It is also possible that as a mixed-medium star, there is CNO-catalyzed fusion happening, though usually that entails stars larger and heavier than the Sun to get a bigger proportion of CNO rather than simple hydrogen fusion.
Me, I'm interested in tricking out the system so that CNO happens at much balmier temperatures and pressures. Jess Tauber -----Original Message----- >From: mix...@bigpond.com >Sent: Mar 29, 2017 10:18 PM >To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Whats wrong with this picture? > >In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 27 Mar 2017 09:59:50 -0700: >Hi, > >I wonder how they know the age? If they are wrong, and it formed only recently, >then perhaps it simply hasn't yet condensed to the point where it ignites? > >> >>The smallest known star that astronomers have found is named >>OGLE-TR-122b. Its radius is accurately measured at 167,000 km. That >>makes it 20% larger than planet Jupiter but like most stars, it is >>radiating energy in a way which indicates that nuclear fusion has been >>underway for billions of years, presumably converting hydrogen into >>helium like our sun, only less of it, and at longer wavelength, due to >>the small size. >> >>Yet today, without reference to the presence of any small star, the >>science news is reporting a much larger dim object has been found, not a >>star and more like a planet, which is 90 times more massive than >>Jupiter. This object is not undergoing nuclear fusion. It is called SDSS >>J0104+1535 and consists of more than 99.99% hydrogen and helium but >>without nuclear ignition, despite the enormous gravity. >> >>It is not clear that "high purity" is an actual parameter which >>prohibits it from going nuclear, since it makes little sense that so >>much hydrogen would not ignite, as happens in the much smaller star, due >>to the Lawson criteria if nothing else. There is such a massive >>disparity in the energy released from the smaller and hotter object, >>compared to the much larger colder object- that great doubt is cast on >>many assumptions relative to nuclear fusion at the cosmological scale. >> >>Does LENR have a place in this picture? >> >>The smaller, dirtier and much hotter object may be undergoing energetic >>reactions which are not the same as fusion in our sun, for instance. If >>it is less pure, then much of that impurity would be iron and nickel - >>just like many meteorites. Notably these two metals are catalysts for LENR. >> >>I would be willing to bet that not a single reputable astronomer will >>bring up this possibility - that the smallest stars could be powered by >>LENR instead of hot fusion, but can we rule out the possibility ? Is >>there a better explanation for the strange picture which has been >>presented above? >> >>. >Regards, > >Robin van Spaandonk > >http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >
