Heavy elements on earth, from where?

[oz93666]

I am not too clear where these are suppose to have come from in the EU view . The standard view of originating from supernovae seems suspect ,since these explosions are so rare. Also fusion in stars is even rarer in the EU , just how much of a stars output comes discharge and how much from fusion?

[Metryq]

I'm an armchair fan of EU. And if I understand what I've read, fusion does occur on the Sun, just not as a gravity-driven effect in the deep core. In other words, the efforts to harness commercial fusion are misguided. Fusion is not the power source of the Sun, it is a by-product of the actual power source -- namely, the galactic currents that feed our electric Sun. And the resulting "z-pinches" do all the alchemy.

So where did Earth's heavy elements come from? Were they inherited from the primary out of which Earth fissioned (Saturn, or the Herbig-Haro strand believed to be the source of Earth and other planets)? Or perhaps some of the heavy elements enriching our planet were formed right here in ancient catastrophic events? Of course, EU understands "novas" as an entirely different animal than mainstream astrophysics.

I don't know if EU can answer those questions just yet. That's one of the things I like about EU -- there's no pretense of knowing exactly what happened in the first picoseconds of an imagined Big Bang (miracle) billions of years ago when we're far from certain how the Solar system formed, or certain about other questions mere thousands of years ago.

[oz93666]

I'm an armchair fan of EU. And if I understand what I've read, fusion does occur on the Sun, just not as a gravity-driven effect in the deep core. In other words, the efforts to harness commercial fusion are misguided. Fusion is not the power source of the Sun,

Thanks for your help...I should say I barely know the basics of EU , or astronomy , but my general science is quite good.
I assume the established view that 98% of matter in the universe is H or He is not disputed? I'm very skeptical of Big bang and dark matter , but the idea that stars are the cooking pots where H is combined to make He and then He is fussed to make... and so on up to Fe seems very satisfactory. These heavy elements once formed are straightaway starting to break down ,all be it slowly, through radioactive decay, so there must be a very considerable constant new supply of them from somewhere, and since the signature of their production is the enormous energy released in fusion, it seems stars must be the only candidate.
Since EU admits that some fusion is occurring in our sun, the question is how much of its energy output comes from this, shouldn't we be able to tell by the neutrinos or ....ah, I may have answered my own question , I just searched 'neutrinos sun' and discovered the number of neutrinos is a half to one third of what should be expected from the standard model, so it would appear perhaps half of the energy from the sun comes from fusion and half from electrical discharge?

[Sparky]

Charles Chandler has made a good case that there should be no neutrinos from the sun, if it were a fusion furnace. That there are some would indicate that they are being produced near the surface. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031

[oz93666]

Charles Chandler has made a good case that there should be no neutrinos from the sun, if it were a fusion furnace. That there are some would indicate that they are being produced near the surface. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031

Thanks for that link , very interesting ....got up to Potentials section I quote C.Chandler ....'So the present model rules out core fusion. This, of course, does not mean that no fusion is occurring. Judging by the solar neutrino flux, fusion is responsible for 1/3 of the Sun's power...It just means that fusion isn't occurring in the core.'..... If we take the data at face value, we are still in search of something that can cause 2/3 of the solar output.
This leaves us with two questions.

What is the source of the other 2/3 of the energy?
What are the conditions responsible for fusion, if not core pressure? ..... end quote

I got so far then my brain started to hurt, I'm not used to thinking too much...going for breakfast now , will get back into it latter....

[Sparky]

What is the source of the other 2/3 of the energy?
What are the conditions responsible for fusion, if not core pressure?

Two contenders for the sun's operation are, birkeland currents feeding the sun and
stored energy from it's formation, expressing as discharges.

Zpinches near the surface would fusion elements and provide for the neutron observations.

[nick c]

Fusion in the Double Layer
The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is probably occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core). The result of this fusion process are the 'metals' that give rise to absorption lines in the Sun's spectrum. Traces of sixty eight of the ninety two natural elements are found in the Sun's atmosphere. Most of the radio frequency noise emitted by the Sun emanates from this region. Radio noise is a well known property of DLs. The electrical power available to be delivered to the plasma at any point is the product of the E-field (V/m) times current density (A/m2). This multiplication operation yields Watts per cubic meter (power density). The current density is relatively constant over the height of the photospheric / chromospheric layers. However, the E-field is at its strongest at the center of the DL. Present thinking is that nuclear fusion takes a great deal of power - if that is so, then that power is available in the DL. It has reportedly been observed that the neutrino flux from the Sun varies inversely with sunspot number. This is expected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is probably z-pinch produced fusion which is occurring in the double layer - and sunspots are locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur. The greater the number of sunspots, the fewer the number of observed solar neutrinos.

highlight added

http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

[oz93666]

What is the source of the other 2/3 of the energy?
What are the conditions responsible for fusion, if not core pressure?

Two contenders for the sun's operation are, birkeland currents feeding the sun and
stored energy from it's formation, expressing as discharges.

Yes, it seems the latter is what Charles Chandler is suggesting here.....

Quote....'The original source of the energy that went into the Sun was the momentum of the particles in the collapse of a dusty plasma. The implosion, plus the gravity field from the compressed matter, created hydrostatic pressure sufficient for electron degeneracy pressure, wherein charges are separated, thus converting the energy to electrostatic potentials.
With the primary energy store being electrostatic potential, 2/3 of the power output of the Sun is the recombination of opposite charges (i.e., electrostatic discharges), while 1/3 of the power output is from nuclear fusion within the discharge channels.' end quote

Is he really saying that 2/3 of the energy output of the sun for billions of years, has come from the momentum of the particles in the collapse of the dusty plasma that now is the sun? Intuitively this seems ridiculous ! Am I missing something?

[Siggy_G]

Quote....'The original source of the energy that went into the Sun was the momentum of the particles in the collapse of a dusty plasma. The implosion, plus the gravity field from the compressed matter, created hydrostatic pressure sufficient for electron degeneracy pressure, wherein charges are separated, thus converting the energy to electrostatic potentials.
With the primary energy store being electrostatic potential, 2/3 of the power output of the Sun is the recombination of opposite charges (i.e., electrostatic discharges), while 1/3 of the power output is from nuclear fusion within the discharge channels.' end quote

Is he really saying that 2/3 of the energy output of the sun for billions of years, has come from the momentum of the particles in the collapse of the dusty plasma that now is the sun? Intuitively this seems ridiculous ! Am I missing something?

You may be missing the immense volume and distances from which the original low-density dusty plasma originated from. Where it accelerates towards and ends up at is a tiny focal point at the scale of things. That accumulated motion is here the energy source for the compression and charge separation, which in turn causes an ongoing recombination process.

However, even though Charles Chandler's star model uses an electric/plasma approach, it isn't the same as the Electric Star model developed by Juergens, Thornhill and Scott, despite the collapsing plasma part being similar. You can see a summary video here and a selected article here related to the Electric Sun model.

Hannes Alfvén, Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, Göran Marklund and Anthony Peratt did also do research that set the foundation for the notion of a collapsing plasma, Z-pinch and Marklund Convection as stellar formation processes in the Plasma Universe. Marklund convection implies that elements in an electric current (or pinch) within a dusty plasma are gathered and separated according to ionization potential. This further implies that heavy elements are already present during the formation of a planetary system and don't depend on any super nova cycles.

[flyingcloud]

I am not too clear where these are suppose to have come from in the EU view . The standard view of originating from supernovae seems suspect ,since these explosions are so rare. Also fusion in stars is even rarer in the EU , just how much of a stars output comes discharge and how much from fusion?

search this site for transmutation

good day

[CharlesChandler]

The standard view of originating from supernovae seems suspect, since these explosions are so rare.

Indeed. They're also violent, which begs the question of how heavy elements such as uranium could have survived, being fragile atoms, and quite unstable at high temperatures. I rather think that thermonuclear supernovae would be better atom smashers, causing fission, and not fusing heavy elements.

Also fusion in stars is even rarer in the EU, just how much of a stars output comes discharge and how much from fusion?

Fusion has been demonstrated in lightning channels here on Earth, and in solar flares on the Sun. It is believed that the collisions of relativistic electrons at the ends of the channels, where they form stepped leaders, instantaneously generate the temperatures and pressures necessary for fusion (i.e., "inertial confinement"). But it isn't magnetic confinement, because the discharge channels are full of electrons, not nucleons, and electrons don't fuse.

The original source of the energy that went into the Sun was the momentum of the particles in the collapse of a dusty plasma. The implosion, plus the gravity field from the compressed matter, created hydrostatic pressure sufficient for electron degeneracy pressure, wherein charges are separated, thus converting the energy to electrostatic potentials. With the primary energy store being electrostatic potential, 2/3 of the power output of the Sun is the recombination of opposite charges (i.e., electrostatic discharges), while 1/3 of the power output is from nuclear fusion within the discharge channels.

Is he really saying that 2/3 of the energy output of the sun for billions of years, has come from the momentum of the particles in the collapse of the dusty plasma that now is the sun? Intuitively this seems ridiculous! Am I missing something?

Siggy is right -- before you dismiss momentum as an energy source, remember that it has no theoretical limit -- it just depends on how fast the matter is imploding (limited by the speed of light), and how much of it there is (which is not limited). The part of it that is counter-intuitive is that the kinetic energy gets converted to electrostatic potential. That isn't obvious, and surely I could do a better job of explaining it. But in deference to the forum rules of not elaborating on alternative theories, we should take this up in the NIAMI forum, where there is a thread for solar models. So I'll respond there.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 7&start=15

[kell1990]

Why does it require an explanation for the existence of heavy metals? Isn't the fact that they exist proof enough?

I would certainly hope that no one tries to formulate a theory about the subject based exclusively on distribution of metals on the Earth; they could have come here from any number of sources, all random.

And that's one of the problems here: lack of data. We presently have a limited amount of data from a few planets close to us, but the Universe is a very, very big place.

It would help enormously if we could determine how the contents of the universe are recycled. There has to be some recycling going on here, doesn't there, because matter is neither created nor destroyed?

[Jupiter05085]

Hi oz93666,
The transmutation reactions are not new.
Here are couple of links:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanelectroche.pdf - 1989
http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 688#page-1 1993.
The transmutation was found during electrolysis of heavy water on palladium catalyst.
Is it electricity on Earth? - yes.
Is it heavy water on Earth? - yes. 0.0156%
Is it Palladium on Earth? - this one pretty difficult to answer - where it come from in the first place? My answer: nobody knows how catalyst works, just a theories, may be something else could be catalyst, may be catalyst is not necessary at elevated pressure and temperature. Also if electrolysis of heavy water works as transmutation mechanism, why ordinary water could not do the job at elevated current? There are still no theory on that as I understand.
Best.

[oz93666]

Why does it require an explanation for the existence of heavy metals?

By heavy metals we mean anything with atomic number above Iron , Up to Iron is explained by fusion on/in stars or other plasma, but to make elements higher than iron there is a theoretical problem explained here http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 503AAPc1aN ....no one has come up with a better candidate than supernovas.

[CharlesChandler]

....no one has come up with a better candidate than supernovas.

That's not much of a candidate. Like I said before, uranium getting fused in a thermonuclear explosion is believable, but uranium surviving the next couple of milliseconds at that temperature is not believable, since uranium is unstable at high temperatures. So there's really no way that such a fragile atom could be present and intact in the relativistic ejecta from a supernova.

Furthermore, how did the uranium here on Earth form? If you say that the dusty plasma from which the Earth condensed was the ejecta from a supernova, I have nothing but tough questions. Since our solar system is so far from its nearest neighbor, it would only make sense to think that the supernova was centered where the Sun is now. But then the relativistic ejecta never would have collapsed back on the center, because the gravitational escape velocity would have been well exceeded. So the supernova had to be somewhere else. But where? We're not in a stellar nursery. And then there is the question of composition. We'd expect the Earth to be composed of the same stuff from which it condensed. But most of the interplanetary medium is hydrogen, with a few bits of helium here and there, and just traces of other elements, and that's not at all the composition of the Earth.