Thornhill *clearly* predicted fusion in the *photosphere* regardless of how much you'd like to ignore and misrepresent the very quote that *you* selected from his work.
Yes, there is. Read the paper, and many others like it.
One proposed mechanism is heating via a large number of small, unresolved, impulsive heating events called nanoflares2.
Unfortunately, detecting these relatively faint nanoflares is exceptionally challenging and beyond our current capabilities. The researchers hope that the next FOXSI flight, slated for August 2018, will hint at more dense, hot pockets of plasma within the Sun’s corona, strengthening the case for nanoflare heating.
It doesn't matter what happens in a lab. The Sun isn't in a lab, and never will be.
This kind of irrational nonsense is exactly why you folks are not real 'scientists' to start with.
Yes you did.
As pointed out by Tim, who knows far more about the subject than you do.
As I said, look at the paper I linked somewhere upthread. That is fusion, and is narrow line.
That is what we don't see in the paper you referred to. And is why nobody else has made such a silly claim.
We *do* see those wavelengths in the paper I referred to.
Well you certainly aren't. Iron Suns? CNO fusion at the surface? Whatever you may be qualified in, it most certainly doesn't include astrophysics.
Hence why you hang out with the EU nutjobs.
So says the guy peddling four metaphysical placeholder terms for human ignorance and doesn't bother to even read his own references.
Nope.
Rewrite your 'paper' and submit it ApJ, or A & A or MNRAS etc. Then get back to us after the peer reviewers have stopped laughing long enough to reply.
I did read the abstract. I read the whole paper. Here is another one:
PERVASIVE FAINT Fe XIX EMISSION FROM A SOLAR ACTIVE REGION OBSERVED WITH EUNIS-13: EVIDENCE FOR NANOFLARE HEATING
Brosius, J. W. et al
PERVASIVE FAINT Fe XIX EMISSION FROM A SOLAR ACTIVE REGION OBSERVED WITH EUNIS-13: EVIDENCE FOR NANOFLARE HEATING - IOPscience
S
Hilarious paranoia,Just out of curiosity what other "handles" have you posted under and how many times have we bumped heads before under your various handles? You sound *remarkably* like RC, including your bogus and false liar, liar, pants on fire routine.
Hilarious paranoia,, totally irrelevant .... and none of your business!
And I'll repeat again ... you have no rights to impose yourself as a moderator. If you continue with such GOADING, TAUNTING behaviours, I will report your post!Nah. There aren't that many of you to start with, and I'm curious. He seems to be avoiding the answer too.
Name the *visible* evidence. Pervasive faint Iron line emissions aren't "nano-flares", they're caused by *constant current* and Thompson scattering.
Really? And where is this spelled out. Preferably in a respected, relevant journal.
Yep! You cannot and will not name one CNO wavelength that figure 5 doesn't cover. Watch you run.
I suggest you start by explaining why you feel the wavelengths in questions and that were actually observe were *NOT* due to CNO fusion, because those wavelengths certainly exist in the data.
I do argue that none of the wavelengths seen are due to CNO fusion and assert that there is significant evidence in favor of this position. The bumps in figure 5a are superimposed on top of a sloping background that resembles figure 5b. That background is a thermal continuum. The bumps indicate "background + process", where the neutron capture gamma rays (they are the "process" part) are emitted in addition to the background gamma rays. If there is any CNO fusion process in play then there must be a bump for that process. Furthermore, the CNO process is a cycle, so you don't just get a bump here or a bump there, you get all of the bumps simultaneously or you get none of the bumps at all, there is no middle ground.
Figure 5a covers the energy range 0.3 - 8.0 MeV. So for the CNO-I cycle we should see bumps at 1.95, 2.22, 2.75, 4.96, 7.35 and 7.54 MeV (not "or", but "and"), For the CNO-II cycle we should see bumps at 0.6, 1.19, 2.75, 2.76 and 7.35 MeV (the 12.13 MeV bump lies outside the plot range). The plot shows bumps at about 0.9, 1.5, 2.3, 3.0, 4.6 and 6.0 MeV (the latter being almost invisible and the 1.5 MeV bump being very broad). There are also significant dips at about 0.7, 2-3, 4.5-5.0 and 6-8 MeV. The ~2.3 MeV bump, labeled "n", coincides with 2.23 MeV neutron capture on a proton, and also with the 2.22 MeV gamma ray expected from the inverse beta decay (positron emission) of 13N to 13C in CNO-I . However, the locations on the plot where one would expect to find CNO-I gamma rays at 1.95 & 2.75 MeV are actually dominated by dips in the spectrum, indicating a deficit of gamma rays in the data, where CNO-I would present a surplus of gamma rays. The bump labeled "C" could mask a 4.96 MeV CNO-I bump, but again, there are actually dips rather then bumps, where we would expect to find CNO-I gamma rays at 7.35 & 7.54 MeV. This is not simply an absence of positive evidence that the CNO-I cycle is in play. The presence of dips where there should be bumps constitutes positive evidence in favor of the assertive proposition that the CNO-I cycle in fact is not in play in these data. Likewise, the last 3 bumps one would expect from the CNO-II cycle sit where the data plotted in figure 5a show negative features, while there is no sign of any bumps at 1.19 or 0.6 MeV. And once again, the presence of dips instead of bumps is equally positive evidence for the assertive proposition that the CNO-II cycle is not physically present for the time & place represented by these data.
And so I stand by my claim: These data do not indicate the presence of any CNO fusion cycle. Furthermore, these data do indicate that no CNO fusion cycle is in effect.
And I'll repeat again ... you have no rights to impose yourself as a moderator. If you continue with such GOADING, TAUNTING behaviours, I will report your post!
For crying out loud they have *zero* visual evidence to support even the actual *existence* of nano-flares, nor do they offer any logical way to explain them, nor any explanation as to why they would be occurring everywhere all the time. Meanwhile, simple electrical current explains the same global heating process everywhere around the corona and it actually works in the lab!
We present spatially resolved, EUV spectroscopic measurements of pervasive, faint Fe xix 592.2 Å line emission in AR 11726 observed by EUNIS-13. The Fe xix line emission, formed at T ≈ 8.9 MK, provides strong support for nanoflare heating models of the solar corona;
The absence of large, significant upward velocities anywhere in the region, particularly in the microflare, indicates that the pervasive Fe xix emission is not propelled outward from the microflare site, but most likely is produced by localized impulsive heating (due to reconnection events, wave dissipation, or some other mechanism) consistent with the nanoflare heating model of the solar corona.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?