Wolff and Patrone: A New Way that Planets Can Affect the Sun

Posted: January 9, 2011 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, Solar physics, solar system dynamics

The days of Leif’ Svalgaards ‘The sun is in perfect freefall and thus feels no forces’ idealisation are numbered. In freefall it may be, but it is subject to significant differential forces, not only from tides, but from the varying angular momenta of cells within it which do not cancel out.

Solar Phys (2010) 266: 227–246
DOI 10.1007/s11207-010-9628-y

A New Way that Planets Can Affect the Sun
Charles L. Wolff · Paul N. Patrone
Received: 5 May 2010 / Accepted: 16 August 2010 / Published online: 18 September 2010
© US Government 2010

Abstract:

We derive a perturbation inside a rotating star that occurs when the star is accelerated by orbiting bodies. If a fluid element has rotational and orbital components of angular momentum with respect to the inertially fixed point of a planetary system that are of opposite sign, then the element may have potential energy that could be released by a suitable flow. We demonstrate the energy with a very simple model in which two fluid elements of equal mass exchange positions, calling to mind a turbulent field or natural convection. The exchange releases potential energy that, with a minor exception, is available only in the hemisphere facing the barycenter of the planetary system. We calculate its strength and spatial distribution for the strongest case (“vertical”) and for weaker horizontal cases whose motions are all perpendicular to gravity. The vertical cases can raise the kinetic energy of a few well positioned convecting elements in the Sun’s envelope by a factor ≤ 7. This is the first physical mechanism by which planets can have a nontrivial effect on internal solar motions. Occasional small mass exchanges near the solar center and in a recently proposed mixed shell centered at 0.16Rs would carry fresh fuel to deeper levels. This would cause stars like the Sun with appropriate planetary systems to burn somewhat more brightly and have shorter lifetimes than identical stars without planets. The helioseismic sound speed and the long record of sunspot activity offer several bits of evidence that the effect may havebeen active in the Sun’s core, its envelope, and in some vertically stable layers. Additional proof will require direct evidence from helioseismology or from transient waves on the solar surface.


Although the planets raise a vertical tide on the Sun that is known to be very small (millimeters), observations cited in this section have hinted for a long time that there should exist some more interesting mechanism for planetary influence on the Sun. We will discuss a fluid perturbation that depends on the distance and velocity of a star relative to the barycenter (mass centroid) of its planetary system. This motion creates potential energy per unit mass (PE) that can be released by flows pre-existing inside the star. If some of the released energy can get promptly to the surface, one might tie its effects to the star’s motion. One mechanism, whose basis is discussed in Sections 4 and 5.2, takes place in a solar-type star where an individual convection “cell” at the proper phase in its short life would release some of the PE. This would cause a local upwelling of mass and heat. If close enough to the surface, it would cause horizontal flows on the surface that have to terminate in downflows with vorticity. Spinning downflows are known to be where considerable solar activity collects and strengthens (Schatten, 2009). Thus there should be some positive correlation between the intensity of solar activity and a local burst of vertical flow energized by released PE. This will certainly not be the main reason why solar activity levels vary, but it should cause some variations because its effect on an occasional convection cell can be quite significant (Section 4).

This might explain some of the many reports of correlations between the strength of
solar activity and planetary motions… Even though some reported correlations have limited statistical significance, there have been enough very strong ones to indicate that some real interaction exists. However, each generation of astronomers has generally dismissed or ignored such works and omitted themfrom their textbooks and papers, probably on the weak grounds that they were unable to imagine a quantitative physical explanation.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/47023810v8100nk0/

H/t to contributor Lawrence Wilson.

Comments
  1. Geoff Sharp says:

    Thanks for the heads up Rog, just reading it now.

  2. tallbloke says:

    Me too. :)

    It looks like it is confirming what I’ve been arguing with Leif; that while the vertical tides caused by the planets are small, the horizontal flows caused by the differential effect of AM across the solar diameter in its tight radius swings around the barycentre are large and the turbulence significant…

    I see Landscheidt gets a mention in the bibliography too.

  3. Geoff Sharp says:

    yep…and it also explains if proved, why we have grand minima, the normal pattern is disrupted. I have sent a copy to Nicola and Gerry and contacted the authors. Very keen to hear their feedback along with Wollf and Patrone.

  4. tallbloke says:

    Seems to me that one issue here is the depth at which the turbulence they propose occurs. How long would it take for that to propagate to the surface? Not an insurmountable issue though, given the similarity of the cycle repeats of the gas giants. We could be getting the solar activity from the surface set in motion on a previous cycle.

    I still think we have more than one mechanism in play. Immediate effects of electromagnetic feedback from the inner planets, plus the barycentric effect on cycle amplitudes from the gas giants. Jupiter joins in (And possibly dominates) both.

    Did you give Nicola Scafetta and Gerry this page link? I’d like to host the discussion

  5. Geoff Sharp says:

    Did you give Nicola Scafetta and Gerry this page link? I’d like to host the discussion

    No, but I will do on the return emails. Nicola will note the rough 50 year or so peak modulation, his theory on the PDO tie up will gain strength perhaps.

  6. tallbloke says:

    Great, thanks.

    We have ~44.7 years with inner planets, and ~90 years Gleissberg, and ~180 years gas giants A nice 1:2:4 ratio of resonance.

    The ~60 years PDO may be an artifact of Atlantic/Pacific/other basin’s interactions. Lots more to work on there, but note that 60 is 2/3 x 90 and 3/2 x 45

  7. vukcevic says:

    Rog
    Re. 44.7 years
    Geocentric pattern from 3 largest planets has period average of 44.83 years ( http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/vukcevic-sets-a-christmas-puzzle/
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETpr.htm )
    Now there is a ‘direct solid down to earth’ evidence (of ~45 years) at location (I am not surprised at all) of the strongest magnetic field in the North hemisphere, the Hudson Bay.
    The Hudson Bay “staircase”, a typical series of 184 successively uplifted strandlines, situated in Richmond Gulf on the eastern side of Hudson Bay, Canada. The sand gravel beaches are preserved by permafrost, and recur with great regularity about every 45 years, representing the cycle of storminess. There are longer cycles of 111 years and 317 years evident in the beaches, which are linked with planetary cycles.

    This makes it just under 8300 years i.e. back to start of the big last ice thaw.

    For Solar output – Hudson Bay correlation see:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm

  8. tallbloke says:

    vukcevic says:
    January 9, 2011 at 1:50 pm (Edit)
    Rog
    Re. 44.7 years
    Geocentric pattern from 3 largest planets has period average of 44.83 years

    When you say ‘Geocentric’, are you saying this period relates to the positions of outer planets in relation to Earth particularly, in some way they don’t relate to the Sun? Please tell us more about your treatment of the JPL data if you can. I appreciate you may be intending to publish and may not want to give exact explanations at this point.

  9. vukcevic says:

    TB Geocentric can be very different from heliocentric. Sun gets a nudge from Jupiter once every 11.86, while the Earth gets it every 13 months, were the distance changes from 4 to 6 AU.
    As far as I understand it, neither gravity or some far-fetched ideas from EU (which I will leave alone) are part of the solar cycle solution.
    Sun’s polar and the sunspot magnetic fields alternate with spatial and temporal 90 degrees separation, which is fundamental to electro-magnetic relationship, but it is going to be very difficult to explain by unidirectional gravity force.


  10. I’ve moved your comment to the E.U. open thread. This thread is about a scientific paper concerning celestial mechanics.

    Thanks for your co-operation.

  11. P.G. Sharrow says:

    More points of view for pot stirring. :-) next someone will realize that a pot stirred is more stable, doesn’t boil over, is not likely to nova!

    Speaking of pot stirring. That exchange with Leif at WUWT may actually have been positive. Good show. ;-) pg

  12. Tenuc says:

    Thanks Roger for posting this, it is time the planetary effect was admitted by mainstream science, although I’m not sure they have a good handle on the way the changes change the sun’s behaviour.

    I’ll sleep on it and see if I get any inspiration!

  13. tallbloke says:

    It’s almost like they were going out of their way not to upset certain people’s sensibilities. ;-) The key sentences and equations are spread around the paper.

    The main point is that the amount of energy released by the mechanism they propose (which involves angular momentum) to affect solar activity at the surface is (non linearly) proportional to the distance between the centre of the sun and the centre of mass of the solar system, the barycentre.

    Also, they state:
    “This would cause stars like the Sun with appropriate planetary systems to burn somewhat more brightly and have shorter lifetimes than identical stars without planets.”

    If Wolff and Patrone are correct, the outer planets do significantly affect solar activity levels, and modulate the solar cycles.

    Better summary when I’ve slept on it too.

  14. Geoff Sharp says:

    Nicola, Gerry and colleges are going over this peer reviewed paper, I am very much looking forward to their responses, Nicola also has related work in peer review status. They might chime in here or I can relay from email, but we are in a position not seen before…a possible mechanism tying solar AM derived from the outer 4 planets that controls solar output and grand minima. Carl’s graph will be vindicated.

    Very interesting to see the authors credentials.

    Wollf: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA

    Patrone: University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA

  15. Douglas DC says:

    Hmm. You mean that there is other forces that effect the Planet than Global Climate
    change?
    Sarc.

  16. [...] are linked to previous extinctions and speeding up the process of evolution. Others are saying the sun is entering the barycentre of our solar system which also affects the sun’s behaviour and consequently the [...]

  17. tallbloke says:

    Geoff, thanks for the update, it’s great to see NASA scientists are quietly working on this stuff in the background. I wonder if the noise we’ve been making on the net helped kindle interest amongst the astrophysics community there. I guess we’ll never know. Also good to hear Nicola Scafetta and Gerry are on the case, able mathematicians both. Keep us in the loop!

    Douglas: One of the reasons we are interested in this stuff is the tantalising possibility that if we can tease out the relationship between the planets and solar activity levels, we will be able to predict changes to Earth’s climates once we have a better understanding of the effect of changes in solar activity on Earth.

  18. Roy Martin says:

    Rog.,

    Following on the earlier thread on tidal influences, Katya Georgieva sent me a pdf copy of an address she gave at a meeting in Moscow, dealing with the effect of tidal forces tangential to the surface of the sun. She came up with some interesting insights into a possible mechanism for the planets to regulate solar maxima. It seems to be closely related to this topic. As far as I know it is unpublished, so I do not have a link. I will forward a copy and leave it up to you to drop in if and where you consider appropriate.

  19. Michele says:

    http://daltonsminima.altervista.org/?p=8669

    IL CICLO UNDECENNALE DEL SOLE SECONDO BENDANDI

  20. tallbloke says:

    Michele is alerting us to the work of Raffaele Bendandi, an Italian amateur astronomer and earthquake predictor who used a secret method involving tidal calculations to make his forecasts:

    http://www.itacomm.net/EQL/engbent1908.pdf

  21. Michele says:

    Thanks tallbloke,

    My English is very small !
    :)

    I’m working on the polygon of forces…for earthquake predictor…

    http://daltonsminima.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/raffaele-bendandi-1893-1979-visita-alla-casa-e-allosservatorio-sismico-bendandiano/

    Translate with Google :

    Il ciclo undecennale dell’attività del Sole, che tanto ha affaticato la mente degli scienziati, avidi di conoscere le cause che lo determinano, è stato da me spiegato nel modo più assoluto in tutte le complesse caratteristiche che presenta.
    Riservandomi di esporre dettagliatamente in un’apposita pubblicazione il completo meccanismo della teoria, in ogni suo particolare dettaglio, ritengo utile, anzi, necessario, di fissare quelle principali conclusioni alle quali sono pervenuto depositandole in in plico sigillato presso questa onorevole accademia pontificia dei nuovi lincei onde salvaguardare l’assoluta priorità della scoperta.
    Premesso questo breve chiarimento, passo ad esporre i vari punti del mio studio: le definitive conclusioni.

    1) Il ciclo un decennale della attività del sole non…che il prodotto di una poderosa marea solare determinata dal periodico sommarsi degli sforzi attrattivi dei pianeti Venere, Terra e Giove. Le ben note leggi che presiedono alla produzione della marea oceanica, servono quindi egregiamente, nel nostro caso, a darci la spiegazione più esatta e rigorosa di ogni particolarità del fenomeno.

    2) Basandomi sulle durate medie delle rivoluzioni sinodiche: Venere giorni 583,92 e Giove 389,98, noi perveniamo ad una media del ciclo un decennale uguale ad anni 11,070, ma questa, sebbene in pieno accordo coi primi massimi osservati da Galilei, non può ritenersi definitiva essendo ben noto che le stesse rivoluzioni planetarie vanno soggette a sensibili variazioni dovute alle perturbazioni esplicatesi fra i diversi corpi celesti del nostro sistema.

    3) Le eccentricità delle orbite descritte dai pianeti suddetti originano le variabilissime durate del ciclo un decennale tanto da farlo oscillare da un minimo di otto anni ad un massimo di 14.

    4) Dal rapporto numerico esistente fra le diverse rivoluzioni dei tre corpi, Venere, Terra, Giove, già citati, scaturiscono le differenti intensità dei vari massimi sia un decennali che di più lungo periodo come quelli oiù esatti di 77,442 e 885 anni.

    5) L’inclinazione dell’asse solare – facente un angolo di sette gradi con la perfetta perpendicolarità al piano dell’eclittica – determina una importante anomalia la quale (assieme a quella prodotta dalle diverse inclinazioni delle orbite planetarie) imprime all’andamento del fenomeno una oscillazione di lungo periodo che ne complica vieppiù l’irregolare manifestarsi.

    6) Lo stato di particolare viscosità che l’immensa sfera del sole presenta ostacola il pronto manifestarsi del fenomeno cosìcchè i primi impulsi perturbativi si annullano per vincere gli attriti, originando in tal modo il caratteristico andamento della curva un decennale il cui ramo ascendente, si mostra più rapido del discendente.

    7) Nella ridda incessante delle fantastiche correnti superficiali e particolarmente per le rilevanti resistenze incontrate deve necessariamente generarsi con tanta energia termica, tal copia di calore da rifornire continuamente l’ardente fornace compensandola delle perdite che inevitabilmente deve incontrare per la sua continua irradiazione nello spazio.

    8) Dopo quanto ho detto, il fenomeno della periodicità un decennale delle diverse manifestazioni solari, altro non è che la conseguenza di un battimento, risultante dalle differenti rivoluzioni dei tre pianeti Venere, Terra e Giove, le cui masse circolando attorno al Sole vengono appunto ad ogni undici anni a trovarsi rispetto detto corpo celeste, perfettamente allineate sommando così i loro sforzi attrattivi.

    9) Non sarà male chiarire che, affinché l’allineamento si compia non è affatto necessario che tutte le masse planetarie siano situate dalla stessa parte del Sole ma, come la marea oceanica ci insegna, siano le forze cospiranti (novilunio) o contrarie (plenilunio) gli effetti risultano pressocchè gli stessi, per conseguenza nel grandioso processo della marea solare, siano le varie masse planetarie situate tutte dalla stessa parte, oppure occupino posizioni perfettamente opposte rispetto al Sole, nel primo, come nel secondo caso, gli effetti che ne derivano saranno sempre gli stessi.

    10) Questo preciso meccanismo teorico, mentre ci dà la spiegazione più completa della curva un decennale della attività del Sole, ci permette di risolvere il difficile problema delle stelle variabili. Spiegando ogni più bizzarra variazione luminosa sia per ampiezza che per durata, e tutte le altre

    Google: Italian to English translation:

    The eleven-year cycle of the Sun, which has so wearied the minds of scientists, eager to know the causes that determine it, it was explained to me in any way, in all the complex features it presents.
    Reserving a special publication to explain in detail the complete mechanism of the theory, in every particular detail, I find it useful, indeed necessary, to fix those main conclusions are reached in leaving them in sealed envelope at this honorable Pontifical Academy of New Lincei in order to preserve the absolute priority of discovery.
    Given this brief explanation, to put to the various points of my study: the final conclusions.

    1) a ten-year cycle of activity of the sun … the product of a powerful solar tides determined by the sum of the periodic efforts attraction of the planets Venus, Earth and Jupiter. The well-known laws that govern the production of the ocean tide, then serve very well, in our case, to give us the most accurate and thorough explanation of each particular phenomenon.

    2) Based on the average duration of the synodic Venus and Jupiter 389.98 583.92 days, we arrive at an average of a ten-year cycle, equal to 11.070 years, but this, although in full agreement with the first maximum observed by Galileo, not may be final it is well known that the same planetary revolutions are subject to significant variations due to disturbances esplicatesi between the various celestial bodies of our system.

    3) The eccentricity of these planets orbits described by the originators of the extremely variable durations of a decade-long cycle so as to swing it from a minimum of eight years to a maximum of 14.

    4) The ratio between the various revolutions of the three bodies, Venus, Earth, Jupiter, already mentioned, the resulting different intensities of the various top ten which is a longer-term such as exact oiù 77.442 and 885 years.

    5) The inclination of the sun – forming an angle of seven degrees with the perfectly perpendicular to the ecliptic plane – a major anomaly which determines (along with that produced by the different inclinations of planetary orbits) gives the evolution of the phenomenon an oscillation of the long period that increasingly complicates the irregular occurrence.

    6) The state of the particular viscosity immense ball of the sun shall impede the ready occurrence of the phenomenon so that the first perturbative vanishing impulses to overcome the friction, thus giving rise to the characteristic shape of the curve a decade whose ascending branch is shows more rapid descent.

    7) In the welter of incessant great surface currents and particularly for the significant resistance encountered should cause with so much heat, that heat to continuously supply a copy of the fiery furnace compensation for losses that inevitably must meet for its continued radiation into space.

    8) After what I have said, the phenomenon of a ten-year periodicity of the different solar events, is merely the result of a beat, resulting from different revolutions of the three planets Venus, Earth and Jupiter, whose masses are just circulating around the Sun every eleven years to come than this celestial body is perfectly aligned by adding their efforts so attractive.

    9) It will not hurt to clarify that so that alignment be done is not necessary that all the planetary masses are located on the same side of the Sun but, as the ocean tide teaches us, forces are conspiring (new moon) or otherwise (the full moon ) the effects are the almost the same, consequently, in the great process of the solar tide, are the various planetary masses located on the same side, or take up positions completely opposite to the Sun, in the first, as in the second case, the resulting effects will remain the same.

    10) The precise mechanism theory, and gives us a more complete explanation of the curve of a ten-year activity of the Sun, allows us to solve the difficult problem of variable stars. Explaining each more bizarre light variation for both amplitude and duration, and all other

  22. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Michele. The puzzle here is that although we doubt that the effect is tidal, because the tidal effect is so small, the oppositions of planets do seem to have an influence equal to their conjunctions. This is why I think the effect is more likely to be electromagnetic than gravitational, so far as the inner planets and Jupiter are concerned. The possible mechanism discussed by Wolff and Patrone is related to the gravitational effect the outer planets have on the sun. I believe both these mechanisms are contributing to the modulation of the solar cycle.

    At the moment, I think that the inner planets, Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter are affecting the details of the timing of sunspot production via an electromagnetic mechanism. The outer planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are more responsible for the magnitude of the cycles, via a gravitational mechanism.

  23. tallbloke says:

    vukcevic says:
    January 10, 2011 at 2:30 am
    Dr. Svalgaard, tallbloke, Sharp, Scafetta, Wolf, Patrone, Willson and the rest
    You are all barking up the wrong tree.
    Its all down to the magnetic flux ropes (containing up to 40% of local magnetic energy) shooting not randomly into space, but for the two large magnetospheres, where energy is discharged, analogous to atmospheric discharge heading for lightning conductor.

    Who’s barking up the wrong tree?

    tallbloke says:
    January 10, 2011 at 12:39 am
    I don’t think we yet understand electromagnetism sufficiently well to dismiss it as a possibility. NASA scientist Ching Cheh Hung discovered apparent relations between the inner planets motions (which correlate strongly with the timing of the solar cycles) and solar electromagnetic activity. The inner planets seem to act in a way analogous to lightning conductors.

    The difference between us is that I think that as well as the inner planets, Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter affecting the details of the timing of sunspot production via an electromagnetic mechanism, the outer planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are responsible for the magnitude of the cycles, via a gravitational mechanism.

    I’m not saying the outer planets beyond Jupiter don’t also have an electromagnetic effect, just that the EM effect is stronger in the inner solar system and the gravitational effect is stronger from the gas giants. Jupiter has a foot in both camps owing to its mass and magnetosphere. But who knows, maybe it’ll turn out to be nearly all EM related as you confidently assert.

    Here’s the rest of Vuk’s comment:
    Flux ropes may be short in duration but they connect directly the Sun’s surface and the magnetospheres with a flow of huge electric currents. Only largest CMEs are noted, but such connections are far more frequent. Exchange of the energy between the Sun and magnetospheres via CMEs (large and small) plays a vital role in the evolution of the magnetic field of the Sun.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm

    It is simple and basic: Jupiter (2×11.8 years reflecting Hale cycle) is the driver with at little help from Saturn every 19.6 years.
    There is no stronger correlation in the solar science than this:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

    It is time to give up perusing infinitesimal effects, it’s time to concentrate on the effects with the power and means of changing the polarity of both solar and sunspot magnetic field.
    The above has been on record for just over 7 years, advances in the solar observations since than have greatly enhanced possibility that the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC events and feedbacks within heliosphere are solution, not the old Newtonian mechanics.

  24. vukcevic says:

    Electro-magnetic effect of the inner planets on the Sun is nonexistent (excluding the Earth’s tiny contribution). However the Earth is greatly affected by the Sun’s magnetic events.
    Venus & Mars have no significant magnetic field, their effect can be only via gravity force.
    Main E-M effect is from Jupiter, its magnetosphere tail extends by 5AU reaching the Saturn’s orbit, with the enhancement from Saturn every19.8 years.
    NASA scientist Ching Cheh Hung discovered apparent relations between the inner planets motions (which correlate strongly with the timing of the solar cycles) and solar electromagnetic activity. The inner planets seem to act in a way analogous to lightning conductors.
    All nonsense.
    Charged particles (electric current) spiral down magnetic field lines into Arctic. No magnetic field no current, magnetic field is required to capture the flux rope. Venus and Mars have none worth mention.
    This kind of setup

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC.htm

    is also applicable to Jupiter and Saturn, they have permanent auroras , i.e. permanent electric current connection to the solar magnetic field, Venus and Mars do not have anything of a kind.

  25. Geoff Sharp says:

    This post by Rog will be a milestone in our understanding of planetary theory which has its roots going back at least 150 years. Thanks to Lawrence for supplying the initial lead which I can’t believe took so long to get to us. It is important to concentrate on the paper by Wollf and Patrone that deals with gravity and AM, and has no reference to electric/magnetic forces that no doubt play a very big part in other arenas of the universe. This is the first time there is a chance of scientific recognition of a solar external driver that is planet induced. They also exclude any tidal influence.

    There will be more to come, the exoplanet data is increasing at a rapid rate which should show distant stars without planets behave in a different fashion to stars with planets. This is all gravity related. I disagree with Vuk’s proposal on magnetic influence from 2 planets affecting solar output in the face of a very strong solar wind. But do agree with his views on the lack of magnetic power induced by the inner planets in relation to solar cycle length.

  26. tallbloke says:

    Vuk, while I agree Venus and Mars are deficient in not generating their own magnetospheres (Although Venus has one induced for it by the solar wind, and Mercury has a strong magnetosphere for its size), what Ching Cheh Hung discovered is that solar flares fire off in the direction of inner planets. This is a different phenomenon to the flux rope connections you are discussing.

    So I think we can make progress with our ideas without getting all ‘Leif Svalgaard’ and shouting “absolute nonsense!” at anyone.

    I agree Jupiter has the main effect. I agree Earth has flux rope connections too. I agree Saturn shows aurorae and so has connections too. I don’t think there’s much we disagree about, except my mentioning Mars and Venus. In fact, they are not essential to a tight 10.38 – 12 year timing cycle connecting planets and solar activity. Earth and Jupiter are sufficient. Mars does tie in to the 44.7 year cycle heliocentrically though.

  27. Ulric Lyons says:

    @vukcevic says:
    January 9, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    “As far as I understand it, neither gravity or some far-fetched ideas from EU (which I will leave alone) are part of the solar cycle solution.
    Sun’s polar and the sunspot magnetic fields alternate with spatial and temporal 90 degrees separation, which is fundamental to electro-magnetic relationship, but it is going to be very difficult to explain by unidirectional gravity force.”

    Good.

  28. tallbloke says:

    Geoff, I agree we should focus on the mechanism proposed by Wolff and Patrone for the purposes of this thread. I just wanted to make it clear that I think both gravitational and electromagnetic mechanisms are viable possibilities, and could well both be in operation.

    Before we leave the issue of “the lack of magnetic power induced by the inner planets” and concentrate on Wolff and Patrone’s mechanism, Id like you and Vuk to answer me this simple question:

    How much magnetic power does my finger have to supply to a Van der Graaf generator to get it to jump a spark to it?

  29. Geoff Sharp says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 10, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    How much magnetic power does my finger have to supply to a Van der Graaf generator to get it to jump a spark to it?

    If the experiment was done outside our atmosphere/magnetosphere, I suspect your finger would make no difference. :)

  30. Ulric Lyons says:

    @tallbloke says:
    January 10, 2011 at 11:23 am

    “…the outer planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are responsible for the magnitude of the cycles, via a gravitational mechanism.”

    I`ll grant that where N, U and S are in relation to J/E/V syzygies impacts the solar cycle, but I would not jump to the conclusion that the cause is gravitational.

  31. tallbloke says:

    Come on Geoff that’s a weak answer. For one thing a Van der Graf generator doesn’t rely on Earth’s magnetism for it’s operation, for another, the interplanetary medium has plenty of charged particles zapping about in it, and for another we have Ching Cheh Hung’s emprirical evidence to consider.

  32. tallbloke says:

    Hi Ulric,
    as I said to Vuk:
    “I’m not saying the outer planets beyond Jupiter don’t also have an electromagnetic effect, just that the EM effect is stronger in the inner solar system and the gravitational effect is stronger from the gas giants. Jupiter has a foot in both camps owing to its mass and magnetosphere. But who knows, maybe it’ll turn out to be nearly all EM related as you confidently assert.”

    I’m keeping an open mind on it. I’ll start another thread for EM considerations with pleasure if you like. I’ve invited both Vuk and yourself to do a guest post here before and that stands. I would like to focus in on Wolff and Petrone’s proposed mechanism here if Nicola Scafetta comes to play though. While we wait, fire away or request a parallel thread. I’m not trying to exclude anything, I just want to avoid confusion and maintain clarity.

  33. Ulric Lyons says:

    @vukcevic says:
    January 10, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    “Electro-magnetic effect of the inner planets on the Sun is nonexistent (excluding the Earth’s tiny contribution). However the Earth is greatly affected by the Sun’s magnetic events.
    Venus & Mars have no significant magnetic field, their effect can be only via gravity force.”

    And Ceres ?

  34. Geoff Sharp says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 10, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    Come on Geoff that’s a weak answer.

    Not at all, in the face of the all powerful solar wind your finger would not compete. This is the same for all planetary magnetospheres.

  35. tallbloke says:

    Geoff, that’s the whole point I’m trying to make. The planets don’t need to compete with the solar wind, just provide a preferable place for it to stream to. They don’t need a magnetosphere to do that, though the bigger the one they have, the bigger the grounding target for the solar wind.

  36. tallbloke says:

    Roy Martin says:
    January 10, 2011 at 7:44 am (Edit)
    Rog.,

    Following on the earlier thread on tidal influences, Katya Georgieva sent me a pdf copy of an address she gave at a meeting in Moscow, dealing with the effect of tidal forces tangential to the surface of the sun. She came up with some interesting insights into a possible mechanism for the planets to regulate solar maxima. It seems to be closely related to this topic. As far as I know it is unpublished, so I do not have a link. I will forward a copy and leave it up to you to drop in if and where you consider appropriate.

    Whoa, I missed this earlier. Yes please Roy. I’ll put up a separate thread for it, and link through to the old tidal thread.

  37. Geoff Sharp says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 10, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    Doesn’t make sense Rog, a magnetosphere repels the solar wind. If there is no feedback then there is no influence. This cannot be said about gravity.

  38. tallbloke says:

    There is influence if ions in the solar wind stream preferentially towards planetary bodies. It will affect the location on the sun they set off from, and when planets are in ‘conjunction’ along the curve of the IMF, may affect the density of the solar wind and spot numbers too. The fact that a magnetosphere repels the stream when it arrives there is immaterial if it is the planetary body the stream is aiming to ground to. Forget what I said about the size of the magnetosphere, it was off the cuff.

    It may all be more complex than this electrically in terms of the ‘lobing’ of the broadcast signal (as P.G. Sharrow puts it) by planetary ‘opposition’ and ‘square’ (WRT the curve of the IMF) configurations, but I think it’s worth considering.

  39. Geoff Sharp says:

    Its all very interesting but hardly robust when it comes to actual data that can be evaluated. You know I have an open mind but I prefer to tackle topics that at least have some hint of obtaining an outcome. I can see this is going to decay into off topic discussions (including Ceres), so I will bail out on this one and come back when we get back on track.

  40. tallbloke says:

    Geoff,
    sure thing, I’ll get a couple more threads going and then we can use this one for it’s intended purpose, discussion of Wolff and Patrone’s proposed mechanism.

    Just a quick point about evaluation. Here’s a graph of VEJ alignments along the curve of the IMF (with variation in solar windspeed accounted for) vs sunspots I plotted a while ago:
    VEJ-SWvsSSN

    I’m hoping the outer planets are going to sort out those amplitudes. The timings are looking pretty good, apart from the current cycle – the UN effect?

    .

  41. Gerry says:

    Thanks for calling our attention to this paper, Rog. It’s really a breath of fresh air to see something promising come out of NASA Goddard SF!

    The Wolff-Patrone paper is more useful for analyzing the specific angular momenta and cellular potential energies during the current solar minimum if, in conjunction with the W-P model, one uses a barycentric motion diagram from 1985 to 2040 rather than the paper’s Figure 2, which encompasses 1939 to 2000. See, for example, the barycentric motion diagram in

    http://landscheidt.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/latest-solar-differential-rotation-information/

  42. Gerry says:

    Other solar barycentric motion diagrams potentially useful for analyzing previous Grand Minima using the W-P paper’s models can be found in

    http://geomag.usgs.gov/iagaxiii/posters/Variability_and_predictability_of_geomag_activity_Hejda.pdf

    Hint: Magnify the paper to 300% to best examine the diagrams in the above paper.

  43. tallbloke says:

    Hi Gerry, and thanks for dropping by. Can you tell us a little about using the equations in the W&P paper in conjunction with data from JPL? Would it be possible to derive meaningful predictions from that? I assume it would require some ‘tuning’ to the model to build in ‘flows’.

    Is this something an amateur could tackle using MathLab?

  44. Gerry says:

    Tallbloke,
    I expect the process of evaluating the W-P equations to take a while for me, but the short answer to your question is yes. Right now I think measurements from JPL data needed to evaluate the equations in the W-P paper would include the parameters C, dC/dt, alpha, beta, delta, epsilon, omega, Rg, R1, R2, L1 (computed), and L2 (computed).

  45. tallbloke says:

    Gerry, thanks.
    How many of these ‘cells’ should be in a model run with time series data, or put another way, what radius for a cell and should the cell population be at a single ‘shell level’? What depth? Any ideas on these questions welcome.

  46. P.G. Sharrow says:

    I may have created the wrong impression with “lobbing”. The metal of the elements are “magnetic”, that is that is they attract magnetic lines of force, The material of “magnetic”things concentrate the local lines of force within themselves. This causes reflection of EMF due to fields creating counter fields. Ferromagnetic materials create their own magnetic fields. Diamagnetic materials repel magnetic lines of force. That is they resist penetration of the local lines of force. The lines of force would appear to be a “short” between the antenna and element and the EMF would appear to bounce off the element. The antenna “appears” to be an element to the element. The area between them has a concentration of energies. This causes the “signal” to flare out to the sides of the antenna – element axis. Ions travel with the lines of force in the direction dictated by their charge and the polarity of the line of force that they are under the influence of. This causes the appearance of a short circuit of energies in the solar ionic wind with a “bow wave” at the planet. If you can understand the energies involved, then the solar wind ionic pictorials are a very good indicator of the location and behavior of the lines of force. pg

  47. Gerry says:

    Tallbloke,
    Your questions, “How many of these ‘cells’ should be in a model run with time series data, or put another way, what radius for a cell and should the cell population be at a single ‘shell level’? What depth? Any ideas on these questions welcome.” are good ones.

    This will definitely require some trial and error to determine, but there are some suggestions in the W-P paper that should help. Section 3.5. Large Cells and Special Locations deals with this issue with some specifications of cell configurations and packing in their model, ending with “We conclude that the energy per unit mass and time scale – in this model – are not greatly penalized by having very large cells that would release far more potential energy to the star than small cells with ξ <<1. But cells larger than the convective mixing length (1.99Hp in Model S) are implausible on those grounds at least. Cells that include the barycenter but are not near the solar center did not have positive PE. The same was true for cells that include the center of the Sun."

    In 5.1. Types of Tests it is stated that
    "A full or partial overturning of a cell in the Sun would generate a field of turbulence near the cell boundary and throughout the cell. This would radiate gravity waves and some acoustic waves during the cell lifetime. As the turbulence decays, heat would be deposited in and near the cell. This suggests three types of observational tests for the occurrence of an event:
    i) helioseismology, ii) transient wave motions on the surface, and iii) increased solar activity when cell overturning or its generated heat stimulate extra near-surface convection.
    Figures 3 and 4 show the solar longitudes at which such events can accumulate energy and our model would give the years when events are more likely."

  48. tallbloke says:

    Hi Gerry,
    yes, I picked up on those passages too. We’ll feel our way into it.

    My buddy with matlab on his lappy is here right now and we have the first 7 equations in place already.

  49. Tenuc says:

    Well, having slept on it for a couple of nights I’ve had no sudden inspiration. Rather I’m starting to question if the standard solar model is good enough for understanding the mechanism of how small changes in gravity and EM effects due to planetary orbits effect solar activity.

    If the solar model is uncertain, it would be like trying to understand how the accelerator pedal of a car causes the observed acceleration when we didn’t know if the motive power was being provided by a steam engine, petrol engine or an electric motor e.t.c.

    I’m going to ponder possible alternative solar models as putting the cart before the horse doesn’t help progress.

  50. tallbloke says:

    Have a look at the tidal explanation from Georgieva too. Maybe since all the perturbations are quite small, several different mechanisms conspire together to modulate solar activity:

    Energy release from angular momentum exchange in cells facing the barycentre as in the present paper.

    Tidal action creating the surface flows which enhance the above

    A GR effect pulling the solar core up and down as the Jovian planets orbit above and below the solar equatorial plane, pumping the deeper return flows.

    Electromagnetic effects from connections between the solar surface and planetary magnetospheres.

  51. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Remember the core is very dense. Mass / inertia would fight dislocation the strongest. The more fluid upper layers would displace the most and be pushed or pulled horizontally more then vertically. Coriolis effect will cause changes of speed in spin of the cells with changes in strength of the cells magnetic fields. Increase in spin also increases energy flows from the core to the surface.

    In my opinion the most active zone for energy production is in the surface layers of Dr. Manuals Iron core. The pressure / density should be about right for fusion / fission. The creation and decay of neutrons that powers all atomic energy. pg

    Should I expand on hydrogen / ferrious metals and fission / fusion?

  52. tallbloke says:

    P.G.
    Thanks for your thoughts, and please do expand on them, but on the mechanisms open thread rather than here. There is an issue with the depth in the sun the ‘cells’ relevant to this thread are going to be most active at, but let’s think around it on the open thread and then bring our conclusions back here.

    Thanks

  53. Tenuc says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 11, 2011 at 7:49 pm
    “…There is an issue with the depth in the sun the ‘cells’ relevant to this thread are going to be most active at, but let’s think around it on the open thread and then bring our conclusions back here…”

    Good idea Roger – thanks. In the context of the standard solar model I can’t think of a way such a small gain in PE can translate into the large changes we observe during the ~200y Gleissberg cycle. As PG says, finding a surface effect (EM driven fusion for example) could perhaps provide a better fit to observations.

  54. Geoff Sharp says:

    A new avatar for tallbloke, that is based on gravity…this is the way forward.

  55. tallbloke says:

    Heh, I’ve had that as my avatar for ages. I just decided to turn on the avatar widget on the blog to see who else had one. What happened to your mugshot?

  56. Geoff Sharp says:

    I have also had a long time avatar(should be displayed now)…not much different from yours. glad to see you are on the right track :)

  57. tallbloke says:

    My hypothesis involves all the proposed mechanisms. mainly to keep the peace… ;)

  58. Geoff Sharp says:

    you might need to change your avatar then?? :)

  59. tallbloke says:

    There’s only so much you can fit in 50 pixels. You’ve done pretty well with those subtle orbit lines.

  60. Geoff Sharp says:

    This one a little less subtle: http://www.landscheidt.info/images/avatar.jpg

    It shows Uranus, Neptune & Jupiter together with Saturn opposite. Your avatar altho related shows the solar path when not perturbed by my avatar alignment.

  61. tallbloke says:

    Yep, mine shows one of Charvatova’s ‘harmonious periods’ when amplitudes rise and cycle lengths shorten, raising the sunspot number well above average.

  62. Geoff Sharp says:

    Not correct actually Rog. Your pattern is more like 1900. When nearing the unordered pattern is where the sunspot record achieves its highest level before crashing.

  63. tallbloke says:

    Yes, I was being too elliptical. They have a precursory phase which the cycle amplitudes lag behind, which tells us something about the hysterisis involved I think.

  64. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Read the abstract, the PDF is behind a $35.00 paywall, not interested.
    I still believe we are working with a modulated self powered system. In modulated energy systems we can use very small control inputs to cause much larger changes to the power system. As Leif and people of his point of view, state. Outside effects can not add enough to the solar output to be of importance. However it is much easier to turn the dial up or down the it is to crank the handle of the generator. In an power transmitter very small inputs can control the amount of the output. As to increased stirring causing increased output, at first I was of the same opinion, after thinking about that, it was discarded, too small of an effect relative to the energies involved, and liquid hydrogen is a super conductor of all energies, no mixing needed. More fresh fuel? Not sure yet that it is all that benificial. Angular momentum and changes in gravitational and magnetic stress vectors, would definitly effect production of energy. No need of addition or subtraction to that energy. This will make your argument of outside influence on solar output much easier to make. :-) pg

  65. [...] Wolff and Patrone: A New Way that Planets Can Affect the Sun [...]

  66. Tim Channon says:

    The head article whilst of interest is to me a jump so perhaps someone can help out. I add that the way that orbital periods are often used by some individuals is wrong and that seems to arise from a lack of knowledge.

    Gravity.
    I do not know how this operates through a body or across a very large body. This might be critical in relation to free fall.
    Can someone clarify that please.

    Periods.
    The effect of the planetary periods sum to a composite and within that composite you cannot distinguish one from another. It does not follow that the sum cannot, with difficulty, be taken apart.
    That ought to be obvious given the shape of the solar movement around the barycentre, not showing any individual component of the other masses.

    The sun almost certainly being highly non-linear is likely to lead to some very complex effects. This is part of why I ask the gravity question and is about differential effects, leading in to the article at the top here, but is not about inertia.

    There again, how can we tell much without knowledge of the nature of the solar core, eg. solid or not, etc.?

  67. tallbloke says:

    Welcome to the puzzle Tim. :)

  68. Tim Channon says:

    Perhaps a part answer is the lunar earth tide rises near and far side of earth, not teardrop. I assume that is the case, never really seen it said. Sure this is basic stuff written somewhere without the usual obfuscation.

  69. [...] praisee(tm) NASA scientists Wolff and Patrone posit a viable mechanism for the link between the motion of the Sun relative to the centre of mass of the solar system and [...]

  70. lgl says:

    vukcevic says:
    January 9, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    “but it is going to be very difficult to explain by unidirectional gravity force.”

    Not at all. Every 22 years the accelerating configuration, Ea&Ve/Sun/Ju forming 90 degrees, dominates the decelerating configuration (which is Ea&Ve shifted 180 degrees) http://virakkraft.com/accel-config.png Ju sets the main motion of the Sun but every 11 yrs Ea&Ve either speeds it up or slows it down, and when revolution increases its rotation decreases, which match observations shown in last slide here: http://virakkraft.com/Inner-planets-accelerating-the-Sun.pptx (1.8 MB) where I have collected the most ‘perfect’ accelerating configs. (when there are several close to perfect I have chosen the one with Ea leading Ve)

    The magnetic approach however is troublesome because Ve has almost no magnetic field yet the correlation is between solar activity and Ju, Ea and Ve. If this was about magnetism you should only need Ju and Ea in the right configuration.

  71. tallbloke
    I think the extreme complement of differential gravitational action is “the Roche Limit”

    The Roche limit (play /ˈroʊʃ/), sometimes referred to as the Roche radius, is the distance within which a celestial body, held together only by its own gravity, will disintegrate due to a second celestial body’s tidal forces exceeding the first body’s gravitational self-attraction.[1]

  72. tallbloke says:

    David, yes. Not likely to happen to our sun even if Jupiter took an excursion close to it, so no worries. :)

  73. [...] rates of the planets, then this would speed up the solar cycle. According to NASA scientists Wolff and Patrone, the motion of the Sun about the centre of mass of the system causes more fusion to occur in the [...]

  74. [...] Solar Phys (2010) 266: 227–246 DOI 10.1007/s11207-010-9628-y A New Way that Planets Can Affect the Sun Charles L. Wolff · Paul N. Patrone Received: 5 May 2010 / Accepted: 16 August 2010 / Published online: 18 September 2010 http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/wolff-and-patrone-a-new-way-that-planets-can-affect-the-su… [...]

  75. [...] on his blog, Ray Tomes mentions his GR theory (direct gravitational effect). Charles Wolff  (Wolff and Patrone) in email to me said both these forces are operative. A Mechanism for Amplifying Planetary Tidal [...]