In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:08:43 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Not sure what the answer to Stephen's observation is... except that >there is an apparent proximity effect of some kind to high voltage. > >... however it looks like Robin's initial observation wrt power density >available, was right-on ... as apparently, in reviewing the math, I had >multiplied the flux volume (in cm^3) by the speed-of-light denominated >column, instead of reverting to the surface area, so I was high by a >factor of 100. There are quite a few zeros to deal with in this kind of >ball-park conversion, but it looks like neutrino oscillation is not >going to give one much net energy unless it can trigger a nuclear decay. > >Jones [snip] There is one interesting point in all of this. 1300W/m^2 Solar insolation yields a neutrino flux of 2E10 cm^-2 sec^-1 , which is about six times more than Fred's figure, assuming that all the Solar energy output goes via the P-P reaction to He4. This raises the question: What happened to them, if Fred's figure of 3.5 Billion/cm^2 Sec^-1 is correct?
Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
