Re: How to shut down the Sun?

Dear Steve Willner:

On Jul 28, 10:26 am, will...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Steve Willner) wrote:
In article <5c156cf5-1ac1-43db-b8f5-8e23500fa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

 dlzc<dl...@xxxxxxx> writes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

That's mostly about fusion reactions potentially
useful for terrestrial reactions.  Remember, the
average hydrogen atom in the center of the Sun
will wait several billion years before it undergoes
fusion; that reaction rate is not practical for
power reactors (and even less so for bombs).

The page you want is the one I gave earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-proton_chain

No neutrons involved.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/astro/solneu.html#c1

Not sure what relevance this has,

It indicates that we have not yet accounted for all the neutrinos
necessary to result from the p-p chain reaction you keep pointing to.

but again the link to the pp cycle
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/astro/procyc.html#c2
shows that the reactions don't involve neutrons.

I understand that is the model. But we are still shy neutrinos
(missing about 70%). Maybe not for long...

I guess I am confused how a star with a
companion can lose mass in some "normal"
evolutionary process,

The same way(s) a star without a companion
loses mass.  During typical mass-loss phases
of evolution, mass is driven off the surface by
radiation pressure, often when solid particles
form in a cool atmosphere.  If the star is isolated,
the mass escapes from the star and adds to
ambient interstellar gas and dust (some of which
will later form new stars),

Any significant mechanisms besides supernovae and "solar wind"? Just
off the top of your head... keywords...

but if the star is in a multiple system, some
of the mass lost may land on one or more
companion stars.  Both mass loss and
subsequent accretion have implications for stellar
orbits.

I've seen decent discussions of stellar mass
loss (and subsequent recycling of the ISM into
stars) on the web, but the Wikipedia entry
isn't very helpful, and the first page of Google
references seems to be mostly academic
papers on specific topics, not a general overview.
Maybe you'll have better luck with a more careful
search.

Thanks...

David A. Smith
.

Relevant Pages