The 19 August 2005 issue of Science has a report of excess Osmium isotopes that were made by slow neutron capture (the s-process of nucleosynthesis) in primitive, unequilibrated chondrites.

Authors of the report are A. D. Brandon, M. Humayun, I. S. Puchtel, I Leya, and M. Zolensky.

This "strange" Os was labeled Os(i), in much the same manner that "strange" Ne components in meteorites were previously labeled Ne(a.), Ne(b.), Ne (c.), etc.

The Os(i) was supposedly carried here in presolar grains from nucleosynthesis sites with a neutron density 2-4 times that seen in average solar s-process Os.

What do you think of this latest isotopic anomaly discovery?

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Ok, I admit it, I'm scared to ask this, but here goes: h34r:

Oliver, what do you think of this new finding?

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

I think it means that some of the stuff that went into making our solar system came from bigger stars than our sun... :mellow:

__________________

Hi, Duane.

You are right. Fear now controls investigations of the early solar system.

The new findings, in and of themselves, are unimportant.

They are only one, of almost weekly news reports, that confirm Begemann's 1980[*] conclusion:

The classical picture has been overthrown of the pre-solar nebula as a ". . . hot, well-mixed cloud of chemically and isotopically uniform composition".

This flow of "new scientific discoveries" will probably continue until eventually someone will ask if there might also be a mistake in the classical picture of a Hydrogen-filled Sun.

Then the textbooks will have to be re-written.

*Rep. Prog. Phys. 43, 1309-1356 (1980).

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

I think this means that the bulk of the "metallic" solar system material has been through several supernova explosions. Osmium formed in one supernova can be transmuted in the atmosphere of a second to conform to a different isotopic profile.

I also don't believe that the idea of an ideally uniform pre-solar nebula would get many takers in the real world. I'm sure it was a pretty chaotic marble cake with different strands, layers and regions of influence from various prior causes.

Hi, Joff.

Thanks for your comments.

The s-process is believed to make isotopes by slow neutron capture, before a star reaches the terminal supernova stage.

I do not yet know the carrier phase of Os(i), but silicon carbide seems to be the carrier phase for s-products of many other elements (Kr, Xe, Te, Ba, Nd, and Sm) in meteorites.

The Ne that was trapped with these s-products in silicon carbide is severely mass fractionated.

This unexpected link between fractionation and nuclear reactions was first identified by Gerry Wasserburg of Cal Tech and Robert Clayton of the University of Chicago in 1977 and called FUN isotope anomalies.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Joff,

Ne(e.) was the name used for the severely mass fractionated neon that was trapped from the interior of a star with s-products in Kr, Xe, Te, Ba, Nd and Sm.

OLiver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Ok, I am quickly becoming tired with this BS theme of yours. You are wrong, what you percieve as fear is actually ridicule of a thoroughly unsupported, debunked, fantasy that you call a theory.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

:huh: bit rough from a moderator, isn't it? :unsure:
at least on the open forum... :blink:

__________________

Hi, Cran.

Thanks for speaking up.

Joff -

I should have used a capital E to identify Ne(E.) as the name of the severely mass fractionated neon trapped from the interior of a star with s-products in Kr, Xe, Te, Ba, Nd and Sm.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Perhaps.

I have had the pleasure of dealing with the good Doctor over many many threads, here and elsewhere. This new "fear" thing is, IMO, purely an attempt to try and engender some kind of quasi-conspiracy debate that is neither real, nor even apparent.

Solar physicsists, and in fact all scientists, revel in seeing unexpected phenomina by which they can test current theory to try and find holes. When such a hole is found, the next step is to try and explain the hole, and how the new information either fits with current theories, or creates a revision or hopefully, even a whole new theory. This is how one becomes famous.

Dr Manuel's ongoing, unending attempts to fit current research with an idea he concieved through straight nuclear-physics are psuedo-science. He has not taken the time to explain how any of his ideas can be related to the real sun, the one being studied by literally hundreds of dedicated scientists and tens of probes.

When it is pointed out to him that the new findings actually support current theories, he retreats into an "us against him" mentality. He continually takes pieces of the research being done that prima-facie support his concept without dealing with the whole of the research. Either that or he will throw out information heavily couched in scientific jargen to make it sound convincing.

I have seen the same comments in several threads now, all expousing this idea that somehow every scientist who accepts the mainstream theories regarding the sun, BBT, even global warming are all working togeather to suppress so called anomalous findings. One of the bastians of pseudo-science--hint that the "powers" are somehow suppressing the "truth".

This is an example:

This is window dressing. Because many use a base starting point of a thoroughly mixed, uniformly composite precurser star as the stating point for modelling how the sun progresses, Dr Manuel says everything we know is wrong. This is, simply put, balderdash. The whole idea of the Standard Solar Model is to start with an object that has the same mass, luminousity and mixing length parameters seen in our sun. Read that word again--seen. It is a starting point, a point from which other ideas, and more importantly, new findings, can be punched in to see how they will affect our star and its life.

Dr Manuel states that because the SSM is not "static" that somehow this equates to a conspiracy to "hide" or "ignore" new research. This is exactly the opposite of what actually happens.

cran, take a couple of days to read through the Iron Sun Discussion thread here and you will get the sense of what I am talking about.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Thanks, Duane, for the suggestion.

Yes, Cran, please do read that, or better yet read the more concise version at PhysLink.com.

http://www.physlink.com/Community/Forums/v...srow=41&erow=50

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Well, more concise is a bit strong. Very few there could be bothered to challenge it Still, it is worth the read.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Hi, Cran.

Or send an e-mail to om@umr.edu and I'll send you a pdf file of a new manuscript with a one-page table of the puzzling observations (including two identified by William A. Fowler) and the solutions.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

I agree with you there, Duane; in fact I've said as much myself in other threads... for much the same reasons, too, I think.

I did have a look at the 'Iron Sun' discussion, but got out of it without offering anything, because 1) I had no idea where much of it was coming from... as a solar physicist, I'm a great rockhound... and as a rockhound, I'm a passable reporter... and 2) the tone did seem mighty uncomfortable ... but maybe that's how these things go; I don't know... I'm a newbie :huh:

I think a lot of Oliver's frustration (no matter how he couches or presents it) comes from a personal knowledge that the 'starting point' or traditional presentation is far too simplistic ... and gives students (in particular) an unrealistic cartoon of what Oliver and his contemporaries have spent their research careers probing and trying to disseminate; I've come across remarkably similar ventings in many sciences, particularly in hydrogeology and oceanography ... and yet, these overly simplistic ideas persist ... why? I don't know. Is it based on some perception about how much might be understood by the uninitiated? A need to cater to some 'lowest common denominator'? :huh:

I can't pass judgement on other people's ideas, I don't know enough to make that call... but I can say "quite simply I disagree with you", or "I'm not convinced" ... I have enough trouble judging my own ideas against the evidence as it comes in ... when a discussion becomes circular, or personal, or ugly... I simply back off; if things calm down, we can try again... if not, move on to something else... time, and mounting evidence will tell if someone's ideas are a better description of the phenomenon, or a load of old cobblers... I'm patient, I can wait... >tap, tap, tap<
are we there, yet?

__________________

I can't keep up with you guys... in the time I composed my last and posted, you'd both been back in twice! :blink:

I promise, I will have another look at the arguments ... but, without trying to take sides, I think my opinion will stand ... comes from once being a crisis counsellor for homeless kids ... 'fence-sitting' is a pre-requisite!

Thanks for the Pdf offer, Oliver, but my old computer does a dummy-spit and refuses to read pdf's - damn nuisance really, because I've got a stack of reference and research papers all on pdf files, and now I can't access them!

High on my wishlist, is a computer upgrade... trust me!

__________________

I doubt it's the lowest common denominator.

When making a model, one has to start somewhere. So, most will begin with the most basic known facts as can be achieved. Modelling then begins to add parameters, making the simulation more and more complex.

The problem with that is that there is no computor in the world that can model everything. Well, actually I suppose that's not true, more acurately, these expensive computors can't be run for the amount of time it would take to complete the simulation. So certain parameters will be left out in an effort to get an understanding of the parameters you actually are trying to get an understanding of.

A good example is the Dar and Shiviv model Oliver and I clashed about in an earlier thread. He describes it as the final model, when what they were actually trying to understand was neutrino production.

Change the parameters, and you can model magnetic field line dragging, or differential rotation, or whatever. Just understand, it is not going to be perfect, because there are things you have to drop out of the parameters when you run a model.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Yes, Duane, I see what you're saying... and in simulated models (and even in the most advanced field measurement and analysis) the focus has to be limited and boundary conditions arbitrarily set or assumed ... it is a processing limitation (I know, I've been waiting for over 5 years for the recently announced global climate simulator to get up to testing stage) - so, yes, I would expect a model to focus on a single process (or limited number of processes) within a simplified environment - and I would expect the report of findings to be appropriately constrained...

If those findings were then to be applied to our perceived reality, I would expect that 1) the constraints of the model were kept in mind, and 2) that the conclusions drawn from the findings would be conditional rather than absolute...

Perhaps the confusions and arguments are stemming from one's perception that 'the map is the territory'; ie, that the model and its results are being either presented, or interpreted, as a detailed explanation of perceived reality, rather than as an attempt to identify some part or process of the perceived reality? :huh:

A related issue, and one which I find frustrating, is the presentation of the total (or synthesised) body of knowledge of anything for public or undergraduate consumption in an overly simplistic and even misleading form; where opinion and conjecture might be presented or interpreted as facts (because they are not identified as opinion or conjecture) or where descriptive language and analogies can lead to inaccurate representations of the science or of particular findings ... and the only reason I can think of why this might happen is due to an attempt to reach a 'lowest common denominator' - to make it so simple that anyone should be able to understand it, without realising that to do so is 1) underestimating the capacity of an interested audience, and 2) potentially leading to misconceptions and endless arguments... :huh:

__________________