# THE PHOTOSPHERE OF THE SUN

## Recommended Posts

It isn't' a Clean calculation because many Elements in the thin mash including , .... Carbon and Sulfur with a differing half life. I have seen the Binding Energy analyses of fusion. So go ahead and give me the results of your methods using all mash combos.

Explain why the presence of other elements is going to matter. The reaction takes the same amount of energy whether or not there is some other element present somewhere else, that is not involved in the reaction.

##### Share on other sites

You are off track here. I say that there is a minute amount of Ni / iron.... in the Sun. some in the Core some in the Photosphere. So you have badgered the point enough here. I am interested in its insulating properties ....

The Star Models are here in this lecture. http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/ASTR100/class21.pdf

What can I say. You are not reading properly. bye for now.

ps : where did I say this nonsence???? we already have weapons, but we don't have a reliable energy supply

No, The nonsense you said (among others) was "Their interest is Weapons and not a Electric utility."

I was pointing out that the scientists are not interested in making weapons (which we already have) as much as they are interested in getting fusion power (which we don't have).

BTW, very few things have meaningful "insulating properties" under those conditions: photons and electrons are capable of carrying lots of energy about and the presence of a scrap of iron won't make any difference.

##### Share on other sites

No, The nonsense you said (among others) was "Their interest is Weapons and not a Electric utility."

I was pointing out that the scientists are not interested in making weapons (which we already have) as much as they are interested in getting fusion power (which we don't have).

BTW, very few things have meaningful "insulating properties" under those conditions: photons and electrons are capable of carrying lots of energy about and the presence of a scrap of iron won't make any difference.

Have it your way, I'll stick to mine that Weapons gets the Lyon's share of fusion dollars.

btw reply: Something in the Photosphere is containing the energy from core. What; ..... we don't know?? Magnetic flux, fusion the phasing jumps of Fe, Ni, Si, N ..... who knows.

##### Share on other sites

Something in the Photosphere is containing the energy from core. What; ..... we don't know?? Magnetic flux, fusion the phasing jumps of Fe, Ni, Si, N ..... who knows.

The way how light and heat is radiating from the sun should show that the energy is not contained in a way that can be controlled by us. (hint: there was no control)

##### Share on other sites

It isn't' a Clean calculation because many Elements in the thin mash including , .... Carbon and Sulfur with a differing half life. I have seen the Binding Energy analyses of fusion. So go ahead and give me the results of your methods using all mash combos.

Then forget the photosphere and show me the calculation that shows that Silicon can fuse into Iron at all under those conditions.

Let me save you the trouble: It can't. It violates the laws of physics. So unless you have some damned amazing math to back up your claims, we're done here.

On the other hand, if you do have such math available, I'd go ahead and pack for your trip to Oslo.

##### Share on other sites

The way how light and heat is radiating from the sun should show that the energy is not contained in a way that can be controlled by us. (hint: there was no control)

hello melllinia.

Light and heat are transmitted thru the Photosphere by the circulating storms at the equatorial belt. To control this and other factors, it is proposed to rotate the Reactor thru a magnetic field. Thus producing a dynamo also withh the iron in the P-h shell. And use the light as a laser feed and control.

Then forget the photosphere and show me the calculation that shows that Silicon can fuse into Iron at all under those conditions.

Let me save you the trouble: It can't. It violates the laws of physics. So unless you have some damned amazing math to back up your claims, we're done here.

On the other hand, if you do have such math available, I'd go ahead and pack for your trip to Oslo.

hello again:

I am neither a Nuclear Engineer nor a Priest. I have seen the calcs in the Binding Energy Analysis and use the fact that Si ... Fe Fusion occurs in stars 8X the Sun and larger. Our Sun has Iron and is a dynamo. The miraculous entity, if you will, is that the Photosphere is there. Shielding 14m dK down to around 4000 dK. Your crummy equation won't predict it nor compute it's fusion elements. BUT IT IS THERE ANYWAY. I SEEM TO LEAN ON OBSERVATION than my iMAC.

Edited by zorro
##### Share on other sites

Just checking, you do know that iron isn't magnetic once it's above about red hot,don't you?

So making dynamos out of it in the sun would be silly.

"Something in the Photosphere is containing the energy from core. What; ..... we don't know??"

No it isn't.

If it was the sun wouldn't shine.

We don't need to speculate about what causes an effect that doesn't happen.

The sun follows the laws of physics as we know them.

If you want to show otherwise, please start with finding out what those laws predict, then show how reality differs.

(that requires you to learn the physics first)

Edited by John Cuthber
##### Share on other sites

Just checking, you do know that iron isn't magnetic once it's above about red hot,don't you?

So making dynamos out of it in the sun would be silly.

"Something in the Photosphere is containing the energy from core. What; ..... we don't know??"

No it isn't.

If it was the sun wouldn't shine.

We don't need to speculate about what causes an effect that doesn't happen.

The sun follows the laws of physics as we know them.

If you want to show otherwise, please start with finding out what those laws predict, then show how reality differs.

(that requires you to learn the physics first)

hello john

WHAT !!!! the sun is a tremendous Dynamo and when iron is compressed back around its triple point phase it turns on it's Magnet.

Sir, you may realize that properties of materials vary according with their temp vs pressure characteristics.

You likewise confuse the rest of your conversation with basket-weaving I would guess. ...... Go back to your basics and return your edu. degrees is the only hope for us.

Edited by zorro
##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

zorro,

Please do not lower yourself to personal insults. This is a scientific discussion, and we will not accept any personal attacks. Calling somebody 'sir', and then insulting them does not make it any better.

##### Share on other sites

hello melllinia.

Light and heat are transmitted thru the Photosphere by the circulating storms at the equatorial belt. To control this and other factors, it is proposed to rotate the Reactor thru a magnetic field. Thus producing a dynamo also withh the iron in the P-h shell. And use the light as a laser feed and control.

By containing the light and heat, we mean to completely enclose it in a space where no light and heat will escape so that we can fully utilise every energy available. The sun just radiates the light and heat away in the way of photons.

##### Share on other sites

hello again:

I am neither a Nuclear Engineer nor a Priest. I have seen the calcs in the Binding Energy Analysis and use the fact that Si ... Fe Fusion occurs in stars 8X the Sun and larger. Our Sun has Iron and is a dynamo. The miraculous entity, if you will, is that the Photosphere is there. Shielding 14m dK down to around 4000 dK. Your crummy equation won't predict it nor compute it's fusion elements. BUT IT IS THERE ANYWAY. I SEEM TO LEAN ON OBSERVATION than my iMAC.

What does being a priest and/or a nuclear engineer have to do with anything?

I'm not a monkey trainer, but I know that Si -> Fe fusion only happens above a certain temperate and pressure. Since the sun does not contain those pressures or temperatures anywhere inside it, including in the core, it is therefore physically impossible for Si -> Fe fusion to take place inside the sun.

I am going to move that the moderators lock this thread unless you can actually come up with something besides hand waving to support your idea.

In short, provide some evidence for your position, or please stop trying to defend it.

Edited by Greg H.
##### Share on other sites

What does being a priest and/or a nuclear engineer have to do with anything?

I'm not a monkey trainer, but I know that Si -> Fe fusion only happens above a certain temperate and pressure. Since the sun does not contain those pressures or temperatures anywhere inside it, including in the core, it is therefore physically impossible for Si -> Fe fusion to take place inside the sun.

I am going to move that the moderators lock this thread unless you can actually come up with something besides hand waving to support your idea.

In short, provide some evidence for your position, or please stop trying to defend it.

hollo again greg,

You keep asking for a thesis style conversation when none can be done in your way by a non Nuclear Engineer or Priest. All; in a open thread, as is this one is, understand how I use the language in this way.

Si to Fe can go many ways depending on the isotopes and hydrogen bindings. You seem to be a purest here and won't reveal how the steps are to get there.

Go ahead and complain to a MOD if you wish. I chose this SPECULATION Thread to turn back attacks such as yours and allow a General member to be comfortable from critics such as you.

!

Moderator Note

zorro,

Please do not lower yourself to personal insults. This is a scientific discussion, and we will not accept any personal attacks. Calling somebody 'sir', and then insulting them does not make it any better.

Sorry

No insults here. Just ribbing because he forgets pressure impacts iron magnetic properties.

CHILL Cap, .... zorro

Edited by zorro
##### Share on other sites

hollo again greg,

Go ahead and complain to a MOD if you wish. I chose this SPECULATION Thread to turn back attacks such as yours and allow a General member to be comfortable from critics such as you.

I was unaware that asking for evidence to back up a claim about science (especially one that deviates significantly from accepted theory) was somehow attacking you or anyone else. How do scientists get through their days with all of these "attacks" without succumbing to the constant barrage and running off to hide.

Oh, right. They provide evidence. Or at least a mathematical model that supports their claims. You've provided neither. You've made claims that fly in the face of accepted stellar theories and provided not a shred of either evidence or math to back them up. When asked to do so, you simply wave your hands like a magician while screaming "I'm being oppressed! I'm being oppressed!" in a vain attempt to evoke some kind of sympathy to a plight for which you have only yourself to blame.

I'll (vainly) ask you one last time. Kindly provide some kind - any kind - of evidence or mathematical support for your claims. It doesn't even have to be your own work. A journal article - a random letter from a magazine. Something a kid scribbled on the back of a napkin in crayon which has somehow convinced you that science is wrong and you are right would be more than you have presented so far.

My conversation with you so far can be summarized as:

"The sun fuses Silicon into Iron in the photosphere!"

"No, it doesn't."

"Yes it does."

"The sun doesn't have enough pressure or temperature to do that."

"But it happens anyway."

"And your evidence for that is....?"

"Stop attacking me!"

##### Share on other sites

I was unaware that asking for evidence to back up a claim about science (especially one that deviates significantly from accepted theory) was somehow attacking you or anyone else. How do scientists get through their days with all of these "attacks" without succumbing to the constant barrage and running off to hide.

Oh, right. They provide evidence. Or at least a mathematical model that supports their claims. You've provided neither. You've made claims that fly in the face of accepted stellar theories and provided not a shred of either evidence or math to back them up. When asked to do so, you simply wave your hands like a magician while screaming "I'm being oppressed! I'm being oppressed!" in a vain attempt to evoke some kind of sympathy to a plight for which you have only yourself to blame.

I'll (vainly) ask you one last time. Kindly provide some kind - any kind - of evidence or mathematical support for your claims. It doesn't even have to be your own work. A journal article - a random letter from a magazine. Something a kid scribbled on the back of a napkin in crayon which has somehow convinced you that science is wrong and you are right would be more than you have presented so far.

My conversation with you so far can be summarized as:

"The sun fuses Silicon into Iron in the photosphere!"

"No, it doesn't."

"Yes it does."

"The sun doesn't have enough pressure or temperature to do that."

"But it happens anyway."

"And your evidence for that is....?"

"Stop attacking me!"

I was unaware that asking for evidence to back up a claim about science (especially one that deviates significantly from accepted theory) was somehow attacking you or anyone else. How do scientists get through their days with all of these "attacks" without succumbing to the constant barrage and running off to hide.

Asking for something that we both know is either wrong or not attainable is an unacceptable trick but not a attack. Some of it is valid levity.

Oh, right. They provide evidence. Or at least a mathematical model that supports their claims. You've provided neither. You've made claims that fly in the face of accepted stellar theories and provided not a shred of either evidence or math to back them up. When asked to do so, you simply wave your hands like a magician while screaming "I'm being oppressed! I'm being oppressed!" in a vain attempt to evoke some kind of sympathy to a plight for which you have only yourself to blame.

I have provided much evidence . Please see the OP down to Post #3. You just ask for trickery backup wherein you have the data but won't reveal it in advance.

I'll (vainly) ask you one last time. Kindly provide some kind - any kind - of evidence or mathematical support for your claims. It doesn't even have to be your own work. A journal article - a random letter from a magazine. Something a kid scribbled on the back of a napkin in crayon which has somehow convinced you that science is wrong and you are right would be more than you have presented so far.

I pointed you to the "Binding Energy" analysis that you refuse to accept frankly. You can do your own google and homework. The Photosphere is a vast unknown and I too have many more questions than you have answers.

Edited by zorro
##### Share on other sites

hello john

WHAT !!!! the sun is a tremendous Dynamo and when iron is compressed back around its triple point phase it turns on it's Magnet.

Sir, you may realize that properties of materials vary according with their temp vs pressure characteristics.

You likewise confuse the rest of your conversation with basket-weaving I would guess. ...... Go back to your basics and return your edu. degrees is the only hope for us.

The sun ism in a sense a big dynamo.

However that has nothing to do with iron (which is just as well, there's not a lot of iron there).

You need to look more carefully at the idea of a triple point, it's got next to nothing to do with a curie point.

Hot iron simply isn't magnetic at any high temperature (regardless of pressure) because the thermal energy is much bigger than the energy associated with the domain dipoles.

Also, any iron in the sun is in a fluid state, (the distinction between plasma liquid and gas is a bit fuzzy, but it doesn't matter).

Fluids are, at best, paramagnetic so iron would have no advantage over, for example, hydrogen which is also paramagnetic under those conditions.

Perhaps, you should stop making any new unsupported assertions until you have come up with some semblance of evidence for those you have already made.

##### Share on other sites

The sun ism in a sense a big dynamo.

However that has nothing to do with iron (which is just as well, there's not a lot of iron there).

You need to look more carefully at the idea of a triple point, it's got next to nothing to do with a curie point.

Hot iron simply isn't magnetic at any high temperature (regardless of pressure) because the thermal energy is much bigger than the energy associated with the domain dipoles.

Also, any iron in the sun is in a fluid state, (the distinction between plasma liquid and gas is a bit fuzzy, but it doesn't matter).

Fluids are, at best, paramagnetic so iron would have no advantage over, for example, hydrogen which is also paramagnetic under those conditions.

Perhaps, you should stop making any new unsupported assertions until you have come up with some semblance of evidence for those you have already made.

You forget to report that as materials go thru the stage points and curie point, there is a transfer of energy. That and a transfer of magnetism and electrical currents are another properties that Iron and a few Elements offer.

Which leads to the $64,000 question, what is the Photosphere composed of and what state are they in ??? Edited by zorro ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites I am going to put this as absolutely simply as I can. You have made the claim that, contrary to the laws of physics as we understand them, our Sun is somehow fusing Silicon into Iron, despite being far too small to actually do so. Do you have any evidence or any mathematical model (even one you can link to from someone else) that supports this claim? I'm not saying it has to be right - but at this point in the discussion you need something aside from "Because that's what I think" as a response, or we're done here. ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites You forget to report that as materials go thru the stage points and curie point, there is a transfer of energy. That and a transfer of magnetism and electrical currents are another properties that Iron and a few Elements offer. Which leads to the$64,000 question, what is the Photosphere composed of and what state are they in ???

Nope, you have forgotten something, well quite a lot of things really.

Unless they were condensed down into metallic iron, they never were magnetised so they never had the magnetic energy to lose.

If they had then that energy is (as I pointed out, but you didn't seem to understand) tiny compared ti the thermal energies involved.

"Which leads to the $64,000 question, what is the Photosphere composed of and what state are they in ???" The answer is in the box just to the right of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Characteristics Which leads to the$64,000 question, what is the Photosphere composed of and what state are they in ???

The state is a plasma at about 5000K and a density of about 2E-4 kg/m^3

Can I have my 64,000$now please? Edited by John Cuthber ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites ! Moderator Note Zorro Final Warning. You do not get to soap-box and ignore calls for evidence. Continuing to claim that a state of scientific ignorance exists when members are providing you with detailed explanations of the known science is rude, against the spirit of a proper debate, and contrary to our rules. Now - either provide evidence from serious sources regarding your claims and stop soapboxing or this thread will be closed. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread - report this post if you feel it is unfair. ##### Link to comment ##### Share on other sites Nope, you have forgotten something, well quite a lot of things really. Unless they were condensed down into metallic iron, they never were magnetised so they never had the magnetic energy to lose. If they had then that energy is (as I pointed out, but you didn't seem to understand) tiny compared ti the thermal energies involved. "Which leads to the$64,000 question, what is the Photosphere composed of and what state are they in ???"

The answer is in the box just to the right of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Characteristics

Which leads to the $64,000 question, what is the Photosphere composed of and what state are they in ??? The state is a plasma at about 5000K and a density of about 2E-4 kg/m^3 Can I have my 64,000$ now please?

Nope, no shares of the \$64,000 (Yours is 1Buck) until I get the Nobel ... Ha

Moderator

Admitting that we Scientists and Engineers don't have all the answers is not a Slam. It is a compliment that the universe is complex but that humans continue to investigate the many unknowns using the scientific method.

Ciao, Zorro

I am going to put this as absolutely simply as I can.

You have made the claim that, contrary to the laws of physics as we understand them, our Sun is somehow fusing Silicon into Iron, despite being far too small to actually do so.

Do you have any evidence or any mathematical model (even one you can link to from someone else) that supports this claim? I'm not saying it has to be right - but at this point in the discussion you need something aside from "Because that's what I think" as a response, or we're done here.

Greg my man, Well zap me with a -10 Rep. ....ha

If you chance to read me once in a while I spoke of going from Si to Fe but not directly; then gave a cut of a large Star showing fusing as it gets closer to the Core. Step of Si, S .... Fe or sloshing in a Si .... Fe mix. I also said that a Si Burning process is also a possibility.

zorro

Fusion flow examples:

http://nrumiano.free.fr/Estars/supernova.html

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec18.html

Edited by zorro
##### Share on other sites

"If you chance to read me once in a while I spoke of going from Si to Fe but not directly; then gave a cut of a large Star "

So not the sun, which isn't large as stars go.

And, even that picture shows the outer layers (where the photosphere is) as non-burning

That would explain why you can't provide evidence and are talking nonsense.

##### Share on other sites

"If you chance to read me once in a while I spoke of going from Si to Fe but not directly; then gave a cut of a large Star "

So not the sun, which isn't large as stars go.

And, even that picture shows the outer layers (where the photosphere is) as non-burning

That would explain why you can't provide evidence and are talking nonsense.

hi, jojo,

Well nobody is perfect, especially me. I am reading you but we are not in sync yet.

Large stars describes going from Si ... Fe in a exaggeration more than the sun to clarify my point of Si .... Fe .

The Sun has Fe thus could have Fusion in its past.

That is an insert to show fusion layering not the Photosphere.

Whole post is as perfect as is I.

I provide, you don't understand yet due to higher expectations on a SPECULATION post.

zorro

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

None of these sites support your claim regarding SOLAR fusion of Silicon.

hi, jojo,

Well nobody is perfect, especially me. I am reading you but we are not in sync yet.

Large stars describes going from Si ... Fe in a exaggeration more than the sun to clarify my point of Si .... Fe .

The Sun has Fe thus could have Fusion in its past.

That is an insert to show fusion layering not the Photosphere.

Whole post is as perfect as is I.

I provide, you don't understand yet due to higher expectations on a SPECULATION post.

zorro

But we do expect more from a speculations post. We expect claims to be backed up. All you have done is trumpeted your claims and provided website addresses that fail to even address the same question. It is clear from your comments that this is not a subject you in which you understand even the basics, yet you continue to preach and make little to no effort to provide reasoning or references; this is not acceptable.

thread locked. do not open another on the same subject.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
×

• #### Activity

×
• Create New...