0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Bremstrahlung relates to the production of X radiation produced when materials are subjected to intense electron bombardment. Using quantum concepts, an electron has charge -e and gains kinetic energy eVAC when accelerated through a potential increase VAC. The most energetic photon (highest frequency and shortest wavelength) is produced when all the electron's kinetic energy goes to produce one photon; that is, eVAC = hƒmax = hc/λmin (bremsstrahlung) Note that the maximum frequency and minimum wavelength in the bremsstrahlung process do not depend on the target material. The atoms are left in excited levels; when they decay back to their ground levels, they may emit x-ray photons. Since each element has a unique set of atomic energy levels, each also has a characteristic x-ray spectrum. The energy levels associated with x rays are rather different in character from those associated with visible spectra. They involve vacancies in the inner electron configurations of complex atoms. The energy differences between these levels can be hundreds or thousands of electron volts, rather than a few electron volts as is typical for optical spectra.[End of quote]This is yet another of your irrelevant (off topic) digressions. There is no known mechanism that produces intense electron bombardment in the vicinity of the sun.You wrote:"this could be because all electrons have left the atomic nuclei because of extreme heat."The electrons won't have got far because of the electrostatic attraction so, from time to time, they will collide and this will radiate energy. Plasma physics is notoriously complicated.You show your extreme ignorance again here.My physics book says:*QuoteCoulomb found that the electric force is proportional to l/r^2 . That is, when the distance r doubles, the force decreases to 1/4 of its initial value; when the distance is halved, the force increases to four times its initial value.[End of quote]This indicates that when an electron has left an atom, it does not need to go far before the force to attract it back to tha atom becomes negligible. You wrote:Who cares?I care that a person like you is allowed to continually post irrelevant and destructive comments about the topic under discussion. I have to waste my time pointing out that the points youi have raised are based on your ignorance and your intention to introduce digressions.You wrote:The solar wind is a whole different ball game, partly the interesting question of the sun's corona.The original question was about sun spots. The fact is that, even after all this talk, they are still colder than the rest of the Sun's surface.Here you go again, bringing up another irrelevant topic. I have never mentioned the sun's corona in this forum.You claim that what is apparently true about the coolness of sunspots is definitely true. The whole point of all my postings here has been to speculate why and how, if this is the case, a lot of ionised particles are emitted from sunspots at greater than the sun's speed of escape?You ducked a major point I made. The solar wind is invisible and does not apparently radiate heat. It therefore appears not to produce any electromgnetic radiation we can detect. The same is apparently true for the ionised particles leaving from sunspots. Is it too big a stretch to think that there may be regions of the sun which have similar properties to the invisible ionised particles?*My physics reference book is:Sears and Zemansky's University Physics with Modern Physics by Hugh D.Young and Roger A. Freedman 2009ISBN-13: 978-0-321-50121-9
Coulomb found that the electric force is proportional to l/r^2 . That is, when the distance r doubles, the force decreases to 1/4 of its initial value; when the distance is halved, the force increases to four times its initial value.[End of quote]This indicates that when an electron has left an atom, it does not need to go far before the force to attract it back to tha atom becomes negligible. You wrote:Who cares?I care that a person like you is allowed to continually post irrelevant and destructive comments about the topic under discussion. I have to waste my time pointing out that the points youi have raised are based on your ignorance and your intention to introduce digressions.You wrote:The solar wind is a whole different ball game, partly the interesting question of the sun's corona.The original question was about sun spots. The fact is that, even after all this talk, they are still colder than the rest of the Sun's surface.Here you go again, bringing up another irrelevant topic. I have never mentioned the sun's corona in this forum.You claim that what is apparently true about the coolness of sunspots is definitely true. The whole point of all my postings here has been to speculate why and how, if this is the case, a lot of ionised particles are emitted from sunspots at greater than the sun's speed of escape?You ducked a major point I made. The solar wind is invisible and does not apparently radiate heat. It therefore appears not to produce any electromgnetic radiation we can detect. The same is apparently true for the ionised particles leaving from sunspots. Is it too big a stretch to think that there may be regions of the sun which have similar properties to the invisible ionised particles?*My physics reference book is:Sears and Zemansky's University Physics with Modern Physics by Hugh D.Young and Roger A. Freedman 2009ISBN-13: 978-0-321-50121-9