The sun's a big glowing ball bearing!

[Jon P. Inghram]

Quite a revelation, http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/index.html?

That would explain a lot, like why the... umm... sun.... err...

Ok, I've just got too much time when at work to just sit and surf the net I guess. Best part about finding a gem like that was that I was just googling for info on the ubercheap 20" Insignia (Best Buy brand, component video for only $100! ) TV I bought a while back.

[Fluff]

Bit shocked, maybe that will help scientists build fusion reactors .

[Jon P. Inghram]

Bit shocked, maybe that will help scientists build fusion reactors .

I can't tell, is that an inspired bit of sarcasam or are you serious?

[Fluff]

[Brian Ellis]

Whereas I have no idea about what is under the sun's surface, this guy has little more. He claims the shell he has "discovered" to be a ferrite.

a ceramic-like material with magnetic properties that are useful in many types of electronic devices. Ferrites are hard, brittle, iron-containing, and generally gray or black and are polycrystalline—i.e., made up of a large number of small crystals. They are composed of iron oxide and one or more other metals in chemical combination.

A ferrite is formed by the reaction of ferric oxide (iron oxide or rust) with any of a number of other metals, including magnesium, aluminum, barium, manganese, copper, nickel, cobalt, or even iron itself.

(Encyc. Brit.)

I dispute this theory a) because there is no spectrographic evidence of large quantities of iron or other metals b) because ferrites melt or sublimate at c. 1000-1500°C (depending on the composition c) ferrites are generally non-conductive or poor electrical conductors.d) ferrites have a relativley low Curie point, above which they lose their unique magnetic properties.

Excuse me while I consume a pinch of monosodium monochloride.

[Dr Mordrid]

Wrong on count #1.

Stellar evolution 101:

The ultimate end product of the stellar fusion process is iron. When stars reach a high enough iron content (which can no longer fuse) they either swell into a red giant, eventually blowing off their outer layers and then shrinking into a white dwarf as our sun will, or go supernova. The cutoff point as to which happens is about 3 solar masses.

The elements given off by either process is how what we are made of came to be, so his assertion that our sun contains these elements is not sci-fi but established fact.

Also; our solar system, sun included, was formed from not just a hydrogen cloud but one made of hydrogen plus the remnants of a past supernova that were already loaded with heavy elements. As such our sun got a head-start in terms of its non-hydrogen content.

As for #2, I dunno but you're dismissal doesn't take into account how such materials would behave in both a high pressure and high-magnetic field environment like the sun. Never say never....

Dr. Mordrid

[Nowhere]

I'd say that the ultimate end product of the stellar fusion proces is "nuclei" formed from neutrons, strange matter or matter (?) in the black hole, which both form wehn star tries to "ignite" the iron

And Doc, I think Brian knows that...but it doesn't mean that these elements form a shell around the Sun...(they would be visible on spectrograph...so inside is da place for them...)

[Dr Mordrid]

I didn't say that they formed a shell. I just said that;

1. his contention that large amounts of those elements could not be present is false. In fact the sun is .16% iron, .77% oxygen, .29% carbon, .12% neon and smatterings of magnesium, silicon, nitrogen, sulfur etc. While a total of ~1% that still comes down to a helluva lot of this stuff.

2. that he has any clue about how matter would behave under those conditions. This isn't to say that Manuel is correct, he isn't, but flat out statements about how elements or compounds will behave in stars isn't smooth either. Ask any plasma physicist.

Dr. Mordrid

[Brian Ellis]

I didn't say that they formed a shell. I just said that;

1. his contention that large amounts of those elements could not be present is false. In fact the sun is .16% iron, .77% oxygen, .29% carbon, .12% neon and smatterings of magnesium, silicon, nitrogen, sulfur etc. While a total of ~1% that still comes down to a helluva lot of this stuff.

2. that he has any clue about how matter would behave under those conditions. This isn't to say that Manuel is correct, he isn't, but flat out statements about how elements or compounds will behave in stars isn't smooth either. Ask any plasma physicist.

Dr. Mordrid

Taking your figure of 0.16% Fe, this is next to bugger-all and certainly insufficient to form a ferrite sub-surface solid. Of course, in reality, the figure may be much higher than 0.16%, because this is the quantity measured using spectrography from the radiation which is essentially just from the surface. To take an analogy, the quantity of iron measurable on the earth from an observer on the moon, would be <10%, but this hides the fact that most of the core is iron, so it may be that iron forms >50% of the mass of the planet (just guessing the figures).

In any case, as you bring up the question of plasma physics, plasma is, by definition, the fourth state of matter and therefore excludes being solid, liquid or gas. It therefore seems specious for a solid ferrite shell to form in a plasma without a phase conversion. I admit that what I know about plasma physics would not fill a book (although I do have some knowledge) but I cannot envision a highly ionised "solid plasma". However, I'm quite prepared to accept that the centre of the sun may be solid or liquid from the simple gravitational compression but, if this were the case, there would be quasi-zero ionic mobility.