HOME >
Astronomy & Space > If the sun burns Hydrogen, shouldn't the sun be full of water? (burned hydrogen=water!)
If the sun burns Hydrogen, shouldn't the sun be full of water? (burned hydrogen=water!)
[From: ] [author: ] [Date: 11-11-01] [Hit: ]
The theoretical concept of fusion was developed in the 1930s by the astrophysicists Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and Hans Bethe. Hans Bethe calculated the details of the two main energy-producing nuclear reactions that power the Sun.Bobby and Roger K have both spoken wisely.-Lets see.1) Solar mass: about 2E30 kg. Admitting that all that is molecular oxygen and hydrogen in the right proportions to produce water,......
Quantum tunneling is so rare that far less energy is produced per kilogram of matter in the Sun than heat produced per kilogram in human bodies by chemical means. But the sun is extremely massive and the total energy production is immense.
.
-
Alien as the concept may be to those of your limited wit, NASA is not the custodian of all astronomical knowledge. To quote from the link,
"In 1920, Sir Arthur Eddington proposed that the pressures and temperatures at the core of the Sun could produce a nuclear fusion reaction that merged hydrogen (protons) into helium nuclei, resulting in a production of energy from the net change in mass.The preponderance of hydrogen in the Sun was confirmed in 1925 by Cecilia Payne. The theoretical concept of fusion was developed in the 1930s by the astrophysicists Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and Hans Bethe. Hans Bethe calculated the details of the two main energy-producing nuclear reactions that power the Sun."
Bobby and Roger K have both spoken wisely.
-
Let's see.
1) Solar mass: about 2E30 kg. Admitting that all that is molecular oxygen and hydrogen in the "right proportions" to produce water, that corresponds to about 1.1E32 moles of water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_…
2) Energy released in the recombination of 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O: about 280 kJ/mole http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba…
3) Therefore, the total possile energy output for your hypothesis is about 3.1E37 Joule.
4) The integrated solar luminosity is about 3.8E26 Watt. Therefore, at that rate the Sun would last 3.1E37/3.8E26 = 8.2E10 seconds, which is slightly less than 2600 years.
5) 2600 years ago the romans already existed and starting to gain cultural relevance; the greeks had been around for a while; the hebrews even longer, and the egyptians as well; and many other cultures throughout the rest of the world (Asia, America) produced cultural artifacts which date older than that. And there is no historical record that I know of about being dark all the time "and suddenly a bright white ball of fire appearing in the sky every day" -- it looks like the Sun was around for quite a while.
So your hypothesis of the Sun producing energy from combustion of hydrogen isn't viable.
Try this instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fus…
Sir Arthur Eddington proposed it in the early 1920s and it fits very nicely. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba…
keywords: Hydrogen,sun,039,hydrogen,water,full,If,of,shouldn,burned,burns,be,the,If the sun burns Hydrogen, shouldn't the sun be full of water? (burned hydrogen=water!)
