The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection

[CharlesChandler]

I'm curious Charles. If you don't mind me asking what kind of education do you have? I'm asking out of respect.

I have a GED. And don't feel bad -- I'm struggling too. I've spent the last 4 years, 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, studying the physics of tornadoes. Don't ask why. I have my reasons, but it's personal. Regardless, if there is to be progress in tornado theory, and if there is an electromagnetic counterpart to tornadoes, and if scientists refuse to look at it, the work can only be done by an amateur who's not in it for the money. If that's what it's going to take, then that's what I have to do. So I learned everything I know about physics (having long since forgotten high school) working on this project. And though I've come a long ways, EMHD is a tough topic. My only hope is that I will be able to demonstrate that there is enough value in this general approach that people will start to take notice. That's why I keep expanding the scope. So now it's tornadoes, landspouts, waterspouts, mesocyclones, downbursts and microbursts, the lightning initiation process, and dust devils that can all be better-explained with EMHD. This isn't just an epiphany. It's the key to solving a wide range of outstanding theoretical issues in meteorology.

I'm not the only one thinking that EMHD is a promising approach, of course. Scientists have already solved all of the easy fluid dynamic problems, and all of the easy EM problems. Why are there still mysteries in modern science? Because sometimes it's not classical this or classical that -- it's a combination of factors. These are the kinds of problems that got put off for another day. But now progress is being made. Like aerodynamicists figuring out that if they ionize the air, it will flow more freely over the wing, because electrostatic repulsion will prevent the particle collisions that constitute friction. They could have figured that out 50 years ago, and just imagine all of the money that we would have saved in jet fuel in the last 50 years! But noooooooo... that would have been too interdiscplinary! But now EMHD is gaining ground. So there is hope. If I can show that it's the missing ingredient in many meteorological problems, eventually it will get accepted.

The most important thing is that you insist on fully-elucidated explanations. If it isn't clear to you, then it probably isn't clear to the speaker. He may be right and he may be wrong, but either way, he doesn't know. I'm not saying that all of my explanations are clear, and that I'm sure that I've dotted every "i" and crossed every "t". I'm just saying that this is what I'm striving for, and this is how I've made progress. The bottom line is that if you don't understand something, it might not be -your- problem! Insist on better explanations, and you might not be the only one who benefits.

[Lloyd]

* I haven't had time yet to read all the last page of posts and may not get the chance, but what Peter Thomson said about the EM forces tightly holding the charge carriers within the central tube allowing energy from above to be transferred efficiently to the ground seemed to make a lot of sense to me in a vague way. It made me think of the the tube of charges as being like a solid rod. If you hit the end of a steel rod with a heavy hammer, the force and energy is transmitted to the other end efficiently and can do damage to solid objects. Thomson seemed to suggest that tornadoes are somewhat like an electric drill, which can dig up the ground like an auger. What Charles hasn't seemed to accept, as far as I've read, is the possibility that charge is being moved from the ionosphere into storm cells and tornadoes and from there to ground. Not that this stuff is clear to me. That's just my impressions so far.
* But one more point is that the way tornadoes and maybe the fire tornadoes of the Sun's granules can grow in length as charge is added and makes them act apparently somewhat like solid rods seems to possibly apply to stellar and galactic jets etc also.

[Sparky]

Charles, thanks for the info....

when someone asks your education, you might as well say physics and meteorology and any other field you have spent time in study...

degrees seem to be easy to acquire for some people...hell, they even award them, ie., Oprah, etc....

A point that lloyd brought up: the scavenging of pavement and other surface material....if movement of air over earth is with reduced friction, how is pavement scavenged?

[ItJustMakesSense]

Well Charles its people like you(and they are few and far between) that have a crazy drive that isn't explainable that get stuff done. I commend you for your dedication. Will your theory's ever hit the mainstream if they prove correct(I am not doubting them)? Probably not and unfortunately that seems to be the norm in this society unfortunately. Its the same reason Tesla's wireless electricity got shut down as well as the electric car. Also the reason were not taught the plasma model in school. However it does not mean that your work and dedication will not be accepted and appreciated by free independent thinkers. Back to the level of education thing. I honestly thought you had a P.h.d in physics or electrical engineering. Your level of knowledge, drive, commitment and humble attitude are truly inspirational. Keep at it as I'm sure you will. Your work here in this forum is appreciated by me as well other members I am certain.

[CharlesChandler]

Thomson seemed to suggest that tornadoes are somewhat like an electric drill, which can dig up the ground like an auger.

Yes, he says that "tornadoes exist in a form that has both shear and tensile strength". I hate flaming him, because he did a major amount of work, and he was the first to attempt a detailed mechanistic description of tornadoes. And it inspired my work. But the pieces to his organizing principle don't actually lock together the way he thinks, and he never actually demonstrates how you could torque a tornado into releasing energy on the ground. You have to look closely, but it just doesn't work. I can go into more detail if you like -- it's a good exercise in critical reasoning. But it will take me some time to write it up, and I'm not going to flame my master unless I have to.

Charles hasn't seemed to accept the possibility that charge is being moved from the ionosphere into storm cells and tornadoes and from there to ground.

That's correct. My theory has negative charge inside the cloud, flowing down through the tornado, to neutralize a positive charge in the air flowing into the tornado, which frees it from its electrostatic attraction to the Earth. In that context, what would the positive charge in the ionosphere do? First of all, if there was any exchange of charge, it would be electrons from the storm flowing upward to the ionosphere, not protons from the ionosphere into the storm cells. Second, the negative charges from the cloud would have to sail right past the far more powerful positive charge in the anvil of the storm. Why would they do that?

But one more point is that the way tornadoes and maybe the fire tornadoes of the Sun's granules can grow in length as charge is added and makes them act apparently somewhat like solid rods seems to possibly apply to stellar and galactic jets etc also.

I'm really not sure about any of this. Fire vortexes are a curious phenomenon -- there has to be more to it than just a vortex centered on a heat source. But I doubt that solar granules will be well-described as fire vortexes (or as vortexes at all). I'm of the opinion that stellar and galactic jets (and spiral arms, etc.) are electromagnetic, and that's where I think that Birkeland got it right. But I really don't know how all of this could be pulled together into one framework.

the scavenging of pavement and other surface material....if movement of air over earth is with reduced friction, how is pavement scavenged?

Good question. Tornadoes in Dimmit, Texas (1995-06-02) and in Jarrell, Texas (1997-05-27) removed substantial portions of pavement. I don't think that this is simple wind action. I think that there is a powerful positive charge in the tornadic inflow, and a powerful induced negative charge in the Earth. Anything in contact with the Earth will feel an uplifting force, just as the air is held down to the ground by the same force. This accounts for many of the reports of "tornadic levitation" that are too numerous to dismiss. So what if there was an uplifting force that acted on the pavement? If it was lifted up even just a fraction of an inch, air would have gotten underneath it, and bye-bye road surface. The damage assessment engineers had no idea what to make of this phenomenon.

people like you that have a crazy drive that isn't explainable

At last, somebody who actually understands me!

Will your theories ever hit the mainstream if they prove correct? Probably not and unfortunately that seems to be the norm in this society unfortunately.

In the short term, I'd agree. In the long term, I'd disagree. No scientific advance was ever accepted immediately. Usually it was only accepted after the death of the scientist. For those who are in it for immediate returns, this isn't the way to go. But the major advances in science, that have provided lasting benefits to society, have come from people who sought to provide lasting benefits, regardless of immediate returns.

Your work here in this forum is appreciated...

Thanks.

[Lloyd]

Charles, Dave Talbott has asked Nereid if she'd be willing to debate the EU team about the electric Sun model. I think you'd be a better person to debate. Would you like to do that? I'll ask Dave & others if they'd be willing to debate you. If you're not willing to, I'll have to twist your arm. Okay?

Dave wants to debate just facts. Do you and or others here want to volunteer to go through everything said in this thread so far and cull out just the facts about the Sun and related phenomena, like maybe tornadoes, that we could post separately somewhere for the debate?

I just started a Google spreadsheet where we could try out a debate here: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key ... y=CO7_nOsJ

Do you want to try that?

I set it up for Debater's Name; Relevant Facts or Questions; References

I also started by posting the initial statement of your theory, followed by my question.

[CharlesChandler]

Well, I'll get my butt kicked, because I have only questions, and an epiphany of my own that I'm still mulling over. But I'm interested in the reasoning that's being tossed around, so I guess I'm game, though I'm not even sure what the game is...

The opening statement in the spreadsheet isn't the best statement of my "position" (if you can call it that). Whether or not fusion is occurring in the Sun's core is not central to my position. I'd still love to hear more facts about that issue.

The Sun's core is the central region where nuclear reactions consume hydrogen to form helium. These reactions release the energy that ultimately leaves the surface as visible light. These reactions are highly sensitive to temperature and density. The individual hydrogen nuclei must collide with enough energy to give a reasonable probability of overcoming the repulsive electrical force between these two positively charged particles. The temperature at the very center of the Sun is about 15,000,000 °C (27,000,000 °F) and the density is about 150 g/cm³ (about 10 times the density of gold or lead). Both the temperature and the density decrease as one moves outward from the center of the Sun. The nuclear burning is almost completely shut off beyond the outer edge of the core (about 25% of the distance to the surface or 175,000 km from the center). At that point the temperature is only half its central value and the density drops to about 20 g/cm³.

What are the EU numbers? Or, if those numbers are correct, are they not sufficient for fusion?

The main body of my hypothesis actually has more to do with what's going on in the photosphere and chromosphere, and I'm saying that filaments and prominences are electric currents responding to an electric field between charge-separated particle streams.

Anyway, how should we proceed? Should I develop a better opening argument? Are we going to do this on Google?

[GaryN]

@Charles

The opening statement in the spreadsheet isn't the best statement of my "position" (if you can call it that). Whether or not fusion is occurring in the Sun's core is not central to my position. I'd still love to hear more facts about that issue.

Good position, Charles. That would end up like an Evolution discussion, endless. I'm following your posts, but
will post my ideas in my EM Universe thread so as not to 'taint' your excellent reasonings.

[Lloyd]

* Charles, I thought it might work best to have the moderated debate away from this forum, since we can't moderate it well here. Then, after each debater makes a statement, we could copy the post here for anyone to comment on. Does that sound okay?
* It looks like the TB team intends to go ahead with debating Nereid. They will be able to moderate that debate, since they administer the boards. But, since I don't have much sway, this debate would have to be moderated elsewhere. If you know of a better place to have a moderated debate than the Google link, let me know.

You said: What are the EU numbers [re the Sun's interior]? Or, if those numbers are correct, are they not sufficient for fusion?
- The main body of my hypothesis actually has more to do with what's going on in the photosphere and chromosphere, and I'm saying that filaments and prominences are electric currents responding to an electric field between charge-separated particle streams.
- Anyway, how should we proceed? Should I develop a better opening argument? Are we going to do this on Google?

* Firstly, I think the only fusion known to occur is that in nuclear weapons. The numbers you posted from NASA seem to be pure assumptions. But, since you say fusion within the Sun is not essential to your theory, I'd like to put this aspect of the discussion off to a later time.
* Please, do go ahead and provide us with your most accurate opening statement of your theory. And try to make it just one or two sentences, if possible. Then you could post it to the Google link at https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key ... nOsJ#gid=0. I'll remove the statement that I entered there yesterday.
* Okay?
* If you have any trouble posting there, let me know.
* If you're not sure about interior solar fusion, do you consider it possible that the Sun's energy derives from galactic electric currents? Or what other source would you consider probable? These questions may be important for developing your opening statement, but feel free to ignore them, if they seem unimportant at this point.

[Sparky]

Charles, it seems that you probably need to start collecting as much raw data on the sun as you can. These speculations about what the sun is doing is, in my opinion, a distraction for you. Start from the beginning, not having any theory as to what is happening, and see what the evidence reveals.

Going through all of the data will only take you 10 life times..

[CharlesChandler]

will post my ideas in my EM Universe thread

Which thread? (so I can follow along...)

* Charles, I thought it might work best to have the moderated debate away from this forum, since we can't moderate it well here...If you have any trouble posting there, let me know.

I can't edit the spreadsheet. I think you have to "share" it with me or something. I think that you can add me by my Google account email address: google at charles dash chandler dot org.

* If you're not sure about interior solar fusion, do you consider it possible that the Sun's energy derives from galactic electric currents? Or what other source would you consider probable? These questions may be important for developing your opening statement, but feel free to ignore them, if they seem unimportant at this point.

The more I think about it, the more I'd like to explore the possibility that it might not be fusion in the core, rather, in the "convective" zone. We know fusion is occurring, because we can count the neutrinos coming out. But I agree when they say that the core is running at 15,000,000 °C, it's a number that they derived from their assumption that fusion is occurring. The density of the Sun at the core, as determined by helioseismology, is 10 times greater than the density of lead. But that's not such an astronomical number that it's intuitively obvious that fusion is occurring, and I haven't heard anybody explicitly state the critical mass for fusion, so I'm still looking for that. Aside from gravity, there are other ways of getting fusion, such as with imploding shock waves, so I might brew an idea or two on how that could work, in the convective zone and even lower. Anyway...

It seems that you probably need to start collecting as much raw data on the sun as you can. Going through all of the data will only take you 10 life times...

I agree, but the hardest part is finding the raw data. As Lloyd pointed out, separating data from hypothesis is extremely difficult. Scientists mask the anomalies by not broadcasting the data that they can't explain. But you're right -- we have to go back to the beginning, and lay out what we know for sure, and see where that takes us.

[Lloyd]

Sparky said: Going through all of the [solar] data will only take you 10 life times..

... Unless we help!
* Charles, see if you can post on the spreadsheet now. It would be better if you could give me your email address. I think you can email it to me by clicking on my username. But, in any case, you should be able to post now.

[Lloyd]

Charles, you said: The main body of my hypothesis actually has more to do with what's going on in the photosphere and chromosphere, and I'm saying that filaments and prominences are electric currents responding to an electric field between charge-separated particle streams.

* Could that suffice as your opening statement?
* If so, I think the question then is what is your theory of charge separation? And we probably need to describe filaments and prominences and explain electric fields. Right?

* Here's some solar data that may be relevant. Some of it we may challenge as assumptions, not facts.
Rotation period: 26 days at the equator, increasing with latitude to >30 days at the poles
Elemental Composition (by mass): 74% H, 25% He, 1% other
Temperature at surface: ~5700 C
Luminosity: ~ 4 x 10³³ erg/s
Magnitude: –26.74
Photosphere Temp.: 6,000°; Density: 0.0002;
Chromosphere from surface to top: 6,000-20,000°; 2×10^7g/cm³ to 1×10^14g/cm³; 2,000 to 3,000 km
Magnetic Field on surface: ~1 Gauss
Magnetic Field near large sunspot: ~4,000 Gauss
Surface gravity: 274 m/s²
Escape velocity at surface: ~2 million km/hr
Sunspot Cycle: ~9 cycles per century; ~11.2 years per cycle
Sunspot Numbers: near 0 at minima; ~50 to 150 at maxima
Sunspots begin each cycle at high latitudes and move near to the equator by the end of each cycle.
They do so in step with the movement of the jet stream at the same locations.
Solar Flares occur most when Sunspots are most numerous
Solar Flare dimensions:
Solar Flare energy: 6 × 10^25 joules
Spicules: <7,000 km high from surface; 30km/sec; lasting 10'
CME s: A coronal mass ejection is a massive burst of solar wind etc that mostly originate from active regions on Sun's surface, such as groupings of sunspots associated with frequent flares, occurring less frequency during the sunspot minima.

[ItJustMakesSense]

A debate with Talbot. Way to go! That seems rather gratifying. You must be on the right track!

[kiwi]

A debate with Talbot. Way to go! That seems rather gratifying. You must be on the right track!

no Scott? ,Thorhill? ... and Nereid deserves a place on the panel to