PDA

View Full Version : The Great Red Spot is a Low Pressure System



Warren Platts
2007-Oct-10, 03:53 PM
EDIT: If you're new to this thread, you can save yourself a lot of reading by skipping directly to post #78 (http://www.bautforum.com/1102796-post78.html), where the fully developed theory is presented.

The idea that Jupiter's Great Red Spot is a high pressure system is a mainstream idea, as evidenced by a quick google search of "Great Red Spot is a high pressure system" (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Great+Red+Spot+is+a+high+pressure+syst em%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1). Of the four results returned, there are three prominent mainstream sites: space.com, nasa.gov, and our own bautforum.com that perpetuate the claim. This urban astronomical myth has been perpetuated most recently here by Robert Tulip in the What will become of Jupiters spot? (http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/65083-what-will-become-jupiters-spot.html) thread.

Indeed, the myth that Jupiter is a high pressure system has been promoted by that great mythbuster, The Bad Astronomer himself on his very own blog!


One more note: they [the movie Contact] show the Red Spot rotating counterclockwise. I was suspicious; it's in the southern hemisphere, and hurricanes on the Earth's southern hemisphere rotate clockwise. However, the Red Spot is a high pressure system, while terrestrial hurricanes are low pressure systems. A high pressure system rotates in an opposite sense from a low pressure system. They got that right! Pretty neat.

As Phil notes, the primary evidence that the GRB is a high pressure system is that it is located in Jupiter's southern hemisphere, yet it is rotating counterclockwise--the direction opposite observed by all hurricanes (a.k.a. "cyclones" as they are known Down Under) in Earth's southern hemisphere. This interpretation of the evidence is spurious, however.

The primary evidence that the Great Red Spot is a low pressure system involves the ordinary behavior of such systems. In an atmospheric high pressure system, cold high pressure flows outwardly from the center of the system along the lower boundary layer. Ideally, such air will then rise and return to the center via a central downwelling zone. However, since cold air is denser than warm air, it tends not to rise. That's why high pressure zones on Earth aren't very windy--they just don't do very much. In low pressure zones, on the other hand, warm surface air is sucked to the central zone and then rises around the "eye" to the upper boundary layer where it cools and spreads. It strains crudulity think that Jupiter would be doing the opposite.

Therefore, the Great Red Spot is indeed an ordinary Earth-like storm. What we really observe on Jupiter is the upper layer of an ordinary low pressure storm. In an Earth-bound hurricane, the upper layer of the air mass consisting the hurricane does indeed move in an anticyclonic direction--we just don't observe that rotation in satellite photos because the upper layer is transparent, whereas the lower layer is loaded with clouds. As the warm, moisture-laden air rises, it releases its moisture in the form of rain, becoming transparent.

Thus, my model predicts that the air comprising the GRB is opaque. Presumably, its lower layer that we can't see rotates in the ordinary cyclonic fashion.

This is going to be fun. . . . :D

As a side note, I reached my conclusion by applying the teleological methodology of reverse engineering that I promoted in my previous ATM thread. The Great Red Spot is the most well designed, perfect storm in the solar system. Yet high pressure designs are the worst possible designs for storms. It was therefore inconceivable to me that the high pressure system model could be correct. This allowed me to quickly zero in on the true explanation. :cool:
____________________
Note: Thread can be skimmed by reading posts with bold titles or by following the chain of links (http://www.bautforum.com/1087001-post26.html)at the bottom of those pages.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-10, 04:01 PM
BTW, I am cutting and pasting the Wikipedia article on the GRB here in order to time stamp its present state for the archives so that no one can say it was in the Wikipedia all along.


Copy and pasted material removed Please just post a link.

Link to Wikipedia Article on Great Red Spot as of October 14, 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Red_Spot&oldid=164201047)

ExpErdMann
2007-Oct-10, 04:17 PM
I wonder if this could get more response in the Astronomy section. It doesn't seem so ATM to me.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-10, 04:22 PM
No doubt it seems that way to you, sir. But what are nasa.gov, space.com, bautforum.com, and badastronomy.com but mainstream astronomy sites? The mainstream is what the mainstream press says it is. Remember, mere truth has little to do with an idea is mainstream or not. Geocentrism was once mainstream, and Galileo was the ultimate ATMer of his time.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-10, 04:29 PM
BTW, ExpErdMann before you go googleing your butt off in search of the truth (I suspect you'll find the truth--it's too obvious--but it won't be easy through google at least, because the myth is so popular it's clogged the search engine with false data ;)), I'd be curious to know what your opinion on this matter was this morning.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-10, 04:37 PM
The other evidence that TGRS is high-pressure is that it is red, due to the organic molecules continually being upthrust throught the lighter-colored upper cloud layers from the more chemically active lower cloud layers, suggesting a "hot spot" with upward currents.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-10, 04:51 PM
The other evidence that TGRS is high-pressure is that it is red, due to the organic molecules continually being upthrust throught the lighter-colored upper cloud layers from the more chemically active lower cloud layers, suggesting a "hot spot" with upward currents.
True, but Earth-based hurricanes have their own "hot spots": the equitorial zones of the great oceans!

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-10, 05:22 PM
I wonder if this could get more response in the Astronomy section. It doesn't seem so ATM to me.

BTW mods, if you want to move it, fine with me. But I request that it be added to my other ATM thread, on teleological science, and that it be reopended for a week or so. I was asked in that thread to come up with another astronomical example where the teleological method worked. I had mentioned the GRB in my final post in that thread, as the type of system I had in mind where the teleological method might be applicable. It was because of this teleological method, that I was able to immediately see through Robert Tulip's claim that the GRB is a high pressure system this morning. Before then I had never paid attention to whether the observed rotation was cyclonic or anticyclonic, and couldn't tell you what direction it was. Yet the myth that the Red Spot is a high pressure system has been perpetuated at least four times in this forum alone. There are thousands of registered members on this forum, but because of their view that the GRB is a passive, mechanistic system that blindly follows that laws of physics, the idea that a high pressure system is a poor design wouldn't even occur to them; to them, that the GRB might be different from Earth-bound hurricanes was just one of those weirdnesses you find out there in space all the time. (indeed, it even prompted Robert Tulip to speculate about the relation between the GRB, and the high pressure "storms" we do find here on Earth! :D). I, on the other hand, view the GRB as functionally organized because of the history of natural selection it has undergone. Therefore, I was able to independently come to the truth in less than an hour without having to look it up, (though I did indeed try to look it up in order to show up Mr. Tulip--I couldn't find it and still can't). This demonstrates the at least occassional potency of the teleological method. Therefore, I would like to give other forum members the chance to challenge me on this point and show that my experience this morning does not in fact support the use of methodological teleology in the physical sciences.

Besides, the thread on tired light at the time sucked all the oxygen out of the ATM section at the time, and so my thread was really only active for a couple of weeks.

Also, I'd like a chance to respond to Robert Tulip's final comment that he sniped into my thread a few minutes before it was closed.

Michael Noonan
2007-Oct-10, 05:55 PM
Given the size and variable nature of the great red spot is it right to assume that the source of the energy is just from the flow of the atmosphere?

I will not add my idea because that is (well not even under consideration) but has the driving source of the GRS ever been thought to be from within the planet in much the same way the magnetic field lines are that drive the sun?

It is noted that Jupiter gives off more heat than it receives and that there is an exceptionally high current detected indicating possibly that the source is internal and not a creation of wind.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-10, 06:05 PM
Given the size and variable nature of the great red spot is it right to assume that the source of the energy is just from the flow of the atmosphere?

I will not add my idea because that is (well not even under consideration) but has the driving source of the GRS ever been thought to be from within the planet in much the same way the magnetic field lines are that drive the sun?

It is noted that Jupiter gives off more heat than it receives and that there is an exceptionally high current detected indicating possibly that the source is internal and not a creation of wind.
IIRC, the source of energy couldn't just be from the flow itself--that would be a perpetual motion machine. However, the sun's energy isn't powerful enough to drive the GRS, especially seeing how Jupiter is so far from the Sun. Ergo, the energy source must be internal. On my view, what makes the GRS special is that it is able to tap extra deep sources of energy not available to most other storms; just because it is so powerful, it has managed to set up its own postivie feedback system.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-10, 06:38 PM
True, but Earth-based hurricanes have their own "hot spots": the equitorial zones of the great oceans!

I meant hot spot in the thermal updraft sense, not the "happen there a lot" sense. Sorry.:doh:

korjik
2007-Oct-10, 06:54 PM
The direction of circulation of an atmosphereic disturbance is determined by the radial direction of flow (in or out) and the coriolis effect.

Inward flow is defined as low pressure. Outward flow is high pressure. With these two terms defined you get only two possibles per hemisphere for rotation. In a southern hemisphere for a normal rotation object, the high pressure rotation is counterclockwise. It cant be the other way around with simple pressure driven flows.

If you want to see this for yourself, look up the derivation of the coriolis effect.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-10, 09:16 PM
There are rare counterexamples on Earth of anticyclonic tornados. Check out YouTube for some cool videos. However, the GRB is a conventional storm of the low pressure variety; it's hard to think of what a real high pressure storm would be like. The mainstream claim is that the GRB is different from Earth bound hurricanes: the former is supposed to be driven by high pressure, whereas the latter is driven by low pressure. To escape this result by definitional fiat, well, we might as well call Earth-bound hurricanes high pressure storms. Still haven't found that paper that agrees with my model yet though. . . .

korjik
2007-Oct-10, 09:55 PM
There are rare counterexamples on Earth of anticyclonic tornados. Check out YouTube for some cool videos. However, the GRB is a conventional storm of the low pressure variety; it's hard to think of what a real high pressure storm would be like. The mainstream claim is that the GRB is different from Earth bound hurricanes: the former is supposed to be driven by high pressure, whereas the latter is driven by low pressure. To escape this result by definitional fiat, well, we might as well call Earth-bound hurricanes high pressure storms. Still haven't found that paper that agrees with my model yet though. . . .

tornadoes are not big enough to really feel the coriolis effect so anticyclonic tornadoes are not truly suprising. They also have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

There is no 'definitional fiat' either. If you have an object moving with a velocity in a rotating system, its motions are defined by Newtons Laws. The velocity changes in very specific ways. When you add how pressure changes effect any free moving fluid, you get a very specific set of motions.

For a normally rotating object, that is an object rotating in the same direction as Earth, with a pressure disturbance in its southern hemisphere, you have one of two cases. If it is a high pressure system, the air tries to flow outward from the center but is deflected via the coriolis effect into a counter-clockwise rotation. If it is a low pressure system, the air tries to flow inward and is deflected into a clockwise direction.

So, if you know the direction of rotation, you know the sign of the pressure differental. When you check terrestrial sources, you see that known pressure differentials follow this law. You will see that typhoons (is that correct terminology anyone?) in the south pacific, which are known, measured low pressure systems rotate clockwise and high pressure systems rotate counter-clockwise.

When you look at the Great Red Spot, you see that it is rotating like a terrestrial high pressure system. Since we only used Newtons laws to derive the motion of the winds, either the GRS is a high pressure system, or Newtons laws dont work on Jupiter. There isnt any way around this.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-10, 10:20 PM
tornadoes are not big enough to really feel the coriolis effect so anticyclonic tornadoes are not truly suprising. They also have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

There is no 'definitional fiat' either. If you have an object moving with a velocity in a rotating system, its motions are defined by Newtons Laws. The velocity changes in very specific ways. When you add how pressure changes effect any free moving fluid, you get a very specific set of motions.

For a normally rotating object, that is an object rotating in the same direction as Earth, with a pressure disturbance in its southern hemisphere, you have one of two cases. If it is a high pressure system, the air tries to flow outward from the center but is deflected via the coriolis effect into a counter-clockwise rotation. If it is a low pressure system, the air tries to flow inward and is deflected into a clockwise direction.

So, if you know the direction of rotation, you know the sign of the pressure differental. When you check terrestrial sources, you see that known pressure differentials follow this law. You will see that typhoons (is that correct terminology anyone?) in the south pacific, which are known, measured low pressure systems rotate clockwise and high pressure systems rotate counter-clockwise.

When you look at the Great Red Spot, you see that it is rotating like a terrestrial high pressure system. Since we only used Newtons laws to derive the motion of the winds, either the GRS is a high pressure system, or Newtons laws dont work on Jupiter. There isnt any way around this.
Sir, surely you are not suggesting that Hurricane Katrina, for example, was not one system, but two? Well, I guess I myself consist of at least a couple of dozen separate systems--maybe I should add a few sock puppets to this site! :D

korjik
2007-Oct-10, 10:30 PM
Sir, surely you are not suggesting that Hurricane Katrina, for example, was not one system, but two? Well, I guess I myself consist of at least a couple of dozen separate systems--maybe I should add a few sock puppets to this site! :D

Do you know the difference between the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere?

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-10, 10:40 PM
space.com (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/solar_system_weather_010306-4.html)

There is one significant difference, however: The Great Red Spot is a high-pressure system, and rotates the opposite direction from cyclones on Earth, which are low-pressure systems.

nasa.gov (http://physics.ship.edu/~mrc/astro/NASA_Space_Science/observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/centrifugal/figures6.html):

The Great Red Spot is a high-pressure system in which warm gases from below are forced upward.

bautforum.com (http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/33471-spots-appears-neptune-jupiter.html)

The Great Red Spot is a high-pressure system, associated with atmospheric subsidence, whereas typhoons/hurricanes are low-pressure systems, associated with atmospheric uplift. . . .

These large storms on Jupiter and Neptune are not areas of low pressure. They are areas of HIGH pressure. I don't know the proposed mechanism for such strong and persistent high pressure systems, but calling them hurricanes is misleading.

badastronomy.com (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/contact.html)

However, the Red Spot is a high pressure system, while terrestrial hurricanes are low pressure systems. A high pressure system rotates in an opposite sense from a low pressure system. They got that right!

haydenplanetarium.org (http://haydenplanetarium.org/resources/ava/page/index.php?file=P0413jupispot)

It is an anticyclonic storm and has a high-pressure center (unlike storms on Earth that have low-pressure centers). Its winds rotate counterclockwise and have a period of about 6 days. Scientists do not know what drives the storm or if the storm will ever dissipate.

spacedaily.com (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Junior_Spot_Zips_Past_Great_Red_Spot_On_Jupiter_99 9.html)
Astronomers have snapped high-resolution near-infrared images of Jupiter's Great Red Spot, a persistent, high-pressure storm, as a smaller storm, called Red Spot Jr., breezed by it on its race around the planet.

universetoday.com (http://www.universetoday.com/2006/08/01/jupiters-great-red-spots/)

Astronomers from the University of California, Berkeley, and the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii last month snapped high-resolution near-infrared images of the Great Red Spot, a persistent, high-pressure storm on Jupiter, as an upstart storm, Red Spot Jr., breezed by it on its race around the planet.


more from space.com (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dark_spot_030313.html)

"The Great Dark Spot and the Great Red Spot are entirely different," [Bob West, a planetary scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
] says. The Great Red Spot is deep. "It's a high-pressure storm system rooted in Jupiter's troposphere far below the cloudtops. The Great Dark Spot is apparently shallow and confined to Jupiter's high stratosphere."

physicsforums.com (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=7004)

Yes, because a hurricane is a low pressure driven system, and as Phobos uncovered, the GRS is a high pressure system. It is rotating, but is not a hurricane. Wind goes the opposite direction around a high pressure island than it does a low pressure island.


The Hubble Heritage Site (http://heritage.stsci.edu/1999/29/caption.html)

Unlike a low-pressure hurricane in the Caribbean Sea, however, the Red Spot rotates in a counterclockwise direction in the southern hemisphere, showing that it is a high-pressure system.

wonderquest.com (http://www.wonderquest.com/jupiter-grapefruit.htm)

The most spectacular sight on Jupiter's surface is the Great Red Spot, a high-pressure storm gyrating in the opposite direction from Earth’s low-pressure hurricanes.

usatoday.com (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-07-03-planet-weather_x.htm)

We've been watching what may be the solar system's longest lasting storm — Jupiter's Great Red Spot — on and off for 340 years, since Cassini first discovered it in 1665, after Hans Lippershey invented the telescope in 1608. The high-pressure storm gyrates (in the opposite direction from low-pressure Earth hurricanes) due to Coriolis effects (just as on Earth) making a complete rotation every 6 days (2.5 times faster than storms rotate on Earth)

tufts.edu (NASA's Cosmos) (http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/print_images.asp?id=3)

The Great Red Spot swirls in the counter-clockwise direction, like a high-pressure cyclone [sic] in the Earth's southern hemisphere

So, Korjik, you are not doing anyone a favor by insisting that the GRB be referred to as a high pressure system that is somehow in contrast to hurricanes on Earth. I mean, should we refer to hurricanes on Earth as high pressure systems? You're only adding to the prevailing (popular, mainstream) confusion.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-10, 10:47 PM
Do you know the difference between the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere?
Of course, sir. However, the GRB (what we see of it anyways) rotates in a counterclockwise direction--apparently the opposite of what we observe in southern hemisphere typhoons. This then is taken as evidence that the GRB is somehow fundamentally different from Earth-bound hurricanes. I'm saying that there is no fundamental difference between Earth-bound hurricanes and the GRB.

I'm still not clear on what your position on this issue is. Are you saying that the GRB and Earth-bound hurricanes are fundamentally similar? If so, then what is the use of your insistance that we use two different labels to describe one phenomenon?

korjik
2007-Oct-10, 10:54 PM
space.com (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/solar_system_weather_010306-4.html)


nasa.gov (http://physics.ship.edu/~mrc/astro/NASA_Space_Science/observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/centrifugal/figures6.html):


bautforum.com (http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/33471-spots-appears-neptune-jupiter.html)


badastronomy.com (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/contact.html)


So, Korjik, you are not doing anyone a favor by insisting that the GRB be referred to as a high pressure system that is somehow in contrast to hurricanes on Earth. I mean, should we refer to hurricanes on Earth as high pressure systems? You're only adding to the prevailing (popular, mainstream) confusion.

No, you dont really understand what I am saying.

I will put it really simply.
On the Earth, in the Northern hemisphere, a Low pressure system rotates counterclockwise

On the Earth, in the Northern hemisphere, a High pressure system rotates clockwise

On the Earth, in the Southern hemisphere, a Low pressure system rotates clockwise

On the Earth, in the Southern hemisphere, a High pressure system rotates counterclockwise

All these are measured and known and are a result of the coriolis effect. Since we have no reason to think that physics works differently on Jupiter than on Earth we end up with:

On Jupiter, in the Northern hemisphere, a Low pressure system rotates counterclockwise

On Jupiter, in the Northern hemisphere, a High pressure system rotates clockwise

On Jupiter, in the Southern hemisphere, a Low pressure system rotates clockwise

On Jupiter, in the Southern hemisphere, a High pressure system rotates counterclockwise

Now, when we look at the GRS, we see it is on Jupiter, in the southern hemisphere, and rotates counterclockwise. That means it is a high pressure system.

Looking at Hurricane Katrina, we see it is on Earth, in the northern hemisphere, rotates counterclockwise, and is a low pressure system, and therefore fits our model.

the fact that a northern hemisphere low pressure system rotates the same direction as a southern hemisphere high pressure system is expected, not some strange missing effect that only you can see.

You really should learn basic physics to see how the universe works, and how well it works.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-10, 11:09 PM
You really should learn basic physics to see how the universe works, and how well it works.I have taken basic physics, and I have also taken basic meteorology. Have you? Consider the following taken from the American Practical Navigator (http://www.irbs.com/bowditch/pdf/chapt36.pdf):


In the lower few thousand feet, air flows in through the cyclone, and is drawn upward through ascending columns of air near the center. The size and intensity decrease with altitude, the cyclonic circulation being gradually replaced above 40,000 feet by an anticyclonic circulation centered hundreds of miles away, which is the exhaust system of the hurricane heat engine.That would seem to support my theory that the GRB actually consists of two zones: a lower zone that rotates like on Earth, and an upper zone that rotates like on Earth--in the anticyclonic direction.

I'm saying the mainstream view has conflated the GRB's upper zone with the lower zone of Earth based hurricanes.

Michael Noonan
2007-Oct-11, 12:48 PM
Would there be any value in saying the solar system is essentially driven by a Sun-Jupiter paired system. In turn Jupiter is known to force the other planets such as Earth into distinct solar orbital distances

So is it possible a Coriolis effect on earth may be forced due to the binary pairing with Jupiter then having an anti-clockwise storm potential in its southern hemisphere?

korjik
2007-Oct-11, 04:06 PM
I have taken basic physics, and I have also taken basic meteorology. Have you? Consider the following taken from the American Practical Navigator (http://www.irbs.com/bowditch/pdf/chapt36.pdf):

That would seem to support my theory that the GRB actually consists of two zones: a lower zone that rotates like on Earth, and an upper zone that rotates like on Earth--in the anticyclonic direction.

I'm saying the mainstream view has conflated the GRB's upper zone with the lower zone of Earth based hurricanes.

You really need to work on your posting technique.

If you had posted the post I quoted here, in response to my first post, along with an acknowledgement that I was right, but that that is not what you were talking about, and explained what you were talking about, we could have moved this dicussion along.

By the way, this is not an ATM topic. You are taking a known effect on Earth and applying it to what looks like the same thing on a different planet. That is a most mainstream way to do things.

As for your assertion, now that I think I understand it, you could be right. If terrestrial hurricane start circulating opposite at high altitude, there is no reason to think that Jupiters cant have the same effect happen. You are also right that if there are clouds at the counterrotating altitude then it would be hard to tell that there is a low below the apparent high.

The only problem I can see it the 'centered hundreds of miles away' part. That would put the low level low underneath the GRS tens of thousands of miles away from the apparent center of the GRS, when you scale things up.

Can you find cloud height data for the GRS and the surrounding coud bands? If the GRS cloud tops are much lower than the surrounding bands, that would tend to disprove your hypothesis.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-11, 06:21 PM
You really need to work on your posting technique.

If you had posted the post I quoted here, in response to my first post, along with an acknowledgement that I was right, but that that is not what you were talking about, and explained what you were talking about, we could have moved this dicussion along.Now that I look back, I can see where you were coming from. I should have seen that.


By the way, this is not an ATM topic. You are taking a known effect on Earth and applying it to what looks like the same thing on a different planet. That is a most mainstream way to do things.
That may be a most mainstream way to do things (although the way I achieved that conclusion is decidedly not a mainstream way to do things, unless you're a biologist). However, the mainstream conclusion is that the GRS is quite extraordinary; therefore, the ATM view is by default that the GRS is in fact rather ordinary, just a lot bigger.


As for your assertion, now that I think I understand it, you could be right. If terrestrial hurricane start circulating opposite at high altitude, there is no reason to think that Jupiters cant have the same effect happen. You are also right that if there are clouds at the counterrotating altitude then it would be hard to tell that there is a low below the apparent high.Thank you. I was beginning to get paranoid.


The only problem I can see it the 'centered hundreds of miles away' part. That would put the low level low underneath the GRS tens of thousands of miles away from the apparent center of the GRS, when you scale things up. But Jupiter is a pretty big planet.


Can you find cloud height data for the GRS and the surrounding coud bands? If the GRS cloud tops are much lower than the surrounding bands, that would tend to disprove your hypothesis.The Wikipedia article on the GRS says the cloudtops of the GRS extend 8 km above the surrounding cloudtops.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-11, 06:27 PM
Would there be any value in saying the solar system is essentially driven by a Sun-Jupiter paired system. In turn Jupiter is known to force the other planets such as Earth into distinct solar orbital distancesSome people say Jupiter was a failed star, and so you could call this a binary system, I guess. As for orbital distances, I think you're referring to Bode's law. The one physicist I talked to says it's just a random coincidence. Personally, I think if you take the view that planetesimals compete for matter, each zone is just the result of the local winner taking over. But that's a whole other thread topic.


So is it possible a Coriolis effect on earth may be forced due to the binary pairing with Jupiter then having an anti-clockwise storm potential in its southern hemisphere?Absolutely not. You need go no further than the merry goround at the local playground to experience the Coriolis effect.

korjik
2007-Oct-11, 06:42 PM
Now that I look back, I can see where you were coming from. I should have seen that.


That may be a most mainstream way to do things (although the way I achieved that conclusion is decidedly not a mainstream way to do things, unless you're a biologist). However, the mainstream conclusion is that the GRB is quite extraordinary; therefore, the ATM view is by default that the GRB is in fact rather ordinary, just a lot bigger.

Thank you. I was beginning to get paranoid.

But Jupiter is a pretty big planet.

The Wikipedia article on the GRB says the cloudtops of the GRB extend 8 km above the surrounding cloudtops.

Now all you have to do is get NASA to make a bunch of probes to go take direct measurements :)

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-11, 07:07 PM
Hurricanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane)are low-pressure systems as follows:


A tropical cyclone's primary energy source is the release of the heat of condensation from water vapor condensing at high altitudes, with solar heating being the initial source for evaporation. Therefore, a tropical cyclone can be visualized as a giant vertical heat engine supported by mechanics driven by physical forces such as the rotation and gravity of the Earth.

By contrast, Jupiter's GRS is a eddy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_%28fluid_dynamics%29)caused by the interaction of two bands of gases on Jupiter moving at different velocities relative to one another. How many spots you get is related to the relative velocities of the bands - the greater the relative velocity, the more the eddies. It's merely a function of turbulent flow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulent_flow).


mugaliens, since your post in the Q&A Jupiter thread is clearly directed at my contention that the GRS is a hurricane, I'll address it here in order to keep the separate threads on topic. And although I see that you gave references for what an eddy is, and for what turbulent flow is, you didn't give a reference that connects those with the GRS--probably because no such reference exists. The GRS is no mere eddy. Just look at it. It has a different color, it is much bigger, it is more long-lived, and it's cloudtops extend 8 km above the ordinary cloudtops. In short, it's a storm of some kind, driven by heat.

Sure, it's sandwiched between opposing jet streams. But where else would it be? All living things seek to find an appropriate habitat.

Probably, on Jupiter, way down below, the density gets so great that the ordinary gases we are familiar with undergo a phase transition, rather analogous the phase transition that the mineral olivine undergoes half-way through the Earth's mantle; at the olivine phase transition, the density increases in a quantum style easily noticeable by seismographs. Similarly, the hypothesized phase transition on Jupiter represents a radical increase from the ordinary gaseous density to a significantly higher density composed of who-knows-what. It might be rather gaseous, texture-wise, but for the GRS's practical purposes, this represents the ground, and there is ordinarily very little mixing or other interaction between the upper and lower layers, except through heat transfers via conduction, rather than convection.

So, what probably happens is that the GRS is able to lower the local pressure enough so that the pent-up matter beyond the phase transition is able to break out and become ordinary gas once again. It would be like as if Hurricane Katrina were able to lower the local pressure enough to cause the ocean underneith it to boil and thus not only add heat, but more atmosphere itself as well.

That is what has enabled the GRS to take on a life of its own, why it is red, and why it is so powerful--and that's why it is no mere eddy. No doubt, the GRS started out as a predatory eddy making a living by cannabalizing its fellow denizens; but once it got big enough to tap into the below-the-phase-transition-zone, it gave up the cannabalistic life-style in favor of plasmavory. People say that the GRS still eats storms, but just watch the videos. It doesn't mess with the local eddies, except to get in their way and suck them into its turbulent wake, where they get smashed to bits. But even then, the remnants just get washed away and don't become part of the GRS itself. :cool:

Next post: #31 (http://www.bautforum.com/1087388-post31.html)

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-11, 07:08 PM
Now all you have to do is get NASA to make a bunch of probes to go take direct measurements :)
How would you make a seismograph to study Jupiter's interior?

Hey, I'm serious! :D

Kelfazin
2007-Oct-11, 07:20 PM
mugaliens, since your post in the Q&A Jupiter thread is clearly directed at my contention that the GRB is a hurricane, I'll address it here in order to keep the separate threads on topic. And although I see that you gave references for what an eddy is, and for what turbulent flow is, you didn't give a reference that connects those with the GRB--probably because no such reference exists. The GRB is no mere eddy. Just look at it. It has a different color, it is much bigger, it is more long-lived, and it's cloudtops extend 8 km above the ordinary cloudtops. In short, it's a storm of some kind, driven by heat.

Sure, it's sandwiched between opposing jet streams. But where else would it be? All living things seek to find an appropriate habitat.

Probably, on Jupiter, way down below, the density gets so great that the ordinary gases we are familiar with undergo a phase transition, rather analogous the phase transition that the mineral olivine undergoes half-way through the Earth's mantle; at the olivine phase transition, the density increases in a quantum style easily noticeable by seismographs. Similarly, the hypothesized phase transition on Jupiter represents a radical increase from the ordinary gaseous density to a significantly higher density composed of who-knows-what. It might be rather gaseous, texture-wise, but for the GRB's practical purposes, this represents the ground, and there is ordinarily very little mixing or other interaction between the upper and lower layers, except through heat transfers via conduction, rather than convection.

So, what probably happens is that the GRB is able to lower the local pressure enough so that the pent-up matter beyond the phase transition is able to break out and become ordinary gas once again. It would be like as if Hurricane Katrina were able to lower the local pressure enough to cause the ocean underneith it to boil and thus not only add heat, but more atmosphere itself as well.

That is what has enabled the GRB to take on a life of its own, why it is red, and why it is so powerful--and that's why it is no mere eddy. No doubt, the GRB started out as a predatory eddy making a living by cannabalizing its fellow denizens; but once it got big enough to tap into the below-the-phase-transition-zone, it gave up the cannabalistic life-style in favor of plasmatrophism. People say that the GRB still eats storms, but just watch the videos. It doesn't mess with the local eddies, except to get in their way and suck them into its turbulent wake, where they get smashed to bits. But even then, the remnants just get washed away and don't become part of the GRB itself. :cool:


Just for sake of clarity (and to be nit-picky because I know you know this) GRB = Gamma Ray Burst :)

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-11, 07:33 PM
Just for sake of clarity (and to be nit-picky because I know you know this) GRB = Gamma Ray Burst :)
Thank you, Kelfazin. Corrections have been made. :o

hhEb09'1
2007-Oct-11, 07:48 PM
How would you make a seismograph to study Jupiter's interior?

Hey, I'm serious! :DAsk George, he's into helioseismology.

I once listened to a famous geophysicist describe his theory of the effect of the impact of the comet Shoemaker-Levy on the antipode of Jupiter, the year before the impact.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-12, 06:02 AM
I've done a little reading, and it turns out that the standard (3-layer) theory of the Jovian internal structure is that there is a rocky, "icy" core surrounded by a higher-density monoatomic hydrogen mantle that is in turn surrounded by a gaseous/liquid phase layer consisting of molecular hydrogen (I guess the gas is pressed so densely, there's little use in making that distinction). The transition between the atomic/molecular layers is called the "plasma phase transition" or PPT.

Depending on who you read, the radius of the PPT boundary zone varies from 0.9 RJ to perhaps 0.75 RJ, where RJ is Jupiter's radius. This works out to a PPT depth of something like 7,000 km to 17,000 km.

Now, at its narrowest, the GRS is about 12,000 km to 14,000 km across. Thus, if the GRS is as deep as it is wide, it could easily reach the PPT.

If the GRS were a low pressure system, it could locally lower the pressure of the PPT. This would allow atomic hydrogen to recombine to form molecular hydrogen. Since it takes energy to split apart a hydrogen molecule, energy will be released when two, lone hydrogen atoms recombine; according to the law of gases, the added heat (and the newly converted molecular hydrogen) would cause the local density to decline, thus causing the material to rise. This is literally a form of combustion, and is what powers the GRS heat engine.

That is why the GRS is the best vortex in the solar system: it is able to "mine" its own energy. The reason hurricanes and tornados eventually peter out is that the supply of warm, low level air dries up. The GRS makes its own warm, low level air.

The effect is rather analogous to those so-called killer lakes in Africa. At Lake Nyos (http://www.mala.bc.ca/~earles/nyos-feb01.htm), in Camaroon, the lake is stratified, with the bottom layers loaded with dissolved carbon dioxide, like so much club soda. Occasional eruptions have caused the deaths of hundreds of people. So, in order to reduce the danger, it is possible to tap into the bottom layer with a pipe. A pump then lifts the low level water; as the pressure declines, the CO2 is released, and the flow takes on a life of its own and sprays out like a shook up champaigne bottle (see attachment).

Again, this episode demonstrates that looking at some physical systems as if they were alive can sometimes produce results faster than trying to approach the problem from first principles. Thinking about the GRS as an animal made me focus on its "needs" and hence to wonder what it "eats". Watching the videos, it was clear that cannabalism provided marginal nutriments at best. Thus, the GRS must be "eating" something else. This provoked me to consider other sources of energy, and was eventually able to deduce that the GRS was tapping into the PPT--the GRS is a plasmavore; trying to deduce this same conclusion from the equations of fluid mechanics is a nonstarter. And tapping into the PPT will only work if the GRS is a low pressure system--which it simply has to be because high pressure systems are poor designs for storms. :D

Skim to post #37 (http://www.bautforum.com/1087850-post37.html)

hhEb09'1
2007-Oct-12, 10:11 AM
I'd always heard that one of the theories of the GRS was that it was a Taylor column.

CodeSlinger
2007-Oct-12, 03:05 PM
Again, this episode demonstrates that looking at some physical systems as if they were alive can sometimes produce results faster than trying to approach the problem from first principles.

What results? You have a hypothesis that does not appear to be inconsistent with observations, but it has yet to be experimentally verified. I would say it's a bit too early to be patting yourself on the back about the efficacy of your teleological methods.

Kesh
2007-Oct-12, 03:44 PM
BTW, I am cutting and pasting the Wikipedia article on the GRB here in order to time stamp its present state for the archives so that no one can say it was in the Wikipedia all along.

:hand:

I've reported this post as a copyright violation. While Wikipedia allows the reuse of their articles elsewhere, proper credit must be given per the license the website operates under.

Further, it's a lot easier to just link directly to the version of the article you want to point out using the "Cite this article" link on the left hand side of the page. That will give you the scholarly citation formats, as well as a "permanant link" to that version of the article.

mugaliens
2007-Oct-12, 04:58 PM
What results? You have a hypothesis that does not appear to be inconsistent with observations, but it has yet to be experimentally verified. I would say it's a bit too early to be patting yourself on the back about the efficacy of your teleological methods.

Actually, CodeSlinger, except for this:


That is why the GRS is the best vortex in the solar system: it is able to "mine" its own energy. The reason hurricanes and tornados eventually peter out is that the supply of warm, low level air dries up. The GRS makes its own warm, low level air.

WarrenPlatts hit the nail on the proverbial head.

Yes, it might be able to mine it's own energy, but eventually, due to friction of the currents, that will die out, just as without a steady supply of CO2 from underground sources to the lake he mentioned (cool, Warren, as was their solution to the problem), the lake would, after one final eruption, become placid.

So, Jupiter's second and third layers are getting their energy from somewhere... Perhaps just the sun, like we all do?

CodeSlinger
2007-Oct-12, 05:16 PM
WarrenPlatts hit the nail on the proverbial head.

Sorry mugaliens, but please explain what proverbial nail you think WarrenPlatts has hit on the head.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-12, 06:45 PM
I'd always heard that one of the theories of the GRS was that it was a Taylor column.That's interesting, because I was having a hard time imagining what a high pressure storm would be like. But a Taylor column (a vortex that forms over a solid object moving through a rotating fluid) might possibly provide a mechanism for a real high pressure storm system, especially if the obstacle were some sort of plasma volcano or geyser-like object: a plume of hot plasma could provide a source of energy and matter that a high pressure storm would require, and would account for the fact that the GRS pokes out of the surrounding cloudtops by about 8 km.

But apparently, the Taylor column hypothesis has fallen out of favor. The literature on the Taylor column hypothesis peters out in the late 1970's, probably because of the radio data that has pinned down the rotation of the interior of Jupiter:


Jupiter sends out radio waves strong enough to be picked up by radio telescopes on Earth. Scientists now measure these waves to calculate Jupiter's rotational speed. The strength of the waves varies under the influence of Jupiter's magnetic field in a pattern that repeats every 9 hours 56 minutes. Because the magnetic field originates in Jupiter's core, this variation shows how fast the plant's interior spins. (NASA/World Book Encyclopedia) (http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/jupiter_worldbook.html)

Observations of both radio waves and the GRS are the sorts of things that can be precisely timed from Earth. The result is that it is now known that the GRS migrates slowly to the west, relative to the interior--in the same direction as Earthbound hurricanes. :think:


The rotation period Celestia provides for Jupiter is System III - the rotation period of Jupiter's magnetic field, which is tied to the solid core of the planet. But the most prominent observable feature on Jupiter's "surface" is the Great Red Spot - which rotates a little more slowly than System III. (shatters.net) (http://www.shatters.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1497)

One could argue that the obstruction causing the GRS isn't fixed to the solid interior, and so could also be drifting in a westward direction, and so the GRS is merely tracking the movement of the obstruction. However, the Coriolis effect tends to make westward moving objects in southern hemispheres move to the south. On Jupiter, however, vortices maintain a steady latitude for the most part presumbably because they are confined by the powerful jetstreams prevalent there. It is less clear that analogous mechanisms would prevent an object floating in the interior from moving to the south.

Finally, according to the Taylor hypothesis, if the GRS were the result of a hidden obstruction, it would have formed as one single system, whereas I hypothesized that the red spot was the result of the fusion of two or more smaller spots. Well, the recent Red Spot, Jr. that is about 1/2 the diameter of the GRS was directly observed to have formed from a fusion of three smaller spots at the turn of the century, indicating that the general mechanism for the formation of large spots is through the fusion of smaller spots. This result is also supported by physical analogue water-tank experiments in the laboratory.

So, so much for the Taylor column hypothesis.

Anyone else want to step up to the plate? :D

Skip to post #42 (http://www.bautforum.com/1087915-post42.html)

Doodler
2007-Oct-12, 06:55 PM
I thought the Spot's longevity was tied to the fact that it has nothing to expend energy against, like a continent.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-12, 06:59 PM
:hand:

I've reported this post as a copyright violation. While Wikipedia allows the reuse of their articles elsewhere, proper credit must be given per the license the website operates under. I'm not sure what you mean by "proper credit must be given per the license the website operates under." What license and what website are you referring to? If it is wikipedia.com, they make the terms of use perfectly clear:

Trademarks and Copyrights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Trademarks_and_copyrights)

All of the text in Wikipedia, and most of the images and other content, is covered by the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Contributions remain the property of their creators, while the GFDL license ensures the content is freely distributable and reproducible.

Wikipedia: Copyrights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights)
Permission to reproduce content under the license and technical conditions applicable to Wikipedia . . . has already been granted to everyone without request

Therefore, I plead not guilty to the charge of violating U.S. copyright law.


Further, it's a lot easier to just link directly to the version of the article you want to point out using the "Cite this article" link on the left hand side of the page. That will give you the scholarly citation formats, as well as a "permanant link" to that version of the article.This, however, is useful. I did not know how to do this before. Thank you. :)

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-12, 07:01 PM
I thought the Spot's longevity was tied to the fact that it has nothing to expend energy against, like a continent.

Wind shear would have destroyed the GRS long ago if it did not have an outside energy source.

Kelfazin
2007-Oct-12, 07:18 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by "proper credit must be given per the license the website operates under." What license and what website are you referring to? If it is wikipedia.com, they make the terms of use perfectly clear:

Trademarks and Copyrights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Trademarks_and_copyrights)
All of the text in Wikipedia, and most of the images and other content, is covered by the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Contributions remain the property of their creators, while the GFDL license ensures the content is freely distributable and reproducible.

Wikipedia: Copyrights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights)

Therefore, I plead not guilty to the charge of violating U.S. copyright law.

This, however, is useful. I did not know how to do this before. Thank you. :)

You'll want to go back and fix that post then, a mod has already removed the article from your post.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-12, 08:15 PM
Yes, it might be able to mine it's own energy, but eventually, due to friction of the currents, that will die out, just as without a steady supply of CO2 from underground sources to the lake he mentioned (cool, Warren, as was their solution to the problem), the lake would, after one final eruption, become placid.Well, as I've said before, Jupiter is a pretty big planet, and so it might take a while to deplete the plasma mantle. There are signs, however, that this may be already happening, since the GRS has declined in size by half over the years since its hey-day.

Probably, what happens is that the GRS and spots like it suck monoatomic hydrogen out of the plasma mantle, convert it to dihydrogen, and then spread it through the atmosphere, causing the depth of the plasma phase transition zone (PPT) to get deeper and deeper. Meanwhile, elsewhere, in areas of comparative quiet--the vast majority of the rest of the planet--the plasma mantle is slowly recharged as pressure and temperature do their work to dissociate molecular hydrogen.

Thus a dynamic equilibrium situation will be set up. Red spots suck out monoatomic hydrogen causing the PPT to sink. Counterbalancing this, as the PPT sinks, it becomes harder for red spots to suck out monoatomic hydrogen, so that the red spots decline in size and perhaps disappear altogether, and thus the rate of depletion of monoatomic hydrogen from the plasma mantle declines. Meanwhile, as the sea of dihydrogen follows the sinking PPT, the pressure and temperature increase, thus the rate of dissociation also increases, further slowing the rate of increase in depth of the PPT. As red spots decline, the rate of deposition of monoatomic hydrogen outpaces red spot outgassing and the PPT begins to rise again.

Probably, this process is a cycle that may take several hundred years or more. There might have been periods in history where there weren't any Red Spots, corresponding to a relatively deep PPT. At other times when the PPT was shallow, there were probably more Red Spots than we observe now.


So, Jupiter's second and third layers are getting their energy from somewhere... Perhaps just the sun, like we all do?Supposedly, Jupiter emits something like three times more energy than it receives from the sun. Presumably, the ultimate source of this energy is from radionucleotides, as on Earth, gravitational collapse Lord Kelvin-style, and I would guess the occasional fusion event would add some heat, but not enough to start a chain reaction. (cf. Deuterium burning in Jupiter interior (http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0112/0112018v1.pdf), 2001)

It is this heat that ultimately drives the red spot cycle by keeping the temperature of the interior of Jupiter hot enough to cause dissociation of molecular hydrogen into monoatomic hydrogen. If these heat sources were to decline in intensity, what would happen is that Red Spots would depress the level of the PPT until the red spots could no longer function normally. However, because the interior had subsequently cooled, the conversion of molecular hydrogen to monoatomic hydrogen would no longer be thermodynamically favored. Eventually, you would wind up with a Saturn-like planet with a weak magnetic field and no red spots.

Skip to post #43 (http://www.bautforum.com/1087919-post43.html)

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-12, 08:18 PM
What results? You have a hypothesis that does not appear to be inconsistent with observations, but it has yet to be experimentally verified. My result is a concrete hypothesis, that, try as I might for many hours of googling every which way but loose over the last two days, apparently no one else has thought of; but it is so obvious to me, I'm 90% sure that someone else must have thought of it first and that it is out there somewhere.

As for experimental verification, if you won't be satisfied with anything else other than a NASA probe that can fly into the eye of the GRS, dive down to a depth of 10,000 km, and then survive to tell us what it's like down there, well, that's just unreasonable to expect.

But consider the following: my model says that big spots form by cannabalizing little spots, but also that once they achieve a certain critical size, they will be able to locally take the lid off the pressure cooker that contains the PPT, thus gaining energy, but also changing the spot's chemical composition such that it turns red.

Similarly, the Red Spot, Jr., formerly known as the BA spot was formed originally from three medium-sized white spots that fused together from 1998 through 2000, to form one pretty big white spot. Then, in December of 2005 the BA spot turned red, and then became known as Red Spot, Jr.

Now this is just the sequence of events my model predicts. Indeed, I hadn't followed the saga of Red Spot, Jr. in the news over the last few years, and only took the time to read very much about it this very afternoon. Yet, yesterday, I wrote:


So, what probably happens is that the GRS is able to lower the local pressure enough so that the pent-up matter beyond the phase transition is able to break out and become ordinary gas once again. It would be like as if Hurricane Katrina were able to lower the local pressure enough to cause the ocean underneith it to boil and thus not only add heat, but more atmosphere itself as well.

That is what has enabled the GRS to take on a life of its own, why it is red, and why it is so powerful
So, in my own mind, I have made a successful prediction. :cool: However, I don't expect you all to take my word for that--that's OK. Too bad I didn't think all this up in November of 2005--it would have been perfect! Oh well. :boohoo:

But in any case, the low pressure system model for the GRS does successfully retrodict the formation and transformation of the Red Spot, Jr.

Skip to post #47 (http://www.bautforum.com/1088094-post47.html)

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-12, 08:20 PM
You'll want to go back and fix that post then, a mod has already removed the article from your post.It's no big deal. :)

CodeSlinger
2007-Oct-12, 08:37 PM
Sorry, but as far as I know, a hypothesis is not a result.

On the other hand, while retrodictions are not as good as predictions, your retrodiction of Red Spot Jr. is pretty cool. Can you take it further? Does your model predict or explain anything the mainstream model does not?

publiusr
2007-Oct-12, 10:14 PM
Taylor Columns and more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=BF4EA582AAE62068F92CA4E 1B70E6B66.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=370125

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-13, 01:08 AM
On the other hand, while retrodictions are not as good as predictions, your retrodiction of Red Spot Jr. is pretty cool. Can you take it further? Does your model predict or explain anything the mainstream model does not?
The mainstream model as I understand it is that the GRS is a high pressure system powered by an "unknown mechanism" in contrast to common low pressure systems, such as hurricanes or tornados. The high pressure hypothesis does explain the anticyclonic rotation in the sense that high pressure air usually rotates in an anticyclonic manner, and the 8 km rise above the cloud deck. The best mechanism proposed so far consistent with the high pressure hypothesis is the Taylor column hypothesis--whereby the GRS is tied to a plasma-emitting volcano.

The low pressure hypothesis, however, naturally explains the following:
the anticyclonic rotation (it's the upper part of a low pressure system)
the rise above the cloud deck (just like all hurricanes)
the origin of large spots through fusion of small spots (the GRS is the result of an evolutionary process)
the transformation from white of Oval BA to the red of Red Spot, Jr. (Oval BA got big enough to tap the PPT--this changed its chemical composition)
the source of energy that powers the GRS (combustion of monoatomic hydrogen)
the decrease in size of the GRS (increasing depth of the PPT as a result of resource depletion)
the migration of the GRS relative to the interior (it's a hurricane, instead of a Taylor column tied to a fixed spot)
the mass required (part of it comes from the plasma mantle)
and probably a few others


Skip to post #51 (http://www.bautforum.com/1088829-post51.html)

hhEb09'1
2007-Oct-13, 11:45 AM
(NASA/World Book Encyclopedia) (http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/jupiter_worldbook.html)

Observations of both radio waves and the GRS are the sorts of things that can be precisely timed from Earth. The result is that it is now known that the GRS migrates slowly to the west, relative to the interior--in the same direction as Earthbound hurricanes. :think:Interesting stuff. How great is the migration? I couldn't find any figure other than the 9h 56m one, or at least one significantly different.

One could argue that the obstruction causing the GRS isn't fixed to the solid interior, and so could also be drifting in a westward direction, and so the GRS is merely tracking the movement of the obstruction.Nonfixity of features, and differential rotation is an immense problem! Fun. :)

Finally, according to the Taylor hypothesis, if the GRS were the result of a hidden obstruction, it would have formed as one single system, whereas I hypothesized that the red spot was the result of the fusion of two or more smaller spots. Well, the recent Red Spot, Jr. that is about 1/2 the diameter of the GRS was directly observed to have formed from a fusion of three smaller spots at the turn of the century, indicating that the general mechanism for the formation of large spots is through the fusion of smaller spots.If there were associated interior features, it would seem that those would be forming as well, perhaps creating eddies that coalesce as they grow.

the migration of the GRS relative to the interior (it's a hurricane, instead of a Taylor column tied to a fixed spot)
Yes, I'm wondering about this. If there is no interior feature anchoring the system, wouldn't its velocity be much greater? Earth hurricanes fairly skitter across its surface, (solar features like sunspots do too--even though the sun rotates so slowly--but the solar problem seems to be a different regime.)

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-13, 01:43 PM
Interesting stuff. How great is the migration? I couldn't find any figure other than the 9h 56m one, or at least one significantly different.I found a figure for 9h 55m, but that doesn't make any sense if it's actually drifting westward. BTW, Red Spot, Jr. is moving to the east, and they passed each other in July 2006, (see photo from Keck observatory (http://www.keckobservatory.org/article.php?id=88)) but they didn't interact much.


Nonfixity of features, and differential rotation is an immense problem! Fun. :) If there were associated interior features, it would seem that those would be forming as well, perhaps creating eddies that coalesce as they grow.I could see how the entire mantle could be twisting such that the GRS would have an apparent drift to the west relative to the radio source that might lie much deeper. However, this wouldn't account for Red Spot, Jr.'s movement (nor the fact the Oval BA was directly observed to form from three smaller spots; surely, we wouldn't want to think that there were three smaller unseen objects that then coalesced, and that this new object is moving in an opposite direction to the object driving the movement of the GRS.)


Yes, I'm wondering about this. If there is no interior feature anchoring the system, wouldn't its velocity be much greater? Earth hurricanes fairly skitter across its surface, (solar features like sunspots do too--even though the sun rotates so slowly--but the solar problem seems to be a different regime.)According to the low pressure hypothesis, the GRS is tied to an interior feature: the plasma phase transition zone (PPT). I envision the PPT as being fairly flat, but the GRS is pumping out so much monoatomic hydrogen that it has dug itself into a hole. Thus moving fast would require the GRS to move uphill. Instead what happens is that the GRS is in effect forced to "plow" its way through the PPT, and this accounts for its slow motion relative to the radio source.

Kesh
2007-Oct-13, 03:14 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by "proper credit must be given per the license the website operates under." What license and what website are you referring to?
That would be the GDFL, which you quoted in your post. Just like the license many Linux programs operate under, anything released under the GDFL must also be released under GDFL, including a copy of the license. You could re-use snippets of the article (per fair use), but reposting the entire article requires adhering to the GDFL.


Therefore, I plead not guilty to the charge of violating U.S. copyright law.

It's a technicality, but unfortunately you did. No harm done, but I thought it best to clarify. Part of the problem is there's a copyright conflict when posting to message boards. I do believe on here, the BA has stated that all posts are copyright their authors, but on others the board owners themselves claim copyright to your posts. That would be a problem with the GDFL.


This, however, is useful. I did not know how to do this before. Thank you. :)

No problem! Most folks miss that, as it's not exactly going to stand out on Wikipedia's pages. It's one of their most useful features, though.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-14, 05:00 PM
The Little Red Spot (a.k.a. Red Spot Jr., or Oval BA) has increased in wind speeds to those comparable with the Great Red Spot (up to 400 mph), according to 2006 Hubble Space Telescope data, whereas the parent storms had maximum wind velocity of 268 mph as measured by the Voyager probe in 1979.

NASA scientists are at a loss to explain this apparent increase in wind velocity (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/little_red_spot.html):


Scientists are not sure why the Little Red Spot is growing stronger. One possibility is a change in size. These storms naturally fluctuate in size, and their winds spin around their central core of rising air. If the storm were to become smaller, its spiraling winds would increase the same way spinning ice skaters turn faster by pulling their arms closer to their bodies. Another possibility is that it's the only survivor. "The lack of other large storms in the same latitude on Jupiter leaves more energy to feed the Little Red Spot," said Simon-Miller.


The low pressure model neatly explains the increase in strength of the new spot, however, as a result of gaining a new energy source by tapping into the plasma phase transition zone.

And although the team mentioned in the above article states that the increase in storm power could explain the the change in color from the white Oval BA to the red Red Spot Jr. as a result of dredging up deeper material, they don't say why we should expect that deeper material should result in a radical color shift.


According to the team, the increased intensity of the Little Red Spot probably explains why it changed color. It is likely to be behaving like the Great Red Spot for two reasons: it has the same wind speed and the team's color analysis showed that it really is the same color as the Great Red Spot. It's probably pulling up gaseous material from far below that changes color when exposed to ultraviolet radiation in sunlight. The question remains whether the storm is pulling up something that it wasn't before, because its increased intensity allows it to reach deeper, or whether it is pulling up the same material but the higher winds allow the storm to hold it aloft longer, increasing the time it is exposed to solar ultraviolet light and turning it red.


According the the standard 3-layer model (core, metallic envelope, molecular envelope), there should be little mixing between layers, but the layers themselves should have fairly uniform chemical compositions due to mixing by convection. Therefore, if red spots are not tapping into the PPT, there is little reason for them to be red because the standard, mainstream model predicts that the molecular envelope should be well mixed. But if red spots are able to tap into the PPT (practically by definition, according to the low pressure model), the change in color is not surprising and is indeed expected.

Skip to post #54 (http://www.bautforum.com/1089736-post54.html)

CodeSlinger
2007-Oct-15, 05:19 PM
The mainstream model as I understand it is that the GRS is a high pressure system powered by an "unknown mechanism" in contrast to common low pressure systems, such as hurricanes or tornados. The high pressure hypothesis does explain the anticyclonic rotation in the sense that high pressure air usually rotates in an anticyclonic manner, and the 8 km rise above the cloud deck. The best mechanism proposed so far consistent with the high pressure hypothesis is the Taylor column hypothesis--whereby the GRS is tied to a plasma-emitting volcano.

The low pressure hypothesis, however, naturally explains the following:
the anticyclonic rotation (it's the upper part of a low pressure system)
the rise above the cloud deck (just like all hurricanes)
the origin of large spots through fusion of small spots (the GRS is the result of an evolutionary process)
the transformation from white of Oval BA to the red of Red Spot, Jr. (Oval BA got big enough to tap the PPT--this changed its chemical composition)
the source of energy that powers the GRS (combustion of monoatomic hydrogen)
the decrease in size of the GRS (increasing depth of the PPT as a result of resource depletion)
the migration of the GRS relative to the interior (it's a hurricane, instead of a Taylor column tied to a fixed spot)
the mass required (part of it comes from the plasma mantle)
and probably a few others


At this point, I must plead ignorance and bow out. I simply lack the knowledge to evaluate whether those items really are unexplained by the high-pressure hypothesis and explained by the low-pressure hypothesis. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can comment on these.

Mister Earl
2007-Oct-15, 09:03 PM
Gotta applaud Mr. Platts on this one. Take note, folks, this is how you present an ATM theory. I definitely like how this is being done.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-15, 10:25 PM
Gotta applaud Mr. Platts on this one. Take note, folks, this is how you present an ATM theory. I definitely like how this is being done.
Thank you, Mr. Earl! :D

It would be nice if there was seismic evidence that would shed some light on the interior of Jupiter. Global Jovian oscillations should reveal information regarding the structure of the interior. But I gather its not that easy.

Lacking direct seismic data, inferences about what the interior of gas giant planets are like are based mainly on the primary considerations of mass and radius, as well as the primordial mix of basic ingredients.

Equally important, are the thermodynamic equations of state for hydrogen, helium, and hydrogen/helium mixtures. These EOS's say what the density of hydrogen should be for a given pressure and temperature.

Thus, if you knew that Jupiter originally consisted of 27% (by mass) helium and 72% hydrogen (with 1% heavier elements), then if you also knew that the atmosphere of Jupiter (as directly measured by the Galileo probe) was only 24% helium, that would warrant the inference that helium was settling in the interior of Jupiter somehow.

However, for Saturn, the best estimate returned by Cassini is a mass fraction for helium of 18% to 25% (Gautier et al. 2006) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006cosp.meet..867G). (In the gas giant literature, one will commonly run into constructions of the following sort, where 'X', 'Y', and 'Z' refer to the mass fractions, percentage-wise of the constituents of a gas giant, of hydrogen, helium, and heavier elements, respectively; hence, Gautier et al. write "helium mass fraction of Y 0[.]18-0[.]25")

Now, if red spots are really tapping into the PPT, then red spots are bringing material from beyond the PPT into the molecular envelope zone. So, possibly, red spots on Jupiter-like planets might slow down helium sequestration by pumping material from the metallic zone into the molecular zone. This might explain why atmospheric Y on Saturn is apparently lower compared to Jupiter--Saturn doesn't have red spots as a mixing mechanism.

Skip to post #78 (http://www.bautforum.com/1102796-post78.html)

hhEb09'1
2007-Oct-15, 10:43 PM
I was just perusing the wiki article about the Great Red Spot and clicked on the Mechanics section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Red_Spot#Mechanics). It's first sentence says "As the hot gases that comprise Jupiter's atmosphere rise from lower levels to higher levels, eddies form and converge. A Coriolis force forms and forces cooler air to fall back into a swirling motion that may be many kilometers in diameter." Is that similar to what you are saying?

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-16, 03:40 AM
I was just perusing the wiki article about the Great Red Spot and clicked on the Mechanics section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Red_Spot#Mechanics). It's first sentence says "As the hot gases that comprise Jupiter's atmosphere rise from lower levels to higher levels, eddies form and converge. A Coriolis force forms and forces cooler air to fall back into a swirling motion that may be many kilometers in diameter." Is that similar to what you are saying?
This paragraph, at least, of the Wiki article is poorly written.


As the hot gases that comprise Jupiter's atmosphere rise from lower levels to higher levels, eddies form and converge. A Coriolis force forms and forces cooler air to fall back into a swirling motion that may be many kilometers in diameter. These eddies can last for a long time, because there is no solid surface to provide friction and colder cloud tops above the eddy allow little energy to escape by radiation. Once formed, such eddies are free to move, merging with or affecting the behavior of other storm systems in the atmosphere. It is theorized that this mechanism formed the Great Red Spot. According to this theory, many adjacent eddies are engulfed and merge with the spot, adding to the energy of the storm and contributing to its longevity.

The first sentence is innocuous; but as for the second, the Coriolois "force" isn't a real force, therefore, it can't "form", and it can't "force" anything. Furthermore, it isn't informative to call a storm a mere "eddy" (cf. Phil Plait's interview with Pamela Gay re: Jupiter (http://www.astronomycast.com/solar-system/episode-56-jupiter/)). Moreover, the article implies that only solid surfaces provide friction. However, wind shear in any substance with a viscosity greater than zero will "provide friction"; hence the requirement for continual energy inputs. Then the "It is theorized that this mechanism formed the Great Red Spot" isn't clear; which mechanism is "this mechanism" referring to? And in any case, I've explicitly argued that swallowing other storms does not at this point in the GRS's lifetime explain its continual persistence. So, to answer your question hhEb09'1, I deny that there's much affinity between the Wiki article and the theory I'm trying to present here.

John Mendenhall
2007-Oct-16, 05:21 PM
Gotta applaud Mr. Platts on this one. Take note, folks, this is how you present an ATM theory. I definitely like how this is being done.

Yes, I'm persuaded. Anybody have any testing ideas?

IIRC, a long time ago, maybe 30 or 40 years, some researchers took a large flat tub, cooled the center, heated the edges, and rotated the whole business. And repeated the process many times. Most of the time. a large stable vortex formed at approximately the red spot latitude. I have no idea if it was a low or a high, but it might be in the literature somewhere.

Good job, Warren.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-17, 10:48 AM
One way to test the hypothesis would be to send an atmospheric probe into the Red Spot itself. If the GRS is in fact driven by latent heat released by material liberated from the metallic envelope, then one would expect the GRS to be enriched in helium and perhaps other heavy elements (e.g., neon), relative to the rest of the observable atmosphere.

As it is, quantitative analysis based on spectrographs is not a very exact science (as was shown by the Galileo probe that corrected upward previous Y (helium) mass fraction estimates based on spectrographes.)

One thing I find inexcusable is that we go to all this trouble to send a school-bus sized probe to Saturn, but don't include an atmospheric probe to directly measure the atmospheric composition. As a result, the Y of Saturn's atmosphere can only be pinned down to between 18 and 25.

publiusr
2007-Oct-19, 05:38 PM
Just have an Ares V or two launch this to Jupiter:

http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/slam.html

And outfit it like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP-3D

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-22, 12:04 PM
That would be cool. It would be nice to get actual transects from across all latitudes. But how about a nuclear powered dirigilble? It would be able to last even longer than the ramscoop ship, but it might not be able to handle the turbulence.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-22, 09:07 PM
As I continue to meditate, it seems to me the GRS must be more tornadoish in gross morphology than hurricanian. It's the adiabaticity thing. As the weather formation progresses toward the interior, pressure would shrink the diameter of the cloud so that it would take on a funnel shape, rather than a column shape.

One could estimate the diameter of the bottom, assuming the bottom is at the PPT (0.9 Jupiter radii) or around 10,000 km by dividing the hypothetical column into slices, each with equal mass. Using the ordinary equations of state, it wouldn't be hard to say how wide the bottom slice should be.

Robert Tulip
2007-Oct-23, 03:56 AM
This informative website http://www.newmediastudio.org/DataDiscovery/Hurr_ED_Center/Hurr_Structure_Energetics/Hurr_Struct.html confirms that the air above a cyclone/hurricane circulates in the opposite (anticyclonic) direction, and includes an excellent diagram at Fig 12. It states “As air leaving the center of the hurricane reaches an elevation of about 12 km above sea level, it produces high pressure near the tropopause, and divergent flow away from the focus of the hurricane. This upper level outflow circulates in an anticyclonic direction, typically at a radius of 300 km, and is termed the anticyclonic jet." However, I still am struggling to picture this as a valid model for Jupiter, where the GRS looks more like an eddy in a river, and where it is hard to imagine, as Warren claims, that this near-invisible anticyclonic reverse jet circulation is sufficient to give us the false impression that the entire spot is spinning in the opposite direction from the hidden reality, and that this hidden reality is proven by teleology. I will also try to follow up on Warren’s claims that this is an example of teleology, as I still don't see how his ideas on this are helpful empirically.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-23, 11:33 AM
This informative website http://www.newmediastudio.org/DataDiscovery/Hurr_ED_Center/Hurr_Structure_Energetics/Hurr_Struct.html confirms that the air above a cyclone/hurricane circulates in the opposite (anticyclonic) direction, and includes an excellent diagram at Fig 12. It states “As air leaving the center of the hurricane reaches an elevation of about 12 km above sea level, it produces high pressure near the tropopause, and divergent flow away from the focus of the hurricane. This upper level outflow circulates in an anticyclonic direction, typically at a radius of 300 km, and is termed the anticyclonic jet." However, I still am struggling to picture this as a valid model for Jupiter, where the GRS looks more like an eddy in a river,

No, the GRS is unusual: see figure 1 of Shetty et al.'s (2007, 4) (http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.4193v2.pdf) new analysis of the GRS's velocity vectors as determined by the Voyager photos. There is a clear collar, whereas on the inside of the GRS, velocities aren't organized and they are small relative to the collar--a sign to me of turbulent upwelling. A regular eddy has organized velocity vectors through and through, down to the middle.


and where it is hard to imagine, as Warren claims, that this near-invisible anticyclonic reverse jet circulation is sufficient to give us the false impression that the entire spot is spinning in the opposite direction from the hidden reality,
Huh?


and that this hidden reality is proven by teleology. I will also try to follow up on Warren’s claims that this is an example of teleology, as I still don't see how his ideas on this are helpful empirically.

The way you sling around the word 'teleology' shows you don't know where I'm coming from. I've said elsewhere that my metaphysical system is known as "scientific materialism": it's materialistic in that it only contemplates atoms and molecules as the building blocks of reality, and its epistemology is scientific in that science is the the best epistemological technique to understand all these atoms and molecules. I am not a Christian, nor a Bhuddist, nor anything else. I don't believe in God or gods, Mind or minds.

In other words, I don't make a distinction between the "real" purposes of self-conscious human scientists, and the "purely as if" teleology of lesser systems. Therefore I am free to posit teleological ascriptions wherever it is useful to do so. And when can such ascriptions be useful? Wherever a system has undergone a history of natural selection. This is ordinary in biology, but in the physical sciences not so much, but only because most people haven't considered the fact that physical systems do undergo natural selection, but without the genetic heredity and reproduction.

In my first post in that other ATM thread, what I proposed was a methodological panpsychism. "Panpsychism" was an unfortunate word choice, however. I should have said methodological "animism" or "shintoism". Rather, than one grand mind that rules over all, each individual system is more usefully considered as possessing its own Japanese "kami" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kami). The task of science is then to reverse engineer the apparent kami-driven behavior in order to come up with a materialistic explanation for the phenomenon based on atoms and molecules.

Again, let me remind you, I am a scientific materialist, and not an animist nor a devotee of Shintoism.

WRT the GRS, most people are accustomed to thinking of the Great Red Spot as a mere mechanical system subject to the whim of forces beyond its control; hence the reflex to the hypothesis that the GRS must be caused by some hidden object floating in the Jovian atmosphere. The teleological method suggests that since Jovian storms "compete" with each other by "eating" each other, the GRS might be usefully viewed as if it were alive. Thus, my question was not "How does fluid mechanics and turbulence theory generate a long lasting system like the GRS?" Rather, my question was, "If I were the GRS, what would I like to eat?" This led me to the seemingly-to-me-obvious hypothesis that the GRS is the tail end of a gas lift pipe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_lift) that's tapping into the metallic envelope. Yet the gas lift hypothesis has apparently been overlooked in all the primary literature I've been able to uncover so far.

But of course (as grant hutchison pointed out with respect to my historical analysis of the discovery of buckyballs) anyone could have thought up the gas lift hypothesis for any of a number of reasons. My point is that I in fact thought of it while coming from an explicitly teleological or "design stance" a la Daniel Dennett. So that shows the teleological method can be useful at times. It is not, however, my position that the gas lift hypothesis is "proven by teleology" (whatever that means--and for anyone interested in knowing more about teleology, avoid taking seriously the wiki article on the subject because it's worse than useless). Whether the gas lift hypothesis will eventually become the mainstream view or not depends on how well it makes future predictions, and on how well it can illuminate models of Jupiter's interior.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-23, 06:03 PM
As I continue to meditate, it seems to me the GRS must be more tornadoish in gross morphology than hurricanian. It's the adiabaticity thing. As the weather formation progresses toward the interior, pressure would shrink the diameter of the cloud so that it would take on a funnel shape, rather than a column shape.

One could estimate the diameter of the bottom, assuming the bottom is at the PPT (0.9 Jupiter radii) or around 10,000 km by dividing the hypothetical column into slices, each with equal mass. Using the ordinary equations of state, it wouldn't be hard to say how wide the bottom slice should be.

Let's assume that the total system consisting the GRS is actually a funnel-shaped pipe. If you'll take a look at the graph on page four of Shetty et al. (October 4, 2007) (http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.4193v2.pdf), you can clearly see a thick collar that encases a chaotic, turbulent zone where most of the hypothesized uplift takes place. The turbulent zone can be approximated as an ellipse whose semimajor axis is 5,000 km, and whose semiminor axis is 2,000 km. This works out to an area of about 30 million square kilometers.

Now, if the GRS is in a more-or-less steady-state, then the mass flux through any given horizontal section should be the same. That entails that any given, horizontal, thin slice with the same thickness will have the same number of molecules. Therefore, the area of any given slice will depend on the ambient temperature and pressure. The relevant gas law can be given as follows:



P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2

Since our representative slices will have the same thickness, the equation reduces to:



P1A1/T1 = P2A2/T2

and where the '1' refers to conditions prevailing at the level of the cloud deck and '2' refers to conditions prevailing at the level of the plasma phase transition (PPT).

We can substitute the following reasonable values that I got from page 46 of Baganel, Dowling, and McKinnon's (2004) book entitled Jupiter: The Planet, Satelites and Magnetosphere that I got in the mail a couple of days ago.



A1 = 30,000,000 km^2
T1 = 160 K
T2 = 6,000 K
P1 = 1 bar
P2 = 1,000,000 bars


and thus solving for A2, we can obtain a first-order order of estimate of the size of the area at the bottom of the GRS of about 1,000 km2. This figure is much smaller than the visible GRS, but it is still a fairly beefy pipe capable of moving a lot of material.

Thus the next question would be the mass flux itself. I'm not sure how to go about estimating this. I would be open to any suggestions.

One way might be energetical considerations. How fast would metallic hydrogen have to be converted to molecular hydrogen in order to maintain the GRS in order to overcome the friction resulting from wind shear?

tusenfem
2007-Oct-24, 09:55 AM
Naturally your calculation of pv/t = constant assumes that nothing changes when you move into Jupiter, e.g. chemical composition, magnetic field strength etc.

Here (http://esoads.eso.org/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PHY&db_key=PRE&qform=PHY&arxiv_sel=astro-ph&arxiv_sel=cond-mat&arxiv_sel=cs&arxiv_sel=gr-qc&arxiv_sel=hep-ex&arxiv_sel=hep-lat&arxiv_sel=hep-ph&arxiv_sel=hep-th&arxiv_sel=math&arxiv_sel=math-ph&arxiv_sel=nlin&arxiv_sel=nucl-ex&arxiv_sel=nucl-th&arxiv_sel=physics&arxiv_sel=quant-ph&arxiv_sel=q-bio&aut_logic=OR&author=&ned_query=YES&sim_query=YES&start_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=AND&title=jupiter+red+spot&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=100&start_nr=1&jou_pick=NO&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&end_entry_day=&end_entry_mon=&end_entry_year=&min_score=&sort=SCORE&data_type=SHORT&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1) is a list on ADS of over 200 published papers on the GRS.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-24, 11:16 AM
Naturally your calculation of pv/t = constant assumes that nothing changes when you move into Jupiter, e.g. chemical composition, magnetic field strength etc.The thing about the ideal gas law is that it doesn't matter what kind of gases compose a given mixture--they all obey the same ideal gas law. As for magnetic fields, I'm proposing that the GRS is mainly composed of helium and molecular hydrogen--neutral molecules and atoms that aren't affected much by magnetic fields.


Here (http://esoads.eso.org/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&db_key=PHY&db_key=PRE&qform=PHY&arxiv_sel=astro-ph&arxiv_sel=cond-mat&arxiv_sel=cs&arxiv_sel=gr-qc&arxiv_sel=hep-ex&arxiv_sel=hep-lat&arxiv_sel=hep-ph&arxiv_sel=hep-th&arxiv_sel=math&arxiv_sel=math-ph&arxiv_sel=nlin&arxiv_sel=nucl-ex&arxiv_sel=nucl-th&arxiv_sel=physics&arxiv_sel=quant-ph&arxiv_sel=q-bio&aut_logic=OR&author=&ned_query=YES&sim_query=YES&start_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=AND&title=jupiter+red+spot&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=100&start_nr=1&jou_pick=NO&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&end_entry_day=&end_entry_mon=&end_entry_year=&min_score=&sort=SCORE&data_type=SHORT&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1) is a list on ADS of over 200 published papers on the GRS.

Thanks for the link, but your post would be more useful if it included a username and password for ScienceDirect. . . . :boohoo:

tusenfem
2007-Oct-24, 11:56 AM
The thing about the ideal gas law is that it doesn't matter what kind of gases compose a given mixture--they all obey the same ideal gas law. As for magnetic fields, I'm proposing that the GRS is mainly composed of helium and molecular hydrogen--neutral molecules and atoms that aren't affected much by magnetic fields.


but you can only compare (1) and (2) if there have not been any phase transitions, which will change internal energy, entropy, enthalpy etc. I may be mistaken, but I do think that the perfect gas law only applies if those things are kept constant.



Thanks for the link, but your post would be more useful if it included a username and password for ScienceDirect.

yeah, wouldn't we all wanna have a password for that.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-24, 12:09 PM
but you can only compare (1) and (2) if there have not been any phase transitions, which will change internal energy, entropy, enthalpy etc. I may be mistaken, but I do think that the perfect gas law only applies if those things are kept constant.
You are correct sir, but I'm purposefully looking at the conditions just above the PPT, therefore, the model for the shape of the GRS assumes that the hydrogen will be existing in the molecular phase, and that there are no other important phase transitions as one proceeds from the cloud deck to the PPT.

Your larger point that such estimates are fraught with uncertainties is well taken, however. I'm just hoping for an order of magnitude ballpark approximation.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-25, 01:07 PM
You are confused about the driver. Let's just go directly to the GRS, because that is what you want to model. Now, indeed there is a pressure difference between the bottom of the "pipe" and the top, and this is because of gravity and that pressure difference cannot create a flow.

The flow that you want needs an extra driver. Then you say, let's have a greater pressure outside the "pipe" then inside of it. Well, as there are no solid boundaries in the GRS, this would mean that the gas/plasma would just flow and equilibrate. Also, is that truly the flow that you want?Pressure drops of ~10% are typical for both hurricanes and tornadoes on Earth. As long as such a system is self-sustaining, the pressure differential will also be sustained. (cf. Bernoulli's principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli's_principle)).


As far as I understand, you want an upward flow in the "pipe". This can only happen when, e.g. you heat up the gas at the bottom and start up a convection flow. Even with a solid pipe, an underpressure of the surroundings (and, BTW where is that under pressure, I guess at the bottom of the "pipe") will let gas/plasma flow into it at the bottom till there is equilibrium. Bernoulli's principle guarantees there'll be low pressure at the bottom of the vortex. The problem is how to sustain the vortex. That takes energy. However, at the PPT metallic hydrogen has a density of about 1 gm/cm3, whereas molecular hydrodgen has a density of about 0.7 gm/cm3, assuming the phase transition is in fact first-order. The conversion also releases latent heat to the tune of ~0.5kB per proton. However, until I can come up with a figure for the mass flux, I can't calculate how much latent heat could be expected to be released.

tusenfem
2007-Oct-25, 02:47 PM
Pressure drops of ~10% are typical for both hurricanes and tornadoes on Earth. As long as such a system is self-sustaining, the pressure differential will also be sustained. (cf. Bernoulli's principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli's_principle)).


Sorry, but I have to disagree here (again). Bernouilli's principle can be see by blowing between two sheets of paper. Instead of the expected effect that the sheets move away from eachother, they move towards eachother.

A tornado is created by a low pressure system, to which air is flowing and diverted by the coriolis force. Now where does Bernouilli come into play? As long as the low pressure is maintained the tornado can be maintained, and as the wind rotates around the low pressure it is difficult to "fill it up". But this is all coriolis. Note that tornados need energy from the warm sea water. If there is no energy source they peter out, and no Bernouilli will help you maintain the tornado. It will, however, enhance the low pressure region. When you want Bernouilli, then you have to go to a house and have the wind blow along the window. The fast wind along the window has a lower pressure on the window then the standing air in the house. This is Bernouilli acting, and thus the windows "explode" outward, instead of inward.



Bernoulli's principle guarantees there'll be low pressure at the bottom of the vortex. The problem is how to sustain the vortex. That takes energy. However, at the PPT metallic hydrogen has a density of about 1 gm/cm3, whereas molecular hydrodgen has a density of about 0.7 gm/cm3, assuming the phase transition is in fact first-order. The conversion also releases latent heat to the tune of ~0.5kB per proton. However, until I can come up with a figure for the mass flux, I can't calculate how much latent heat could be expected to be released.

The energy you need is to maintain the low pressure to get your vortex. Before you can get Mr. Bernouilli to work you have to have a low pressure to create your vortex.
You want to create heat from the phase transition? There is enough heat generated by Jupiter by its slow contraction. I am not sure how how get the value of 0.5 kB per proton, at the same time this is no heat, it has the units J/K.

Kelfazin
2007-Oct-25, 03:40 PM
A tornado is created by a low pressure system, to which air is flowing and diverted by the coriolis force.

<snip>

Note that tornados need energy from the warm sea water.

You sure you mean tornado and not hurricane? Tornados are pretty small to be affected by the coriolis and, since they most often occur in the central plains here in the US and only rarely in coastal areas, I'm not sure where they would get the warm sea water.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-25, 08:24 PM
Sorry, but I have to disagree here (again). Bernouilli's principle can be see by blowing between two sheets of paper. Instead of the expected effect that the sheets move away from eachother, they move towards eachother. Tell me something I don't know.


A tornado is created by a low pressure system, to which air is flowing and diverted by the coriolis force. Now where does Bernouilli come into play? The Bernoulli principle can be stated as follows (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A517169): "The pressure in a fluid decreases as the speed of the fluid increases."

So, since tornados have high winds, the high winds cause low pressure. And yes of course maintaining a tornado requires inputs of energy.


As long as the low pressure is maintained the tornado can be maintained, and as the wind rotates around the low pressure it is difficult to "fill it up". But this is all coriolis. Note that tornados need energy from the warm sea water. If there is no energy source they peter out, and no Bernouilli will help you maintain the tornado. It will, however, enhance the low pressure region. I agree--I think. . . .


You want to create heat from the phase transition? There is enough heat generated by Jupiter by its slow contraction.There is enough heat to drive ordinary convection from the gravitational contraction. I'm looking for a special source of energy to drive an extraordinary phenomenon.


I am not sure how how get the value of 0.5 kB per proton, at the same time this is no heat, it has the units J/K.

My source is Guillot et al. (2004, 41, in Baganel et al.'s Jupiter: The Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere, Cambridge University Press): "[A]s the planet cools, a fraction of the envelope is converted from one phase to the other with an associated latent heat release (or absorption). The effect on the evolution [of Jupiter as a whole] is not very pronounced for a latent heat of ~0.5kB per proton."

tusenfem
2007-Oct-26, 09:37 AM
The Bernoulli principle can be stated as follows (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A517169): "The pressure in a fluid decreases as the speed of the fluid increases."


Unfortunately, this is exact to such a degree that is it dangerous. Here, the pressure is considered a scalar, however, if you look more closely, you will find that the pressure in such a system is a vector with components along the flow and perpendicular to the flow. Indeed, the total (scalar) pressure may go down, but if you look at the vector properties you will find that it is the components perpedicular to the flow that decrease.



My source is Guillot et al. (2004, 41, in Baganel et al.'s Jupiter: The Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere, Cambridge University Press): "[A]s the planet cools, a fraction of the envelope is converted from one phase to the other with an associated latent heat release (or absorption). The effect on the evolution [of Jupiter as a whole] is not very pronounced for a latent heat of ~0.5kB per proton."

I will have to wait till monday to look up in my copy at work what exactly they mean and how you can use this.

tusenfem
2007-Oct-26, 09:40 AM
You sure you mean tornado and not hurricane? Tornados are pretty small to be affected by the coriolis and, since they most often occur in the central plains here in the US and only rarely in coastal areas, I'm not sure where they would get the warm sea water.

Ah tornado, hurricane, what's in a name!
Guess I mixed them up, however, for a tornados to get a rotational funnel, would they not have to be created by some coriolis effect? Or do you have another mechanism how this comes about?

Kelfazin
2007-Oct-26, 04:22 PM
Ah tornado, hurricane, what's in a name!
Guess I mixed them up, however, for a tornados to get a rotational funnel, would they not have to be created by some coriolis effect? Or do you have another mechanism how this comes about?

Tornadoes may get their initial rotation direction from the t-storm cell, which is obviously caused by the coriolis effect (although not in all cases...tornadoes can spin clockwise in the northern hemisphere..and sometime a storm cell will produce two tornadoes, each spinning a different direction), but the tornado itself is too small for the effect to apply. The high-speed rotation of a tornado is a product of high vertical wind shear.


From here (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/general/GEN016.HTM)

If the wind speed increases rapidly with height and/or if the wind direction turns clockwise with height, air being drawn in toward the thunderstorm updraft will develop a spin about the horizontal axis. [...] As the air rises into the updraft, the spin about the horizontal axis becomes a spin about the vertical axis.

Regardless..this is OT. My apologies Warren.

cjl
2007-Oct-26, 04:22 PM
Generally, it is accepted to be wind shear between two layers of air with differing properties, IIRC.

Warren Platts
2007-Oct-26, 04:57 PM
Unfortunately, this is exact to such a degree that is it dangerous. Here, the pressure is considered a scalar, however, if you look more closely, you will find that the pressure in such a system is a vector with components along the flow and perpendicular to the flow. Indeed, the total (scalar) pressure may go down, but if you look at the vector properties you will find that it is the components perpedicular to the flow that decrease.Exactly. So you have a tornado with a whirling wall of air that's mostly going in a corkscrew pattern. Then the pressure components perpendicular to the corkscrew flow decrease. Outside the tornado, this entails that the ambient air pressure presses inward following the decrease in the pressure component perpendicular to the direction of the rotation due to the Bernoulli effect. But because of conservation of momentum, the more the tornado gets pressed inward, the faster it spins (in the manner of ice skaters) until a balance is reached between the ambient pressure and the centrifugal force of the whirling wall of air combined with the inner pressure.

Meanwhile, on the inside, the pressure component perpendicular to the corkscrew flow decreases--this time the decrease is towards the outside, however. The decrease in the pressure component near the wall will cause the air inside the whirling wall to move toward the wall, with the result that the air pressure in the very center of the vortex drops. Therefore, air will flow into the column from the opening of the vortex at the bottom of the column on the ground.

Thus, cut off the supply of fresh air at the bottom, and you kill the tornado. Cutting off the supply of fresh air causes the internal pressure to decline even more; then the ambient air presses on the side of the tornado, crushing the life out of it. Hence the phenomenon of "roping" right before a tornado dissipates--it gets real skinny and then does the "funky chicken" (American slang for convulsions associated with the onset of death).


I will have to wait till monday to look up in my copy at work what exactly they mean and how you can use this. I'm more than a little confused about this myself, and am trying to figure it out.

Warren Platts
2007-Nov-01, 06:44 PM
Wow, the silence is deafening! I must really be on to something here! :D

Mass Flux

The mainstream view of the GRS is that it is rather like a "pancake" (e.g., Marcus 1993 (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1993ARA%26A..31..523M/0000523.000.html), Simon-Miller et al. 2002 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGF-466CG4S-H&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b0413d8cab10db98a2db077823bda388)), that is basically 2-dimensional and much less deep than it is wide. The view taken here, however, is that the GRS is more like a tornado: it is very much a 3-D creature, funnel shaped and penetrating to depths that rival the magnitude of its breadth.

On the theory presented here, the GRS is a plasmavore that feeds on metallic hydrogen at the plasma phase transition zone (PPT). Current models suggest the PPT--if it exists at all--lies between 0.9 and 0.78 RJ, or at about 7,000 to 16,000 km below the cloud deck. So, the GRS would have to reach that far down. But considering that the GRS is a 14,000 km X 24,000 km ellipse at the cloud deck, reaching the PPT is not so far-fetched.

The GRS has a peculiar morphology compared to other Jovian vortices in that it has an organized, rapidly moving "collar" that surrounds an inner turbulent zone. So the GRS can be envisioned as a sort of funnel shaped pipe that pumps material from deep within Jupiter up into the stratosphere. The inner dimensions of the pipe, as mentioned in a previous post, can be described by an ellipse whose semimajor axis is about 5,000 km and whose semiminor axis is about 2,000, with an area of about 3 X 107 km2. So it would be of interest to estimate the amount of upwelling through this pipe.

We can obtain an order-of-magnitude estimate of the mass flux through the center of the GRS if we assume an upwelling rate of 50 m s-1. Since typical upwelling occurs at the rate of tens of meters per second, the 50 m s-1 figure is not unreasonable. 500 m s-1 would be the equivalent of over 1,000 mph, which greatly exceeds the maximum winds ever observed on Jupiter, and 5 m s-1 is much too slow a figure, given the typical wind velocities found all over Jupiter.

Given an area of 3 X 107 km2 and a 50 m s-1 average velocity, that works out to 1.5 X 1015 m3. Assuming a pressure of 1 bar and a temperature of 170o K, from the ideal gas law (PV = nRT) we can estimate the molar flux:



105 N 1.5 X 1015 m3 mole K
-------------------------- = 1017 moles s-1
m2 s 8.314 N m 170 K

Assuming a helium molar fraction of about 13.6%, a hydrogen molar fraction of 86%, with the rest made up by much heavier molecules, a density of 2.5 gm per mole of atmosphere is not unreasonable. So that yields a mass flux of 2.5 X 1014 kg s-1.

Energy Flux

The formula for calculating kinetic energy is (½) mv2. This works out to an energy flux of 3 X 1017 watts or 3 X 1024 erg s-1. That is a lot of watts. To put this figure in perspective, consider that about 8 X 1024 erg s-1 is the total radiation emitted by Jupiter of which 5 X 1024 erg s-1 consists of absorbed solar energy that is re-emitted. In other words, the kinetic energy flux flowing through the GRS is about the same as the total intrinsic power of the whole planet.

Conditions Prevailing at the Bottom of the GRS

Because pressure rapidly increases with depth within the interior of Jupiter, under the plasmavore model, the GRS will take on a pronounced funnel shape, as opposed to the mainstream pancake shape, but with a much more squashed appearance compared to the archetypical terran tornado. In an earlier post, I had estimated the area of the opening at the bottom of the vortex as about 1,000 km2--equivalent to a circle with a 35 km diameter. However, I had assumed that the ideal gas laws prevail in the interior of Jupiter--but the ideal gas laws do not prevail within gas giants. This fact makes the study of gas giants even more problematic and challenging than the study of stars, because at stellar densities, the ideal gas laws once again begin to work. The main problem is the equation of state of hydrogen. Determining the EOS is not an exact science, but the gas giants offer severe constraints that limit what the hydrogen EOS must be like. See Saumon, Chabrier, and Van Horn (1995) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995ApJS...99..713S) for an excellent discussion of EOS theory.

Current theory suggests that the density of the molecular envelope at the upper boundary of the PPT is maybe 0.7 gm cm-3. Now, since energy and mass are conserved, and if the flow through the pipe that consists the GRS is approximately adiabatic and isobaric with respect to the surroundings, then the vertical velocity component at the mouth of the GRS must be the same as the vertical velocity at the top. We can calculate the volume flow from the given density (0.7 gm cm-3) and given mass (2.5 * 1014 kg): that works out to 3.6 X 1011 m3 s-1. And from the volume flow and the known vertical velocity component, the area of the bottom must be: 3.6 X 1011 m3 / 50 m s-1 = 7.2 X 109 m2.

If the opening was round, that would work out to a 100 km pipe diameter! That's about 1% of the diameter of the opening at the visible top of the GRS. The shape would be rather like a one meter long straight trumpet-style bugle with a bell the size of a tuba.

Caloric Requirements of a Plasmavore

Clearly, there is much more kinetic energy wrapped up in the outer collar of the GRS than in the central upwelling zone. However, given the large sizes and low viscosities involved, there may not be very much friction for the rotating wall to overcome. And although there is a vast amount of kinetic energy stored within the whirling wall, since the material mostly goes in circles, little actual work gets done. So it's hard to calculate the ongoing energy requirements the whirling wall.

On the other hand, if the turbulent interior is in fact the interior of a pipe that's continously pumping fluid from the bottom of the molecular envelope up into the stratosphere, that represents real work requiring constant energy input, and the energy required to power that work must be accounted for. At a minimum, there must be enough power to accelerate 2.5 X 1014 kg s-1 up to a velocity of 50 km s-1 on the particular model being described here. In other words, the power source must be equivalent to the kinetic power going through the top of the GRS--3 X 1017 J s-1.

On the theory that the GRS is a plasmavore, the required energy comes from the conversion of metallic hydrogen to molecular hydrogen. Saumon et al. (1995) (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1995ApJS...99..713S&amp;data_type=PDF_H IGH&amp;whole_paper=YES&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf)'s Table 1. lists the ∆S across the PPT for various pressures and temperatures.

Let's assume that the temperature is 6,000 K (log[6000]=3.78), so that's the second line down, where it says the difference in entropy between the metallic and molecular states (∆S) is 0.590kB. Multiplying by the gas constant R (which is equal to the product of Boltzmann's and Avogadro's constants) converts this figure into SI units, which equals 4.91 J mole-1 K-1. If we further assume that the Gibbs free energy of the phase change is zero (which is reasonable, since we aren't compressing any gasses), according to the standard formula for calculating the enthalpy (latent heat) of a phase change is:



∆H = T∆S

that yeilds:



6000o K * 4.91 J mole-1 K-1 ~ 30 kJ mole-1


Since 1 mole of protons is equivalent to 1 gm of hydrogen, the latent heat liberated by converting metallic hydrogen to molecular hydrogen is roughly 3 X 107 J kg-1 K-1. Now we can calculate the mass flux of metallic hydrogen required for a power source:



3 X 1017 J kg
------------- = 1010 kg s-1
s 3 X 107 J

If we assume a helium mass fraction of ~0.25, then the total flow of material extracted from the metallic region is about 1.3 X 1010. This is only about 0.005% of the total mass flux through the interior of the GRS. Earlier I had suggested that perhaps all the material sucked out by the GRS comes from beyond the PPT. The above calculations show what a crazy idea that was. If all the hydrogen that was pumped started out as metallic hydrogen, that would generate ~ 5 X 1021 watts or about 10,000 times the Jupiter's intrinsic power.

How it Works

Very little material is being scooped up from the PPT. What happens is that like a waterspout, a small "cloud" of metallic hydrogen "droplets" will be kicked up a the base of the GRS. Ordinarily, within terran tornados, such debris tends to weaken the tornado, but with the GRS the effect is the opposite. As the metallic hydrogen droplets get sucked up into the GRS, they rise and the pressure decreases to the point where they will undergo the phase transition to molecular hydrogen, thus releasing their latent heat and reinforcing the convection.

:think:

Skip to post #80 (http://www.bautforum.com/1103937-post80.html)

tusenfem
2007-Nov-02, 07:07 PM
The silence is deafening, because you keep from defining your problem in detail, and overwhelm us with your calculations that we cannot check, because we have not the knowledge to follow your reasoning.

Like, you say that mainstream has found from data that the GRS is a pancake and you assume it is a very long tornado.

In the flow in the pipe you come up with an ad-hoc transport of XXX mole/sec through the pipe.

Warren Platts
2007-Nov-02, 11:59 PM
Energy Flux

The formula for calculating kinetic energy is (½) m v2. This works out to an energy flux of 3 X 1017 watts or 3 X 1024 erg s-1. That is a lot of watts. To put this figure in perspective, consider that about 8 X 1024 erg s-1 is the total radiation emitted by Jupiter of which 5 X 1024 erg s-1 consists of absorbed solar energy that is re-emitted. In other words, the kinetic energy flux flowing through the GRS is about the same as the total intrinsic power of the whole planet. . . .

:think:You know, I'm beginning to think that might not be a coincidence.

The amount of actual mass removed from the PPT almost seems trivially small. Earlier, I had written that a prediction of the plasmavore model is that the GRS should be enriched in helium. But even if the metallic zone were 90% helium (and that's totally outside the realm of sane possibility), it would increase the GRS He volume mixing ration from 0.136 to 0.1361--well below even the Gallileo atmospheric probe's precision.

However, on longer time scales, the amount of material removed from the PPT might possibly be significant if the Great Red Spot or ones like it have existed pretty much since Jupiter became a going concern. Jupiter is 314 Earth masses. If 14 of those are sequestered in the core, and the molecular envelope takes up 10% of the rest, that leaves a metallic envelope of about 270 Earth masses, or 1.6 * 1027 kg. Thus the turnover time of the metallic zone would be on the order of 4-5 billion years--about the age of the solar system. On the other hand, the turnover time of the molecular envelope would be only 400 million years. This result entails that the molecular envelope will track variations in helium abundance within the metallic zone as long as it takes longer than 400 million years for the He abundance to change significantly. Since helium "rain" is a very slow process, it's quite likely that the metallic (at least within the upper, miscible region) and molecular zones should have similar helium mass fractions (Y).

Perhaps even more significant, however, is the energy flux. As noted in post #78, the energy flux through the GRS is basically equal to the intrinsic power of Jupiter. This represents a true consilence:


The consilience of inductions takes place when one class of facts coincides with an induction obtained from another different class. --Whewell.

On the one hand, we have a set of facts, the observed luminosity of Jupiter less the solar flux intercepted by Jupiter, and on the other, an energy flux based on typical upwelling rates within Jupiter, the diameter of the inner, turbulent zone within the GRS, and the observed composition and density of the Jovian atmosphere--and both sets of facts agree quite well.

Assuming this agreement is not a coincidence could have important implications for models of the interior of Jupiter. A conundrum in current theory is the respective effective temperatures of Jupiter and Saturn. Early models of the thermal evolution Jupiter and Saturn assumed that the sole source of internal heat was gravitational contraction. This worked fine for Jupiter in that it predicted that Jupiter should be at the temperature that we observe at its present age of 4.5 billion years. Saturn, however, should have achieved its present temperature 2 billion years ago, according to the early "homogeneous" models (e.g., Grossman et al. 1980) (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGF-47318CX-260&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F1980&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0e2d31bc94e9a64392fbbd08d065be7e)--so-called because they assume no phase separation between hydrogen and helium

So in order to save the situation, it was realized that at high enough pressures and temperatures where hydrogen becomes fully ionized (at the PPT, the metallic hydrogen is a mixture of neutral H and H+), helium becomes immiscible, so that it forms "droplets" that outweigh the forces of convection, and this helium "rain" then settles around the ice/rock core. Such helium sedimentation would release gravitational potential energy that would be converted to heat, and thus slow down the cooling rate of gas giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn. This theory has worked great for Saturn in that Saturn's temperature can now be reconciled with its age; but now Jupiter suffers from the opposite problem.

Jupiter's observed helium mass fraction Y as observed by the Galileo probe is about 0.23 compared to a protosolar value of 0.27. The natural explanation for this discrepancy is helium sedimentation, but under the EOS's that make Saturn's temperature and age work out, Jupiter should be hotter than it is now, and so now researchers are wondering if "some other factor must be involved that without helium separation would allow the planet to cool more quickly than current homogeneous models predict" (Fortney and Hubbard 2003 (http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0305/0305031.pdf), 29).

One theory that's been hot lately is the erosion of core material. The theory is that core material is eroded by downwelling plumes and then is swept up against gravity into the metallic envelope, so that some of the internal heat is converted back to gravitational potential energy, thus leading to a lower overall luminosity. I haven't delved into this too much, but one problem that immediately leaps out to me is that if core erosion is intended to counterbalance the heating effects of helium sedimentation, then how is it that the core is supposed to be eroded without sucking up the precipitated helium as well?

The plasmavore model of the GRS, however, can perhaps offer a cooling mechanism.

According to the mainstream three-layer model, heat is generated in Jupiter's interior by gravitational contraction and helium sedimentation. This heat is transported convectively to the PPT, where there is an entropy jump, and which therefore forms an "impenetrable barrier" to convection. So heat is transported across the PPT via radiative conduction, and then convection once again takes over, and carries the heat into the upper atmosphere where it is radiated into space.

On the plasmavore model, the GRS removes enough metallic hydrogen from the PPT to cause it to lower in depth by about 1 cm year-1. However, on short time scales at least, the pressure and temperature conditions don't change, so the metallic hydrogen removed by the GRS will have to be replaced with H2 from the molecular envelope. The energy required for this phase change comes from the interior. So what happens is gravitational contraction and helium sedimentation generate heat, this heat is transported convectively to the PPT where it converts H2 into metallic hydrogen. The GRS then sucks out an equivalent amount of metallic hydrogen, and pumps the resultant latent heat into the upper atmosphere where it radiates to space.

So the question naturally arises: What's to stop the GRS from taking more metallic hydrogen than can be regenerated by the interior heat flux? Well, what would happen is that the energy for the latent heat absorption required to replace the lost metallic hydrogen in excess of that which the interior is able to provide would have to come from the lower boundary layer of the molecular envelope--where else? But this shouldn't be a problem because the molecular envelope now has the extra energy pumped into it by the GRS, and convection will ensure that this excess heat energy will eventually be transported back down to the PPT where it can be used to regenerate metallic hydrogen. So it all goes round and round, and the luminosity matches the interior intrinsic power. The problem is that not only is there no net cooling effect were such to happen, but such an analysis would seemingly show that the size of the GRS is arbitrary, and so the apparent fact that its power equals the intrinsic power really is a coincidence after all.

However, consider that the GRS isn't ordinary convection: it's a fast track from the interior to the stratosphere that moves 50 to 500 times faster ordinary convection. So, if the GRS removed more metallic hydrogen than could be regenerated by the intrinsic power, then hot energetic material would be pumped into the upper atmosphere, while the lower boundary layer at the PPT would be supercooled because of the heat extracted in order to make up the metallic hydrogen deficit.

The result is a classic temperature inversion (where warm, low density material overlies cold, dense material), and that will stifle convection.

Because of the temperature inversion, heat will not flow back downwards to help recharge the PPT; hence, the observable luminosity less solar absorption will exceed the intrinsic power, resulting in extra cooling. Meanwhile, as the planet cools, the PPT will sink because as the temperature declines, it takes more pressure to make metallic hydrogen.

As the PPT sinks, the pressure at the mouth of the GRS will increase, thus constricting the opening, and reducing the mass flux. If this process were carried out to its logical conclusion, the mouth would eventually be pinched off, and the flow of matter and energy shut off. The GRS would then "rope out" like a dissipating tornado on Earth, as the plasmavore starved to death. But this doesn't happen because once the power of the GRS was reduced to that of the intrinsic power, further sinking of the PPT would cease, except for that resulting from the ordinary cooling of the planet, and the current dynamic equilibrium that we observe today would prevail.

And so, the GRS could explain the apparent differences in cooling rates between Saturn and Jupiter. Saturn probably never had red spots because of its weaker gravity; the PPT on Saturn was way too far down for an ordinary vortex to reach, and thus red spots could never gain a foothold there.

So, the plasmavore model suggests that the GRS is basically a permanent fixture on Jupiter. Moreover, it suggests that in earlier times when the PPT was closer to the surface, the GRS was probably much bigger than it is today. This suggests that extrasolar gas giants of Jupiter's mass and larger probably also have red spots, and that these planets cool faster than the standard models would suggest. If such a planet early in its evolution could be resolved by a superpowerful telescope, the extra-large red spot predicted by the plasmavore model should show up as a variation in luminosity timed to match the rotation of the planet. :shifty:

Warren Platts
2007-Nov-03, 12:45 AM
The silence is deafening, because you keep from defining your problem in detail, and overwhelm us with your calculations that we cannot check, because we have not the knowledge to follow your reasoning.I tried to rephrase the problem clearly in post #78, incorporating the results of several days of mathematical calculations and literature reviews. If there's something you don't understand, please feel free to ask about it.


Like, you say that mainstream has found from data that the GRS is a pancake and you assume it is a very long tornado.It's a stretch to say that the pancake model was "found from data". It was arrived at because 2-dimensional numerical simulations are easier to do than 3D simulations.


In the flow in the pipe you come up with an ad-hoc transport of XXX mole/sec through the pipe.I arrived at my figure of 50 m s-1 from the following passage from page 46 of Guillot et al. (2004) in Jupiter: the Planet, Satellites, and Magnetosphere:


Phase changes of minor species, such as water can strongly modify convection. First, the latent heat released favors updrafts, as observed in Earth's cumulus clouds. In Jupiter's atmosphere, this leads to convective updrafts of tens of m/s.

So, I figured that if the latent heat released from water condensation can drive updrafts of 10s of meters per second, then latent heat released by metallic hydrogen condensation should be able to achieve at least similar velocities. Like I said in post #78, I was mainly interested in an order-of-magnitude estimate, so don't quote me as saying that the updraft in the GRS is exactly 50 m s-1. I stated my reasons for why I thought that 50 m s-1 was a not unreasonable ballpark figure suitable for back-of-the-envelope calculations for exploring the implications of the plasmavore model. If you don't think that 50 m s-1 is reasonable, then you should state your reasons why you think 5 m s-1 or 500 m s-1 or 0.0 m s-1 would be more reasonable.

Thanks for commenting, tusenfem. :)

EDIT: If I seem to go into excruciating detail with my algebra, it's because I don't trust myself to get it right--I've triple-checked the math myself, but I don't doubt there are mistakes.

Warren Platts
2007-Nov-05, 02:09 AM
So the question naturally arises: What's to stop the GRS from taking more metallic hydrogen than can be regenerated by the interior heat flux? Well, what would happen is that the energy for the latent heat absorption required to replace the lost metallic hydrogen in excess of that which the interior is able to provide would have to come from the lower boundary layer of the molecular envelope--where else?
The metallic envelope, of course! I should have thought of that. . . .

While convection in the molecular envelope would be slowed by latent heat absorption at the PPT, thermal instability would actually be enhanced in the metallic envelope. So, because radiative transfer would dominate in the molecular envelope and convective transfer would prevail in the metallic envelope, the primary heat resource would still come from the metallic layer no matter how much metallic hydrogen in excess of the intrinsic power the GRS pumped out. As the metallic envelope cools, the PPT sinks, the pressure on the throat of the GRS increases, and the rate of cooling slows until an equilibrium is reached where the power pumped out equals the intrinsic power.

So, quite literally, the PPT and the GRS function as a cyclic, heat absorption, refrigeration unit. Metallic hydrogen "condenses" into molecular hydrogen, the stratosphere functions as a heat exchanger, space is the heat sink, and elsewhere along the PPT, the PPT is the evaporator that absorbs heat, causing local cooling. You could say the GRS is Jupiter's air conditioner. :cool:

Warren Platts
2007-Nov-05, 12:44 PM
So, quite literally, the PPT and the GRS function as a cyclic, heat absorption, refrigeration unit. Metallic hydrogen "condenses" into molecular hydrogen, the stratosphere functions as a heat exchanger, space is the heat sink, and elsewhere along the PPT, the PPT is the evaporator that absorbs heat, causing local cooling. You could say the GRS is Jupiter's air conditioner. :cool:
Actually, the GRS/PPT/stratosphere systemisn't a heat absorption refrigerator at all--it's more of a strange sort of mechanical refrigerator (http://home.howstuffworks.com/refrigerator4.htm). In an ordinary refrigerator, a compressor compresses the vaporized refrigerant (e.g, freon or ammonia). As the refrigerant condenses back to liquid, latent heat is released and radiates away. The liquid refrigerant then passes through an expansion valve that lowers the pressure of the refrigerant and sends it into the zone to be cooled. There, the refrigerant boils back into vapor, and boiling requires inputs of heat, so it sucks heat out of the zone to be cooled, thus lowering its temperature. The compressor then recompresses the vaporized refrigerant, and the process is repeated.

On Jupiter, gravity serves the function of the compressor, the GRS is the expansion valve that releases the pressure, and hydrogen is the refrigerant. Hydrogen on Jupiter is very weird, however, in that it behaves just the opposite of ordinary, Terran refrigerants. That is, on Jupiter, compression drives a phase change by causing molecular hydrogen vapor to "condense" into metallic hydrogen--but the condensation absorbs heat! Then the GRS releases the pressurized metallic hydrogen, where it "boils" back into molecular hydrogen vapor--but the boiling releases latent heat!

The attached figure would be a good schematic of what happens on Jupiter if the arrow in the drawing was reversed. "A" is the metallic envelope in the interior of Jupiter that is being cooled; "C" is the Great Red Spot; the purple and red coil is the stratosphere that radiates away the excess heat, and "B" is the gravitational "compressor".

Michael Noonan
2007-Nov-05, 03:21 PM
Due to the extreme size of the GRS I looked at a reference to turbidity and was wondering if the flow rates might need a whole new system to describe them. It is just so big that if the walls of the storm had sufficient altitude there could also be a vacuum effect as a driver.

The upper level of the storm if it was high enough may be in a vacuum region of immense size by comparison to the base of the storm. This article on turbidity here (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:m6YU5AxfiqUJ:paddockindustriesinc.c om/Content/Uploads/Paddock/products/theory%2520of%2520high%2520flow%2520vacuum%2520san d%2520filtration.ba.pdf+turbidity+flow+rate+vacuum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au)

It goes into the charge particle effect in filters dust and sand but the point is the size of the GRS would be if an electrical component is present was there any variation to the measure of the GRS around the time the comet Holmes experienced the million fold increase in brightness?

As the gravity of Jupiter draws the weight of the storm down and the atmosphere provides the negative pressure to hold the sides of the storm out it may be a vacuum driven system and very different to pipe flow dynamics as we know them on earth.

Warren Platts
2007-Nov-06, 02:51 PM
Due to the extreme size of the GRS I looked at a reference to turbidity and was wondering if the flow rates might need a whole new system to describe them. It is just so big that if the walls of the storm had sufficient altitude there could also be a vacuum effect as a driver.That's basically what I'm saying, that the GRS functions as a vortex tube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube), but with a turbulent inner flow.


The upper level of the storm if it was high enough may be in a vacuum region of immense size by comparison to the base of the storm. This article on turbidity here (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:m6YU5AxfiqUJ:paddockindustriesinc.c om/Content/Uploads/Paddock/products/theory%2520of%2520high%2520flow%2520vacuum%2520san d%2520filtration.ba.pdf+turbidity+flow+rate+vacuum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au)Turbidity is just a measure of how much crud is mixed in with a given fluid. I don't see how that would be very relevent, given that hydrogen and helium are the dominant species.


It goes into the charge particle effect in filters dust and sand but the point is the size of the GRS would be if an electrical component is present was there any variation to the measure of the GRS around the time the comet Holmes experienced the million fold increase in brightness?The GRS naturally varies through time; it would be difficult to point to any particular variation and say for sure that it was caused by comet Holmes.


As the gravity of Jupiter draws the weight of the storm down and the atmosphere provides the negative pressure to hold the sides of the storm out it may be a vacuum driven system and very different to pipe flow dynamics as we know them on earth.I don't doubt that. :)

Warren Platts
2007-Nov-07, 01:24 AM
I'm having horrible deja vu that I came across this whole idea in the stacks at some university library several years ago and that there must be some reason the theory never caught on. . . .

Edit: it's the Av3 thing. It seems awful familiar.

Warren Platts
2007-Nov-09, 12:29 AM
The Great Red Spot as a plasmavore:

An alternate cooling mechanism for Jupiter?

Warren J. Platts

Dept. of Philosophy, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Author E-mail address: warrenplatts@comcast.net


Pages: 10

1. Introduction

Traditional approaches to modeling the Great Red Spot of Jupiter typically assume a two-dimensional “pancake” shape, and attempt to reproduce the major features of the GRS from the first principles of fluid dynamics (e.g., Marcus 1993). An alternative approach might be to ask, “If I were the GRS, what would I like to eat?” (cf. Dennett 1971). The obvious answer is metallic hydrogen. If the GRS was a vortex tube extending to the plasma phase transition (PPT), small amounts of metallic hydrogen would be entrained in the updraft and converted to molecular hydrogen releasing latent heat; the latent heat would provide lift, and the process would become self-sustaining. Such a system is analogous to the degassing operations on Lake Nyos and Monoun, Cameroon (Kling et al. 2005); a pipe is extended from the surface to the CO2 saturated bottom layer; once flow is mechanically initiated, bubbles of CO2 form providing lift, and the flow becomes self-sustaining.

Reasonable assumptions yield a net energy flow through the GRS that is equivalent to Jupiter's intrinsic power. One is tempted to theorize that the power levels are in dynamic equilibrium.

The GRS could provide a cooling mechanism that would reconcile inhomogeneous models of the thermal evolution of Jupiter and Saturn. Early homogeneous models (no helium-hydrogen phase separation) accurately predicted the evolution of Jupiter, but found that Saturn should have achieved its present effective temperature over two billion years ago (Grossman et al. 1980). However, inhomogeneous models that invoke helium phase separation and sedimentation within the fully ionized regions of the metallic envelope can prolong Saturn's cooling long enough to reconcile its predicted effective temperature with the observed temperature (Fortney and Hubbard 2003).

Jupiter's helium mass fraction Y determined by the Galileo probe is 0.231 compared to a protosolar value of 0.27 (Guillot et al. 2004). The natural explanation for this discrepancy is helium phase separation, but under the EOS's that make Saturn's temperature and age work out, Jupiter should be hotter than it is now (Fortney and Hubbard 2003). Consequently, there may be some other mechanism for cooling. One suggestion is core erosion and redistribution (Guillot et al. 2004). An alternative explanation is that the flow of the GRS is controlled by the depth of the PPT. In the early stages of Jupiter's history, the PPT was perhaps closer to Jupiter's surface. At that time, the GRS or its equivalent may have been much larger than it is now, allowing transformation of metallic hydrogen into molecular hydrogen at a rate faster than could be recharged by the intrinsic power. The GRS-driven cooling would cause the PPT to sink, constricting the flow through the GRS until the power of the GRS matched the intrinsic power.

2. The plasmavore model

The GRS is a singular example of a persistent, annular vortex. It consists of an anticyclonic, high-velocity "collar" that surrounds a broad quiescent interior (Shetty et al. in press, Fig. 1). The interior can be described by an ellipse with an area of 3 x 107 km2.

The model presented here assumes the interior is a turbulent updraft within a vortex tube formed by the collar. Since condensation of water on Jupiter drives convective updrafts in the tens of m s-1 (Guillot et al. 2004), it is reasonable to suppose that latent heat released by the conversion of metallic hydrogen to molecular hydrogen could lead to similar velocities. The mass flow rate through the vortex tube is derived from the ideal gas law (pV = nRT):

(1) Mass flow GRS = MJAvp / RT

where MJ is the average molar mass of the Jovian atmosphere, A is the area of the turbulent interior of the GRS at the cloud deck, and v is the average velocity of the updraft. The net power of the GRS is given by:

(2) PGRS= MJ Av3p / 2RT

Given pressure of 1 bar, temperature of 170° K, average molar weight of 2.341 gm mole-1 (Taylor et al. 2004, Tab. 4.2), and average velocity of 50 m s-1, the total mass flow through the vortex tube would be 2.5 x 1014 kg s-1 having a power of 3.1 x 1024 erg s-1, compared to Jupiter's intrinsic power of 3.350 x 1024 erg s-1 (Guillot et al. 2004, Tab. 3.3).

If the mass flow at the bottom of the vortex tube is the same as at the top, and the width of the vortex tube is barotropic, then the average velocity of the updraft is constant, and the area at the bottom opening of the vortex tube is given by

(3) Abot ≈ mass flowGRS / vρ

where ρ is the density of the molecular phase near the PPT. Assuming a density of 0.7 gm cm-3 (Saumon et al. 1995), Abot would be on the order of ~7 x 103 km2.

Equation 2 is highly sensitive to the chosen velocity, but we can see how Jupiter's intrinsic power constrains the plasmavore model if we considered what would happen if the GRS "ingested" more metallic hydrogen than could be recharged by the intrinsic power. The mass flow of metallic hydrogen required to power the GRS is:

(4) mass flowmet = PGRSMH / RT∆S

where MH is the molar mass of metallic hydrogen, and ∆S is the positive entropy jump associated with the phase transition from metallic hydrogen to molecular hydrogen. If the entropy jump for the phase transition was 0.590 kB per proton for a PPT temperature of 6000° K (Saumon et al. 1995, Tab. 1), the required flow of metallic hydrogen would be on the order of ~1010 kg s-1. Such a flow would provide a significant mixing mechanism between the metallic and molecular envelopes: the turnover time for the metallic envelope would be on the order of ~109 yr, but that for the molecular envelope would be on the order of ~108 yr.

If the flow of metallic hydrogen was not replenished, the PPT could be expected to sink at a rate on the order of ~1 cm yr-1; but on short time scales, the pressure and temperature surfaces would not be expected to sink as well. Thus, the flow of metallic hydrogen through the GRS would be balanced by an equal and opposite flow of molecular hydrogen into the metallic envelope elsewhere along the PPT; the phase transition from molecular hydrogen to metallic hydrogen will absorb heat energy equal to the energy liberated by the GRS. Extracting more latent heat than the intrinsic power, however, will cause the PPT to cool and sink. As the PPT sinks, the pressure on the throat of the GRS will increase, constricting the vortex tube, thus reducing the mass flow.

If the rate of latent heat extraction by the GRS was less than the intrinsic power, the temperature would increase, and the PPT would rise until the pressure on the throat of the GRS relaxed enough to allow a GRS net power equal to the intrinsic power (or the PPT reached the theoretical equilibrium depth it would have in the absence of the GRS). The net result of these opposing processes would be a dynamic equilibrium.

3. An alternate cooling mechanism

If the plasmavore hypothesis is true, the GRS functions quite literally as an expansion valve and gravity as a compressor in a natural refrigeration system. Hydrogen is the refrigerant, but it acts oppositely of ordinary refrigerants: the compression cycle converts molecular hydrogen to metallic hydrogen absorbing heat; the pressure drop induced by the expansion valve converts metallic hydrogen to molecular hydrogen releasing heat.

Early in Jupiter's evolutionary history, the depth of the PPT must have been less than it is now. Less pressure on the throat of the GRS would have allowed conversion of metallic hydrogen to molecular hydrogen at a rate higher than could be replenished by the intrinsic power. As the PPT cooled, the lower layers of the molecular envelope would cool, whereas the upper atmosphere would be receiving energy inputs from the GRS; the resulting temperature inversion would inhibit convection within in the molecular envelope while thermal instability in the metallic envelope would be enhanced. The natural refrigeration system that would result would speed up the thermal evolution of Jupiter.

The gravity of Saturn is much less than Jupiter; thus, the PPT on Saturn is at a much lower depth than on Jupiter. Presumably, the GRS is the evolutionary descendent of a large, ordinary vortex that formed from the fusion of other large vortexes; the plasmavore model suggests that there is a theoretical limit to the depth that large, self-sustaining, vortex tubes can reach, beyond which plasmavorous red spots are not sustainable. It is likely that the PPT depth on Saturn was always too low for a GRS analog to form; the above theoretical considerations would not affect inhomogeneous models of Saturn's evolution. In consequence, the plasmavore hypothesis can bring inhomogeneous evolutionary models of Jupiter and Saturn into closer agreement.

4. Future prospects

That the GRS is a tornado-like, gas-lift pump powered by latent heat released by the conversion of metallic hydrogen to molecular hydrogen, could explain some other puzzling aspects of Jupiter. Most obviously, the plasmavore hypothesis can explain why the Great Red Spot is red, while this aspect is difficult to explain if the GRS is a shallow, pancake-shaped vortex. In addition, the GRS can explain the overall south to north flow of the stratosphere as revealed by Comet S-L9 debris.

The plasmavore model of the GRS could have important implications for extrasolar gas giants. One prediction is that gas giants > MJUP early in their evolution should have temperature inversions resulting from red spot activity; indeed, evidence has recently been found for the presence of such a temperature inversion on an extrasolar planet, HD 209458b (Knutson et al. 2007). Another prediction is that large red spots should form on planets early in their evolution that would induce a noticeable visual contrast. Consequently, one can expect variation in observable infrared radiation in larger gas giants with large orbital separations from their parent star (e.g., 2M1207b) or on so-called "rogue" planets (e.g., Cha110913-773444).

References

Dennett. D. 1971. Intentional systems. J. Philosophy 68, 87-106.

Fortney, J.J., Hubbard, W.B. 2003. Phase separation in giant planets: Inhomogeneous evolution of Saturn. Icarus 164, 228-243.

Grossman, A.S., Pollack, J.B., Reynolds, R.T., Summers, A.L., Groboske, H.C., Jr. 1980. The effect of dense cores on the structure and evolution of Jupiter and Saturn. Icarus 42, 358-379.

Guillot, T., Stevenson, D.J., Hubbard, W.B., Saumon, D. 2004. The interior of Jupiter. In: Bagenal, F., Dowling, T.E., McKinnon, W.B. (Eds.), Jupiter: The Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, pp. 35-57.

Kling, G.W., Evans, W.C., Tanyileke, G., Kusakabe, M., Takeshi, O., Yoshida, Y. 2005. Degassing Lakes Nyos and Monoun: Defusing certain disaster. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 102, 14185-14190.

Knutson, H.A., Charbonneau, D., Allen, L.E., Burrows, A., Megeath, S.T. 2007. The 3.6-8.0 micron broadband emission spectrum of HD 209458b: Evidence for an atmospheric temperature inversion. Astrophys. J., in press.

Marcus, P.S. 1993. Jupiter's Great Red Spot and other vortices. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 31, 523-573.

Saumon, D., Chabrier, G., Van Horn, H.M. 1995. An equation of state for low-mass stars and giant planets. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 99, 713-741.

Shetty, S., Asay-Davis, X.S., Marcus, P.S. 2007. On the interaction of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and zonal jet streams. J. Atmos. Sci., in press.

Taylor, F.W., Atreya, S.K., Encrenaz, Th., Hunten, D.M., Irwin, P.G.J., Owen, T.C. 2004. The composition of the atmosphere of Jupiter. In: Bagenal, F., Dowling, T.E., McKinnon, W.B. (Eds.), Jupiter: The Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, pp. 59-78.

Warren Platts
2007-Nov-09, 01:47 PM
An analog model of the GRS theory presented here might be an apparatus consisting of two cylindrical tanks, each wider than it is tall, stacked on top of each other. The would preferably be clear or at least equipped with a viewing window. The bottom tank would be sealed, except for two small drain holes in the top and bottom in the center. The top tank drains into the lower. The top tank would have colorant added to observe the flow.

First step is to get the lower water rotating, either by stirring or rotating the whole tank. The top tank is then set on top, and the lower drain plug removed, so that the as water drains out, it is replaced by water from the upper tank.

Thus, the upper tank is analogous to the plasma phase transition, the lower tank is analogous to the molecular envelope, and the lower drain represents the entrance to the stratosphere in the upper atmosphere (so everything's upside down--gravity simulates the latent heat energy released by the phase transition from metallic to molecular hydrogen. According to the plasmavore model, it's possible for material to flow from one layer through an intermediate, middle layer into a third layer with little mixing with the middle layer.

So, the question is, will the water from the top tank form a stable vortex and drain straight through, or will most of the water drain out from the lower tank, to be refilled slowly from the top down? The plasmavore model of the GRS predicts that a stable vortex will form, so that most of the water draining out of the lower tank will actually come from the upper tank, with little mixing with the lower tank water.