orrery wrote: In any case, the liquid plasma sonoluminescence thing is something I have been working on for a while and am concentrating on the overlap with Robitaille's work as suggested by Crothers.
I've been studying Robitaille's work too. Once of these days we should debate the liquid metallic hydrogen model too. The work that he has done on black-body radiation is monumental — he's going to finish what Stewart and Kirchhoff started, which frustrated Planck, and which pushed Einstein over the edge. So finally we'll have a physical model of sunlight! His acknowledgement of supercritical fluids in the Sun is also a major step forward. But I still think that he can't run LMH all of the way out to the photosphere, without any hydrostatic pressure keeping it supercritical, and without charged double-layers providing the force from the inside. He maintains that LMH is metastable, and doesn't need any force to keep it compact. (See Robitaille, P.-M., 2011: Liquid Metallic Hydrogen: A Building Block for the Liquid Sun, Progress in Physics, 3: 60-74.) But I can't get there. At 6000 K, the collisions are violent enough that the electrons are unbound. Well, that means no atomic bonding. The metastability of LMH comes from the compression of the conduction bands down to the radius of the inner shells, which makes it both metallic and metastable. But not at 6000 K. Still, all his model needs is something to push down on the hydrogen to keep it supercritical, and everything else works. That's what my charged double-layers do. Anyway, I would highly recommend Robitaille's work to anybody wanting to make a serious study of either theoretical physics and/or astrophysics. His method is fully physical, and rigorous, and in disciplines so overwhelmed with vague abstractions, it's inspiring to see someone doing such clean work.
orrery wrote: The Heliosphere is the Bubble, simulating the water bubble. The anode is organizing the plasma into the sonoluminescent reaction region at the double layer boundary.
I was the one who thought that you were talking about waves inside the Sun, as this is what SOHO has been measuring. Is there evidence of waves traveling through the heliosphere? And how do you get bubbles of hydrogen... inside a layer of hydrogen? And what forms your double-layer?
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
What???? Someone already dreamt up supercritical fluids in the Sun? I thought my crazy hypothesis/idea was original
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
justcurious wrote: What???? Someone already dreamt up supercritical fluids in the Sun? I thought my crazy hypothesis/idea was original
The late Harold Aspden briefly touched on the topic in "The Physics of Creation", and now Pierre-Marie Robitaille is going into great detail on it. But that doesn't mean that all of the credit has already been taken, and that it's too late to get on board. In fact, it's still quite early, if there are only two scientists (to my knowledge) and a handful of enthusiasts who are talking about it. There might be something distinctive about your conception of it that might figure significantly in the final form that emerges. So what is your idea? Now is not the time to hold back cards... if you want credit, you have to stake your claim...
Goldminer
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: What???? Someone already dreamt up supercritical fluids in the Sun? I thought my crazy hypothesis/idea was original
The late Harold Aspden briefly touched on the topic in "The Physics of Creation", and now Pierre-Marie Robitaille is going into great detail on it. But that doesn't mean that all of the credit has already been taken, and that it's too late to get on board. In fact, it's still quite early, if there are only two scientists (to my knowledge) and a handful of enthusiasts who are talking about it. There might be something distinctive about your conception of it that might figure significantly in the final form that emerges. So what is your idea? Now is not the time to hold back cards... if you want credit, you have to stake your claim...
Just a warning: Pierre-Marie Robitaille is one of the very few world renown experts on micro and infrared radiation and the methods involved in emission and detection there of. He should be invited to the next EU conference, expenses paid. He is a genius and a very generous gentleman. He used, in my estimation, a good part of his personal estate to publicize the truth about the "CMB."
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
And what's the warning?
Goldminer
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote: And what's the warning?
The warning is "pay attention to him, he's probably right!" ( I didn't say "be wary.")
Just fishing, and you bit.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
What's "probably right" about supercritical hydrogen at zero pressure — isn't that a contradiction in terms?
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: What???? Someone already dreamt up supercritical fluids in the Sun? I thought my crazy hypothesis/idea was original
The late Harold Aspden briefly touched on the topic in "The Physics of Creation", and now Pierre-Marie Robitaille is going into great detail on it. But that doesn't mean that all of the credit has already been taken, and that it's too late to get on board. In fact, it's still quite early, if there are only two scientists (to my knowledge) and a handful of enthusiasts who are talking about it. There might be something distinctive about your conception of it that might figure significantly in the final form that emerges. So what is your idea? Now is not the time to hold back cards... if you want credit, you have to stake your claim...
I claim that it's purely a product of my imagination, nothing more. It just annoys the heck out of me, happens all the time, I get ideas and find out someone else has already come up with it. It's all Rupert Sheldrake's fault, with his morphic fields. I suppose someone already hypothesized that the center of the Sun is super cold?
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
justcurious wrote: I suppose someone already hypothesized that the center of the Sun is super cold?
CharlesChandler wrote: In the present [compressive ionization] model, stars have a lot more potential energy than just burnable hydrogen, and more than just fusable hydrogen. Stars actually have all of the thermal energy of a dust cloud that collapsed, which makes the standard model's 15 MK look frigid by comparison. Of course, all of that thermal energy, if it was still thermal, would be impossible in condensed matter. But it isn't thermal — it has mostly been converted to electrostatic potential. The core of a star might actually be at absolute zero, though with enough potential to heat a stellar system for billions of years.
But believe me when I tell you that you could contribute a lot to the solar modeling initiative. You have already taught me things I didn't know about electromagnetism. I'd be really interested in getting a thorough critical review from someone like you. I'm willing to share authorship, if you're willing to put in the time. There is no doubt in my mind that there are still errors in my work, some of which you could spot. The team so far includes Lloyd Kinder, Brant Callahan, Michael Mozina, and myself. None of us agree on everything, but all of us brought a lot to the table, and did a lot of work. Authors never agree on everything. But you could supply something that none of us could, because you're an EE. At the very least, there are surely things that just aren't explained the right way, which self-educated people would never be able to fix. More seriously, there might be fundamental errors. So like I said, it's not too late to get into the game — it's early, and the teams are just now forming up. If you want to be a player, come on!
GaryN
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
I suppose someone already hypothesized that the center of the Sun is super cold?
Sir William Herschel, in the late 1700s?
Lloyd
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
What is Basic EU Theory? At the new thread for the EU Theory Debate I made an outline of what I think are the main aspects of EU Theory. Here are 7 points that I listed. 1. Galaxies spawn quasars, which grow into galaxies. 2. Galaxies are homopolar motors containing electric current filaments. 3. Stars and planets form at z-pinches in galactic filaments. 4. Galactic nuclei and stars are anode plasmoids. 5. Stars under electric stress fission into smaller stars. 6. Stars eject planets and s-debris (dust, meteoroids etc) via compressive ionization. 7. Comet flares are due to charge differences between comets and IPM.
So, if Hoz, Daniel, JC or anyone think's I'm leaving out anything important relating to those 3 points of the outline, or if anyone thinks the outline needs improving, please go there and add any corrections, suggestions, or etc.
upriver
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
orrery wrote: SOHO spacecraft is able to measure oscillations in the Sun. Trying to understand the idea here, I just want to make sure I am interpreting it correctly. I am having a hard time keeping track of the many models.
So Bill's "Plasmoid Model" seems to be a Sonoluminescing Bubble of liquid plasma with a Plasmoid at the core powering it?
This part doesn't seem logical to me, I have been developing my own model and even though I am not ready to present and it will at this point, get stolen from me, I take the Sun to be a Sonoluminescing Bubble, the Sun, as a Sonoluminescing Bubble would have the Heliosphere as a transparent plasma medium. The photosphere would then be the region of plasma compression achieving near liquid densities. I have been formulating my Solar model as a synthesis of the Anode Model and a Plasma Model of Sonoluminescence. In this theoretical arrangement, the Sun represents the Plasma Core that is found in Sonoluminscence experiments. However, I believe the Solar Envelope of the Sun being the Photosphere etc can be sheathed around a dense iron core creating a synthesis of the two phenomenon.
However, since I appear to be the first person to mention Sonoluminscence as a model for the operations of the Sun, I am just going to stake my claim to the idea now.
Now, my "Solar Electro-Sonoluminscence Model" is currently under development however it is powered externally and the fusion on the Sun can be driven by "standing waves" in the liquid plasma that are partially driven by the incoming power galactic power.
As of right now it is a very rudimentary model, others are free to try and develop it, but it based on Sonoluminescence research re-applied to Heliospheric dynamics through solar system electron density maps but I am not sure I have the resources or time to develop it further. My belief is that the Sun operates on similar mechanics to Sonoluminescence and so I would advocate people doing more research into that.
Since I work with sonoluminescence everyday I would have to disagree on the idea of the sun being sonoluminescence...
Here is a paper I participated in. If you want to open another thread and ask questions about sonoluminescence you are welcome to... We do "Extreme Cavitation" where I work so I have seen probably the brightest sonoluminescence in the world... ....
Brant Callahan
J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 Jun ;127 (6):3456-65 20550245 Cit:2 Transient cavitation in high-quality-factor resonators at high static pressures. D Felipe Gaitan, Ross A Tessien, Robert A Hiller, Joel Gutierrez, Corey Scott, Henry Tardif, Brant Callahan, Thomas J Matula, Lawrence A Crum, R Glynn Holt, Charles C Church, Jason L Raymond Impulse Devices, Inc, 13366 Grass Valley Avenue, Unit H, Grass Valley, California 95945, USA. It is well known that cavitation collapse can generate intense concentrations of mechanical energy, sufficient to erode even the hardest metals and to generate light emissions visible to the naked eye [sonoluminescence (SL)]. Considerable attention has been devoted to the phenomenon of "single bubble sonoluminescence"(SBSL) in which a single stable cavitation bubble radiates light flashes each and every acoustic cycle. Most of these studies involve acoustic resonators in which the ambient pressure is near 0.1 MPa (1 bar), and with acoustic driving pressures on the order of 0.1 MPa. This study describes a high-quality factor, spherical resonator capable of achieving acoustic cavitation at ambient pressures in excess of 30 MPa (300 bars). This system generates bursts of violent inertial cavitation events lasting only a few milliseconds (hundreds of acoustic cycles), in contrast with the repetitive cavitation events (lasting several minutes) observed in SBSL; accordingly, these events are described as "inertial transient cavitation." Cavitation observed in this high pressure resonator is characterized by flashes of light with intensities up to 1000 times brighter than SBSL flashes, as well as spherical shock waves with amplitudes exceeding 30 MPa at the resonator wall. Both SL and shock amplitudes increase with static pressure. http://lib.bioinfo.pl/auid:17399784
orrery
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
upriver,
I thank you for your analysis. However, I am not convinced. The Sun shows to me obvious evidence of a time-harmonic electric field which I believe can simulate the processes involved in Sonoluminescence at a local level on the photosphere at the granulation regions and elsewhere with Alfven waves taking the place of sound waves. In any case, I will take your words under advisement and keep you up to date with my theory. Sonoluminescence is being used as an analogy to a "harmonic Alfven-Wave" counterpart where the Sun is a "low frequency harmonic oscillator".Localized Standing Waves on the Sun, can be used in much the same fashion as acoustic Standing Waves are used in Sonoluminescence.
A plasma bubble is trapped in a alfvenic standing wave, resulting from harmonic oscillations on the sun, a fast oscillation creates a sudden change in pressure resulting in a sort of sonoluminscence analogy.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
In layman's terms, would "bursts of violent inertial cavitation events" be something like "little scrubbing bubbles"?
This is actually very cool stuff — I just couldn't resist that. Anyway, Brant, if you don't feel like starting a thread to respond, you could post your response on my site, since I'm developing a list of all of the proposed solar models, and the critiques thereof. I'll add anything orrery posts to that anyway.
Chromium6
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Found this interesting. Comparing TV Beams to Plasma. This "5th State of Matter" theory shows it is non-thermal.
PHYSICS OF THE FILAMENTS: THE FIFTH STATE OF MATTER
Calculating the heat emission of a filament, we can test whether e.g. the TV-beam obeys equ.1? The electron current I is 0.001 A, the voltage U is 26 000 V, therefore the power P is P = U × I = 26 000 V × 0.001 A = 26 W (3)
Electrons in the TV-beam have 26 000 eV i.e. 13 times higher energy than electrons of the solar core-plasma of 2 000 eV ~ 15 million K. Usually, all bodies of very energetic particles (e.g. lightning, mercury-arc, welding-arc) were considered to be of plasma. Does this TV-beam consist of very energetic plasma? If yes, this plasma would emit the received electric power of 26 W as a heat-radiation of 26 W (equ.1)! The TV electron beam is no simple electric current flowing somehow in vacuum . The electrons should electrostatically explode in vacuum, they have no positive copper ions which keep them in a wire. However, this pure negative charge is kept together by the pinch effect i.e. parallel electric currents attract each other and form a minimal (circular) cross section. The round spot on the screen proves that the beam is a body of an exact circular cross section. It keeps its cross section also after bending in magnetic fields and varying in its intensity. This beam is a thin body of a characteristically exact form similar to the 0.1 mm thin Ca(OH)2Si2O3 – crystal. The calculation of the heat-balance is as follows: The beam has a diameter of 0.1 mm and a length of about 500 mm, its surface is 150 mm². The solar surface emits 63 W/mm², therefore, the TV-beam would emit 63 W/mm² × 150 mm² = 9450 W if its „temperature would be equal to that of the solar surface. But we must take the „temperature of the alleged TV-plasma-beam of 13 × 15 million K = 195 million K (~26 000 eV) into account (equ.2) ! The relation of the „temperature of the beam and that of the solar surface is:
195 000 000K / 6000K > 30 000
We must take 9450 W just 30 0004 times according to the T4 law (equ.1). The result is: 1022 W and not 26 W! About 40 000 TV-beams of a small city would radiate more power than the whole Sun if the TV-beam was of plasma! A plasma filament of a mercury lamp would melt a house in microseconds. These impossible results prove that the TV-beam (or an ion-beam) is no plasma body! It does not obey the heat radiation law (equ.1). This result can be simply understood because the beam-electrons fly parallel to the beam-axis along straight lines with constant velocity. The zigzag-motion of plasma does not exist in this beam. Such particles do not emit heat, independently of their very high particle-energy. But the zigzag motion in the electrongas around the hot cathode (of some 10-2 eV i.e.1000 K) is smoothened by the voltage of +26000 V to a parallel flight in only one direction in the TV-tube. This elevation of the particle energy by 6 orders transfers the electrons from a thermal state of matter into a non-thermal state of matter. This filament gets a thermal state of matter again in the TV screen. A filament is a parallel flight of either electrons (Fig.2) or ions (Fig.3).
An ion-filament can leave the Sun forever because the repulsion of its emitting positive area pushes it long away and stronger than far negative solar areas attract it. (These areas clearly modulate the positive cosmic ray flux, the velocity of the (negative) solar wind and the X-ray flux (as ion-recombination) i.e. the solar body cannot be a short circuit as usually supposed!)
The corona-problem represents more than hundred problems. Ten ones are as follows:
A filament filled with hot plasma would expand in all directions like an H-bomb! The hot coronal plasma would emit more heat than 1 million suns (equ.1). Its thought magnetic tube should hold it together, but magnetic tubes would magnetically explode also without the huge plasma-pressure in inside (Science@NASA in 2001 Nov 7). The empty magnetic tubes are thought to be closed, how can they be filled with hot plasma? The plasma-corona needs a force to move its matter in the filament but this force cannot be the Lorenz-force which is zero parallel to the alleged force lines of the magnetic tube . Forbidden spectral lines suggest that the corona has incredible low density. Its ions fly along thousands of kilometers without collision. This density is not lower in higher altitudes! These magnetic tubes would be strongly deformed via their transport from the dynamo to the surface through the boiling solar layers (Schrijwer and Title). Coronal ions of e.g. Fe9+ are present at the start, remain in the filament and will not be Fe13+ along the flight (Fig.3). Therefore, the corona is obviously not heated by e.g. microflares. If the corona would be very hot, it would radiate all of its energy into the Sun and empty space in milliseconds because it has no production of energy in itself. The alleged high temperature of the corona can be measured in two ways: Fe13+ ions suggest 1.8 MK but the broadening of their spectral lines suggests more than 7 MK!
THE SOLUTION OF ALL CORONA PROBLEMS
is the correct state of matter. Simply, the corona is not in the fourth but in the fifth state of matter. So, the corona obeys all laws of physics. The electrically emitted coronal ions fly along straight lines, they do not emit any electromagnetic waves from their very high motion energy, no X-ray, no UV - similar to the electron beam in the TV. But they emit X-ray and UV (Fig.3) from their high electric energy via cold recombination of ions. These ions are present already at the start of the filament and are the cause of ejection. Ions are not made during the flight by thermal motion which does not exist! Also Fig. 3 shows no new ions. The corona is not hot and not cold. Its ions fly parallel to each other without collision along thousands of kilometers (Fig.3). The ions produce the filament and the filament does not produce the ions! Positive matter in these filaments flights to a negative (UV-dark) area.
So finally we'll have a physical model of sunlight!
His acknowledgement of supercritical fluids in the Sun is also a major step forward. But I still think that he can't run LMH all of the way out to the photosphere, without any hydrostatic pressure keeping it supercritical, and without charged double-layers providing the force from the inside. He maintains that LMH is metastable, and doesn't need any force to keep it compact. (See Robitaille, P.-M., 2011: Liquid Metallic Hydrogen: A Building Block for the Liquid Sun, Progress in Physics, 3: 60-74.) But I can't get there. At 6000 K, the collisions are violent enough that the electrons are unbound. Well, that means no atomic bonding. The metastability of LMH comes from the compression of the conduction bands down to the radius of the inner shells, which makes it both metallic and metastable. But not at 6000 K. Still, all his model needs is something to push down on the hydrogen to keep it supercritical, and everything else works. That's what my charged double-layers do. Anyway, I would highly recommend Robitaille's work to anybody wanting to make a serious study of either theoretical physics and/or astrophysics. His method is fully physical, and rigorous, and in disciplines so overwhelmed with vague abstractions, it's inspiring to see someone doing such clean work.
orrery wrote:I was the one who thought that you were talking about waves inside the Sun, as this is what SOHO has been measuring. Is there evidence of waves traveling through the heliosphere? And how do you get bubbles of hydrogen... inside a layer of hydrogen? And what forms your double-layer?
Anyway, Brant, if you don't feel like starting a thread to respond, you could post your response on my site, since I'm developing a list of all of the proposed solar models, and the critiques thereof. I'll add anything orrery posts to that anyway.
