Talk:Stellar structure

fixipixi!![edit]

Nice stub (for me that is)! But more that is needed is the difference in internal structure between different kinds of stars, f.ex.:

Mainseq CNO-burners have a convective core, a radiative envelope, and maybe a very shallow convective surface,

Mainseq bright PP-burners have a deep convective envelope, and a radiative core,

Mainseq faint PP-burners are entirely convective,

Red giant this and that, AGB giant this and that, supergiant this and that, and presupernova onion star this and that.

Said: Rursus ☻ 15:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done for the first three, but I only put in a very brief mention of giants. If the new energy transport section isn't clear (it probably isn't!), please help it, or I can try. Ashill (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dejargonizurger[edit]

Added a {{cleanup-jargon}} thereby intending that the language is written like only mathematicians and physicists can understand this topic, which is mostly not true, if the details are carefully explained in common English. There's not much wrong with the physics section, it just needs to connect to common knowledge so that the why (what it explains) of a certain formula becomes clear. Said: Rursus ☻ 15:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virial Theorem and pre-main sequence[edit]

Would be good to add a section on the virial theorem (or PMS stars) which mentions pre-main sequence stars. I notice, from talk page questions, people often get confused over what keeps a star from collapsing. They assume that it is entirely the fusion process. It might help to explain that a gravitationally bound system satisfies 2 K + U = 0 where K is the (time-averaged) kinetic energy and U the (time-averaged) gravitational potential energy. So if a star collapsed from a nebula, it has total negative energy, having lost energy during contraction. By the virial theorem, one half of the grav. pot. of contraction goes to kinetic energy of the nebula, the other half is radiated away. Thus the VT immediately implies that grav. contr. sets up a temperature (and pressure and density) gradient with the centre of the nebula being hotter than the outside. When the temp gets hot enough for fusion, the extra contribution to the pressure gradient slows down the collapse significantly, but most of the pressure gradient actually comes from the ideal gas pressure, hence from the kinetic energy, hence from the grav. pot. energy by virial. I could add this, but prob. not at the excellent standard of writing of the rest of the article, so suggesting it here first. Puzl bustr (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link[edit]

~~The Opal Opacity Code external link seems to be broken.~~ Puzl bustr (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added discussion of adiabatic (or not) convection.[edit]

The temperature gradient for convection given actually only applies to adiabatic convection, so I explained this, and also how the mixing length theory is phenomenological. I also expanded the discussion of equations of state from pressure to opacity and energy generation rate. Will chase up the references soon. There is an obvious problem about whether stellar structure models can be said to predict observations if they have to be fitted to observations. This requires some more research. Puzl bustr (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs for opacity and energy generation, and rapid evolution[edit]

Added the promised refs for opacity and nuclear energy generation, and fixed the broken opacity link. Added a section on rapid evolution with a ref for explosive nuclear burning (with entropy term). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzl bustr (talk • contribs) 13:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?[edit]

I came here, and I supposed to find some step-by-step description of HOW STARS ARE BUILT structurally. What is common, why, and descriptions of layers and processes. What is different — then going to the division into types of structure etc.
What the article lacks ENTIRELY — is a substantial lede, where to explain wtf the st.structure is, what determines it; what we (and scientists) mean by the StSt, why layers... Josh, linguist (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could this article be any worse?[edit]

Here is a clue:

Corona - not mentioned here

Photosphere - not mentioned here

Chromosphere - not mentioned here

Solar wind - not mentioned here

Stellar evolution - not mentioned here

Stellar life-time - not mentioned here

Novae and Supernovae - not mentioned here

Black Holes, Neutron Stars - not mentioned here

White dwarves (as end states of stellar evolution) - not mentioned here

Brown dwarves - not mentioned here

Terrible article, practically useless. Gee, its got some equations which are only of interest to people who will never use this page. Wow.40.142.187.175 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stellar structure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513142845/http://rdc.llnl.gov/ to http://rdc.llnl.gov/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060422070305/http://astro.ensc-rennes.fr/index.php?pw=ycesam to http://astro.ensc-rennes.fr/index.php?pw=ycesam

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in equation for hydrostatic equilibrium[edit]

Not terribly important, but the line underneath refers to $m(r)$ which isn't in the equation.
The equation is ${{\mbox{d}}P \over {\mbox{d}}r}=-{Gm\rho \over r^{2}}$
That should be ${{\mbox{d}}P \over {\mbox{d}}r}=-{Gm(r)\rho \over r^{2}}$
(Personally I would prefer $M_{r}$ for the mass inside the radius $r$ i.e. ${{\mbox{d}}P \over {\mbox{d}}r}=-G{M_{r}\rho \over r^{2}}$ )
Actually, that line doesn't even explain ${{\mbox{d}}P}$ , ${\mbox{d}}r$ , or $\rho$ .
Tim 13:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)