[Bored chemist]

I have already proved it.
The science claim for the solid inner iron core at the Earth dynamo:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-inner-core-may-have-an-inner-core/
"Earth's core consists of a solid iron-nickel ball rotating within a layer of liquid metal."

No.
You have not.
There is a difference between proving that a meal can include bread and proving that all meals must include bread.

[Bored chemist]

So far you and BC have totally failed to offer even a single article to support the imagination of none solid inner core in a dynamo.

Are you a liar or an idiot?
I did provide evidence.

Here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86392.msg708000#msg708000

[Bored chemist]

Hence, based on their understanding the inner core has a solid dipole tangent cylinder shape.

What do you believe the word "hence" means?

[Kryptid]

I have already proved it.
The science claim for the solid inner iron core at the Earth dynamo:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-inner-core-may-have-an-inner-core/
"Earth's core consists of a solid iron-nickel ball rotating within a layer of liquid metal."

The quote that you have provided states that there is a solid core within the layer of liquid metal. What your quote does not say is that the solid core is an essential part of the dynamo. Therefore, this quote does not meet my requirement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_inner_core
"Earth's inner core is the innermost geologic layer of planet Earth. It is primarily a solid ball with a radius of about 1,220 km (760 mi), which is about 20% of Earth's radius or 70% of the Moon's radius.[1][2]
The temperature at the inner core's surface is estimated to be approximately 5,700 K"
Do you need some more citations?
If so, please read the following:
https://www.universetoday.com/160317/the-earth-has-an-even-more-inner-core-and-its-a-ball-of-solid-metal/
"In a paper that appeared in Nature Communications, the team reports finding evidence for another distinct layer (a solid metal ball) in the center of Earth?s inner core"
Do you think that when this team reports finding evidence for a solid metal ball in the center of Earth?s inner core, they just lie to all of us?
It is not assumption or simulation. They claim for - Evidence.

There you go again misrepresenting what I asked for. I didn't ask you for a quote about the Earth's inner core being solid. We already knew that. What I asked for was a quote that the dynamo is solid. That is a very different question. Are you sure that you are fully reading my sentences and properly comprehending them? If not, then please try to remedy that in the future. This is yet another case of your failing to provide the needed quote.

Thanks for that great article.
It is stated:
https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
"It has long been speculated that this mechanism is a convective dynamo operating in the Earth's fluid outer core, which surrounds its solid inner core, both being mainly composed of iron. The solid inner core is roughly the size of the moon but at the temperature of the surface of the sun."
Hence, even in this article they discuss about solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core.
"Large zonal? exist on an imaginary "tangent cylinder" due to the effects of large rotation, small fluid viscosity, and the presence of the solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core.

Yes, it states that the inner core is solid. We already knew that. That isn't what we are debating here. What we are debating is whether a solid core is needed for there to be a dynamo.

Are you sure that we discuss about fair chance?

Yes. Three chances to cite a proper source is plenty fair.

Why all of those clear messages including the "evidence" which proves that the inner core must be solid aren't good enough for you?

Because that's not what I'm asking for. I'm not asking for evidence that the inner core is solid. Again, we already knew that. What I'm asking for is a quote from a reputable scientific source that a solid core is necessary in order for a dynamo to generate a magnetic field (which is relevant because the Sun doesn't have a solid core despite having a dynamo).

So that's strike two.

Now, let me try again to spell this out as thoroughly as I can so that you can hopefully understand what I'm actually asking you for. This is your last chance to get it right, so pay close attention. Make sure you read what I have to say with your full attention.

Provide us with a quote from a reputable scientific source that a solid core is absolutely necessary in order for a dynamo to generate a magnetic field. The quote you provide must have some word like "necessary", "essential", "requires", "must", or some other equal phrasing in it. If the quote doesn't contain such a thing, then please, don't bother posting it because it's not what I asked for. Now, here are some hypothetical examples of quotes that would satisfy me:

"In order for the dynamo to function, a solid core is required."
"A working dynamo must have a solid core."
"A solid core is a necessary component of the dynamo."
"A magnetic field cannot be generated without a solid core."

If you can grant me a source that says something like that, then I will accept it. Here are some examples of what I am not looking for:

"The dynamo contains a solid core."
"The Earth has a solid core."
"The core is made of solid iron."
"This dynamo has a solid core in it."

The problem with these quotes is that they do not affirm that the solid core is essential to the functioning of the dynamo. Merely having a solid core is not enough to say that the solid core is needed.

So, again, here are your two options:

(1) Supply the needed quote from a good source, or
(2) Admit that you are mistaken.

Do you care about keeping your thread open, Dave? If so, then you will comply. This is your last chance.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So far you and BC have totally failed to offer even a single article to support the imagination of none solid inner core in a dynamo.

Are you a liar or an idiot?
I did provide evidence.

Here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86392.msg708000#msg708000

Dear BC
You didn't not.
I refuse to call anyone as liar or idiot, but this video fully supports my claim.
Please look (for the first time?) at this video clip.
1. At 1:44 - Internal image of that demo. It has a 1 meter solid inner sphere and a 3 meter outer sphere that is full with liquid sodium. How could you miss that image?
2. At 1:15 - The Solid inner core is vital for the evolvement of magnetic fields while this magnetic fields evolve around the solid inner core. Hence, without a solid inner core, there is no magnetic fields!
This is a very important information. Please Keep it in your mind!
3. At 1:33 - The magnetic fields is created at the outer sphere around the solid inner core.
4. at 4:55 - This demo can't generate any magnetic field by itself due to the dynamo minimal dynamic thresholds. Therefore, an external electromagnet disc had been added to overcome this thresholds of the dynamo.
5. The outer sphere must spin 4 times per second. Hence, its surface orbital velocity is 130 Km/s.
6. It is also stated that in this demo they transfer the mechanical energy into electromagnetic energy.

Conclusion:
In this demo they are using a solid core. without a solid core there is no magnetic fields.
In order to gain the magnetic fields they have to add external EM disc and invest mechanical energy to spin the sphere.
In other words. the magnetic fields energy is there due to the spinning outer sphere energy.
Cut off the spinning mechanical energy and there is no magnetic fields energy.
Hence, if the Earth' Dynamo has to generate its magnetic fields by its natural spinning energy, it could lose most of its spinning energy after relatively short time.
The idea that the Earth spines for more than 4 Billion years and still spinning by its first natural spinning is just imagination!!!
Only the vertical tidal force can force the Earth to spin for so long time while it maintains its electromagnetic fields.

The quote that you have provided states that there is a solid core within the layer of liquid metal. What your quote does not say is that the solid core is an essential part of the dynamo. Therefore, this quote does not meet my requirement.

Yes, the Solid inner core is essential part of the dynamo!
Without it, there is no dynamo.
We clearly see it in the article which BC had offered and also in the one that you had offered.
It is stated:
https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
"Large zonal exist on an imaginary "tangent cylinder" due to the effects of large rotation, small fluid viscosity, and the presence of the solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core.
Hence, It is expected that in any Geodynamo there must be a solid inner core within spherical shell of outer fluid core.

Last I checked, the fluid outer core is where the geodynamo is located, not the solid inner core: https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html

Well, it was already explained in the following video clip (offered by BC) that the fluid outer core is where the Electromagnetic is generated.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86392.msg708000#msg708000
At 1:33 - The magnetic fields is created at the outer sphere.

Yes, it states that the inner core is solid. We already knew that. That isn't what we are debating here. What we are debating is whether a solid core is needed for there to be a dynamo.

Yes, it is a mandatory request!
In any real Geodynamo there must be a solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core, while the magnetic fields is created at the outer sphere.
So simple and clear.

Yes. Three chances to cite a proper source is plenty fair.

Sorry, till this moment, you all didn't cite even one single article to support the imagination of geodynamo that can work properly without solid inner core!

I'm not asking for evidence that the inner core is solid. Again, we already knew that. What I'm asking for is a quote from a reputable scientific source that a solid core is necessary in order for a dynamo to generate a magnetic field (which is relevant because the Sun doesn't have a solid core despite having a dynamo).

Sorry, you have a severe mistake with regards the Sun.
Take out the solid core from the Sun, and it would stop immediately to generate its magnetic fields.
Therefore, the sun MUST have solid inner core for its ability to generate magnetic fields!

Provide us with a quote from a reputable scientific source that a solid core is absolutely necessary in order for a dynamo to generate a magnetic field.

Please provide one real article (ONLY ONE) where it is explained how a geodynamo can generate magnetic fields without solid inner core.

Do you care about keeping your thread open, Dave?

Do you care about real science?
You all have totally failed to show that a geodynamo can work without solid inner core and you refuse to accept the clear explanation from all the articles which you have offered so far.
The fusion activity could increase the heat at the core to over than 10^7k.
At that temp, nothing could be solid. Even the vertical tidal force won't help the sun to regain its solid inner core.
Therefore, just in order to support the fusion imagination, you hope that somehow the Sun can generate magnetic fields without a solid inner core.
Would you kindly explain why it is so important to you to support the fusion imagination than to accept the clear explanation for how the geodynamo really works?

This is your last chance.

Dear Kryptid
I have high appreciation for the excellent support that I have got so far.
Unfortunately, it seems that I would continue to accept the explanation which had been given by all the articles (which fully support a solid inner core), while you wouldn't accept the explanation by those articles as it would kill the idea of fusion activity at the Sun.
There is no need to argue on something that is so clear in all the articles.
As the master of this forum, you have the freedom to ignore the articles and decide that Geodynamo should work without solid inner core and close the thread.
So, thanks again for all your efforts.

[Origin]

Conclusion:

The conclusion is that you cannot find a source that will backup your incorrect claim.

Take out the solid core from the Sun

The sun does not have a solid core.  The sun does have a magnetic field.

[Kryptid]

Yes, the Solid inner core is essential part of the dynamo!
Without it, there is no dynamo.

Then why haven't you been able to give me a source which states so?

It is stated:
https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
"Large zonal exist on an imaginary "tangent cylinder" due to the effects of large rotation, small fluid viscosity, and the presence of the solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core.

First of all, you misquoted. What it actually said is: "Large zonal flows (eastward near the inner core and westward near the mantle) exist on an imaginary "tangent cylinder" due to the effects of large rotation, small fluid viscosity, and the presence of the solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core." Secondly, it says that the zonal flows are caused in part by the presence of the solid inner core. It doesn't say that the magnetic fields are caused by the solid inner core.

Hence, It is expected that in any Geodynamo there must be a solid inner core within spherical shell of outer fluid core.

Except that's not what the source actually said.

Well, it was already explained in the following video clip (offered by BC) that the fluid outer core is where the Electromagnetic is generated.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86392.msg708000#msg708000
At 1:33 - The magnetic fields is created at the outer sphere.

Exactly. The outer core. Which is fluid. Not the solid, inner core.

Yes, it is a mandatory request!
In any real Geodynamo there must be a solid inner core within spherical shell of the outer fluid core, while the magnetic fields is created at the outer sphere.
So simple and clear.

Then why have you been unable to give me a source which states so? Your say-so isn't good enough.

Sorry, till this moment, you all didn't cite even one single article to support the imagination of geodynamo that can work properly without solid inner core!

This fallacious reasoning is known as "shifting the burden of proof": https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof

You cannot reasonably expect a reputable source to list what isn't necessary for a dynamo to work. If they did, then the list would have to include things like cake icing, mustaches and report cards.

Sorry, you have a severe mistake with regards the Sun.
Take out the solid core from the Sun, and it would stop immediately to generate its magnetic fields.
Therefore, the sun MUST have solid inner core for its ability to generate magnetic fields!

This is a claim, not a source supporting the claim. I asked for a source.

Please provide one real article (ONLY ONE) where it is explained how a geodynamo can generate magnetic fields without solid inner core.

Please see my previous reply about "shifting the burden of proof".

Do you care about real science?

Yes, which is why I'm asking you to supply references. If I didn't care, then I wouldn't want a reference.

You all have totally failed to show that a geodynamo can work without solid inner core and you refuse to accept the clear explanation from all the articles which you have offered so far.

Shifting the burden of proof again.

The fusion activity could increase the heat at the core to over than 10^7k.

Yes.

At that temp, nothing could be solid.

Correct. Well, nothing made of normal matter anyway.

Even the vertical tidal force won't help the sun to regain its solid inner core.
Therefore, just in order to support the fusion imagination, you hope that somehow the Sun can generate magnetic fields without a solid inner core.

I'm not just hoping it. The evidence supports it. Moving electric charges generate magnetic fields: https://www.nde-ed.org/Physics/Magnetism/fieldcreation.xhtml#:~:text=As%20Ampere%20suggested%2C%20a%20magnetic,current%20flowing%20through%20a%20wire.

A magnetic field is produced whenever an electrical charge is in motion.

Plasma is a fluid that contains freely moving electric charges: https://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/SciTechBook/series1/Goebel_03_Chap3_plasphys.pdf

Plasma is then a collection of the various charged particles that are free to move in response to fields they generate or fields that are applied to the collection and, on the average, is almost electrically neutral.

Plasma can make magnetic fields: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10993/chapter/4

Magnetic fields are generated by the convective motions of conducting materials: plasma in most of the universe and conducting liquids in the case of planetary objects.

The Sun is made of plasma: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-system/sun/overview/#:~:text=This%20is%20because%20the%20Sun's,different%20parts%20of%20the%20Sun.

This is because the Sun?s surface isn't solid like Earth's. Instead, the Sun is made of super-hot, electrically charged gas called plasma.

So there you have it.

Unfortunately, it seems that I would continue to accept the explanation which had been given by all the articles (which fully support a solid inner core), while you wouldn't accept the explanation by those articles as it would kill the idea of fusion activity at the Sun.

Not a single one of the articles you cited stated that a solid core is necessary for a magnetic dynamo to work. You need to ask yourself why you were unable to find a source that stated so. If you were correct, then finding such a source shouldn't have been difficult.

There is no need to argue on something that is so clear in all the articles.

Again, none of the articles you posted stated that a solid core was necessary. I even gave you the keywords to look for and you couldn't do that. Why is that? Here is another thing for you to consider: if it really was true that scientific experts on electromagnetism knew that a dynamo-driven magnetic field needed a solid core, then don't you think those same scientists would have corrected astrophysicists when they posited that such a mechanism was what made the Sun's magnetic field work with a gaseous core? If you were correct, then it would still be considered a mystery to this day how the Sun generates its magnetic field. Instead, the dynamo explanation is the widely-accepted one in modern science. So you should ask yourself: which is more likely, that all of these scientists are mistaken, or are you mistaken? Which is more likely?

As the master of this forum, you have the freedom to ignore the articles and decide that Geodynamo should work without solid inner core and close the thread.

I'm not "the master of this forum". I'm a moderator who is trying to clamp down on the nonsense that you have endlessly filled this place with for years and years. Keep in mind that I am going to do the exact same thing with all of your future threads, so be ready to cite your sources.

I gave you the opportunity to keep this thread open. I gave you crystal clear requirements for what a supporting reference would look like. If you were unable to find one (and indeed, you couldn't), I gave you another out by allowing you to admit that you were mistaken. You did neither of these things and instead doubled-down on your misunderstandings. I cannot understand why you would do this.

Still, I will give you a chance to reopen the thread. Send me a link to the required reputable source in a personal message any time in the future that you want to and I'll open the thread back up. But it had better meet the requirements I've set. Alternatively, admitting that you were mistaken to me will also prompt me to reopen the thread.