Split from Nuclear Fusion Power....

[zorro]

My thought is that we need a Fusion reactor with processes similar to the Photosphere of the Sun where temps are only 7,000 dK.

 

 

Edited August 8, 2013 by zorro

[swansont]

My thought is that we need a Fusion reactor with processes similar to the Photosphere of the Sun where temps are 7,000K.

 

 

Fusion doesn't take place in the photosphere, it takes place in the core,

[zorro]

 

Fusion doesn't take place in the photosphere, it takes place in the core,

True, the Photosphere is in the Convective Zone as I show above but it appears to offer a containment of Core structures and inner layers. I speculate that there is a Iron-Nickel-Silicon processes going on that drives to Iron fusion stabilizing the layer of the Photosphere and consuming energy thus tempertuare.

 

It is not completely understood what is the processes in the Photosphere. I refer you to

http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/papers/thesis/chapter2_photosphere.pdf

 

 

2.3.2: Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium - the LTE

Approximation

The photosphere, however, cannot be regarded as being in true thermodynamic

equilibrium. Although thermodynamic equilibrium prevails in the solar interior, in the

photosphere, due to the lower opacities and the higher temperature gradient, the

radiation field at any point contains contributions from regions of different

temperatures, and will not be equal to the black-body field. Also, if any atomic states

strongly interact with the radiation field, their populations will be affected by the

radiation field and will not be solely determined by the local temperature.

If the particles interact with each other much more strongly than with the

radiation field, their state populations will still be given by the Boltzmann equation,

(eqn 2-12) even if the radiation field is not given by the Planck function. A system

with these characteristics is said to be in LTE, or local thermodynamic equilibrium.

The temperature of a system in LTE can be defined as the temperature of the particles.

The radiation field can be quite different from the Planck function, being in general

anisotropic and non-Planckian.

Edited August 8, 2013 by zorro

[swansont]

True, the Photosphere is in the Convective Zone as I show above but it appears to offer a containment of Core structures and inner layers.

Why is gravity not a sufficient mechanism for containment?

 

I speculate that there is a Iron-Nickel-Silicon processes going on that drives to Iron fusion stabilizing the layer of the Photosphere and consuming energy thus tempertuare.

That's really something for a separate discussion, I would think.

 

It is not completely understood what is the processes in the Photosphere. I refer you to

http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/papers/thesis/chapter2_photosphere.pdf

 

 

2.3.2: Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium - the LTE

Approximation

The photosphere, however, cannot be regarded as being in true thermodynamic

equilibrium. Although thermodynamic equilibrium prevails in the solar interior, in the

photosphere, due to the lower opacities and the higher temperature gradient, the

radiation field at any point contains contributions from regions of different

temperatures, and will not be equal to the black-body field. Also, if any atomic states

strongly interact with the radiation field, their populations will be affected by the

radiation field and will not be solely determined by the local temperature.

If the particles interact with each other much more strongly than with the

radiation field, their state populations will still be given by the Boltzmann equation,

(eqn 2-12) even if the radiation field is not given by the Planck function. A system

with these characteristics is said to be in LTE, or local thermodynamic equilibrium.

The temperature of a system in LTE can be defined as the temperature of the particles.

The radiation field can be quite different from the Planck function, being in general

anisotropic and non-Planckian.

Nothing about that implies fusion is taking place.

[zorro]

Why is gravity not a sufficient mechanism for containment?

Zorro: Gravity does generate most of the containment along with peripheral magnetisms connected as a surface tension shell layer. Containment is not the issue with balanced-fusion Photosphere operating at 2 atmospheres; it is the temperatures containment that is the challenge.

 

 

That's really something for a separate discussion, I would think.

 

Yes and no, they are all related...

 

 

Nothing about that implies fusion is taking place.

 

That is correct. Science is as yet unsure what, if any, fusion goes on there. The interesting property is it insulation properties reducing temp from 15 million in the core down to 4,000 dK. At that temp, science / engineering on earth could contain the mash in a reactor at one to 2 atmospheres and use it; as well as the magneto effects, to generate clean energy

SPECULATION:

Further, I make the argument that there is some Si-Fe .... fusion ( I call <>fusion for simplicity ) taking place because energy is being absorbed in the fusion processes at iron and above elements, cooling the mash and preventing explosions.

[Delbert]

Well, one other point that I forgot to mention is anything we build will be too late to help.

It seems to me that nuclear fusion will always be ten years away.

[swansont]

 

That is correct. Science is as yet unsure what, if any, fusion goes on there.

 

No, science is pretty sure that exceedingly little if any fusion is taking place there, especially anything involving fusion of Fe.

[zorro]

 

No, science is pretty sure that exceedingly little if any fusion is taking place there, especially anything involving fusion of Fe.

 

 

You are repeating me here so it seems that we agree that some but very little fusion could be happening here.

[swansont]

 

 

You are repeating me here so it seems that we agree that some but very little fusion could be happening here.

 

I can't reconcile this statement with you saying that science is unsure, and that an Iron-Nickel-Silicon processes is going on.

[zorro]

 

I can't reconcile this statement with you saying that science is unsure, and that an Iron-Nickel-Silicon processes is going on.

 

Science is inconclusive on the phases of Fusion and Burning. The layering we now consider as Fusion is a mix and a mesh of Fe, Si, N, and all the rest. 0 to 8 Solar Masses seem to be the unclear. I presume some of the reluctance is the secrecy of the Weapons programs.

Edited August 13, 2013 by zorro

[swansont]

 

Science is inconclusive on the phases of Fusion and Burning. The layering we now consider as Fusion is a mix and a mesh of Fe, Si, N, and all the rest. 0 to 8 Solar Masses seem to be the unclear. I presume some of the reluctance is the secrecy of the Weapons programs.

 

No, the information is more general because it's a web page and not an actual science class. The science is not inconclusive.

[zorro]

Science is inconclusive on the phases of Fusion and Burning. The layering we now consider as Fusion is a mix and a mesh of Fe, Si, N, and all the rest. 0 to 8 Solar Masses seem to be the unclear. I presume some of the reluctance is the secrecy of the Weapons programs.

 

What would Sheldon say to that.

 

[ACG52]

Why is this still going on? This is just Zorro denying well understood fusion reactions and claiming that it's a mystery. He provides no evidence or support other than vague hand waving and conspiracy shrouded statements.

 

He has stated that he doesn't understand the reactions, yet he keeps making pontifical statements regarding them.

 

Close the thread.

[Greg H.]

Close them both, for that matter.

[zorro]

zorro

Harassment is one thing but not justifying my post errors is against Forum rules. The critics have a chip on themselves rather than responsible debate. They can send a private message for a clarification if necessary. I think that the general reader who buys Forum Advertisers stuff can understand and enjoy my post's well. For example, posts #1, #10, #12, above are stunning to a general audience and I get many comments.

 

I mean no conspiracy to make an entertaining but yet poignant point on Fusion or other subjects, particularly those that I am Interested in. ... What is my gain for that.

 

AGC 52 is just flat wrong here:

 

" None of the above critics posts above illuminate they only degrade.

Why is this still going on? This is just Zorro denying well understood fusion reactions and claiming that it's a mystery. He provides no evidence or support other than vague hand waving and conspiracy shrouded statements.

He has stated that he doesn't understand the reactions, yet he keeps making pontifical statements regarding them. "

He/She knows full well that we are in the SPECULATION Forums so a general audience feels more comfortable confronting his chilling posts. .....No they prefers to blindly slug away and take their tears to mods instead of my razor messages responses.

zorro - 10 Rep

Edited August 15, 2013 by zorro

[swansont]

He/She knows full well that we are in the SPECULATION Forums so a general audience feels more comfortable confronting his chilling posts. .....No they prefers to blindly slug away and take their tears to mods instead of my razor messages responses.

 

zorro - 10 Rep

Yes it is the speculations forum, which comes with its own set of additional rules, including this:

 

"Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure."

 

IOW, this is not a section where you can present any wild idea that comes to mind, or make claims that are unsubstantiated, or simply ignore evidence that contradicts your thesis.

[John Cuthber]

zorro

Harassment is one thing but not justifying my post errors is against Forum rules. The critics have a chip on themselves rather than responsible debate. They can send a private message for a clarification if necessary. I think that the general reader who buys Forum Advertisers stuff can understand and enjoy my post's well. For example, posts #1, #10, #12, above are stunning to a general audience and I get many comments.

 

I mean no conspiracy to make an entertaining but yet poignant point on Fusion or other subjects, particularly those that I am Interested in. ... What is my gain for that.

 

AGC 52 is just flat wrong here:

 

" None of the above critics posts above illuminate they only degrade.

Why is this still going on? This is just Zorro denying well understood fusion reactions and claiming that it's a mystery. He provides no evidence or support other than vague hand waving and conspiracy shrouded statements.

He has stated that he doesn't understand the reactions, yet he keeps making pontifical statements regarding them. "

He/She knows full well that we are in the SPECULATION Forums so a general audience feels more comfortable confronting his chilling posts. .....No they prefers to blindly slug away and take their tears to mods instead of my razor messages responses.

zorro - 10 Rep

Zorro,

Have you actually got anything right yet?

Almost all of the stuff you have posted has been at odds with accepted science and not backed up by any sort of evidence.

You have, from time to time, cited stuff and called it evidence, but it never actually supported your point.

You seem to think that posting nonsense is, in some way, helpful. It isn't.

For exampl you say that you first post is "stunning"

Well, here it is

"My thought is that we need a Fusion reactor with processes similar to the Photosphere of the Sun where temps are only 7,000 dK."

So, what you want is a fusion reactor with processes that simply don't work.

Why is that "stunning" to " the general reader who buys Forum Advertisers stuff"

It's not stunning, it's silly.

[ACG52]

 

 

He/She knows full well that we are in the SPECULATION Forums so a general audience feels more comfortable confronting his chilling posts. .....No they prefers to blindly slug away and take their tears to mods instead of my razor messages responses.

The speculation forum does not mean meaningless bullshit and ignorant hand waving.

 

Your 'razor messages responses'? You haven't posted a single correct sentence since you started your nonsense.

[zorro]

Zorro,

Have you actually got anything right yet?

Almost all of the stuff you have posted has been at odds with accepted science and not backed up by any sort of evidence.

You have, from time to time, cited stuff and called it evidence, but it never actually supported your point.

You seem to think that posting nonsense is, in some way, helpful. It isn't.

For exampl you say that you first post is "stunning"

Well, here it is

"My thought is that we need a Fusion reactor with processes similar to the Photosphere of the Sun where temps are only 7,000 dK."

So, what you want is a fusion reactor with processes that simply don't work.

Why is that "stunning" to " the general reader who buys Forum Advertisers stuff"

It's not stunning, it's silly.

.

 

You seem to spend your tome on my great posts Thanx Read and learn bro.

The speculation forum does not mean meaningless bullshit and ignorant hand waving.

 

Your 'razor messages responses'? You haven't posted a single correct sentence since you started your nonsense.

.

 

I am up on Speculation what can you contribute to this OP ?? (From my iPhone on the head)

Edited August 16, 2013 by zorro

[John Cuthber]

Zorro,
Have you actually got anything right yet?
Almost all of the stuff you have posted has been at odds with accepted science and not backed up by any sort of evidence.
You have, from time to time, cited stuff and called it evidence, but it never actually supported your point.
You seem to think that posting nonsense is, in some way, helpful. It isn't.
For exampl you say that you first post is "stunning"
Well, here it is
"My thought is that we need a Fusion reactor with processes similar to the Photosphere of the Sun where temps are only 7,000 dK."
So, what you want is a fusion reactor with processes that simply don't work.
Why is that "stunning" to " the general reader who buys Forum Advertisers stuff"
It's not stunning, it's silly.

[zorro]

 

 

 

JC: Have you actually got anything right yet?


Zorro in red: My Shih Tzu Doggie, want a pic??

 

 

JC: Almost all of the stuff you have posted has been at odds with accepted science and not backed up by any sort of evidence.


Z: I pattern my Science skills after Richard Feynman. Everything I do is backed by what I investigate especially here at the Spec. Forum.

 

JC: You have, from time to time, cited stuff and called it evidence, but it never actually supported your point.


Z: I have impeccable and interesting evidence and stuff but many do not enjoy my levity.

 

JC: You seem to think that posting nonsense is, in some way, helpful. It isn't. 
For example you say that you first post is "stunning"
 Well, here it is




"My thought is that we need a Fusion reactor with processes similar to the Photosphere of the Sun where temps are only 7,000 dK."


 

Z: That is a misquote but it is still beyond stunning. If we had a fusion reactor in place today the world would be beyond a petro crisis, Nuke Weapons, Economy zinging with low gas prices, clean energy, no climate CO2 crisis. …… I could go on and on. So what

 

JC: So, what you want is a fusion reactor with processes that simply don't work.
 Why is that "stunning" to " the general reader who buys Forum Advertisers stuff"
It's not stunning, it's silly.

Z: All I want a Clean cheap furnace and only Fusion will deliver it before petro runs out..

Edited August 16, 2013 by zorro

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Most members here are deeply committed to helping others understand how the layers of scientific knowledge interact to provide the best available explanations for natural phenomena. Willfully ignoring the help others provide is beyond frustrating for those who have taken the time to learn mainstream science. To continue asserting unsupported speculation, or that science is unsure in a certain area when you're shown that science is indeed very sure, is no different than trolling.

 

zorro, please, please, PLEASE re-evaluate your learning process. Often, when someone doesn't intuitively grasp a concept, they determine that it must require "outside the box" thinking, but "the box" contains everything we know. You won't like to hear this but you need to study "the box" before you even know why it might be necessary to go outside of it.

 

No more soapboxing. Thread closed.