Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[tusenfem]

There is a huge problem with metals and nucleosynthesis as well as elemental abundance in the standard model.

I hope you do know that "metals" in astrophysics is everything heavier than Helium.

 

[tusenfem]

Yeah, I knew about that one, but it didn't seem to apply to the solar surface; nor did the Faraday dark space in a cold cathode glow tube.


I saw that one, also, but did not see how it would apply, either.


I had the same search results, and came to the same conclusion. Sometimes these guys absolutely astound me.

Cheers,

Dave

To quote Max Headroom: Two persons wiwiwith just one single memory!

 

[CaveDave]

That is actually an accepted concept among Classic British Automobile circles. Lucas Replacement smoke is precious . . . .

http://www3.telus.net/bc_triumph_registry/smoke.htm

LOVED that.

We often quote a riddle:
Q: Why do the British drink warm beer?
A: Lucas makes refrigerators, too.

I just finished my second refurbishment of Lucas 6cu Fuel Control Units from 1980 Jaguar XJS V-12s. All it takes is sucking out the solder on both top and bottom circuit boards and replacing it with good quality electronic solder and cleaning off the flux.

These are EFI computers, but not in the usual sense: they are a hybrid of mostly analog with some A/D conversion and counter chains and table look-up ROM to hold the fuel "map".

Jaguars often come in with electronic failures needing little more than better soldering.

[/DERAIL]

Cheers,

Dave

 

[Perpetual Student]

No. This will be my crash and burn alone...

Do you also have a cheese moon theory?

 

[Mikemcc]

...

1. This falling coronal rain is a falling solid that is cooling back down to the temperature of solid iron, 1000C, from almost 10,000F at the top of the loops, which happens to be ...... 5,537.77778 degrees Celsius.

...

How does it cool down? If its 10000F (5537 C) at the peak of the loop how does it loose not only the energy inherent in it's temperature but also the huge amount of gravitational potential energy that it had when it was at the top of the loop.

I must remember that according to you that I'll be cooled down by going for a run, that doing work can cool me down... Oh, and that Sterling Engines don't work as well...

 

[theprestige]

I must remember that according to you that I'll be cooled down by going for a run, that doing work can cool me down... Oh, and that Sterling Engines don't work as well...

Yeah, but think of the benefits of having a Sterling Refrigerator!

 

[soylent]

Wow, brantc has reached another lowest point in understanding basic physics, I did not think it could go any lower after the MRx discussion.

Don't worry. It's only a local minima.

 

[HansMustermann]

First asked 2 April 2010
brantc,
How thick is "thick"?

Well, being a fairly easily bored kinda guy, I decided to do the maths.

We know the sun's mass because of its gravity, and we know its size, hence average density. It's 1400 kg/m3. A bit heavier than water.

The thickest for an iron equivalent would be if there's nothing but an iron shell, i.e., complete vaccuum inside.

Iron density is about 7000 kg/m3 right below melting point. (We still want it solid.) That's 5 times denser than the sun.

To end up with the same average density, we'd have to hollow out a sphere in the middle, accounting for 80% of its volume.

The volume is proportional to the third power of the radius. Pi and everything else go away when we're working with ratios, since they're both above and below the line. But you already knew that.

If Ri is the inner radius and Ro is the outer radius, we have (Ri/Ro)^3=0.8. One quick cubic root extraction with the Windows calculator gives us Ri/Ro=0.93 (rounded to the nearest two digits.)

The equatorial radius is approximately 700,000 km. Times 0.07 is 49000 km thick.

Of course, that was the density at atmospheric pressure. In Sun's massive gravity, I'd expect it to be a little bit denser (even metal isn't 100% incompressible), hence the shell would be a bit thinner than that.

 

[CaveDave]

Yeah, but think of the benefits of having a Sterling Refrigerator!

Well, they actually HAVE made chiller units (heat pumps) using a sort-of reverse Stirling (Sterling ?) cycle using a mechanical (acoustic) input and producing a delta-T output for heat transfer. ISTR it was a Navy/Sandia/LANL/DOD type project used for shipboard electronics cooling.

I will try to find the links, later, when I have time.

Cheers,

Dave

 

[HansMustermann]

A bit of ignorance here:

1. The Sun was not formed in a supernova. The gas cloud that it formed from included elements from supernovae.
2. Supernova are exploding stars. The idea that supernova are some sort of pinches is really stupid but I am sure you can cite the published literature on this.

What causes barrel-shaped supernova remnants?

Actually, I think this is the part that brantc is not fully aware of: it would very much be one heck of a supernova in its own right, if you tried to create that iron shell.

Let's say you start with a cloud of mostly hydrogen, with a little helium, and it goes downhill from there. And somehow "pinch" it into an almost pure iron sphere. Dunno how. Magic. Divine intervention. Subspace SF MacGuffin. Whatever.

You'd have to fuse all that hydrogen into hellium, releasing more energy than the Sun will produce in its entire lifetime. Then the helium into carbon. Ooer, now that's a bunch of energy released. It also needs temperatures exceeding 100 million kelvins. (But, lucky us, fusing all that hydrogen in one swift pinch should handily exceed that.) It also produces a bunch of oxygen, which we'll need later. Then we fuse the carbon. As mentioned before, that would singlehandedly be equivalent to a couple of billion years of the Sun's output, and raise the temperature in the billions of degrees. Which is nice, because we need that kind of temperatures to fuse the Oxygen next. Releasing even more energy. Then the Neon. And so on.

It's not just energy handily exceeding the output of a Type 1a supernova, it's even in the same sequence as a real supernova, as each stage needs a higher temperature and pressure to start fusing.

That kind of an energy release will blow the whole thing into a big nebula.

But let's say our technobabble-magic holds. Why not? We're already assuming some kind of magic unlike anything observed in the real universe, and a special kind of gravity too. Why not go the full monte with the magic? Sure, our magic pinch will contain all that energy and prevent all that iron from escaping at nearly light speed.

Now what?

That iron is now a superheated ball of plasma, well in the hundreds of billions of degrees range. That magic pinch prevents it from escaping outwards, but the fusion has stopped, and there's nothing to keep it from falling _inwards_ under its own gravity. Losing energy via just Stefan–Boltzmann (we don't want to lose matter too, right?) it's going to take a hideously long time to cool down to even liquid iron, much less solid.

Let's just skip past the problem that the pinch must stay in place and stable for all those aeons.

Once it's cooled enough to be liquid, why would it form a hollow sphere and not just fall inwards and form a solid sphere?

 

[CaveDave]

Well, they actually HAVE made chiller units (heat pumps) using a sort-of reverse Stirling (Sterling ?) cycle using a mechanical (acoustic) input and producing a delta-T output for heat transfer. ISTR it was a Navy/Sandia/LANL/DOD type project used for shipboard electronics cooling.

I will try to find the links, later, when I have time.

As promised, here are a few links to get people started:

Wikipedia article

LANL (LosAlamos National Labs) page

Textbook from LANL page available as e-book

Here is an excerpt from the preface to the textbook:

Preface of "Thermoacoustics: A unifying perspective for some engines and refrigerators" :

I'm thrilled by the power density and efficiency recently achieved by thermoacoustic engines and refrigerators, and I'm fascinated by some of the latest developments in thermoacoustics: mixture separation via oscillating thermal diffusion [1,2]; self-excited oscillating heat pipes ("Akachi" or bubble-driven heat pipes) [3]; deliberate superposition of steady flow [4,5]. At night I often dream of a future world in which thermoacoustics is widely practiced. One dream had linear-motor-driven thermoacoustic heat pumps atop the hot-water heaters in half the homes in Phoenix, pumping heat from room air into the hot water---the production of a little cooling in the homes was a nice by-product. Another dream featured a small thermoacoustic system next to the liquid-nitrogen and liquid-oxygen dewars in back of our local hospital. This system had a thermoacoustic engine, heated by combustion of natural gas, driving several pulse-tube refrigerators, which provided the cooling necessary to liquefy air, to distill it to produce purified nitrogen and oxygen, and to reliquefy the pure gases for storage in the dewars. A third dream had hundreds of enormous combustion-powered thermoacoustic natural-gas liquefiers arrayed on an offshore platform, using the natural gas (methane) itself as the thermoacoustic working gas and filling a vacuum-insulated supertanker with cryogenic liquefied natural gas for transport to distant shores. Yet another dream showed an extensive thermoacoustic apparatus on Mars---a thermoacoustic engine driven by a small nuclear reactor produced 100 kW of acoustic power, which was piped to assorted thermoacoustic mixture separators and refrigerators, splitting atmospheric carbon dioxide and mined frozen water into pure hydrogen and oxygen and liquefying these for use in fuel cells on each of the many robots scooting around building a colony for eventual human habitation.

The dreams are always different, but they have some features in common. First, they all feature low-tech hardware: big pipes, welded steel, conventional shell-and-tube heat exchangers, molded plastic, etc. Second, I know that this simplicity is deceptive, because the technical challenge of designing this easy-to-build hardware is extreme. Third, there are no people in these dreams...because I know so few people who are skilled in thermoacoustic engineering today. So I wake up, afraid that none of this will ever happen, afraid that integrated thermoacoustic process engineering is an opportunity that will never have a chance. So I get up and I write another few paragraphs of this book, hoping to help newcomers learn basic thermoacoustics quickly, so they can go on to design, build, and debug wonderful thermoacoustic systems of all kinds.

This is an introductory book, not a full review of the current status of the field of thermoacoustics. It is evolving from the short course that I gave on this subject at the March 1999 Berlin acoustics meeting. The hardware examples used here to illustrate the elementary principles are thermoacoustics apparatus developed at Los Alamos or with our close collaborators, and the mathematical approach to the gas dynamics and power flows closely follows that pioneered by Nikolaus Rott. (Time pressure induces me to stick with topics most familiar to me! and, indeed, the Los Alamos approach to thermoacoustics has been quite successful.) Many aspects of thermoacoustics will be introduced, in an attempt to help the reader acquire both an intuitive understanding and the ability to design hardware, build it, and diagnose its performance.

Perhaps I will be able to find the USNavy reference later.

Ben and Jerry's (Ice Cream entrepreneurs) got their knickers moist a few years ago over putting T/A freezers in their stores.

There was a thread in this forum a few years ago about using T/A devices in the third world for refrigeration and cooking powered by solar.

Cheers,

Dave

 

[brantc]

Yeah, I knew about that one, but it didn't seem to apply to the solar surface; nor did the Faraday dark space in a cold cathode glow tube.

I saw that one, also, but did not see how it would apply, either.

I had the same search results, and came to the same conclusion. Sometimes these guys absolutely astound me.

Cheers,

Dave

Absolutely. I made that one up. Its a combination of the "dark" electron flow and the Faraday Dark space.
Now what would you call the electron flow across the Dark Space???
So yeah I took a liberty. Is it technically incorrect?

 

[brantc]

As promised, here are a few links to get people started:

Wikipedia article

LANL (LosAlamos National Labs) page

Textbook from LANL page available as e-book

Here is an excerpt from the preface to the textbook:


Perhaps I will be able to find the USNavy reference later.

Ben and Jerry's (Ice Cream entrepreneurs) got their knickers moist a few years ago over putting T/A freezers in their stores.

There was a thread in this forum a few years ago about using T/A devices in the third world for refrigeration and cooking powered by solar.

Cheers,

Dave

Please dont go OT. Go start a thermo acoustic thread somewhere else. Please remove your OT.

Otherwise I will ask the mod to delete your posts.

 

[brantc]

What problem is that?

Although the measurement uncertainties are still considerable, the observed abundances of He-4 and D seems to be at odds with the main big bang model. Two groups, publishing papers in Physical Review Letters, 27 November 1995, assess this discrepancy. One group (N. Hata et al.; contact Gary Steigman, Ohio State, 614-292-1999) suggests that although the data might be at fault, one or more factors, maybe betokening "new physics," might be at work. An example of this would be a tau neutrino with considerable mass. The other group (Craig J. Copi et al.; contact David Schramm, University of Chicago, 312-702-8202), however, suggests that within the uncertainties the data and the standard theory are still consistent with each other. (Journalists can obtain copies of the articles from AIP Public Information; physnews@aip.org)
http://www.aip.org/pnu/1995/split/pnu247-1.htm

BB nuclosynthesis
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995Ap&SS.227..145L


wiki

During the 1970s, there were major efforts to find processes that could produce deuterium, which turned out to be a way of producing isotopes other than deuterium. The problem was that while the concentration of deuterium in the universe is consistent with the Big Bang model as a whole, it is too high to be consistent with a model that presumes that most of the universe consists of protons and neutrons. If one assumes that all of the universe consists of protons and neutrons, the density of the universe is such that much of the currently observed deuterium would have been burned into helium-4.

This inconsistency between observations of deuterium and observations of the expansion rate of the universe led to a large effort to find processes that could produce deuterium. After a decade of effort, the consensus was that these processes are unlikely, and the standard explanation now used for the abundance of deuterium is that the universe does not consist mostly of baryons, and that non-baryonic matter (also known as dark matter) makes up most of the matter mass of the universe. This explanation is also consistent with calculations that show that a universe made mostly of protons and neutrons would be far more clumpy than is observed.

But then they figured out that if you ask the question with different parameters(that are also flawed) then you get a better match, but you now you have other problems.

More recently, the question has changed: Precision observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation[5][6] with the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) give an independent value for the baryon-to-photon ratio. Using this value, are the BBN predictions for the abundances of light elements in agreement with the observations?

The present measurement of helium-4 indicates good agreement, and yet better agreement for helium-3. But for lithium-7, there is a significant discrepancy between BBN and WMAP, and the abundance derived from Population II stars. The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4―4.3. and is considered a problem for the original models[7], that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the intensities of 7Be(n,p)7Li versus 7Be(d,p)8Be[8].

Revise the reevaluation until it fits the revised reevaluation.

 

[brantc]

Do you also have a cheese moon theory?

No fn cheese on the moon. Only rocks dirt and vacuum with stupid electrons, protons and heavy metal ions with a mass greater than 2.

 

[brantc]

Sunspots appear as dark spots on the surface of the Sun. Temperatures in the dark centers of sunspots drop to about 3700 K (compared to 5700 K for the surrounding photosphere). They typically last for several days, although very large ones may live for several weeks.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/feature1.shtml


Lowest sunspot temp in the literature 3180K
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1991BAICz..42..250S


First ionization energy of iron.
7.9024eV

7.9024eV equates to 11,000K per eV or 77,000K degrees by the time iron becomes a plasma. This is happening on the surface in the loop footprints as well as "solar moss" to a lower degree..

The boiling points for various metals:
Fe: 3134 K (2861 °C)
Cr: 2944 K (2671 °C)
Ni: 3186 K (2913 °C)

So looking at the average temp that is generated on the surface is a combination of factors. The sparseness of high temperature events and the averaging of the satellites that measure the output of the sun.

If you could spot measure the surface of the sun with better areal precision, my prediction is that you will find a greater variation across the surface in temperatures that range from hot iron to plasma. We will have to wait a few years until they launch the solar probe.

 

[brantc]

A solid shell is going to form during a massive explossion? Yeah, not so much.

From wiki supernova(parroting the standard view.)
"Massive stars generate energy by the nuclear fusion of elements. Unlike the Sun, these stars possess the mass needed to fuse elements that have an atomic mass greater than hydrogen and helium. The star evolves to accommodate the fusion of these accumulating, higher mass elements, until finally a core of iron is produced."

This core of iron is hollow because of the rebound effect? Its hollow because of (a different model of) gravity?

Martian "Blueberries" in the Lab

Plasma physicist uses electric arcs to replicate the mysterious spherules on the Red Planet.

"Even before this Picture of the Day was written, the plasma physicist CJ Ransom, of Vemasat Laboratories, had set up an experiment to test the electrical explanation of concretions and Martian blueberries. He obtained a quantity of hematite and blasted it with an electric arc. The results are seen in the right half of the image above. The embedded spheres created by the arc appear to replicate many of the features of the blueberries on Mars. No other laboratory process has achieved a similar result. It should encourage further experiments using higher energies."
http://absimage.aps.org/image/MWS_APR05-2004-000006.pdf

So if you scale up you may have the same effect.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
That's an understatement. A shell is gravitationally unstable. Any perturbation and it will collapse inward. Hell, given the pressures involved, you probably wouldn't even need perturbations, the iron would simply start to flow. To stabilize an iron shell, you'd need a theory of gravity which is not only completely new, but which contradicts experimental evidence.

You would need a new theory of gravity, one that takes into account experimental evidence as well as accounts for the shell, which is not as radical as you would think. Maybe gravity is surface effect!!!!

From Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction
4. Cycloids and gravity
http://davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm#g4

Actually, some stars have almost no metal, certainly not enough to form a solid shell.

From the outside, if you do spectroscopic measurements, thats what one would think. You would never see the metallicity of a black body, only the spectrum of the surrounding plasma.

Not so much, actually.

See above.

A pinch produces a cylinder, not a sphere.

In a high current z-pinch you have "instabilities" along the column that form "knots". These knots are the precursor to stars. In the case of a supernova its only one.

 

[HansMustermann]

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to tell us with that sunspots post. I thought the woo story was that the iron is cool enough to be solid and only the atmosphere is hot?

Because if they're on the surface, the problems are just beginning. Basically if it's iron:

- you have an empty shell that ought to be at most 7% of the sun's radius in thickness, with a looong way to go below it.

- And there are sunspots ranging all the way to 20 Earths in size. (See, for example: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/0723sunspots.html ) Quick mental calculation, that's around the order of magnitude of 250,000 km in size.

- That's about 5 times wider a pool of boiling iron than the maximum thickness we calculated for that iron shell

- iron conducts heat very well

- and it lasted for many days

So basically how doesn't it melt the metal shell below it, and fall in?

And btw, smaller ones, "only" up to 80,000 km diameter are actually somewhat more common. They happen often enough. Again, they're actually wider than the thickness of that supposed iron shell.

 

[HansMustermann]

You would need a new theory of gravity, one that takes into account experimental evidence as well as accounts for the shell, which is not as radical as you would think. Maybe gravity is surface effect!!!!

You do realize, I hope, that GR has been pretty extensively tested by now. It would take more than, basically, "but we need to change it to make this unsupported woo work" to make it need changing.

 

[CaveDave]

Absolutely. I made that one up. Its a combination of the "dark" electron flow and the Faraday Dark space.
Now what would you call the electron flow across the Dark Space???
So yeah I took a liberty. Is it technically incorrect?

I thought you might have made that up, since it didn't appear to be a commonly used term.

It could be technically "correct", but I have never run across it before and have never claimed to be a solar/astro/plasma physicist, I have no way to judge if it is acceptable.

Cheers,

Dave