Jupiter puts out twice as much heat as it recieves

I don't mean to insult, I am just trying to make a point. That we must be open to new ideas. Actually I want you to believe my argument because I believe that we don't understand quite what is going on. Does this excuse me a little? In all honesty it's a strategy for arguing. I'm really trying to convince you of the merrits of my argument. No offence was intended. I'll work on a mathematical proof / argument - but it might take a while.

Hydrogen at Extremely High Pressures
"If the Livermore results are correct, then there is more metallic hydrogen in Jupiter's interior than previously thought and it is easier than expected to trigger self-sustaining nuclear fusion in deuterium fuel pellets, since they would be more compressible" - Note deuterium is the heavy isotope of hydrogen containing one proton and one neutron (almost certainly exists in jupiter's hydrogen layers)
The preceeding is by a little outfit called the American Institue for Physics
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2002/split/587-2.html

"Several new studies, attempting to simulate a small sample of Jupiter here on earth, suggest that current theories of the Jovian interior may have to be revised." - American Institute of Physics
http://www.aip.org/pnu/1995/split/pnu240-2.htm

"the formation of metallic hydrogen is of interest to fusion scientists who need to know what hydrogen does at high pressures, and to astronomers who model the interiors of gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, which are expected to harbor vast reservoirs of metallic fluid hydrogen." - American Institute of Physics
http://www.aip.org/pnu/1996/split/pnu263-1.htm

"Understanding hydrogen's behavior under such extreme conditions answers questions about the interior of Jupiter, provides coveted information on designing optimal fuel pellets for fusion energy"- American Institute of Physics
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2002/split/587-2.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We must be open to new ideas based upon evidence. It has taken to page three to dig any evidence out of you. Now either you had it all the time, in which case you have been intellectually dishonest, or you have only just come upon it, in which case all my objections to you formulating this idea based on an opinion were valid.
Either way I find your approach a lot less attractive than your evidence, which I shall now digest.

While I am doing that you can consider the classic paper that demonstrates the contraction model can work, regardless of your feeling that contraction must have stopped by now.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...e=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right, your first link, in context does not support your contention:
If the Livermore results are correct, then there is more metallic hydrogen in Jupiter's interior than previously thought and it is easier than expected to trigger self-sustaining nuclear fusion in deuterium fuel pellets, since they would be more compressible. If the Sandia results are right, then more traditional assumptions hold.

Two completely separate issues are being considered here:
1. The possible amount of hydrogen inJupiter's interior.
2. The ease of initiating a fusion reaction in a commercial power generating reactor.

You will recall that I stated earlier that the only reason we could not distinguish between the relative importance of the various models for producing the excess heat was an unadequately defined structure and composition for Jupiter. The experiments described in your first link may well help to improve that definition, but they certainly do not suggest in any way that fusion is possible in Jupiter.

Your second link is more of the same: data that suggest changes in the model of the interior, but nothing that would permit fusion to occur, even on a limited basis.
Ditto, for your third link. This is not evidence in support of your speculation at all Tortise. You have either fooled yourself, or you are trying to fool me.
And your fourth link is your first link repeated.

Summary: your 'evidence' turns out to be nothing of the kind. Indeed it precisely supports what I've said all along. What are you trying to pull?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're right - I think jupiter is shrinking. Amazing minds at work.

 

Yea......And watch out for those pesky big Black monoliths that keep hanging around Jupiter. They can always make a big mass (or is it mess?) according to A. C. Clark.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That would make about as much sense as jupiter shrinking.

Well obviously I'm trying to trick you - but you foiled my diabolical plan! Good work Nancy Drew! I hadn't even started on my case - but thanks for the discouragement.

I hope the theory your championing (jupiter is shrinking and putting off heat) stands the test of time.

Putting all kidding aside for a moment, Hipparchia obviously is very knowlegeable, and we should just call this a difference of opinion and move on.

 

There is a very large difference between opinion based upon the solid consensus of physicists and astronomers, and opinion based upon someone thinking, for no particular reason, that a well established mechanism does not make any sense.

And by the way I am not very knowledgable, I am very ignorant of many things, but this is pretty basic stuff.

 

Here is a page which has a calculator for working out the gravitational contraction of a gas giant or a Brown Dwarf over time.
http://zenith.as.arizona.edu/~burrows/cgi-bin/browndwarf3.cgi
to apply this calculator to Jupiter, enter a mass of 1, and then look at how Jupiter contracts by entering a range of different ages.

Brown Dwarfs are not thought to sustain active fusion for very long; once all the deuterium in the core has gone, a brown dwarf is heated by gravitational contraction, just like Jupiter.

 

Damnit, that Jupiter's got us beat no matter which way we turn.

Geoff

 

Thank you eburacum. If that doesn't convince Tortise nothing will.

 

If gas planets got energy from continuly contracting, wouldn't this planet be hotter?

It's my position that it is possible that there are limited fussion reactions in jupiter - it has a higher temp. then some brown dwarf stars with many times more mass. Wouldn't brown dwarf stars be getting energy from "compressing" or contracting like jupiter? It may fuse easier things to fuse like H with an extra neutron this not being extremly prevelent - it burns out, then it gets cold again. These facts are consistent with my theory. If you don't agree with me, that's ok. You don't have to agree with me. I realize I'm not going to change your minds. Both things are possible - and not mutually exclusive. So great work - and good argument. You're very convincing.

 

How old is the planet in question, what is its mass, is it orbiting a star, and if so what sort of star is it and how far away is the orbit?

 

Pete: About your question: I'm not sure but this is interesting in that same vane:

Now back to the argument:

http://www.aip.org/pnu/1995/physnews.251.htm

(evidently these planets aren't getting much energy by continuously compressing)

http://zenith.as.arizona.edu/~burro...browndwarf3.cgi - wow jupiter sized planets that have not been stars yet - the luminousity can be figured by the same equation. Wow case closed.

This is again strong evidence that planets the size of jupiter as NASA puts it- (refering to jupiter) " an internal heat source" and in my opinion if was from contraction would be reflected in these bodies.

So Jupiter's core - hotter then the surface of the sun, brown dwarf: less then 1200 degrees. Could this be because jupiter has some fissionable matterial, and a brown dwarf would have burned that up long ago?

I'm just saying that it is a possibility. To say that it isn't possibe, well that's your perogitive, but it may be less then open minded.

It would also be reflected in the lab. They are able to compress He to a metalic state in the lab now. According to the compression theory, this gas being compressed in the lab would continue to put out heat for billions of years - like a magical energy source that gets more energy then you put in. When you compress gas or anything else, (as in compressing oygen in an oxygen tank) it puts of heat and then reaches equibrium. Oxygen tanks are not perpetually hot. - Then again who am I to say that planets such as jupiter are not mystical energy machines that put out tremendous energy for billions of years - by compressing, but they never get any smaller. This is what is hard to believe. In the lab would anyone seriously consider this? That the gas wouldn't reach equalibrium? And if the planet is not shrinking but somehow still compressing, the hydrogen is not experiencing any increase in the force of gravity is it?

Is it out of the realm of possibility to say that fussion would occur first with the rare easily fussionable matterial, and then when fussion was possible with readily available matterial, would fuse those, and become a star? When the star burned out, even the rare easily fussionable matterial would be gone, and you are left with what we observe with regard to some burned out stars - they get relatively cold. But we should differentiate between burned out stars, and brown dwarfs that have not achieved star status yet. Now I believe we clump those into the same category. One would have fussionable matterial and one would not.

Hipp - you never even gave me a chance to make my case -attacking links from The American Institute of Physics - It seem like you too busy with being right then to search for the truth. Also, it's much harder to come up with new stuff then it is to regergitate what you've read. Maybe one day you'll find out about this.
Hipparchia stated:

- I won't argue with you about this. I think ignorane can be defined eschewing the search for truth in the quest to be proven right or for some other bias. I think you've proved your case with respect to that.

Now having said all of that I would like to say that I try not to take anything too personally, and I don't expect anyone else to either. To me it's more talking trash.

 

Really, stop pretending you know what you are talking about. I have done my best to offer you facts, but you seem intent on adhering to opinions.

I applaud efforts to come up with new ideas, but those efforts need to have a sound basis. You are demonstrating, with increasing vigour, the depth of your ignorance, and the total lack of any foundation. I am quite surprised. You seem interested in astronomy, yet rather than approach it in a scientific manner you are allowing prejudice, preference and opinion to guide you. How foolish.

Now, here, in the quote above, you take your foot and place it very thoroughly and unambiguously in your mouth. Yes, the core temperature of Jupiter is very high. But no, the core temperature of a Brown Dwarf is not 1200 degrees. How stupid of you to think it is. That is its surface temperature. You aren't even comparing apples and oranges, more like apples and granites.

Please stop claiming that your idle speculations are in some way equivalent to bona fide science. It just makes you look silly.

 

Hey, no need to get so personal. I sense some hostillity! Calm down Hipparchia - take a few deep breaths, and pat yourself on the back. You're still the man! You're the smartest! Congradulations! Whatever it takes to bring you back down to earth - do it! Keep plugging along, you'll get the hang of it one day! Peace. It's just a stupid theory I came up with a few days ago - not my lifes work! You don't have to get so wound up about a single idea / theory. Wow. Ya! It's a dumb idea! Call your mom or something - she'll tell you how smart you are. Obviously you are not will to call this a difference of opinion like I suggested a ways back or even to let me post information from good sources. If you're trying to be the smartest - then I give up you win.

 

You really are annoying, patronising little twerp.

You accuse me of getting personal right after you say I am attacking you just so I can prove myself right! I am attacking tyour ideas because they are screwed up. I have no formal education in this area, so I try to learn from those who do, and from those who research in these fields.
It is an affront to science and to proper scientists when people wander in off the street with 'theories', just because they are too lazy to do the groundwork that would show them they are mistaken. If you are going to keep posting 'theories' do the leg work first; get some evidence; understand what you are reading.

However, I shall try to heed your advice. Next time you post some nonsense I shan't state the obvious and tell everyone else how silly you have been. They already know that. I'll restrict myself to correcting your errors of fact and interpretation.

 

Ok - you have some good points. I appologise. You're right, and I'm wrong. If you don't like my ideas why do you go so far out of your way to argue against them? Don't you think you're acting a little childish? You never even gave me a chance to make a good case before trying to tear my idea down. I mean me - I'm just kidding, but you, you're truely upset. Don't you think you're taking this a little to seriously? Please take a little friendly advice and lighten up a little. This is supposed to be fun, not upsetting. It was obviously a stupid idea of mine, and I threw it out there.... Now you may have proved me wrong, and great! Thanks for the help. I'm learning too. I'm not perfect. To me, I try to have fun and learn. Sometimes I'm a smart ass, but I don't mean any serious disparagement.

Now if you care to observe, we have both learned more about stars and such. This is part of my goal. To learn - and I think we have both learned here. That I may have been wrong about my idea - that's ok. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, and it won't be the last. But I'll keep trying to learn, and this is one of the ways I do it. Another problem is I don't think my humor translates very well. In any case, thanks for your critique. You were right about me comparing the surface of the dwarf to the core of a large planet, It is different, and you were also right about the compression of fluids. Without you I wouldn't have known that. Thank you. When the article said:

I took it to mean the core temp.

 

All you had to say was

"I know that the excess heat from Jupiter can be accounted for by gravitational contraction, and maybe helium condensation. However, the figures still leave some room for the possibility that another, as yet unidentified mechanism is involved.

Although the interior temperatures fall substantially short of those required to initiate fusion, do you think there might be anyway in which locally, and perhaps intermittently, some form of fusion might occur? While this would not contribute all, or even most, of the excess heat, it could account for some of it."

I could have happily discussed that. That is not what you said. You said something like:
"I know that the excess heat from Jupiter is supposedly the result of gravitational contraction. Well, I just don't believe that. I don't care that it the mechanism that is accepted by astrophysicists. I don't care if it can be shown clearly with basic physics. I just don't think it makes sense. Therefore there must be something else going on.

Here, look at these articles where the words hydrogen, Jupiter and fusion occur in the same paragraph. That pretty well proves my point, that real scientists think my idea isn't so foolish."

That approach I won't discuss, but just attack.

You ask if I am taking this too seriously. I never got a degree because of personal circumstances. I realised too late I was studying the wrong thing, and now I am trying to educate myself a little in those parts of science that interest me especially.
So, I do get pretty serious when someone chooses deliberately and persistently to abuse science, by ignoring the work of researchers, and the principles of science.

And I apologise for any personal remarks, but it I think it is a serious business when someone, such as yourself, decides to ignore the basics of science, but pretend they are somehow being scientific.

 

Dude, I was just posting information - a link with some of what the article said. I made no comment - just information to look at. If this is what is upsetting you, then I won't post any more articles. This is exactly what I said:

When I posted this what I meant was that I was going to do some research, and here was some articles to look at in the mean time.

 

I've been reading through this thread for a few days, interesting... I am not a physicist by any means, just a 40 year old Air Force MSgt but try this idea on for size:

The pressure in Jupiter first condenses liquid hydrogen (heat of fusion: 0.05868 kJ/mol, bit of a misnomer), futher pressure turns it into metallic hydrogen (unknown heat of fusion, would be considerably more, liquid/solids phase change usually release much more heat than gas/liquid)

Both steps result in a denser planet, the planet shrinks a microscopic amount with a corresponding increase in surface gravity. The shrinking itself releases heat garnered from potential energy.

Increase in surface gravity and pressure then drives another round of condensation/crystallization/shrinkage and it goes round and round. Same cycle for other gasses (minor effect though, not much of them).

This plus radioactive decay plus leftover formation heat could account for the radiated heat.

Just a thought.