Is this a mistake?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

Wiki has posted that the CNO cycle dominates in stars of 1.3 solar
masses or larger. That number seems awful small to me. Does anybody
else think this is a mistake?

On 11/14/10 7:43 AM, Joe Snodgrass wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

Wiki has posted that the CNO cycle dominates in stars of 1.3 solar
masses or larger. That number seems awful small to me. Does anybody
else think this is a mistake?

That's about right.

Competition between the P-P Chain and the CNO Cycle
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...gy/cno-pp.html
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...rgy/pp-cno.gif

"Joe Snodgrass" wrote in message
...
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle
|
| Wiki has posted that the CNO cycle dominates in stars of 1.3 solar
| masses or larger. That number seems awful small to me. Does anybody
| else think this is a mistake?
|

"Theoretical models show..."

Wackypedia is the drivel anyone can write.

Theoretical models show Santa delivers to all good little children
worldwide in 24 hours.

'nuff said.

On 11/14/2010 10:46 AM, Androcles wrote:



"Joe wrote in message
...
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle
|
| Wiki has posted that the CNO cycle dominates in stars of 1.3 solar
| masses or larger. That number seems awful small to me. Does anybody
| else think this is a mistake?
|

"Theoretical models show..."

Wackypedia is the drivel anyone can write.

Theoretical models show Santa delivers to all good little children
worldwide in 24 hours.

'nuff said.


All the physics articles on wikipedia are now edited and fact
checked...and any changes have to go through the same process before
being posted....they started this after the word came out that they were
not very accurate....so now they are a reasonable source...with verified
references below articles....

just for info....have fun....sno

--
Correct Scientific Terminology:
Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs
Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
to be generally assumed to be true.
Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a theory.
Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.

On Nov 14, 10:56*am, sno wrote:

Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
* in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a theory..
Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.

Reference? Or is this just your hypothesis?
I like these definitions but I just want something in writing.
Is this the criteria that Wikipedia editors recommend? If so, 'll
keep that in mind when I read Wikipedia articles. There appear to be
some variation in the the common usage of the term. Some people use
the word "theory" in a disparaging way. They really mean "hypothesis."

On 14/11/2010 15:56, sno wrote:
On 11/14/2010 10:46 AM, Androcles wrote:



"Joe wrote in message
...
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle
|
| Wiki has posted that the CNO cycle dominates in stars of 1.3 solar
| masses or larger. That number seems awful small to me. Does anybody
| else think this is a mistake?

Seems about right. Carroll & Ostlie p373 give around 1.2Msun as the
upper limit where proton proton reactions dominate energy production.
The transition at higher masses to the CNO cycle which also has a
stronger central core temperature dependency.

Schwarschild's book Structure & Evolution of Stars in 1958 p82 gives the
crossover point p-p to CNO interpolating as roughly 1.3Msun. The sun and
Sirius A (2Msun) are two labelled points on the graph. The same graph is
reproduced in Harwit's Astrophysical Concepts.
|

"Theoretical models show..."

Wackypedia is the drivel anyone can write.

Theoretical models show Santa delivers to all good little children
worldwide in 24 hours.

'nuff said.

More inane anti-science drooling from Androcles.
He should stick to leonine dental hygiene.

All the physics articles on wikipedia are now edited and fact
checked...and any changes have to go through the same process before
being posted....they started this after the word came out that they were
not very accurate....so now they are a reasonable source...with verified
references below articles....

Reasonably accurate but the references/bibliography are worth checking.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Joe Snodgrass wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

Wiki has posted that the CNO cycle dominates in stars of 1.3 solar
masses or larger. That number seems awful small to me. Does anybody
else think this is a mistake?

It's about right for the mass at which a main sequence star crosses over
from PP dominance to CNO dominance for energy production. At 1.3 solar
masses the two processes contribute roughly equal amounts to luminosity (T
core about 18 million K). Above that the CNO begins to dominate.

http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/rbc/a534/lec14.pdf

see page 12.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

On 14/11/2010 17:24, Martin Brown wrote:
On 14/11/2010 15:56, sno wrote:
On 11/14/2010 10:46 AM, Androcles wrote:



"Joe wrote in message
...

|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle
|
| Wiki has posted that the CNO cycle dominates in stars of 1.3 solar
| masses or larger. That number seems awful small to me. Does anybody
| else think this is a mistake?

Seems about right. Carroll & Ostlie p373 give around 1.2Msun as the
upper limit where proton proton reactions dominate energy production.
The transition at higher masses to the CNO cycle which also has a
stronger central core temperature dependency.

Schwarschild's book Structure & Evolution of Stars in 1958 p82 gives the
crossover point p-p to CNO interpolating as roughly 1.3Msun. The sun and
Sirius A (2Msun) are two labelled points on the graph. The same graph is
reproduced in Harwit's Astrophysical Concepts.
|

"Theoretical models show..."

Wackypedia is the drivel anyone can write.

Theoretical models show Santa delivers to all good little children
worldwide in 24 hours.

'nuff said.

More inane anti-science drooling from Androcles.
He should stick to leonine dental hygiene.


Androcles? No, more a leonine accupuncture/reflexology treatment.

"OG" wrote in message
...
| On 14/11/2010 17:24, Martin Brown wrote:
| On 14/11/2010 15:56, sno wrote:
| On 11/14/2010 10:46 AM, Androcles wrote:
|
|
|
| "Joe wrote in message
|
...
|
| |
| | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle
| |
| | Wiki has posted that the CNO cycle dominates in stars of 1.3 solar
| | masses or larger. That number seems awful small to me. Does anybody
| | else think this is a mistake?
|
| Seems about right. Carroll & Ostlie p373 give around 1.2Msun as the
| upper limit where proton proton reactions dominate energy production.
| The transition at higher masses to the CNO cycle which also has a
| stronger central core temperature dependency.
|
| Schwarschild's book Structure & Evolution of Stars in 1958 p82 gives the
| crossover point p-p to CNO interpolating as roughly 1.3Msun. The sun and
| Sirius A (2Msun) are two labelled points on the graph. The same graph is
| reproduced in Harwit's Astrophysical Concepts.
| |
|
| "Theoretical models show..."
|
| Wackypedia is the drivel anyone can write.
|
| Theoretical models show Santa delivers to all good little children
| worldwide in 24 hours.
|
| 'nuff said.
|
| More inane anti-science drooling from Androcles.
| He should stick to leonine dental hygiene.
|
|
| Androcles? No, more a leonine accupuncture/reflexology treatment.
|

Only a lunatic divides by zero and calls it "science". Brown is just
such a lunatic.


--
"Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be L as
measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the
axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of
co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with
velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then
imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod" --
Einstein

AND THE ANSWER IS...

xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) -- Einstein.
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" - Einstein
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" - Einstein.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity 2AB/(t'A -tA) =
c to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." -
Einstein
He was right. The distance from A to A divided by the time it takes to get
there is infinity. Anyone that divides by zero is a lunatic.

In agreement with experience we further assume the deranged babbling
incompetent cretin couldn't answer his own inquiry, he was too stupid to
realise xi is greater than L when he wrote 'for v=c all moving
objects--viewed from the "stationary'' system--shrivel up into plane
figures', whereas his own equation shows they stretch to infinity...
sqrt(1-c^2/c^2) = 0.

On Nov 15, 6:20*pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
The distance from A to A divided by the time it takes to get
there is infinity. Anyone that divides by zero is a lunatic.
The distance from A to A is zero. The time it takes to get from A
to A is zero, independent of the speed.
Mathematically, 0 divided by 0 is indeterminate. The division of
zero divided by zero has no unique answer. You can't even specify it
as infinity.
One can determine the limit of the ration of two quantities if the
two quantities are approaching the limit of zero. The mathematics of
limits is included in the study of calculus.
You are always asking others to discuss the mathematics. However,
you apparently haven't gotten very far in mathematics. Look up the
definition of derivative. Look up L'Hospitals Rule. Look up limit.
Most of physics is based on calculus.

In agreement with experience we further assume the deranged babbling
incompetent cretin couldn't answer his own inquiry, he was too stupid to
realise xi is greater than L when he wrote *'for v=c all moving
objects--viewed from the "stationary'' system--shrivel up into plane
figures', whereas his own equation shows they stretch to infinity...
sqrt(1-c^2/c^2) = 0.
Do they? Determine functions of the proper time for each quantity
in your ratio. Then, take the limit as the proper time approaches 0.
Look at the result, post it here, and then discuss. If you don't like
our responses, rant and rave like you usually do.