dalemiller

We really have a south magnetic pole amid the Artic Circle (That is on our left when we face East.) If we just spin the earth Eastward and charge the earth with a negative charge, that would do to produce a South magnetic pole up North. I tried it and it works!

The immediate reduction of voltage across the battery terminals when a load has just been connected doesn't much occur from draining. As a battery weakens, its internal resistance increases. A voltage divider action places the open cell voltage across the battery's internal resistance in series with the load resistance shunted by the meter. IR drop across the internal resistance is a voltage that is subtracted from the open cell voltage. That reduced potential is all that remains across the load resistance.

Agreed that solar temperature is well regulated short of the additional fusion occasioned during sun spot activity. A surge of energy that gets tucked away as potential energy (by lifting of overbearing matter) precludes regenerative activity simply by circumventing influx of heat per se. We can distract ourselves from such equilibrium by switching our mental focus upon concurrent activities as though they were serial events, but "steady" and "oscillating" are sort of opposites. The 11 year cycle does not effect regulated fusion, but rather, entails the additional fusion in seasons of regulation disturbances from vortex activity. Hear tell it might be tied to a 22 year magnetic toggle, but it should pretty much tie in to just how all the stuff slops around on the sun. All the babble about the cooling of gas from adiabatic expansion was just a counterproductive circus. If something is cooled as fast as it is heated there will be no change. That doesn't seem to take us anywhere. No harm no foul.

1. A barber or manicurist with the bad news from doctor? or 2. An electronic limiter circuit arranged to slice off the top of a waveform?

What confused me was that I figured everyone would understand that plasma was expanding because it was getting heated, and that heating is directly the opposite process to cooling. If the majority rules, then my answer doesn't cut the mustard, but if truth should prevail, then it is just as valid upon the tongue of a sadly soiled old sack of spaghetti. Expanding bubbles in ginger ale pose a good example of the adiabatic expansion you are thinking of. Those bubbles are not getting heated that much on the way up to the beverage surface. There, the product of volume and pressure hold constant. They do cool all the way up. Your rule that cooling occurs during expansion for any reason does not hold. Anything that gets heated more than it is getting chilled is likely to get hotter, or at least warmer. You tried to help me, and that was very kind. Keep on doing good deeds and forgive those who might seem ungrateful. Take a good look at this thread. A scientific forum means a lot of different things to different folks, but one’s last expectations would be that it should seek to stifle communications. One moderator has even warned me he has no time for the words of a nobody. Only a somebody is to be heeded. How did he gain such contempt without having read my words? I must conclude that a back room session on me has founded his opinion, or else he checks us out in Who is Who. Has civilization lost all giants with the refreshing morality of a Richard Feynman or good old Isaac Asimov? If anybody can, just give me a name! Perhaps it grates on experts to suppose that a nobody thinks he knows something that they don’t. Touche, right on. I know what causes sunspots and have revealed that on this very forum thread that brought me to it. More fundementally, I came to the science forum convinced that it would help our pysicists to hear out my reasons for a conviction that all shining stars would hold positive central cores devoid of electrons. How is it that no one, scientist or layman, has come forward to acknowledge validity or with valid challenge for my initial premise toward such a conclusion? That premise: The earth bears a negative charge that is manifested by the Fair Weather Current (FWC). A single person bearing tenuous contradictions has been the sole responder, and we just go round and round ‘till the spin makes me dizzy. A pattern within this thread has now demonstrated that the authority figure hounding my efforts has a following that curry his favor. That is not his fault, but there doesn’t seem to be any other traffic on this forum. Doesn’t that tell us that something is stifling us in here? I am proud of the forum for having delivered to me an understanding of stellar hot fusion control, but amazed that my benifactors nevertheless fall short of rationality. A ring of well-meaning advisors surround me with some identical and some similar council that amongst a venue of fusing plasma, application of (extra) heat to the mix causes expansion of the gas (plasma) (so far so good) resulting in a cooling of said gas (hold the phone). The ideal gas law is invoked that limits itself to manipulations devoid of heat transfer. It seems fair enough to algebraically concede a decrementing term toward resulting gas temperature, but the adiabatic tailspins encountered in this thread engender nothing but vertigo.

I was lying, but in the line of duty. I needed to draw some of you guys out to debate issues. It has been seven years since I tried to tell NSF what I had noodled out about lightning (it is really quite simple) but they were too busy. Heard tell why just the other day. With threats of science falling into the grips of the underworld, desperation should be understandable. I do apologize and admit that I marvel at how much material you moderators handle. No worries. Getting so much of both is getting monotonous.

I don't think so granpa. You are on the wrong side. I cleaned their clocks. The ideal gas law is for adiabatic circumstances. Look it up in your Funk and Wagnal, or seriously, in Google. Since adding energy to anything is a questionable way to cool it, all the kings horses and all of the kings men could never explain such preposterous claim. I won! At first they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they attack you. Then you win. My concern has long been merely to show what intuitive familiarity of electronics showed me about cosmic structure. Spin doctors had me stonewalled for so long that I wrongly took an end run against hot plasma usion without having thought past my nose. I learned from rebuttals here that hot plasma fusion does indeed have restraints against runaway rates of fusion in stars, and then I supplied explanation for such control in order to supplant the apparently misspoken understandings of the scientists. Come to find out, those were spoken misunderstandings of the facts. Then, just to pay my dues, I applied what they did teach me about hot plasma fusion and gave them an explanation for sunspots. This is some good that can come out of forums: I went in dopey and came out only half as dumb.

The expansion resulting when a gas is heated is produced because energy has been added. As it expands, the gas is absorbing additional heat from the heat source rather following the adiabatic relationship described by the gas law. The plasma was at temperature T Touche! I swallowed my humility in striving to be taken seriously as advised. I beg to emphasize the negation with " I am not that much smarter than all these PhDs put together, it is just playing with a full deck that makes the difference."

Yes, but there might be a transformer in your circuit anyway, within your AC source. You will still have an AC component with your DC unless you have a filter and/or regulator. If you don't need smooth DC please disregard all that. We could be more helpful if you mentioned what use you would have for the DC.

Am grateful to encounter people kind enough to offer such sage council, but my sixty years as an electronic technician takes me too close to the finish line to reap benefits from pursuit of some advanced degree, and just to gain credibility, for where I see I have already stumbled upon a missing piece of the puzzle I feel obligated to share it. A forum might well be populated with persons short of convincing credentials but reasonably hopeful that specific debate upon a technical issue might overcome prejudicial underestimations. It doesn't take that long to spot in imbecile. For example, I would hope to share my convictions (realizations as I would see them) with a simple train of logic that would demonstrate burning stars to hold positive cores. 1. Credit Earth to have negative charge demonstrated by Fair Weather Current (FWC). 2. Credit Sol to bear negative charge demonstrated by its repulsion of our upper atmosphere. 3. It should be a given that barring short of dynamic disturbances, both bodies manifest outer surface population of all excess negative particles. 4. Hence, an excess particle of negative charge within the sun would move out toward the surface. 5. Hence plasma of macroscopic neutrality would contain electrons favoring outward migration and protons favoring inward migration. 6. Eventual structure of such bodies should therefore prove to form concentric arrays of charged particles whereby charged particles matching the charge polarity of the isolated body's charge would join those surplus particles, and charged particles that are in the global minority would gather in the center. The configuration suggested above would account for some static fusion process that would necessarily account for annihilation of positive charges to the exclusion of any matching number of electrons bearing similar fate. The inevitable surplus of electrons suggested by this logic explains a large number of questions that have not yet been duly answered by contemporary scientists: lightning formation, polar jets, and many more that I dare list to you only if you would relinquish insistence upon hearing out somebodies as opposed to nobodies. I am the guy who tweaked the Safeguard System's A/D converters. The Army, the designers, nobody else could do it and it took me two weeks out in North or South Dakota, I forget which. I designed the procedures for testing, adjusting, and repairing that radar system and my stuff worked. If I screwed up and figured wrong I knew right away, not a hundred years later as some scientists do. If you refuse to take me seriously without testing me, then perhaps I take my findings to the grave. To me, that seems not what a forum is for. Well, where is the cooling if x>=y? Plasma doesn't get cooler when you heat it. If you think otherwise dial 911 in a hurry. When you give extra heat to fusing plasma, it will release more energy, but that doesn't have to arrive in heat form! That is my point.

Thanks to a contribution from Swanson, I was not only enlightened that stellar hot fusion does not go unbridaled, but he had led me to where I could discover the cause of sun/star spots and solar/stellar flares. Another feather in my hat seems no cause for dragging these old bones back to school as you propose. Not to be ungrateful, but Swanson certainly did provided me a case against emulation of professional explanations. There is no way I can ever say that when plasma is heated it gets colder because of the consequential expansion of the gas. I promise not to. Another scientist spoke just the very same words as he but I still thank my creator for sparing me that capability. In a nutshell, an isolated incident of overtemperature increases rate of fusion, but most additional energy thus produced is absorbed as potential energy in the lifting of the overbearing plasma thus displaced by the consequential gas expansion. Such stored energy returns as heat to supplement an incident of undertemperature. However, when simultaneous undertemperature of fusing plasma occurs in conjunction with nearby overtemperature plasma, then additional energy production is accorded to the hot stuff as it expands directly into the cold stuff. Such activity is normal in the presence of a vortex which thus produces a sun/star spot with solar/stellar flares rising from the encircling hot stuff. A steady rise of electrons (presumably resulting from cold static fusion running in the central core) follows along the solar flares to produce the magnetic activity presently mistaken as somehow or other causing the sun/star spots. Ask Klaynos. I'm sposed to shut up and go read a book. He must indeed know an awful lot except for the polarity of stellar cores. That little secret which I am trying not to keep is the reason I call myself an astrophysicist (self educated, self employed, self anointed). It is just playing with a full deck that makes all the difference.

Am unable to deal with antimatter in this lifetime. As to huge swings in solar energy, I need first merely withdraw my earlier ignorance in reference to unbridled fusion. At the site of a sunspot, (fancy a "cold spot" [some 4500 Kelvins] a big enough dimple into which our planet could be nested], a raging "cylinder" of over-intense fusion is capped by how much draft is afforded by contracting volume within). Finite cooling rates from within the vortex would seem the gating factor of the supplemental fusion encountered in surrounding plasma. Existing scientific conjecture that magnetic flux produces sunspots might be relegated to being an effect rather than a cause. Reported variation of solar rotation rates with latitude suggests extreme whirlpool activity accounting for the vortexes seen here as underlying cause for sunspots. Now, addressing your question, a huge variation would just fry us if we haven't done it already by then, so not to worry. As perhaps the only astrophysicist who is sure that our core fusion is cold static fusion not of plasma, then my presumption would hold as plausible that a proton core would respond to severe change by shutting down its output, perhaps to quench a lot of trouble. On the other hand, a big disturbance might deal a long lasting array of solar vortexes to do just as you suggest.

Well, an assembly we might call a rectifier might get such a name because alternating current (AC) of known voltage is available near where some direct current (DC) is desired within a reasonable range of voltage. The transformer contributes a few things of practical importance: hopefully it adapts available ac voltage up or down to the voltage you wish it were, and it allows for DC isolation from the source of AC. It can be arranged to step voltage up or down for output AC voltages to as many outputs desired for the rectification circuitry. It is easy to overlook that it offers safety in that it can be arranged so as to prevent electric shock of creatures inadvertently connected between its output voltages and earth, chassis, or vehicular ground.

Most of the fun I have found in science has been in finding ways to simplify comprehension. Such trains of thought can catch on to spread like wildfire for a lazy, simple person predisposed to seek more comfortable ways to rest. There are two kinds of people in this world: those of us who want things easier, and those of you who seek to make everything more difficult. I salute your ambition, but prefer to emulate the peaceful demeanor of the sloth. If you were to examine other entries in this string, you would find another professional scientist advancing the manner in which hot fusion avoids excess regeneration. His contribution acknowledged hot fusion rate to increase with temperature. I learned from him of how such potential positive feedback is suppressed, but wonder why you do not assault his words as you do mine. It occurs to me that you may seek more vulnerable prey to bully with your fine education. Nevertheless, I invite your attention to my humble attempt to reword an explanation of hot stellar fusion to such form that we ordinary folks can more readily understand. Bear with me and you will be glad for that when you get a little older. At whatever given stellar depth hot fusion might be occurring, the gas pressure will hardly be affected by any slight change in temperature, and can thus be ordinarily ignored as a dynamic factor influencing the population density of proton fuel. A very slight increase in temperature due to an event of hydrogen fusion, for instance, represents a significant increase for local proton velocity to the extent that rate of fusion will rise. This would be an inherently regenerative situation if it were not for the fact that gas expansion incidental to temperature rise typically absorbs the additional energy by supplying lifting force upon the overbearing matter above. Thus, energy invested as potential energy detracts significantly from the amount of energy results in heat form with the increased rate of fusion. Note that global distribution of gravitational heating is accomplished by the miniscule increase of depth responding to such gas expansion to extend a general uniformity of luminosity. The decentralized locality of any spot of any strata thus shares its disposition into a common overview. Assuming that stellar matter would be affected by rotational formations at least as surely as with earthly atmosphere and oceans, then we must expect vortexes to be the source of Sol's familiar sun spots due to immediate proximity of low pressure central and high pressure surrounding regions of plasma fuel. At any strata enduring fusion, a lateral pressure gradient between these regions would bring a limited amount of unbridled regenerating fusion surrounding an inner circle of of diminished fusion such that no lifting of overbearing mass intervenes. Plasma contraction within that matches expansion from without would produce a "chilled" center rimmed by overheated plasma.

I don't understand why you are referring to the core when addressing hot fusion. You explain that when the core heats up it EXPANDS, this expansion COOLS it. Then I must suppose that such COOLING causes it to contract which will HEAT it which will cause it to EXPAND which will COOL it which will CONTRACT it which will HEAT it which will EXPAND ...................

Just a few of his first twelve words were false. How come nobody jumps in for me when I get picked on? Look at what the big kids have been saying on this thread. They talk up temperature as boosting fusion. Dealing with hot fusion: Fusion increases with particle velocity AKA Plasma Temperature. More density great for cold fusion, but that happens somewhere else. Our taxes pay for crazy ground pounders trying to get plasma so hot in the lab that it will fuse, when I think we have a case for saying "you cannot get there from here." It doesn't get hot enough for that inside the sun. Runaway fusion at rims of sun spots goes on down below-decks because total volume can hold fast as hot gets hotter (out at the rim) and cool gets cooler (in the center). That odd-mans gravity right out of the equation. Nothing has to get lifted. I learned that because these guys showed me to be wrong on regenerative hot plasma buried far enough out of the swirl. Had to noodle out the sun spots just to get even.

It is respectfully suggested that If you follow preceding entries, you might want to retract your first twelve words quoted above.

Golly, don't ask scientists if you want a straight answer. 1) Don't connect batteries of different voltages together in parallel. 2) If you are talking about little batteries that you can hold in your hand, they can maybe handle 1000 Ohms for a little while, but they will be dead tomorrow. Hence the determining factor is the load resistance, and if you hook up to 10,000 Ohms for instance, two parallel batteries won't make any significant difference on what the current value is. Just about the same current will flow, but for about twice as long. The guy was right who said the short circuit current would double, but a short circuit would reduce the life of both batteries to minutes or seconds. If you are talking about bigger batteries, please let me talk to your guardians.

That ostensible feedback claimed for hot fusion doesn’t compare with the full-bodied negative feedback apparent for cold fusion static pressure induced fusion within a core of nuclear fuel. We needn’t waste time with contradiction of “heating something makes it get cooler” comment. Floating that spin would be a real piece of work. The juggling of energy between temperature deviation thermal input augmentation and vertical displacement remains a concession here, but the smoothing out of luminosity seems more of a filtering job than that of regulation. The kicker to such smoothing comes upon contemplation of the venue: a given temperature is sought for a thin shell of plasma within a star. Simultaneous compensation for a circle of under-temperature and a surrounding ring of over temperature of such a shell would provide a gravity-proof nullification of net expansion/compression exchange that might explain how a sunspot works. A raging over temperature in that ring enclosing a dropout of fusion in the middle could amount to quite a scuffle. There is no need here to get into conjecture upon solar flares, but I did it anyhow. For the first time it makes sense that a spotted sun should give out extra heat. (Comprehension subsequent to this posting entailed, not any negative feedback in fusion of plasma, but rather a circumvention of regeneration by translation of increased thermal energy into the potential energy domain instead of advanced temperature prone toward explosive regeneration.) Meanwhile, it is a great relief to believe that cold fusion serving within the central core would calmly tone down such flare-ups by restraint with its full-fledged negative feedback that so easily retards supporting preheating of the surrounding plasma. Come to think about it, all it should take to get one of those sun spots going would be a nice little vortex. Or maybe a great big one. The central vertical axis of such spinning plasma would decompress a little, thus cooling the middle with regenerative influence upon the consequential declining rate of fusion, and centrifugal force would compress, thus add heat to the outermost plasma, again with regenerative effect. The combined effect of this positive feedback sufficiently escapes the drag of gravity to avalanche to higher net luminosity, probably launching solar flares, but perhaps yet short of self sufficiency. We might wonder how deeply such a vortex might go: golly, maybe it goes down to the central core! As hot as the plasma gets, it seems not to heat up surrounding plasma as fast as such heat escapes. Meanwhile, the cold fusion that should be going on in the central core remains the only source with legitimate negative feedback. Bearing the lion's share of energy production, the solar core again seems the steady governor that warms us safely. Someone will ask why there would be vortexes: What vortexes?. For anyone from planet Earth it should be a no-brainer.

Something yet worth mentioning is that a typical clothes dryer arrangement blows heat and moisture out of the building: all good riddance in the summer time but subject to some limited conservation in cold weather. Decades ago in the North Country, clothes dried outdoors under freezing temperatures brought new meaning to "clean and fresh". Down in the South Country, who needs clothes?

OK, I under looked hot fusion's negative feedback path. It had looked as though a flat-footed fresh attack was available as simple evidence demanding cold fusion at the solar core. My blunder does not validate contentions that hot fusion does exist in the core, but it does repair my humility. (Unwarranted self deprecation.) In that our moderator's paraphrasing of feedback knocked me so very far off the track, I do offer my crack at the wording. (I thought he was freezing up a block of ice with a flamethrower.) The negative feedback for hot stellar fusion occurs as follows: For an inifitesimal increase from normal temperature of plasma at a given strata, a small increase in energy production results. Whereby some of that energy takes the form of heat, expansion due to that increased heat causes much of the increased energy to become diverted into storage as potential energy in the consequential elevation of stellar matter above that position. Attenuation of decreases from normal temperature is accomplished by supplementation of retarded fusion with thermal energy released by corresponding descent of overbearing matter into the contracting volume produced by under temperature.

Am grateful for your acknowledgement of vital need for negative feedback within stellar fusion processes. Surely you jest with your proffered provision for negative feedback, but your assurance of such need by stellar fusion should lead some bright young scientists to the static pressure process that does serve that purpose. Thanks to you, I think my work is done.

Then you must be someone who could help me in my confusion. Does the sun utilize any cold fusion? My understanding of the sun's fusion process is not very good so I am asking for some of yours.

[If hot fusion were the sole source of heat, then if it could keep its own temperature high enough for sustained fusion then such a point would be unstable, like a dime standing on its edge. Any spike of increased fusion would produce higher temperature with an avalanching effect destructive to ecology. In other words, it operates with positive feedback, the nemesis of control. The nature of such fusion would likely be a random distribution of minute events tending to present relatively modest contributions of temperature increase throughout a broad volume of fuel. Such a broad warming of so much matter might well offer slight enough a temperature to fall short of self-sustaining operation. It seems plausible that some other "torch" might be required to prevent such fusion from cycling down. This gives us two factors to suppose that hot fusion gets a little help: The second factor being that stars like our sun offer rather consistent output energy, implying that it is governed by significant negative feedback certainly lacking with hot fusion. If somehow, a cold fusion process were somehow going on somewhere in such a star, we would have our torch to keep up temperature in our plasma, and we would have natural negative feedback to regulate the stellar output. (Static squeeze accomplishing cold fusion would find increased opposition as fuel temperature rises bringing the process rate to a saddle point.)

I agree only with your first sentence. Lets begin with the interior charge: It induces an equal and opposite charge upon the inner surface of the outer conductor. On the premise that the outer conductor contains just as many protons as electrons, then the charge induced upon the inner surface of the outer conductor has either repelled electrons to the outer surface for the case of a negative interior charge, or it has drawn electrons from the outer surface for the case of a positive interior charge. It is that process that delivers the interior charge to the outer surface. Isolation of the outer conductor and initial parity of charged particles upon it denies any change in particle count except for those ultimately supplied by the interior charge. While parity remains, any electron presenting negative charge on one side must have been "stolen" from the other side, presenting a corresponding positive charge at the location from which it has been taken. If it were not so that the interior charge must be neutralized, either by gross balance of interior charged particles including those of the interior surface of the outer conductor or by direct merging of oppositely charged particles, then we would always wonder how a Coulomb of negative charge inserted into an ice pail setup could present a two Coulomb negative charge for the total system. That would be the new one atop the outer conductor and the the intruding interior charge if it were not to have been neutralized. We have no way to thus create electrons. After the migration of charged particles within has been completed is the time when we can say that there will be no electric field in the interior. What swansont has written all becomes true as a result of the foregoing and thus is not an inhibiting factor. Bean-counting my electrons instead of parsing rules has served me well for sixty years. That is not a boast but an apology for how I must deal within my own vocabulary as best I can. Kind souls aware of my struggle here have precautioned me against this. but I remain lacking. It is also a manifestation of how little time I would have to assimilate yours, since my self education (two's a crowd) has never put me in direct company of legitimate scientists. There is nothing wrong with cause-and-effect reasoning. Contemplate just why a negatively charged sphere would be coated with all of its excess electrons, and in the simplified case of an ideal sphere, the electrons would arrange themselves for equidistance between adjacent particles. Electrons in polar opposition would be holding each other apart by electrical repulsion right straight through the globe. Any electron intervening along such a line of repulsion can hardly be unaffected. It will be pushed toward the closer surface. Any positive particle along such a line would be drawn to the center. Electrons would not be remaining upon the outer surface without this sustained electrostatic push. Cause-and-effect reasoning presents a means of thinking for yourself instead of floundering upon the semantics of poorly-parsed quotations. A conducting sphere of a given size shields its contents from electromagnetic radiation of sufficiently low wave lengths because such energy sees no circuit, just a fat stub of a conductor. Transient disturbances by charged particles produced within a closed surface can produce transient exceptions to rules for static domains, and particle migrations then occur that restore a system to the static state typically under description. An electrical host such at the earth can produce such a consistent process of disturbance that an endless procession of electrical disturbances remains the norm. Lets face it, if a cloud of electrons scrambled to an outer surface, would a final latecomer be odd-manned out of the trip? Why argue. At any rate any two more electrons could push each other out of the way on their own if they had to. No electronics technician or even electronic design engineer would doubt that a positive charge would respond to electrical influence by moving or propagating into the opposite direction taken by an electron. And that is how I know that the stars have cores devoid of electrons. No one wants to believe such a thing if politics or commerce has given him an agenda.