ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags fusion , Solar power

Closed Thread
Old 1st April 2010, 10:44 AM   #81
blobru
Philosopher
 
blobru's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,900
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, it's probably my... very limited understanding of humanity at work, but I still don't get it.

I wanted to be a physicist. I pretty much just changed my mind at the 12'th hour because, well, a good physics university was far away and a computer university was right nearby, and there never were that many jobs for physicists anyway.

But, see, that meant really being interested in physics.

My parents, bless their nerdy souls, had given me a physics book to read when I could barely read. Which was before school actually. I guess I had asked why is the sky blue or some such. I can tell you it was a lot more fascinating than the explanations involving fairies and whatnot.

Soon I was reading Berkeley university books on quantum mechanics, and could talk to anyone for hours about how a radio works, starting from the antenna and ending up with the speaker. I thought they must be really interested too. Heh

I'm not saying that to brag or anything, it's just the kind of attitude I'd expect from anyone who's serious about physics. I'd expect them to be genuinely interested in how stuff works. I'd expect them to read a lot more than picking one woo book and sticking with it.

And that's where such woo models come apart. The questions about them start at pretty elementary levels. It's stuff like "why doesn't that iron melt", or "so where does all that hydrogen in the corona and solar wind come from", or more generally for an electric universe "so where is the massive magnetic field to go with the kind of current that would account for the Sun's energy." Even the most elementary actual knowledge of physics, even just not having slept in physics class in high school, should put a dent into that.

I guess what I'm trying to say, and using too many words, is: I have trouble imagining someone who really really wanted to be a physicist too, but slept in physics class in school :/

Well, it may be that not everyone who wants to be something (physicist, poet, pianist, prima donna ballerina...) has the talent to pull it off. That can be a pretty hard realization. Adopting an obsolete theory and the role of "misunderstood genius" may be a way to avoid that realization. Plus the lure of being a "genius" (in your own mind): the next Einstein, the patent clerk who shocked the world! -- is pretty powerful, too. Seeing yourself as "misunderstood": the roles of "outsider", "martyr suffering scorn for the truth" (sounds familiar), appeal to many for many different reasons. Another basis, maybe: a sort of engrained "religious" mindset which makes it impossible to understand science. Finding a theory which doesn't fit the facts, but which can be clung to as dogmatic TRUTH that transcends the facts! -- better than boring ol' tentatively true real physics anyday. Not to mention truly sad cases of mental illness, etc... I'm just guessing at a few more-or-less rational motivations for wouldbe crank physicists.
__________________
"Say to them, 'I am Nobody!'" -- Ulysses to the Cyclops

"Never mind. I can't read." -- Hokulele to the Easter Bunny
blobru is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2010, 11:23 AM   #82
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Some particular questions spring to my mind brantc. Would your iron sun be solid or mostly iron under its ferrite surface? Or would it be a combination of other elements? In either case how did that iron or those other elements originate in quantities sufficient to account for the mass not only of our sun, but also other stars of significantly greater mass? Considering of course that the compatibility of modern cosmology and astrophysics with the standard model of particle physics seems to do quite a nice job of not only explaining how our sun works, but why it is comprised of the elements, in the quantities, it appears to be comprised of.
I am trying to focus on one aspect of this idea/model right now, the solar surface.

But a quick answer to your questions.
A thick hollow shell made of iron with other trace elements alloyed with the iron during formation in a supernova.. The hollow iron shell also accounts fro the density measurements although it requires a slightly different model of gravity. All stars are different with differencing trace metals but they ALL have metals.
The sun was formed in what we call a supernova, which is really just a large pinch(filamental involving a flux rope)see "Barrel shaped supernova remnants aligned with the galactic plane".
This is where the iron sphere came from.
The elements are gathered by a process called Marklund Convection and converted by a pinching process forming heavier and heavier elements until iron. Fusion(nucleosynthesis) as a process of nature happens in filamental pinches(reconnection) or the standard Bennett pinch. Temperatures high enough for the CNO cycle have been observed on the sun in "reconnection" (pinches)

In experiments with arcs, hollow spherules are formed in intense arc explosions with metals.

There is a huge problem with metals and nucleosynthesis as well as elemental abundance in the standard model.

Last edited by brantc; 1st April 2010 at 11:41 AM.
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2010, 11:55 AM   #83
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,761
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
There is a huge problem with metals and nucleosynthesis as well as elemental abundance in the standard model.
What problem is that?
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2010, 12:05 PM   #84
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,575
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
A thick hollow shell made of iron with other trace elements alloyed with the iron during formation in a supernova.
A solid shell is going to form during a massive explossion? Yeah, not so much.

Quote:
he hollow iron shell also accounts fro the density measurements although it requires a slightly different model of gravity.
That's an understatement. A shell is gravitationally unstable. Any perturbation and it will collapse inward. Hell, given the pressures involved, you probably wouldn't even need perturbations, the iron would simply start to flow. To stabilize an iron shell, you'd need a theory of gravity which is not only completely new, but which contradicts experimental evidence.

Quote:
All stars are different with differencing trace metals but they ALL have metals.
Actually, some stars have almost no metal, certainly not enough to form a solid shell.

Quote:
The sun was formed in what we call a supernova, which is really just a large pinch(filamental involving a flux rope)see "Barrel shaped supernova remnants aligned with the galactic plane".
This is where the iron sphere came from.
A pinch produces a cylinder, not a sphere.

Quote:
There is a huge problem with metals and nucleosynthesis as well as elemental abundance in the standard model.
Not so much, actually.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2010, 12:28 PM   #85
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,151
I would also like to add for brantc's benefit that "metallicity" means something completely different for stars. It just means all elements heavier than hellium. "Metal" there doesn't mean the same as in chemistry.

So, yes, most stars contain "metals", but those "metals" are actually the likes of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, or neon. Good luck forming a solid shell out of _those_ even at 1000K.

Also it bears remembering what "metal rich" means in percentages, especially if we're talking iron. Most stars won't even produce much of it, and indeed most will die with little more than what they had accreted in the first place. Even a young star like our Sun has only 1.6% iron, by mass, which is to say "bugger all" in layman's terms. A population III star might have a millionth of that. In fact, it might not even have enough C, N and O to start that fusion cycle at all.

So basically it seems to me like a mis-conception based on not even knowing what the terms mean. "Metal rich" means different elements and a very different meaning of "rich."
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2010, 12:47 PM   #86
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
A thick hollow shell made of iron with other trace elements alloyed with the iron during formation in a supernova..
Break out the laughing dogs.A shell formed during an explosion? Do you realize just how powerful a supernova is? Probably not,or you would not believe in nonsense like that.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2010, 12:52 PM   #87
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by brantc View Post

There is a huge problem with metals and nucleosynthesis as well as elemental abundance in the standard model.
Fred Hoyle would have disagreed with you.Here is a list of the prizes he won,some for his ground-breaking work on nucleosynthesis.How many prizes have you won?
* Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1968)
* Bruce Medal (1970)
* Henry Norris Russell Lectureship (1971)
* Royal Medal (1974)
* Klumpke-Roberts Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (1977)
* Balzan Prize for Astrophysics: evolution of stars (1994, with Martin Schwarzschild)
* Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, with Edwin Salpeter (1997)
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2010, 12:53 PM   #88
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,135
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
I am trying to focus on one aspect of this idea/model right now, the solar surface.
As am I, how could your "solar surface" form in the first place?

Originally Posted by brantc View Post

But a quick answer to your questions.
A thick hollow shell made of iron with other trace elements alloyed with the iron during formation in a supernova..
Ok what is "thick" 10% or more of the surface radius? Once you start getting to 30% or 40% you’re talking about something that is mostly solid not just a “thick” “shell”. As Ziggurat inquires above, how exactly does an iron shell form in a supernova? You also say “hollow” does that infer an internal vacuum and absolutely no internal pressure to help support your “shell”?



Originally Posted by brantc View Post


The hollow iron shell also accounts fro the density measurements although it requires a slightly different model of gravity.
Well then it doesn’t account for the destiny measurement if you need “a slightly different model of gravity”. Just what would that “slightly different model” entail?


Originally Posted by brantc View Post
All stars are different with differencing trace metals but they ALL have metals.
The sun was formed in what we call a supernova, which is really just a large pinch(filamental involving a flux rope)see "Barrel shaped supernova remnants aligned with the galactic plane".
This is where the iron sphere came from.
The elements are gathered by a process called Marklund Convection and converted by a pinching process forming heavier and heavier elements until iron. Fusion(nucleosynthesis) as a process of nature happens in filamental pinches(reconnection) or the standard Bennett pinch. Temperatures high enough for the CNO cycle have been observed on the sun in "reconnection" (pinches)
What “pinching process” are you referring to that forms “heavier and heavier elements until iron”? Where has fusion been observed occurring “in filamental pinches(reconnection) or the standard Bennett pinch”? When has CNO cycle fusion been observed “on the sun in "reconnection" (pinches)"?

Originally Posted by brantc View Post

In experiments with arcs, hollow spherules are formed in intense arc explosions with metals.
Do you know how and why those spherules are formed and what are the factors in that formation limiting their size?

Originally Posted by brantc View Post

There is a huge problem with metals and nucleosynthesis as well as elemental abundance in the standard model.
What exactly do you see as that “huge problem”?
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 1st April 2010 at 12:56 PM.
The Man is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2010, 01:48 PM   #89
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 16,684
Originally Posted by Fnord View Post
Other great ideas:

There is no such thing as "Electronics". All of those liitle components contain magix smoke. Let the smoke out, and the component stops working.
That is actually an accepted concept among Classic British Automobile circles. Lucas Replacement smoke is precious . . . .

http://www3.telus.net/bc_triumph_registry/smoke.htm


BTW, I know almost nothing about cosmology and yet I find these threads addictive. Please stop. I have a job and a family. You can't keep posting these threads!
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2010, 01:55 PM   #90
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
That is actually an accepted concept among Classic British Automobile circles. Lucas Replacement smoke is precious . . . .

http://www3.telus.net/bc_triumph_registry/smoke.htm


BTW, I know almost nothing about cosmology and yet I find these threads addictive. Please stop. I have a job and a family. You can't keep posting these threads!
They are endlessly entertaining and informative.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2010, 03:34 PM   #91
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,151
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Break out the laughing dogs.A shell formed during an explosion? Do you realize just how powerful a supernova is? Probably not,or you would not believe in nonsense like that.
Just to put an approximate number of it, at its peak the temperature of a Type 1a supernova is in the _billions_ of degrees, and its brightness is about 5 billion times that of the Sun. (And pretty invariably at that, which is why it's used as a standard candle.)

The energy released in the Carbon fusion is at the order of 1-2*10^44 Joules. By comparison, the Sun's luminosity is roughly 4*10^26W. That is to say, it equals the Sun's current energy output for about 2-5*10^17 seconds, or about 6 to 10 billion years.

The temperatures and energies involved are... humbling. Trying to contain those in a thin iron sphere is akin to trying to contain a thermonuclear explosion in a paper bag.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2010, 05:53 PM   #92
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,332
Question How thick is your thick hollow shell made of iron

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
A thick hollow shell made of iron with other trace elements alloyed with the iron during formation in a supernova..
First asked 2 April 2010
brantc,
How thick is "thick"?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2010, 05:55 PM   #93
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Just to put an approximate number of it, at its peak the temperature of a Type 1a supernova is in the _billions_ of degrees, and its brightness is about 5 billion times that of the Sun. (And pretty invariably at that, which is why it's used as a standard candle.)

The energy released in the Carbon fusion is at the order of 1-2*10^44 Joules. By comparison, the Sun's luminosity is roughly 4*10^26W. That is to say, it equals the Sun's current energy output for about 2-5*10^17 seconds, or about 6 to 10 billion years.

The temperatures and energies involved are... humbling. Trying to contain those in a thin iron sphere is akin to trying to contain a thermonuclear explosion in a paper bag.
I can't wait to see brantc's handwave on that one.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2010, 06:03 PM   #94
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,332
Question What density measurments does the hollow iron shell account for

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
The hollow iron shell also accounts fro the density measurements although it requires a slightly different model of gravity.
First asked 2 April 2010
brantc,
What density measurements?
Please give the numerical match from your hollow iron shell model + "slightly different model of gravity" to these measurements.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2010, 06:05 PM   #95
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,332
Question What is your "slightly different model of gravity"

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
The hollow iron shell also accounts fro the density measurements although it requires a slightly different model of gravity.
First asked 2 April 2010
brantc,
What is your "slightly different model of gravity"?
What happens if you apply this model to other situations, e.g. what does it predict for the orbit of Mercury?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2010, 06:17 PM   #96
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,332
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
The sun was formed in what we call a supernova, which is really just a large pinch(filamental involving a flux rope)see "Barrel shaped supernova remnants aligned with the galactic plane".
A bit of ignorance here:
  1. The Sun was not formed in a supernova. The gas cloud that it formed from included elements from supernovae.
  2. Supernova are exploding stars. The idea that supernova are some sort of pinches is really stupid but I am sure you can cite the published literature on this.
What causes barrel-shaped supernova remnants?
Quote:
Even from the earliest crude radio maps of 40 years ago, it was apparent that Galactic supernova remnants (SNR) are anything but well-behaved expanding spheres. In particular a significant fraction of SNRs have a bilateral, or ``barrel'', morphology, with a clear axis of reflection symmetry along which there is negligible emission, and with bright flanks on either side. There are numerous theories to explain the appearance of barrel-shaped SNRs, such as the effect of anisotropies in the distribution of supernova ejecta, the structure of the ambient magnetic field, the mass-loss history of the progenitor and the effect of opposed jets or beams from a central source. Three decades of debate have failed to settle the issue, however. Most Galactic SNRs have now been observed in the radio with high resolution and sensitivity, and one can establish a clear bilateral subset of the population. We define such a subset, and find that the symmetry axes of these SNRs are aligned with the Galactic Plane at a high level of statistical significance. This suggests that the Galactic magnetic field is responsible for the appearance of these SNRs at some level. We propose that the ambient field pre-processes the interstellar medium to produce elongated bubbles into which these SNRs expand. This then produces the barrel shape, together with the required alignment. We are in the process of studying the environment of barrel-shaped SNRs in H i\ emission, in order to see if this model is supported by observations.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2010, 09:41 PM   #97
Andrew Wiggin
Master Poster
 
Andrew Wiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,915
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
I love the idea of Steampunk physics,great to look at but bugger all to do with reality.
Yah. Fake physics just doesn't do it for me. At least here there are enough folks who know the actual physics, and real physics can be awesome. No need to make things up when the truth is even cooler. Nuclear fusion and plasma is awesome, in every sense of the word.

I used to post a lot on the 'brass goggles' forum about real stuff, till it got overwhelmed by model making and some of the mods started pushing a 'real physics is too scary' policy. Sad days when discussions of high voltage and superheated steam get shouted down in favor of the latest painted plastic aetheric ray.

A
__________________
"Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the
world." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled,
the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in
them?' " - H. G. Wells
Andrew Wiggin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st April 2010, 11:15 PM   #98
CaveDave
Semicentenarian Troglodyte
 
CaveDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Buddy Holly's home, Surrounded by tumbleweeds, duststorms, and tornados.
Posts: 1,743
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Usually, dark current is defined as:
The current that flows in a photodetector when it is not receiving any light. It may increase as the temperature rises.
Yeah, I knew about that one, but it didn't seem to apply to the solar surface; nor did the Faraday dark space in a cold cathode glow tube.

Quote:
I the same, I think, can hold in a electron gun, the current that is already flowing before a discharge is visible and can be measured by a Faraday Cup. I guess thence cometh Faraday dark current.
I saw that one, also, but did not see how it would apply, either.
Quote:
Basically, it's brantc having found a new scientific term (though google does not give any hits on Faraday dark current).
I had the same search results, and came to the same conclusion. Sometimes these guys absolutely astound me.

Cheers,

Dave
__________________
I, for one, welcome our new Authoritarian Socialist Overlords! . . . All Hail, Comrade Obama!
WHO IS JOHN GALT? . . . Read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.
"Some say that I'm a wise man, some think that I'm a fool. It doesn't matter either way: I'll be a wise man's fool."
Procol Harum "In Held 'Twas In I"

Last edited by CaveDave; 1st April 2010 at 11:17 PM.
CaveDave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 01:55 AM   #99
Andrew Wiggin
Master Poster
 
Andrew Wiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,915
Seems like a good generalization that if Google doesn't know what a term means, then the person using it made it up. Not a good start to making a case.
The best way to show one knows enough science to talk about science is to use the same language as the rest of the world uses when they talk science. Having to make up your own words doesn't mean that you're pushing the boundries of knowlege. It usually just means you don't know the right words.

A
__________________
"Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the
world." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled,
the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in
them?' " - H. G. Wells
Andrew Wiggin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 01:57 AM   #100
Andrew Wiggin
Master Poster
 
Andrew Wiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,915
Well, Google knows about "Faraday dark current" now... One hit. Guess where it points...

A
__________________
"Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the
world." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled,
the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in
them?' " - H. G. Wells
Andrew Wiggin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 02:17 AM   #101
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,387
Originally Posted by brantc View Post

There is a huge problem with metals and nucleosynthesis as well as elemental abundance in the standard model.
I hope you do know that "metals" in astrophysics is everything heavier than Helium.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 02:23 AM   #102
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,387
Originally Posted by CaveDave View Post
Yeah, I knew about that one, but it didn't seem to apply to the solar surface; nor did the Faraday dark space in a cold cathode glow tube.


I saw that one, also, but did not see how it would apply, either.


I had the same search results, and came to the same conclusion. Sometimes these guys absolutely astound me.

Cheers,

Dave
To quote Max Headroom: Two persons wiwiwith just one single memory!
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 02:26 AM   #103
CaveDave
Semicentenarian Troglodyte
 
CaveDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Buddy Holly's home, Surrounded by tumbleweeds, duststorms, and tornados.
Posts: 1,743
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
That is actually an accepted concept among Classic British Automobile circles. Lucas Replacement smoke is precious . . . .

http://www3.telus.net/bc_triumph_registry/smoke.htm
LOVED that.

We often quote a riddle:
Q: Why do the British drink warm beer?
A: Lucas makes refrigerators, too.

I just finished my second refurbishment of Lucas 6cu Fuel Control Units from 1980 Jaguar XJS V-12s. All it takes is sucking out the solder on both top and bottom circuit boards and replacing it with good quality electronic solder and cleaning off the flux.

These are EFI computers, but not in the usual sense: they are a hybrid of mostly analog with some A/D conversion and counter chains and table look-up ROM to hold the fuel "map".

Jaguars often come in with electronic failures needing little more than better soldering.

[/DERAIL]

Cheers,

Dave
__________________
I, for one, welcome our new Authoritarian Socialist Overlords! . . . All Hail, Comrade Obama!
WHO IS JOHN GALT? . . . Read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.
"Some say that I'm a wise man, some think that I'm a fool. It doesn't matter either way: I'll be a wise man's fool."
Procol Harum "In Held 'Twas In I"
CaveDave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 08:30 AM   #104
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
No. This will be my crash and burn alone...

Do you also have a cheese moon theory?
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 09:46 AM   #105
Mikemcc
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,727
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
...

1. This falling coronal rain is a falling solid that is cooling back down to the temperature of solid iron, 1000C, from almost 10,000F at the top of the loops, which happens to be ...... 5,537.77778 degrees Celsius.

...
How does it cool down? If its 10000F (5537 C) at the peak of the loop how does it loose not only the energy inherent in it's temperature but also the huge amount of gravitational potential energy that it had when it was at the top of the loop.

I must remember that according to you that I'll be cooled down by going for a run, that doing work can cool me down... Oh, and that Sterling Engines don't work as well...
Mikemcc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 10:46 AM   #106
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,098
Originally Posted by Mikemcc View Post
I must remember that according to you that I'll be cooled down by going for a run, that doing work can cool me down... Oh, and that Sterling Engines don't work as well...
Yeah, but think of the benefits of having a Sterling Refrigerator!
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 12:04 PM   #107
soylent
Muse
 
soylent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 968
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Wow, brantc has reached another lowest point in understanding basic physics, I did not think it could go any lower after the MRx discussion.
Don't worry. It's only a local minima.
__________________
"A lot of those lobbyists genuinely like people. But then, fleas like people too." - Mike Munger.
soylent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 12:23 PM   #108
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,151
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
First asked 2 April 2010
brantc,
How thick is "thick"?
Well, being a fairly easily bored kinda guy, I decided to do the maths.

We know the sun's mass because of its gravity, and we know its size, hence average density. It's 1400 kg/m3. A bit heavier than water.

The thickest for an iron equivalent would be if there's nothing but an iron shell, i.e., complete vaccuum inside.

Iron density is about 7000 kg/m3 right below melting point. (We still want it solid.) That's 5 times denser than the sun.

To end up with the same average density, we'd have to hollow out a sphere in the middle, accounting for 80% of its volume.

The volume is proportional to the third power of the radius. Pi and everything else go away when we're working with ratios, since they're both above and below the line. But you already knew that.

If Ri is the inner radius and Ro is the outer radius, we have (Ri/Ro)^3=0.8. One quick cubic root extraction with the Windows calculator gives us Ri/Ro=0.93 (rounded to the nearest two digits.)

The equatorial radius is approximately 700,000 km. Times 0.07 is 49000 km thick.

Of course, that was the density at atmospheric pressure. In Sun's massive gravity, I'd expect it to be a little bit denser (even metal isn't 100% incompressible), hence the shell would be a bit thinner than that.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 12:32 PM   #109
CaveDave
Semicentenarian Troglodyte
 
CaveDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Buddy Holly's home, Surrounded by tumbleweeds, duststorms, and tornados.
Posts: 1,743
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Yeah, but think of the benefits of having a Sterling Refrigerator!
Well, they actually HAVE made chiller units (heat pumps) using a sort-of reverse Stirling (Sterling ?) cycle using a mechanical (acoustic) input and producing a delta-T output for heat transfer. ISTR it was a Navy/Sandia/LANL/DOD type project used for shipboard electronics cooling.

I will try to find the links, later, when I have time.

Cheers,

Dave
__________________
I, for one, welcome our new Authoritarian Socialist Overlords! . . . All Hail, Comrade Obama!
WHO IS JOHN GALT? . . . Read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.
"Some say that I'm a wise man, some think that I'm a fool. It doesn't matter either way: I'll be a wise man's fool."
Procol Harum "In Held 'Twas In I"
CaveDave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 12:54 PM   #110
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,151
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
A bit of ignorance here:
  1. The Sun was not formed in a supernova. The gas cloud that it formed from included elements from supernovae.
  2. Supernova are exploding stars. The idea that supernova are some sort of pinches is really stupid but I am sure you can cite the published literature on this.
What causes barrel-shaped supernova remnants?
Actually, I think this is the part that brantc is not fully aware of: it would very much be one heck of a supernova in its own right, if you tried to create that iron shell.

Let's say you start with a cloud of mostly hydrogen, with a little helium, and it goes downhill from there. And somehow "pinch" it into an almost pure iron sphere. Dunno how. Magic. Divine intervention. Subspace SF MacGuffin. Whatever.

You'd have to fuse all that hydrogen into hellium, releasing more energy than the Sun will produce in its entire lifetime. Then the helium into carbon. Ooer, now that's a bunch of energy released. It also needs temperatures exceeding 100 million kelvins. (But, lucky us, fusing all that hydrogen in one swift pinch should handily exceed that.) It also produces a bunch of oxygen, which we'll need later. Then we fuse the carbon. As mentioned before, that would singlehandedly be equivalent to a couple of billion years of the Sun's output, and raise the temperature in the billions of degrees. Which is nice, because we need that kind of temperatures to fuse the Oxygen next. Releasing even more energy. Then the Neon. And so on.

It's not just energy handily exceeding the output of a Type 1a supernova, it's even in the same sequence as a real supernova, as each stage needs a higher temperature and pressure to start fusing.

That kind of an energy release will blow the whole thing into a big nebula.

But let's say our technobabble-magic holds. Why not? We're already assuming some kind of magic unlike anything observed in the real universe, and a special kind of gravity too. Why not go the full monte with the magic? Sure, our magic pinch will contain all that energy and prevent all that iron from escaping at nearly light speed.

Now what?

That iron is now a superheated ball of plasma, well in the hundreds of billions of degrees range. That magic pinch prevents it from escaping outwards, but the fusion has stopped, and there's nothing to keep it from falling _inwards_ under its own gravity. Losing energy via just Stefan–Boltzmann (we don't want to lose matter too, right?) it's going to take a hideously long time to cool down to even liquid iron, much less solid.

Let's just skip past the problem that the pinch must stay in place and stable for all those aeons.

Once it's cooled enough to be liquid, why would it form a hollow sphere and not just fall inwards and form a solid sphere?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 2nd April 2010 at 12:57 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 02:30 PM   #111
CaveDave
Semicentenarian Troglodyte
 
CaveDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Buddy Holly's home, Surrounded by tumbleweeds, duststorms, and tornados.
Posts: 1,743
Originally Posted by CaveDave View Post
Well, they actually HAVE made chiller units (heat pumps) using a sort-of reverse Stirling (Sterling ?) cycle using a mechanical (acoustic) input and producing a delta-T output for heat transfer. ISTR it was a Navy/Sandia/LANL/DOD type project used for shipboard electronics cooling.

I will try to find the links, later, when I have time.
As promised, here are a few links to get people started:

Wikipedia article

LANL (LosAlamos National Labs) page

Textbook from LANL page available as e-book

Here is an excerpt from the preface to the textbook:
Quote:
Preface of "Thermoacoustics: A unifying perspective for some engines and refrigerators" :

I'm thrilled by the power density and efficiency recently achieved by thermoacoustic engines and refrigerators, and I'm fascinated by some of the latest developments in thermoacoustics: mixture separation via oscillating thermal diffusion [1,2]; self-excited oscillating heat pipes ("Akachi" or bubble-driven heat pipes) [3]; deliberate superposition of steady flow [4,5]. At night I often dream of a future world in which thermoacoustics is widely practiced. One dream had linear-motor-driven thermoacoustic heat pumps atop the hot-water heaters in half the homes in Phoenix, pumping heat from room air into the hot water---the production of a little cooling in the homes was a nice by-product. Another dream featured a small thermoacoustic system next to the liquid-nitrogen and liquid-oxygen dewars in back of our local hospital. This system had a thermoacoustic engine, heated by combustion of natural gas, driving several pulse-tube refrigerators, which provided the cooling necessary to liquefy air, to distill it to produce purified nitrogen and oxygen, and to reliquefy the pure gases for storage in the dewars. A third dream had hundreds of enormous combustion-powered thermoacoustic natural-gas liquefiers arrayed on an offshore platform, using the natural gas (methane) itself as the thermoacoustic working gas and filling a vacuum-insulated supertanker with cryogenic liquefied natural gas for transport to distant shores. Yet another dream showed an extensive thermoacoustic apparatus on Mars---a thermoacoustic engine driven by a small nuclear reactor produced 100 kW of acoustic power, which was piped to assorted thermoacoustic mixture separators and refrigerators, splitting atmospheric carbon dioxide and mined frozen water into pure hydrogen and oxygen and liquefying these for use in fuel cells on each of the many robots scooting around building a colony for eventual human habitation.

The dreams are always different, but they have some features in common. First, they all feature low-tech hardware: big pipes, welded steel, conventional shell-and-tube heat exchangers, molded plastic, etc. Second, I know that this simplicity is deceptive, because the technical challenge of designing this easy-to-build hardware is extreme. Third, there are no people in these dreams...because I know so few people who are skilled in thermoacoustic engineering today. So I wake up, afraid that none of this will ever happen, afraid that integrated thermoacoustic process engineering is an opportunity that will never have a chance. So I get up and I write another few paragraphs of this book, hoping to help newcomers learn basic thermoacoustics quickly, so they can go on to design, build, and debug wonderful thermoacoustic systems of all kinds.

This is an introductory book, not a full review of the current status of the field of thermoacoustics. It is evolving from the short course that I gave on this subject at the March 1999 Berlin acoustics meeting. The hardware examples used here to illustrate the elementary principles are thermoacoustics apparatus developed at Los Alamos or with our close collaborators, and the mathematical approach to the gas dynamics and power flows closely follows that pioneered by Nikolaus Rott. (Time pressure induces me to stick with topics most familiar to me! and, indeed, the Los Alamos approach to thermoacoustics has been quite successful.) Many aspects of thermoacoustics will be introduced, in an attempt to help the reader acquire both an intuitive understanding and the ability to design hardware, build it, and diagnose its performance.
Perhaps I will be able to find the USNavy reference later.

Ben and Jerry's (Ice Cream entrepreneurs) got their knickers moist a few years ago over putting T/A freezers in their stores.

There was a thread in this forum a few years ago about using T/A devices in the third world for refrigeration and cooking powered by solar.

Cheers,

Dave
__________________
I, for one, welcome our new Authoritarian Socialist Overlords! . . . All Hail, Comrade Obama!
WHO IS JOHN GALT? . . . Read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.
"Some say that I'm a wise man, some think that I'm a fool. It doesn't matter either way: I'll be a wise man's fool."
Procol Harum "In Held 'Twas In I"
CaveDave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 05:46 PM   #112
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by CaveDave View Post
Yeah, I knew about that one, but it didn't seem to apply to the solar surface; nor did the Faraday dark space in a cold cathode glow tube.

I saw that one, also, but did not see how it would apply, either.

I had the same search results, and came to the same conclusion. Sometimes these guys absolutely astound me.

Cheers,

Dave
Absolutely. I made that one up. Its a combination of the "dark" electron flow and the Faraday Dark space.
Now what would you call the electron flow across the Dark Space???
So yeah I took a liberty. Is it technically incorrect?
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 05:49 PM   #113
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by CaveDave View Post
As promised, here are a few links to get people started:

Wikipedia article

LANL (LosAlamos National Labs) page

Textbook from LANL page available as e-book

Here is an excerpt from the preface to the textbook:


Perhaps I will be able to find the USNavy reference later.

Ben and Jerry's (Ice Cream entrepreneurs) got their knickers moist a few years ago over putting T/A freezers in their stores.

There was a thread in this forum a few years ago about using T/A devices in the third world for refrigeration and cooking powered by solar.

Cheers,

Dave

Please dont go OT. Go start a thermo acoustic thread somewhere else. Please remove your OT.

Otherwise I will ask the mod to delete your posts.
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 05:59 PM   #114
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
What problem is that?
Quote:
Although the measurement uncertainties are still considerable, the observed abundances of He-4 and D seems to be at odds with the main big bang model. Two groups, publishing papers in Physical Review Letters, 27 November 1995, assess this discrepancy. One group (N. Hata et al.; contact Gary Steigman, Ohio State, 614-292-1999) suggests that although the data might be at fault, one or more factors, maybe betokening "new physics," might be at work. An example of this would be a tau neutrino with considerable mass. The other group (Craig J. Copi et al.; contact David Schramm, University of Chicago, 312-702-8202), however, suggests that within the uncertainties the data and the standard theory are still consistent with each other. (Journalists can obtain copies of the articles from AIP Public Information; physnews@aip.org)
http://www.aip.org/pnu/1995/split/pnu247-1.htm
BB nuclosynthesis
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995Ap&SS.227..145L


wiki
Quote:
During the 1970s, there were major efforts to find processes that could produce deuterium, which turned out to be a way of producing isotopes other than deuterium. The problem was that while the concentration of deuterium in the universe is consistent with the Big Bang model as a whole, it is too high to be consistent with a model that presumes that most of the universe consists of protons and neutrons. If one assumes that all of the universe consists of protons and neutrons, the density of the universe is such that much of the currently observed deuterium would have been burned into helium-4.

This inconsistency between observations of deuterium and observations of the expansion rate of the universe led to a large effort to find processes that could produce deuterium. After a decade of effort, the consensus was that these processes are unlikely, and the standard explanation now used for the abundance of deuterium is that the universe does not consist mostly of baryons, and that non-baryonic matter (also known as dark matter) makes up most of the matter mass of the universe. This explanation is also consistent with calculations that show that a universe made mostly of protons and neutrons would be far more clumpy than is observed.
But then they figured out that if you ask the question with different parameters(that are also flawed) then you get a better match, but you now you have other problems.

Quote:
More recently, the question has changed: Precision observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation[5][6] with the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) give an independent value for the baryon-to-photon ratio. Using this value, are the BBN predictions for the abundances of light elements in agreement with the observations?

The present measurement of helium-4 indicates good agreement, and yet better agreement for helium-3. But for lithium-7, there is a significant discrepancy between BBN and WMAP, and the abundance derived from Population II stars. The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4―4.3. and is considered a problem for the original models[7], that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the intensities of 7Be(n,p)7Li versus 7Be(d,p)8Be[8].
Revise the reevaluation until it fits the revised reevaluation.
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 06:03 PM   #115
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Do you also have a cheese moon theory?
No fn cheese on the moon. Only rocks dirt and vacuum with stupid electrons, protons and heavy metal ions with a mass greater than 2.
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 06:16 PM   #116
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
Sunspots appear as dark spots on the surface of the Sun. Temperatures in the dark centers of sunspots drop to about 3700 K (compared to 5700 K for the surrounding photosphere). They typically last for several days, although very large ones may live for several weeks.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/feature1.shtml


Lowest sunspot temp in the literature 3180K
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1991BAICz..42..250S


First ionization energy of iron.
7.9024eV

7.9024eV equates to 11,000K per eV or 77,000K degrees by the time iron becomes a plasma. This is happening on the surface in the loop footprints as well as "solar moss" to a lower degree..

The boiling points for various metals:
Fe: 3134 K (2861 °C)
Cr: 2944 K (2671 °C)
Ni: 3186 K (2913 °C)

So looking at the average temp that is generated on the surface is a combination of factors. The sparseness of high temperature events and the averaging of the satellites that measure the output of the sun.

If you could spot measure the surface of the sun with better areal precision, my prediction is that you will find a greater variation across the surface in temperatures that range from hot iron to plasma. We will have to wait a few years until they launch the solar probe.
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 06:47 PM   #117
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
A solid shell is going to form during a massive explossion? Yeah, not so much.
Quote:
From wiki supernova(parroting the standard view.)
"Massive stars generate energy by the nuclear fusion of elements. Unlike the Sun, these stars possess the mass needed to fuse elements that have an atomic mass greater than hydrogen and helium. The star evolves to accommodate the fusion of these accumulating, higher mass elements, until finally a core of iron is produced."
This core of iron is hollow because of the rebound effect? Its hollow because of (a different model of) gravity?

Quote:
Martian "Blueberries" in the Lab

Plasma physicist uses electric arcs to replicate the mysterious spherules on the Red Planet.

"Even before this Picture of the Day was written, the plasma physicist CJ Ransom, of Vemasat Laboratories, had set up an experiment to test the electrical explanation of concretions and Martian blueberries. He obtained a quantity of hematite and blasted it with an electric arc. The results are seen in the right half of the image above. The embedded spheres created by the arc appear to replicate many of the features of the blueberries on Mars. No other laboratory process has achieved a similar result. It should encourage further experiments using higher energies."
http://absimage.aps.org/image/MWS_APR05-2004-000006.pdf
So if you scale up you may have the same effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggurat
That's an understatement. A shell is gravitationally unstable. Any perturbation and it will collapse inward. Hell, given the pressures involved, you probably wouldn't even need perturbations, the iron would simply start to flow. To stabilize an iron shell, you'd need a theory of gravity which is not only completely new, but which contradicts experimental evidence.
You would need a new theory of gravity, one that takes into account experimental evidence as well as accounts for the shell, which is not as radical as you would think. Maybe gravity is surface effect!!!!

From Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction
4. Cycloids and gravity
http://davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm#g4

Quote:
Actually, some stars have almost no metal, certainly not enough to form a solid shell.
From the outside, if you do spectroscopic measurements, thats what one would think. You would never see the metallicity of a black body, only the spectrum of the surrounding plasma.

Quote:
Not so much, actually.
See above.

Quote:
A pinch produces a cylinder, not a sphere.
In a high current z-pinch you have "instabilities" along the column that form "knots". These knots are the precursor to stars. In the case of a supernova its only one.
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 06:54 PM   #118
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,151
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to tell us with that sunspots post. I thought the woo story was that the iron is cool enough to be solid and only the atmosphere is hot?

Because if they're on the surface, the problems are just beginning. Basically if it's iron:

- you have an empty shell that ought to be at most 7% of the sun's radius in thickness, with a looong way to go below it.

- And there are sunspots ranging all the way to 20 Earths in size. (See, for example: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/...3sunspots.html ) Quick mental calculation, that's around the order of magnitude of 250,000 km in size.

- That's about 5 times wider a pool of boiling iron than the maximum thickness we calculated for that iron shell

- iron conducts heat very well

- and it lasted for many days

So basically how doesn't it melt the metal shell below it, and fall in?

And btw, smaller ones, "only" up to 80,000 km diameter are actually somewhat more common. They happen often enough. Again, they're actually wider than the thickness of that supposed iron shell.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 06:56 PM   #119
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,151
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
You would need a new theory of gravity, one that takes into account experimental evidence as well as accounts for the shell, which is not as radical as you would think. Maybe gravity is surface effect!!!!
You do realize, I hope, that GR has been pretty extensively tested by now. It would take more than, basically, "but we need to change it to make this unsupported woo work" to make it need changing.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2010, 09:36 PM   #120
CaveDave
Semicentenarian Troglodyte
 
CaveDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Buddy Holly's home, Surrounded by tumbleweeds, duststorms, and tornados.
Posts: 1,743
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Absolutely. I made that one up. Its a combination of the "dark" electron flow and the Faraday Dark space.
Now what would you call the electron flow across the Dark Space???
So yeah I took a liberty. Is it technically incorrect?
I thought you might have made that up, since it didn't appear to be a commonly used term.

It could be technically "correct", but I have never run across it before and have never claimed to be a solar/astro/plasma physicist, I have no way to judge if it is acceptable.

Cheers,

Dave
__________________
I, for one, welcome our new Authoritarian Socialist Overlords! . . . All Hail, Comrade Obama!
WHO IS JOHN GALT? . . . Read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.
"Some say that I'm a wise man, some think that I'm a fool. It doesn't matter either way: I'll be a wise man's fool."
Procol Harum "In Held 'Twas In I"
CaveDave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.