Red Stars

"Benoit Morrissette" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:15:16 -0500 (EST), (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

Hi L Could the red (colour Brits) be due to light coming out of the red
giant's core is traveling though a lot of gas and dust before coming out
its surface? It does shrink back to a small very dense White Dwarf.
Bert
Photons from the core are absorbed and then re-emitted many times before
reaching the outer layer of the star. I have read somewhere that it can
takes
millions of years for a photon to reach the surface that way...

Hey Benoît

A million years is a bit high and appears to be based on grossly simplistic
assumptions of the composition of the Sun. A quick survey of the hits from a
Google search on "the sun" "random walk" give widely varying values
depending on the level of sophistication in the initial assumptions, but
30,000 to 40,000 years seems to be a reasonable value. The point, of course,
is that it is a much longer time that it would take a photon to cross the
distance equivalent to the radius of the Sun in open space.



Good night!

Benoît Morrissette

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:16:22 -0500 (EST), (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

Hi Benoit It takes the photons from the sun's core 100,000 years to go
from core to surface. That is the reasoning I use when they tell us
very cold sodium slows light to 3 miles per hour. The photon never
slows down. Bert

Thank Bert, i knew it was a big number like that. But i am not sure that light
slowing in sodium i caused by the same phenomenon.

By the way, did you know that electrons travels only a couple feet per second in
electrical wires? Again, they are absorbed and reemitted by atoms but between
the atoms they go at about 70% the speed of light... Superconductivity allows
electrons to travel freely in the wire!


Good night!

Benoît Morrissette

Hi Benoit I thought of something about photons leaving the sun's core
and taking 100,000 years to reach the surface. Benoit this has to come
under the uncertainty principle. That tells me some photons don't get
absorbed,and emmited they go from core to surface(come right through)
other photons could take a million years(as you mentioned) The books
should be written that on "average" it takes photons 100,000
years.(probability) My own theory on photons can't have them going
slower than "c" . Benoit you mentioned the speed of
electrons,and I found that very interesting. The main supply of
electrons is not done with direct current. Its done with alternating
current(AC) Here the electrons move back and forth(60 times a
second) because the terminals of the supply repeatedly change from
positive to negative,and visa-versa. This begs the question does direct
current move faster than alternating current? Bert PS Kind of
tricky

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:43:30 -0500 (EST), (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

Hi Benoit I thought of something about photons leaving the sun's core
and taking 100,000 years to reach the surface. Benoit this has to come
under the uncertainty principle. That tells me some photons don't get
absorbed,and emmited they go from core to surface(come right through)
other photons could take a million years(as you mentioned) The books
should be written that on "average" it takes photons 100,000
years.(probability) My own theory on photons can't have them going
slower than "c" .

I agree
Benoit you mentioned the speed of
electrons,and I found that very interesting. The main supply of
electrons is not done with direct current. Its done with alternating
current(AC) Here the electrons move back and forth(60 times a
second) because the terminals of the supply repeatedly change from
positive to negative,and visa-versa. This begs the question does direct
current move faster than alternating current? Bert PS Kind of
tricky

Brrrr Never thought about this one... I know that electrons moves at about
70% c when they are free ( not 100% c because they have some mass ) but they are
trapped between atoms in metals. I suppose they should be somewhat stationnary
in alternating current unless there is an assymetry in the waveform.

A few years ago, i worked in a hi-fi store and we had a very special loudspeaker
wire ( i.e. very costly ) from France. It was said that the crystaline
structure of the "oxygen-free copper" acted like a diode and there was a
specific way to hook it up between the amplifier and the speakers. Connected
the right way, the sound was gorgeous and the other way, the sound was
horrible... ( i have tried this with other wires and it work most of the
times).

My point is: the signal in the wire is AC, ok? There should be NO difference
OK? But there is one, i swear it... No electromagnetic theory can explain that
observation so far. I believe we are due for a new electromagnetic theory
(sorry Maxwell...)


Good night!

Benoît Morrissette

Hi Benoit That was very interesting ,about that French wire. It makes
no diference to a light bulb,which the direction the current flows. I
read in Asminov book "Physics" the diameter of a copper wire obeys the
inverse square law. That must be the reason a car 12 volt
battery has a thick wire (cable) going to its 12 volt starter. Edison
push hard to have direct current used,and said it was safer.
Westinghouse won out. Bert PS Current flows from negative to
positive. Earth's magnetisim flows from south pole to north

"Benoit Morrissette" wrote in message
...
snip
A few years ago, i worked in a hi-fi store and we had a very special
loudspeaker
wire ( i.e. very costly ) from France. It was said that the crystaline
structure of the "oxygen-free copper" acted like a diode and there was a
specific way to hook it up between the amplifier and the speakers.
Connected
the right way, the sound was gorgeous and the other way, the sound was
horrible... ( i have tried this with other wires and it work most of the
times).

My point is: the signal in the wire is AC, ok? There should be NO
difference
OK? But there is one, i swear it... No electromagnetic theory can
explain that
observation so far. I believe we are due for a new electromagnetic theory
(sorry Maxwell...)
snip

Every cable in my home theatre is marked for one way usage, and I have
experienced the same results you describe. I also found that when I started
with stranded core cable, I had problems. Solid core made a difference. Go
figure.

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Hi Benoit That was very interesting ,about that French wire. It makes
no diference to a light bulb,which the direction the current flows. I
read in Asminov book "Physics" the diameter of a copper wire obeys the
inverse square law. That must be the reason a car 12 volt
battery has a thick wire (cable) going to its 12 volt starter. Edison
push hard to have direct current used,and said it was safer.
Westinghouse won out. Bert PS Current flows from negative to
positive. Earth's magnetisim flows from south pole to north

Me thinks the wire from your battery to your starter is so thick, because to
get the motor to crank yer pushing massive amounts of amperage, somewhere in
the 120-200 amp range depending on the starter.

As for the DC...I believe the usage of of AC over DC is a cost thing. It
would be very costly and very lossy to push DC around the country whereas
you can push AC very far and step it down where needed using a transformer.

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

From BV:

As for the DC...I believe the usage of of
AC over DC is a cost thing. It would be
very costly and very lossy to push DC
around the country whereas you can
push AC very far and step it down where needed using a transformer.

Believe it or not, in some situations DC is more efficient for ultrahigh
voltage, long distance power transmission. This became feasible with the
advent of switching semiconductors used in the converter/ inverter
stations (which up-convert AC to ultrahigh voltage DC, and back down to
AC. A web search under 'high voltage DC transmission' will confirm this.
Also, in another post you discussed electron flow in a
conductor, but did not make a clear distinction between electron flow
and *flow of charge*. Flow of charge (electric flow) propagagates at the
speed of light minus the 'velocity factor', which can vary from about
76c to .80c depending on the conductor. But the valence electrons
themselves move very slowly by comparison. In an AC situation, they
remain essentially `in place' in the conductor. Electric flow in a
conductor (flow of charge) is not the same as *electron flow* in free
space, as in a vacuum tube.
Here's a discussion of some common misconceptions about
"electricity"- www.amasci.com/miscon/eleca.html

oc

Hi oc I was going to bring in charge speed. The electrical charge is
rather tricky(for me anyway) I'm quoting from a book in front of me
its definition. "A property produced by the addition(negative charge) or
removel(positive charge of electrons. The charge on the electron is the
fundermental unit of electricity. Interesting what you had to say oc on
DC being more efficient than AC under certain conditions. I would think
that would mean a short thick wire.(yes?) Well we know individual
electrons move very slowly and the electric charge travels very much
faster. I think oc that direct current needs a very thick wire because
it creates heat. Heat creates resistance,or visa versa. Electricity like
magnetizim does not like heat. AC current needs a thinner wire than DC
and that can save a lot of money over long distances. I think
aternators used in cars take advantage of this,and the battery with its
DC current to turn a DC motor is also the best way to use DC current.
Bert PS Best to keep in mind that there is little diference in a tiny
electric watch,and a 50 ton electric train

From Bert:

Interesting what you had to say.. on DC
being more efficient than AC under
certain conditions.

Well, very long distance power transmission was traditionally done with
AC, since it can easily be stepped up to the high voltage needed for
efficient transmission, and stepped down with transformers at the
receiving end. But at very long distances, reactive losses on the line
become signifigant, involving both inductive and capacitive reactance.
Plus, there is *radiative* loss due to the lines acting as a very long
wavelength EM antenna.
If DC could be used instead, it would eliminate all
reactive and radiative losses. This became possible with the advent of
very high power solid state devices (triacs and thyristors) needed for
converting AC up to high voltage DC, and down-converting back to AC at
the receiving end. Examples of HVDC transmission systems are found in
the Pacific Northwest, Canada, Europe and Siberia. oc