|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Process of heavy elements sinking tto the center of stars
They then fuse more under the maximum pressure. This reveals that they
get even heavier while near the cores of stars. Mitch Raemsch |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Process of heavy elements sinking tto the center of stars
On Feb 13, 6:29*pm, BURT wrote:
They then fuse more under the maximum pressure. This reveals that they get even heavier while near the cores of stars. Heavy nucleii are easier to buoy, due to their larger net charge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_nut_effect I'd expect the heavier elements to stay near the surface... until the star begins to cool. David A. Smith |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Process of heavy elements sinking tto the center of stars
On Feb 13, 5:54*pm, dlzc wrote:
On Feb 13, 6:29*pm, BURT wrote: They then fuse more under the maximum pressure. This reveals that they get even heavier while near the cores of stars. Heavy nucleii are easier to buoy, due to their larger net charge.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_nut_effect That is the opposite. Heavy elements sink. I'd expect the heavier elements to stay near the surface... until the star begins to cool. David A. Smith Protons never attract electrons. If they did they would come together. Mitch Raemsch |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Process of heavy elements sinking tto the center of stars
On Feb 13, 11:06*pm, BURT wrote:
On Feb 13, 5:54*pm, dlzc wrote: On Feb 13, 6:29*pm, BURT wrote: They then fuse more under the maximum pressure. This reveals that they get even heavier while near the cores of stars. Heavy nucleii are easier to buoy, due to their larger net charge.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_nut_effect That is the opposite. Heavy elements sink. I'd expect the heavier elements to stay near the surface... until the star begins to cool. David A. Smith Protons never attract electrons. If they did they would come together. Mitch Raemsch Mich Positive protons attract negative electrons. Your posts are getting to be a joke. TreBert |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Process of heavy elements sinking tto the center of stars
On Feb 14, 7:02*am, bert wrote:
On Feb 13, 11:06*pm, BURT wrote: On Feb 13, 5:54*pm, dlzc wrote: On Feb 13, 6:29*pm, BURT wrote: They then fuse more under the maximum pressure. This reveals that they get even heavier while near the cores of stars. Heavy nucleii are easier to buoy, due to their larger net charge.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_nut_effect That is the opposite. Heavy elements sink. I'd expect the heavier elements to stay near the surface... until the star begins to cool. David A. Smith Protons never attract electrons. If they did they would come together. Mitch Raemsch Mich Positive protons attract negative electrons. Your posts are getting to be a joke. *TreBert- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - But opposites electric attract. How come the proton doesn't come together with the electron? Mitch Raemsch |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Process of heavy elements sinking tto the center of stars
dlzc wrote:
On Feb 13, 6:29 pm, BURT wrote: They then fuse more under the maximum pressure. This reveals that they get even heavier while near the cores of stars. Heavy nucleii are easier to buoy, due to their larger net charge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_nut_effect I'd expect the heavier elements to stay near the surface... until the star begins to cool. You've got to be joking here. I can't see this effect being applicable to nuclear physics, in the least. Maybe in a chemical process it would work. They mention that the majority of the Uranium found at the surface of the Earth is there because Uranium reacts with Oxygen to form a compound that is less dense, therefore able to float to the surface. Yousuf Khan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Process of heavy elements sinking tto the center of stars
BURT wrote:
But opposites electric attract. How come the proton doesn't come together with the electron? Happens in neutron stars, due to gravity. But without gravity as the overwhelming force, the only thing attracting the two are the electromagnetic force, since the Strong nuclear force doesn't act on electrons. The electromagnetic isn't strong enough to overcome and contain their quantum movement. Yousuf Khan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Process of heavy elements sinking tto the center of stars
Dear Yousuf Khan:
On Feb 18, 6:53*am, Yousuf Khan wrote: dlzc wrote: On Feb 13, 6:29 pm, BURT wrote: They then fuse more under the maximum pressure. This reveals that they get even heavier while near the cores of stars. Heavy nucleii are easier to buoy, due to their larger net charge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_nut_effect I'd expect the heavier elements to stay near the surface... until the star begins to cool. You've got to be joking here. I'm not. I can't see this effect being applicable to nuclear physics, in the least. It has nothing to do with nuclear physics, but to do with an ion with lots of positive charges (large "size") and a reluctance to quick speed changes (large mass). Maybe in a chemical process it would work. Or just in a physical "vibratory" environment. They mention that the majority of the Uranium found at the surface of the Earth is there because Uranium reacts with Oxygen to form a compound that is less dense, therefore able to float to the surface. I would expect that for even negligible convection rates, the heavier stuff... once off-center, would continue to migrate to a star's surface. We don't expect our Sun to have *any significant* convection from near its core, but it may if it cools or heats "rapidly". And so I expect there may be a concentration of heavy stuff near the center, but I'd expect anything much different than helium to be lofted outwards, ASAP, and the heavier the faster. David A. Smith |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Process of heavy elements sinking tto the center of stars
In article ,
dlzc writes: Heavy nucleii are easier to buoy, due to their larger net charge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_nut_effect I'd expect the heavier elements to stay near the surface... until the star begins to cool. What applies to Brazil nuts doesn't necessarily apply to stars. Stellar interiors are generally convective or fully ionized, often both. If there's convection, everything is fully mixed throughout the convective zone. If fully ionized, there's no size difference for the "Brazil nut effect" to operate on. Heavy nuclei will tend to sink, but the sinking is a diffusion process with very small mean free path, so the time scale is very long indeed. (I think it's longer than a Hubble time but could be wrong about that; anyway it's billions of years.) Even if you can find a zone in some star that's both non-convective and not fully ionized, heavy elements won't float. The "radius" of an atom goes quadratically as the shell number and inversely as the nuclear charge squared. (This is a very rough semi-classical approximation but adequate for the present discussion.) So carbon, for example, has an "atomic density" 36/8 times that of hydrogen, even when the carbon is neutral. This is quite enough density difference to make heavy atoms tend to sink, but as mentioned above, the time scale is very long indeed. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is there to Much heavy Elements in The solar system? | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 8 | December 14th 06 11:00 PM |
Heavy Element Production in Stars | Fusioneer | Astronomy Misc | 3 | February 27th 05 04:03 PM |
Stars Rich In Heavy Metals Tend To Harbor Planets, Astronomers Report | Ron Baalke | Misc | 5 | August 10th 03 10:58 PM |
Stars Rich In Heavy Metals Tend To Harbor Planets, Astronomers Report | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | July 21st 03 06:10 PM |
Stars rich in heavy metals tend to harbor planets, astronomers report(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 21st 03 05:45 PM |