Why doesn't the fusion process of the sun speed up?Why doesn't Earth's axis change during the year?Why there is no smoke around the Sun?Why doesn't the sun pull the moon away from earth?What would the Sun be like if nuclear reactions could not proceed via quantum tunneling?Is the Sun slightly blue in the center? - Wavelength-dependent limb darkening of the SunWhy are main sequence stars more massive than the Sun less dense? e.g. Vega, Spica etcWhy doesn't the Sun explode?Why do stars twinkle but the Sun doesn't (I'm asking this because the Sun is also a star)Why isn't the Sun hollow?Why we define Stellar motions with respect to sun?

Is there a distance limit for minecart tracks?

Calculate Pi using Monte Carlo

How do you say "Trust your struggle." in French?

How would a solely written language work mechanically

Why would five hundred and five same as one?

When is the exact date for EOL of Ubuntu 14.04 LTS?

Center page as a whole without centering each element individually

Why do Radio Buttons not fill the entire outer circle?

1 John in Luther’s Bibel

How to test the sharpness of a knife?

Does capillary rise violate hydrostatic paradox?

Could a welfare state co-exist with mega corporations?

"Oh no!" in Latin

categorizing a variable turns it from insignificant to significant

Why doesn't Gödel's incompleteness theorem apply to false statements?

What is the period/term used describe Giuseppe Arcimboldo's style of painting?

Can creatures abilities target that creature itself?

Why can't I get pgrep output right to variable on bash script?

Showing mass murder in a kid's book

Pre-Employment Background Check With Consent For Future Checks

How can a new country break out from a developed country without war?

Taking my research idea outside my paid job

Reasons for having MCU pin-states default to pull-up/down out of reset

Comic-book: Kids find a dead female superhero in the woods



Why doesn't the fusion process of the sun speed up?


Why doesn't Earth's axis change during the year?Why there is no smoke around the Sun?Why doesn't the sun pull the moon away from earth?What would the Sun be like if nuclear reactions could not proceed via quantum tunneling?Is the Sun slightly blue in the center? - Wavelength-dependent limb darkening of the SunWhy are main sequence stars more massive than the Sun less dense? e.g. Vega, Spica etcWhy doesn't the Sun explode?Why do stars twinkle but the Sun doesn't (I'm asking this because the Sun is also a star)Why isn't the Sun hollow?Why we define Stellar motions with respect to sun?













8












$begingroup$


Am I correct in saying that the fusion process of the sun is constant, i.e. X amount of fusion happens per day, more or less?
Why does this not speed up, i.e. one fusion event creates energy for two fusion events, etc.?
Does every collision of atom cause a fusion event, or is the probability small for a fusion event to happen thus it's not a runaway reaction?
I have heard that the probability for fusion event to happen is only 1 in 1012 for every collision.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Kallie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The energy produces by fusion in the core is almost exactly balanced by energy lost by diffusion of radiation from the core.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Bonner
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @MartinBonner I would agree with this - my question is that does every collision overcome the coulomb barrier or only a limited amount / percentage and why do you not have a run away reaction - ie more energy more diffusion
    $endgroup$
    – Kallie
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Fusion process is temperature sensitive. Becasue a star is typically staying in a hydrodynamic equilibrium, the temperature does not change, i.e., the fusion rate is constant.
    $endgroup$
    – Kornpob Bhirombhakdi
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    If now were at a point in time where it were speeding up rapidly, we wouldn't be here to see it. ;-) So you can assume now is a time where the speed is fairly close to equilibrium
    $endgroup$
    – R..
    6 hours ago
















8












$begingroup$


Am I correct in saying that the fusion process of the sun is constant, i.e. X amount of fusion happens per day, more or less?
Why does this not speed up, i.e. one fusion event creates energy for two fusion events, etc.?
Does every collision of atom cause a fusion event, or is the probability small for a fusion event to happen thus it's not a runaway reaction?
I have heard that the probability for fusion event to happen is only 1 in 1012 for every collision.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Kallie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The energy produces by fusion in the core is almost exactly balanced by energy lost by diffusion of radiation from the core.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Bonner
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @MartinBonner I would agree with this - my question is that does every collision overcome the coulomb barrier or only a limited amount / percentage and why do you not have a run away reaction - ie more energy more diffusion
    $endgroup$
    – Kallie
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Fusion process is temperature sensitive. Becasue a star is typically staying in a hydrodynamic equilibrium, the temperature does not change, i.e., the fusion rate is constant.
    $endgroup$
    – Kornpob Bhirombhakdi
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    If now were at a point in time where it were speeding up rapidly, we wouldn't be here to see it. ;-) So you can assume now is a time where the speed is fairly close to equilibrium
    $endgroup$
    – R..
    6 hours ago














8












8








8


1



$begingroup$


Am I correct in saying that the fusion process of the sun is constant, i.e. X amount of fusion happens per day, more or less?
Why does this not speed up, i.e. one fusion event creates energy for two fusion events, etc.?
Does every collision of atom cause a fusion event, or is the probability small for a fusion event to happen thus it's not a runaway reaction?
I have heard that the probability for fusion event to happen is only 1 in 1012 for every collision.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Kallie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




Am I correct in saying that the fusion process of the sun is constant, i.e. X amount of fusion happens per day, more or less?
Why does this not speed up, i.e. one fusion event creates energy for two fusion events, etc.?
Does every collision of atom cause a fusion event, or is the probability small for a fusion event to happen thus it's not a runaway reaction?
I have heard that the probability for fusion event to happen is only 1 in 1012 for every collision.







the-sun stellar-astrophysics






share|improve this question









New contributor




Kallie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Kallie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









Glorfindel

1,9612925




1,9612925






New contributor




Kallie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked yesterday









KallieKallie

5113




5113




New contributor




Kallie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Kallie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Kallie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The energy produces by fusion in the core is almost exactly balanced by energy lost by diffusion of radiation from the core.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Bonner
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @MartinBonner I would agree with this - my question is that does every collision overcome the coulomb barrier or only a limited amount / percentage and why do you not have a run away reaction - ie more energy more diffusion
    $endgroup$
    – Kallie
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Fusion process is temperature sensitive. Becasue a star is typically staying in a hydrodynamic equilibrium, the temperature does not change, i.e., the fusion rate is constant.
    $endgroup$
    – Kornpob Bhirombhakdi
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    If now were at a point in time where it were speeding up rapidly, we wouldn't be here to see it. ;-) So you can assume now is a time where the speed is fairly close to equilibrium
    $endgroup$
    – R..
    6 hours ago













  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The energy produces by fusion in the core is almost exactly balanced by energy lost by diffusion of radiation from the core.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Bonner
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @MartinBonner I would agree with this - my question is that does every collision overcome the coulomb barrier or only a limited amount / percentage and why do you not have a run away reaction - ie more energy more diffusion
    $endgroup$
    – Kallie
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Fusion process is temperature sensitive. Becasue a star is typically staying in a hydrodynamic equilibrium, the temperature does not change, i.e., the fusion rate is constant.
    $endgroup$
    – Kornpob Bhirombhakdi
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    If now were at a point in time where it were speeding up rapidly, we wouldn't be here to see it. ;-) So you can assume now is a time where the speed is fairly close to equilibrium
    $endgroup$
    – R..
    6 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
The energy produces by fusion in the core is almost exactly balanced by energy lost by diffusion of radiation from the core.
$endgroup$
– Martin Bonner
yesterday




$begingroup$
The energy produces by fusion in the core is almost exactly balanced by energy lost by diffusion of radiation from the core.
$endgroup$
– Martin Bonner
yesterday












$begingroup$
@MartinBonner I would agree with this - my question is that does every collision overcome the coulomb barrier or only a limited amount / percentage and why do you not have a run away reaction - ie more energy more diffusion
$endgroup$
– Kallie
yesterday




$begingroup$
@MartinBonner I would agree with this - my question is that does every collision overcome the coulomb barrier or only a limited amount / percentage and why do you not have a run away reaction - ie more energy more diffusion
$endgroup$
– Kallie
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
Fusion process is temperature sensitive. Becasue a star is typically staying in a hydrodynamic equilibrium, the temperature does not change, i.e., the fusion rate is constant.
$endgroup$
– Kornpob Bhirombhakdi
yesterday




$begingroup$
Fusion process is temperature sensitive. Becasue a star is typically staying in a hydrodynamic equilibrium, the temperature does not change, i.e., the fusion rate is constant.
$endgroup$
– Kornpob Bhirombhakdi
yesterday












$begingroup$
If now were at a point in time where it were speeding up rapidly, we wouldn't be here to see it. ;-) So you can assume now is a time where the speed is fairly close to equilibrium
$endgroup$
– R..
6 hours ago





$begingroup$
If now were at a point in time where it were speeding up rapidly, we wouldn't be here to see it. ;-) So you can assume now is a time where the speed is fairly close to equilibrium
$endgroup$
– R..
6 hours ago











3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















20












$begingroup$


Am I correct in saying that the fusion process of the sun is constant, i.e. X amount of fusion happens per day, more or less?




Yes, at least over human timescales. You could reasonably expect the fusion rate within the sun to be the same today as a few thousand years ago or into the future, give or take some small fraction.




Why does this not speed up, i.e. one fusion event creates energy for two fusion events, etc.?




The energy released by fusion is quickly distributed as thermal energy in the centre of the sun, and the temperature difference between surface (around 6000K) and centre (estimated 15 million K) drives an energy flow from hot to cold.




Does every collision of atom cause a fusion event, or is the probability small for a fusion event to happen thus it's not a runaway reaction?




Fusion in the sun is not a runaway nuclear reaction (like a critical mass of uranium in a fission reaction).



It is possible in theory to have runaway fusion events, but the pressure and temperature for these to happen are not approached in the core of the sun. For stable stars like the sun, the forces and energy flows are in equilibrium - if the core grew slightly hotter, then the pressure would increase and the star expand slightly against the force of gravity to compensate. Interesting things happen when stars fall out of equilibrium and runaway fusion ignition can happen in some scenarios.



In addition, this equilibrium point moves during the lifetime of a star as its mix of elements changes due to fusion. This is predictable for many stars and forms the basis of the main sequence stars in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram




I have heard that the probability for fusion event to happen is only 1 in 10^12 for every collision




I don't know the accuracy of that, but it seems reasonable. The definition of "collision" becomes somewhat arbitrary in such a hot dense environment. If you only include approaches close enough to make the strong nuclear force dominate the interaction, the ratio could be higher.



Another fact that I found interesting in the same area is that the power density from fusion - i.e. the Watts per cubic metre of substance - in the sun is roughly the same as that found in a typical compost heap. It is a very different environment to the inside of a fusion reactor experiment or a fusion bomb, which have much higher power densities.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Neil Slater is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$








  • 14




    $begingroup$
    Re your last point, I find it fascinating that the sun's mighty power output tells us less about the power of fusion, and more about just how big the sun is! And it shows that the idea that a reactor is "recreating the power of the sun" is sort of unenlightening... the sun is doing it the easy way :-)
    $endgroup$
    – SusanW
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    @SusanW You could also see the low power density as a demonstration of just how very very weak force gravity is. That small power output per volume is enough to stop the entire mass of sun from collapsing down to white dwarf matter. Stellar fusion is able to produce as much energy as is needed to stop the collapse (up to a point, ie. black hole density), demonstrated by how much faster the biggest stars can consume their hydrogen, and at the other end of the scale, how much longer the smallest can keep going, compared to our Sun.
    $endgroup$
    – hyde
    13 hours ago







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @SusanW The statistic is a bit disingenous, because what's producing all that power is just the core, which makes up less than 1% of the suns volume.
    $endgroup$
    – Cubic
    12 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Cubic: that is the power density of the core though, at least as far as I can tell. Total power ~ $4 times 10^26 W$, total volume of core ~ $2 times 10^25 m^3$. Power density ~ $20 Wm^-3$. Although I seem to of lost an order of magnitude somewhere compared to wikipedia . . . I am starting with their quoted total power of the sun though . . . :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Neil Slater
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @NeilSlater I might've misinterpreted the statement in that case
    $endgroup$
    – Cubic
    7 hours ago


















12












$begingroup$

No, the fusion rate of the Sun is not absolutely constant in time. The Sun is gradually becoming more luminous and that luminosity is provided for almost exclusively by fusion in the core. However, the rate of increase is not large, of order 10% per billion years.



The fusion process is extremely slow (and inefficient in terms of energy release per unit volume) - the Sun releases only 250 W/m$^3$ in it's core. The reason for this is that fusion events are extremely unlikely, requiring two protons to overcome the Coulomb barrier between them and for one of the protons to inverse beta-decay into a neutron so forming a deuterium nucleus.



The average lifetime of a proton against this process in the core is $10^10$ years (the lifetime of the Sun), meaning the fusion rate per proton is about $3 times 10^-18$ s$^-1$. We can compare this to a collision rate between protons by assuming an average thermal speed of $v simeq (3k_B T/m_p)^1/2 = 600$ km/s for a core temperature of $15times 10^6$ k, a proton number density of $n_p sim 6 times 10^31$ m$^-3$ in the core and a collisional cross-section of $sigma sim pi (hbar/mv)^2$, where the term in brackets is the reduced de Broglie wavelength. Putting these things together, the collision rate is $n_p sigma v sim 10^12$ s$^-1$.



Thus comparing the two rates, we can conclude that only about 1 in $3times 10^29$ collisions ends up with fusion.



If the fusion rate of the Sun did increase rapidly then what would happen is that the Sun would expand, the core would become less dense and the fusion rate would fall. This basically acts as a thermostat, keeping the Sun at exactly the right temperature to support its own weight and supply the luminosity emerging from its surface.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for the explanation
    $endgroup$
    – Kallie
    18 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    I would replace the "fusion process is extremely inefficient" with some other way of saying it, because "inefficient" implies energy is wasted, and it's not. I mean, to me the fusion process is actually extremely efficient, allowing sun to stay stable for billions of years.
    $endgroup$
    – hyde
    13 hours ago


















0












$begingroup$

What's more, the usual explanation for why the fusion doesn't run away is incomplete. The simple story that can't be the full story is that if the fusion happens too fast, heat builds up and creates an overpressure. That overpressure causes expansion, and expansion does work which lowers the temperature and dials back down the fusion until it matches the radiative escape rate.



The reason this is incomplete is that expansion work doesn't induce stability if it occurs only against a fixed external pressure, that amount of work is always insufficient to stabilize it (which leads to "shell flashes" later in the life of a star). The only thing that is capable of stabilizing the fusion is the additional work against gravity, as you can easily see from how gravity gets included in any such analysis. So it must be important that a local runaway has the net result of lifting gas away from the solar center, thereby doing gravitational work-- an important detail normally left out of the explanations. Indeed, it would be more fair to say that solar fusion is stabilized by a combination of expansion work and gravitational lifting.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "514"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );






    Kallie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30035%2fwhy-doesnt-the-fusion-process-of-the-sun-speed-up%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    20












    $begingroup$


    Am I correct in saying that the fusion process of the sun is constant, i.e. X amount of fusion happens per day, more or less?




    Yes, at least over human timescales. You could reasonably expect the fusion rate within the sun to be the same today as a few thousand years ago or into the future, give or take some small fraction.




    Why does this not speed up, i.e. one fusion event creates energy for two fusion events, etc.?




    The energy released by fusion is quickly distributed as thermal energy in the centre of the sun, and the temperature difference between surface (around 6000K) and centre (estimated 15 million K) drives an energy flow from hot to cold.




    Does every collision of atom cause a fusion event, or is the probability small for a fusion event to happen thus it's not a runaway reaction?




    Fusion in the sun is not a runaway nuclear reaction (like a critical mass of uranium in a fission reaction).



    It is possible in theory to have runaway fusion events, but the pressure and temperature for these to happen are not approached in the core of the sun. For stable stars like the sun, the forces and energy flows are in equilibrium - if the core grew slightly hotter, then the pressure would increase and the star expand slightly against the force of gravity to compensate. Interesting things happen when stars fall out of equilibrium and runaway fusion ignition can happen in some scenarios.



    In addition, this equilibrium point moves during the lifetime of a star as its mix of elements changes due to fusion. This is predictable for many stars and forms the basis of the main sequence stars in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram




    I have heard that the probability for fusion event to happen is only 1 in 10^12 for every collision




    I don't know the accuracy of that, but it seems reasonable. The definition of "collision" becomes somewhat arbitrary in such a hot dense environment. If you only include approaches close enough to make the strong nuclear force dominate the interaction, the ratio could be higher.



    Another fact that I found interesting in the same area is that the power density from fusion - i.e. the Watts per cubic metre of substance - in the sun is roughly the same as that found in a typical compost heap. It is a very different environment to the inside of a fusion reactor experiment or a fusion bomb, which have much higher power densities.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Neil Slater is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$








    • 14




      $begingroup$
      Re your last point, I find it fascinating that the sun's mighty power output tells us less about the power of fusion, and more about just how big the sun is! And it shows that the idea that a reactor is "recreating the power of the sun" is sort of unenlightening... the sun is doing it the easy way :-)
      $endgroup$
      – SusanW
      yesterday











    • $begingroup$
      @SusanW You could also see the low power density as a demonstration of just how very very weak force gravity is. That small power output per volume is enough to stop the entire mass of sun from collapsing down to white dwarf matter. Stellar fusion is able to produce as much energy as is needed to stop the collapse (up to a point, ie. black hole density), demonstrated by how much faster the biggest stars can consume their hydrogen, and at the other end of the scale, how much longer the smallest can keep going, compared to our Sun.
      $endgroup$
      – hyde
      13 hours ago







    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @SusanW The statistic is a bit disingenous, because what's producing all that power is just the core, which makes up less than 1% of the suns volume.
      $endgroup$
      – Cubic
      12 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Cubic: that is the power density of the core though, at least as far as I can tell. Total power ~ $4 times 10^26 W$, total volume of core ~ $2 times 10^25 m^3$. Power density ~ $20 Wm^-3$. Although I seem to of lost an order of magnitude somewhere compared to wikipedia . . . I am starting with their quoted total power of the sun though . . . :-)
      $endgroup$
      – Neil Slater
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @NeilSlater I might've misinterpreted the statement in that case
      $endgroup$
      – Cubic
      7 hours ago















    20












    $begingroup$


    Am I correct in saying that the fusion process of the sun is constant, i.e. X amount of fusion happens per day, more or less?




    Yes, at least over human timescales. You could reasonably expect the fusion rate within the sun to be the same today as a few thousand years ago or into the future, give or take some small fraction.




    Why does this not speed up, i.e. one fusion event creates energy for two fusion events, etc.?




    The energy released by fusion is quickly distributed as thermal energy in the centre of the sun, and the temperature difference between surface (around 6000K) and centre (estimated 15 million K) drives an energy flow from hot to cold.




    Does every collision of atom cause a fusion event, or is the probability small for a fusion event to happen thus it's not a runaway reaction?




    Fusion in the sun is not a runaway nuclear reaction (like a critical mass of uranium in a fission reaction).



    It is possible in theory to have runaway fusion events, but the pressure and temperature for these to happen are not approached in the core of the sun. For stable stars like the sun, the forces and energy flows are in equilibrium - if the core grew slightly hotter, then the pressure would increase and the star expand slightly against the force of gravity to compensate. Interesting things happen when stars fall out of equilibrium and runaway fusion ignition can happen in some scenarios.



    In addition, this equilibrium point moves during the lifetime of a star as its mix of elements changes due to fusion. This is predictable for many stars and forms the basis of the main sequence stars in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram




    I have heard that the probability for fusion event to happen is only 1 in 10^12 for every collision




    I don't know the accuracy of that, but it seems reasonable. The definition of "collision" becomes somewhat arbitrary in such a hot dense environment. If you only include approaches close enough to make the strong nuclear force dominate the interaction, the ratio could be higher.



    Another fact that I found interesting in the same area is that the power density from fusion - i.e. the Watts per cubic metre of substance - in the sun is roughly the same as that found in a typical compost heap. It is a very different environment to the inside of a fusion reactor experiment or a fusion bomb, which have much higher power densities.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Neil Slater is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$








    • 14




      $begingroup$
      Re your last point, I find it fascinating that the sun's mighty power output tells us less about the power of fusion, and more about just how big the sun is! And it shows that the idea that a reactor is "recreating the power of the sun" is sort of unenlightening... the sun is doing it the easy way :-)
      $endgroup$
      – SusanW
      yesterday











    • $begingroup$
      @SusanW You could also see the low power density as a demonstration of just how very very weak force gravity is. That small power output per volume is enough to stop the entire mass of sun from collapsing down to white dwarf matter. Stellar fusion is able to produce as much energy as is needed to stop the collapse (up to a point, ie. black hole density), demonstrated by how much faster the biggest stars can consume their hydrogen, and at the other end of the scale, how much longer the smallest can keep going, compared to our Sun.
      $endgroup$
      – hyde
      13 hours ago







    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @SusanW The statistic is a bit disingenous, because what's producing all that power is just the core, which makes up less than 1% of the suns volume.
      $endgroup$
      – Cubic
      12 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Cubic: that is the power density of the core though, at least as far as I can tell. Total power ~ $4 times 10^26 W$, total volume of core ~ $2 times 10^25 m^3$. Power density ~ $20 Wm^-3$. Although I seem to of lost an order of magnitude somewhere compared to wikipedia . . . I am starting with their quoted total power of the sun though . . . :-)
      $endgroup$
      – Neil Slater
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @NeilSlater I might've misinterpreted the statement in that case
      $endgroup$
      – Cubic
      7 hours ago













    20












    20








    20





    $begingroup$


    Am I correct in saying that the fusion process of the sun is constant, i.e. X amount of fusion happens per day, more or less?




    Yes, at least over human timescales. You could reasonably expect the fusion rate within the sun to be the same today as a few thousand years ago or into the future, give or take some small fraction.




    Why does this not speed up, i.e. one fusion event creates energy for two fusion events, etc.?




    The energy released by fusion is quickly distributed as thermal energy in the centre of the sun, and the temperature difference between surface (around 6000K) and centre (estimated 15 million K) drives an energy flow from hot to cold.




    Does every collision of atom cause a fusion event, or is the probability small for a fusion event to happen thus it's not a runaway reaction?




    Fusion in the sun is not a runaway nuclear reaction (like a critical mass of uranium in a fission reaction).



    It is possible in theory to have runaway fusion events, but the pressure and temperature for these to happen are not approached in the core of the sun. For stable stars like the sun, the forces and energy flows are in equilibrium - if the core grew slightly hotter, then the pressure would increase and the star expand slightly against the force of gravity to compensate. Interesting things happen when stars fall out of equilibrium and runaway fusion ignition can happen in some scenarios.



    In addition, this equilibrium point moves during the lifetime of a star as its mix of elements changes due to fusion. This is predictable for many stars and forms the basis of the main sequence stars in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram




    I have heard that the probability for fusion event to happen is only 1 in 10^12 for every collision




    I don't know the accuracy of that, but it seems reasonable. The definition of "collision" becomes somewhat arbitrary in such a hot dense environment. If you only include approaches close enough to make the strong nuclear force dominate the interaction, the ratio could be higher.



    Another fact that I found interesting in the same area is that the power density from fusion - i.e. the Watts per cubic metre of substance - in the sun is roughly the same as that found in a typical compost heap. It is a very different environment to the inside of a fusion reactor experiment or a fusion bomb, which have much higher power densities.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Neil Slater is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$




    Am I correct in saying that the fusion process of the sun is constant, i.e. X amount of fusion happens per day, more or less?




    Yes, at least over human timescales. You could reasonably expect the fusion rate within the sun to be the same today as a few thousand years ago or into the future, give or take some small fraction.




    Why does this not speed up, i.e. one fusion event creates energy for two fusion events, etc.?




    The energy released by fusion is quickly distributed as thermal energy in the centre of the sun, and the temperature difference between surface (around 6000K) and centre (estimated 15 million K) drives an energy flow from hot to cold.




    Does every collision of atom cause a fusion event, or is the probability small for a fusion event to happen thus it's not a runaway reaction?




    Fusion in the sun is not a runaway nuclear reaction (like a critical mass of uranium in a fission reaction).



    It is possible in theory to have runaway fusion events, but the pressure and temperature for these to happen are not approached in the core of the sun. For stable stars like the sun, the forces and energy flows are in equilibrium - if the core grew slightly hotter, then the pressure would increase and the star expand slightly against the force of gravity to compensate. Interesting things happen when stars fall out of equilibrium and runaway fusion ignition can happen in some scenarios.



    In addition, this equilibrium point moves during the lifetime of a star as its mix of elements changes due to fusion. This is predictable for many stars and forms the basis of the main sequence stars in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram




    I have heard that the probability for fusion event to happen is only 1 in 10^12 for every collision




    I don't know the accuracy of that, but it seems reasonable. The definition of "collision" becomes somewhat arbitrary in such a hot dense environment. If you only include approaches close enough to make the strong nuclear force dominate the interaction, the ratio could be higher.



    Another fact that I found interesting in the same area is that the power density from fusion - i.e. the Watts per cubic metre of substance - in the sun is roughly the same as that found in a typical compost heap. It is a very different environment to the inside of a fusion reactor experiment or a fusion bomb, which have much higher power densities.







    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    Neil Slater is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited yesterday





















    New contributor




    Neil Slater is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.









    answered yesterday









    Neil SlaterNeil Slater

    30115




    30115




    New contributor




    Neil Slater is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    New contributor





    Neil Slater is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    Neil Slater is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.







    • 14




      $begingroup$
      Re your last point, I find it fascinating that the sun's mighty power output tells us less about the power of fusion, and more about just how big the sun is! And it shows that the idea that a reactor is "recreating the power of the sun" is sort of unenlightening... the sun is doing it the easy way :-)
      $endgroup$
      – SusanW
      yesterday











    • $begingroup$
      @SusanW You could also see the low power density as a demonstration of just how very very weak force gravity is. That small power output per volume is enough to stop the entire mass of sun from collapsing down to white dwarf matter. Stellar fusion is able to produce as much energy as is needed to stop the collapse (up to a point, ie. black hole density), demonstrated by how much faster the biggest stars can consume their hydrogen, and at the other end of the scale, how much longer the smallest can keep going, compared to our Sun.
      $endgroup$
      – hyde
      13 hours ago







    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @SusanW The statistic is a bit disingenous, because what's producing all that power is just the core, which makes up less than 1% of the suns volume.
      $endgroup$
      – Cubic
      12 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Cubic: that is the power density of the core though, at least as far as I can tell. Total power ~ $4 times 10^26 W$, total volume of core ~ $2 times 10^25 m^3$. Power density ~ $20 Wm^-3$. Although I seem to of lost an order of magnitude somewhere compared to wikipedia . . . I am starting with their quoted total power of the sun though . . . :-)
      $endgroup$
      – Neil Slater
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @NeilSlater I might've misinterpreted the statement in that case
      $endgroup$
      – Cubic
      7 hours ago












    • 14




      $begingroup$
      Re your last point, I find it fascinating that the sun's mighty power output tells us less about the power of fusion, and more about just how big the sun is! And it shows that the idea that a reactor is "recreating the power of the sun" is sort of unenlightening... the sun is doing it the easy way :-)
      $endgroup$
      – SusanW
      yesterday











    • $begingroup$
      @SusanW You could also see the low power density as a demonstration of just how very very weak force gravity is. That small power output per volume is enough to stop the entire mass of sun from collapsing down to white dwarf matter. Stellar fusion is able to produce as much energy as is needed to stop the collapse (up to a point, ie. black hole density), demonstrated by how much faster the biggest stars can consume their hydrogen, and at the other end of the scale, how much longer the smallest can keep going, compared to our Sun.
      $endgroup$
      – hyde
      13 hours ago







    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @SusanW The statistic is a bit disingenous, because what's producing all that power is just the core, which makes up less than 1% of the suns volume.
      $endgroup$
      – Cubic
      12 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Cubic: that is the power density of the core though, at least as far as I can tell. Total power ~ $4 times 10^26 W$, total volume of core ~ $2 times 10^25 m^3$. Power density ~ $20 Wm^-3$. Although I seem to of lost an order of magnitude somewhere compared to wikipedia . . . I am starting with their quoted total power of the sun though . . . :-)
      $endgroup$
      – Neil Slater
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @NeilSlater I might've misinterpreted the statement in that case
      $endgroup$
      – Cubic
      7 hours ago







    14




    14




    $begingroup$
    Re your last point, I find it fascinating that the sun's mighty power output tells us less about the power of fusion, and more about just how big the sun is! And it shows that the idea that a reactor is "recreating the power of the sun" is sort of unenlightening... the sun is doing it the easy way :-)
    $endgroup$
    – SusanW
    yesterday





    $begingroup$
    Re your last point, I find it fascinating that the sun's mighty power output tells us less about the power of fusion, and more about just how big the sun is! And it shows that the idea that a reactor is "recreating the power of the sun" is sort of unenlightening... the sun is doing it the easy way :-)
    $endgroup$
    – SusanW
    yesterday













    $begingroup$
    @SusanW You could also see the low power density as a demonstration of just how very very weak force gravity is. That small power output per volume is enough to stop the entire mass of sun from collapsing down to white dwarf matter. Stellar fusion is able to produce as much energy as is needed to stop the collapse (up to a point, ie. black hole density), demonstrated by how much faster the biggest stars can consume their hydrogen, and at the other end of the scale, how much longer the smallest can keep going, compared to our Sun.
    $endgroup$
    – hyde
    13 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    @SusanW You could also see the low power density as a demonstration of just how very very weak force gravity is. That small power output per volume is enough to stop the entire mass of sun from collapsing down to white dwarf matter. Stellar fusion is able to produce as much energy as is needed to stop the collapse (up to a point, ie. black hole density), demonstrated by how much faster the biggest stars can consume their hydrogen, and at the other end of the scale, how much longer the smallest can keep going, compared to our Sun.
    $endgroup$
    – hyde
    13 hours ago





    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @SusanW The statistic is a bit disingenous, because what's producing all that power is just the core, which makes up less than 1% of the suns volume.
    $endgroup$
    – Cubic
    12 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @SusanW The statistic is a bit disingenous, because what's producing all that power is just the core, which makes up less than 1% of the suns volume.
    $endgroup$
    – Cubic
    12 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @Cubic: that is the power density of the core though, at least as far as I can tell. Total power ~ $4 times 10^26 W$, total volume of core ~ $2 times 10^25 m^3$. Power density ~ $20 Wm^-3$. Although I seem to of lost an order of magnitude somewhere compared to wikipedia . . . I am starting with their quoted total power of the sun though . . . :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Neil Slater
    7 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @Cubic: that is the power density of the core though, at least as far as I can tell. Total power ~ $4 times 10^26 W$, total volume of core ~ $2 times 10^25 m^3$. Power density ~ $20 Wm^-3$. Although I seem to of lost an order of magnitude somewhere compared to wikipedia . . . I am starting with their quoted total power of the sun though . . . :-)
    $endgroup$
    – Neil Slater
    7 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @NeilSlater I might've misinterpreted the statement in that case
    $endgroup$
    – Cubic
    7 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @NeilSlater I might've misinterpreted the statement in that case
    $endgroup$
    – Cubic
    7 hours ago











    12












    $begingroup$

    No, the fusion rate of the Sun is not absolutely constant in time. The Sun is gradually becoming more luminous and that luminosity is provided for almost exclusively by fusion in the core. However, the rate of increase is not large, of order 10% per billion years.



    The fusion process is extremely slow (and inefficient in terms of energy release per unit volume) - the Sun releases only 250 W/m$^3$ in it's core. The reason for this is that fusion events are extremely unlikely, requiring two protons to overcome the Coulomb barrier between them and for one of the protons to inverse beta-decay into a neutron so forming a deuterium nucleus.



    The average lifetime of a proton against this process in the core is $10^10$ years (the lifetime of the Sun), meaning the fusion rate per proton is about $3 times 10^-18$ s$^-1$. We can compare this to a collision rate between protons by assuming an average thermal speed of $v simeq (3k_B T/m_p)^1/2 = 600$ km/s for a core temperature of $15times 10^6$ k, a proton number density of $n_p sim 6 times 10^31$ m$^-3$ in the core and a collisional cross-section of $sigma sim pi (hbar/mv)^2$, where the term in brackets is the reduced de Broglie wavelength. Putting these things together, the collision rate is $n_p sigma v sim 10^12$ s$^-1$.



    Thus comparing the two rates, we can conclude that only about 1 in $3times 10^29$ collisions ends up with fusion.



    If the fusion rate of the Sun did increase rapidly then what would happen is that the Sun would expand, the core would become less dense and the fusion rate would fall. This basically acts as a thermostat, keeping the Sun at exactly the right temperature to support its own weight and supply the luminosity emerging from its surface.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Thank you for the explanation
      $endgroup$
      – Kallie
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      I would replace the "fusion process is extremely inefficient" with some other way of saying it, because "inefficient" implies energy is wasted, and it's not. I mean, to me the fusion process is actually extremely efficient, allowing sun to stay stable for billions of years.
      $endgroup$
      – hyde
      13 hours ago















    12












    $begingroup$

    No, the fusion rate of the Sun is not absolutely constant in time. The Sun is gradually becoming more luminous and that luminosity is provided for almost exclusively by fusion in the core. However, the rate of increase is not large, of order 10% per billion years.



    The fusion process is extremely slow (and inefficient in terms of energy release per unit volume) - the Sun releases only 250 W/m$^3$ in it's core. The reason for this is that fusion events are extremely unlikely, requiring two protons to overcome the Coulomb barrier between them and for one of the protons to inverse beta-decay into a neutron so forming a deuterium nucleus.



    The average lifetime of a proton against this process in the core is $10^10$ years (the lifetime of the Sun), meaning the fusion rate per proton is about $3 times 10^-18$ s$^-1$. We can compare this to a collision rate between protons by assuming an average thermal speed of $v simeq (3k_B T/m_p)^1/2 = 600$ km/s for a core temperature of $15times 10^6$ k, a proton number density of $n_p sim 6 times 10^31$ m$^-3$ in the core and a collisional cross-section of $sigma sim pi (hbar/mv)^2$, where the term in brackets is the reduced de Broglie wavelength. Putting these things together, the collision rate is $n_p sigma v sim 10^12$ s$^-1$.



    Thus comparing the two rates, we can conclude that only about 1 in $3times 10^29$ collisions ends up with fusion.



    If the fusion rate of the Sun did increase rapidly then what would happen is that the Sun would expand, the core would become less dense and the fusion rate would fall. This basically acts as a thermostat, keeping the Sun at exactly the right temperature to support its own weight and supply the luminosity emerging from its surface.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Thank you for the explanation
      $endgroup$
      – Kallie
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      I would replace the "fusion process is extremely inefficient" with some other way of saying it, because "inefficient" implies energy is wasted, and it's not. I mean, to me the fusion process is actually extremely efficient, allowing sun to stay stable for billions of years.
      $endgroup$
      – hyde
      13 hours ago













    12












    12








    12





    $begingroup$

    No, the fusion rate of the Sun is not absolutely constant in time. The Sun is gradually becoming more luminous and that luminosity is provided for almost exclusively by fusion in the core. However, the rate of increase is not large, of order 10% per billion years.



    The fusion process is extremely slow (and inefficient in terms of energy release per unit volume) - the Sun releases only 250 W/m$^3$ in it's core. The reason for this is that fusion events are extremely unlikely, requiring two protons to overcome the Coulomb barrier between them and for one of the protons to inverse beta-decay into a neutron so forming a deuterium nucleus.



    The average lifetime of a proton against this process in the core is $10^10$ years (the lifetime of the Sun), meaning the fusion rate per proton is about $3 times 10^-18$ s$^-1$. We can compare this to a collision rate between protons by assuming an average thermal speed of $v simeq (3k_B T/m_p)^1/2 = 600$ km/s for a core temperature of $15times 10^6$ k, a proton number density of $n_p sim 6 times 10^31$ m$^-3$ in the core and a collisional cross-section of $sigma sim pi (hbar/mv)^2$, where the term in brackets is the reduced de Broglie wavelength. Putting these things together, the collision rate is $n_p sigma v sim 10^12$ s$^-1$.



    Thus comparing the two rates, we can conclude that only about 1 in $3times 10^29$ collisions ends up with fusion.



    If the fusion rate of the Sun did increase rapidly then what would happen is that the Sun would expand, the core would become less dense and the fusion rate would fall. This basically acts as a thermostat, keeping the Sun at exactly the right temperature to support its own weight and supply the luminosity emerging from its surface.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    No, the fusion rate of the Sun is not absolutely constant in time. The Sun is gradually becoming more luminous and that luminosity is provided for almost exclusively by fusion in the core. However, the rate of increase is not large, of order 10% per billion years.



    The fusion process is extremely slow (and inefficient in terms of energy release per unit volume) - the Sun releases only 250 W/m$^3$ in it's core. The reason for this is that fusion events are extremely unlikely, requiring two protons to overcome the Coulomb barrier between them and for one of the protons to inverse beta-decay into a neutron so forming a deuterium nucleus.



    The average lifetime of a proton against this process in the core is $10^10$ years (the lifetime of the Sun), meaning the fusion rate per proton is about $3 times 10^-18$ s$^-1$. We can compare this to a collision rate between protons by assuming an average thermal speed of $v simeq (3k_B T/m_p)^1/2 = 600$ km/s for a core temperature of $15times 10^6$ k, a proton number density of $n_p sim 6 times 10^31$ m$^-3$ in the core and a collisional cross-section of $sigma sim pi (hbar/mv)^2$, where the term in brackets is the reduced de Broglie wavelength. Putting these things together, the collision rate is $n_p sigma v sim 10^12$ s$^-1$.



    Thus comparing the two rates, we can conclude that only about 1 in $3times 10^29$ collisions ends up with fusion.



    If the fusion rate of the Sun did increase rapidly then what would happen is that the Sun would expand, the core would become less dense and the fusion rate would fall. This basically acts as a thermostat, keeping the Sun at exactly the right temperature to support its own weight and supply the luminosity emerging from its surface.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 10 hours ago

























    answered yesterday









    Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries

    53.3k4110170




    53.3k4110170











    • $begingroup$
      Thank you for the explanation
      $endgroup$
      – Kallie
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      I would replace the "fusion process is extremely inefficient" with some other way of saying it, because "inefficient" implies energy is wasted, and it's not. I mean, to me the fusion process is actually extremely efficient, allowing sun to stay stable for billions of years.
      $endgroup$
      – hyde
      13 hours ago
















    • $begingroup$
      Thank you for the explanation
      $endgroup$
      – Kallie
      18 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      I would replace the "fusion process is extremely inefficient" with some other way of saying it, because "inefficient" implies energy is wasted, and it's not. I mean, to me the fusion process is actually extremely efficient, allowing sun to stay stable for billions of years.
      $endgroup$
      – hyde
      13 hours ago















    $begingroup$
    Thank you for the explanation
    $endgroup$
    – Kallie
    18 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Thank you for the explanation
    $endgroup$
    – Kallie
    18 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    I would replace the "fusion process is extremely inefficient" with some other way of saying it, because "inefficient" implies energy is wasted, and it's not. I mean, to me the fusion process is actually extremely efficient, allowing sun to stay stable for billions of years.
    $endgroup$
    – hyde
    13 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    I would replace the "fusion process is extremely inefficient" with some other way of saying it, because "inefficient" implies energy is wasted, and it's not. I mean, to me the fusion process is actually extremely efficient, allowing sun to stay stable for billions of years.
    $endgroup$
    – hyde
    13 hours ago











    0












    $begingroup$

    What's more, the usual explanation for why the fusion doesn't run away is incomplete. The simple story that can't be the full story is that if the fusion happens too fast, heat builds up and creates an overpressure. That overpressure causes expansion, and expansion does work which lowers the temperature and dials back down the fusion until it matches the radiative escape rate.



    The reason this is incomplete is that expansion work doesn't induce stability if it occurs only against a fixed external pressure, that amount of work is always insufficient to stabilize it (which leads to "shell flashes" later in the life of a star). The only thing that is capable of stabilizing the fusion is the additional work against gravity, as you can easily see from how gravity gets included in any such analysis. So it must be important that a local runaway has the net result of lifting gas away from the solar center, thereby doing gravitational work-- an important detail normally left out of the explanations. Indeed, it would be more fair to say that solar fusion is stabilized by a combination of expansion work and gravitational lifting.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$

















      0












      $begingroup$

      What's more, the usual explanation for why the fusion doesn't run away is incomplete. The simple story that can't be the full story is that if the fusion happens too fast, heat builds up and creates an overpressure. That overpressure causes expansion, and expansion does work which lowers the temperature and dials back down the fusion until it matches the radiative escape rate.



      The reason this is incomplete is that expansion work doesn't induce stability if it occurs only against a fixed external pressure, that amount of work is always insufficient to stabilize it (which leads to "shell flashes" later in the life of a star). The only thing that is capable of stabilizing the fusion is the additional work against gravity, as you can easily see from how gravity gets included in any such analysis. So it must be important that a local runaway has the net result of lifting gas away from the solar center, thereby doing gravitational work-- an important detail normally left out of the explanations. Indeed, it would be more fair to say that solar fusion is stabilized by a combination of expansion work and gravitational lifting.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        What's more, the usual explanation for why the fusion doesn't run away is incomplete. The simple story that can't be the full story is that if the fusion happens too fast, heat builds up and creates an overpressure. That overpressure causes expansion, and expansion does work which lowers the temperature and dials back down the fusion until it matches the radiative escape rate.



        The reason this is incomplete is that expansion work doesn't induce stability if it occurs only against a fixed external pressure, that amount of work is always insufficient to stabilize it (which leads to "shell flashes" later in the life of a star). The only thing that is capable of stabilizing the fusion is the additional work against gravity, as you can easily see from how gravity gets included in any such analysis. So it must be important that a local runaway has the net result of lifting gas away from the solar center, thereby doing gravitational work-- an important detail normally left out of the explanations. Indeed, it would be more fair to say that solar fusion is stabilized by a combination of expansion work and gravitational lifting.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        What's more, the usual explanation for why the fusion doesn't run away is incomplete. The simple story that can't be the full story is that if the fusion happens too fast, heat builds up and creates an overpressure. That overpressure causes expansion, and expansion does work which lowers the temperature and dials back down the fusion until it matches the radiative escape rate.



        The reason this is incomplete is that expansion work doesn't induce stability if it occurs only against a fixed external pressure, that amount of work is always insufficient to stabilize it (which leads to "shell flashes" later in the life of a star). The only thing that is capable of stabilizing the fusion is the additional work against gravity, as you can easily see from how gravity gets included in any such analysis. So it must be important that a local runaway has the net result of lifting gas away from the solar center, thereby doing gravitational work-- an important detail normally left out of the explanations. Indeed, it would be more fair to say that solar fusion is stabilized by a combination of expansion work and gravitational lifting.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 7 hours ago

























        answered 8 hours ago









        Ken GKen G

        3,639412




        3,639412




















            Kallie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Kallie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Kallie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











            Kallie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














            Thanks for contributing an answer to Astronomy Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30035%2fwhy-doesnt-the-fusion-process-of-the-sun-speed-up%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

            Bunad

            Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum