Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)
- Thread starter Michael Mozina
- Start date
- Status
What energies are those bumps at, Michael? Is there a bump energies you expect from the CNO reaction 12C(p,gamma)13N? No, that's be 1.9 MeV (no bump there). Is there a bump at the energy you expect from 13C(p,gamma)14N? No, that's be at 7.5 MeV (no bump there). Is there a bump at the energy you expect from 14N(p,gamma)15O? No, that'd be at 7.3 MeV (no bump there).
Those bumps are NOT products of CNO cycle reaction.
The bumps that you'd expect fron CNO cycle reactions are not there.
The bumps you see are NOT CNO. The 2.2 MeV bump is probably p(n,gamma)d. The bump labeled "C" is probably 12C(n,gamma)13C.
Last edited:
Um?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
As I and ihe other posters have already pointed out:
- There is no N peak (so don't talk about CNO!).
- The C peak is in the wrong place for the CNO cycle .
- The O peak is in the wrong place for the CNO cycle (there are no gamma rays from oxygen in the CNO cycle
! ).
- 1.95 MeV (12C + p)
- 7.54 MeV (13C + p)
- 7.35 MeV (14N + p)
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely. VI
As anyone can plainly see, I never said that the "wavelengths" are not present at all. As anyone can plainly see, what I did say was that the "gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions" are not present at all. As anyone can plainly see, these are definitely not equivalent statements. I definitely did not say what Mozina repeatedly claims I said. I stand by my previous statement that no observational evidence has been brought forth that reasonably implies CNO fusion activity anywhere near the "surface" of the Sun.
By reading the wrong part of the paper and making a mistake. The bumps in figure 5a are due to neutron capture reactions, as stated in section 2 ("Results")
I was looking at the text that actually refers to figure 6 and deals with specific isotopes. That is de-excitation energy. In any case, none of the features on these plots is consistent with gamma rays produced via a CNO fusion cycle.Arkhangelskaja said:
No I did not. What, you can't even read simple English? You think you are going to fool someone with such an outrageous claim?
As anyone can plainly see, I never said that the "wavelengths" are not present at all. As anyone can plainly see, what I did say was that the "gamma rays emitted by CNO reactions" are not present at all. As anyone can plainly see, these are definitely not equivalent statements. I definitely did not say what Mozina repeatedly claims I said. I stand by my previous statement that no observational evidence has been brought forth that reasonably implies CNO fusion activity anywhere near the "surface" of the Sun.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
That is certainly how you made is sound, or more correctly how *I* interpreted it. There are in fact all the gamma rays from CNO fusion present in the spectrum. You can argue that those particular wavelengths are not related to CNO fusion, but all the relevant CNO fusion wavelengths are present in the spectrum. Those "bumps" also clearly demonstrate that presence of carbon and oxygen, they also demonstrate that "Bennett Pinches" are involved in that neutron capture process, since that is the one process known to release free neutrons in light plasma.
Where?
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
Aside from the "he said/she said" debate, do you still think that the spectrum shown in the paper that you linked supports the position that significant CNO fusion is happening in the corona?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Define "significant". IMO it's a "rare" event that occurs only the "most extreme" discharge events, it's short lived and ends as soon as the discharge ends. Define "significant" in terms of a "totaled" spectrum like that. I would almost need to see a time elapsed breakdown, millisecond by millisecond breakdown of the spectrum to give you a decently quantified number, but compared to the sun's total energy output, it's "insignificant" IMO.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
At the appropriate wavelengths of the graph I cited.
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
So any CNO-fusion spike would be down in the noise?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
No, it would simply be "averaged/totaled" in that specific graph. Presumably it might spike quite nicely in a millisecond by millisecond recording of the event in gamma. In a 'binned" sort of graph like that it's not going to necessarily stick out like a sore thumb IMO.
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
So. . . can we say that the graph does not show evidence of CNO fusion in the corona, although that doesn't rule out the possibility of a small amount of CNO fusion occuring from time to time?
Averaged/totaled? You are making things up. This plot is a simple histogram. A monoenergetic gamma ray source on the Sun would lead to a bump in the histogram; the only thing that can make the bump "invisible" is if there aren't many gammas at that energy to begin with. Note that the neutron-capture gammas are not "averaged/totaled" in a way that makes them invisible to nonbelievers.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Such scientific erudition!
I'd be impressed even were it not contrasted with Michael Mozina's efforts.
I'd be impressed even were it not contrasted with Michael Mozina's efforts.
CNO fusion gives off very specific wavelengths of energy, Michael. This signature is not present in the corona. Wavelength signatures are present in C and O, but not at the energies required. This is very basic freshmen-level science. Note that this sequence gives off a different signature than the Proton-Proton fusion sequence. I suggest you read a book on nuclear physics.
No there aren't.
Right, so the wavelengths at which we should see the fusion peaks are included and we don't see the fusion peaks. And the fact that we don't saee the fusion peaks that we should see if fusion is taking place is evidence that fusion is taking place. One of the oddest arguments you have ever made.
We already new carbon and oxygen was present in the Sun. I'm pretty sure we have done for at least a century.
It demonstrates nothing of the sort. Free neutrons can easily be produced by cosmic ray spallation. Then there is probably e-+ p -> nue + n from cosmic rays too.
Not likely; this is a weak interaction process with an incredibly low cross section.
I'm aware it is a weak interaction. But above ~1011 eV the weak force has a similar strength to the EM force. Given that cosmic rays go up to 1020 eV I was kind of thinking this cross section might get quite big. Though I haven't thought about it that much and I guess the centre of mass energies must be lower than this.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
What are the "appropriate wavelengths " of the graph?
Give the numbers and the source of the numbers, Michael Mozina.
They are not any of the labeled peaks since these are the neutron captures by the appropriate elements.
FYI: The CNO cycle involves proton captures.
There are no peaks at the positions of the gamma rays emitted by the CNO cycle. You seem to still not know what these are so here they are again:
- 1.95 MeV (12C + p)
- 7.54 MeV (13C + p)
- 7.35 MeV (14N + p)
The problem with your claim that the peaks are missing because of binning or averaging is that they are still missing
! Thus the graph does not support your assertion that the CNO cycle is possible on the surface of the Sun. It would be just as invalid to claim that the binning removed the peak at 5.61 MeV for the OF cycle or any other nuclear process that emits gamma rays.What you need to do is get the raw data and show that there are peaks at
- 1.95 MeV (12C + p)
- 7.54 MeV (13C + p)
- 7.35 MeV (14N + p)
By the time you get to ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, the reaction you're looking at is probably not e + p -> n + nu; it's e + p --> e + (huge hadronic shower) + nu.
Fair point. That could include neutrons though?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Ya, and each one of them appears in the histogram too.
All the appropriate wavelengths generated by CNO fusion are represented in the graph.
What exactly would be the "energies required" considering the fact that not every flare necessarily leads to CNO fusion?
I suggest you start by explaining why you feel the wavelengths in questions and that were actually observe were *NOT* due to CNO fusion, because those wavelengths certainly exist in the data.
Could and usually would. But no more so than a similar primary event mediated by the strong or EM forces, and lacking the prompt hard neutrino.
Because the count rate doesn't go to zero at the CNO energies? Wow. By that standard, there is no possible data (except flat-zero background) that you would not interpret as supporting your theory.
By that standard, this plot is a gold mine. It's evidence for Tc-99m radiotherapy occurring in the sun---those gammas are "there". It's also evidence for the superdeformed Yrast excitations of 192Hg---those gammas are "there". It's evidence for neutrino capture reactions on 76Ge---those gammas are "there". It's evidence for the radiative decay of a heretofore undiscovered heavy axion. It's evidence for the "Pb-Po-Rn" alpha fusion cycle. It's evidence for North Korean violations of the comprehensive test ban treaty.
NO, not one of them appears in the histogram. There is a continuum which could come from:
a) Continuum radiation (ie Brehmsstrahlung)
b) Processes whereby high energy protons do not deposit their full energy in the detector e.g. Compton scattering, pair production.
c) A mixture of a and b.
And there are no peaks at those "appropriate" wavelengths therefore no evidence of CNO fusion.
Wuh? RC has given you the appropriate energies multiple times.
There are no peaks at those energies only continuum. Possible sources of the contiuum are actual continuum radiation such as Brehmsstrahlung or partial absorption of the energy of incoming photons.
Maybe I should have just stuck with cosmic rays (may have) dunnit then.
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely. VII
Figure 5a covers the energy range 0.3 - 8.0 MeV. So for the CNO-I cycle we should see bumps at 1.95, 2.22, 2.75, 4.96, 7.35 and 7.54 MeV (not "or", but "and"), For the CNO-II cycle we should see bumps at 0.6, 1.19, 2.75, 2.76 and 7.35 MeV (the 12.13 MeV bump lies outside the plot range). The plot shows bumps at about 0.9, 1.5, 2.3, 3.0, 4.6 and 6.0 MeV (the latter being almost invisible and the 1.5 MeV bump being very broad). There are also significant dips at about 0.7, 2-3, 4.5-5.0 and 6-8 MeV. The ~2.3 MeV bump, labeled "n", coincides with 2.23 MeV neutron capture on a proton, and also with the 2.22 MeV gamma ray expected from the inverse beta decay (positron emission) of 13N to 13C in CNO-I . However, the locations on the plot where one would expect to find CNO-I gamma rays at 1.95 & 2.75 MeV are actually dominated by dips in the spectrum, indicating a deficit of gamma rays in the data, where CNO-I would present a surplus of gamma rays. The bump labeled "C" could mask a 4.96 MeV CNO-I bump, but again, there are actually dips rather then bumps, where we would expect to find CNO-I gamma rays at 7.35 & 7.54 MeV. This is not simply an absence of positive evidence that the CNO-I cycle is in play. The presence of dips where there should be bumps constitutes positive evidence in favor of the assertive proposition that the CNO-I cycle in fact is not in play in these data. Likewise, the last 3 bumps one would expect from the CNO-II cycle sit where the data plotted in figure 5a show negative features, while there is no sign of any bumps at 1.19 or 0.6 MeV. And once again, the presence of dips instead of bumps is equally positive evidence for the assertive proposition that the CNO-II cycle is not physically present for the time & place represented by these data.
And so I stand by my claim: These data do not indicate the presence of any CNO fusion cycle. Furthermore, these data do indicate that no CNO fusion cycle is in effect.
Your interpretation is sloppy & careless. You need to pay more attention. Everybody else knew exactly what I meant, only you managed to decide that what I actually meant refers to words I did not use. Your second sentence here is the perfect case in point: "There are in fact all the gamma rays from CNO fusion present in the spectrum". What you mean to say is apparently synonymous with this: "there are gamma rays present in the spectrum at the same wavelengths as are emitted by CNO fusion." What you actually did say is synonymous with this: "Some of the gamma rays in that spectrum were created by CNO fusion". If you really think that CNO fusion is generating some of the recorded gamma rays, then by all means show us some evidence. Otherwise, you should take care that the words you use are coincident with what you mean.
That is of course a totally ridiculous thing to say. No, as a matter of fact, by no stretch of the imagination is a Bennett Pinch (or a "Bennett Pinch", depending on the significance of the " " marks) the only way to generate free neutrons in any plasma. As a matter of fact, most of the free neutrons are "freed" from deuterons in the plasma, where the protons, neutrons and deuterons are in thermal equilibrium. This is indicated by the bump in the plot (figure 5a) marked "n", at 2.23 MeV, which is the deuteron binding energy. The strength of the feature is temperature dependent; the higher the temperature the slower the rate at which protons will capture free neutrons, while that rate increases towards lower temperatures, and then decreases again when temperatures are too low.
I do argue that none of the wavelengths seen are due to CNO fusion and assert that there is significant evidence in favor of this position. The bumps in figure 5a are superimposed on top of a sloping background that resembles figure 5b. That background is a thermal continuum. The bumps indicate "background + process", where the neutron capture gamma rays (they are the "process" part) are emitted in addition to the background gamma rays. If there is any CNO fusion process in play then there must be a bump for that process. Furthermore, the CNO process is a cycle, so you don't just get a bump here or a bump there, you get all of the bumps simultaneously or you get none of the bumps at all, there is no middle ground.
Figure 5a covers the energy range 0.3 - 8.0 MeV. So for the CNO-I cycle we should see bumps at 1.95, 2.22, 2.75, 4.96, 7.35 and 7.54 MeV (not "or", but "and"), For the CNO-II cycle we should see bumps at 0.6, 1.19, 2.75, 2.76 and 7.35 MeV (the 12.13 MeV bump lies outside the plot range). The plot shows bumps at about 0.9, 1.5, 2.3, 3.0, 4.6 and 6.0 MeV (the latter being almost invisible and the 1.5 MeV bump being very broad). There are also significant dips at about 0.7, 2-3, 4.5-5.0 and 6-8 MeV. The ~2.3 MeV bump, labeled "n", coincides with 2.23 MeV neutron capture on a proton, and also with the 2.22 MeV gamma ray expected from the inverse beta decay (positron emission) of 13N to 13C in CNO-I . However, the locations on the plot where one would expect to find CNO-I gamma rays at 1.95 & 2.75 MeV are actually dominated by dips in the spectrum, indicating a deficit of gamma rays in the data, where CNO-I would present a surplus of gamma rays. The bump labeled "C" could mask a 4.96 MeV CNO-I bump, but again, there are actually dips rather then bumps, where we would expect to find CNO-I gamma rays at 7.35 & 7.54 MeV. This is not simply an absence of positive evidence that the CNO-I cycle is in play. The presence of dips where there should be bumps constitutes positive evidence in favor of the assertive proposition that the CNO-I cycle in fact is not in play in these data. Likewise, the last 3 bumps one would expect from the CNO-II cycle sit where the data plotted in figure 5a show negative features, while there is no sign of any bumps at 1.19 or 0.6 MeV. And once again, the presence of dips instead of bumps is equally positive evidence for the assertive proposition that the CNO-II cycle is not physically present for the time & place represented by these data.
And so I stand by my claim: These data do not indicate the presence of any CNO fusion cycle. Furthermore, these data do indicate that no CNO fusion cycle is in effect.
I should be greatly surprised if Mozina accepts such advice. My standard reference for these discussions is Nuclear Physics of Stars by Christian Iliadis, Wiley-VCH, 2007. And D.D. Clayton's old standard Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis is still in print I think, but now somewhat outdated in detail (1968 & 1983), although the basic nuclear physics has not changed.
Oxygen and Carbon appear, but not Nitrogen, and not even at the appropriate energy peaks.
No, they are not. Read the next quote as to why.
As others have said, the required peaks would be at 1.95 MeV, 7.35 MeV, and 7.54 Mev. The only one you could even consider remotely close is Mg+Ne+Si (1.51-1.74 MeV), C shows up at 4.0-5.0 MeV, and O shows up at 5.3-6.9 MeV. Note that none of these are even close to 1.95, 7.53, and 7.54 MeV.
Because experimental and observational data around the energy emission patterns of elements leaves little to the imagination. Again, read the chart.
Mg+Ne+Si @ 1.51-1.74 MeV
C @ 4.0-5.0 MeV
O @ 5.3-6.9 MeV
Note that these are not even close to 1.95 MeV, 7.35 MeV, and 7.54 MeV. The data is not in your favor, Michael. Nitrogen's not even listed in the histogram, and the peaks don't even match what we're looking for. Therefore, this is not evidence of CNO fusion. This doesn't even require science, this requires only the ability to read and comprehend numbers and labels.
Zeuzzz
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 5,211
Since (some) of the electric sun models propose a continuous glow discharge happening on the suns surface what do people think that the likelihood of Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement Fusion happening on/in the sun is?
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Electric_glow_discharge#Fusion_in_Glow_Discharges
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Electric_glow_discharge#Fusion_in_Glow_Discharges
When you say "electric sun models propose a continuous glow discharge", you mean "some people have posted a picture of an electric glow discharge next to a picture of the Sun". There is no model; there can't be; glow discharge is a well-understood behavior a small ionized component in a mostly neutral gas. It does not happen in hot plasma.
Inertial electrostatic confinement fusion? Do you even know what that means? First of all, you don't need "confinement", either inertial or electrostatic, in the Sun. Hot species in the solar corona are not confined at all---they fly off with the solar wind. Cooler plasmas are gravitationally confined. (The reason that electrostatic confinement comes up on Earth is not because it's some important fundamental aspect of fusion physics---it's because it's a cheap way of keeping the Earth's cold, 14.7 psi atmosphere away from your ion beams.)
So you can't possibly mean what you said (glow discharge, inertial confinement; that's nonsense.) into science. Is it possible that, near the Sun's surface, there's some geometry somewhere where ions get electrostatically accelerated and undergo fusion when they collide?
The answer is no, not even close. Most of the solar plasma is protons and helium; all of obvious collisions (p+p, p+He, He+He) do not lead to fusion. (p+p -> d+e+nu is a weak-interaction process with an absurdly tiny cross section; that's why the Sun's core, despite huge temperatures and densities, fuses as slowly as it does. p+He and He+He are both endothermic. That's why laboratory fusion experiments use dd and dt.)
There is no evidence for electrostatic acceleration of any sort; nor is such expected, since the plasma's huge conductivity would gently short out any voltage difference before it could get interestingly large.
But we've been through this a million times. It's like you're throwing a ping-pong ball at a dartboard---you keep trying hoping it will stick next time.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_electrostatic_confinement
As already mentioned on this thread Zeuzzz, fusion needs to overcome the Coulomb barrier, an electrostatic barrier that keeps like charges apart and from just spontaneous fusion (luckily for us). So it is in fact very difficult to overcome an electrostatic barrier by the very same electrostatic forces (other like charges further away). Unless you can inertially confine them all by some other means like gravity or photon pressure, but then the fusion is just gravity or photon driven specifically in spite of the intense electrostatic repulsion of like charges.
In my own poking around, I came across a rather informative lecture segment from U Texas.
If you read through it, it gives a very good and understandable breakdown on how gravity stacks up against the electrostatic force.
One relevant section:
Yes, electromagnetism is far stronger than gravity, but the net charge is exactly zero. As stated in the lecture, electromagnetism has both positive and negative charges and cancel each other out, while gravity cannot be canceled out and thus is cumulative.
So as positive-negative charges attract to each other and cancel out their charge, gravity takes over and draws more neutral pairs together. On any massive scale, gravity always dominates. This is why the electric sun theory fails.
[ETA: added adverb in description]
If you read through it, it gives a very good and understandable breakdown on how gravity stacks up against the electrostatic force.
One relevant section:
Yes, electromagnetism is far stronger than gravity, but the net charge is exactly zero. As stated in the lecture, electromagnetism has both positive and negative charges and cancel each other out, while gravity cannot be canceled out and thus is cumulative.
So as positive-negative charges attract to each other and cancel out their charge, gravity takes over and draws more neutral pairs together. On any massive scale, gravity always dominates. This is why the electric sun theory fails.
[ETA: added adverb in description]
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
The 2.2Mev spike seen in the observation in question would point to an indication of N -> C so technically N shows up in the spectrum.
There are a number of "issues" here that need to be kept in mind while discussing this idea. I'm not suggesting CNO fusion occurs in ALL discharge events, just the highest energy events. By physical design however, it is unlikely to be "consistent" in terms of how much C, how much N, how much O fusion we might observe and it's likely to be both limited in duration and not necessarily uniform in terms of the amount of each process in the CNO fusion process. There may even be N+H->C+He reactions present. I have no way to determining the precise percentages from a histogram, but some things are clear from a histogram. All the appropriate wavelengths are in fact present to some amount, O and C are *definitely* present, and the neutron capture process is probably "greater than" the amount of fusion occurring in the same event.
To be precise, I would need a millisecond by millisecond breakdown of the gamma output to confirm all the CNO percentages, the the appropriate "spike" at 2.2Mev was confirmed in the observation in question, and the timing was confirmed, the presence of C and O is confirmed. Furthermore, the presence of neutron capture processes are congruent with "discharges" in plasma. All the various wavelengths *ARE* present. Whether they overtly stick out in the histogram is another issue entirely.
Not necessarily. First of all, my intent of citing the histogram was to point out the presence of C and O in virtually *ALL* flares. The flare we wrote about is a very specific flare with 2.2Mev spikes. Again, the RATES of CN&O fusion may not all be *IDENTICAL*. You just can't make all those assumptions about the rates and expect to find clear peaks in each and every one in every single histogram! That may or may NOT occur depending on the various fusion rates for the various element, and the flares in question. This is "discharge" process that involves random aspects, and less random elements related to which elements ionize first.
Again, the histogram itself was simply cited to point out to Tim that all the wavelengths are present. Carbon and Oxygen and Neon are also present and all the things that I would expect to see in the model I proposed on my website. I was NOT suggesting this one histogram would or should show clear "spikes" on every CNO wavelength nor was I trying to imply that "fusion happens" in every single discharge including the flares listed in that particular histogram.
It's really difficult IMO to have a legitimate "scientific" discussion of these ideas on a website like this. Even when I explain my motives for posting the histogram and point out some of the pitfalls of the assumption you're making, I'm not likely to
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
FYI folks.....
It's a little overwhelming to be "out of the loop" for this long and then try to play "catch up" while it's this busy at work. I'll do my best to move the conversation forward, but I doubt I'm going to have the time to respond to each and every post. Bear with me a bit.
It's a little overwhelming to be "out of the loop" for this long and then try to play "catch up" while it's this busy at work. I'll do my best to move the conversation forward, but I doubt I'm going to have the time to respond to each and every post. Bear with me a bit.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
In this particularly histogram, probably so. The point of me pointing it out was more to show that the wavelengths are present and C and O are also present. The neutron capture signature appears in "discharges" on Earth, so it also tends to confirm that discharge processes are occurring during flare events.
I was *NOT* trying to suggest that fusion occurs in *every* flare, nor that a histogram of random flare events would show clear CNO spikes in exactly the same percentages for every element.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Oy. I think this is going to become redundant in a hurry. I was *NOT* trying to cite the histogram for the reasons you folks seem to believe. Rather than just keep repeating myself, how about reading through my response to Vermonter?
But the fact that the wavelengths are present just shows that the detector can detect at the relevant energies. It does not give any support whatsoever for the possibility of CNO fusion since there are no peaks at the appropriate energies. In fact, the lack of any peaks shows there are no significant narrow line emissions at those energies, in direct contradiction to what one would see if there was CNO fusion.
As for showing that C and O is present... what was the point. We all knew that. The composition of the Sun has been known for a long time. You might as well present evidence for the existence of kangaroos in Australia.
It does no such thing. It confirms there are free neutrons in the Sun. There are many ways free neutrons may have been produced.
So the histogram doesn't show the presence of the relevant CNO peaks (in fact it shows they are completely absent) and doesn't show the existence of "discharges" (whatever you mean by that) since free neutrons can be produced in a number of ways. All it shows is that C and O are present. Which everybody knew already.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
But again Tim, that depends on how you choose to *INTERPRET* my statements now doesn't it? The whole point of me citing the histogram was to point out to you that the gamma spectrum includes all the CNO wavelengths. You can chose to 'interpret' that data anyway you see fit (I can't stop you), but you can't say these wavelengths are absent. They exist.
I was NEVER trying to insinuate that CNO fusion occurs in ALL flares, nor that it occurs in equal amounts for every element! I was trying to point out that C and O were clearly present in the spectrum, that neutron capture signatures from these elements were present, etc. It's all consistent with "discharge" activity as well.
You can claim anything you like about that particular histogram, now can't you? FYI, it wasn't even my *INTENT* to demonstrate that "fusion happens" based on that one histogram. You do understand that right?
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
I think you've hit the nail on the head. There appears to be no possible data that would sway the electric Sun adherents from their belief, and no possible data that can't be cherry picked, confabulated, and distorted in severely unscientific ways to support it.
- Status