Science Forum

DrCWho · Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:01 pm Post subject:

Hi folks,

I'm Dr. R. Charbonneau. My Ph.D. is in astrophysics. I started with a BScME from U. of Maryland thru USAFES. For the army I kept helicopters flying. Once back in the USA I found myself inspecting a nuclear powerplant prior to its coming online and traveled a bit as a one man research team.
The astrophysics began intrinsically back in high school, still I began externsive independent study in the field in the mid-seventies. For quite a few years I questioned the tokamak studies for sustained fusion because of problems that emerge in the equation of state. From this question arose similar questions about sustained fusion in a star and for several years I mulled over other possible models for the G2 stellar interior and mechanics.
The SL9 impacts in 1994 were preceded by speculations that the impacts could turn Jupiter into a second star. I felt this was absurd because Jupiter, even though it has layers of both molecular and metalic hydrogen, did not sport the presence of photospheric materials sufficient to contain such an ignition. That feeling was correct. Even with Voyager taking in much of the events of SL9, we still were unable to detect the results of fusion as the fragments tunnelled into the Jovian atmosphere. No helium.

The thoughts of it all did eventually amalgamate into a concept of a star that does not burn with sustained fusion, but instead by inertial fusion impulses and, unlike the "iron sun" theory, suggested that just beneath the convection zone, resides a cooler region of solidified compounds that work as an adiabatic layer and a transmutive layer that converted deuterium in the convection zone, to tritium (or even more dense isotopes) that would generate fusion through inertia as it plummets into the deeper gravitational radii of the core. This was independent of the SOHO data collected prior to 1997, when the SOHO satelite was found again and the new proposal for future SOHO funding was being written.

In 2006, the NASA channel aired a broadcast about SOHO that depicted this second solid layer so precisely that the illustration I sent NASA in 1999, about the layer, could have been cut & pasted within the vignette used to mask out the corona and chromospheric layers.

Shortly after seeing the broadcast, I was able to find references to it at the SOHO site, but now, just like the White House did with the evidence of global warming, references to the broadcast are inaccessible. I do understand why, though. The model I depicted to NASA explained the solar neutrino shortage by depicting a star with much more fluff than fuel. That depiction was made before SOHO made the many temperature readings and elemental presence readings in solar flares. The convection zone may still harbor all the star's fuel, but not as little as I first calculated.

I'm still working on all this, but there are quite a few other projects I have in the fire at the moment. Mostly I'm running the numbers on the microgravity that exists between Oort Spheres and whether the orbital resonance involving comets in one sphere can affect the resonance in another. This same work involves whether there are negative energy and negative mass areas, so wormholes, that would exist in these areas as an illustration of the Casimir Effect. If so then, yes, one star can affect the fields within another, but how far?

Beyond the science:
I wield a mean axe... as in Stratocaster, or so I'm told. Some of my work is in murals and signage, from where I've earned most of my research money over the past twenty years. I can't stand to sit and watch "the game." I feel sports has overshadowed science for too many years and the world is behind in what could have been greater exploration of space and the seas because of that overshadowing.

I was taught carpentry by my father, a master carpenter who invented the "fold up" cabinet for EV many years ago. Although I make my living as a scientist, I still swing the framing and fine carpentry hammers and love architecture.

'Nuff for now.

Dr. C.
_________________
Religion without science is blind,
Science without religion is lame. - Albert Einstein