Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2023 10:45:17 GMT -5
Are there any key things they are trying study about the sun, that you're watching for? I don't know much about what research they could do there. Just getting high res photos back could be awesome. I learned recently something interesting about the sun: the fusion power it generates is not that intense - per unit of volume it's something like the heat generated by the human body. It get's super-hot because it's so huge and heat can't escape easily. That has some ramifications for potential fusion power on Earth. We don't need to just duplicate the fusion process in the sun; we would need to make it much more dense and intense. Sorry, concerning the temperature fusion occurs, this just sounded absurd, had to look it up. According to (source 1, there is a footnote), the primary source of solar energy, and that of similar size stars, is the fusion of hydrogen to form helium (the proton–proton chain reaction), which occurs at a solar-core temperature of 14 million kelvin. To fuse in our sun, nuclei need to collide with each other at extremely high temperatures, around ten million degrees Celsius 2. Nuclear fusion requires temperatures of 27 million degrees F, which occurs at the sun’s core. If memory serves me, the USA-NASA presently has a probe orbiting the sun. In its final stage it will plunge into the Sun. I say presently as I'm pretty sure that last phases hasn't occurred yet. Yes, but that doesn't contradict what I just said. The energy generated per unit volume is comparable to the human body. Temperature is a completely different measurement than power output per unit volume. The reason it's millions of degrees in temperature, is that the heat accumulates and can't escape. That's because heat escapes off the 2D outer surface, but the mass is 3D. The bigger an object gets the more this volume vs surface imbalance becomes a factor. This factoid is relevant to human fusion power, because people think: oh, look at the sun, if we had fusion we'd have insane power. Yes, and no. If we had a fusion reactor doing the same power/volume output as the sun, it would be worthless. We'd need something way more dense. Edit: maybe not 'worthless'. The human body is generating a decent amount of energy slowly 'burning' food.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2023 10:55:45 GMT -5
Haha. I checked wikipedia. I compares the power output to a "compost pile". Funny. ... Our Sun, a giant thermonuclear compost pile.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 1, 2023 10:58:48 GMT -5
Sorry, concerning the temperature fusion occurs, this just sounded absurd, had to look it up. According to (source 1, there is a footnote), the primary source of solar energy, and that of similar size stars, is the fusion of hydrogen to form helium (the proton–proton chain reaction), which occurs at a solar-core temperature of 14 million kelvin. To fuse in our sun, nuclei need to collide with each other at extremely high temperatures, around ten million degrees Celsius 2. Nuclear fusion requires temperatures of 27 million degrees F, which occurs at the sun’s core. If memory serves me, the USA-NASA presently has a probe orbiting the sun. In its final stage it will plunge into the Sun. I say presently as I'm pretty sure that last phases hasn't occurred yet. Yes, but that doesn't contradict what I just said. The energy generated per unit volume is comparable to the human body. Temperature is a completely different measurement than power output per unit volume. The reason it's millions of degrees in temperature, is that the heat accumulates and can't escape. That's because heat escapes off the 2D outer surface, but the mass is 3D. The bigger an object gets the more this volume vs surface imbalance becomes a factor. This factoid is relevant to human fusion power, because people think: oh, look at the sun, if we had fusion we'd have insane power. Yes, and no. If we had a fusion reactor doing the same power/volume output as the sun, it would be worthless. We'd need something way more dense. Edit: maybe not 'worthless'. The human body is generating a decent amount of energy slowly 'burning' food. I don't know what you're saying. (Maybe you could link the article). I'm saying it takes 27 million degrees F to fuse two hydrogen atoms into helium. And, from a How The Universe Works program, it takes 100,000 thousand years for the resulting ~leftover~ energy generated as [gamma] photons to reach the surface of the sun, and leave as photons. And it takes 8 minutes for those photons to reach the Earth. Now, of course that photon isn't 27 million degrees F.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2023 12:01:32 GMT -5
Yes, but that doesn't contradict what I just said. The energy generated per unit volume is comparable to the human body. Temperature is a completely different measurement than power output per unit volume. The reason it's millions of degrees in temperature, is that the heat accumulates and can't escape. That's because heat escapes off the 2D outer surface, but the mass is 3D. The bigger an object gets the more this volume vs surface imbalance becomes a factor. This factoid is relevant to human fusion power, because people think: oh, look at the sun, if we had fusion we'd have insane power. Yes, and no. If we had a fusion reactor doing the same power/volume output as the sun, it would be worthless. We'd need something way more dense. Edit: maybe not 'worthless'. The human body is generating a decent amount of energy slowly 'burning' food. I don't know what you're saying. (Maybe you could link the article). I'm saying it takes 27 million degrees F to fuse two hydrogen atoms into helium. And, from a How The Universe Works program, it takes 100,000 thousand years for the resulting energy generated as photons to reach the surface of the sun, and leave as photons. And it takes 8 minutes for those photons to reach the Earth. Now, of course that photon isn't 27 million degrees F. Sorry, I'm not sure what it is about my original comment to Gopal that you don't understand. The words power, energy, volume, and temperature have specific technical meanings in physics, and knowing what they mean is key to understanding my point. I'll repeat it one more time, but if this doesn't do it, I'll leave it to someone else, or maybe better to ask for explanation on a science forum somewhere. I found it interesting that the power output of the sun, per unit of volume, is not that high. It's comparable to a human body or a compost pile. People think fusion power will save the day, but they often think this because they look at the enormous temperature and overall power (not per unit of volume) of the sun, and think that if you bring that fusion process to earth, you will have something as intense as the sun to use in an electric power plant. But you won't. The sun's total power output, and it's temperature, are because of it's size. If you were to magically bring a piece of the sun to Earth, you'd have something generating as much power as a compost pile. * per cubic meter* So if we ever build a fusion reactor, we'll likely need to make it so it has a much denser power output than the sun. That is no small feat.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 1, 2023 12:30:54 GMT -5
I don't know what you're saying. (Maybe you could link the article). I'm saying it takes 27 million degrees F to fuse two hydrogen atoms into helium. And, from a How The Universe Works program, it takes 100,000 thousand years for the resulting energy generated as photons to reach the surface of the sun, and leave as photons. And it takes 8 minutes for those photons to reach the Earth. Now, of course that photon isn't 27 million degrees F. Sorry, I'm not sure what it is about my original comment to Gopal that you don't understand. The words power, energy, volume, and temperature have specific technical meanings in physics, and knowing what they mean is key to understanding my point. I'll repeat it one more time, but if this doesn't do it, I'll leave it to someone else, or maybe better to ask for explanation on a science forum somewhere. I found it interesting that the power output of the sun, per unit of volume, is not that high. It's comparable to a human body or a compost pile. People think fusion power will save the day, but they often think this because they look at the enormous temperature and overall power (not per unit of volume) of the sun, and think that if you bring that fusion process to earth, you will have something as intense as the sun to use in an electric power plant. But you won't. The sun's total power output, and it's temperature, are because of it's size. If you were to magically bring a piece of the sun to Earth, you'd have something generating as much power as a compost pile. * per cubic meter* So if we ever build a fusion reactor, we'll likely need to make it so it has a much denser power output than the sun. That is no small feat. You're discussing two different things here, how the energy of the sun originates, and what the final output of energy off the surface of the sun, is. (Those two occurrences are separated by 100,000 years). In my reply I tied to cover both bases. Fusion occurs at the center of the sun at the temperatures noted. I (now understanding your point) have no problem with your point (I actually explained it in my reply, covering the bases), that is, the compost pile analogy. The importance of energy derives via fusion, on Earth, is that there would be no nuclear waste, it's clean energy. The problem is, the temperature it takes for fusion to occur in the Sun would be the same temperature for it to occur on Earth (physics is physics). My mistake, you actually have to have higher temperatures on Earth than are required on the Sun, for fusion. Why? Because the Sun utilizes gravity in the process, and that gravity is eliminated on Earth. The extra numbers (left in) are for footnotes. Fusion energy has the potential to provide virtually unlimited supplies of low-carbon, low-radiation energy if it can be successfully recreated on Earth. However, there are some challenges that need to be addressed before this can happen. One of the challenges is that the temperatures required to produce fusion on Earth need to be much higher than those in the core of the Sun - above 100 million Celsius1. No materials exist that can withstand direct contact with such heat. So, scientists have devised a solution in which a super-heated gas, or plasma, is held inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic field1. Another challenge is that fusion devices use a fuel (tritium) that is not found in nature and must be replenished by the reactor itself2. There are also unavoidable on-site power drains that drastically reduce the electric power available for sale2. So I still question this. Is that in your article, or is that your surmising?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2023 13:03:48 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm not sure what it is about my original comment to Gopal that you don't understand. The words power, energy, volume, and temperature have specific technical meanings in physics, and knowing what they mean is key to understanding my point. I'll repeat it one more time, but if this doesn't do it, I'll leave it to someone else, or maybe better to ask for explanation on a science forum somewhere. I found it interesting that the power output of the sun, per unit of volume, is not that high. It's comparable to a human body or a compost pile. People think fusion power will save the day, but they often think this because they look at the enormous temperature and overall power (not per unit of volume) of the sun, and think that if you bring that fusion process to earth, you will have something as intense as the sun to use in an electric power plant. But you won't. The sun's total power output, and it's temperature, are because of it's size. If you were to magically bring a piece of the sun to Earth, you'd have something generating as much power as a compost pile. * per cubic meter* So if we ever build a fusion reactor, we'll likely need to make it so it has a much denser power output than the sun. That is no small feat. You're discussing two different things here, how the energy of the sun originates, and what the final output of energy off the surface of the sun, is. (Those two occurrences are separated by 100,000 years). In my reply I tied to cover both bases. Fusion occurs at the center of the sun at the temperatures noted. I (now understanding your point) have no problem with your point (I actually explained it in my reply, covering the bases), that is, the compost pile analogy. The importance of energy derives via fusion, on Earth, is that there would be no nuclear waste, it's clean energy. The problem is, the temperature it takes for fusion to occur in the Sun would be the same temperature for it to occur on Earth (physics is physics). My mistake, you actually have to have higher temperatures on Earth than are required on the Sun, for fusion. Why? Because the Sun utilizes gravity in the process, and that gravity is eliminated on Earth. The extra numbers (left in) are for footnotes. Fusion energy has the potential to provide virtually unlimited supplies of low-carbon, low-radiation energy if it can be successfully recreated on Earth. However, there are some challenges that need to be addressed before this can happen. One of the challenges is that the temperatures required to produce fusion on Earth need to be much higher than those in the core of the Sun - above 100 million Celsius1. No materials exist that can withstand direct contact with such heat. So, scientists have devised a solution in which a super-heated gas, or plasma, is held inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic field1. Another challenge is that fusion devices use a fuel (tritium) that is not found in nature and must be replenished by the reactor itself2. There are also unavoidable on-site power drains that drastically reduce the electric power available for sale2. So I still question this. Is that in your article, or is that your surmising? No, it's not my surmising, it's current astrophysics. There are many references. I guess if you want a start, check the wikipedia article for the sun [1]. It mentions the power output and that's where I got the compost pile comparison. Or an astrophysics textbook if you want to go nuts. You say you have no problem with the point, but then you say you are still questioning it. So I'm a bit confused by that. Power output per cubic meter, in the core, from the fusion reaction. That's all I meant to say. It's not controversial. [1]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 1, 2023 13:05:46 GMT -5
You're discussing two different things here, how the energy of the sun originates, and what the final output of energy off the surface of the sun, is. (Those two occurrences are separated by 100,000 years). In my reply I tied to cover both bases. Fusion occurs at the center of the sun at the temperatures noted. I (now understanding your point) have no problem with your point (I actually explained it in my reply, covering the bases), that is, the compost pile analogy. The importance of energy derives via fusion, on Earth, is that there would be no nuclear waste, it's clean energy. The problem is, the temperature it takes for fusion to occur in the Sun would be the same temperature for it to occur on Earth (physics is physics). My mistake, you actually have to have higher temperatures on Earth than are required on the Sun, for fusion. Why? Because the Sun utilizes gravity in the process, and that gravity is eliminated on Earth. The extra numbers (left in) are for footnotes. Fusion energy has the potential to provide virtually unlimited supplies of low-carbon, low-radiation energy if it can be successfully recreated on Earth. However, there are some challenges that need to be addressed before this can happen. One of the challenges is that the temperatures required to produce fusion on Earth need to be much higher than those in the core of the Sun - above 100 million Celsius1. No materials exist that can withstand direct contact with such heat. So, scientists have devised a solution in which a super-heated gas, or plasma, is held inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic field1. Another challenge is that fusion devices use a fuel (tritium) that is not found in nature and must be replenished by the reactor itself2. There are also unavoidable on-site power drains that drastically reduce the electric power available for sale2. So I still question this. Is that in your article, or is that your surmising? No, it's not my surmising, it's current astrophysics. There are many references. I guess if you want a start, check the wikipedia article for the sun [1]. It mentions the power output and that's where I got the compost pile comparison. Or an astrophysics textbook if you want to go nuts. You say you have no problem with the point, but then you say you are still questioning it. So I'm a bit confused by that. Power output per cubic meter, in the core, from the fusion reaction. That's all I meant to say. It's not controversial. [1]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunI think I understood and I'm terrible with this stuff. In boxing terms, you are basically saying the sun doesn't pack much power, by inch. Basically right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2023 13:08:42 GMT -5
No, it's not my surmising, it's current astrophysics. There are many references. I guess if you want a start, check the wikipedia article for the sun [1]. It mentions the power output and that's where I got the compost pile comparison. Or an astrophysics textbook if you want to go nuts. You say you have no problem with the point, but then you say you are still questioning it. So I'm a bit confused by that. Power output per cubic meter, in the core, from the fusion reaction. That's all I meant to say. It's not controversial. [1]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunI think I understood and I'm terrible with this stuff. In boxing terms, you are basically saying the sun doesn't pack much power, by inch. Basically right? Yes, by cubic inch, exactly.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 1, 2023 13:40:26 GMT -5
You're discussing two different things here, how the energy of the sun originates, and what the final output of energy off the surface of the sun, is. (Those two occurrences are separated by 100,000 years). In my reply I tied to cover both bases. Fusion occurs at the center of the sun at the temperatures noted. I (now understanding your point) have no problem with your point (I actually explained it in my reply, covering the bases), that is, the compost pile analogy. The importance of energy derives via fusion, on Earth, is that there would be no nuclear waste, it's clean energy. The problem is, the temperature it takes for fusion to occur in the Sun would be the same temperature for it to occur on Earth (physics is physics). My mistake, you actually have to have higher temperatures on Earth than are required on the Sun, for fusion. Why? Because the Sun utilizes gravity in the process, and that gravity is eliminated on Earth. The extra numbers (left in) are for footnotes. Fusion energy has the potential to provide virtually unlimited supplies of low-carbon, low-radiation energy if it can be successfully recreated on Earth. However, there are some challenges that need to be addressed before this can happen. One of the challenges is that the temperatures required to produce fusion on Earth need to be much higher than those in the core of the Sun - above 100 million Celsius1. No materials exist that can withstand direct contact with such heat. So, scientists have devised a solution in which a super-heated gas, or plasma, is held inside a doughnut-shaped magnetic field1. Another challenge is that fusion devices use a fuel (tritium) that is not found in nature and must be replenished by the reactor itself2. There are also unavoidable on-site power drains that drastically reduce the electric power available for sale2. So I still question this. Is that in your article, or is that your surmising? No, it's not my surmising, it's current astrophysics. There are many references. I guess if you want a start, check the wikipedia article for the sun [1]. It mentions the power output and that's where I got the compost pile comparison. Or an astrophysics textbook if you want to go nuts. You say you have no problem with the point, but then you say you are still questioning it. So I'm a bit confused by that. Power output per cubic meter, in the core, from the fusion reaction. That's all I meant to say. It's not controversial. [1]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunOK, I'm really curious. However, don't you see: "Power output per cubic meter" and "in the core, from the fusion reaction" are two vastly different things? Power output from the surface of the sun has very little to do with "in the core, from the fusion reaction", except as a proportional equation. These two things are separated by 100,000 years. That's how long it takes for gamma photons from the 'in the core reaction' to travel to the surface of the sun. And in the process the photons [look up the energy of gamma photons] have lost an enormous amount of energy, they have played pinball for 100,000 years. If the gamma photons, from the fusion reaction were to hit the earth directly, they would kill all life on Earth. openstax.org/books/astronomy-2e/pages/16-3-the-solar-interior-theoryfrom the link: the only significant mode of energy transport through a star is by electromagnetic radiation. Radiation is not an efficient means of energy transport in stars because gases in stellar interiors are very opaque, that is, a photon does not go far (in the Sun, typically about 0.01 meter) before it is absorbed. (The processes by which atoms and ions can interrupt the outward flow of photons—such as becoming ionized—were discussed in the section on the Formation of Spectral Lines.) The absorbed energy is always reemitted, but it can be reemitted in any direction. A photon absorbed when traveling outward in a star has almost as good a chance of being radiated back toward the center of the star as toward its surface. A particular quantity of energy, therefore, zigzags around in an almost random manner and takes a long time to work its way from the center of a star to its surface (Figure 16.13). Estimates are somewhat uncertain, but in the Sun, as we saw, the time required is probably between 100,000 and 1,000,000 years. If the photons were not absorbed and reemitted along the way, they would travel at the speed of light and could reach the surface in a little over 2 seconds, just as neutrinos do (Figure 16.14). www.thoughtco.com/gamma-ray-burst-destroy-life-earth-3072521#Could%20A%20Gamma-Ray%20Burst%20Effect%20Life%20on%20Earth?from the link: Of all the cosmic catastrophes that could affect our planet, an attack by radiation from a gamma-ray burst is certainly one of the most extreme. GRBs, as they're called, are powerful events that release huge amounts of gamma rays. These are among the most deadly radiation known. If a person happened to be near a gamma-ray producing object, they'd be fried in an instant.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 1, 2023 13:48:23 GMT -5
No, it's not my surmising, it's current astrophysics. There are many references. I guess if you want a start, check the wikipedia article for the sun [1]. It mentions the power output and that's where I got the compost pile comparison. Or an astrophysics textbook if you want to go nuts. You say you have no problem with the point, but then you say you are still questioning it. So I'm a bit confused by that. Power output per cubic meter, in the core, from the fusion reaction. That's all I meant to say. It's not controversial. [1]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunOK, I'm really curious. However, don't you see: "Power output per cubic meter" and "in the core, from the fusion reaction" are two vastly different things? Power output from the surface of the sun has very little to do with "in the core, from the fusion reaction", except as a proportional equation. These two things are separated by 100,000 years. That's how long it takes for gamma photons from the 'in the core reaction' to travel to the surface of the sun. And in the process the photons [look up the energy of gamma photons] have lost an enormous amount of energy, they have played pinball for 100,000 years. If the gamma photons, from the fusion reaction were to hit the earth directly, they would kill all life on Earth. openstax.org/books/astronomy-2e/pages/16-3-the-solar-interior-theoryfrom the link: the only significant mode of energy transport through a star is by electromagnetic radiation. Radiation is not an efficient means of energy transport in stars because gases in stellar interiors are very opaque, that is, a photon does not go far (in the Sun, typically about 0.01 meter) before it is absorbed. (The processes by which atoms and ions can interrupt the outward flow of photons—such as becoming ionized—were discussed in the section on the Formation of Spectral Lines.) The absorbed energy is always reemitted, but it can be reemitted in any direction. A photon absorbed when traveling outward in a star has almost as good a chance of being radiated back toward the center of the star as toward its surface. A particular quantity of energy, therefore, zigzags around in an almost random manner and takes a long time to work its way from the center of a star to its surface (Figure 16.13). Estimates are somewhat uncertain, but in the Sun, as we saw, the time required is probably between 100,000 and 1,000,000 years. If the photons were not absorbed and reemitted along the way, they would travel at the speed of light and could reach the surface in a little over 2 seconds, just as neutrinos do (Figure 16.14). www.thoughtco.com/gamma-ray-burst-destroy-life-earth-3072521#Could%20A%20Gamma-Ray%20Burst%20Effect%20Life%20on%20Earth?from the link: can you put your point in simple boxing terms for me please?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 1, 2023 13:55:43 GMT -5
OK, I'm really curious. However, don't you see: "Power output per cubic meter" and "in the core, from the fusion reaction" are two vastly different things? Power output from the surface of the sun has very little to do with "in the core, from the fusion reaction", except as a proportional equation. These two things are separated by 100,000 years. That's how long it takes for gamma photons from the 'in the core reaction' to travel to the surface of the sun. And in the process the photons [look up the energy of gamma photons] have lost an enormous amount of energy, they have played pinball for 100,000 years. If the gamma photons, from the fusion reaction were to hit the earth directly, they would kill all life on Earth. openstax.org/books/astronomy-2e/pages/16-3-the-solar-interior-theoryfrom the link: the only significant mode of energy transport through a star is by electromagnetic radiation. Radiation is not an efficient means of energy transport in stars because gases in stellar interiors are very opaque, that is, a photon does not go far (in the Sun, typically about 0.01 meter) before it is absorbed. (The processes by which atoms and ions can interrupt the outward flow of photons—such as becoming ionized—were discussed in the section on the Formation of Spectral Lines.) The absorbed energy is always reemitted, but it can be reemitted in any direction. A photon absorbed when traveling outward in a star has almost as good a chance of being radiated back toward the center of the star as toward its surface. A particular quantity of energy, therefore, zigzags around in an almost random manner and takes a long time to work its way from the center of a star to its surface (Figure 16.13). Estimates are somewhat uncertain, but in the Sun, as we saw, the time required is probably between 100,000 and 1,000,000 years. If the photons were not absorbed and reemitted along the way, they would travel at the speed of light and could reach the surface in a little over 2 seconds, just as neutrinos do (Figure 16.14). www.thoughtco.com/gamma-ray-burst-destroy-life-earth-3072521#Could%20A%20Gamma-Ray%20Burst%20Effect%20Life%20on%20Earth?from the link: can you put your point in simple boxing terms for me please? In his last post Robertk equated the energy from fusion at the core of the sun to the energy radiated from the surface of the sun. (That was my original question). I'm in the process of trying to understand something, that can't be understood. See my dilemma? I have no argument with what Robertk says about the energy emitted from the surface of the sun (once I understood that that's what he is saying), the composting analogy. I'm say Robertk can't [possibly] equate those two, the energy of sun-core-fusion, with the energy radiated from the surface, which he did in his last post. They would be proportional, but not equal. My avatar shows the dilemma. This shows the difference between the energy of the core of the sun from fusion, which creates gamma photons, and the surface of the sun, where the energy has been lowered to visible light photons. IOW, they can't be equated. Complements of bing. The energy of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency. Gamma rays have higher frequencies than visible light photons and therefore have higher energies. Gamma rays have the highest energy of all electromagnetic radiation, with energies ranging from 100 keV to 100 GeV12. In comparison, visible light photons have energies ranging from 1.5 eV to 3.3 eV3. (IOW, this would be Robertk's compost pile). I hope that helps! Additionally, from: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/142005/how-is-earth-protected-from-the-gamma-rays-generated-by-the-sunGamma ray photons produced by fission make their arduous journey to the surface of the Sun, they are continuously absorbed by the solar plasma and re-emitted to lower frequencies. By the time they get to the surface, their frequencies are mostly only within the IR/visible light/UV spectrum. Actually, we don't need a lot of protection from solar gamma rays because they never reach us. Here's Wikipedia's take on the matter: Although the Sun produces Gamma rays as a result of the nuclear fusion process, these super-high-energy photons are converted to lower-energy photons before they reach the Sun's surface and are emitted out into space. As a result, the Sun does not emit gamma rays.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2023 15:21:45 GMT -5
can you put your point in simple boxing terms for me please? 😆
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2023 15:57:01 GMT -5
No, it's not my surmising, it's current astrophysics. There are many references. I guess if you want a start, check the wikipedia article for the sun [1]. It mentions the power output and that's where I got the compost pile comparison. Or an astrophysics textbook if you want to go nuts. You say you have no problem with the point, but then you say you are still questioning it. So I'm a bit confused by that. Power output per cubic meter, in the core, from the fusion reaction. That's all I meant to say. It's not controversial. [1]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunOK, I'm really curious. However, don't you see: "Power output per cubic meter" and "in the core, from the fusion reaction" are two vastly different things? Power output from the surface of the sun has very little to do with "in the core, from the fusion reaction", except as a proportional equation. [...] When they say the power output from the cubic meter is 275 watts, they mean the power coming directly off that cubic meter, not the power that eventually reaches the surface. Does that help clarify? You're making it more complicated by bringing in the surface, photons, and gamma rays, and 100,000 years and all that. And that's leading to some misunderstanding. Their statement is relatively simple – just looking a cubic meter of star-material in isolation, the fusion gives off 275 watts, enough for a few light bulbs.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 1, 2023 16:26:53 GMT -5
OK, I'm really curious. However, don't you see: "Power output per cubic meter" and "in the core, from the fusion reaction" are two vastly different things? Power output from the surface of the sun has very little to do with "in the core, from the fusion reaction", except as a proportional equation. [...] When they say the power output from the cubic meter is 275 watts, they mean the power coming directly off that cubic meter, not the power that eventually reaches the surface. Does that help clarify? You're making it more complicated by bringing in the surface, photons, and gamma rays, and 100,000 years and all that. And that's leading to some misunderstanding. Their statement is relatively simple – just looking a cubic meter of star-material in isolation, the fusion gives off 275 watts, enough for a few light bulbs. Yes, that's what I've been saying since my first reply. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 1, 2023 16:52:09 GMT -5
OK, I'm really curious. However, don't you see: "Power output per cubic meter" and "in the core, from the fusion reaction" are two vastly different things? Power output from the surface of the sun has very little to do with "in the core, from the fusion reaction", except as a proportional equation. These two things are separated by 100,000 years. That's how long it takes for gamma photons from the 'in the core reaction' to travel to the surface of the sun. And in the process the photons [look up the energy of gamma photons] have lost an enormous amount of energy, they have played pinball for 100,000 years. If the gamma photons, from the fusion reaction were to hit the earth directly, they would kill all life on Earth. openstax.org/books/astronomy-2e/pages/16-3-the-solar-interior-theoryfrom the link: the only significant mode of energy transport through a star is by electromagnetic radiation. Radiation is not an efficient means of energy transport in stars because gases in stellar interiors are very opaque, that is, a photon does not go far (in the Sun, typically about 0.01 meter) before it is absorbed. (The processes by which atoms and ions can interrupt the outward flow of photons—such as becoming ionized—were discussed in the section on the Formation of Spectral Lines.) The absorbed energy is always reemitted, but it can be reemitted in any direction. A photon absorbed when traveling outward in a star has almost as good a chance of being radiated back toward the center of the star as toward its surface. A particular quantity of energy, therefore, zigzags around in an almost random manner and takes a long time to work its way from the center of a star to its surface (Figure 16.13). Estimates are somewhat uncertain, but in the Sun, as we saw, the time required is probably between 100,000 and 1,000,000 years. If the photons were not absorbed and reemitted along the way, they would travel at the speed of light and could reach the surface in a little over 2 seconds, just as neutrinos do (Figure 16.14). www.thoughtco.com/gamma-ray-burst-destroy-life-earth-3072521#Could%20A%20Gamma-Ray%20Burst%20Effect%20Life%20on%20Earth?from the link: can you put your point in simple boxing terms for me please? Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, you can't hit, what you can't see. MA, who was probably the first rapper, just wasn't set to music.
|
|