The CSphere in a G2 Star

[Dr.CWho]

Hello all,

 

It would be nice to see who everyone is and a bit about everyone. My real life name is Dr. Charbonneau Ph. D. and I'm the fellow who promoted by publication to NASA in 1999, that Sol was composed of not only gaseous but a solid second layer and core beneath its surface along with a different than was accepted theory that the star does not function by sustained fusion, but by pulsed fusion. Between 2003 and 2005 the NASA/ESA Project SOHO confirmed my model. Having included a cutaway illustration (God gifted me with visual arts talents as well as the scientific mind), the images SOHO generated were remarkably similar to what I had depicted along with that the CSphere, as it should properly be known, or Charbonneau Sphere (like the Schwartzchild Sphere or radius as such is known) was the generator of sunspots. Currently I'm at odds with NASA not only because they are failing to responsibly give me the credit I deserve for that but also for the idea I submitted to them through my CUSRESS Project in 1989 that would have put man's feet on Mars 2 years ago. That project also suggested that the new shuttle design I submitted could be slowed for landing with DRAG CHUTES. Four months after they turned me down on the project, the shuttle started using drag chutes for braking.

 

That being said, such are my contributions to astrophysics and rocketry. Currently I have developed a model that uses hydrostatics and buoyancy/freefall as a means to generate unlimited electrical power without a moving source of water or any fuel. Because it probably is the first truly usable form that would qualify as perpetual motion, I doubt if it can be patented, but on a larger scale this can do away with fossil fuel and nuclear generated electric power.

I imagine the last project really should be on another one of the boards, but thought I'd put it here along with an introduction. I live in Anderson, Indiana, own a home and have my research facility there, hoping to install a fairly elaborate astronomy observatory in the not too distant future. I'm an artist and engineer as well as a scientist.

 

Who else is on board?

[Mr Skeptic]

TCurrently I have developed a model that uses hydrostatics and buoyancy/freefall as a means to generate unlimited electrical power without a moving source of water or any fuel. Because it probably is the first truly usable form that would qualify as perpetual motion, I doubt if it can be patented, but on a larger scale this can do away with fossil fuel and nuclear generated electric power.

 

These things you have suggested are illegal, and if caught you could get in trouble with the cheese police. I would recommend that you not tell anyone about them until you have lobbied for Congress to repeal the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

Who else is on board?

 

When you build your perpetual motion machine, please send me a copy. But I want a working one, not a theoretical one, OK?

[Dr.CWho]

Well, Mr. Skeptic,

There are more than one designs possible to achieve the effect. I'm too expensive, so you'll likely be stuck designing and building your own.

 

The basic concept is do-able. In fact try done-able. It's the mechanics of the return trip to the bottom of the "bubble collumn" that can be done more than one way. The design of the magnet/buoys themselves can be accomplished more than one way, but the method I'm planning is the best, I think.

The concept is so basic it's surprising nobody has thought of this yet. The electricity is generated as a bubble filled 1/3 with ceramic magnet to 2/3 air volume rises through a collumn of generating coils, naturally subject to Gausse's and Maxwell's laws for coil concentration. There needs be some electronics saavy in the design as well to avoid the effects of hysteresis if multiple coils are used. Once the buoy with its magnetic body falls into the 2nd, empty collumn, more coils can extract more energy and a number of Rube Goldberg's can be used to get the next buoy in place at the bottom of the bubble collumn. The concept is perpetual motion other than part replacement and water evaporation. It can't be patented, but a design certainly could be patented. A simple model to demonstrate the process is possible with simple supplies, other than your coil winding skills...

[insane_alien]

this is that 'iron sun' crap again isn't it? this crap has been surfacing every 5-10 years since the early 1900's usually accompanied by some form of ftl travel. never seen it bundled with perpetual motion before.

[Dr.CWho]

Iron? Not at all.

 

Bundled with PP? The post is just introductions with more than a single subject. Specialists often have difficulty finding consensus with GP's like Bucky Fuller or Sir Harry Kroto.

 

NASA can't read their own findings, but a few of us out here actually can. NASA are basically thieves. Some of us out here can see the big picture while they're still trying to figure out who sabotaged their latest ISS project delivery...

 

Actually I prefer discussions right in my study where I can discuss what's on my blackboards over a game of chess with some Led Zepelin or Mozart in the background... Those discussions involve time travel now and the blackboard can get pretty wild.

 

Dr. CWho

[insane_alien]

Sol was composed of not only gaseous but a solid second layer and core beneath its surface along with a different than was accepted theory that the star does not function by sustained fusion, but by pulsed fusion.

 

that is pretty much the phrase that is common to all 'iron sun' theories. your right in that sometimes it is not iron. they spout but 99.99% of the time it is.

 

and remember it is not just NASA analysing the data it is every astorphysicist who has an interest in the sun. if there was something they missed that involved a solid layer of the sun and was real some lucky guy would have picked up a nobel prixe for it already.

[Dr.CWho]

http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleid=3263

 

This is a Hubble shot and quite a bit that began the theory. (Alien, I suggest you visit the Project Soho site...)

 

My own theory originated in the 80's concerning the conflict between sustained fusion and the Van der Waals equation of state. Quantum physics often conflicts with Newtonian physics, but even worse the standard model of the sun's fusion power conflicts with Newtonian physics and the patterns of nature that tend to align with Keplarian mathematics in that the further flung material required more energy to achieve their orbit but less energy to maintain it. This eventually leads to the conclusion that there are more elements present on Earth than on Jupiter for example and far more in the sun than would present on the earth... at least 41 more elements of increasingly higher molar mass, so increasing melting points for many of them.

 

Actually, Alien, I'm not as ignorant as you may postulate. I've been studying gravity for nearly 40 years now. The one thing that you may wish to consider is that if what you dub an "iron sun" theory keeps surfacing so often, there must be some validity to it. Personally I don't have much faith in "scientific" organizations such as NITS that suggest that a twenty thousand ton weight dropping about 16 feet onto a structure below it that is designed to hold twice that will crush the lower structure.

 

Maybe some of that data fails to penetrate Hadrons wall?

 

Dr. CWho

 

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20031002191731data_trunc_sys.shtml

 

This is absolutely not what I am purveying. Out of time here... have a Merry Christmas all...

[insane_alien]

My own theory originated in the 80's concerning the conflict between sustained fusion and the Van der Waals equation of state

 

is van der waals equation even valid when there is nuclear reactions(or reactions of any kind) going on?

 

and what is the conflict between them i don't believe that it excludes it.

 

Quantum physics often conflicts with Newtonian physics

 

true, because newtonian physics is an approximation. the standard comparison is einsteinian mechanics and quantum physics.

 

but even worse the standard model of the sun's fusion power conflicts with Newtonian physics and the patterns of nature that tend to align with Keplarian mathematics in that the further flung material required more energy to achieve their orbit but less energy to maintain it.

 

sweet jesus that is a mishmash of outdated ideas that have been replaced with more accurate one.

 

This eventually leads to the conclusion that there are more elements present on Earth than on Jupiter for example and far more in the sun than would present on the earth... at least 41 more elements of increasingly higher molar mass, so increasing melting points for many of them.

 

why? jupiter has all the elements that are present on earth just because it is big enough to hold on to hydrogen and helium and has a thick atmosphere doesn't mean you won't find stuff like uranium in there.

 

Actually, Alien, I'm not as ignorant as you may postulate. I've been studying gravity for nearly 40 years now.

 

cause gravity and fusion are so similar.

 

there must be some validity to it

 

its regular appearence does not say anything for its validity as it is only propagated by nutjobs. if it had a shred of validity then it would have become acepted theory instead of being discarded by well, eery serious professional in relevant fields.

 

Personally I don't have much faith in "scientific" organizations such as NITS that suggest that a twenty thousand ton weight dropping about 16 feet onto a structure below it that is designed to hold twice that will crush the lower structure.

 

bringing WTC into this why? and the force on the impact would be something on the order of 20 times the weight. 400,000 tonnes of force is pretty big. not much holds up well to that. see your also not well versed in structural mechanics.

 

back on topic, i am familiar with the SOHO site, i used to be an amateur astronomer but haven't been as into is as i have with chemistry lately. i don't see what on the soho site supports your position.

[swansont]

if it had a shred of validity then it would have become acepted theory instead of being discarded by well, eery serious professional in relevant fields.

 

"Eery serious professionals"? Geez, I know we're a little strange, but I don't think we're that bad.

 

———

 

Eponymous self-reference and WTC stuff? Moved to speculations.

[Dr.CWho]

see your also not well versed

 

This sounds like a statement from someone who judges books by their cover. It would appear you missed quite a bit at the NASA site that would bring an amateur astronomer to having a current knowledge of much of anything other than seek and destroy....

 

You make too many assumptions concerning what I haven't posted as of yet and use it as a destructive means.

 

Have you ever used a magnetically coupled mass trajectorial centrifuge? It offers the ballistics deviations that would allow us to predict that an Atlas-Agena booster could place 500 lbs of payload on the moon yet could also place a 300 lb payload on Mars.

 

It demonstrates how the percentage of a particular element will mostly settle into various bands, so although Jupiter has some of the same stuff as the earth, the dense mass still responds to the velocity-mass equation and, save for inter-orbital collisions, settles to place iron mostly in the inner planets with uranium likely higher in Venus. There may be elements of higher melting points in the molten areas of the core, but highly unlikely in the crust. There would be little difference in such a trend the nearer the core of a star we examine, thus far heavier elements with tremendous melting and boiling points.

 

WTC stuff? Consider that I made no mention of WTC. You picked that out of the simple, vague math. Why would you think I meant WTC?

[insane_alien]

This sounds like a statement from someone who judges books by their cover. It would appear you missed quite a bit at the NASA site that would bring an amateur astronomer to having a current knowledge of much of anything other than seek and destroy....

 

umm, right... if i missed a bit care to post a direct link then?

 

You make too many assumptions concerning what I haven't posted as of yet and use it as a destructive means.

 

its an assumption based on past experience and tell tale signs from your posting style. the assumptions have proven accurate before and they are looking to prove accurate again.

 

Have you ever used a magnetically coupled mass trajectorial centrifuge? It offers the ballistics deviations that would allow us to predict that an Atlas-Agena booster could place 500 lbs of payload on the moon yet could also place a 300 lb payload on Mars.

 

no i haven't, and judging by the fact google returns only one result (link) neither has anybody else.

 

It demonstrates how the percentage of a particular element will mostly settle into various bands, so although Jupiter has some of the same stuff as the earth, the dense mass still responds to the velocity-mass equation and, save for inter-orbital collisions, settles to place iron mostly in the inner planets with uranium likely higher in Venus. There may be elements of higher melting points in the molten areas of the core, but highly unlikely in the crust. There would be little difference in such a trend the nearer the core of a star we examine, thus far heavier elements with tremendous melting and boiling points.

 

okay, if there are so many heavy elements in the sun why can't we detect them? the massive convective currents in the sun should bring them up to the surface pretty regularly. and wouldn't the ditribution of the elements in the nebula before solar formation play a bigger role than an idealised model?

 

we find a higher percentage of lighter elements towards the outer system because the planets are generally bigger and can hold on to them better. they were also less affected by solar ignition.

 

WTC stuff? Consider that I made no mention of WTC. You picked that out of the simple, vague math. Why would you think I meant WTC?

 

oh really

 

Personally I don't have much faith in "scientific" organizations such as NITS that suggest that a twenty thousand ton weight dropping about 16 feet onto a structure below it that is designed to hold twice that will crush the lower structure.

 

did you or did you not say that in post number 7?

 

this is off topic anyway. back to the point.

[Dr.CWho]

Well, Insane,

You are truly amazing. You have managed to build a straw man out of all I posted here and even managed to make a fool of the moderator who moved it to pseudoscience or "the trash can". I suppose the NASA channel can't penetrate Hadron's wall, eh? One really has only to digest the known facts about the solar system to see that neither the protoplanetary or unstable disk hypothesis can be promoted to "theory."

 

At least I'm happy to see you looked in search for the MTC. That proved to me that you have to "search" to "destroy." The MTC is not unlike a Jet Wheel or what was once a product of Wheelabrator. It's a great way to separate low mass samples from higher mass samples.

 

As far as I'm concerned, this thread can be closed. I'll start something that is not "introductions" oriented. Perhaps I'll get some meaningful feedback. I can't imagine anyone having made over 3900 posts who actually works as a scientist. Most of us working in the field of astrophysics and other sciences have more to do than stay glued to the net. Happy surfing.

 

http://groups.msn.com/JUSTOUTOFTHEBOX

[insane_alien]

Fine, i'll drop the whole iron sun thing and examine the precise points you made in your opening post.

 

Claim1:

...Sol was composed of not only gaseous but a solid second layer and core beneath its surface along with a different than was accepted theory that the star does not function by sustained fusion, but by pulsed fusion.

 

What lead you to this idea? How do you explain the constant stream of fusion neutrinos from the sun when they should be pulsed if the fusion is indeed pulsed? how does the solid layer remain solid? what is it made of? how deep is this layer?

 

Between 2003 and 2005 the NASA/ESA Project SOHO confirmed my model. Having included a cutaway illustration (God gifted me with visual arts talents as well as the scientific mind), the images SOHO generated were remarkably similar to what I had depicted along with that the CSphere, as it should properly be known, or Charbonneau Sphere (like the Schwartzchild Sphere or radius as such is known) was the generator of sunspots.

 

Please, post a direct link so we can have a look at what you are talking about 'its on the SOHO site' is not adequate it could be any one of several images they have there. also, i see no mention of a solid layer on the SOHO site. and similarity in diagrams doesn't necessarily mean you are right.

 

Currently I'm at odds with NASA not only because they are failing to responsibly give me the credit I deserve for that but also for the idea I submitted to them through my CUSRESS Project in 1989 that would have put man's feet on Mars 2 years ago.

 

hold on, a paper about the inner workings of the sun can now somehow put a man on mars? how does that work?

 

also, i have seen no evidence that NASA have even used your ideas. you'll need to provide evidence and even then it would be up to a court of law rather than a web forum to decide.

 

That project also suggested that the new shuttle design I submitted could be slowed for landing with DRAG CHUTES. Four months after they turned me down on the project, the shuttle started using drag chutes for braking.

 

things like that require more than 4 months before being put into action. and to be honest, it is hardly a unique idea drag chutes have been use to slow landing aircraft and other vehicles before.

 

That being said, such are my contributions to astrophysics and rocketry. Currently I have developed a model that uses hydrostatics and buoyancy/freefall as a means to generate unlimited electrical power without a moving source of water or any fuel.

 

Please tell us how you overcame the various laws of thermodynamics that you have broken. I suspect that if you built a prototype it would spectacularly fail to do much of anything.

 

Because it probably is the first truly usable form that would qualify as perpetual motion, I doubt if it can be patented,...

 

no it can't, the patent office has concluded that anybody claiming to have broken the laws of thermodynamics is generally lying.

 

but on a larger scale this can do away with fossil fuel and nuclear generated electric power.

 

so build it, damn your electric bill and sell some leccy back to the company for some cushy profit.

 

Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. please provide some.