home
 
 
 
211~225
Thunderbolts Forum

'12-03-06, 04:00
hertz
Re: The Sun's Density Gradient

don't want to distract from this conversation, but thought you might find this heartening:
The Sun continues to provide new challenges and opportunities for stellar physics. Helioseismology is the most powerful tool in studies of the solar interior. It enables precise tests of how accurately solar models predict the solar structure and, in particular, how well they predict the interior radiation transport. Increasingly sophisticated analysis of photospheric spectra has led to major revisions in the chemical composition, and solar models now significantly disagree with observations. Is this because even the most refined photosphere models are in error? Is it because the theoretical opacity models lack sufficient accuracy? Or is it because the physical approximations used in the solar models do not capture all the essential science?
it's part of a very interesting report (that was linked, (by of all people) Nereid over at BAUT):

Report of the Workshop on Opportunities in Plasma Astrophysics
Princeton, New Jersey — January 18-21, 2010
http://www.pppl.gov/conferences/2010/WO ... bFINAL.pdf

carry on...
'12-03-06, 04:24
Lloyd
Re: The Sun's Density Gradient

Lloyd wrote: I found another website that [...] shows the calculated composition of all elements of the Sun.
Charles replied: 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.
* Charles, it's incorrect that "Iron compared to everything else combined is going to be a small percentage". The iron ratio to everything else is about 56:9.4, which is 6 to 1, which means the Sun is 86% iron. Here's the graph and the numbers I got from it.
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Figure4withCaption.jpg
Image
56: Fe
1.4: Ni
1.1: O
1: S,Si
.75: Ne,Ar
.6: Ca,Mg,Cr,Mn
.1: C,He,Co,Zn,Pb
.06: Al
.03: Ti
.02: Pt
.01: (14El's)Na,P,Cl,K,Ge,Se,Kr,Sr,Te,I,Xe,Ba,Os,Ir
.......................(=.14)
.001<29El's<.01(=<.29)
.0001<15El's<.001(=<.015)
* Everything but iron added together is as follows.
1.4+1.1+2*1+2*.75+4*.6+5*.1+.06+.03+.02+14*.01+<.29+<.015=2.5+2+1.5+2.4+.5+.11+.14+<.3=<9.45
So Iron/all-else = 56/9.4=6:1. Iron = 6/7 = 86%.
* I copied the graph to my Paint program in order to make straight lines across it to estimate the abundances more accurately.
* And I used the Fractional Exponents Calculator at http://calculatorsoup.com/calculators/algebra/exponent-frac~ to get the straight numbers.
* The graph had everything in millions, so the numbers above are times a million, if it makes any difference.
'12-03-06, 17:08
upriver
Re: The Sun's Density Gradient

CharlesChandler wrote:

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?
I dont know if you can have a sphere that "rings like a bell" unless its homogenous or nearly so.
A decreasing density sphere has a increasing sound speed; depending on the material.
Especially with layers, you have internal reflection between each layer leading to energy loss and a none coherent oscillating mode(no standing wave). Modulations in the standing wave allow helioseismology...
This could change if the sphere was directly driven by the virtual cathode?(I believe the sun is the cathode directly). But I would expect to find some of the solar vibrational frequencies in the heliosphere. The why I have settled on a iron shell at this point. I believe that the sun is driven by an energy source that shows up in the sun but not in between astronomical objects/resonators...

From Wiki.

"In a real material, the stiffness of the springs is called the elastic modulus, and the mass corresponds to the density. All other things being equal, sound will travel more slowly in spongy materials, and faster in stiffer ones. For instance, sound will travel 1.59 times faster in nickel than in bronze, due to the greater stiffness of nickel at about the same density. Similarly, sound travels about 1.41 times faster in light hydrogen (protium) gas than in heavy hydrogen (deuterium) gas, since deuterium has similar properties but twice the density. At the same time, "compression-type" sound will travel faster in solids than in liquids, and faster in liquids than in gases, because the solids are more difficult to compress than liquids, while liquids in turn are more difficult to compress than gases."
'12-03-07, 14:14
Lloyd
Re: The Sun's Density Gradient

Sun as Resonator
Brant said: I believe that the sun is driven by an energy source that shows up in the sun but not in between astronomical objects/resonators...
* Do you mean the energy source shows up at all cosmic bodies, which are resonators, but not in the empty space between them?

More on Charles' Accretion Model
Lloyd wrote: Would a single hydrogen atom have a dipole, since the electron and proton are separated by a short distance?
Charles replied: No, and that's true for any single atom, and also true for diatomic molecules (with 2 atoms).
* I suppose you're assuming that electrons orbit atomic nuclei and thus neutralize atoms. Kanarev claimed to find that electrons hover over nuclei. They travel in a helical pattern and simultaneously turn in a circle, forming a torus. The torus hovers above the nucleus (which for hydrogen the nucleus is just a proton). Kanarev says Opposite Electric Fields Draw the Electron & Proton Together, but Same Magnetic Poles Hold Them Apart, which is why the electron hovers. It's at a balance point between the two forces.
* He says the Electron is 10^-9 m above the Proton's polar axis, apparently making a rod shape [the electron and proton being the ends of the rod and the axis being the rod itself], which is why I thought the hydrogen atom would then be a slight dipole. And, if that's the case, I thought several hydrogen atoms and particles might be able to transmute more easily into larger atoms, without needing a large stellar aggregate to do that sort of aggregating.
* Apparently, you haven't studied transmutation much. Numerous scientists have proven that it occurs biologically and other ways. Kervran found that heated nitrogen transmutes into carbon-monoxide, at least in humans etc. There are many elements that transmute into other elements. If we assume that's true, then the trick is to find how hydrogen can transmute into carbon. Because asteroids could be made of mostly carbon. Carbon plus helium can transmute into oxygen, so those 3 atoms together, i.e. H, C and O, not He, could easily form asteroids, or aggregates, which could continue to aggregate. Do you agree?
'12-03-09, 10:39
CharlesChandler
Re: The Sun's Density Gradient

hertz wrote:

Report of the Workshop on Opportunities in Plasma Astrophysics

I only got through a few pages of that. Yes, it's heartening to hear scientists admit that their model isn't working. But when opportunities were identified, they also clearly stated that sucking up the anomaly with magnetic reconnection was going to be the strategy. They should have just called it, "Opportunities to Prove that We Can Explain Anything with Magnetic Reconnection!" :D
CharlesChandler wrote:

This doesn't exactly support the "Iron Sun" model. Iron compared to everything else combined is going to be a small percentage.

Lloyd wrote:

The iron ratio to everything else is about 56:9.4.

Actually, it looks like the truth is somewhere in-between. Inspired by your willingness to take numbers off of an image, I did the same thing, and I came up with different numbers (after contacting Dr. Manuel to find out what "Log(Abundance)" actually means). The raw numbers are here:

Abundances

"Set 1" is Anders & Grevesse's original data, taken from this image:

http://www.omatumr.com/images/Figure1.gif

"Set 2" is Manuel's data from the solar wind, taken from this image:

http://www.omatumr.com/images/Figure3.gif

"Set 3" is Manuel's data from B2FH values of (N*-sigma), taken from this image (i.e., the same source you used):

http://www.omatumr.com/images/Figure4withCaption.gif

Then I started playing around with the numbers. We know that the density of the Sun is roughly 1408 kg/m3. Going with the abundances assigned by Anders & Grevesse, the density works out to 84 kg/m3, which is 20x too low. Yet Manuel's estimates yield a density of 5561 kg/m3, which is 4x too high. As Manuel's data take more physics into account, and are a smaller factor off from the actual, we should prefer his numbers, but they need to be scaled until the density is correct.

Manuel applied a hyperbolic scaling algorithm, like this:

http://www.omatumr.com/images/Figure2.gif

So I figured that he just over-did it a little bit, and his numbers need to be scaled down hyperbolically. With a little bit of heuristics, I determined that if I added (5.03112 / atomic mass) to each log(abundance) and recalculated the average density, it came out to the desired 1408 km/m3.

Then I did what I threatened to do earlier, and that's to then calculate the radii of all of the layers of elements in the Sun, to see if anything significant is going on at the radii where helioseismology senses boundaries. Just looking at the numbers I didn't realize what I was looking at, but when I did the graph of the concentric shells of stratified elements, there was no mistaking it.

Solar Elements

Two elements dominate the volume of the Sun: hydrogen and iron. The bottom of the hydrogen layer is at 0.66 of the solar radius, which helioseismology confirms to be the bottom of the convective zone. The bottom of the iron layer is at 0.24 of the solar radius, which is the bottom of the radiative zone. Scientists have known for a long time that there are two distinct boundaries inside the Sun, but no model has ever successfully accounted for these. With the spectroscopic data re-weighted on the basis of what we know about isotopes, and then fine-tuned to get the density right, we get boundaries exactly where helioseismology finds them. The probability of two totally different disciplines arriving at the same conclusion by mere coincidence is vanishingly small.

I find this to be extremely compelling, so I'm going with it. For book-keeping purposes, the full write-up is at the following URL. I have already explained the whole thing here, but as I learn more, I'll be updating the site, while the information on this post will persist as an archive.

Analysis of Oliver Manuel's Data

So is it an Iron Sun? By volume, there is 5x more hydrogen, but by mass, there is 10x more iron. I think it's an Iron Sun.

But it isn't as Michael M. thinks, with iron starting merely 4800 km below the outer edge of the photosphere. I'm thinking that the limb darkening that he's seeing defines the density drop-off point. In iron light, it all looks green, but that doesn't mean that opacity below a certain level is solid iron — it just means opacity. You have to prove that it's iron some other kind of way. If you say that it's all iron, the Sun would be too heavy.

I'm not saying that I've thought this through all of the way, or considered all of the implications, or have answers for all of the questions. The persistent structures that Michael M. is seeing in the running difference imagery are very intriguing. It proves that there are persistent structures, and that there is plenty of iron. But I'm still not convinced that this proves that it has to be pure (or mostly) iron at that level, much less that it has to be solid in order to be persistent. It's possible that the layer in question is mostly hydrogen, but there's enough iron to emit detectable light, and there are fluxes to which the iron responds, creating persistent "structures" in a fluid medium. (I'm not saying that this is what's going on — I'm just saying that there could be more possibilities.)
'12-03-09, 13:07
CharlesChandler
Re: The Sun's Density Gradient

As a clarification to the last post, I should like to say that the "layers" of the Sun are by no means absolute, by anybody's reckoning. There is a lot of mixing going on. This is especially true of the convective zone, though I think that the inner layers are mixed too. If they weren't, we wouldn't see any elements in the photosphere other than hydrogen, because it's the lightest, and we're actually seeing most of the elements, including iron, tin, lead, and uranium, which are a good deal heavier. Only convection can hoist heavy elements up to the top of a fluid. So to say that the radiative zone is iron doesn't mean that all of the iron is there, and that the radiative zone is only iron. That's just a representation of the volume occupied by that much iron, if is was a quiescent environment, and it gives us a pretty good idea of where most of the iron is likely to be found. But in something as active as the Sun, we shouldn't be surprised to see iron in the photosphere, or even in the solar wind.
'12-03-09, 15:12
Lloyd
Re: The Sun's Density Gradient

Sun's Elemental Composition?
Charles said: Two elements dominate the volume of the Sun: hydrogen and iron. The bottom of the hydrogen layer is at 0.66 of the solar radius, which helioseismology confirms to be the bottom of the convective zone. The bottom of the iron layer is at 0.24 of the solar radius, which is the bottom of the radiative zone. Scientists have known for a long time that there are two distinct boundaries inside the Sun, but no model has ever successfully accounted for these. With the spectroscopic data re-weighted on the basis of what we know about isotopes, and then fine-tuned to get the density right, we get boundaries exactly where helioseismology finds them. The probability of two totally different disciplines arriving at the same conclusion by mere coincidence is vanishingly small.
* Hmm. Very interesting.
Comparing Models
* Guess what! Here's Thornhill's model of the Sun at http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ah63dzac&pf~, followed by your link.
http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Electric%20Sun.jpg
Image
[See Charles' model here: http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure/2ndParty/Images/Cha~]
* His radius of the heavy elements portion is 495,000 km.
* Your radius is .66 x 695,500 = 459,000 km.
* He doesn't include the radius of the superheavy core as you do.
* What do you think of his method of arriving at the heavy elements radius? Looks to me like it's a third way to come to about the same conclusion as you and whoever else you were referencing.
Charles' Model
* I checked your list of abundances that you got from Oliver and it looks like my estimates were close. I haven't checked all of your math yet though, but I guess you know what you're doing, although I'd like to hear a clearer explanation some day.
* Your model shows "thin" layers of sulfur and neodymium [orange], calcium and beryllium [yellow], oxygen and neon [green] and helium and sodium [blue] between the iron core and the hydrogen atmosphere. I don't understand why you have some of the heavier elements in layers above lighter ones. Do you? Since the elements are seen spectroscopically in and above the photosphere at various abundances or percentages of total elements seen, the heavier ones should each be increasingly abundant all the way down through the convection zone, so it seems inaccurate to call the outer zone a hydrogen layer. Hydrogen at the surface is only about 75% and helium is 23%. Oxygen is almost 1%. It's likely that elements heavier than hydrogen are increasingly abundant with depth, so helium should outnumber hydrogen at so many km deep. Then oxygen should outnumber both of them at a greater depth. According to this site, http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/SolarAbundance.html, Carbon is next most abundant after oxygen at .3%, then come iron, nitrogen, neon and silicon, all of which likely outnumber oxygen and carbon at a greater depth. But iron is already in 5th place at the surface.
* For the convection zone to be so deep, about 200,000 km, I wonder what would keep everything so stirred up to such a depth. What do you think? And, if it's so stirred up, how can RD images show a nearly solid surface under the photosphere? Oh, I just remembered something that might relate to convection. I read last year or so that a jet stream exists inside the Sun. This site, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/1~, helioseismology is used to detect and track the jet stream down to depths of 7,000 km below the surface of the sun.
* Your corrections to Oliver's data puts hydrogen at the top in abundance, but I don't see how you did that, when it looks to me like iron should be at the top.
* By the way, do you still think the layers have opposite charges? If so, which ones have what charges? And how thick would the negative layers be?
* Your work is very interesting, but do you sense that the climax is close yet? I mean the grand finale?
'12-03-09, 19:18
CharlesChandler
Re: The Sun's Density Gradient

Lloyd wrote:

Here's Thornhill's model... What do you think of his method of arriving at the heavy elements radius?

I don't know what his method was — did he say? The convective zone is commonly thought to begin at .7 of the solar radius, on the basis of helioseismology, so maybe he was just going with that. My number landed on .66, so that's what I'm reporting. Considering the way these numbers are being crunched, a different of .04 isn't a difference, and I consider this to be spectroscopic confirmation of helioseismic conclusions.

By the way, why does Thornhill think that the convective zone is "cool" (as the image shows)? I'm convinced that the interior of the Sun has to be at least the same temperature as the photosphere. The reason is simple. Anything with an envelope of a given temperature will, in enough time, have the same temperature as the envelope. I really don't see any way of instantiating a heat sink in the Sun's interior. Even if the Sun was only 1 million years old, I'd think that the temperatures would have equalized by now. Especially because high-density matter has a high thermal conductivity. I "think" that the cool interior idea comes from the observation that the center of a sunspot is cooler than the surroundings, so some have concluded that we're getting a glimpse at what the temperatures must be like below the photosphere. But I think that this is incorrect, for the reasons stated above (i.e., without a heat sink, the envelope would have heated the interior to the same temperature by now). I think that the cooler temperatures in sunspots are evidence of an EM structure that is limiting the degrees of freedom of the atoms, which is a de facto way of cooling them. This would explain the rigorous boiling and outward expansion of granules next to sunspots — they have picked up heat that was shed out of the sunspot. But overall, the temperature of the entire convective zone is more likely to be that of the photosphere, and that's assuming that there isn't an internal heat source, which would make it even hotter.
Lloyd wrote:

I haven't checked all of your math yet [...] I'd like to hear a clearer explanation some day.

I'll put some more effort into that, and let you know. I'm in the process of considering the broader implications for my solar and stellar models, and I want to get any discrepancies there fixed first.
Lloyd wrote:

I don't understand why you have some of the heavier elements in layers above lighter ones.

The elements are sorted by liquid density, not atomic mass. Elements in the middle of the periodic table tend to have greater densities than elements at the ends, even in the same row. So density is the critical factor in determining stratification, not atomic mass.
Lloyd wrote:

It seems inaccurate to call the outer zone a hydrogen layer.

Indeed. I posted an addendum saying that I actually expect for there to be a lot of mixing, especially in the convective zone. So the layers are not absolute, as they would be in a quiescent Sun, which it is not.
Lloyd wrote:

For the convection zone to be so deep, about 200,000 km, I wonder what would keep everything so stirred up to such a depth.

I'm still working on that. I agree with Thornhill and others that one of the implications of heavier elements in the core is that it reduces the chance of nuclear fusion there (i.e., the Coulomb barrier is a function of the number of protons in the nucleus, and this goes up in heavier elements). So the "fusion furnace" is busted, and the repairman left town. Without a heat source in the core, what is going to stir the soup?

Currently I'm looking at the implications of ionization by compression. If there are huge voltages between positive and negative layers inside the Sun, just a little bubble rising out of a positive layer and into a negative one, with the associated loss of pressure that allows electron uptake, is going to get zapped with an arc discharge, which will create a lot of heat. Now you have a bubble that is rising vigorously, and that stirs up stuff on its way up. Then the question is, "How deep down is this happening?"

In order to flesh this idea out, I'll have to figure out the actual pressures at each altitude, and see how ionized each layer might be. Just going by the Dalsgaard model, the density of the convective zone halfway down becomes greater than the density of liquid hydrogen. That means that any hydrogen below that level is ionized, and that means that there will be a cluster of electrons swarming around just above that level, attracted to the positive ions, but not able to descend into them because of the density. This means that a hydrogen bubble rising up and crossing the boundary into the negative zone will get zapped. This "might" happen at many levels in the Sun, wherever the density becomes greater than the liquid density of an element within that element's layer. At the very least, I'd like to see where the iron liquid density line falls with respect to the depth of the iron layer. If part of the iron layer is ionized, and the other part is not, there could be arcing within the "radiative zone" that could initiate bubbles that would stir things up.

The other question is, "Does there have to be a prime mover at the bottom, or is the activity at one positive/negative boundary enough to keep things stirred up, at that level, and every level above?" And that's a really, really great question! :)

One idea that ties in with the thinking that I was doing on the main sequence is that blue giants store an enormous amount of potential just by their masses. As they lose mass to their stellar winds, this potential is released. How is it released? If the mass is great enough to create ionization by compression (possible even in yellow dwarfs), gravitational potential has been converted to electrostatic potential. As the mass comes down, so does the ionization. In other words, there are going to be a lot of arc discharges from the de-ionization of matter in a dwindling star. Interestingly, the arcing in the photosphere appears to be at least partially responsible for the solar wind. So the mass loss enables de-ionization that releases electrostatic potential that releases heat, and puts out more solar wind, which further reduces the mass, perpetuating the process. Hence the steady-state Sun is a self-sustaining conversion of electrostatic potential that will continue until the mass can no longer sustain ionization. Then it's lights out.

The interesting thing about this is that you get heat bubbling up from inside the Sun just because of the mass loss. As an analogy, consider relaxing the pressure on a gas that was compressed down to a liquid. Eventually it starts to boil, just because it can. The same will be true of matter that was ionized by pressure — when the pressure relaxes to the point that nucleons have room for a full compliment of electrons, charge recombination occurs, and that releases the potential. And just like boiling, there doesn't have to be a prime mover at the bottom — it's the removal of the upper layers that releases the energy from below. A body in such a condition would act like it had an internal heat source, when really it just had a lot of potential due to the compression.

Here's where the whole line of reasoning starts to get ironic. Suppose that the Sun used to be a blue giant, large enough to fuse heavy elements in its core. Now we have iron, lead, gold, and uranium down there. Due to the density, we might even have a bunch of neutrinos still floating around. 2/3 of them might have already escaped, but 1/3 of them might be trapped in the super-dense core. The Sun has long since lost the gravitational force to fuse heavy elements, and the core is quiescent now. But the ongoing relaxation of pressure allows stuff to boil off, and for charge separations to be neutralized. This makes the whole thing boil from the inside out. In addition to the solar wind boiling off, there are also neutrinos that are getting released from the core. So scientists think that nuclear fusion is occurring. But the neutrino count is way off. So they modify nuclear theory to make it all better. Now they have a fusion furnace, creating 15 MK temperatures inside the core, and no way to contain the pressure that such temperatures would create, and a density gradient that doesn't make sense anyhow, and their nuclear theory has been bastardized. Better go out and get another 6-pack of MHD, because this might take a long time! :D And here we are, working through the whole thing with conventional physics...

I actually think that some nuclear fusion is occurring, but it's not because of gravity. Rather, particles accelerated to relativistic speeds in arc discharges can collide with enough force to fuse with other atoms. This explains the neutrinos released in solar flares. This could be occurring deeper in the Sun, such as at the hydrogen liquid line, halfway through the convective zone. Such would explain some of the neutrino output during quite phases. But I don't think that any of it is due to gravity.
Lloyd wrote:

And, if it's so stirred up, how can RD images show a nearly solid surface under the photosphere?

Well, we don't know that the RD images prove solidity — the persistent features might be fluxes in a liquid that simply happen to take a long time to play out. So we really have to figure out what those persistent features are.
Lloyd wrote:

Helioseismology is used to detect and track the jet stream down to depths of 7,000 km below the surface of the sun.

That's really just meridional currents in the photosphere itself. The bigger question, and the more pivotal for the models in question, is what might be causing convection throughout the 200,000 km of the convective zone, or even deeper. Lotsa questions, notsa lotsa answers... :)
Lloyd wrote:

Your corrections to Oliver's data puts hydrogen at the top in abundance, but I don't see how you did that, when it looks to me like iron should be at the top.

I consistently applied a hyperbolic factor to the log. Specifically,

new log(abundance) = old log(abundance) + (5 / atomic mass)

So for hydrogen, with an atomic mass of 1, it's:

new log(abundance) = old log(abundance) + (5 / 1)

So hydrogen gets jacked up 5 orders of magnitude. Helium, with an atomic mass of 4, only gets jacked up (5 / 4), or 1.25 orders of magnitude. Lithium gets raised (5 / 7), which is less than 1. So the net effect is that the lightest elements, especially hydrogen, have their abundances increased. I chose this approach because it's the inverse of what Manuel did. So I'm basically just toning Manuel's numbers down until the correct overall density is achieved.
Lloyd wrote:

By the way, do you still think the layers have opposite charges? If so, which ones have what charges? And how thick would the negative layers be?

As noted above, I'm currently thinking about this. The quick answer is yes, I still think that they're charged, but other than the convective zone, with its oppositely charged layers of hydrogen, I have no idea.
Lloyd wrote:

Do you sense that the climax is close yet? I mean the grand finale?

In the words of a famous 20th century philosopher named Rambo, "It's never over." But look at how far we've come! We started out this thread with me asking some great questions, and presenting the "natural tokamak" thing as the charge separation mechanism that creates electrostatic layering that holds the whole thing together. I still like the tokamak construct for its ability to initiate the compression. But when we started, I didn't know about ionization by compression (i.e., Aspden's work), nor about the work of Manuel and Mozina. So I started out with an abstract idea that could solve the riddle of the Sun's density gradient. Now we have a very specific set of contentions on the table, supported by a number of lines of reasoning. We got the average density right, and that brings spectroscopy in line with helioseismology. These are not "what if's" anymore. I think we're developing proofs. I'm thinking that the whole "density gradient" thing might be stabilizing. But I don't think that we'll be done until we can prove the energy source(s) in the Sun, and how it formed. This might take at least another couple of days. Why? Were you thinking about going on vacation or something, and you wanted to get this all wrapped up so it won't bug you at the beach? :) But seriously, I think that we're crossing a line here. Epiphanies are a lot of fun. But the really gratifying part of a project is when it becomes real. Any you always know when you cross that line, because it starts getting easier and easier to make more and more progress. In the early stages of a problem-solving exercise, everything you try sounds great, but then there's another problem. But when you really start to understand, you start saying, "I can handle this. Ooo, I can handle this too. And this..." The only way to cross that line is with a theory that works, and that's how you know it's working. And that's what's happening here.
'12-03-10, 14:20
Lloyd
Re: The Sun's Density Gradient

Charles' and Thornhill's Models
* Charles, I'm glad to hear that you think you're making great progress on your solar model. I suppose I'd be satisfied even if we weren't making much progress, but I do prefer being able to understand things fairly well, which is how I define progress.
* You asked how Thornhill came up with his model for the radius of the heavy core of the Sun. I think his image of his solar model above explains it. It says: "The Sun has a mass of 330,000 Earths. The volume of that many Earths would give a diameter of about 1 million km." I haven't tried to determine if he used Earth's density to come up with that diameter, but I'm guessing something like that, or maybe somewhat denser. I think Earth's density is about 5 times that of water. Right?

Brant's Iron Sun Model
* Brant has a different view from yours on the Sun's heat. He said as follows, partly paraphrased:
- At the base of the arcades are hot spots; those are loop footprints, where white light flares occur. The glow that covers large areas around the loop footprints is from solar moss. Notice under the arcades the linear structures, thought to be plasma, but which are probably solid structures, because plasma doesn't form into structures like that. Those structures are the result of coronal iron rain. Iron melts at the loop footprints, due to thermionic emission, and travel up the loop as Hypervelocity blobs, composed of iron plasma. The temperature of the iron climbs from below molten to ionized in a few hundred miles or less. The surface is mostly solid with patches of ionized iron [where discharges occur].
Sun's Solid Surface is Illuminated from Above
- The image appears to show a solid surface with ridges and other terrain elevation features, strongly and directionally illuminated, from a source located to the upper right of the area. The highlights face that direction and the shadows are opposite, and from an elevation considerably above the plane of the surface, because the shadows are short. The source of the illumination is the discharges at the base of the loop footprints, as well as the loops themselves, the same as with arc welding, or an arc lamp!!! This light is from ionized iron (at 77,000 to 1,500,000 K). The flares are lighting up [solid] structures that stand above the surface and last on time scales longer than would be expected for a plasma form. Discharges originate from these structures [mounds of iron slag?], because they are high points, just like in cathode thermionic emission observations.
- In an overheated cathode in a plasma tube, the cathode starts to lose ions from surface melting, yet the whole cathode does not melt. The surface temperature is at the melting point of the metal due to thermionic emission, but the cathode does not melt. If you could examine this process under a microscope, you would see flares and other phenomena that look like features on the Sun.
* Compare this image:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_000719_123108.gif
Image
* I don't know if this is the image Brant was describing specifically, but you can see that there are bright areas on the slag heaps (which are probably miles high) and the solar moss and there are shadows. The bright areas appear to be illuminated from above, i.e. from the coronal loops, as he said. So it sounds to me like he may be right that the heat and light come from the loops, which are very hot electric discharges. He seems to say that the temperatures of the loops have been measured at millions of Kelvin.

Sun's Interior Temperature
* Charles, you've said that the corona is hot in the same way that the Earth's thermosphere is hot, which Brant also agrees with. I.e., the individual atoms or ions are very hot, but they're so far apart that it's not significant. It seems to me that the same might apply below the photosphere. Anyway, the photosphere seems to be about 5800 K. I guess your idea that the Sun's interior should eventually become as hot as the surface depends on what happens to the matter that comes up from below the photosphere. What percent of it continues upward and outward as the solar wind? And what percent falls back down to the apparently solid surface below the photosphere? Another thing to consider is that, as Brant contends, the 5800 K temperature of the photosphere is actually an average. If the coronal loops etc are over a million K each, then the average of the remaining areas must be below 5800 K. Brant also says that the iron plasma in the loops shoots way up into the corona (heating the corona?) at hypervelocity, then cools, and falls back down to the loop footprints.
* Do you buy any of this and, if so, can you estimate at what rate the Sun's interior must be gaining or losing heat?
* By the way, I think you had said before that the convection cannot be coming from very far below the photosphere, because the granules would be much larger if it were coming from very deep. So doesn't that greatly limit the maximum possible depth of the convection?
'12-03-11, 16:01
Lloyd
Re: The Sun's Density Gradient

Solar Surface Granules
* Charles, I have some questions about your current Granules page from http://www.scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure/?top=6324. My questions are in red. I'm quoting much of your material on that page here.
- The surface of the Sun is covered with granules, which are typically 1,000 km across, and last less than 20 minutes.
- These are bubbles of hotter plasma that have "boiled up" through the convective zone.
- Once the plasma releases its heat outward, through the transparent chromosphere, it cools,

Conventional Granule Theory
<See link.>
Reasons against That Theory
- First, releasing heat certainly cools the plasma, from 6000 °C down to 5000 °C or so.
<What about Brant's claim that 5800K is an average temperature and that it's actually considerably cooler than that in most of the photosphere?>
- But the plasma below the photosphere averages 4000 °C.
<So the iron in the radiation layer is solid, right?>
- Hotter plasma does not sink into cooler plasma because of "convection."
- Second, the pressure gradient in the photosphere is non-gravitational, so calculating adiabatic lapse rates is a bit senseless anyway.
<Do conventional scientists agree that the photosphere pressure gradient is non-gravitational? If not, can you still use that as a reason against the conventional theory?>
- And third, the velocities in a granule average about 2 km/s, with peak velocities exceeding 7 km/s.1
- These are supersonic speeds in the solar atmosphere.
- In no sense do the principles of convection explain supersonic speeds.

CC's EM Granule Theory
- Something far more powerful than gravity is pulling the hotter plasma back into the Sun, against the pressure gradient, and at supersonic speeds.
- This can only be electromagnetism.
- the charge structure of the Sun is responsible for holding the layers together
- the positive charge of the convective zone keeps it bound to the negatively charged radiative zone.
- This is adequate as a general concept, but if we take a closer look, we find reason to believe that there is another negative layer within the convective zone
- that would put a large concentration of electrons much closer to the surface, and would therefore be much more effective in holding down the positively charged plasma in the photosphere.
<I guess that answers my previous question about the source of granules not being very deep.>

Convective Zone
- In the last section, we saw that in the lower half of the convective zone, the pressure is sufficient to compress hydrogen into a liquid.
- In the liquid state, the electron shells of neighboring atoms overlap.
- Additional compression results in the expulsion of the electrons, as they can exist only as free particles or in specific shells, and if the atoms are too close together, the shells fail.2
- For this reason, any hydrogen in the bottom half of the convective zone has to be ionized.
<Does this mean the hydrogen in the upper half is not all ionized?>
We already suspected that the convective zone is positively charged, as the double-layer clinging to the radiative zone.
<So the iron radiative zone is negative? How does it become negative? By losing protons? If so, does compression also knock protons loose?>
- Now we have another reason to believe that the lower half has an especially strong positive charge, as electrons have been expelled by compression.
- If this is the case, we can expect the expelled electrons to congregate just above the liquid line, still within the convective zone, attracted to the positively charged liquid hydrogen below. (See Figure 3.)

Thermal Bubbles
- If energy from the radiative zone creates a thermal bubble in the convective zone, the bubble will eventually cross the liquid~plasma boundary. (See Figure 4.)
<What would cause the radiative iron zone to radiate heat?>
- When it boils, the hydrogen regains the ability to host electrons.
<Crossing the boundary makes it boil apparently.>
- This will release photons (which we will not see, as they are deep in the convective zone).
- The photons will also raise the temperature, so the bubble will continue to rise.
- The increase in temperature will re-ionize the plasma, but overall, the bubble will have an equal number of nucleons and free electrons.
- As such, there will be no net electrostatic force operating on the rising bubble, and it will rise adiabatically, just on the basis of its higher temperature.
- This will produce a "supergranule," which is a large bubble rising slowly (~0.4 km/s), from deep in the convective zone.
<Do you mean a lot of little bubbles will combine into supergranules?>
- What we see at the surface of the Sun, as in Figure 1, is a different issue.
- At roughly 1,000 km across, photospheric granules clearly originate from a very shallow depth.
- If these bubbles started from the bottom of the convective zone (200,000 km below the surface), we'd expect them to be very large.
- Consider, for example, the behavior of water being boiled.
- The deeper the water, the larger the bubbles, as smaller bubbles merge into larger ones on the way up.
- In order to get small bubbles continually surfacing, the water has to be very shallow.
- So we will suspect that granules 1,000 km across originate from no more than 5,000 km below the surface.
- That, in fact, is roughly the depth of the photosphere itself.
<Do 1 cm bubbles on boiling water on a hot stove occur when the water is 5 cm deep? And, if so, does that scale to the size of the Sun?>
- So what is going on in the photosphere that can so greatly increase the temperature, that the plasma boils far more vigorously at its surface?
- The answer is that the sharp density drop-off allows the plasma to expand and cool.
- This enables electron uptake, which releases photons.
- Near the surface, the photons emitted in an outward direction can pass through the transparent chromosphere and corona, and eventually light up the Earth.
- Photons released deeper in the photosphere are re-absorbed, which re-heats the plasma from ~4000 °C up to ~6000 °C.
- And that's the heat source, within 5,000 km of the surface, that causes the granular boiling.
- So when we look at granules, we can visualize the photosphere as being 5 times deeper than the granules are wide,
- and at the bottom of that layer, the density thins out dramatically, enabling the release of energy by charge recombination.
<Your illustration shows a supergranule below the liquid-plasma hydrogen boundary and a normal granule rising off of it. What keeps the supergranule below the negative boundary?>
<This webpage sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022407382901121 says: The pure iron plasma which we explored had a temperature in the range of 0.2–3 keV and a density in the range of 50–1000 g/cm^3. How can the density of iron plasma be so high, when density of neutral iron is only 7.874 g/cm^3? Wouldn't the like-charged iron ions repel each other and become less dense than neutral iron?>
<- Likewise, I thought plasma within the Sun would be less dense than neutral atoms within the Sun. Am I wrong?>


Granule Plasma Doesn't Boil Away
- So why doesn't the plasma just boil away, like steam from a boiling pot of water, that doesn't condense and fall directly back into the pot?
- While some of the plasma does escape, in the form of "solar wind" (discussed later in this section), the biggest mystery in the study of granules is that the majority of the plasma dives straight back into the Sun.
- 6000 °C plasma isn't going to dive back down into 4000 °C plasma on the basis of convection.
- But the increase in temperature results in the thermionic emission of the electrons, which are ejected into the chromosphere, leaving the plasma positively charged.
- Then the electric force pulls the bulk of the plasma back down into the "convective" zone at up to 7 km/s.
<How does it pull it down through the positive photosphere?>

Solar Wind
- But that's nothing compared to the 600 km/s achieved by the steady stream of particles ejected outward as the "solar wind."
- The factors responsible for such extreme speeds might include all of the following.
-- Plasma rises in a supergranule at 0.4 km/s.
-- Photospheric heat boosts the updraft to 2 km/s.
-- At the top of the granule, positive ions are at a current divider, with concentrations of negative charge above, in the chromosphere, and below, just above the liquid hydrogen line.
<If the liquid hydrogen line is 5,000 km below the photosphere, it looks like positive ions from the granule tops would be repelled upward by the positive photosphere. Or is the photosphere not positive or negative?>
Most of the ions are drawn back into the convective zone, but ions whose last collision sent them upward might move far enough into the chromosphere to continue in that direction.
The electric force then boosts the speed to 200 km/s.
-- Passing through the chromosphere should neutralize the ionic charge, but at such temperatures, the electrons don't stick, and the ions continue to be accelerated through the chromosphere by the electric force, eventually achieving the escape velocity of 600 km/s.
- This would have the solar wind starting out as only positive ions.
- If, by the time the wind reaches the Earth, a matching quantity of electrons are present as well, the ions picked up those electrons on the way (in the chromosphere or in the corona).

More Thermal Bubble
- ... Without the energy of supergranules crossing the electron expulsion zone, the heat loss in the photosphere would cool the entire convective zone, extinguishing the convection.
- So the prime mover is a thermal bubble in the lower convective zone that disturbs the electrostatic layering, thereby releasing the potential stored in the charge separations.
'12-03-15, 12:38
CharlesChandler
Re: The Sun's Density Gradient

OK folks, here's another monster post — sorry 'bout that. But I'm trying to make sure that I answer all of questions, out of respect for those who are exerting a lot of effort to follow this line of reasoning, and because every time I answer a question, I learn something. :) But I've also done a lot of work since my last post, so you might find this interesting. I think we're chasing this whole "density" think into a corner. ;)
Lloyd wrote:

Carbon plus helium can transmute into oxygen, so those 3 atoms together, i.e. H, C and O, not He, could easily form asteroids, or aggregates, which could continue to aggregate. Do you agree?

You're right — I haven't studied transmutation much. It was my understanding that it definitely does happen, but it is rare. To build a model using transmutation as a primary means of manufacturing elements might be a rule based on an exception.
Brant wrote:

Notice under the arcades the linear structures, thought to be plasma, but which are probably solid structures, because plasma doesn't form into structures like that.

This may be oversimplified. Clouds in the Earth's atmosphere can form into some pretty wild shapes, and they're not solid.
Lloyd wrote:

So it sounds to me like he may be right that the heat and light come from the loops, which are very hot electric discharges.

So what causes the heat and light from the Sun during the inactive period, when there are no coronal loops?
Lloyd wrote:

You've said that the corona is hot in the same way that the Earth's thermosphere is hot, which Brant also agrees with. I.e., the individual atoms or ions are very hot, but they're so far apart that it's not significant. It seems to me that the same might apply below the photosphere.

That's a good point. I'm also re-thinking the effects of ionization by compression on temperature. A powerful electric field can limit the degrees of freedom of ions, and as such, it effectively lowers the temperature. So consider the behavior of matter compressed so tightly that all of the electrons have been forced out. All of the atoms will be held rigidly in place by the Coulomb forces on all sides. If we define temperature as atomic motion, then we have none of either. Hence the center of the Sun is going to be at absolute zero, because all of the atomic motion has been brought to a halt by the pressure. In a sense, it's a meaningless concept, because if we relaxed the pressure, the whole thing would boil violently. How does matter at absolute zero all of a sudden start boiling? That would be from the energy conversion, where the compression created potential, and the more compressed the matter, the more potential, while removing the pressure allows the conversion of all of that potential into kinetic energy (i.e., heat). But technically speaking, a thermometer stuck into the Sun would show that the interior was extremely cold.
Lloyd wrote:

What happens to the matter that comes up from below the photosphere? What percent of it continues upward and outward as the solar wind? And what percent falls back down to the apparently solid surface below the photosphere?

Good question. I wonder if anybody has ever estimated the volume of plasma involved in the granules. If I find this, I'll post it. We know roughly how much mass is ejected in the solar wind, but we need info about the granules to do the comparison.
Lloyd wrote:

I think you had said before that the convection cannot be coming from very far below the photosphere, because the granules would be much larger if it were coming from very deep. So doesn't that greatly limit the maximum possible depth of the convection?

I'm currently of the opinion that the granular convection is entirely within the photosphere itself, which is only 5,000 km deep. The supergranules come from deeper.
Charles wrote:

The plasma below the photosphere averages 4000 °C.

Lloyd wrote:

So the iron in the radiation layer is solid, right?

If you mean the radiative zone, I'm not sure. All of the iron is above its liquid density line (at 0.35 SR), so I "think" that it should all be plasma, or close to it. Also, Brant and Michael M. are talking about iron not far below the photosphere, and I disagree with this. I think that the iron layer begins 200,000 km below the photosphere.

Speaking of which, I refined my analysis of the elementary abundance data, and this produced more accurate estimates of the depths of each layer. As noted in a previous post, if the abundance numbers are re-weighted, we can get closer to the actual density of the Sun. I was using a hyperbolic weighting factor. Interestingly, this revealed distinct density changes at 0.24 and 0.66 SR, which looked suspiciously like the boundaries between the core, radiative zone, and convective zone. So I started playing around with different weighting curves, to see what it would take to get the distinct density changes to match up with the known boundaries in the Sun, at .27 and .70 SR. Going back to the original data (from Anders & Grevesse), I found a bezier curve that gets the density within 2x of the actual, and gets the boundaries to match up perfectly. Here are the results:

Density per Solar Radius

This clearly shows big shifts in density, between the 1st period elements (hydrogen & helium) in the convective zone, the 4th period elements (iron & nickel) in the radiative zone, and the 6th period elements (platinum & osmium) in the core. It also gets the hydrogen/helium ratio right (3:1). So these are the estimates that I'll be using.
Lloyd wrote:

Do conventional scientists agree that the photosphere pressure gradient is non-gravitational? If not, can you still use that as a reason against the conventional theory?

The pressure of a gas should drop off with the square of the distance from the center of gravity. Consider the Earth's atmosphere. The higher you go, the thinner the air. This decrease in pressure is steady, and follows the inverse square law. There is no sudden drop-off at a specific altitude, where up to that point you have plenty of air, but past that point, there is none. Yet in the photosphere, that's exactly what happens. Scientists don't explicitly acknowledge that this is an anomaly, but that's just because they can't explain it. To me, it's clear proof of the presence of EM forces, as gravity cannot explain it at all.
Charles wrote:

Any hydrogen in the bottom half of the convective zone has to be ionized.

Lloyd wrote:

Does this mean the hydrogen in the upper half is not all ionized?

In this image, red = negative, and green = positive:

Charged Layers in Convective Zone

Midway down into the convective zone, the density reaches that of liquid hydrogen. Below this level, hydrogen is compressed beyond the liquid density, meaning that ions are getting forced out, leaving positively charged plasma behind. The expelled electrons hover just above this level, attracted to the positive ions below, but not able to descend into the positive layer due to the density. Above the (negatively charged) expulsion zone, there will be another layer of positive ions, attracted to the electrons in the expulsion zone. So the photosphere is positively charged.
Charles wrote:

We already suspected that the convective zone is positively charged, as the double-layer clinging to the radiative zone.

Lloyd wrote:

So the iron radiative zone is negative? How does it become negative? By losing protons? If so, does compression also knock protons loose?

All of the iron (& nickel) in the radiative zone is above its liquid density, which means that the atoms are far enough apart that there is room for electrons. All of the osmium and platinum in the core has been compressed beyond its liquid density, so electrons are being forced out. Where do they go? Into the iron/nickel in the radiative zone, while still being attracted to the positive charge in the core.

Electrostatic Layering
Here I'd like to elaborate on this whole "electrostatic layering" thing, as it's turning out to be the key to the whole thing.

I'll start off with an analogy that will be useful. I was watching a Discovery Channel program on volcanos, and they wanted to demonstrate how superheated gases within the magma all of a sudden boil when they reach the caldera, and it's the expansion of those gases that accelerates the lava to such extreme speeds. So it's not that the magma is coming up through the subterranean vents at that speed — it's that the reduction in pressure at the mouth of the volcano allows the superheated liquids to turn into gases. So it's spring-loaded magma. To demonstrate this, they took a bunch of liquid and superheated it under pressure, and then they opened the valve to relax the pressure, and the liquid instantly boiled away. In my opinion, this is a good general analogy for why the Sun is "boiling". Mass loss in the solar wind reduces the pressure inside the Sun, which gets it to boil from the inside out.

If we take a closer look at the Sun, the construct gets more complicated, but also more accurate.

In the Sun, we have so much pressure that the atoms are getting ionized (because there isn't enough room between the atoms for electron shells). Now we have another kind of energy getting stored: electrostatic potential. As noted above, under sufficient pressure, the matter gets fully ionized, and the Coulomb forces remove all of the degrees of freedom in the atoms, and the "temperature" drops to absolute zero. Where did all of the compressive heat go? It was converted to electrostatic potential.

Now if we relax the pressure, such that there is enough room between the atoms for electron shells, the electrons will flow back in and neutralize the ions. When they do, the atoms are re-heated by the charge recombination. So the heat that was converted to electrostatic potential re-emerges.

Now we should consider the behavior of this compressive charge separation in the context of the Sun. There is enough mass to generate enough pressure to ionize any element that is below its liquid density. When this happens, the electrons are forced upwards, and will hover just above the liquid density line, attracted to the positive charges below, but not able to flow back in because there isn't enough room between the atoms for electron shells. This means that there will be a huge concentration of electrons just above every liquid density line. As noted above, the hydrogen below the liquid density line in the convective zone is ionized by compression, so there is a negative layer above the line. All of the nickel & iron in the radiative zone is above its liquid density line, so it isn't ionized by compression. But all of the osmium & platinum in the core is below its liquid density line, so it's ionized, and the expelled electrons are to be found in the radiative zone, where they can fit between the nickel & iron atoms.

Now, about the positive double-layers...

Once these negative charge layers develop above the liquid density lines, they'll set up positive double-layers above them. So if we start out with a positive core and a negative radiative zone, where the charge separation mechanism is compression, we have...

+|-

Soon thereafter we get...

+|-+

The third layer (the convective zone) forms as a consequence of the second, where the negative charges blow the electrons off of the surrounding mattter, and then pull the positive ions inward.

The interesting thing, in the context of the Sun, is the actual amount of force involved here, and what that will do to the density of the Sun. To understand this, let's first do a thought experiment.

Consider that you have a box that measures 1 meter on all sides, filled with air. The air will be evenly dispersed through the box. Then you insert a divider into the box, to split the volume into two. The air is still evenly dispersed within each compartment. Suppose the divider is a perfect insulator, so no electric currents can flow through it, but it has a high permittivity, so electric fields can shine straight through it. Now take your atomic tweezers, and one by one, pick every electron out of the one side and put it into the other, and put every atom into the other compartment. Now you have one compartment with nothing but atomic nuclei, and the other with nothing but electrons.

The question is: with one compartment filled with nothing but positive ions, and the other with nothing but electrons, will the particles in each compartment be thoroughly dispersed due to electrostatic repulsion, or will they be concentrated in the center, as close as they can get to the divider, where on the other side is the opposite charge to which they are attracted?

The answer is both, but the latter is the more powerful force. So we can expect a major concentration of particles squashed against the divider, with positive charges on one side, and negative charges on the other. The following images will help illustrate.

First, we have three positive charges. Notice how the lines of force between each ion collide. This is the source of the electrostatic repulsion between them.

Electrostatic Layers 1

Now we add three complementary negative charges. Notice that most of the lines of force have been bent towards the opposite charges, and the field density between like charges is not as great. This means less electrostatic repulsion between the ions. And that means that they will be closer together. So it's not just that the ions will be attracted to the opposite charges, minus their repulsion from each other. There's less repulsion, due to the redirection of the lines of force. This allows the ions to get packed together more tightly. And the closer they get to the opposite charges, the electric force increases exponentially. So we will expect a major concentration of charges on either side of the divider, despite the repulsion of like charges within each compartment.

Electrostatic Layers 2

Now let's think about the development of a third layer. The next image shows a conductor that has been added on the right side. (Note the gray line at the right, where the lines of force terminate.) The conductor attracts the lines of force from the negative charges, resulting in a greater field density. This will ionize the conductor, making it a positive layer, with an electric force pulling it toward the negative charges. In the Sun, the conductor is the hydrogen plasma in the convective zone, or the conductivity of the nickel & iron in the radiative zone.

Electrostatic Layers 3

And that force is going to pull more matter inward. In the Sun, this means more mass packed into a smaller volume. Interestingly, this concentrates the gravitational field, which will also help pack more mass into a smaller volume. The result is more compression, which means more ionization, which increases the electric force that is pulling everything together, which further concentrates the gravitational field. In other words, it's a positive feedback loop involving gravitational and electric forces, that result in a concentration of matter far greater than would be possible otherwise.

Now we merely have to consider what would happen if the Sun was losing mass due to ejection of particles in the solar wind. With the loss of mass, the gravitational force is dimenished, which reduces the compression, and therefore the charge separation. This allows opposite charges to recombine, with the resultant production of heat and light. The heat helps accelerate particles away in the solar wind, continuing the mass loss, which perpetuates the energy conversion, from electrostatic potential to heat and light.

In my opinion, this constitutes a fully mechanistic description, to a high degree of accuracy, of the forces and processes within the Sun. If you can find a flaw in this, let me know.
Charles wrote:

If energy from the radiative zone creates a thermal bubble in the convective zone, the bubble will eventually cross the liquid~plasma boundary.

Lloyd wrote:

What would cause the radiative iron zone to radiate heat?

That would be the charge recombination that is occurring, as the Sun loses mass, which reduces the ionization by compression.
Charles wrote:

When it boils, the hydrogen regains the ability to host electrons.

Lloyd wrote:

Crossing the boundary makes it boil apparently.

Yes, it's crossing the liquid density line, above which it is less dense that a liquid, so it's plasma.
Charles wrote:

The bubble will rise adiabatically, just on the basis of its higher temperature. This will produce a "supergranule," which is a large bubble rising slowly (~0.4 km/s), from deep in the convective zone.

Lloyd wrote:

Do you mean a lot of little bubbles will combine into supergranules?

Yes.
Charles wrote:

So we will suspect that granules 1,000 km across originate from no more than 5,000 km below the surface. That, in fact, is roughly the depth of the photosphere itself.

Lloyd wrote:

Do 1 cm bubbles on boiling water on a hot stove occur when the water is 5 cm deep? And, if so, does that scale to the size of the Sun?

Roughly speaking, I guess that would be about it.
Lloyd wrote:

Your illustration shows a supergranule below the liquid-plasma hydrogen boundary and a normal granule rising off of it. What keeps the supergranule below the negative boundary?

Nothing. The supergranule begins with arc discharges at one of the lower boundaries, and it starts rising, Then it can cross all of the boundaries above.
D. Shalitin, Akiva Ron, Y. Reiss, & R.H. Pratt wrote:

The pure iron plasma which we explored had a temperature in the range of 0.2–3 keV and a density in the range of 50–1000 g/cm^3.

Lloyd wrote:

How can the density of iron plasma be so high, when density of neutral iron is only 7.874 g/cm^3? Wouldn't the like-charged iron ions repel each other and become less dense than neutral iron?

I think they slipped three decimal points there. If they were saying densities in the range of 50-1000 kg/m^3 (.050-1.000 g/cm^3), they'd have plasma at such extreme temperatures, which would make sense. But with the density three orders of magnitude greater, it's no longer iron — you've passed the Coulomb barrier and fused it into heavier elements. So they goofed, probably just in the units that they reported.

And you're right — all other factors being the same, ionized plasma is less dense than neutral plasma, because of the Coulomb force between ions. But as noted above, in the presence of an electric field, the plasma might actually be far more dense.
Charles wrote:

The increase in temperature in the photosphere results in the thermionic emission of the electrons, which are ejected into the chromosphere, leaving the plasma positively charged. Then the electric force pulls the bulk of the plasma back down into the "convective" zone at up to 7 km/s.

Lloyd wrote:

How does it pull it down through the positive photosphere?

The positive plasma is attracted to the electrons in the expulsion zone.
'12-03-16, 08:57
Lloyd
Re: The Sun's Density Gradient

Photospheric Granules
* Charles, your theory looks increasingly plausible, which you might be able to tell by how few questions I still have.
You said: I'm currently of the opinion that the granular convection is entirely within the photosphere itself, which is only 5,000 km deep. The supergranules come from deeper.
* Okay, we're discussing your Granules paper at http://www.scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure/?top=6324.
* Here are your images with a supergranule:
Image
Figure 4a. Bubble [supergranule] from radiative zone rises through the expulsion zone, getting partially de-ionized.
- You show both Figures as Figure 4, so I added "a" and "b" to distinguish them.
- You don't show the many little bubbles forming just above the Radiative Zone that combine into supergranules.
- The red bands are negative and the blue are positive.
- When the supergranule rises up through the negative red band, i.e. the Expelled Electrons band, in the middle of the Conductive Zone, would that change the width of the supergranule to the size of granules on the surface?
- The top blue band is the photosphere, isn't it?
Figure 4b. The proposed morphology of a granule.
- You don't show the chromosphere above the photosphere as red here, the granules being the photosphere.
- You don't explain what holds the supergranule down, while a granule sprouts up from it.
- You show de-ionization at the top of the photosphere. I assume that's due to attraction of electrons from the chromosphere.
- You show the electric force pulling the remaining ions down, but it looks like they're attracted toward the supergranule, when I think you mean for them to be attracted down to the Expelled Electron band in the middle of the Convective Zone.
- Since the Expelled Electron band is 5,000 km deep from the top of the granules of the photosphere, I assume that they are more attractive than the chromosphere, because they're much denser. Have you calculated the difference in density and what the force of attraction is both upward and downward from the tops of granules?

Average Granule Volume
You said: I wonder if anybody has ever estimated the volume of plasma involved in the granules.
* Here's a quote from this paper, THE SOLAR PHOTOSPHERE, at: http://www.ips.gov.au/Category/Educational/The%20Sun%20and%~
The bright cells or granules are on average about 1100 km across and they are separated from each other by dark lanes which are about 200 km wide. Individual granules are only short lived. Their average lifetime is around 10 minutes, with a range from about 8 to 15 minutes. Granules are believed to be the tops of convection cells where hot fluid (gas and plasma) rises up from the interior convection zone. This material spreads out across the surface, cools, and then sinks downward along the dark lanes. The vertical convection velocity averages about 2 km/sec, although it can reach 7 km/sec. These are supersonic speeds in the solar atmosphere, and upwelling currents can create sonic booms. This release of acoustic energy generates waves in the photosphere. Solar granules cover the entire photospheric surface, except where there are sunspots. In sunspot regions convection is inhibited and there are thus no granules (convection cells). There are approximately 4 million granules that cover the solar surface at any one time.
* With that info, it should be pretty easy to calculate the volume of each average granule.
Volume (going up) = 1100 km x 1100 km x 2 km/sec x 10 min x 60 sec/min = 1,452,000,000 km^3
This means they average about 1200 km deep.
Volume (going down) = {(2 x 200 km x 1100 km) + (200 km x 200 km)} x (10 min x 60 sec/min) x velocity =< 1,452,000,000 km^3
Velocity (going down) =< [equals somewhat less than] 5 km/sec
* There's less volume going down than coming up, because some of what goes up keeps going up as the solar wind. However, Brant has said that neutral matter constantly enters the heliosphere and goes into the Sun, if I remember right. So, if that's the case, the Sun may be losing less mass than it seems, or may be keeping the same mass, or may be gaining. He and Mathis also say the Sun is receiving aether or photons from the galaxy which are transforming into electrons, which may also be causing an increase in mass. How would that affect your model?

Temperatures & Density
You said: a thermometer stuck into the Sun would show that the interior was extremely cold.
* Would it be hotter than the top of the photosphere? And didn't you say the bottom of the photosphere would be 1000 degrees cooler than the top?
* Wikipedia gives these figures for the density of the photosphere: 2.0 × 10^−4 kg/m^3 at top of photosphere; 4.0 × 10^−4 kg/m^3 at bottom of photosphere. Do you agree with those?
* P.S., your electrostatic layers seem well-reasoned also.
'12-03-17, 16:56
Chromium6
Re: The Sun's Density Gradient

I found this to be an interesting link. Apologies if this doesn't directly apply to the topic at this point:

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/S ... n_sun.html

[img]http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Pictures/Figure_2.GIF[/img
Fig. 2 The alleged result of the alleged solar dynamo: a deep and wounded magnetic tube. Only a short section of it - i.e. 28 million km (=0.1%) - can be shown in this sketch, its whole length does not fit into the dynamo, not even into the whole Sun. This model well explains how big bipolar sunspots of a diameter of about 30 000 km and their east-west-position come into existence - see two omega-forms which are somehow elevated above the photosphere. (The photosphere is shown cut and unscaled thick for better demonstration.) The original dynamo-model does not contain the here sketched "hoops" which should bind together the normally diverging parallel magnetic fields
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/S ... loops.html

Image
3.1 The Sun as a thermoelement In the solar core of about 15 MK, the electrons (small spheres with zig-zag velocity arrows) have an average thermal velocity of 26 000 km/s (equation 1). The protons (points) are much slower. The thermal electron-velocity is only 510 km/s on the surface according to the Boltzmann-law. The result is that the hot particles and the strong photons continually push out the electrons from the core. The surfaced electrons hardly find a way back. The HRD-stars are similar to an atom: their small but heavy core is made positive (++) by the lost electrons and the big body is made negative by the electrons which wander to the surface, see big "minus" signs. (Particles are not shown between core and surface.)

The difference between the masses of electron and proton causes automatically the the solar wind ! Its measured velocity of 750 km/s can be calculated for the very first time !
This very quick solar wind cannot be understood without the new thermoelement-law. Astronomy Prof. K.R. Lang (1995) "We do not understand the basic driving mechanism of the solar wind." (p. 123.)
I hope that my readers are happy. My new thermoelement-law simply and automatically explains "the basic driving mechanism of the solar wind". It explains also all wind-measurements of Skylab, IMP-8, Ulysses in all details. It is evolved in the chapter on the wind.

The electric circuit of this solar thermoelement is very simple:

Image

3.2 The electric circuit of the stellar thermoelement A very small amount from the 0.6 x 1060 core-electrons are pumped by the temperature difference from the core (left) through the plasma (line) into the infinite space as stellar wind (right). This solar thermoelement delivers a negative direct current of -1014 A into space from its negative pole (on the right) since gigayears. This electric wind drags-along light matter (hydrogen, 4% helium, protons, alpha particles but no magnesium (see Ulysses) and no heavy elements. This is the negatively charged solar wind (see chapter 4.5).

The thermoelement electrons come out from the Sun not due to the 2 000 V thermovoltage, but the thermovoltage is the result of the pushed electrons in the Sun. The same is valid in all other terrestrial or celestial thermoelements.
Not a section of the Sun is a dynamo (which has no circuit !) but the whole Sun is a simple thermoelement-generator (with a simple circuit). The temperature difference is directly converted to electric energy as in the Pu-batteries of the spacecrafts. No mechanic drive as in the alleged solar dynamo is necessary.
In this new and electric astronomy, the inexplicable dynamo is totally substituted with the simple thermoelement.
It is not anymore necessary to look for the dynamo´s position in the Sun. Where is the dynamo ? Is it:

just below the surface (Babcock, Parker, Leighton 1950-1960),
deep in the convection zone (Kusserow, Denzer 1980-1990)
just below the convection zone in the rigid body, in the depth of 220 000 km (Scherrer 1997)
in the core (Lang 1995, Grandpierre 1996)

The "solar dynamo" is nowhere in the Sun.


The whole Sun is a thermoelement-generator.


All thermoelement-parameters are measurable. The current of this thermoelement is transported by the solar wind.


The solar thermoelement does not produce inductive current. It needs only temperature difference, not rotation. This generator is absolutely not braked by the induction according to the Lenz-law.
The wind moves antigravitationally. An electrically neutral explanation has only the heat-motion which can move upwards. Particles should push particles in all directions, also upwards. This electrically neutral wind would be a neutral thermal evaporation of the hot solar surface.

But the thermal cause of the fast solar wind should have a temperature of 24 MK according to the Boltzmann-equation0.5 mv² = 1.5 kT (1)(M. 01). However, this very high temperature is nowhere to be found on the surface (nor in the whole Sun).

Parker supposed only 2 MK. But this is also non-existent on the surface and not detectable as emitted mass in the heliosphere. The corona, as a wind-source, is impossible due to the fact that the solar wind exists (it is even strongest, then) when no corona is present (4.67).

Yohkoh´s and SOHO´s sharp pictures do not show a trace of an evaporating process of the coronal loops. These beautiful pictures were not available in Parker´s time. According to the electric model, the corona is not hot but positive (see below). Naturally, a positive corona cannot emit a negative wind.Instead of the heat, the wind-particles are simply emitted and accelerated electrically in a cold way. Their direction in this model is automatically correct: only upwards (4.47) and not in all directions as in the case of an evaporation ! These particles do not collide, they fly on parallel orbits, along the electric field. This is why they do no emit electromagnetic waves while flying along their almost straight orbits. The Sun is similar to an electrostatic paint-jet, not to a torch paint-jet.

The stellar wind is negatively charged, therefore, it has no recombination light: it repulses electrons. During 9 eclipses of the Maunder Minimum the solar wind was invisible for unaided eyes. But it would be also undetectable in X-ray.

However in the present time, the wind drags along positive ions from X ray bright points which appear always separated on the poles (4.56, 4.68). This electrostatically attracted positive matter has also no collisions, but it has recombination light, and therefore, it is visible as "polar filaments" during the eclipse (4.56) or in EUV (1.10, 4.10). These filaments makes the wind and the electric field indirectly visible similar to aluminium slices fluids or air (4.30). These positive filaments are no components of the negative wind. Their "temperature" of 1.5 MK (table 4.8) is not the "temperature" of the wind. They are also no "somehow transformed" magnetic force-lines. The "polar magnetic force-lines" were not found by Ulysses.
Here again, the energy of the windprotons (M) corresponds to 24 MK and not 1.5 MK or 2 MK (M.01). But, the stellar wind is no moving gas and its motion energy is not transformed to heat.
'12-03-18, 13:43
Chromium6
Re: The Sun's Density Gradient

This Solar Loops and (filaments) article by Körtvélyessy is also relevant. :)
Solar Loops
published: 1999 March 13-17 in Jordan, during the 8. UN/ESA workshop


For many decades, solar loops were seen as dynamo-made and empty magnetic flux tubes. These should be lifted from the depth by buoyancy forces and should be somehow filled with hot plasma. This model was created to explain the filament-form, the deep origin and the ions of the solar loops. But new observations with SOHO and TRACE show many new characteristics which must be explained in a new way. The electric model takes into account the much smaller mass of the electron related to the mass of the positive ions. This mass relation causes the solar thermoelement-effect and the separation of the negative electric charge from the positive one via solar temperature difference of 15 MK. This electric model explains not only the deep origin, the form and the ions of these beautiful filaments but also the matter transport in them, their missing sections and their missing infrared emission. This very new model has no corona problem and does not need any "dynamo". This mysterious solar dynamo could not be realized in the Na-model of Karlsruhe (Wöhl 1998). This report physically explains not only the solar loops but also all other filaments of the Universe.

Image

Fig. 1 shows a beautiful group of the so called post flare loops in the hydrogen alpha light of 656.3 nm. A small section of the solar surface is covered with white round areas i.e. areas which have a very high emission in this wavelength. These active areas seem to emit the loops vertically. The magnetic explanation is simple: every loop is only a short section of a much longer magnetic filament. These are made in the deeper layer of the Sun. An alleged dynamo produce them during the solar minimum and buoyancy forces elevate them when they are strong enough, during the solar maximum. These magnetic tubes are filled with hot plasma.Fig.1 Loops in hydrogen alpha light (see also the report of J.C. Noens in this workshop)

2 Magnetic explanation of the solar loops


After a flare, such loops appear on the surface of the Sun. They start almost vertically from very active areas which are seen in white colour. Note that these areas are not similar to surfacing tubes, are not parallel to each other and that the loops have a much lower emission than the white areas. This picture is taken from a movie of the Big Bear Observatory which suggests via flying clouds and knots that matter is flowing along the path of these loops . Three such clouds are actually flying near to the top of these loops. All of these three clouds have a diameter at least double the normal diameter of these loops. This relation does not support the supposition that some dynamo-made magnetic tubes somehow transport matter because these clouds do not fit into these thin "magnetic tubes". Two loops transport matter in a horizontal plane to the surface. This plane cannot be explained by buoyancy forces. The fact is very important (Wöhl 1997, Matthei 1999) that many loops have missing sections in about the same volume along their left side. See magnetic and electric explanation in text.

The old, magnetic model supposed that the Sun contains a dynamo. Nobody knew exactly where this dynamo (Vial 1994) is, how it functions, what its electric circuit is (Wöhl 1997).

The alleged drive of the dynamo is the differential rotation. How does this differential rotation react to the working of this dynamo (Vial 1994)? How can this dynamo produce magnetic tubes (Fig. 2) ? If this dynamo existed and produced magnetic fields, how would these almost stable fields be transformed to high temperatures in the loops (Lang 1995, 1999) ?

The movie of such loops clearly suggests matter motion via small clouds or knots which are emitted irregularly by the active areas and which fly along the loops and land again after a flight in a non-active (dark) area. Two loops show such landing on the left side.

If we want to explain this hydrogen alpha emission by hot matter of 20 000 K due to some "magnetic energy of the emerged magnetic tubes", then the loops cannot heat the white areas because these areas are brighter ("hotter") than the loops. Moreover, no observation reveals a decreasing magnetic energy which would balance the power of a supposed constant electromagnetic emission of the "hot" loops: the loops do not become thinner or shorter. No published calculation supports this supposed process. But, easily estimated emission of these loops would be comparable to that of the whole Sun: this is naturally impossible ! Moreover, this theoretical high thermal emission is totally missing in the Sun-pictures which were taken in the visible and infrared wavelengths. This theoretically huge radiation could not be found in the high precision ACRIM -records of 3 satellites. This huge emission is also absolutely impossible from the magnetic energy of the loops of about 250 J/m³ (Körtvélyessy 1998). In any case a stable magnetic field cannot give motion-energy to charged particles due to the Lorenz-force.
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Pictures/Figure_2.GIF
Fig. 2 The alleged result of the alleged solar dynamo: a deep and wounded magnetic tube. Only a short section of it - i.e. 28 million km (=0.1%) - can be shown in this sketch, its whole length does not fit into the dynamo, not even into the whole Sun. This model well explains how big bipolar sunspots of a diameter of about 30 000 km and their east-west-position come into existence - see two omega-forms which are somehow elevated above the photosphere. (The photosphere is shown cut and unscaled thick for better demonstration.) The original dynamo-model does not contain the here sketched "hoops" which should bind together the normally diverging parallel magnetic fields
After decades of use of this dynamo-model, more than 10 other solar filaments of various diameters, lengths and "temperatures" were discovered, but no new model. But, in addition, fine polar filaments, filaments of mass ejections with a diameter of more than 1 million kilometre, small filaments of magnetic knots of a diameter of only 150 km, small filaments of penumbrae of sunspots, almost undetectable small filaments of helmet-streamers (see report of S.R. Habbal in this workshop) and elementary filaments of solar loops were discovered. The dynamo-model could not be used to explain any of these new observations of loop-diameters of this unexpected large range.


Some further inconsequence in the magnetic explanation are as follows.
the magnetic field of the solar loops and coronal loops is hundred times weaker than that of the sunspots, but the dynamo should have the same "drive": the differential rotation for the production of all solar filaments,
the number of the coronal loops - which appear contemporarily - is about 200, therefore, these visible loops would not fit into the volume of 200 Suns. Their dynamo-made deep sections should be 100 000 times longer , they would not fit even into the volume of a red giant! Moreover, the whole set of millions of solar loops and coronal loops and many other filaments appearing during one solar maximum should be preproduced and stored by the solar dynamo during the solar minimum !

They would not fit into a sphere of a diameter of a lightweek.
the coronal loops lie mostly in north-south direction and not in the shown omega-direction (Fig. 2),
the Fe XIV-ions of the coronal loops should be the result of a filling of hot plasma of a temperature of 1.8 MK into the "magnetic tube", but this model seems to have no holes in the wall of the "magnetic tube" therefore no "filling" is possible (the shown two holes of the sketch 2 are only for the cut of a short section of the whole length of 30 billion kilometres and not due to the magnetic theory). No model of this "filling" is shown. Sometimes two loops are near to each other and they together elevate a large cloud. How can two closed tubes elevate a cloud between them ? This process would be similar to parallel copper tubes with warm and cold water which would transport 10 litres of water between them for a distance of 1 kilometre in spite of their closed wall !
the maximal strength of the solar magnetic field is about 0.4 Tesla. This strong magnetic field should exist in an alleged loop which "produces" two sunspots (see omega in Fig. 2). This strongest solar field logically should produce the highest solar temperature along the whole length of this "magnetic tube", but measurements show that this strongest magnetic field does not produce a maximal heating but a maximal cooling - down to 3800 K- where it crosses the photosphere at a sunspot ! Nobody can understand that similar loops but of a weak magnetic field of about 1 mT should "produce" a high temperature of 20 000 K showing with red light in Fig. 1 ! Moreover, more mysterious is the fact that these weak magnetic tubes should cause there where they cross the photosphere a higher temperature of e.g. 30 000 K and not a cooling ! This higher emission is shown in Fig.1 with white colour. The magnetic model cannot explain why the solar loops and the coronal loops "cause" a "high temperature" of the active area (see e.g. the white spots in Fig. 1 and Fig. 4) around them. The somehow elevated magnetic field of the loops cannot heat its vicinity higher than its own temperature according to the laws of physi
cs!


I have the impression that a 50 years old model - which already was inconsequent in its first publication since it contradicted the laws of thermodynamics - is traditionally still used in our years of the space-based astronomy. Many problems resulted due to this tradition (see report of K.Lang in this workshop). Now it will be shown that the Sun is not similar to a lake in which various "hot serpents" swim from east to west. Do we observe their short and hot sections (as loops), elevated from the water ? Too much and too big serpents are discovered in the last years and their visible sections often fly away and never return. However, no "serpents" were observed by SOHO below the surface. The Sun functions electrically and not magnetically.

3 Electric explanation


Magnetic charges do not exist, only electric charges exist. Therefore, the observed solar macroscopic magnetic fields should be explain via macroscopic electric charges and not via mysterious magnetic machines without any electric circuit. The observed ions (of e.g. Fe XIV) can be explained either via high temperature (of 1.8 MK) or via electric ionisation. But the total absence of an infrared radiation of these ions in the solar- and coronal loops and the well known corona-problem show that only the electric ionisation can be possible. This electric ionisation is well known in the mercury fluorescent lamps. Does the Sun ionise in this cold way ? Yes, it does ionise its own matter simply and without any mystery. But this cold way of ionisation leads to a new astronomy which is based on physics.


http://www.the-electric-universe.info/P ... gure_3.gif
Above (HDR star): Without any declaration, all m³ of a HRD-star was taken in the past to be neutral (symbolized by black dots in equal density in the section of a star). No wind could leave this hypothetical star. The round shape of the star - as sketched - was sharply determined gravitationally.

Below (Electric astronomy): Physically, it is clear that the colder sections of a conductor must have an overbalance of electrons. See the unequal density of the black dots (electrons): only five dots are in the core and many dots near the surface. The electrons explode electrostatically in the hydrogen layer, below 13 000 K. The solar wind (arrows) comes automatically into existence and is sustained by the solar temperature-difference of 15 MK.
Fig.3 The basic difference between the non-electric and the electric astronomy

The totally new astronomical theory starts at the fact that the electron has a 1848 times smaller mass than the proton. Proton and electron are exactly equal in their absolute electric charges but they are very unequal in their masses. The negative electricity is bound to a light particle and the positive to much heavier particles. Iron ions have a mass of about 100 000 times that of an electron. This big asymmetry was not taken into account in the astronomy up to 1996 (Fig. 3 ).

The body of a star was taken as electrically neutral in the past. Only exceptions are: the particles of the cosmic rays and the rings of planets. In all other cases, every m³ of a star was considered as containing the same positive and negative charges. More than 200 contradictions (e.g. corona-problem and neutrino-problem) are present in this astronomy (Körtvélyessy 1998).

The reality shows quite another picture which is easy to calculate (Fig.3). All conductors are negatively charged in their colder sections and positively charged in their warmer sections.
Due to the Boltzmann-equation:
1/2 mv²=1,5kT

(1)

the protons have everywhere 43 times lower velocity than the electrons and, therefore, the electrons have a higher density in a section of a conductor of a lower temperature (43² = 1848; and "m, v, T" are the mass, velocity and temperature of a particle and "k" is the Boltzmann constant). Therefore, in a HRD-star, the hot core loses electrons and the surface has a negative overbalance due to the surfacing electrons. This is symbolized by the few (five) black dots - i.e. electrons - in the core in Fig.3 (larger picture) and black dots of a high density near the surface. In this electric model, the gravity cannot close the surface of the star against the much stronger electric repulsion.

This asymmetry shows that all HRD-stars are electric generators due to the described thermoelement-effect. The Sun - or any other conductor - has a constant voltage of 2 000 V according to the Boltzmann equation (1) as long as it has a temperature-difference of 15 MK.


The Sun is no mysterious dynamo but the simplest thermoelement-generator of only one conductor. (The Pu-generator of the spacecrafts functions similarly due to a temperature-difference of some hundreds Kelvin but with many conductors.) The Sun's positive pole is in its core, its negative pole is on its surface, its voltage is 2 000 V (1). All solar electromagnetic properties can be understood via this simple and evident model. This new model starts at these separated electric charges and not at mysterious magnetic fields of unknown origin. No dynamo is necessary.

The negative solar wind is the cause of the positive charge of the solar core. Core-fragments can appear as positive charge on the solar surface causing a cold and local ionisation.

Every constant temperature-difference - and therefore also the solar 15 MK - can be a clear thermodynamical source of a power, in this case of an electric power due to the separation of the negative charge from the originally neutral matter in the Sun. These thermoelement-electrons appear in the solar hydrogen layer at about 13 000 K. The electrons in overbalance release an electrostatic explosion here and sweep away matter electrostatically and mechanically from this layer, mostly protons which are actually free by thermal dissociation. This is the solar wind. No magnetic field is necessary. The temperature-difference of 15 MK or the 2 000 eV energy of the particles in the solar core produces the emission of the solar wind. Theoretically, if the main mass of the wind is given by protons, the equation (1) predicts a wind-velocity of about 600 km/s. (The measured value is 750 km/s, the cause of the difference is not known yet. However, already the cause of the solar wind was unknown in the non-electric astronomy.) The resulting positive charge of the core appears on the surface due to supposed internal explosions which have a clearly measured influence on the solar rotation, oscillation and diameter. The surfaced fragments of these explosions appear as positive matter of strong hydrogen alpha emission shown by white spots in Fig. 1. These positive spots have the temperature of the solar surface of 5778 K and no 30 000 K. Their light is cold, the surfaced protons recombine with thermally dissociated electrons. This is the cause of the invisibility in infrared of all solar and coronal loops. But how can these positive - and therefore active - masses produce loops ?

The positive charge of these masses causes in the depth of the Sun only a lower density and no electrostatically explosion, because the carriers of the electrostatic force i.e. the photons have a very long zig-zag path in the plasma. This lower density causes a low buoyancy force, simply hydrostatically. An electrostatic explosion comes, however, into existence when the elevating positive fragment cools down below dissociation-temperature (of about 13 000 K, see Fig.3). Suddenly, the free protons - which remain alone during the recombination - repulse each other very strongly. The photons fly suddenly in straight lines. Due to the continual transport from the depth, the free protons in the highest layers were pushed by the free protons in the lower layers, therefore the highest layer elevates into space, almost horizontally.

But now, every proton in elevation means a positive electric current. Parallel currents attract each other ! Due to this attraction, the charged matter does not explode electrostatically, but forms a filament electrodynamically. The cross section is minimal i.e. a circular cross section is formed.

This process is similar to the formation of stars. Gravity forms spheres which have a minimal volume with circular cross section, but electrically charged matter in motion forms filaments of circular cross section (Klimchuk ). In both cases, the circular cross section is the minimal cross section.

4 The main characteristics of the solar loops can be understood for the very first time

The solar loops can be easily observed in hydrogen alpha light because the surfaced free protons are flying in these loops and they emit this cold light when they recombine with dissociated electrons.

The solar loops are invisible because they are not hot. Therefore, they also do not have an infrared radiation. Important: the solar loops are neither hot nor cold ! They do not have a high temperature of 20 000K. They are not cold because they do not contain particles of a thermal zig-zag motion. "Hot" and "cold" have no meaning for the solar loops. The particles fly parallel to each other in the loop without colliding.

The solar loops start from the solar surface vertically because the deeper layers of the surfaced positive charged matter (white spots in Fig. 1) repulses the upper layers. The elevating positive matter means parallel currents which attract each other. The result is the forming of filaments which vertically start from the center of each active area. This electric process can be demonstrated by electric discharge. In a shown model, the active areas have a diameter of 8 mm and the filaments of a diameter of 3 mm started perpendicularly to the surface and from the centre of the round active areas. All filaments of this model have an exact circular cross section similarly to the cross sections of the solar loops.

The active areas seem to be brighter than the loop in hydrogen alpha light (white areas in Fig. 1) because these areas cause the loops and not the loop ( or the dynamo) causes the active area. For coronal loops, these areas are called "X ray bright points".

The solar loops transports matter. But no matter is flowing in a magnetic tube due to a mysterious and never shown, only supposed hydrostatic pressure difference ! Cause and effect are exactly opposite. The elevating charged matter is repulsed electrostatically by the active area and the flight of this charged matter alone produces the "tube" of a circular cross section. In other words: the loop gives no possibility for matter to be transported but the charged matter in flight produces the loops. Neutral matter cannot form filaments, therefore, non-electric astronomy cannot understand any filaments of the Universe.

Solar loops transport clouds which have often a larger diameter than the loops. This would be impossible in the case of a hypothetical magnetic tube, but it is possible if suddenly more charged matter surfaces in the hydrogen layer. This cloud flies with the normal amount of matter. It is still not clear why the velocity of the cloud and the matter in the loop is the same.

No hydrostatical pressure difference causes the motion in the solar loops, but positively charged and emitted matter looks for a negative solar surface. A hydrostatical pressure difference between the start from the photosphere and the landing on the photosphere is clearly impossible.

Solar loops in a non-vertical, even in a horizontal position, are attracted by negatively charged surface - which is dark in Fig. 1, where the electrons surface (Fig. 3). According to this model, the negative areas are not concentrated, but evenly distributed due to the negative solar wind of -10 Ampere/km². This negative solar surface does not attract but repulse electrons, therefore, it cannot light in any recombination-wavelength, but only thermally. Since all solar filaments are positively charged, they therefore, light only in recombination-wavelengths and they have no own thermal light. The loops are not hot and not cold, the corona problem is solved.

Solar loops are not made magnetically but the motion of the electrically charged matter produces a weak magnetic field. Also the strong magnetic field of the sunspots are made by the sunspots and not by a very strong magnetic tube. Contrary to the sharp loops in Fig. 1, the magnetic field of a bipolar sunspot does not have a filament-form of a constant diameter.

Solar loops need almost no solar volume below the photosphere. They are not made in the depth and not stored there during the minimum. Only the small, positive fragments of the positive core are produced during the minimum. No "magnetic tube" is made in the depth. All filaments are made in the hydrogen layer. And particularly, they are no short and elevated sections of very long "magnetic tubes" as sketched in Fig.2. They exist only above the photosphere and not below it. They do not exist before appearing and do not exist after disappearing. Solar loops do not need a red giant to be produced and stored in its big volume. Also all other solar filaments are not preproduced and not stored but instantly made as stronger charged matter appears in the hydrogen layer. Due to this higher concentration of the positive charge, these coronal loops are larger and emit X ray. The Sun does not need 10 mysterious dynamos for its filaments of various diameters up to millions of kilometres. The Sun does not need a dynamo at all !

Solar loops have missing sections if they cross an electron-poor volume (Fig. 1 on the left above). They are not interrupted, but fly through this volume as contemporary observation in X ray shows. The cause of this process is that strong ions can recombine in electron- poor volume where protons cannot. Fe XIV ions attract the electrons from far away with their 13 times stronger electrostatic attraction but the protons cannot recombine with electrons which are in long distances to the loop. Leaving this electron arm volume, the solar loops light again in hydrogen alpha, especially near the solar surface which always emit electrons thermally.

The Universe contains many filaments. After the discovery of the solar loops, many other filaments up to the lengths of megalightyears and gigalightyears were detected. All these cannot be explained by dynamos because they are too long. Already the filaments of comets with a length of 10 millions of kilomenters cannot be explained by a dynamo of a diameter of maximally 30 km. All these and other filaments e.g. those in supernova remnants, jets of young stars and radioglaxies are made by moving electrically charged matter. All of them are not hot but emit a cold, recombination-light.

5 References:

Habbal, S. 1999 (in this workshop)
Haubold, H.J. 1999 (in this workshop)
Klimchuk, J.A. 19992 Publ. Astr. Soc. Japan 44 L181-L184
Klimchuk, J.A. 1999 (private communication)
Koertvelyessy L. 1998 The Electric Universe EFO Budapest
Lang, K.R. 1995 The Sun.... Springer
Lang, K.R. 1999 (in this workshop)
Matthei, J. 1999 (private communication)
Noens, J. C. 1999 (in this workshop)
Vial, J.-C. 1994 Astronomy Cambridge University Press
Woehl, H. 1997 (private communication)
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/S ... loops.html
'12-03-19, 18:07
upriver
Re: The Sun's Density Gradient

Cavitation can cause transmutation in the presence of electrical fields.

You could have cavitation bubbles in the molten iron of the the solar surface that transmute elements.
Acceleration of particles into other particles causes "transmutation" as in plasma pinches.
Temperature hot for the CNO cycle have been observed on the sun.

← PREV Powered by Quick Disclosure Lite
© 2010~2021 SCS-INC.US
NEXT →