Dr. Robitaille has discussed the Parker Solar Probe in his lectures. I suggest that you watch it.

"Crank" sjswitzer1 Your post is unscientific and quite irrational. Pick any of the equations Dr. Robitaille has presented as violations of the laws of thermodynamics and prove that it is not a violation of thermodynamics. The equations are from my paper. I suggest that you study my paper. However, given your demonstrated disposition to irrational and malicious epithets instead of sober scientific argument, the probability that you will try scientific argument is rather low. Nevertheless you now have the chance of redeeming yourself.

The formula given in Carroll and Ostlie for T_classical is as follows: Z_1 Z_2 e^2 /(6 pi epsilon_0 k r) SI units of these quantities are as follows - Z: pure number (ditto 6 and pi) e : coulomb epsilon_0 : coulomb^2 kg^(-1) meter^(-3) second^2 k: meter^2 kg s^(-2) kelvin^(-1) r: meter Substitution yields: C^2 C^(-2) kg m^3 s^(-2) m^(-2) kg^(-1) s^2 K m^(-1) =K So the expression on the right does denote an intensive quantity (temperature). @@stevecrothers6585

@@physicswithpark3r-x3x : Unfortunately, you, just like Carroll and Ostlie and the astronomers at large, do not understand thermodynamics, so you fall into fatal error. As Dr. Robitaille and I have pointed out repeatedly in our papers and lectures, in any proposed thermodynamic expression, not only must the units (dimensions) be the same on each side but so too must be the thermodynamic character. Unit balance is necessary but insufficient in thermodynamic expressions. The equation you adduce is discussed in my paper and Dr. Robitaille's lecture and although the units balance for temperature the equation is not thermodynamically balanced. Temperature is an intensive thermodynamic coordinate - it is a homogeneous function of degree 0. Numbers and physical constants have no thermodynamic character at all because they are for that reason never thermodynamic coordinates. In the expression you talk about the left side is temperature and hence intensive but the thermodynamic character of the right side is governed only by the radius r in the denominator. Radius is a homogeneous function of degree 1/3 (see the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) so in the expression you present the right side is homogeneous of degree -1/3. To be thermodynamically balanced both sides must be homogeneous of degree 0 since temperature is always homogeneous degree 0 because temperature is always intensive, as required by the 0th and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Radius is neither intensive nor extensive. So the equation advanced by Carroll and Ostlie is invalid because it violates the 0th and 2nd laws of thermodynamics - it is intensive on the left side but not intensive of the right side. In other words, it is homogeneous of degree 0 on the left side but homogeneous degree -1/3 on the right side and therefore thermodynamically unbalanced. So it is nonsense. I suggest that you study my paper that is cited here by Dr. Robitaille and this paper: Pierre-Marie Robitaille and Stephen J. Crothers, Intensive and extensive properties: Thermodynamic balance, Physics Essays, Volume 32, 2: Pages 158-163, 2019. This paper is available on the vixra archive for free. Just search for it and it will appear.

@@stevecrothers6585 "so too must be the thermodynamic character" says who?

Does every Dave defender use "lol" as an interjection to start their sentence? You all must be laughing so often about stuff.

“First of all the reason its only thermal power and not electrical power is electrical power is absolutely free, its only the process of turning electrical power to thermal power that has a cost.” 815TypeSirius This is a red herring. The issue is that the theory of gaseous stars is invalid because it violates the laws of thermodynamics and the kinetic theory of an ideal gas. Consequently, the theory of fusion in stars, employed by the Iter Team, is false. Consequently Iter is doomed to failure from its outset. “Secondly the reason Fusion will never happen at human scales is a neutron problem.” 815TypeSirius Gibberish. “Thirdly if you would've had better reading comprehension you would understand that all of those cited thermodynamic "violations" are not, you are instead replacing a standard definition with your imaginary delusional definiton [sic]. And Finally, like dark calculus, you are actually somewhat correct for comically wrong reasons.” 815TypeSirius You are not right. All the thermodynamic equations Dr. Robitaille presented are violations of the laws of thermodynamics and of the kinetic theory of an ideal gas. It's obvious you did not study my paper. I suggest that you do so, as an exercise in “better reading comprehension”. In constructing their theory of gaseous stars the astronomers and astrophysicists applied the kinetic theory of an ideal gas, by which they introduced temperature in the first place. According to the ideal gas law: PV = nRT. This equation of state is a thermodynamic expression and it is thermodynamically balanced. All the temperature equations Dr. Robitaille presented were derived by the astronomers and astrophysicists from the ideal gas law as fundamental premise. Temperature is intensive in the ideal gas law. The temperatures for their stars and nuclear reactions, derived using the ideal gas law by the astronomers and astrophysicists, must therefore be intensive in order to obey the laws of thermodynamics. Their temperatures are not intensive so they are nonsense. Furthermore, potential energy does not have a temperature and cannot contribute to temperature of anything. By combining gravitational potential energy and Coulomb potential energy with the ideal gas law the astronomers and astrophysicists violated the kinetic theory of an ideal gas and the laws of thermodynamics (the 0th and 2nd laws). The temperature of the ideal gas is also given by the equation (mv^2)/2 = 3kT/2 where v is the root mean square of the gas particles. Thus v is intensive and T is intensive so this equation is thermodynamically balanced, as it must. The astronomers and astrophysicists employ this relation as well in their theories, but their resulting temperatures are not intensive so their theories are false. Since the Iter Team has based their contraption on the invalid theory of fusion in gaseous stars they the ones with the “imaginary delusional definition”, not Dr. Robitaille. The Iter contraption is a colossal waste of public money. It will never produce fusion because its theoretical basis is false. The Sun and other stars are not hot balls of gaseous plasma - they are condensed matter. The only hope of producing controlled nuclear fusion is by lattice confinement fusion. Only condensed matter has a lattice.

@@stevecrothers6585 this is a Wendy's my dude

@@815TypeSirius "this is a Wendy's my dude" 815TypeSirius Your post confirms for all readers that you know nothing about the subject matter and that you have no intention of learning anything. Your criticisms therefore have no scientific merit.

@@stevecrothers6585 this is a wendys my dude

"The problems are in the material science of the apparatus, not the feasability of the reaction." triedproven That is not correct. As explained in my paper the theory of nuclear reactions in the Sun and stars propounded by the astronomers and astrophysicists, the same theory used by the Iter Team, is false. I suggest that you read my paper. In any event Dr. Robitaille has correctly stated the essential facts in his lecture. In any expression where temperature appears it must be intensive. It it is not intensive then the expression and the related theory is nonsense. Iter is based upon a theory that is nonsense. It will never produce nuclear fusion. It is dead in the water.

the formula given in Carroll and Ostlie for T_classical is as follows: Z_1 Z_2 e^2 /(6 pi epsilon_0 k r) SI units of these quantities are as follows - e : coulomb epsilon_0 : coulomb^2 kg^(-1) meter^(-3) second^2 k: meter^2 kg s^(-2) kelvin^(-1) r: meter Substitution yields: C^2 C^(-2) kg m^3 s^(-2) m^(-2) kg^(-1) s^2 K m^(-1) = K So the formula given in the textbook does seem to check out. @@stevecrothers6585

@@physicswithpark3r-x3x You have already made this incorrect argument in another thread. So I reiterate: Unfortunately, you, just like Carroll and Ostlie and the astronomers at large, do not understand thermodynamics ,so you fall into fatal error. As Dr. Robitaille and I have pointed out repeatedly in our papers and lectures, in any proposed thermodynamic expression, not only must the units (dimensions) be the same on each side but so too must be the thermodynamic character. Unit balance is necessary but insufficient in thermodynamic expressions. The equation you adduce is discussed in my paper and Dr. Robitaille's lecture and although the units balance for temperature the equation is not thermodynamically balanced. Temperature is an intensive thermodynamic coordinate - it is a homogeneous function of degree 0. Numbers and physical constants have no thermodynamic character at all because they are for that reason never thermodynamic coordinates. In the expression you talk about the left side is temperature and hence intensive but the thermodynamic character of the right side is governed only by the radius r in the denominator. Radius is a homogeneous function of degree 1/3 (see the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) so in the expression you present the right side is homogeneous of degree -1/3. To be thermodynamically balanced both sides must be homogeneous of degree 0 since temperature is always homogeneous degree 0 because temperature is always intensive, as required by the 0th and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Radius is neither intensive nor extensive. So the equation advanced by Carroll and Ostlie is invalid because it violates the 0th and 2nd laws of thermodynamics - it is intensive on the left side but not intensive of the right side. In other words, it is homogeneous of degree 0 on the left side but homogeneous degree -1/3 on the right side and therefore thermodynamically unbalanced. So it is nonsense. I suggest that you study my paper that is cited here by Dr. Robitaille and this paper: Pierre-Marie Robitaille and Stephen J. Crothers, Intensive and extensive properties: Thermodynamic balance, Physics Essays, Volume 32, 2: Pages 158-163, 2019. This paper is available on the vixra archive for free. Just search for it and it will appear.

@@stevecrothers6585 "the thermodynamic character of the right side is governed only by the radius r in the denominator" - what does that mean? Is the idea perhaps that epsilon_0 and k lack "thermodynamic character" and length being deemed proportional to a cube root of volume, which is a 1st-order homogeneous quantity when we treat a gas as a classical thermodynamic system?

@@physicswithpark3r-x3x I've already explained to you. I again suggest that you study the paper I referenced. Unless you do that you will simply commit the very same errors. Volume is extensive and therefore homogeneous of degree 1. The temperature equation from Carroll and Ostlie you talk about is invalid.

No, the Sun is not electric. I suggest that you study Dr. Robitaille's papers and digest his lectures.

The charge of the Sun is positive by about 77 Coulomb, or about 1 electron per million tons of matter. So the sun is electric but not in any important sense of the word.

@@physicswithpark3r-x3x : It's obvious that you did not consult Dr. Robitaille's lectures on the internal constitution of the Sun on this channel and did not consult his related papers. The Sun is not electric. The Sun is condensed matter, as its thermal spectrum alone proves conclusively. I suggest that you consult Dr. Robitaille's lecture about the Sun on this channel and also this study this paper: Robitaille P.-M., Forty Lines of Evidence for Condensed Matter - The Sun on Trial: Liquid Metallic Hydrogen as a Solar Building Block, Progress in Physics, v.4, pp.90-142 This paper is available for free on the vixra achieve. Just do s simple search for it and it will appear.

@@stevecrothers6585 The charge on the sun is a puny 77 C. Coulombs are "electric" are they not?

@@physicswithpark3r-x3x : The Sun is not electric. The Sun is not powered by a galactic electric circuit. The Sun and all other stars are condensed matter. It's obvious that you did not bother top consult Dr. Robitaille's lectures on the internal constitution of the Sun and that you did not study his paper, which I referred you to. You don't know Dr. Robitaille's evidence for a condensed matter Sun and you appear not to want to examine his evidence, instead clinging to your fallacious view and damn the facts. Your's is not a scientific method.

I am going to give you a new model! You're so right about the accepted theory being wrong, even though you don't know what the real model is. You talk about condensed matter, and that makes sense. But I know that none of these mathematicians know what matter is. I'm sure you have equations for it though.