# Is the nose of the solar system and the solar apex the same thing?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Results from the IBEX satellite indicate the nose of the solar system is pointing to the constellation Scorpius. Various sources say the solar apex is pointing to the constellation Hercules.

Are the two different, or is simply the information about the location in conflict?

Is the nose of the solar system and the solar apex the same thing?

No, they're roughly 60 degrees apart.

# The Solar Apex.

The solar apex does indeed indicate a component of direction of travel within our corner of the galaxy:

The coordinates as obtained by visual observation of the apparent motion is right ascension 18h 28m 0s and declination of 30° North in galactic coordinates: 56.24° longitude, 22.54° latitude. The radioastronomical position is 18h 03m 50.2s and dec 30° 00' 16.8" galactic coordinates: 58.87° longitude, 17.72° latitude.

There are two different precise measurements here which conflict, I won't speculate as to why Wikipedia is unreferenced on the subject. The galaxy is a place containing a great deal of complex movement and the Local Standard of Rest is moving relative to the galactic plane, the centre of the galaxy and the other local stars:

In astronomy, the local standard of rest or LSR follows the mean motion of material in the Milky Way in the neighborhood of the Sun. The path of this material is not precisely circular. The Sun follows the solar circle (eccentricity e < 0.1 ) at a speed of about 255 km/s in a clockwise direction when viewed from the galactic north pole at a radius of ≈ 8.34 kpc about the center of the galaxy, and has only a slight motion, towards the solar apex, relative to the LSR.

We're traveling relative to an ever shifting cloud of stars towards Hercules (also shifting), southwest of the star Vega.

The sun's motion in the Milky Way is not confined to the galactic plane; it also shifts ("bobs") up and down with respect to the plane over millions of years.

So you see, there are many components of direction of travel to consider.

There's an unquotable abstract from a Harvard article here, which may give you an idea of how much needs to be taken into account in determining the relative vectors.

# The Nose.

The ""Nose" of the solar system is sometimes used to refer to the direction of travel of the local galactic wind. Just as a comet's tail points away from the sun, the tail of the Heliopause points away from the wind, the nose points in the direction it's coming from.

The nose is as you have stated is pointing towards Scorpius.

## Solar System's orbit around galaxy, a concise 3D description?

Hello, this is my first topic/question, thanks for reading thus far.

It is very easy to find explanations about the general path that the solar system takes when it orbits the center of our galaxy, when viewed in 2D from above, a circle around the center some distance away from that center, and how fast we're moving relative to other distinctive galactic features.

But I've also read that the path takes us up and down relative to the galactic equator, in kind of a sine wave patterh when viewed in 2D from the side.

I've also read that the "bobbing up and down" is the result of a spiraling path taken by our solar system. So the 2D path viewed from above like a bicycle tire around the hub, but then the 3D path is as if you replaced the bicycle tire with a slinky wrapped around the rim.

Is this depiction correct? If so, why a spiral? Are are we spiraling around something, some larger thing that is moving near the galactic equator that our sun and its system is orbiting?

I'm really curious about this, particularly if our angle on the up or downswing ever gets us high enough above the dust cloud at galactic equator to see the center.

## Solar system motions

This is consistent with an acceleration of the Earth. Which is in turn consistent with an acceleration of the Sun.
These accelerations would also be consistent with an increase of the AU, so the increase of the eccentricity of the Moon and the increase of the AU could have origin in the same phenomena: the Sun's acceleration.

It could be interesting to calculate the Sun's acceleration in the direction of Sun's actual motion towards the solar apex, taking as a basis the Moon's change of eccentricity.

Show me the numbers. I'm not convinced :-) :-)

One of the papers on planet X that you cited goes through the calculations that you need to make in order to figure out the effect of accelerations on orbits.

To make a case like that you have to present actual numbers, and demonstrate if there is X amount of acceleration of the sun you end up with X increase in eccentricity of the moon and Z increase in earth's orbit. You then also can try to figure out that it results in effect A, which no one has looked for. Also you have to figure out how to explain the millisecond pulsars.

Now it would take about six months to work through all of the numbers, but if you do it and it ends up that all of them fit, then that's worth a paper. My guess is that once you work through the numbers, you'll find that an acceleration that causes the moon's eccentricity to behave in one way will cause the AU to behave in another. If that starts to happen, then you have to figure out how to turn lemons into lemonade.

The problem is that without doing actual calculations then anything is possible. That's why numbers are important in this game.

There are some practical reasons for getting this all right. Figuring out whether or not an asteroid is going to hit the earth and where exactly it's going to hit requires extremely high precision orbital predictions. If you figure out that an asteroid is going to hit the earth, then the next thing to do is to figure out what direction to "nudge" it so that it gets out of the way.

I think there is enough information in the papers that you've cited to do that calculation, although doing it and getting it write is going to be *HARD*.

Also you need to read up more on the limits of acceleration of the solar system. If the *only* thing that puts limits on the solar system acceleration is miliisecond pulsars, then this would be easy to "break." On the other hand, I suspect that if you do a literature search you'll find a dozen other tests that create limits. Even if you don't find anything, you'll have to think of some on your own.

Here's more data on lunar ranging

Something to point out is that we are talking about a really, really tiny effect (a few mm per year), and looking at the models, there are so many things that could cause the anomaly. It would be interesting to look through everything and make a list of everything that could cause the issue.

Also there is an effect called the "pigeon poop effect." When Penzias and Wilson first discovered the CMB radiation, their first guess was that they were looking at an equipment malfunction so they went in and among other things cleaned the telescope of pigeon poop. The reason for this is that if you start by claiming that your results may be the result of pigeon poop and then over time it becomes obvious that you really did discover something big, you look like a genius. Conversely, if you start by claiming that you discovered something big, but then it turns out that you didn't, you look foolish.

Something that you have to realize is that observations are hard to do and so is theory. One reason that it's a good idea to go through and try to calculate the effect of accelerations on planetary motions is that you'll find that it's hard to do, and you'll be spending at least a week going through all your calculations to make sure that you didn't mis-add two numbers.

Also observations are also prone to silly errors and mistakes. We are talking about incredibly small differences (a few mm/year) and it's quite possible that it will turn out to be something silly, like some technician on the floor below readjusting their equipment so things move a few mm/year or the size of the building changing in response to the air conditioning system.

You're right, of course. The short answer is: I couldn't care less :-)
The long answer is, that I'm not going to do all the calculations, because I don't have the time. I'm just pondering and throwing ideas here, because it looks like a good place to do it(mainly thanks to you, I must say), and the exchange seems useful.
Maybe some other guy at a later time would read this, and could be interested in doing all the number crunching.

Well, let's move on. Here's a related thing I want to mention:
In our recent talk regarding planet X (a talk that was expurgated and where posts were deleted, so I must repeat it here) I mentioned "dark matter" as a possible cause of the Sun's movement, and you said that a black hole would also be noticed, due to gravitational lensing and other effects.
I want to stress that when I mentioned "dark matter", I was talking about an actually unknown or undiscovered aspect of the way gravity(or another force, btw) works, not about a dark companion/black hole. That is, I understand "dark matter" as a way to say that we don't know what gravity is, and even how gravity works at long scales.
Related to that, I want to mention also: If the Sun is rotating around the galaxy at 220 km/s, and the distance to the center of the Milky Way is

26000 light years, and assuming we're orbiting the galaxy in a circle(which sounds like a good approximation) the Sun must be subjected to a centripetal acceleration ac = v^2/r

## Reimagining our solar system's protective bubble, the heliosphere

Is this what the heliosphere looks like? New research suggests so. The size and shape of the magnetic “force field” that protects our solar system from deadly cosmic rays has long been debated by astrophysicists. Credit: Opher, et. al

You are living in a bubble. Not a metaphorical bubble—a real, literal bubble. But don't worry, it's not just you. The whole planet, and every other planet in the solar system, for that matter, is in the bubble too. And, we may just owe our very existence to it.

Space physicists call this bubble the heliosphere. It is a vast region, extending more than twice as far as Pluto, that casts a magnetic "force field" around all the planets, deflecting charged particles that would otherwise muscle into the solar system and even tear through your DNA, should you be unlucky enough to get in their way.

The heliosphere owes its existence to the interplay of charged particles flowing out of the sun (the so-called "solar wind") and particles from outside the solar system. Though we think of the space between the stars as being perfectly empty, it is actually occupied by a thin broth of dust and gas from other stars—living stars, dead stars, and stars not yet born. Averaged across the whole galaxy, every sugar-cube-sized volume of space holds just a single atom, and the area around our solar system is even less dense.

The solar wind is constantly pushing out against this interstellar stuff. But the farther you get from the sun, the weaker that push becomes. After tens of billions of miles, the interstellar stuff starts to push back. The heliosphere ends where the two pushes balance out. But where is this boundary, exactly, and what does it look like?

Merav Opher, professor of astronomy at Boston University's College of Arts & Sciences and the Center for Space Physics, has been examining those questions for almost 20 years. And lately, her answers have been causing a stir.

Because our whole solar system is in motion through interstellar space, the heliosphere, despite its name, is not actually a sphere. Space physicists have long compared its shape to a comet, with a round "nose" on one side and a long tail extending in the opposite direction. Search the web for images of the heliosphere, and this is the picture you're sure to find.

But in 2015, using a new computer model and data from the Voyager 1 spacecraft, Opher and her coauthor James Drake of the University of Maryland came to a different conclusion: they proposed that the heliosphere is actually shaped like a crescent—not unlike a freshly baked croissant, in fact. In this "croissant" model, two jets extend downstream from the nose rather than a single fade-away tail. "That started the conversation about the global structure of the heliosphere," says Opher.

Hers wasn't the first paper to suggest that the heliosphere was something other than comet-shaped, she points out, but it gave focus to a newly energized debate. "It was very contentious," she says. "I was getting bashed at every conference! But I stuck to my guns."

Then, two years after the "croissant" debate began, readings from the Cassini spacecraft, which orbited Saturn from 2004 until 2017, suggested yet another vision of the heliosphere. By timing particles echoing off the boundary of the heliosphere and correlating them with ions measured by the twin Voyager spacecraft, Cassini scientists concluded that the heliosphere is actually very nearly round and symmetrical: neither a comet nor a croissant, but more like a beach ball. Their result was just as controversial as the croissant. "You don't accept that kind of change easily," says Tom Krimigis, who led experiments on both Cassini and Voyager. "The whole scientific community that works in this area had assumed for over 55 years that the heliosphere had a comet tail."

Now, Opher, Drake, and colleagues Avi Loeb of Harvard University and Gabor Toth of the University of Michigan have devised a new three-dimensional model of the heliosphere that could reconcile the "croissant" with the beach ball. Their work was published in Nature Astronomy on March 16.

Unlike most previous models, which assumed that charged particles within the solar system all hover around the same average temperature, the new model breaks the particles down into two groups. First are charged particles coming directly from the solar wind. Second are what space physicists call "pickup" ions. These are particles that drifted into the solar system in an electrically neutral form—because they aren't deflected by magnetic fields, neutral particles can "just walk right in," says Opher—but then had their electrons knocked off.

The New Horizons spacecraft, which is now exploring space beyond Pluto, has revealed that these particles become hundreds or thousands of times hotter than ordinary solar wind ions as they are carried along by the solar wind and sped up by its electric field. But it was only by modeling the temperature, density and speed of the two groups of particles separately that the researchers discovered their outsized influence on the shape of the heliosphere.

That shape, according to the new model, actually splits the difference between a croissant and a sphere. Call it a deflated beach ball, or a bulbous croissant: either way, it seems to be something that both Opher's team and the Cassini researchers can agree on.

The new model looks very different from that classic comet model. But the two may actually be more similar than they appear, says Opher, depending on exactly how you define the edge of the heliosphere. Think of transforming a grayscale photo to black and white: The final image depends a lot on exactly which shade of gray you pick as the dividing line between black and white.

So why worry about the shape of the heliosphere, anyway? Researchers studying exoplanets—planets around other stars—are keenly interested in comparing our heliosphere with those around other stars. Could the solar wind and the heliosphere be key ingredients in the recipe for life? "If we want to understand our environment we'd better understand all the way through this heliosphere," says Loeb, Opher's collaborator from Harvard.

And then there's the matter of those DNA-shredding interstellar particles. Researchers are still working on what, exactly, they mean for life on Earth and on other planets. Some think that they actually could have helped drive the genetic mutations that led to life like us, says Loeb. "At the right amount, they introduce changes, mutations that allow an organism to evolve and become more complex," he says. But the dose makes the poison, as the saying goes. "There is always a delicate balance when dealing with life as we know it. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing," says Loeb.

When it comes to data, though, there's rarely too much of a good thing. And while the models seem to be converging, they are still limited by a dearth of data from the solar system's outer reaches. That is why researchers like Opher are hoping to stir NASA to launch a next-generation interstellar probe that will cut a path through the heliosphere and directly detect pickup ions near the heliosphere's periphery. So far, only the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecrafts have passed that boundary, and they launched more than 40 years ago, carrying instruments of an older era that were designed to do a different job. Mission advocates based at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory say that a new probe could launch some time in the 2030s and start exploring the edge of the heliosphere 10 or 15 years after that.

"With the Interstellar Probe we hope to solve at least some of the innumerous mysteries that Voyagers started uncovering," says Opher. And that, she thinks, is worth the wait.

## Is this what our solar system’s ‘force field’ looks like?

Is this what the heliosphere looks like? New research suggests so. Astrophysicists have long debated the size and shape of the magnetic “force field” that protects our solar system from deadly cosmic rays. (Credit: Opher, et. al)

A new model that’s shaped somewhere between a croissant and a beach ball could resolve a long debate about the protective bubble around our solar system, researchers report.

You are living in a bubble. Not a metaphorical bubble—a real, literal bubble. But don’t worry, it’s not just you. The whole planet, and every other planet in the solar system, for that matter, is in the bubble too. And, we may just owe our very existence to it.

Space physicists call this bubble the heliosphere. It is a vast region, extending more than twice as far as Pluto, that casts a magnetic “force field” around all the planets, deflecting charged particles that would otherwise muscle into the solar system and even tear through your DNA, should you be unlucky enough to get in their way.

The heliosphere owes its existence to the interplay of charged particles flowing out of the sun (the so-called “solar wind“) and particles from outside the solar system. Though we think of the space between the stars as being perfectly empty, it is actually occupied by a thin broth of dust and gas from other stars—living stars, dead stars, and stars not yet born.

Averaged across the whole galaxy, every sugar-cube-sized volume of space holds just a single atom, and the area around our solar system is even less dense.

The solar wind is constantly pushing out against this interstellar stuff. But the farther you get from the sun, the weaker that push becomes. After tens of billions of miles, the interstellar stuff starts to push back. The heliosphere ends where the two pushes balance out. But where is this boundary, exactly, and what does it look like?

Merav Opher, a professor of astronomy at Boston University, has been examining those questions for almost 20 years. And lately, her answers have been causing a stir.

### The heliosphere’s shape: Croissant or beach ball?

Because our whole solar system is in motion through interstellar space, the heliosphere, despite its name, is not actually a sphere. Space physicists have long compared its shape to a comet, with a round “nose” on one side and a long tail extending in the opposite direction. Search the web for images of the heliosphere, and this is the picture you’re sure to find.

But in 2015, using a new computer model and data from the Voyager 1 spacecraft, Opher and her coauthor James Drake of the University of Maryland came to a different conclusion: they proposed that the heliosphere is actually shaped like a crescent—not unlike a freshly baked croissant, in fact. In this “croissant” model, two jets extend downstream from the nose rather than a single fade-away tail.

“That started the conversation about the global structure of the heliosphere,” says Opher.

Hers wasn’t the first paper to suggest that the heliosphere was something other than comet-shaped, she points out, but it gave focus to a newly energized debate.

“It was very contentious,” she says. “I was getting bashed at every conference! But I stuck to my guns.”

Then, two years after the “croissant” debate began, readings from the Cassini spacecraft, which orbited Saturn from 2004 until 2017, suggested yet another vision of the heliosphere.

By timing particles echoing off the boundary of the heliosphere and correlating them with ions measured by the twin Voyager spacecraft, Cassini scientists concluded that the heliosphere is actually very nearly round and symmetrical: neither a comet nor a croissant, but more like a beach ball. Their result was just as controversial as the croissant.

“You don’t accept that kind of change easily,” says Tom Krimigis, who led experiments on both Cassini and Voyager. “The whole scientific community that works in this area had assumed for over 55 years that the heliosphere had a comet tail.”

Now, Opher, Drake, and colleagues Avi Loeb of Harvard University and Gabor Toth of the University of Michigan have devised a new three-dimensional model of the heliosphere that could reconcile the “croissant” with the beach ball.

### Two groups of particles

Unlike most previous models, which assumed that charged particles within the solar system all hover around the same average temperature, the new model breaks the particles down into two groups.

First are charged particles coming directly from the solar wind. Second are what space physicists call “pickup” ions. These are particles that drifted into the solar system in an electrically neutral form—because they aren’t deflected by magnetic fields, neutral particles can “just walk right in,” says Opher—but then had their electrons knocked off.

The New Horizons spacecraft, which is now exploring space beyond Pluto, has revealed that these particles become hundreds or thousands of times hotter than ordinary solar wind ions as they are carried along by the solar wind and sped up by its electric field. But it was only by modeling the temperature, density, and speed of the two groups of particles separately that the researchers discovered their outsized influence on the shape of the heliosphere.

That shape, according to the new model, actually splits the difference between a croissant and a sphere. Call it a deflated beach ball, or a bulbous croissant: either way, it seems to be something that both Opher’s team and the Cassini researchers can agree on.

The new model looks very different from that classic comet model. But the two may actually be more similar than they appear, says Opher, depending on exactly how you define the edge of the heliosphere. Think of transforming a grayscale photo to black and white: The final image depends a lot on exactly which shade of gray you pick as the dividing line between black and white.

### Why does it matter?

Why worry about the shape of the heliosphere, anyway?

Researchers studying exoplanets—planets around other stars—are keenly interested in comparing our heliosphere with those around other stars. Could the solar wind and the heliosphere be key ingredients in the recipe for life?

“If we want to understand our environment we’d better understand all the way through this heliosphere,” says Loeb, Opher’s collaborator from Harvard.

And then there’s the matter of those DNA-shredding interstellar particles. Researchers are still working on what, exactly, they mean for life on Earth and on other planets. Some think that they actually could have helped drive the genetic mutations that led to life like us, says Loeb.

“At the right amount, they introduce changes, mutations that allow an organism to evolve and become more complex,” he says. But the dose makes the poison, as the saying goes. “There is always a delicate balance when dealing with life as we know it. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing,” says Loeb.

When it comes to data, though, there’s rarely too much of a good thing. And while the models seem to be converging, they are still limited by a dearth of data from the solar system’s outer reaches. That is why researchers like Opher are hoping to stir NASA to launch a next-generation interstellar probe that will cut a path through the heliosphere and directly detect pickup ions near the heliosphere’s periphery.

So far, only the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecrafts have passed that boundary, and they launched more than 40 years ago, carrying instruments of an older era that were designed to do a different job. Mission advocates based at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory say that a new probe could launch some time in the 2030s and start exploring the edge of the heliosphere 10 or 15 years after that.

“With the Interstellar Probe we hope to solve at least some of the innumerous mysteries that Voyagers started uncovering,” says Opher. And that, she thinks, is worth the wait.

The researchers thank the staff at NASA Ames Research Center for the use of the Pleiades supercomputer. Support for this work also came from NASA and the Breakthrough Prize Foundation.

## Apex Astronomy

A blog bringing you top-notch Astronomy and Science related post!

• Pinterest
• Email
• Other Apps

### Where We Should Set up an Outpost in our Solar System Besides Mars.

Being a multi-planetary species is something that will inevitably happen. That date it will, however, is unknown. As a species, we have made tremendous strides towards it in the past 50 years, but it still seems like we are decades if not centuries away. So many entrepreneurs and companies have claimed they will colonize Mars and yet their plans all seem to fall back in the shadows. It use to make headlines when a millionaire/billionaire announced they planned to colonize Mars, but know it is just "another person seeking attention."
I believe we should set a more realistic goal when it comes to becoming a multi-planetary species and set-up outpost first. Now some companies do plan to do this so much appreciation to them, but a good amount of dreamers think they will just send some people and their colony will succeed. It would be much safer if equipment and buildings were already in place and if a handful of experts were able to test out the locations first. I believe we should have multiple outposts in different locations before we even start a large colony. It would make the process more secure if there were a handful of colonies in the same general area on Mars. But I believe we should colonize a handful of different locations in our Solar System, and I will go into some depth on my top six choices.
First, we, of course, have Mars. It is the obvious choice of where we will start our first colony, so we definitely need some outposts there. But we should take a look at some of the different locations, and what each of them has to offer. I think there are five major factors that we need to look at when evaluating these locations. Distance from the Earth, gravity, complexity of setting up the outpost, cost, and the opportunity the location has. There are of course thousands of factors, but these are the larger ones that do not take much time to calculate. I will rank each one 0-100, by multiples of 20, 0 being the worst and 100 being the best.

Above is a graph of the results, which I estimated and some of them are "scientific". The distance and gravity column are both scientifically accurate and do not have my opinion involved.

Venus would be the closest option for us, but the most complex and very expensive. NASA released a theoretical plan called HAVOC (High Altitude Venus Operational Concept) that showed how we could potentially live on Venus. I gave Venus the worst opportunity rating because there is not much you can do there compared to the other locations. The gravity, however, would be the best as explained by NASA. It would be almost identical to Earth's gravity when you're in Venus's higher atmosphere. Overall I think Venus is a bad choice, and my least favorite.
Titan would be the farthest option for us. Titan is one of Saturn's many moons and it is the second largest in the solar system. Titan has a lot of positives such as a dense atmosphere and evidence of liquid on the surface, but at such a far distance away it would be a very expensive endeavor. It does, however, have the potential to make a lot of money as it has river and lakes of liquid ethane and methane. I think Titan would be the best choice if it wasn't so far away.
Now on to Europa and Ganymede, both moons of Jupiter. Both have almost identical surface gravity and distance from the Earth. Ganymede has a higher rating than Europa though. This is because it is possible that there are active waterspouts and geysers that could affect the surface. Ganymede is also the largest moon in our solar system and would be considered a planet if it orbited the Sun. I think both Europa and Ganymede are spots we should explore in the near future. Maybe one day will even get to check out their brother Io and get a real life Interstellar movie scene, but instead of massive waves of water it'll be massive waves of lava, but that is for another blog post.
Now my favorite location I think we should put an outpost on is Ceres. Ceres is a dwarf planet in the asteroid belt, which is in between Mars and Jupiter. I will give you the bad news first, the gravity there is terrible. There is no way we could stay there for an extended period of time without artificial gravity or some other form of technology, but that is true for every location besides Venus, it is just Ceres has the worst. But once you look past that it is the perfect location. The location of it itself is amazing, as it could send help/resources to both Mars and any moons of Jupiter. Researchers have found that there is water on Ceres and apparently it is a large amount. On top of that, the asteroid belt itself is worth an unimaginable amount! One article claims it is worth around $700 quintillion that is 18 zeros! The first thing I thought about is being in the asteroid belt wouldn't it get bombarded with asteroids, but surprisingly not. I think Ceres is a location that both NASA and private aerospace companies should seriously consider, and it is my number one choice. If you enjoyed this post please consider subscribing to my mailing list! I post frequently and have a variety of science-related content! ## The 8 Best Portable Solar Generators and Kits Ranked & Reviewed What makes a particular solar generator the best? How do we quantify a solar generator to know how it will work during emergencies, RVing, camping, or during blackouts? There has to be a variable that is comparable across all the best solar generator systems so they can be properly compared against each other. ### 3 Factors to a Good Solar Generator There are three main factors when it comes to a solar generator: 1. Battery Capacity. 2. Inverter Size. 3. Solar Input. Factor 1 – Basically, the battery has to be large enough to run everything necessary at a minimum through one night. Preferably, it needs to be a large enough battery to get through 24 hours or more of no sunlight to account for cloudy, rainy, and snowy days. Usually, this is a minimum of 2,000wh for very basic emergency items . Factor 2 – The inverter needs to be large enough to run all the necessary equipment. Most common for emergencies that equipment is a fridge, freezer, small a/c, fan, phone chargers, laptop chargers, CPAP, HAM radio chargers, LED lights, sump pumps, microwave, toaster, coffee machine, washer machine, saws, tools, and so on. It does not have to be able to run all of those things at the same time, it just has to be able to run them when needed. Usually, this is about 1,500w, preferably 2,000w, all depending on what your needs are. Factor 3 – The solar charge controller has to be large enough to accomplish two tasks. It has to be able to let in enough solar power to fully recharge the battery in a single day, which is 5 hours of sunlight. Secondly, it has to let in enough solar to run the necessary equipment during the day, while still fully recharging the battery. This generally means the system needs to be rechargeable in at least 3 hours or less in order to still run vital equipment like a fridge and freezer during the day and still get a full charge on the battery. Usually, the charge controller needs to be at least 1/3 of the capability of the battery capacity. For example, a 2,000wh battery should have about a 700w solar input. In 3 hours of sun, it would be fully charged. I’ve also made up a fourth factor so that it’s easier to compare the price between all the units. Since this monetary measurement has never been created before, I invented it, I call it “ Unit Wattage .” Basically, I take the 3 factors on the size of the battery, inverter, and charge controller, and see how many watts or watt-hours the unit will divide into the price of the unit. Then I take the average of those 3 numbers and it makes the average “Unit Wattage.” You’ll see as you go through each unit. ### The Top 8 Best Portable Solar Generators These solar generators compared here are based on specs that have been compiled into this comparison chart . There are some factors that are hard to account for and so positions in the chart can change. #### #1 Best Solar Generator – Titan The Titan has been out for quite a while now, long enough to know if there are any real issues with it, and there are not any issues. The Titan, as a base unit, comes with 1 battery and 1 power module (inverter and charge controller). The battery is lithium-ion and has 2,000wh of capacity. The power module (top half) has a 3,000w pure sine wave inverter. The charge controller is 2,000w! Of the top 8 best portable solar generators reviewed here, this has the largest inverter and largest solar input. But on top of that, has expandable batteries. This means I can use more Titan batteries to expand the Titan itself vertically, the Titan batteries stack on each other which is awesome, or I can use other batteries externally, such as the Lion Energy UT 1300s . The Titan batteries are rated to 2,000 cycles. The solar charge controller is 35-145v and 30a at 1,000w. There are two of these solar charge controllers built into the power module which allows it to input up to 2,000w of solar. It has the largest battery expandability, largest inverter, and largest solar input. But then doesn’t all of that come with heavyweight? Yes. But the Titan batteries can separate from the power module and other batteries to make it no more than 35lbs each piece which makes it one of the easiest to transport, especially for the power it has. It is recommended to have at least 500w in solar panels on this unit because that can be charged in a day if you’re just running a fridge, fan, and a light. Really, it’s best to have at least 1,000w so that it can be charged in a few hours while still running lots of equipment. The Titan has a 2-hour charge speed with 1 battery and 1,000w of solar. Or if you have 1 battery, and 2,000w of solar, it can be charged in as little as 1 hour! The absolute fastest charge rate of any system, period. The Titan has been running my off-grid cabin non-stop for about a year at the time of writing this. We have expanded it to have 4,000w of solar panels and 6,000wh of battery capacity. Since the charge controller is limited to 2,000w (which is almost 3x more than the next best unit) we can only input up to 2,000w per hour. But, since we have 4,000w of solar panels, this means we have 8 to 10 peak hours a day rather than just 5 hours. Normally there are 5 solar peak hours a day depending on location and season . 5 hours x 2,000w in solar equals 10,000wh made in a day. But since we make 2,000w for more than 5 hours a day, we can actually make upwards of 16,000 to 20,000wh of power every sunny day. That is incredible! Since upgrading our system to more batteries and more panels, we have never run out of power once. Not even during the darkest time of winter. The only time we ran out of power before was when we only had 500w of solar and we were running lots of equipment. The Titan is customizable with however many batteries each person needs and up to 2,000w solar input. For some the Titan 500 Kit will work, others will want the Titan+ 2000 Kit because it includes an extra battery and more panels. The Titan allows you to find out what works for you. No other system really does that. The Titan is at a fair price of$2,995 which means its Unit Wattage price is $1.33/unit wattage. This is the lowest of all 8 best solar generators. That means the Titan is literally the best bang for the buck, and it will actually cost you less to get this system over time than any other of the 8 best solar generators. ### #2 Best Solar Generator – Bluetti AC200P The Bluetti AC200P is rather new but has had quite the following due to their successful launch on IndieGoGo . Originally, they started with the AC200 which had lithium nmc battery cells in it. Then they switched to the LiFePo4 batteries because they had more power, lasted longer, and were available. The Bluetti AC200P is not expandable with batteries or more solar panels, so what you see is what you get. It has a good-sized battery at 2,000wh which meets the minimum recommended amount. Because the Bluetti AC200P solar generator uses LiFePo4 batteries, it has an incredible lifecycle rating of 3,500 cycles! The pure sine wave inverter is also a very good size at 2,000w which means it’s capable of running all the things necessary during an emergency such as a fridge, freezer, coffee machine, microwave, toaster, small a/c unit, and so on. The solar charge controller is rated to 700w solar input at a rate of 35-150v and 12a. This means that this system, like the Titan, can be over-paneled, allowing up to 1,400w of solar panels to be connected. It will still only let in 700w max input, but this allows nearly twice as much power to be made in a single day. Having the extra panels means that it is easier to fully recharge the battery each day while still running essential equipment. The Bluetti AC200P will charge in just under 3 hours for its fastest charge time from 0% back to 100%. That means it meets the minimum recommend charge time and will still recharge in a single day while running essential pieces of equipment. The biggest downside to the Bluetti AC200P solar generator is the weight. It comes in at 61lbs. It cannot separate the batteries from the inverter which means it has to be carried all at once which makes it very heavy. It is recommended that a furniture dolly or some form of wheels be used to move it around for those who wish not or cannot carry 61lbs easily. The Bluetti AC200P is readily available on Amazon and is at a fair price of$1,998 which puts its Unit Wattage price at $1.63/unit wattage. 2 nd place unit also has the 2 nd place pricing. Complete Bluetti AC200P Kit: 2x 15 MC4 Solar Cable (only if you have more than 7 panels). 1x MC4 Branch Connector (only if you have more than 7 panels). ### #3 (Tied) Best Solar Generator – ElecHive 2200 Before you read too much about the ElecHive 2200 solar generator, you must know that as of the writing of this article, it still has not been released and so it is untested. The only prototype that has come out has been very buggy and had many issues. Zero Breeze said it was buggy and had many issues before they allowed the prototype to be tested so they are aware of the issues and said they will have them fixed when the production model solar generator is released. That being said, if it does everything it says it will do, it is definitely #3 on the list of the best solar generators. Anything below #3 I have a hard time recommending. And as of right now, I cannot recommend the ElecHive 2200 solar generator because it hasn’t been released yet. But I digress. The ElecHive 2200 solar generator has amazing specs, especially for how much it weighs. It has a 2,400wh Lithium battery. With a 2,200w pure sine wave inverter. And a solar charge controller built to let in 800w at 35-150v and 12a. This means it has nearly the same charge controller as the Bluetti AC200P solar generator but allows an extra 100w of solar in. But because of the charge parameter, it too can allow for over-paneling and allow up to 1,400w of solar panels to be connected to allow for great solar input throughout the day. This makes it easier to get a full charge while running essential equipment. But what sets the ElecHive 2200 apart is that for its capabilities it is only 42lbs. That is considered lightweight with these specs. And on top of that, it doesn’t use the standard 18650 lithium nmc battery cells that most solar generators have, which means it takes up less space and less weight on the battery. Very smart. You may be asking, why isn’t this in second place then? The ElecHive 2200 has a larger inverter, larger battery, and more solar input than the #2 Bluetti AC200P. The reason is the lifecycles. It is only rated to 1,000 cycles on the battery which is too bad. If it had at least 2,000 cycles for the Lithium NMC battery it would definitely be #2. But effectively, the Bluetti AC200P will last 3x longer than the ElecHive 2200 solar generator, and for that reason, it is #3. The ElecHive 2200 started on IndieGoGo at$1,099 for the unit. That is crazy cheap! But, it is still very untested and truly doesn’t exist yet, so it’s quite the gamble since the prototype unit didn’t do so well. It is said that the price will be about $2,500 for the ElecHive 2200 once it is being produced and shipped. This means the ElecHive 2200 at$2,500 will be pretty fairly priced right at $1.77/unit wattage. Starting to get up there a little bit in price. ### #3 (Tied) Best Solar Generator – Lion Energy Safari ME The Safari ME solar generator , like the Titan, has been out for a little over a year now. It is a long-lasting and powerful unit. It has a powerful LiFePo4 battery that is rated at 2,500 lifecycles. This is definitely going to be around for a while. But, the biggest issue with this solar generator is that only has a 922wh base battery built into it. That is quite small and will only run a fridge for about 12 hours and not much else. It’s hard to recommend this unit without also getting the Safari XL battery expansion or also know as the Safari ME + Expansion . The extra Safari XL battery is 2,048wh which is plenty big just like the Titan batteries. Only 1 Safari XL battery can be added to the Safari ME solar generator, but it brings the total battery capacity up to about 3,000wh. The Safari ME solar generator has a great pure sine wave inverter that is rated to 2,000w continuous output and 4,000w surge. It is fully capable of running all the essential emergency items or an RV/van. It doesn’t have the largest solar charge controller, but it will allow up to 600w of solar power to go in it. Because it has a 30-60v and 10a charge controller, it doesn’t have the ability to over-panel. If I’m using my typical Rigid 100 solar panels , which are each rated to 100w output, I can connect them in a 3ࡩ series/parallel combo configuration and get 600w of solar attached to it. But with that, I am maxing the solar charge controller parameters and can’t add any more panels beyond that. With 600w of solar input, it will recharge the base battery in just 1.6 hours which is incredibly fast. It’s only fast because the battery is so small but still, it’s fast. With the expanded Safari XL battery installed it will take about 5 hours to fully recharge the Lion Safari ME solar generator from 0% to 100%. It does have a nifty 12v/25a DC output port so if you need lots of DC power for a Van, RV or HAM radio setup, then that is a really good option. The base unit weighs 46lbs by itself and the additional battery weighs 44lbs, so in total it is 90lbs when put together. Luckily, it doesn’t all have to be carried at once. It is priced right at$2,350 for the base unit without the expansion battery. With that it gives the Safari ME solar generator a high priced $2.55/unit wattage rating. That is nearly double what the Titan is. Complete Lion Energy Safari ME Kit: ### #4 Best Solar Generator – Inergy Flex 1500 The Inergy Flex 1500 solar generator is a very unique and cool unit. It is essentially a mini-Titan . It has half the inverter size, half the battery capacity, and one quarter the solar input and is about half the price. The Flex solar generator battery is 1,069wh as well as each expandable battery. They are lithium nmc and are rated to 2,000 cycles just like the Titan batteries. However, the Flex solar generator batteries are only capable of running 1,500w continuously for 80% of their total capacity. The Inergy Flex has a pure sine wave inverter that is rated to 1,500w continuous output and 3,000w surge. One of the biggest issues I’ve had with Inergy systems like the Apex and Kodiak has been the battery to inverter capacity. Essentially, the battery is not capable of running 1,500w for very long. Inergy has said that with the Flex solar generator, it will not be limited like the Apex and Kodiak was in the past. The Apex, which was the model before the Flex, was only capable of running 1,500w for about 4 minutes before it would shut off. I hope that the Flex doesn’t have the same issue especially since they are claiming it can do more than the Apex and Kodiak. It has a solar charge controller that Inergy says will allow 600 watts of solar power to go into it. The charge parameters are 14-90v at 30a. This means you can supposedly use either a series or parallel solar panel configuration to get the 600w, but is that true? They claimed the same 600w limit on both the Apex and Kodiak too but it wasn’t possible. When we look at a typical 100w solar panel, it will make about 21v VOC (Open Circuit Voltage). Or in other words, the absolute max voltage it can make is 21v. It will often be closer to 18v in normal use, all depending on the sun and weather. If we take six 100w solar panels and connect them in series which increases the voltage but not the amps, that would give us 6 panels x 21v = 126v. That is WAY more than the 90v limit. So that’s definitely not going to work. If we look at it from the perspective of the amps, each 100w solar panel makes about 5.5 to 6 amps in full sun. Most of the time 6 amps is the max a 100w solar panel will make. If we connect the panels in parallel which increases the amps and not the volts, we get 6 panels x 6 amps = 36 amps. That too exceeds their charge parameter. The only way to make this work is to do a series/parallel combo for connecting the solar panels. This means we will have three 100w solar panels connected in series (panel to panel to panel) in one group and then another three 100w panels connected in series in another group. There will be two groups of three panels. Then each of those groups of panels will connect together through an MC4 Branch Connector (as long as the panels you are using have MC4 connectors, not EC8 connectors ). At which point you will have a 3ࡩ series/parallel panel configuration that makes about 63 volts and 12 amps. Since Inergy doesn’t use common MC4 connectors on their panels, I can only hope they make some sort of branch connector to make their panels work in that 3ࡩ configuration. They definitely are not going to get more than 500w in series or parallel on the Inergy Flexx 1500. After many years of being in business, you’d think they’d stop advertising 600w solar input when it is truly limited to 500w. The same goes for the inverter, don’t advertise a 1,500w inverter, if it can’t actually pull 1,500w constantly until the battery is empty. It is said that it will have an MSRP of$1,500. It comes in right at $1.63/unit wattage. That is pretty low, but not the lowest price per unit wattage. But that will go up greatly once more MPPTs and batteries are added on. ### #5 Best Solar Generator – MAXOAK Bluetti EB240 In many ways, the MAXOAK Bluetti EB240 is also better than the Inergy Flex. The Bluetti EB240 doesn’t have the expandability that the Inergy Flex has and for that reason, it doesn’t beat the Inergy Flex. But the Bluetti EB240 has a large battery at 2,400wh which is the largest so far, out of these top 8 systems, for a base sized battery. It is also different from the other units because it does not use Lithium NMC batteries which is the most common type of Lithium-Ion battery. The Bluetti EB240 uses Lithium Polymer batteries . Most commonly lithium polymer batteries are what are used inside of cell phones. Instead of being the 18650 small cylinder cells, they are flat. One of the advantages is that it takes up less space inside the unit and therefore it doesn’t have to be as big. One of the biggest differences with this battery is it is rated at 2,500 lifecycles. I am not sure how they got that number but according to their user manual, website, specs sheet, and so on, they claim that it has 2,500 cycles before it hits 80% efficiency which is great! 2,000 cycles is really the gold standard, so anything above that is phenomenal. If you do the math, 2,500 cycles ÷ 365 days/year it will last just about 7 years (6.85yrs) before it reaches that 80% efficiency level. That is if you do that math based on using one full cycle per day. The inverter is nothing to write home about. It is pure sine wave, which is great, but it is only rated to 1,000w of continuous output. This means you are absolutely not going to run anything big off of the Bluetti EB240. The EB240 is seriously only going to be good for very basic preps such as running a fridge, freezer, lights, fan, CPAP, etc.… It is not going to run any corded power tools but could recharge cordless tool batteries. The peak output of the inverter is only 1,200w which is really low. Typically, the standard is to have at least 2x the continuous output as the peak. In this case, it should be at least 2,000w. I have had a few different people write to me and tell me that they were using their Bluetti EB240 solar generators and they stopped working suddenly. What had happened is they were running a fridge, and a freezer at the same time and both of those units happened to kick their compressors on at the same time, causing a large surge, and overloading the system. The biggest issue with the surge is that it doesn’t notify you if anything happens as you can see in my video. There’s no loud beeping or noise to let you know that it needs to be reset. This is another time I recommend using outlet timers because then you can schedule the fridge to run for 30mins, and then the freezer to run for 30mins, alternating when they run. This will eliminate the worry about them surging at the same time and causing that overload. It has an MPPT charge controller that will let in up to 400w of solar. It can be over-paneled up to 600w of panels. The charge parameter is 16-65v and 12a. FYI, their earlier models were labeled 10a max input but can actually input 12a. The MAXOAK Bluetti EB240 beats the EcoFlow Delta 1300 because the Delta has the same solar input, but ½ the battery size. The Delta has a larger inverter but it’s almost pointless to have a large inverter with a battery that small. I explain this further down. The Bluetti EB240 is usually about$1,700 but you can use this coupon to get some savings. That brings it to a total price of $2.22/unit wattage which is a bit on the high side. Complete MAXOAK Bluetti EB240 Kit: 2x 15ft MC4 Solar Cable (only if you get more than 4 panels) 1x MC4 Branch Connector (only if you get more than 4 panels) ### #6 Best Solar Generator – EcoFlow Delta 1300 The EcoFlow Delta 1300 had a lot of hype when it was first introduced. With a large inverter and lightweight size, it was boasting to be one of the best units available. As we can see, since it is in 6 th place, it didn’t really accomplish that. It has a rather small battery at 1,260wh total capacity. It uses lithium nmc cells like many units on the market. They are the 18650 cylindrical cells. One of the amazing things it is capable of doing is it can run the 1,260wh battery at 1,800w output for the entire capacity of the battery. Most batteries will not push out more power than their total capacity. That means that a 1,260wh battery generally will not push out more than 1,260w of continuous power from the inverter. But the EcoFlow Delta 1300 can. The inverter has a continuous output rating of 1,800w which is way better than the EB240 and the Flex. But, with such a small battery behind the inverter, it’s kind of hard to justify having such a big inverter. It will peak up to 3,300w off of the inverter which isn’t quite 2x the continuous rating but it’s definitely better than the Bluetti EB240’s. The reason it is in sixth place is that it is not a big base battery. It is barely enough to run a single fridge for a whole night. This means, if it’s cloudy the next day, there’s no chance of it lasting more than a whole night which almost makes this unit useless. If it’s sunny every day then it will still be able to run the fridge all night, then continue to run it during the day, and get a full recharge. With its same sized MPPT charge controller as the Bluetti EB240, it will let in up to 400w of solar. The charge parameter is 14v-60v and 10a. I have been able to get it up to 12a without any issues, which means it’s fully capable of running a 3ࡩ series/parallel configuration and having 600w of solar panels attached. In fact, it’s impossible to attach up to 400w of solar to the EcoFlow Delta 1300 without using a series/parallel combo for the solar panels. I definitely recommend having at least 600w of solar panels on this unit so that it can be putting in the max 400w for as much time it can per day. If my fridge uses about 80wh and I’m making 400w, then I get a total input of 320wh into my battery each hour that the solar panels are making full power. With a 1,260wh battery, it will take about 4 hours to fully recharge each day while still running a fridge. (1,260wh ÷ 320w = 3.93hrs to charge). One very unique feature of the EcoFlow Delta 1300 is that it is able to chain together up to 6 other Delta 1300 units. Sadly, each unit will not allow you to add more solar panels, use 240v power, or increase the inverter output. But, you do get the added battery capacity. It’s a very bitter, and sort of sweet configuration. I can add more batteries which makes it expandable, but I have to pay for an entirely new unit to get that expandability. I think they could’ve very easily made an expansion battery option that would allow solar panels to be connected to the battery itself which would double the solar input and double the battery capacity. The biggest issue I have with the EcoFlow Delta 1300 is that when it’s used hard running lots of equipment, it tends to get very warm. When it gets that warm, it stops charging. When I did that test in my video , it wouldn’t charge again for a couple of hours. Those are very precious hours that would be lost recharging the unit, which could mean that it won’t get a full charge before sundown. All in all, it will only cost about$1,400 which is a fair price but will end up costing $1.88/unit wattage which is not on the high side, but not on the cheap side either. Complete EcoFlow Delta 1300 Kit: 2x 15ft MC4 Solar Cable (only if you get more than 4 panels) 1x MC4 Branch Connector (only if you get more than 4 panels) ### #7 Best Solar Generator – Goal Zero Yeti 6000X Goal Zero was really the first company to make solar generators a big deal. They launched their Yeti 1250 Lead Acid system many years ago and have developed a few new generations since then. Unfortunately, and surprisingly, they have not kept up with customers’ demands since they are still selling systems that are not as good as I would’ve expected. Since they’ve been around the longest, you’d think they’d have the best systems. The Goal Zero Yeti 6000X takes the last place in this top 8 best solar generator review because even though it has a very large battery, it is very limited in other ways. The Goal Zero Yeti 6000X has the largest base battery size of any of these systems. It has a 6,071wh battery capacity that is supplied from the Lithium NMC battery cells. This thing is a monster. I thought the Bluetti AC200P was heavy at 61lbs, but the Yeti 6000X weighs in at 104lbs! That is a lot of weight to be moving around. Of course, you can’t have a larger capacity without the weight, so that’s to be expected for such a large battery. But, it only has 500 cycles on the battery. That’s basically 1 year and 4 months of continuous daily use of one cycle per day before it reaches 80% efficiency. Not a very long time if you’re someone preparing for an EMP or long-term grid down situation. For camping, probably not a big deal. The inverter is a 2,000w pure sine wave inverter that has a surge output of 3,500w. The surge/peak output is not twice as big as the continuous output which is okay, but I still would’ve liked to have seen a 4,000w peak. Overall, the inverter size isn’t necessarily bad, 2,000w is a pretty decent inverter just like the Bluetti AC200P and the Lion Safari ME. The solar input on the Goal Zero Yeti 6000X is quite lacking. With only a max solar input of 600w, the Yeti 6000X will take over 10 hours to charge from the sun. The Goal Zero Yeti 6000X has a charge parameter of 14-50v and 50a. The 50amp input is quite impressive, none of the other systems will allow up to 50 amps. This means the system is capable of over-paneling, but it’s not as easy as the other systems. The average 100w solar panel will make about 21v. When panels are connected in series, the voltage is multiplied by however many panels are in that series. For example, two 100w panels in series have a total voltage of 42v (21v x 2 = 42v). When panels are connected in series the amperage stays the same. The average amperage per 100w solar panel is about 6 amps. That means in order to just get 600w of solar panels connected to the Yeti 6000X I have to make three sets of two panels (2 x 2 x 2) making a series/parallel combo. Doing that will give me 42v at 18a. Technically, I can have up to eight sets of panels where there are two panels in each set (2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2). Which means I can over-panel the Yeti 6000X up to 1,600w of panels and still be within the 14-50v and 50a charge parameter. The only issue with that is companies don’t make MC4 branch connectors larger than 6 to 1 . So really, it can over-panel up to 1,200w. This is good, but for every set of panels, I will need a 15ft to 20ft panel cable just to reach the branch connector. All in all, it’s a lot of work and extra accessories to get the Goal Zero Yeti 6000X to put in all of its power from the panels. Not my cup of tea. Even the Titan+ 2000 Kit has 20 panels to set up, and it’s easier to set up those 20 panels on the Titan than it is to set up the 12 panels on the Goal Zero Yeti 6000X. With how complicated this system is, the low cycles, long charge time, and weight, it’s really taking the very bottom of the Top 8 Solar Generator list. The Goal Zero Yeti 6000X is the most expensive of these units at$4,999.95. That gives it the highest price per unit wattage of the top 8 best solar generators at \$3.89/unit wattage. Yikes!

1x Branch Connector (up to 6 to 1 combiner)

### Conclusion

There is no doubt that the Titan solar generator is the best one available. It beats every system in every way. It has the best battery expandability, best solar input, best inverter, best portability for its size, and it is also the cheapest per unit wattage price. It seriously wins in every aspect.

If you look back to the video comparing all of these units or the picture, you will see that it is simply the best system to go with, bar none. The Bluetti AC200P is in second place, but truly, only good for basic emergency power needs. The same goes for the ElecHive 2200 and the Lion Safari ME.

The Titan sells out very quickly. The best thing to do is get one ordered as soon as possible so that you have the absolute best system around. Think about it, the Titan has been out for quite some time now, and the other top solar generator companies such as Goal Zero, MAXOAK, Lion Energy, Inergy, etc. still have not made a better unit even though they have released new units since the Titan launched.

The Titan is going to be around for a very, very long time. Get one now before the power goes out.

## Is it true that our solar system moves at speed of 70,000km/h?

I watched a video on youtube that was talking about how our solar system is constantly moving, and at a speed of 70,000km/p.

I'm not even convinced of it moving, let alone at a speed that high

Is this true? or is it just a theory that can't be proven?

Move relative to what? An important part of physics, classical or modern, is that there is no absolute rest frame. That is you can't say an object is moving at X kilometres per hour because it isn't obvious what we mean by that. On earth it sort of is, we mean it relative to the earth. And that is a good reference because friction and air drag are big obstacles when you want to keep moving, but if you were a bad ass action hero trying to jump off the wing of a plane onto a car speeding down the tarmac before the plane takes off, how would you want to measure the car's speed when trying to sync up. Would you judge it relative to the ground? Or the much more useful relative to the plane? In space, well in general, when we talk about speeds we talk about speeds relative to an object. These can get pretty extreme because as long as the speed between two objects is less than the speed of light, almost anything goes. Acceleration is hard, so changing your speed relative to an object is certainly non trivial, but there's very little restriction to what the speeds can be. Now you're surprised that the speed of the solar system (probably relative to the galactic core) is 70,000 km/h. That's actually wrong, it's more than 10 times that speed at over 800,000 km/h, 70,000 km/h is only about 2.5 times faster than the orbital speed of the international space station which orbit the earth at about 27,600 km/h. And no, this isn't just some theoretical idea, you can measure the ISS speed based on the height of the orbit and the period, or it can be figured out, both speeds, using celestial mechanics which is a very established and thoroughly tested theory.

## Planets Hog The Limelight, But Stars Remain Key To Understanding Cosmos, Say Astronomers

This very detailed enhanced-color image from ESO’s Very Large Telescope shows the dramatic effects . [+] of very young stars on the dust and gas from which they were born in the star-forming region NGC 6729.

Credit: ESO/Sergey Stepanenko

Stars and their formation remain key to understanding everything we know about solar systems like ours. But how stars form and ultimately spawn rocky planets on which life can flourish is still not understood with the kind of certainty that one would expect in this age of high-powered computer simulations and space-based telescopes.

Stars actually get their start in giant molecular clouds of gas and dust, like those found in the nearby Orion Nebula. Roiling forces deep inside these giant clouds cause matter to knot into clumps that eventually collapse under the weight of their own gravity. Not unlike empty buildings undergoing controlled demolitions, as these clumps collapse, their centers begin to heat and differentiate into hot cores and protostars.

Then over timescales of tens of millions of years, these protostars turn into full-blown hydrogen-burners, fusing hydrogen into helium. The remaining gas and dust around these protostars can in theory form planets, asteroids or even comets.

Yet many questions remain, including the following:

--- Why is the cosmos so predisposed to making low mass M dwarfs? That is, cool red dwarf stars which range in mass from as small as a tenth up to about half the mass of our Sun.

“This influences almost everything in astrophysics, not just the number of potentially habitable planets, but the distribution of heavy elements over space and time in the universe, the supernova rate, and the properties and evolution of galaxies,” Stella Offner, an astronomer at the University of Texas at Austin, told me.

These red dwarf stars make up an estimated 75 percent of stars in the cosmos. But why? One idea which I noted in a recent issue of Astronomy magazine is that the most common stellar mass is somehow correlated with the minimum mass at which nuclear fusion can begin. However, there is no theoretical agreement on this conundrum.

--- Why is the formation of stars so inefficient?

The giant clouds that form stars can contain tens of thousands of solar masses of gas, says Offner. But she says observations suggest that less than 5% of this gas actually forms stars .

That’s partly because these giant star-forming molecular clouds are transient, Sally Dodson-Robinson, an astronomer at the University of Delaware in Newark, told me. These clouds, she says, get dispersed by galactic tides, blown away by winds from the young, intermediate-mass stars they form, and most dramatically get broken up by supernovae.

And as Dodson-Robinson points out, when the universe had nothing except hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium, there was no easy way to cool down clumps of dense gas enough for gravity to take over and make them collapse. That’s because heavy metals act to absorb a cloud’s heat, enabling it to cool until it becomes gravitationally unstable.

This image from the APEX telescope, of part of the Taurus Molecular Cloud, shows a sinuous filament . [+] of cosmic dust more than ten light-years long.

Credit: ESO/APEX (MPIfR/ESO/OSO)/A. Hacar et al./Digitized Sky Survey 2. Acknowledgment: Davide De Martin.

--- How does a star’s metallicity content impact the production of habitable planets?

“Planet-forming disks with high concentrations of elements such as silicon, iron, and oxygen have more raw material for planet formation than disks with low metallicity,” said Dodson-Robinson.

But because the galaxy’s metal content built up as byproducts of supernovae over cosmic time, Dodson-Robinson says that planets that formed early in the galaxy's history may be silicate-rich and lack the metallic iron-nickel core that is a signature characteristic of our own Earth. She notes that it’s Earth’s liquid outer iron-nickel core that enables our protective geomagnetic field which deflects charged lethal solar wind particles and cosmic rays.

So the universe’s very oldest planets, says Dodson-Robinson, might not be as protected from harmful particles as we are.

--- Do we have a better understanding of planet formation than star formation?

Katelyn Allers, an astronomer at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pa., says no. We know much more about star formation than we do about planet formation, Allers told me. For one thing, astronomers can study stars as they are forming. For planets, she says, we only have a few examples that might indicate exoplanets in formation. So, she says, we don’t have as much empirical data on planet formation.

“Given the great differences between the planets and moons in our own solar system, it's difficult to develop a theoretical model that explains all types of planets,” said Dodson-Robinson.

That's not to say that stars are simpler than planets, she says, but the mass of a star is incredibly deterministic. In essence, Dodson-Robinson says that a star’s mass controls its luminosity and lifetime.

Yet Offner says we are still missing quite a bit when it comes to understanding star formation.

Even with the fastest supercomputers, Offner says we are not able to follow the scale of an average stellar birth cloud, of some 30 light years in diameter, down to the formation of an individual star. And because gas and dust obscure the earliest stages of star formation on scales of less than a 100 Earth-Sun distances, astronomers also miss such observational details, Offner says. This is a problem for both stellar theory and observations, she says.

Ultimately answering such questions may help us understand what sort of life might start where and around what type of star. We do know that life here on Earth was profoundly affected by our Sun’s peak radiation wavelengths.

“Light with wavelengths between 400 and 700 nanometers travels through earth’s atmosphere very well, so our eyes use that kind of light to see,” said Dodson-Robinson. In contrast, life on a planet orbiting an M dwarf star, she says, would have no need to develop vision in the optical or ultraviolet because red dwarfs don't put out much optical light.

By the same token, Dodson-Robinson says that although we haven't needed to evolve radiation-protective skins, that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Many astrobiologists think that habitable zones around orange dwarf stars are still best for the evolution of intelligent life. That’s because, among other things, they are a bit longer lived than our Sun.

“Given that intelligent life has taken pretty much half of our Sun’s lifetime to develop, having a longer lifetime is certainly a plus,” said Allers.

But as Offner points out, we’re here around a G-type star talking about all this. Thus, she argues, stars longer lived than ours aren’t a prerequisite for the evolution of intelligent life.

## Bulk Absorb Float Equalize: What Does It Mean

Time for another Sticky Thread about battery charging to discuss what Bulk, Absorb. Float, and Equalize mean and how It works. There will be a test at the end so pay attention. First we need to get some math out of the way. Don’t worry, it is 5 th grade math, and I wil be doing the math for you, but you need to understand the mechanics of it. Just a few simple formulas.

Power (watts) = Voltage x Current. Example 10 volts x 10 amps = 100 watts. Your take away here is if either voltage, current, or both go up, Power has to go up. Vice Versa if either voltage or current go down, Power must go down. See simple.

Voltage = Current x Resistance. Just like Power above if the variables of current or resistance go up or down, so does voltage. In this discussion Resistance will be a fixed value of .010 Ohm’s. That makes it real easy to understand because Voltage will follow whatever the Current does as as it varies. Simple again huh?

Amp Hours. Takes 16 years of higher education to learn and figure out and is an extremely complicated formula that will make your head spin Amp Hours = Amps x Hours. Example if you draw 10 amps from a battery for 10 hours, you used 10 Amps x 10 Hours = 100 Amp Hours. Told you it was hard.
Test Question. What is Watt Hours.

C-Rate is also really simple and is Expressed as C/x. Where C is the value of the battery in AMP Hour Capacity, and x is a number specified in hours. Anytime you see a battery capacity it has to be qualified at some Hour charge/discharge rate called C-Rate. Most consumer batteries are rated at the 20 hour C-Rate. So for example if you have a 100 AH battery means if you either charged or discharged the battery at 20 hours is 5 amps, or C/20. Use the 100 AH example. 100 AH / 20 H = 5 Amps. So if I tell you to charge a 100 AH battery at the C/10 rate all I am telling you is to charge it at 100 AH / 10 Hours = 10 Amps. Ok that was the hard one but is 5 th grade Algebra and just an extraction of the Amp Hour formula. All I am doing is factoring out either Amps or Hours from Amp Hours. I can say Amps = AH/H is the same thing as C-Rate. I can also say Hours = Amp Hours / Amps.

OK enough math. If you understand that then you can understand the rest. I am going to discuss how a AC powered battery charger works first. Modern Smart Charges use a 3 or 4-stage charging algorithm called Bulk, Absorb, Float, and the 4 th is Equalize. It boils down to just two algorithms. 1 is Constant Current (CC), and 2 is Constant Voltage (CV) Bulk is CC, and Absorb, Float, and EQ is CV. Nothing more, nothing less, it is that simple. Just fancy names to confuse Americans. Russians and Chi-Coms already know this stuff and learned it in grade school. In the USA it takes 16 years of school.

So we go to CHARGERS/BATTERIES-R-US store and we buy a 10 amp charger to charge our 12 volt 100 AH battery. The perfect C-Rate to charge a battery is C/10, and we have a 10 amp charger and 100 amp hour battery. Perfect match. Our charger is a Fancy 3+1 Stage Charger which means it has Bulk, Absorb, Float, and EQ we get to play with. Our new shiny battery has an Internal Resistance (Ri) of .01 Ohm’s we will call Ri. Our new battery has sat on he shelf for a year and has discharged to 12 volts Open Circuit Voltage (OCV) All OCV means is the battery is disconnected and is Open Circuit and the resting voltage is some value. Ours right now before we charge it is 12 volts. We want 12.6 volts on a rested battery with a OCV of 12.6 volts.

OK our charger can only charge at a maximum rate of 10 amps. It cannot supply any more than 10 amps. We look in our battery manual at it says to set Bulk/Absorb to 14.4 volts. We connect our 10 amp charge and see it is taking 10 amps of charge current which means we are in Bulk charge mode of 10 amps Constant Current. But we look at the battery voltage and it only reads 12.1 volts, but we have the voltage set to 14.4 volts. WTF is going on? Answer is simple we only have a maximum of 10 amps of charge current going into a battery with an OCV of 12 volts and .01 Ohms of resistance. Have you figured it out yet? I will give you a minute.Stop and think, and then see if you got it right.

Wait for it. Figure it out yet?

Go back to the math of Voltage = Current x Resistance. We have 10 amps charging into .01 Ohms. What is the voltage? 10 amps x .01 Ohms = .1 volts. Our battery OCV is 12 volts. Is the light turning on yet?

More math using what you already know. A charging Battery Voltage = Battery OCV + (Charge Current x Ri).

Put it all together and we have 12 volts + (10 Amps x .010 Ohms) = 12.1 volts you see on the battery terminal. The output voltage of the charger has rolled back to 12.1 volts because it is current limited to 10 amps. It cannot do any more than 10 amps. To take the battery from 12 to the 14.4 volts instantly would require the charge current to be 240 amps. If you hit a 100 AH battery with 240 amps it goes BOOM and you have a really bad hair day full of battery acid and fire.

So we go happily along at 10 amps CC. As the battery charges the OCV begins to rise to equal the charger voltage of the 14.4 volt set point we set the charger too. Once the battery OCV reaches 14.3 volt magic happens. We automatically go into Absorb mode. Nothing really happens, nothing switches or does anything. Simple Ohms Law is still at play. As soon as the battery OCV reaches 14.31 volts charge current starts to taper off. At 14.31 volts Charge Current = Charger Voltage – Battery OCV) / Ri. So 14.4 – 14.31) .01 Ohms = 9 amps. As the battery saturates and reaches 14.4 volts all current stops because the Charge Voltage and Battery OCV are EQUAL.

Remember Absorb is a CV mode of a fixed voltage, not a current. Contrary to what your solar charge controller says Absorb is not a Timed Event. It is a C-Rate Event. When Charge Current tapers to C/33 ends the Absorb phase or in our example 3 amps, the battery is fully charged, and now the charger actually does something. It switches to Float Mode and we sat that voltage to 13.6 volts. The charger lowers the voltage to 13.6 volts and no current flows. After an hour or two, the surface charge on the plates self-discharge, and then the Charger will have a little current flowing to overcome the battery Self Discharge rate. It will be very small current. Float is to keep the battery 100% charged and can be left on for eternity. Now if you turn something on of 10 amps or less, the charge will supply the power, not the battery. If you turn the charger off, turn on a load, then the battery supplies the current and you are discharging.

OK EQ or equalize. Is nothing more than a CV mode. Its voltage is just higher than all the other three modes. Say 16 volts. Take the same battery at 12 volts on the same charger, and it will charge CC at 10 amp limit of the charger until the battery voltage reaches 16 volts. But do you let it do that? NO. You will cook your battery. You manually stop it when your Hydrometer says to stop it when all the cells are equal Specific Gravity. It is not a TIMED EVENT although all chargers have a time limit in case you fall asleep with your hydrometer. It can take up to 24 hours.

OK now you know how chargers work. Let’s talk about Solar a minute. A commercial AC charger is a stiff source with unlimited energy and time. Your solar is a very soft source of unknown power and only a few hours to get the job done. It does not have time to go through all stages properly in most case. This is especially true in Winter months during short days. Bulk mode in a solar charge is not CC. It is Constant Power. What Power?. Who knows, depends on how strong the sun is. In our AC charger example it was up to 160 watts to supply 10 amps @ 16 volts. So when we set it to 14.4 volts and in Bulk it was a constant 144 watts @ 10 amps. So say you have a 160 watt panel and a 10 amp controller. In Bulk at a few brief seconds around noon it was 10 amps for a second. What is it 30 minute after noon?. Something less than 10 amps. If it is hazy maybe 5 amps. All your controller can do is transfer the maximum available power at the time. It cannot do any more than that. So that makes it Constant Power, not CC. This is what makes a 3 Stage Solar Charger useless in the practical sense. You have to change strategy to Maximum Smoke 1 stage charger. You set the voltage to Bulk = Absorb = Float. Throw away your battery Owners Manual and it voltage set points. They are useless. Instead you use your Battery Hydrometer to set the voltage. To learn how read this thread.

## Watch the video: Deshalb summen manche Bienen und andere nicht (June 2022).

1. Yrjo

into the furnace

2. Mugal

What words ... super, great phrase

3. Sumernor

I suggest you visit the site, with a huge number of articles on the topic that interests you.