Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[ben m]

FYI, I missed this post earlier. That is highly *unlikely* IMO, especially since the surface is discharging to the heliosphere *THROUGH* the neon. What makes you think *any* of the neon will be in the ground state?

1) Who cares? The second ionization energy for Ne is *also* accessible to 171 A photons, so Ne II also contributes to continuum absorption. Do you want be to look up the cross section? From the physics (Ne II is more polarizable than Ne I) I expect the cross section to be similar or perhaps slightly larger.

2) Sol just showed you that your photons are absorbed by the first 3.5 meters of Ne I. If you imagine (absurdly) that 99% of the neon is so highly ionized that it contributes (absurdly) nothing to the opacity, then your photons are absorbed by the first 350 meters instead. Go ahead and plug that into the exponential yourself. 1 km of this stuff is still opaque.

3) Do you have any idea how absurd it is to suppose that some discharge has managed to fully ionize this plasma without heating it up? Do you want anything in this system to obey any of the laws of physics?

 

[sol invictus]

FYI, I missed this post earlier. That is highly *unlikely* IMO, especially since the surface is discharging to the heliosphere *THROUGH* the neon.

This wasn't about the sun, Michael, remember? It was about a plasma at some temperature, density, and atomic composition - with no mention of any electrical discharges. Do you agree with me that the plasma - given your preferred values (90% Ne by mass, T~6000K, and density ~10^-7 g/cm^3) - has the opacity to 171A radiation that I calculated? Do you agree with me (and the laws of thermodynamics) that in such a plasma, nearly all the Ne will be un-ionized and in its ground state?

If so, we can move on and consider what happens if there are ionizing electrical discharges added in to this plasma as well. If not, we need to resolve that first. OK?

 

[sol invictus]

1) Who cares? The second ionization energy for Ne is *also* accessible to 171 A photons, so Ne II also contributes to continuum absorption.

So does doubly ionized Ne, for that matter. http://www.chemicool.com/elements/neon.html

 

[GeeMack]

Do you want anything in this system to obey any of the laws of physics?

He does not. If you use any real laws of physics it fails on every level.

 

[GeeMack]

2) Sol just showed you that your photons are absorbed by the first 3.5 meters of Ne I. If you imagine (absurdly) that 99% of the neon is so highly ionized that it contributes (absurdly) nothing to the opacity, then your photons are absorbed by the first 350 meters instead. Go ahead and plug that into the exponential yourself. 1 km of this stuff is still opaque.

So one kilometer of Michael's fictionalized solar atmosphere is opaque to 171Å light any way you work it, and he claims to see a surface through 3000 kilometers of it. Dam. Start with impossible times 3, then go a few orders of magnitude deeper. Is that the numbers you come up with, Michael, in your quest to, how did you put it...

Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math.

... do a little math to destroy mainstream solar theory?

​

 

[Michael Mozina]

So does doubly ionized Ne, for that matter. http://www.chemicool.com/elements/neon.html

Virtually every electric solar theory I've every read suggests a 10^10 volt range. How much neon do you figure is going to exist in the lower ionization states with those kinds of voltages?

 

[Michael Mozina]

1) Who cares?

Who cares? Really? You guys are amazing. I swore I wasn't going to waste my day here again today, but here I am, talking to people who act like the *CONDITIONS* and the rest of the model can be utterly ignored. This is not fun.

 

[ben m]

We were calculating whether or not 3000 km of neon is or is not opaque to 17nm UV light. A neutral neon plasma is opaque, a Ne II plasma is also opaque, a Ne III plasma is also opaque. Therefore, I don't care what the ionization state is for the purpose of answering this question. Understand?

 

[ben m]

Virtually every electric solar theory I've every read suggests a 10^10 volt range. How much neon do you figure is going to exist in the lower ionization states with those kinds of voltages?

Divide 10^10 volts by the number of mean free paths for an electron between the anode and the cathode. That tells you the typical electron kinetic energy in such a discharge. Lightning on Earth, for example, might be 10^10 V , extending a kilometer (10^3 m) in an environment where the mean free path is 100nm (10^-7m) so a "typical" electron in this current is about one volt---amazingly, about the same as the temperature of the gas which is heated up along a such lightning strike. (Unsurprisingly, because that's how thermodynamics works.) And that one-volt-per-electron current ends up ionizing (singly) a small fraction of the gas in its path. Yep, thermodynamics works again.

Or do you mean 10^10 electron volts is the typical thermal energy of a solar photosphere electron? I sure hope you don't.

 

[Ziggurat]

Virtually every electric solar theory I've every read suggests a 10^10 volt range.

Yeah, not so much, Michael. Once again, simple calculations demonstrate the impossibility of such potentials on the sun. The sun would explode at relativistic speeds under such a scenario.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Photosphere Electric Field

Virtually every electric solar theory I've every read suggests a 10^10 volt range. How much neon do you figure is going to exist in the lower ionization states with those kinds of voltages?

10¹⁰ Volts is allegedly the total potential difference between the Sun and the "ground" potential of the interstellar medium (i.e., "infinity"). The electric field in the photosphere will be measured in Volts/meter. So, 10¹⁰ Volts over 1 km would be 10⁷ Volts/meter & etc. So, what do you think the electric field in the photosphere is supposed to be, in Volts/meter?

 

[GeeMack]

Who cares? Really? You guys are amazing. I swore I wasn't going to waste my day here again today, but here I am, talking to people who act like the *CONDITIONS* and the rest of the model can be utterly ignored. This is not fun.

So your position seems to be if we assume a whole list of physically impossible things are true, we then must conclude that your ludicrous claim about the surface of the Sun is true. You know this whole process would be much more efficient if you'd dispense with postulating all the impossible conditions and just take the shortest route:

If we assume there is a solid iron surface about 3500 kilometers deep in the atmosphere of the Sun, we can then conclude that there is a solid iron surface some 3500 kilometers into the solar atmosphere.​

See how simple? If you're going to start with impossible premises to try to establish the truth of a demonstrably impossible claim, don't you agree it would be sheer idiocy to not just start with the conclusion?

 

[Dancing David]

FYI, I missed this post earlier. That is highly *unlikely* IMO, especially since the surface is discharging to the heliosphere *THROUGH* the neon. What makes you think *any* of the neon will be in the ground state?

Michael, the temperature of the upper layer of the sun in not high enough to ionize Neon.

 

[Dancing David]

Virtually every electric solar theory I've every read suggests a 10^10 volt range. How much neon do you figure is going to exist in the lower ionization states with those kinds of voltages?

Then the temperature would be much higher than 6,000°, so that is another problem MM.

If the temperature is 6,000° then the Neon in not very ionized.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, the temperature of the upper layer of the sun in not high enough to ionize Neon.

I don't have access to my copy of the SERTS data from where I am right now, and it looks like the SERTS link is now offline, so I can't post the link at the moment. I will upload my copy of the SERTS data and post it later today or tomorrow. In there you'll find all sorts of highly ionized neon ions emitting most of the light, and little or no light from the lower ionization states, so that concept simply doesn't fly.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, the temperature of the upper layer of the sun in not high enough to ionize Neon.

It's not the "temperatures" that ionizes the neon, it's the "current flow" that does that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This wasn't about the sun, Michael, remember? It was about a plasma at some temperature, density, and atomic composition - with no mention of any electrical discharges. Do you agree with me that the plasma - given your preferred values (90% Ne by mass, T~6000K, and density ~10^-7 g/cm^3) - has the opacity to 171A radiation that I calculated? Do you agree with me (and the laws of thermodynamics) that in such a plasma, nearly all the Ne will be un-ionized and in its ground state?

Yes. If there were no current flows to consider, and that layer was not actively in "glow mode", your numbers would be correct. Given the circumstances however, they are not correct. Virtually *none* of the neon exist in a non ionized state, and according to the SERTS data, most of the light comes from highly ionized forms of neon even in the sun's "quiet" phases.

If so, we can move on and consider what happens if there are ionizing electrical discharges added in to this plasma as well. If not, we need to resolve that first. OK?

I'm fine with your methods, but we have to consider the discharge processes.

 

[GeeMack]

Yes. If there were no current flows to consider, and that layer was not actively in "glow mode", your numbers would be correct. Given the circumstances however, they are not correct. Virtually *none* of the neon exist in a non ionized state, and according to the SERTS data, most of the light comes from highly ionized forms of neon even in the sun's "quiet" phases.



I'm fine with your methods, but we have to consider the discharge processes.

Oh, I thought you said you were going to do the math, and now you're abandoning that. Did you decide you don't have the necessary math skills to destroy mainstream solar theory?

 

[GeeMack]

It's not the "temperatures" that ionizes the neon, it's the "current flow" that does that.

Current flow? Care to bring that up to your own standards of evidence?...

Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [notion] out of your ^ss.

 

[ben m]

Yes. If there were no current flows to consider, and that layer was not actively in "glow mode", your numbers would be correct. Given the circumstances however, they are not correct. Virtually *none* of the neon exist in a non ionized state, and according to the SERTS data, most of the light comes from highly ionized forms of neon even in the sun's "quiet" phases.

You're violating thermodynamics again.

A) Start with a 6000K near-neutral plasma. It has an equipartition energy of about 0.5 eV per electron.
B) Put enough current through it to ionize every atom. That's > 20 eV per electron, or 2 megajoules per mole (!!). After ~one mean free path this energy gets virialized---shared between ionization potentials, kinetic energy, excitations, etc.
C) Now you don't have a 6000K plasma, you have a 240,000K plasma.

Is the photosphere a 240,000K plasma? No. Therefore there is not now and has never been a large ionized neon fraction.