Ice Ages and interstellar hydrogen

John Zinni wrote:
"Angelo Campanella" wrote in message
...

John Zinni wrote:

You can make these assertions if you wish, but you will be very alone in
making them.

Agreed that depth is required for fusion effect.

But what is the catalogued brightness (or whatever one terms it) vs time?


Who, exactly, do you believe was keeping records of solar luminosity during
the ice ages???



Angelo Campanella




To this I would have to say that the earth holds quite a bit of record
of the happenings of our sun. I've even read of some theories that can
identify, within core samples, extra-solar activity such as close-by
nova/supernova or high intensity gamma radiation from other events. The
biggest problem with this kind of study is that the earth also has it's
own history painted into it's crust. The moon might be a better place
to look for extra-solar events like Angelo is speaking of.

Angelo Campanella wrote:
Hypothesis: On the basis that our sun is huge hydrogen (fusion)
furnace, the sun's brightness (temperature) and/or emissivity
(albedo)
can be affected by the amount of molecular hydrogen that our sun
draws
in from interstellar space. [I also consider that the fusion process
is
maintained mainly on the sun surface and within a shallow crust; the
remainder of the sun mass being inert with a great thermal mass and
gravity that serve to hold the hydrogen matter in place for reaction
and
to stabilize temperatures.]

Were a fresh H2 gas supply to be received, as via an H2 gas globule
intercepted on our journey trough our galaxy, this may increase the
fusion activity, the temperature and emission photons should
increase,
and we should experience natural global warming.



How would the new H2 get to the Sun through the blast of the solar
wind?

Double-A

Double-A wrote:
How would the new H2 get to the Sun through the blast of the solar
wind?

Well, the best analogy I can think of is a molecular vacuum pump, where
a higher vacuum is drawn by blasting heavy molecules through a
siphon-like constriction in the hopes of carrying a few air molecules
(4*N2+02) along with them. Perhaps not a very efficient process, but
hey, if it works, don't knock it.

But reflecting that, in one's mind's eye, to interplanetary space, one
has to admit that they are dealing with a mighty high vacuum, and a
relatively sparse density of H2, mixed in with a population of items
expelled from the sun including charged ions, photons and perhaps some
heavier molecules.

I suspect that the tiny neutral H2 molecules are small targets, with a
very tiny collision crossection, and accordingly are free to rove much
as do neutrons. So it may not be out of the question that the outgoing
particles of solar origin, charged or not, have only a minor influence
on the incoming motion of the H2's; at least not enough to exclude them
from migrating to the sun.

One chief question is "what is the ratio of H2 attracted and retained
by the earth vs that attracted to and retained by the sun".

Common wisdom has been that the earth can retain very little hydrogen
in its atmosphere. More is possible for the sun. Then there is Jupiter,
whose atmosphere is 40% or so H2. If jupiter is up to 40% and is mighty
cold, what would be the case for the sun, which is a lot bigger?

Finally, if extra-solar system H2 clouds were an energy source as I
hypothesize, Jupiter should be the first location where new accumulation
should be indicated.

Angelo Campanella

Angelo Campanella wrote:
Double-A wrote:

How would the new H2 get to the Sun through the blast of the solar
wind?


Well, the best analogy I can think of is a molecular vacuum pump,
where a higher vacuum is drawn by blasting heavy molecules through a
siphon-like constriction in the hopes of carrying a few air molecules
(4*N2+02) along with them. Perhaps not a very efficient process, but
hey, if it works, don't knock it.

But reflecting that, in one's mind's eye, to interplanetary space,
one has to admit that they are dealing with a mighty high vacuum, and a
relatively sparse density of H2, mixed in with a population of items
expelled from the sun including charged ions, photons and perhaps some
heavier molecules.

I suspect that the tiny neutral H2 molecules are small targets, with
a very tiny collision crossection, and accordingly are free to rove much
as do neutrons. So it may not be out of the question that the outgoing
particles of solar origin, charged or not, have only a minor influence
on the incoming motion of the H2's; at least not enough to exclude them
from migrating to the sun.

One chief question is "what is the ratio of H2 attracted and
retained by the earth vs that attracted to and retained by the sun".

Common wisdom has been that the earth can retain very little
hydrogen in its atmosphere. More is possible for the sun. Then there is
Jupiter, whose atmosphere is 40% or so H2. If jupiter is up to 40% and
is mighty cold, what would be the case for the sun, which is a lot bigger?

Finally, if extra-solar system H2 clouds were an energy source as I
hypothesize, Jupiter should be the first location where new accumulation
should be indicated.

Angelo Campanella


On earth we'd have a better chance of finding an answer, a better chance
on the moon but zero chance from the sun. Ionization would occur to the
H2 as it got closer to the sun which should create a 'glow' of sorts but
not one within the range of visible light.

The heliosphere or heliopause [can't recall the correct terminology] is
the equivalent to the earths magnetic field only this one is larger than
our known solar system. It's effect on passing low density gas clouds
is the same, it acts like a wall. In the event that we pass through a
really high density cloud some of that hydrogen will make it through but
it would be miniscule compared to the output from the sun's solar wind.

The only measurable cases of hydrogen / plasma / gaseous influx would be
through cannibalistic binary / multiple star systems. Such as what we
see with many white dwarf systems. In those circumstances we do see
changes in magnitude but those result in high-energy pulses that are
sometimes regular and sometimes erratic. Take a look at the family of
variable stars for a better explanation.

Southern Hospitality wrote:

snip

The heliosphere or heliopause [can't recall the correct terminology] is
the equivalent to the earths magnetic field only this one is larger than
our known solar system. It's effect on passing low density gas clouds
is the same, it acts like a wall. In the event that we pass through a
really high density cloud some of that hydrogen will make it through but
it would be miniscule compared to the output from the sun's solar wind.

I believe that "heliopause" is the term for the boundary of the
heliosphere, where the environment becomes indistinguishable from
that in interstellar space.

--
Odysseus

Southern Hospitality wrote:

Angelo Campanella wrote:
I suspect that the tiny neutral H2 molecules are small targets,
snip
The heliosphere or heliopause [can't recall the correct terminology] is
the equivalent to the earths magnetic field only this one is larger than
our known solar system. It's effect on passing low density gas clouds
is the same, it acts like a wall. In the event that we pass through a
really high density cloud some of that hydrogen will make it through but
it would be miniscule compared to the output from the sun's solar wind.

True the wind is significant and true a wall appears, but my hypothesis
extends to imply a rather leaky wall, sort of like a WWII ack-ack "wall"
over Germany where B-17's still made it through in droves to do the
damage. There is no doubt a preponderance of particle comprising the
solar wind, and a handy photon flux as well. But what, other than
kinetic energy, propels the solar particles outward, and what net effect
may the have on H2 molecules with no ax to grind other than to fall in
the sun's gravitational field?


The only measurable cases of hydrogen / plasma / gaseous influx would be
through cannibalistic binary / multiple star systems.

Such "cannibalistic" stars must also have a heliosphere (stariosphere?)
that would act likewise. How can there be much difference?

Such as what we
see with many white dwarf systems. In those circumstances we do see
changes in magnitude but those result in high-energy pulses that are
sometimes regular and sometimes erratic. Take a look at the family of
variable stars for a better explanation.

Indeed there are variable stars to study, but there are of two types;
those in rotation systems which cause the variability, and those which
recycle their parameters, which I think is the type you reference. I
would expect cannibals to be more erratic since they need H2 grist to
fatten before the flash. A periodic grist supply would be harder to come
by..

Ang. C.

"Angelo Campanella" wrote in message
...
Hypothesis: On the basis that our sun is huge hydrogen (fusion)
furnace,

Agreed,

the sun's brightness (temperature) and/or emissivity (albedo)

albedo is reflection measurement. Brightness is not just temperature.

can be affected by the amount of molecular hydrogen that our sun draws
in from interstellar space. [I also consider that the fusion process is
maintained mainly on the sun surface and within a shallow crust; the
remainder of the sun mass being inert with a great thermal mass and
gravity that serve to hold the hydrogen matter in place for reaction and
to stabilize temperatures.]

The sun does not draw in any appreciable hydrogen, molecular or otherwise.
Also, fusion takes place at the core.

Were a fresh H2 gas supply to be received, as via an H2 gas globule
intercepted on our journey trough our galaxy, this may increase the
fusion activity, the temperature and emission photons should increase,
and we should experience natural global warming.

Not really. Even if you could feed in a mass of hydrogen equivalent to the
earth's mass, you wouldn't see much change.

It is not a question of hydrogen available for fusion. The current supply is
more than sufficient. Instead, the mass determines gravitational compression
and core temperature --- hence the burning rate. Even if we were passing
through the Orion nebula, it would not be adding enough mass to change the
core temp. In fact, the sun is losing far more than it could gain in such a
cloud. We call this loss the solar wind. It is far greater change than
anything possible in your scenarios and we cannot measure any resultant
change in the manner you are suggesting.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

Are you interested in understanding optics?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATM_Optics_Software/

************************************