Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

[Michael Mozina]

How about the examples of magnetic reconnection that I have given using just magnets?

Arggggghhhhh! I guess the whole game here is to completely ignore the naming conventions used in other branches of science, and to simply use your own terminologies entirely, is that it?

Evidently the following processes have now been "renamed":

Magnetic attraction is now "magnetic reconnection"
Magnetic repulsion is now "magnetic disconnection/reconnection"?
Induction is now also "magnetic reconnection".

What's next? Will you relabel a "circuit board" a "magnetic reconnection" board because the magnetic field topology changes over time?

Hoy vey! You people simply relabel scientific processes to suit yourself in the moment.

 

[The Man]

Arggggghhhhh! I guess the whole game here is to completely ignore the naming conventions used in other branches of science, and to simply use your own terminologies entirely, is that it?

Magnetic reconnection is a ‘naming convention’ used by a branch of science. Particularly the one concerned with magnetism, you might have heard of it.

Are you confusing yourself with someone else again?

Evidently the following processes have now been "renamed":

Nope, much that you might like to think they are.

Still wasting your time dragging around your strawmen.

Magnetic attraction is now "magnetic reconnection"

No, as explicitly sated before, but magnetic attraction can involve reconnections (ETA : Since the field lines are in opposing directions not parallel). As the magnets move closer together more of the field lines are reconnected between the magnets increasing that force of attraction that can be calculated from the field line density connecting the magnets.

Magnetic repulsion is now "magnetic disconnection/reconnection"?

If you had bothered to read the pervious posts, do some empirical experimentation yourself or knew anything about magnets and magnetic fields, you might understand that in magnetic repulsion parallel field lines of one magnet compress those of another resulting in the increased repulsive force that can again be calculated from the field line density as you move the magnets closer. However, changing from repulsion to attraction between the magnets is the result of a reconnection of those fields (also as explicitly stated before).

Induction is now also "magnetic reconnection".

You’re the only one I see trying to make that assertion and particularly that magnetic reconnection is just what you like to call “induction” .

Are you confusing yourself with someone else again?

Please show the ‘inductors’ in the examples of magnetic reconnection that I have given.

What's next? Will you relabel a "circuit board" a "magnetic reconnection" board because the magnetic field topology changes over time?

Again please show the ‘circuits’ in the examples of magnetic reconnection that I have given.

Hoy vey! You people simply relabel scientific processes to suit yourself in the moment.

Your “magnet reconnection” that is apparently not magnetic would fit that bill.

Are you confusing yourself with someone else again?


Sorry MM, but your religious like focus on only the ‘electro’ part of electromagnetism seems to have left you with little or no understanding of magnetic fields and how those fields interact between magnets.

 

[tusenfem]

A more constructive way to approach this is to ask MM what the "circuit/resistor" approach is and what are his sources. Or you just come across as a rather annoying loudmouth.

Interesting that my good friend Tony writes (not bolded by Zeuzzz):

What then is the E-j paradigm, where electric field and current are taken to be the primary quantities? What it is not is an electrical circuit approach.

Not sure if this is relevant to michaels line of argument (think he's using the alfven current disruption model which is slightly different) but I would like you comment on your thoughts about using the magnetic field or electric current as primary.

Well, this makes MM's argument even more weak, as he claimed that "taking the E orientation" gives you the circuit formulation.

Do you think that more things are explained when considering currents and the particles that make them, or bu and magnetic field lines?

Some things have to be explained by currents, on large MHD scales, however, Bu is definitely no BS.

 

[GeeMack]

Arggggghhhhh! [*Whining snipped. All relevant comments left intact.*]

Now, now, Michael, when you're done with your tantrum, how about you take another shot at this...

I'd really like to hear your explain how a single coronal loops reaches millions, sometimes tens of millions of degrees Kelvin over a 6000 K photosphere. The "circuit/resistor" approach explain that heating process quite nicely, but you seem to have no way to explains that heating process via "magnetic reconnection', unless you've claiming the loop is "magnetically reconnecting" within itself!

Okay. Go for it. Do something you've never done in all your years. Explain it quite nicely using the "circuit/resistor" approach, quantitative, like real science. No pretty pictures allowed. You have an opportunity here to show people that you're not in grade school anymore. Show your work.

So are you going to just let this claim become another one of your lies? Or another demonstration of your ignorance? Or will you explain quite nicely, using the "circuit/resistor" approach, how a single coronal loop reaches millions, sometimes tens of millions of degrees?

 

[brantc]

No we do not go. We do not have a parallel magnetic field. We have

• A magnetic flux tube from an external source
• Another magnetic from the current in the plasma that is in the flux tube.

Here is the LAPD design page.
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/pages/diag2.html

As you can see it has 68 coils arranged perpendicular to the plasma chamber. This gives a solenoidal magnetic field that can be impressed upon the plasma chamber.
Is this the flux tube you are talking about?

This is different that the current channels(plasma filled flux tube) that I am talking about.
This is different than the curl measured by the magnetometers from the current in the plasma filled flux tube.

So this gives you an external parallel magnetic field in the chamber when the 2 filament plasma filled flux tube is fired up.

This simulates the earths or suns magnetic field and produces field aligned currents. Once the current is strong enough the curl magnetic field shows and the parallel magnetic field still exists.

These current carrying channel magnetic fields following the right hand rule do not come into existence until the cathode current is turned on.

So it is the flow of electrons that creates the curl magnetic field of the current channels. The parallel magnetic field is from the external coils.

 

[Reality Check]

Here is the LAPD design page.
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/pages/diag2.html

Is this the flux tube you are talking about?
...snipped irelevant stuff....

What I saild was nothing about the LAPD. It was about flux tubes in general.

No we do not go. We do not have a parallel magnetic field. We have

• A magnetic flux tube from an external source
• Another magnetic from the current in the plasma that is in the flux tube.

But the LAPD equipment is designed to allow plasma to be constrained by an external magnetic field.


ETA
That constraining magnetic field that is generated by a big solenoid may be used to simulate the presence of a flux tube. Note that the scientists do not just generate the flux tube by running a current through the plasma. Maybe they know something that you do not .

ETA2
Or maybe not. Extra steps seem to be needed to create flux ropes in the LAPD device:
Identification of a Quasiseparatrix Layer in a Reconnecting Laboratory Magnetoplasma (PDF)

To create the flux ropes, two current channels inside the background plasma are produced by directly-heated lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6) cathodes mounted on a movable shaft.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Does everyone agree that a magnetic field is a continuum, not a set of discrete lines.

 

[Zeuzzz]

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf

F. Evidence of the DL’s Existence

Ions just to the right of point e are reported to be at
temperatures of 1 to 2 million K. Nothing else but exactly this
kind of mechanism could be expected from the anode tuft -
double layer model. The re-thermalization takes place in a
region analogous to the turbulent white water that boils up at
the bottom of a smooth laminar water slide. In the standard
models no such phenomenon exists - and thus neither does a
simple explanation of the temperature discontinuity.

As positive ions begin to accelerate down the steep potential
energy gradient from point c through e, they convert their high
electrical potential into kinetic energy – they gain extremely
high outward radial velocity and lose side-to-side random
motion. Thus, they become de-thermalized. In this region, in
the upper photosphere and lower chromosphere, the movement
of these ions becomes highly organized (parallel). This is the
location of the temperature minimum.

VI. SUMMARY
The failure of the hypothetical magnetic reconnection
mechanism to explain several observed solar phenomena is
clear. A three-layer charge density structure, similar to the SL,
DL anode tufting combination that is familiar to plasma
engineers is a hypothesis that offers a reasonable explanation of
the temperature minimum at the base of the corona and also
the as-of-yet otherwise unexplained fluctuations in the
amplitude of the solar wind.

Anyone gonna have a go at any of these points?

 

[Reality Check]

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf

Anyone gonna have a go at any of these points?

Donald E. Scott, author of the Electric Sky. What more needs to be said !

This is not the EU thread!

And then there is that this is a conference abstract.

3) Is "Solar Surface Transistor Action published in Pulsed plasma science 2007: PPPS07 Paper 350734" "material published in [a] reputable peer reviewed journal" ?

No, its a conference abstract that was considered worthy enought to be discussed at length with the editors of a "reputable peer reviewed journal", that being the IEEE Journal of Pulsed Power Plasma Science (2007)

 

[tusenfem]

Does everyone agree that a magnetic field is a continuum, not a set of discrete lines.

Has anyone ever claimed differently?
The field lines are just a very useful tool.

 

[tusenfem]

Donald E. Scott, author of the Electric Sky. What more needs to be said !

This is not the EU thread!

And then there is that this is a conference abstract.

Interestingly, I find no paper of Scott's at the website of the meeting.

Maybe I will take a look at that paper, when I have some time left.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Has anyone ever claimed differently?

Yes! You're claiming that individual field lines "disconnect" and "reconnect" to other "lines"! Hoy. This dancing you folks do is really amusing at times. I'm really bumbed that it's been so busy at work, and my time has been so limited, otherwise I'd really pin you to the wall on this point. You're referring to a change of circuit topology as a "magnetic reconnection"! That's definitely treating the magnetic field as something other than a full and complete continuum. Hell, some of you folks have relabeled "magnetic attraction", magnetic reconnection! Any notion of a "continuum" is meaningless around you people.

The field lines are just a very useful tool.

Not as useful as a "circuit" in this case.

 

[Tubbythin]

Yes! You're claiming that individual field lines "disconnect" and "reconnect" to other "lines"! Hoy. This dancing you folks do is really amusing at times. I'm really bumbed that it's been so busy at work, and my time has been so limited, otherwise I'd really pin you to the wall on this point.

No you're not, not unless you can show how MR violates Maxwell's equations.

 

[GeeMack]

I'd really like to hear your explain how a single coronal loops reaches millions, sometimes tens of millions of degrees Kelvin over a 6000 K photosphere. The "circuit/resistor" approach explain that heating process quite nicely, but you seem to have no way to explains that heating process via "magnetic reconnection', unless you've claiming the loop is "magnetically reconnecting" within itself!

Okay. Go for it. Do something you've never done in all your years. Explain it quite nicely using the "circuit/resistor" approach, quantitative, like real science. No pretty pictures allowed. You have an opportunity here to show people that you're not in grade school anymore. Show your work.

Waiting... waiting...

So are you going to just let this claim become another one of your lies? Or another demonstration of your ignorance? Or will you explain quite nicely, using the "circuit/resistor" approach, how a single coronal loop reaches millions, sometimes tens of millions of degrees?

... waiting.

Your ignorance is one Hell of a useful argument when you can't really do what you claim you can do, eh, Michael?

Oh, and what's that word that means you've said something you know is not true?

 

[tusenfem]

Yes! You're claiming that individual field lines "disconnect" and "reconnect" to other "lines"! Hoy. This dancing you folks do is really amusing at times. I'm really bumbed that it's been so busy at work, and my time has been so limited, otherwise I'd really pin you to the wall on this point. You're referring to a change of circuit topology as a "magnetic reconnection"! That's definitely treating the magnetic field as something other than a full and complete continuum. Hell, some of you folks have relabeled "magnetic attraction", magnetic reconnection! Any notion of a "continuum" is meaningless around you people.

The fact that you cannot understand that we can draw these field lines everywhere in the magnetic field and that we only draw few, such that the picture remains understandable, is not my problem.


And oh yes, your time is soooooo limited, you would really pin us to the wall and show us how circuits reconnect etc. etc. You have been claiming to show us how it works for years and years, here and on BAUT and probably elsewhere too.

The fact that you now start relabeling "reconnection" to "attraction" or "repulsion" clearly shows that you have not got the foggiest about it all.

Sorry Mikey, we will never, ever, see a model from you.

Not as useful as a "circuit" in this case.

And why is circuit in quotation marks? Another redefinition?

How about the quote from Dr. Tony "Current Disruption" Lui about the Ej paradigm of MHD, where he claims:

What then is the E-j paradigm, where electric field and current are taken to be the primary quantities? What it is not is an electrical circuit approach.

 

[brantc]

What I saild was nothing about the LAPD. It was about flux tubes in general.

But the LAPD equipment is designed to allow plasma to be constrained by an external magnetic field.


ETA
That constraining magnetic field that is generated by a big solenoid may be used to simulate the presence of a flux tube. Note that the scientists do not just generate the flux tube by running a current through the plasma. Maybe they know something that you do not .

ETA2
Or maybe not. Extra steps seem to be needed to create flux ropes in the LAPD device:
Identification of a Quasiseparatrix Layer in a Reconnecting Laboratory Magnetoplasma (PDF)

OK. So talking about the LAPD device.

Again, my description still stands.

Heating the cathode just means turning on the power.

If you guys could just get away from this thing of the magnetic flux tube being a separate entity from the plasma filled flux tube alot of the confusion would go away.

As I said if you can show me an example of one without the plasma I will change my mind.

The LAPD has both parallel and curl field when a current channel experiment is happening.

As in the lab as in the sky.

I contend that plasma filled flux tubes have the same physics everywhere with differences in structure depending on plasma density, composition and magnetic field.

So now we need to look for this signature from CLUSTER or THEMIS.
We also need to look for evidence of this in magnetograms and plasma images(UV, EUV, x-ray, gamma) of the solar surface.

 

[brantc]

Does magnetic reconnection require plasma to function??

 

[GeeMack]

OK. So talking about the LAPD device.

Again, my description still stands.

Heating the cathode just means turning on the power.

If you guys could just get away from this thing of the magnetic flux tube being a separate entity from the plasma filled flux tube alot of the confusion would go away.

As I said if you can show me an example of one without the plasma I will change my mind.

The LAPD has both parallel and curl field when a current channel experiment is happening.

As in the lab as in the sky.

I contend that plasma filled flux tubes have the same physics everywhere with differences in structure depending on plasma density, composition and magnetic field.

So now we need to look for this signature from CLUSTER or THEMIS.
We also need to look for evidence of this in magnetograms and plasma images(UV, EUV, x-ray, gamma) of the solar surface.

But...

Lets just fix this right now. I have no sources for anything I say.

 

[Reality Check]

Does magnetic reconnection require plasma to function??

Have you read any of the posts in this thread?
Magnetic reconnection is a change in topology of the magnetic field that can be done with bar magnets.
It gets much more scientifically interesting and challenging when it happens in a magnetic field that contains plasma.

 

[Reality Check]

OK. So talking about the LAPD device.

Again, my description still stands.

Heating the cathode just means turning on the power.

Your description of the LAPD device is exactly what it is - a tube filled with plasma with an external magnetic field generated by solenoids.

In the experiment cited heating the cathodes just means turning on the power (which is obvious) and thus generating two current channels inside the plasma as stated in the paper.

P.S.
You may have missed the fact that these cathodes were added just for this experiment. They are not normally part of the LAPD device.

If you guys could just get away from this thing of the magnetic flux tube being a separate entity from the plasma filled flux tube alot of the confusion would go away.

The only confusion is yours.

• Coronal loops are flux tubes filled with plasma
• It is impossible for the plasma in them to generate the flux tube.
• It is observed that the flux tubes have filled with plasma from a nearly empty state. The plasma also escapes from them.

The evidence is that the flux tube came first (from inside the Sun) and then filled with plasma.

Coronal loops

Coronal loops are the basic structures of the magnetic solar corona. These loops are the closed-magnetic flux cousins of the open-magnetic flux that can be found in coronal hole (polar) regions and the solar wind. Loops of magnetic flux well up from the solar body and fill with hot solar plasma. Due to the heightened magnetic activity in these coronal loop regions, coronal loops can often be the precursor to solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Solar plasma feeding these structures is heated from under 6000 K to well over 1×10⁶ K from the photosphere, through the transition region, and into the corona. Often, the solar plasma will fill these loops from one foot point and drain from the other (siphon flow due to a pressure difference, or asymmetric flow due to some other driver). This is known as chromospheric evaporation and chromospheric condensation respectively. There may also be symmetric flow from both loop foot points, causing a buildup of mass in the loop structure. The plasma may cool in this region creating dark filaments in the solar disk or prominences off the limb. Coronal loops may have lifetimes in the order of seconds (in the case of flare events), minutes, hours or days. Usually coronal loops lasting for long periods of time are known as steady state or quiescent coronal loops, where there is a balance in loop energy sources and sinks (example).

As I said if you can show me an example of one without the plasma I will change my mind.

As I said I do not know of any observations of totally empty flux tubes.

There are observations of plasma moving into them. What happens is that coronal loops are observed to become visible and then brighten.
A Brightening Coronal Loop Observed by TRACE. II. Loop Modeling and Constraints on Heating

We work under the hypotheses that (a) initially the plasma in the loop is not at coronal temperatures (T ~106 K) and the loop is almost empty, since it is totally invisible to TRACE at the beginning of the observation; and (b) its brightening is caused by the transient release of heating somewhere inside it, which leads the plasma temperature in the range of TRACE sensitivity and increases the emission measure by driving evaporation of plasma from the chromosphere

The LAPD has both parallel and curl field when a current channel experiment is happening.

As in the lab as in the sky.

Yes. And so what?
A flux tube filled with plasma has both the "parallel" field of the magnetic file of the tube and the "curl" field generated by the plasma moving in it.

I contend that plasma filled flux tubes have the same physics everywhere with differences in structure depending on plasma density, composition and magnetic field.

So now we need to look for this signature from CLUSTER or THEMIS.
We also need to look for evidence of this in magnetograms and plasma images(UV, EUV, x-ray, gamma) of the solar surface.

We also contend that plasma filled flux tubes have the same physics everywhere with differences in structure [and behaviour] depending on plasma density, composition and magnetic field.
Your point is?

We have looked for the signatures of plasma filled flux tubes and found them.