Hot fusion puzzle

[Klaynos]

I just explained what was required to be taken seriously. Science isn't really a happy friendly place, ideas are subjected to a good kicking and they must pass some basics before people will take the time to look at them closely.

[Jacques]

There is no way I can ever say that when plasma is heated it gets colder because of the consequential expansion of the gas.

Do you think that the plasma getting colder than before the heating ?

Let me explain

The plasma is at temperature T

The plasma is heated: the plasma is now at T + x

The plasma expand: the plasma is now at T + x - y

Usually x >= y

Hope it help

[dalemiller]

I just explained what was required to be taken seriously. Science isn't really a happy friendly place, ideas are subjected to a good kicking and they must pass some basics before people will take the time to look at them closely.

 

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.

 

Do you think that the plasma getting colder than before the heating ?

Let me explain

The plasma is at temperature T

The plasma is heated: the plasma is now at T + x

The plasma expand: the plasma is now at T + x - y

Usually x >= y

Hope it help

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.

Edited December 14, 2010 by dalemiller

[swansont]

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.

 

Heating leads to expansion, and expansion leads to cooling. This is basic thermodynamics of the ideal gas law: PV = nRT Volume and temperature are proportional to each other. The specifics may be different for a plasma, but the basic idea is still there.

 

 

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). I am not that much smarter than all these PhDs put together, it is just playing with a full deck that makes the difference.

 

I am sure we are all impressed by this, by exactly the amount we should be.

 

 

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.

 

T1= T+x

T2 = T+x-y.

 

T1>T2

 

The temperature went down. Thus, the system has cooled.

[dalemiller]

Heating leads to expansion, and expansion leads to cooling. This is basic thermodynamics of the ideal gas law: PV = nRT Volume and temperature are proportional to each other. The specifics may be different for a plasma, but the basic idea is still there.

 

 

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.

 

 

T1= T+x

T2 = T+x-y.

 

T1>T2

 

The temperature went down. Thus, the system has cooled.

The plasma was at temperature T

 

 

 

I am sure we are all impressed by this, by exactly the amount we should be.

 

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."

[swansont]

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

 

I don't think any of the explanations claim that the temperature drops to or below T. Just that if you have a plasma which expands, it will cool.

 

 

We never got to the point where we took into account the heat transfer outward, which also leads to cooling.

 

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."

 

I hardly think it qualifies. You are still claiming to be smarter than all these PhD's put together.

[granpa]

the ideal gas law is for a container of known volume

a stars volume depends on its gravitational field which in tern depends on its volume

 

adding energy results in the star expanding which weakens its gravitational field which causes it to expand further.

the net result is that the star cools

Edited October 6, 2010 by granpa

[dalemiller]

the ideal gas law is for a container of known volume

a stars volume depends on its gravitational field which in tern depends on its volume

 

adding energy results in the star expanding which weakens its gravitational field which causes it to expand further.

the net result is that the star cools

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.

Edited December 14, 2010 by dalemiller

[granpa]

maybe you should stop worrying about winning and worry more about being right.

[dalemiller]

 

 

I hardly think it qualifies. You are still claiming to be smarter than all these PhD's put together.

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.

 

maybe you should stop worrying about winning and worry more about being right.

No worries. Getting so much of both is getting monotonous.

[Jacques]

Plasma doesn't get cooler when you heat it

No do you think I am stupid.

Plasma get cooler when it expand, for what ever reason.

Here the reason in stellar core, is that the pressure in the core is greater than the gravitationnal pressure and the core pressure is increased because of an increase in temperature caused by fussion reaction.

It is a dynamic process that goes to an equilibrum

Edited October 6, 2010 by Jacques

[dalemiller]

 

Plasma get cooler when it expand, for what ever reason.

 

 

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.

Edited November 25, 2010 by dalemiller

[dragonstar57]

Google convection currents

air (or any other kind of mater in a non-solid state) is heated so it rises the lower pressure allows it to cool and descend.

the air cools because the same energy is spread over a larger area.

but in this example you don't have fusion rates to deal with.

the plasma expands and hinders the fusion reaction in addition to the energy being more spread out it also makes less energy.

so it seems to me that the sun's temperature is a fairly stable thing and that by heating it it would cause it to oscillate.

which i believe is this cause for the 11 year solar cycle no?

[dalemiller]

Google convection currents

air (or any other kind of mater in a non-solid state) is heated so it rises the lower pressure allows it to cool and descend.

the air cools because the same energy is spread over a larger area.

but in this example you don't have fusion rates to deal with.

the plasma expands and hinders the fusion reaction in addition to the energy being more spread out it also makes less energy.

so it seems to me that the sun's temperature is a fairly stable thing and that by heating it it would cause it to oscillate.

which i believe is this cause for the 11 year solar cycle no?

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.

[dalemiller]

When the plasma heats up, it tends to expand, and that would cause it to cool. This provides the negative feedback necessary to maintain steady-state. Gravity counters the expansion due to heating.

 

[

There seems to be a way to get off the adiabatic merry-go-round here. We could narrow things down to realistic scenarios seemingly native to the venue of fusing plasma. If we approach phenomena involved at a stratum of solar plasma involved with fusion, the depth establishes a given pressure for a shell of equal temperature that satisfies equilibrium between energy production and energy withdrawn for a constant luminosity.

 

When and where any overproduction of energy begins to occur, earliest infinitesimal rise of temperature to result invests that energy into potential energy by raising solar mass above it as the overheated gas expands. As a result, energy manifested by the temperature rise is shifted out of the thermal category before it necessarily induces advanced rate of fusion. (It might seem reasonable that momentary increase in particle velocity could usually effect expansion sooner than it would result in an additional proton collision.) A tad more temperature reduction would present itself due to adiabatic effect prompted by the gas expansion.

 

When a bit of energy underproduction presents itself as an infinitesimal chill, reduced particle velocity would relax enough upward pressure for descent of solar mass whereby the chill would be nullified by two influences: an adiabatic temperature boost would result from the compression and potential energy would have been converted into heat energy. Note that such a recovery from chill would not represent the rarefaction of proton density one might hear tell about in this thread. There is no question about hotter stuff taking up more space: the action is a crunching down on the stuff with elevated temperature as the result.

 

One exception to the constancy of pressure for a given stellar depth would be at the center of great swirling masses. The vortexes to be found there can plausibly run deep enough to penetrate fusing plasma. Centrifugal force can be expected to diminish the rate of fusion in an avalanching fashion due to inherent positive feedback released at the vortex. Reduced pressure reduces rate of fusion to bring temperature reduction that further snuffs atomic fusion. A sunspot would present itself on the surface above.

 

At a distant radius from the vortex would be a ring of deepened solar matter that results in a ring of increased pressure at our selected shell of normally fixed temperature. Fusion at that site would increase, consequential expansion would be relieved into the direction of the shrinking central column of the sunspot: no longer would excess energy production be absorbed by the lifting of solar mass. Runaway rates of fusion would hurl unspent plasma along a sleeve of raging fusion encircling the vortex. Solar flares bursting from the surface invite solar surface electrical charge to great heights producing magnetic effects and low frequency radiation. Dollops of such rising plasma that fall back to the solar surface carry such charged particles down to provide reverse magnetic effects to that of the rising flares.

[swansont]

The circus here, IMO, is that you showed up asking about fusion, admitted you are lacking in knowledge about it

 

My understanding of the sun's fusion process is not very good so I am asking for some of yours.

 

And have spent the bulk of the rest of your participation telling everyone that they are wrong. The lack of recent participation is therefore unsurprising to me.

[dalemiller]

The circus here, IMO, is that you showed up asking about fusion, admitted you are lacking in knowledge about it

 

 

 

And have spent the bulk of the rest of your participation telling everyone that they are wrong. The lack of recent participation is therefore unsurprising to me.

 

I began: “Whereby hot fusion in stars does not lead to explosive regeneration, it would seem that it must not be self-sustaining and therefore must depend upon a companion source of heat. Can anybody help me to get that notion out of my head?”

 

 

There was no hypocrosy in the statement above. I was newly indulgent of what I wish I had called dynamic nuclear fusion as opposed to what I wish I had called static fusion. The case I see is for static pressure bearing down upon a ball of protons positioned electrostatically at the center of a star, and accounting for the negative bias I suppose to dominate all shining stars. I was oblivious at the time of how self-sufficient dynamic fusion (plasma stuff) avoided explosive regeneration, and I am grateful to you for pointing me into the right general direction. I had to articulate the principles a little differently from what council I received in order achieve my own comprehension of how that fusion process performed under such excellent regularity. Negative feedback never showed up in my viewfinder, but positive feedback showed to be circumvented by the commitment of excess energy into the potential domain instead of heat. Such comprehension could not have matured without consideration of how the sustained regeneration of fusion due to inevitable stellar vortexes would always be self-terminating.

 

Incidentally, no deference seems required toward existing consensus for the supspot activity alluded to above. Vortexes are well known and need no supspots to explain their existance. On the other hand, popular expanations of sunspots invoke magnetic blocks which await future discoveries as to their cause and workings. I profess to hold logical explanation for the magnetism experienced with sunspots and the solar flares that accompany them. The consensus that it remains to be discovered how a sunspot can cause a vortex, probably doesn't rise to level of established doctrine prohibiting contrary assumptions.

 

You presented but a portion of my appeal to Klaynos, made prior to my discovering the cause of sunspots. He had posted: “Gravity, and the associated pressure are the torch to which I think you are referring. Our understanding of the suns fusion process is very good.”

 

I am still wondering what percentage of solar power comes from dynamic fusion, and in all sincerity did I express a welcome for the understandings I mistakenly supposed were being offered. Hence I expressed my welcome for help from Klaynos as follows: “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.” He never supplied any, but make it clear that celebrity status is crucial to what postings he would heed. All of my cosmic discoveries occurred after age of 73, precluding much chance of ever becoming a somebody.

 

Since that posting, I blundered into a lot of common sense reasoning by learning from other people's mistakes as presented on this forum. That is what can come from a good bull session.

 

As embarassing as it was to have been so bewildered under public exposure, it seems a world class piece of work has resulted. We might suppose that our work might inspire some utilitarian advantages toward predictions of solar storms taken from solar surface motions, or otherwise contribute to research. Even a casual reading by thinking persons might lead into developments more urgent than the criterion of popularity you imply. I have never felt more productive.