) Heavier elements were present in the accretion disc that condensed into the Sun. So they were manufactured elsewhere, and just happened to be floating around in space when the Sun decided to condense. 2) It's possible that the Sun was once a much heavier star, and was fusing heavier elements, though it has lost of a lot of its mass to solar wind, and now isn't big enough to manufacture those elements, though they persist in the core. #2 is a possibility that I've been considering recently, and within the last couple of days added to my site (see Star Types). The standard model of stellar evolution states that main sequence stars pretty much stay where they are on the main sequence, until they get old, at which time they transition to red giants or white dwarfs. But if that was the case, then most of the stars would have already made this transition. So I'm exploring the possibility that stars are born as blue giants. Then, as they lose mass to the stellar winds, they get lighter, which means that they also get cooler, and put out redder light. I then treat red giants and white dwarfs as exceptions to that rule. If stars are sliding down the main sequence with old age, the source of the heavy elements in their cores wouldn't necessarily be a supernova somewhere else (which I have a hard time imagining as the source of heavy elements anyway). The source would be earlier stages of that star.
'12-03-02, 21:10 upriver	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient I am still reading the thread. Can anybody give me a summary of what the basic question is? Brant
'12-03-02, 21:15 upriver	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Lloyd wrote: Mass = L^3/T^2? * The last sentence or two leads to the next step of Mathis' procedure, so I won't go any farther than this for now. But does that explain it well enough for you, at least tentatively? I don't mean to suggest that I understand things all that well myself. But it does seem to make sense to me that mass can be expressed in terms of length and time, at least with respect to our visual senses. Our tactile senses would understand force, i.e. the sensation of pressure, but it seems that our visual senses only perceive length, time and color. This is the base system that Aetherometry uses, meters per second. Its useful for measuring wave motion.
'12-03-03, 02:46 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient upriver wrote: Can anybody give me a summary of what the basic question is? Hi Brant, The essential question is how did the Sun become as dense as it is. I think that we all agree that the conventional gravity-only model is inadequate. A dust cloud isn't going to be pulled together by the weak force of gravity, and against the hydrostatic pressure that results from the compression, especially at extreme temperatures. One or more other forces have to be present. I'm contending that the "like-likes-like" principle is responsible for pulling the dust cloud together. Aggregates of matter in space (asteroids, planets, etc.) are negatively charged, surrounded by positively charged plasma. Between two negatively charged bodies, there is a concentration of positively charged plasma, to which the negatively charged bodies are attracted. In other words, it's like covalent bonding, but at the macroscopic level. This gets everything moving together. But this, by itself, wouldn't create a star. Having developed inward momentum, the matter is all going to meet in the middle, but given the heat that this will generate, it will all bounce off. So it will take additional force(s) to get the condensation to stick together. I have identified two forces that will induce rotation in the accretion. First, in a radial inflow pattern, there will be magnetic pressure between fast-moving, charged bodies converging on the center. This magnetic pressure will encourage everything to get going in the same direction. This nudges the radial inflow into a spiraling inflow. Second, if there is an external magnetic field (e.g., from the galaxy), converging charged bodies will experience a Lorentz force that will convert radial motion into spiraling motion toward the center. With the accretion spiraling inward, as speeds increase, the magnetic pressure increases. This eventually builds up to the point that it is accomplishing "magnetic confinement" in a rotary motion around the center. In other words, magnetic pinches work on linear as well as circular motions. In the center of the accretion disc, matter is rotating very rapidly, meaning powerful magnetic fields, which will consolidate the matter. So it's a toroidal pinch, like a tokamak, but not because of an artificial magnetic field applied from the outside, but just because of the magnetic fields generated by the matter itself. Note that in a magnetic field, oppositely charged particles go in opposite directions. Positive charges generate magnetic fields by the right-hand rule, while negative charges generate left-hand rule fields. This means that the ExB force exerted on the charges will be opposite. Hence in a tokamak, positive charges are compressed into the center of the toroid, while negative charges are expelled. Put another way, at extreme speeds, the magnetic fields generated by charged particles constitute a charge separation mechanism. So at the center of the accretion disc, we can expect charge-separated matter, where the magnetic force is pushing opposite charges apart, but the electric force is pulling everything back together. The result is more densely packed matter. Once a charge separation is established, additional electrostatic layers will form. Suppose the core is positively charged, and just outside of the core are the negative charges that have been expelled by the opposing magnetic fields. So we start with this: +|- The next thing that happens is this: +|-+ The negative charges outside the core will attract any positive ions in the vicinity, and repel free electrons. The positive ions are attracted to the negative charge, but repelled by the positive charge in the core. Since the negative charge is closer, the positive ions are attracted to the negative more than they are repelled by the positive. So this kind of electrostatic layering doesn't require its own charge separation mechanism (such as magnetic pressure, or the present of a dielectric). The primary charge separation between the positive core and its negative wrapper supports another layer of positive charge around the outside, just by electrostatics. The significance of the electrostatic layering is that this will bind the matter together far more powerfully than gravity, and will be capable of overpowering hydrostatic pressure, even as temperatures become extreme. With the matter packed together more tightly, the gravitational field is concentrated, and eventually it builds up to the point that it actually starts helping consolidate the matter. And when extreme pressures develop in the core, another more powerful charge separation mechanism can kick in. If you attempt to compress matter beyond its liquid density, you start forcing electrons out. This is because electrons can only exist as free particles, or in specific shells around the nucleus of an atom. At the density of a liquid, the electron shells of neighboring atoms overlap. Further compression will put the atoms even closer together, breaking the electron shells. This means that the electrons have to take a hike, and positively charged matter is left behind. So this is a charge separation mechanism, and I'm calling it "ionization by compression". This looks like it will prove to be the most powerful charge separator in the Sun, though it only kicks in once something else has created an aggregate large enough that the gravitational force will support it. That's where I'm asserting that magnetic confinement due to rotation accomplishes the initial aggregation, from a dust cloud to a proto-star. To summarize, I'm saying that electrostatic layering it responsible for the extreme density of the Sun, where the electric force is pulling matter together far more vigorously than gravity. Regards, Charles
'12-03-03, 13:15 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Sun's Composition Graphs * Charles, I found another website that favors Manuel's Iron Sun model and it shows some nice graphs, which I posted at the ABIS thread here: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~. It shows the calculated composition of all elements of the Sun. The graphs seem to explain their data much better than the texts and other graphs and images I've seen. Your post of Mozina's image of the Sun, showing the 4800 km deep layer above the iron surface seems very explanatory too.
'12-03-05, 06:04 Michael Mozina	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient CharlesChandler wrote: Michael Mozina wrote:Halpha emissions are tricky IMO. They come from EVERY area of the solar atmosphere and many of them come from coronal loop activity near the surface. They also come from the every layer, as they move up and through the atmosphere toward the corona. IMO the hydrogen production is a byproduct of the HAlpha release taking place in coronal loops.Can you explain this image of the Sun in terms of h-alpha emissions from coronal loops? No, I can't explain it JUST in terms of h-alpha emissions from coronal loops. As I said, Hydrogen is tricky because it moves, flows through and permeates all the layers. It literally "flows" up from the surface of the photosphere and into the corona. Much of the original hydrogen release takes place inside loops IMO, but far *BELOW* the surface of the photosphere. Their high charge to mass ratio, and light composition cause them to FLOW from their point of release (pinched from trillions of loops near the "solid surface" and then flow up and into space as "solar wind". Michael Mozina wrote: The [coronal] loops themselves are "Bennett Pinches" that literally pinch free neutron from the plasmas in the loop. What do you mean by "pinch free neutron from plasmas"? If you study the z-machine experiments, they found that the process itself created free neutrons. They weren't sure if this was some sort of fusion process or just pinched neutrons, but the magnetic fields act to SLAM particles together at some point and the resistance of the plasma causes the plasmas to heat themselves to very high temperatures in the presence of very strong currents through the filament. Bennett Pinches are inward magnetic pressure exerted on moving electric charges, right? If so, what do neutrons have to do with it? I guess you're talking about the CNO cycle, but I wouldn't call that "pinching neutrons". I'd call it field-aligned currents with rotating charged particles that cause high-energy collisions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch ZETA won the race, and by the summer of 1957 it was producing bursts of neutrons on every run. Although the scientists working on the device, and similar ones in the US and UK, were careful to point out that it was not proven, the results were nevertheless released with great fanfare as the first successful step on the path to commercial fusion energy. However, further study soon demonstrated that the measurements were misleading, and none of the machines were near fusion levels. Interest in pinch devices faded, although ZETA and its cousin Sceptre would serve for many years as experimental devices. After about 10 minutes a free neutron is going to decay into a proton and an electron and a neutrino. Michael Mozina wrote: The spectral data also shows LARGE amounts HIGHLY IONIZED iron, that simply doesn't jive with a "simple black body" calculation. Ditto for Neon and Silicon and Nickel, etc. This is interesting. I'm in no way theoretically committed to the entire convective zone being hydrogen and helium. I was already convinced that an element cannot exist below the level at which its density equals that of its liquid state, as the density reported by helioseismology below that level would either flat-line, because of the incompressibility of the liquid, or the density would continue to increase, due to the presence of heavier elements, in which case the lighter elements would bubble up. For this reason, going just on the basis of the standard density gradient, hydrogen cannot exist at all below the midpoint of the "convective" zone. So the standard model is already in the garbage can, without introducing any new info. Now if you say that a lot more elements are present, a lot closer to the photosphere, I see no reason to disagree in principle. But I'm still not convinced that the photosphere is not principally hydrogen and helium. I would say that it's principally NEON, with LOTS of hydrogen and some helium flowing through it at all times, in all directions. I agree with you that the hydrogen "bubbles up" due to it's relatively density, it's relatively HIGH charge to mass ratio, etc. It's MOVING toward the heliosphere from the moment the neutron decays into protons and electrons. Keep in mind that heliosiesmology only "works' because the sun literally 'rings like a bell'. Various waves are being affected VERY unusually at the 4800KM point under the photosphere according to that paper by Kosovichev. That IMO is where the shell of the "bell" actually exists. I spent one night with my daughter counting pixels around the first SDO press release images to see how closely it would come to Kosovichev's figure. That composite SDO image worked out to within 32KM of the 4800KM figure I got from Kosovichev's work. That blew my mind. I'm certain that image was 'preprogrammed' in terms of all the alignments between filters and was intended from the start to show where the "transition region" begin in relationship to the photosphere. It shows that relationship perfectly IMO, exactly where Kosovichev's work suggested it was located. The number as I recall was 4832KM +- 1200KM. That's about as good as I could hope for frankly. Michael Mozina wrote: That same heliosiesmology data shows that there is a "stratification subsurface" sitting about about 4800KM under the photosphere. That is the number I have used in relationship to the location of the layer we observe in RD images. [...] The numbers I got from the SDO images are within 32KM of that same 4800KM number I got from Kosovichev's data. [...] That composite image says VOLUMES IMO. [...] That is NOT a coincidence. I find this to be compelling. So there is a distinct change at 4800 km below the edge of the photosphere. The Dalsgaard Model doesn't show a ledge there, but the SDO images certainly do. Below 4800 km, what other information do we have about the density? Do we have only Dalsgaard's interpretation of the helioseismic data? I suppose we will have to consider EVERYONE's interpretation, plus look at a few satellite images to confirm/falsify them IMO. Michael Mozina wrote: The behaviors of RD images show a LONGEVITY of structure, and pole to pole rotation pattern that is completely UNLIKE the behaviors of the structures of the photosphere. [...] RD and even Doppler images show features that simply don't jive with a "light plasma" behavior. I agree that "light plasma" doesn't really describe features that can last for days on end. But I disagree that "longevity" (measured in days) equals solid. I would believe that molten iron would display that degree of longevity, but if it was solid, I would expect the forms to last for decades, not just days. But that's just a knee-jerk opinion. I'll study the RD images more before making any kind of assertion. Two points: The published papers I've been involved in specifically used the term "rigid' rather than solid. We all realized that the longevity differences could be related to a more dense plasma at 4800 KM, but for a variety of other reasons, I prefer a 'solid surface' model that is mostly a volcanic landscape. In terms of what you might expect to see in RD images, it's going to depend on the longevity of not only the physical structures themselves, but the longevity of the light reflections patterns. In a highly volcanic and highly ELECTRICALLY active region, that isn't necessarily going to be 'years' in duration. In fact that's HIGHLY UNLIKELY IMO. It's more like MONTHS of longevity at best IMO, even in a "solid surface' environment. The preference I have for a solid relates to the behaviors of the features during flare events (like that gold RD image on my website) and the fact that I believe it's the material coming up through the volcanic vent that is being ionized by the atmosphere that generates "active regions" at various locations around the surface. Michael Mozina wrote: As the volcanic activity spews non ionized materials into the atmosphere, they are immediately ionized by the currents in the atmosphere and form current carrying threads into and through that region. Are the volcanoes erupting through the iron crust? If so, are you saying that silicon from below the crust is forcing its way upward? The silicon plasma layer sits ABOVE the solid surface, and BELOW the neon photosphere. Keep in mind that hydrogen flows through all the layers. The MAGMA below the surface is forcing it's way to the surface just as it does here on Earth. And if sunspots are volcanoes, can you explain the Butterfly Effect? Sunspots sit ABOVE volcanic active regions typically, but they aren't volcanoes per se. They have silicon plasma that is being heated in the solar atmosphere and rises up and punches it way through the neon layer. At that point the density change between helium and silicon plasma is so great, the silicon plasma sinks again into the neon plasma and eventually back into the silicon plasma layer under the photosphere. The "Butterfly' effect is probably best explained IMO either based on an INTERNAL spin of the core as it rotates on the Z axis, or some EXTERNAL effect caused by WAVES that pass over our solar system (brant's ideas). Is that a tectonic plate thing, between the polar cap and the equatorial band? I'm not sure what you mean. IMO the whole sun has a solid surface. Most of the high energy action takes place near the equatorial regions, particularly during the sun's most active phase. I have to stop here for now, but I'll check to see if I missed anything important a bit later. Bear with me a bit. I'm a bit busy this week, but I am interested in transitioning out of a board I've participated in, and spending more time here for awhile. I have a busy work week ahead, but I'll try to be a bit more responsive to your questions this week.
'12-03-05, 06:24 Michael Mozina	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Lloyd wrote: May I interject? RD Images' Longevity Charles said: Michael Mozina wrote:The behaviors of RD images show a LONGEVITY of structure, and pole to pole rotation pattern that is completely UNLIKE the behaviors of the structures of the photosphere. [...] RD and even Doppler images show features that simply don't jive with a "light plasma" behavior.I agree that "light plasma" doesn't really describe features that can last for days on end. But I disagree that "longevity" (measured in days) equals solid. I would believe that molten iron would display that degree of longevity, but if it was solid, I would expect the forms to last for decades, not just days. But that's just a knee-jerk opinion. I'll study the RD images more before making any kind of assertion. * I believe Michael M. said initially that such RD images' longevity is also measured in weeks and even years. I would say "months", but not years. Years seems "pushing it", particularly in the active ELECTRICAL environment we're describing. And the features in these images are usually just the most interesting ones that are taller mountain-like structures. FYI,l I would add one more bit of evidence here in terms of key issues. There are "shock waves" seen in both SOHO and now at least one SDO image I can think of that show deflection from what appear to be either much more dense structures (dense plasma), or solid surfaces. There are some examples of SOHO shockwaves exibiting such behaviors, but I've seen at least one SDO shock wave image that shows a similar effect. I'm kind of chomping at the bit for the sun to hit it's most active phase so that the discharge type flares occur more regularly. These are what Brant says are the hot spots on the iron surface, where the iron slag is more molten. The surface between the hot spots is much cooler, estimated at 1,200K or so. Brant also seems to be an expert at spectroscopy, or works with experts, and I think he says the Sun's primarily blackbody spectrum is typical of solids, not liquid, or gas. You can review Brant's info here: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~. For a variety of reasons I agree with Brant about the surface being solid, and his ideas about a wireless transfers of energy is also intriguing to me. I think it's likely that all suns interact with the central core of our galaxy and the EM waves it produces. That could trigger all kinds of internal energy release processes as well. I need to be clear on what exactly he means by the "butterfly effect". I'm not clear if he's talking about current sheet activity near sunspots, or he's describing the active region solar cycle where the active regions move from the poles to the equator over the course of the solar cycle.
'12-03-05, 07:46 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Charles' Accretion Model * Charles, I analyzed your webpage on accretion to see if there are any loose ends. I found a few. My statements are in RED. Yours are in normal color. Parentheses show my paraphrasing of your statements. Accretion: how celestial bodies formed As matter begins to accrete (due to gravity), we now have... moving matter. <According to Wikipedia half of the ISM is hot, with about one H atom or proton per 3cc and another half is extremely hot, but with only one metal ion per 1,000cc.> <<Warm Neutral Medium (WNM) <H> 15% - 8k K - 0.35Atoms/cc.>> <<Warm Ionized Medium (WIM) <p,e> 35% - 8k K - 0.35Atoms/cc.>> <<Hot Ionized Medium (HIM) <p,e,M> 50% - 5m K - 0.001Atoms/cc (M=metals).>> <Before there were galaxies there were likely only electrons and protons with much lower temperature.> <How long would it take for electrons and protons to form hydrogen atoms, assuming 0 K temperature, low random velocity and 1 of each per 3cc of space?> As matter begins to accrete (due to gravity), we now have... moving matter. Moving electric charges generate magnetic fields. Time-varying magnetic fields induce electric currents. Neutrally charged matter has EM properties. A molecular dipole in motion generates magnetic fields far larger than the molecule itself. <Would a single hydrogen atom have a dipole, since the electron and proton are separated by a short distance?> <Would a hydrogen molecule have a dipole?> <How long would it take for the dipolar forces to combine 2 hydrogen atoms into one molecule?> A similar molecule in the vicinity does the same thing, and the overlapping magnetic fields polarize the molecules. (Then) there will be an electrostatic attraction between them. Since the electric force is (far) more powerful than gravity, we now have a much more powerful force pulling the particles together. So particles will clump together into asteroids as the matter moves toward the galactic center of gravity. <Initially, there may not have been a galactic center.> <How would atoms and molecules larger than hydrogn have formed?> <How would carbon be formed?> Once asteroids start forming, they develop a net negative charge, (because aggregates can hold more extra electrons than can individual molecules). The electron cloud in an aggregate can easily hide a few extra electrons per every million protons. Atoms get ionized by UV radiation from a nearby supernova, or by the cosmic background radiation. <Isn't the CBR just infrared, not UV?> <And where did the CBR come from?> <If there was no CRB initially, then we need a different method for ionization, don't we?> The electron that is so liberated (is more likely to join a) larger aggregate (than a small one). For this reason, aggregates in space have a net negative charge, while the surrounding plasma is positively charged. Between two negatively charged bodies in space, we can expect a greater density of positively charged plasma. This will pull the (two negatively charged) bodies together. An isolated body with a negative charge will be surrounded by a concentric shell of positively charged plasma. <Why wouldn't the positive plasma stick to the negative aggregate and neutralize it?> If two negatively charged bodies are within range of each other, the concentration of positive charges between them will be far greater, as the positive plasma is attracted to the negative charges in both bodies. The bodies are then attracted to the plasma, making it seem as if the bodies are attracted to each other, when really, they're both attracted to the shared positive charge between them (like covalent bonding at the macroscopic level). We can expect this phenomenon to manifest itself at every scale, from asteroids to planets, stars, and solar systems.
'12-03-05, 16:21 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Lloyd wrote: I found another website that [...] shows the calculated composition of all elements of the Sun. I found the composition of the bulk Sun, corrected for mass separation to be particularly compelling. (Note that this is saying that there is more iron than any other single element, but this doesn't exactly support the "Iron Sun" model. Iron compared to everything else combined is going to be a small percentage.) Anyway, I think that the next step with these data is to calculate the solar radius of each layer. In other words, let's assume a quiescent environment, with no convection. The heavier elements gravitate to the core, and the lighter elements bubble up to the surface. Let's assume the heaviest element is radium, and it has an abundance of 10^3.5. So (after finding out what 10^3.5 means) we calculate the radius of a sphere that contains that much radium. Then, for each lighter element, we calculate the thickness of the shell that would represent the appropriate volume. Then we could look for correlations with other types of data. For example, the boundary between the core and the radiative zone is at 27% of the solar radius. So what does our layer model say about the elements in that vicinity, that might account for the detection of a boundary? Michael, do you have access to the actual numbers that were used to generate that graph (so we don't have to guess at them by eyeballing the graph)? Maybe the numbers are in tabular format somewhere, but I haven't run across them yet. Michael Mozina wrote: The preference I have for a solid relates to the behaviors of the features during flare events (like that gold RD image on my website) and the fact that I believe it's the material coming up through the volcanic vent that is being ionized by the atmosphere that generates "active regions" at various locations around the surface. On a related topic, I recently reworked my model of photospheric granules. I haven't exactly embraced the whole "volcanic" thing yet, but it seems that we're using a lot of the same terminology, so we might be saying the same thing. Essentially, my new & improved model of granules centers around the fact that any hydrogen in the convective zone deeper than about halfway down has been compressed beyond its liquid density, meaning that it is being subjected to "ionization by compression." That's because electrons can only exist as free particles, or in specific shells around nucleons, and if the nucleons are pushed closer together than the liquid density, the shells fails, so the electrons are squeezed out. The density gradient of the Sun, showing the densities of liquid hydrogen and helium This means that any hydrogen below the liquid line is positively charged, that that means that above the line, there will be a concentration of electrons, attracted to the positive charges below, but which cannot get down there to neutralize those charges because of the density. Electrons expelled by hydrogen compression accumulate in the middle of the convective zone. Now suppose heat from the radiative zone generates a bubble in the liquid hydrogen. As it rises, eventually it will cross the liquid density line, at which time it can boil, because it's hot enough, and because there isn't enough pressure to keep it a liquid anymore. When it boils, there is now enough space between the nucleons to allow electrons back in. So the positively charged bubble from the bottom of the convective zone now gets neutralized. The de-ionization emits photons, which create more heat. This means that any bubble that rises past the liquid line gets an extra boost from de-ionization. This is proposed to be the source of "supergranules". Bubble from radiative zone rises through the expulsion zone, getting partially de-ionized. Note that the supergranule should still be too hot for the electrons to actually cling to the nucleons, so I'm saying that midway through the convective zone, the supergranule gets partially de-ionized. When the supergranule crosses the sharp density drop-off at the bottom of the photosphere, the expansion of the plasma cools it, allowing electron uptake, which is a new source of photons (and this is what we see from the Earth). It is this release of photons that creates the heat that generates the bubbles that we see at the surface, and which we call granules. The reason why I think that granules begin right at the bottom of the photosphere itself is just because of their physical characteristics. If they started deeper in the convective zone, we'd expect them to be larger and more random. Consider boiling some water in a pot on the stove. If the water is really deep, smaller bubbles that start at the bottom merge into larger bubbles which burst violently at the surface. But if there is just a very thin layer of water, you'll get more like a continual "foaming" of small bubbles. And this is what the granules in the photosphere look like — a continual flow of small bubbles. So we'll say that with granules 1000 km wide, they originate from no more than 5000 km deep in the Sun, which is the depth of the photosphere itself. Expansion at the bottom of the photosphere allows electron uptake, which creates new heat, causing granules. So this is how I think that "eruptions" occur in an electrified environment. Once the granules get to the edge of the photosphere, they can release electrons as thermionic emissions. Then the plasma is positively charged again, and attracted to the negative layer below, which pulls the plasma back into the Sun, against the steep pressure gradient, and in spite of its extreme heat, and at supersonic speeds. Michael Mozina wrote: The "Butterfly" effect is probably best explained IMO either based on an INTERNAL spin of the core as it rotates on the Z axis, or some EXTERNAL effect caused by WAVES that pass over our solar system (brant's ideas). By "Butterfly Effect", I assume that we're both talking about the fact that there are roughly the same number of sunspots in both hemisperes, and that early in the cycle they are more likely at greater latitudes, while later they are closer to the equator. This paper... Zhao, J.; Kosovichev, A. G., 2004: Torsional Oscillation, Meridional Flows, and Vorticity Inferred in the Upper Convection Zone of the Sun by Time-Distance Helioseismology. IOP Publishing, 603: 776 ...talks about the "equatorial band that rotates faster than the polar cap", and instantiates the common concept that sunspots begin as boundary-layer vortexes between these two masses. Of course, there is extremely little actual vorticity in sunspots, and the difference in velocities is slight, calling the vorticity premise into question. Also, I think that your work with the running difference imagery might set a lower limit for how deep this "equatorial band" might be, because you're saying that the rotational characteristics not far below the photosphere are very different. It will be interesting to see if RD data from the upcoming sunspot peak falsify the "equatorial band" construct, or just severely limit it. I believe that sunspots are formed by electric currents from an underlying negative layer up to the positively charged photosphere. The fact that the center of a sunspot is cooler than the photosphere is frequently taken to mean that all of the convective zone is cooler, but I think that this is a mistake. I think that the EM structure of the sunspot limits the degrees of freedom of the plasma, shedding heat and cooling the center of the sunspot. This explains why granules near sunspots are a bit more vigorous — they've picked up extra heat radiated by the sunspot shaft. And it questions the whole "volcanic" idea, because it wouldn't make sense for there to be a cool core in a volcanic "eruption". Michael Mozina wrote: Is that a tectonic plate thing, between the polar cap and the equatorial band? I'm not sure what you mean. IMO the whole sun has a solid surface. Most of the high energy action takes place near the equatorial regions, particularly during the sun's most active phase. I was taking for granted the "equatorial band vs. polar cap" construct, which perhaps you do not. Anyway, I don't think that you've answered the question of why the sunspot volcanoes erupt in the Butterfly pattern. Michael Mozina wrote: Bear with me a bit. I'm a bit busy this week... No worries. I have to break off every now and again too. But please know that I sincerely appreciate the time that you're taking here. Michael Mozina wrote: There are "shock waves" seen in both SOHO and now at least one SDO image I can think of that show deflection from what appear to be either much more dense structures (dense plasma), or solid surfaces. This is very interesting. Everything that I'm thinking, and everything that I'm being told, convinces me that the Dalsgaard density gradient is a model, not a report of real data. I doubt that I would understand the raw data if I saw it, but I hope that people who are better qualified than me can get non-modelled conclusions out of the data, and lead the analysis forward. Lloyd wrote: I analyzed your webpage on accretion to see if there are any loose ends. I found a few. Thanks! Lloyd wrote: How long would it take for electrons and protons to form hydrogen atoms, assuming 0 K temperature, low random velocity and 1 of each per 3cc of space? This would happen instantaneously, as there would be nothing to maintain any charge separation. Lloyd wrote: Would a single hydrogen atom have a dipole, since the electron and proton are separated by a short distance? No, and that's true for any single atom, and also true for diatomic molecules (with 2 atoms). Lloyd wrote: Would a hydrogen molecule have a dipole? How long would it take for the dipolar forces to combine 2 hydrogen atoms into one molecule? Hydrogen molecules are diatomic, which are not electrically dipolar. Hydrogen molecules form on the basis of covalent bonding. Lloyd wrote: Initially, there may not have been a galactic center. True. Lloyd wrote: How would atoms and molecules larger than hydrogen have formed? How would carbon be formed? Elements heavier than hydrogen were formed by nuclear fusion, which happened as a consequence of the aggregation of a huge amount of matter. Lloyd wrote: Isn't the CBR just infrared, not UV? Wikipedia: X-ray background Lloyd wrote: And where did the CBR come from? The Big Bang, I guess. Or the Little Popping Sound. I don't know. Lloyd wrote: If there was no CRB initially, then we need a different method for ionization, don't we? Yep. Lloyd wrote: CharlesChandler wrote:An isolated body with a negative charge will be surrounded by a concentric shell of positively charged plasma.Why wouldn't the positive plasma stick to the negative aggregate and neutralize it? All other factors being the same, it would. But at any temperature above the boiling point (20.28 K for hydrogen), things are going to be bouncing around, and electrons, being lighter, have more kinetic energy than nucleons, so they bounce around a bit more. This means that if a solid body is surrounded by a gas, it will be impacted more frequently by electrons than by nucleons. When the nucleons in the gas impact the solid, they will, in fact, get neutralized. But the faster rate at which electrons impact the solid keeps it negatively charged, which means that the surrounding gas has a slight positive charge. (This is called a Debye sheath, by the way.) All in all, your questions are good ones. I haven't paid enough attention to this aspect of the construct, so perhaps I should put some more effort into it. If you're talking about the condensation of matter truly from scratch, meaning nothing but protons and electrons, that's a tough question to answer. If it was all equally dispersed, and not moving at all, condensation would not have been possible, as the force of gravity would have been equal in all directions, and all of the hydrogen atoms would have just sat there forever. So the distribution had to be uneven. Then the force of gravity could (eventually) affect the condensation of matter. Of course, it would have taken a really, really long time. But eventually the force of gravity would have pulled hydrogen atoms into molecules, and molecules into clumps. Like I said, it would have taken just about forever for this to happen, but if you're starting with just a neutrally charged hydrogen cloud, gravity is all you have to work with.