Mr Vukevic offers a resource

Posted: January 1, 2010 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics
Tags: , , , , ,

Our friend Vukevic called by and gave me a pointer to a links page at his site which provides a resource for those interested in studying planetary, solar and magnetic phenomena.

http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GandF.htm

Here’s an example demonstrating the match between the sunspot number and Vuk’s planetary motion derived formulas:

Hopefully, Vuk will call back to give us some further info on his research.

Comments
  1. tallbloke says:

    Vukevic writes:

    From this chart

    is clear that majority of the CE temperature rise is a slow recovery from LIA, and mainly by the rise in winters’ temperatures. Last 5-6 years shows stabilisation of the winter temps , while during last 10 years summer’s have actually fallen.
    Even if GW is due to CO2 (which I believe it is not) any further warming in winters could be only beneficial to the population of UK (lower heating bills and less carbon consumed for heating).

  2. vukcevic says:

    Selection of my graphs and formulae can be found here:

    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GandF.htm

  3. tallbloke says:

    Hi Vuk,

    Shows a strong drop in solar activity at half the Jupiter orbital period. Any ideas to offer on that?

  4. vukcevic says:

    Hi everyone
    I think the dip is just after 6 extending to 7 years (lets call mid at 6.5) which is above 5.9 (1/2 J period).
    I have looked into this some time before. If you are familiar with harmonics (frequency rather than period of oscillation) some of these anomalies show good correlation.
    (just a reminder, second harmonic is 1/2 period , third harmonic 1/3 etc).
    1. J/S conjunction is 19.86 Let’s assume that J & S magnetospheres load the imaginary ‘solar current’ (or combined tidal effect, depends how you look at these maters), than it can be expected a dip in the output at 19.86 years, which is very clear on the FTT spectrum http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN.png
    (brown lines, for the individual cycles, ignore the green average).
    Second harmonic is 19.86/2=9.93years which is very close to about 10+ and 11y where most cycle peak (neutralising the effect).
    Third harmonic is 19.8/3=6.6, close enough to 6.5 years mentioned above. It should be noted that odd harmonics are usually far more effective than even.
    2. If you take my anomaly formula

    (using rounded off numbers), fundamental =(96+118)/2 =107. Second harmonic is 107/2=53.5, third =35.6, fourth = 26.75 all in years. Further you get from fundamental smaller the effect, but all easily visible as adding or taking power out (depending on the phase relationship with the main SS cycle).
    As an interference (or cross modulation) you can use sums and differences of two sets of above numbers and than you get something as shown in Dr. S’s spectrum graph.

  5. Paul Vaughan says:

    Vukcevic, a detailed explanation of how you decide on 96 & 118 might be a good idea here.

  6. tallbloke says:

    A refresher course on the 1941 number would help too. :)

  7. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Vuk. There’s some relevant talk on the Semi thread too.

  8. Paul Vaughan says:

    vukcevic, one constructive comment:

    Wikipedia had Saturn’s average period incorrectly listed as 29.657296 for quite some time. I made an effort to raise awareness of this many months ago – and I doubt I was the only one doing so. I see wiki has changed it to 29.4571.

    I recommend:
    For 3000BC to 3000AD: 29.4730378659417
    For 1800-2050AD: 29.4506943235485
    I base these numbers on NASA J2000 orbital elements. (I’ve taken the time to learn to do things like calculating osculating elements.)

    I (crudely) estimate that Charvatova used 29.451 in some of her studies.

    While the formerly-incorrect wiki 29.657296 has no effect on UN cycles, it has a profound effect on sidebands (generated by beats of harmonics). This is of practical importance – for example when decomposing series into JN, SN, & UN components – or when looking at the ‘camel humps’ Sharp looks at.

  9. vukcevic says:

    Thanks Paul, you are correct, Dr. Svalgaard made me aware of the correct number on SC24 forum:
    Feb 11, 2009, 1:57pm, lsvalgaard wrote:
    Saturn 29.4475 not 29.657

    In some formulas and graphs I have made appropriate correction, in others not, the correct value actually produces closer correlation.
    e.g. if you look at the Maunder min period 1640-1715:
    old not corrected value:

    New corrected value:

  10. Paul Vaughan says:

    The period varies substantially depending upon what interval one averages over.

    Considering that planet orbits are relatively predictable things compared to other phenomena we investigate, this provides an insight into why wavelet (& related) methods are superior to traditional unwindowed-FFT when dealing with nonstationary series. In short: Progress is presently hindered by dogma which has arisen from conclusions based on inadequate methods.

    Thanks for drawing our attention to what you call “null points” Vukcevic. We don’t all have strong electrical engineering foundations, so our first instincts might not go where your mind has led ours.

    One request: Can you explain what “null point” means in an electrical engineering setting? And what is the practical relevance in such settings? I would like to better understand what is driving your perspective.

  11. vukcevic says:

    Null point, looking at it in simple terms, happens if there are two factors involved as driving forces. It could be said that the forces are in balance i.e. when of equal value and opposite sign, so effect is minimal. In electric terms when oscillations are concerned usually of concern is first derivative or gradient, i.e. where rate of change is greatest (case of emf and magnetic flux, are derivatives of each other, and endless confrontation on WUWT which one is causing the other, Sin-Cos relationship).

    Null points are of far greater effect in 11 year cycle sunspot sequence as presented here:

    Many researchers current and past, tried to link solar minima to J-S-U-N angular displacements (conjunctions, opposition, 90 degree out etc), but as yet without conclusive proof. Looking from my point of view reason is obvious; if you look at Hale cycle SS cycle and Polar field cycle are derivatives of each other (Babcock hypothesis) and in theory should drive each other, for ever. Unanswered question is why ~22 year cycle (11 year polarity change), is there a suitable trigger? And of course ‘pseudo-science’, as L.S would have it, steps in with its ideas.

  12. Paul Vaughan says:

    Glad to see someone is paying attention to what I’ve been saying about integrals, derivatives, & time-integration over dominant harmonics:

    Translation into ‘laymanese': Vukcevic is suggesting a 10.813267 year cycle with a 121.8503806 year envelope.
    Thanks for the notes Vukcevic – helps with interdisciplinary awareness of analogous concepts that go by a variety of labels.

  13. tallbloke says:

    Something I said which got lost in the flow on the semi thread was this:

    ” Tomes power spectrum is the strength of the J+U resonance at 10.4 years. I think this shouldn’t be ignored. Timo Niroma notes that if the very odd and extremely long cycle around the time of the hiccup at the start of the 1800’s occurred is regarded as two (merged) cycles, the average cycle length over the period of record drops to 10.5 years. Cycles 21 and 22 were around that length I think.

    Ray Tomes says that as well as the ~11 year resonance, there is an underlying resonance of ~10.5 years and these two are what generate the beat which generates the ~115 year modulation of solar activity at the centennial scale.

    Food for thought.”

    Having looked at the signed sunspot series I think this idea of Timo’s isn’t really correct, but the general awkwardness of the cycle timing and lengths around then does seem to speak of a clashing of two rhythm’s battling for dominance. Qualitavely speaking.

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    I noticed that comment tallbloke, but chose to not go back down that path [which I have explored in considerable detail] at this time.

    Thanks for mentioning “signed sunspot series” – I had quickly glanced at Vukcevic’s chart and thought it was depicting a different (related) variable.

    Considering the various ideas about timing is a valuable exercise, particularly since many fields that study nature give NO coverage of such things in mainstream curricula. One of Vukcevic’s comments at WUWT was what inspired me to finally take action on the ~11.1 year phase-relations I investigated:

    http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/VaughanPL2009_11.1aCycleSSD.htm

    At the time I was irritated by the interesting distraction because I was busy – but in hindsight: Thanks Vukcevic, as I no longer have to wonder “what if?…”

  15. tallbloke says:

    I do a lot of wondering “what if”. Partly because I don’t have Paul’s skills, but also because I endlessly speculate about causation, whereas Paul wisely ‘frames no hypotheses’. :-)

    Pauls latest post on the semi thread points up a 41kyr cycle between JN and VE. 41 kyr is the period of the glacial interglacial cycle for a long period prior to the current 100kyr cycle.

    Which leads me to wonder about the invisible elephant in this room, Saturn. While we have Paul’s J-(N-U) and Desmoulin’s JVE cycles agreeing with the sunspot period, Saturn seems to be ‘out of phase’ with this important period, just occasionally throwing a spanner in the works when U+N+S counterbalance J and cause hiccups in the solar motion around the barycentre, precipitating deep drops in solar activity.

    If we are going to propose a link between JNU and the solar cycle, whether it’s cause be gravitational or electromagnetic, we need to consider Saturn, because it is massive, is closer to the Sun than U and N, and it has a powerful magnetosphere.

  16. vukcevic says:

    I am not particularly well informed in detail of the possibility of it being either angular momentum or gravitational tidal effect, to make any considered judgement.
    If effect is electro-magnetic than Neptune can be ignored, Uranus’ contribution is only minor (as demonstrated in the envelope and anomalies), but because of resonance within the planetary configuration (e.g. Titius-Bode law), it is possible that system is responding to 2x(J+S) orbital periods, which is about les then 2 years shorter than U’s.
    In case of electro-magnetic feedback, certainly J & S are not only main but crucial players, even S’s role becomes secondary, in case of the main 11 year SSC formula, where it is reduced to an effect expressed through the 19.86 J-S synodic period, or J’s contribution to formation of 11 year sunspot cycle is 75% and S’s 25%.

  17. tallbloke says:

    Hi Vuk,
    interesting graph. If I wanted to plot that equation myself in a spreadsheet as a monthly value how would I do that?

  18. vukcevic says:

    Hi again. L.S on WUWT wants to have it both ways, straight line or spiral. Carla (feminist?) did not find your comments entirely pc.
    Now back to business:
    It is simple and straight forward.
    Just copy and paste this either of these two lines:
    =100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/23.724))
    or
    =100* (COS(2*PI()*(A770-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(A770-1941)/23.724))

    Ax is your row number for the initial start date, if your time is in A column, if it is in B column than it is Bx. If row number is 10 then insert A10 instead of Ax. Once you’re done that, copy the box with the newly inserted A number, mark scrolling down the column down to your final date and paste. It works regardless of what is your date step, a year or a fraction.
    This is for 1810 onwards.
    Prior to 1800 use Sin instead of Cos in both factors. (discontinuity in the SS cycle at this point has been commented by number of researchers including Dr. Joan Feynman of JPL).
    Good luck.

  19. vukcevic says:

    Second one:
    =100* (COS(2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/23.724))

    A770 was my start for 1810.

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: tallbloke 10:09

    As explained here …

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/meet-the-new-kepler-p-a-semi/

    …S plays a modulating role. It doesn’t set boundary conditions. It can play a big role in amplitude variations, but it sets neither the spikiness, nor the long-waves since it’s frequency is intermediate.

    J sets the highest heavyweight frequency and N sets the lowest heavyweight frequency. UN sets the lowest frequency heavyweight synodic beat. This is the framework in which S modulations play out. Decomposing indices of SSD into UN, SN, & JN components is one effective way to see this visually.

    Note how SN shows up as blue dots and waves in r” power:

    S is not left out – quite the contrary.

    btw: I’m not suggesting the planets influence the sun (but I do investigate phase-relations involving ~11.1 year SSD power to contribute to the discussion).

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    Forgot to mention JN sets the highest frequency heavyweight synodic beat.

  22. Paul Vaughan says:

    adding to vukcevic’s notes at 6:02 …

    Regarding ~1800 solar cycles, also see Zolotova & Ponyavin and Oulu collaborators (Mursula, Usoskin, etc.).

  23. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Vuk, If Carla misunderstands my ribald humour it’s probably good we only meet on the net. But I think she is probably just hitting back with her own humour. ;-)

    Paul, very useful additional pointers, thanks for your insight. I think Ching Cheh Hung’s successful predictions on solar flares are a good step forward towards validating the magnetic interaction of the inner planets with the sun. The question electro-magnetic and/or gravitational interaction of the outer planets and the sun is as yet awaiting a better understanding of the medium in which the solar system acts.

    The ribbon thread on WUWT is throwing up interesting questions. Vuk, would you like me to put your graphic up on a fresh thread here for discussion?

  24. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke, this view of SN in the middle of UN & JN flows from studies of a more general class of weighted jovian spatial averages. The weightings used for r & AM hide key harmonic beats from a (casual) observer. It would be a lot of work to explain – but maybe an appropriate occasion will arise in future.

    Regarding Hung: Whatever is happening in the inner solar system certainly is not independent of what is happening in the outer solar system – so there’s a clear link.

  25. Geoff Sharp says:

    Regarding Hung: Whatever is happening in the inner solar system certainly is not independent of what is happening in the outer solar system – so there’s a clear link.

    Perhaps they could also be disconnected? The inner planets being involved with tidal effects on the 11 year cycle with Jupiter being the last planet to have any tidal influence, and the outer 4 planets which control 99% of AM being responsible for solar cycle modulation and grand minima.

  26. Paul Vaughan says:

    Whether the connection is evident or not depends on which indices are compared …but the parts are certainly not independent of the whole – it’s just that isolated features play roles in different processes. I see your point Geoff.

  27. tallbloke says:

    If what Geoff is saying is right then the different relative sizes of the planets is compensated for by solar proximity and so all of the planets are having an effect on the sun, but through differing ratios of tidal, electro-magnetic and gravitational force.

    This creates a subtle complexity that makes it unsurprising no-one has yet managed to recreate sunspot cycle amplitudes and an exact replication of the changing phasing through a single formula, though Vuk’s J&S graph does quite well over long periods.

    This discussion belongs on the theory thread really, but it’s all part of the interconnected conversation.That’s one of the reasons I haven’t tried to emulate Anthony’s ‘daily news’ approach here.

  28. vukcevic says:

    tallbloke
    January 17, 2010 at 11:25 pm
    “Vuk, would you like me to put your graphic up on a fresh thread here for discussion?”

    Please do, it is useful to see others comments, since it always gets a rebuff by L.S either in WUWT, or before the ban on SC24, and other visitors (except of 3-4 honourable exception, all the names are on this page) were to fearful of Leif’s sharp put-down.
    I do not think that in the near future a close equivalent can be achieved on the sunspots, since they are too volatile.
    Polar fields have an advantage, since during the most active periods PFs drop to zero, and vice versa. From annalist’s point of view this is far preferable situation, when the Sun is ‘hushed’, PFs can be tracked without the ‘noisy interference’ from frequent sunspot outbursts (one to one tuition vs. noisy lecture theatre).
    If you do put the graphs for discussion perhaps draw attention to the original article I written some years ago: http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0401/0401107.pdf
    so the readers can get familiar with the ideas, (no planets are mentioned) but all numbers are there, perhaps some needed subsequent minor correction.