Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

[brantc]

Magnetic reconnection is a change in topology of the magnetic field.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is a semantic complaint. Consider the field

Some pic

If we vary a and b, we change the magnetic field. For ALL a < b, the points (-1,1) and (1,1) are connected by a magnetic field line. For ALL a > b, the points (-1,1) and (-1,-1) are connected by a magnetic field line. Whether or not you consider that line real is irrelevant: the field is real, and the rules for drawing the line are unambiguous. So we can call this as magnetic reconnection. You may object to the label, but your objection is purely semantic: what's happening (the change in the magnetic field) is real, and the rules for determining whether or not what's happening fits our definition of the term are clear and consistent.

This can be demonstarted with refrigerator magnets as The Man posted in another thread and mentioned in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
MM, take a couple of refrigerator magnets (the flat rectangular business card or credit card company types), they have alternating north south stripes (generally running vertically). If you place two back to back and slide them across each other you will feel those magnetic stripes alternately repelling and attracting each other. When you feel it switching from resisting the sliding to that sliding being easier (and being pulled in that direction) that is magnetic reconnection as field lines from the stripes on one refrigerator magnet reconnect to the next stripes on the other refrigerator magnet. No “magic magnets”, just what magnets do and reconnection that you can experience in your own kitchen or home. You could do the same thing with a compass and a magnet, the compass needle being itself a small magnet. When the magnet is far from the compass the needle is connected to the earths magnetic field as you bring the magnet closer to the compass at some point the felid of the needle reconnects to that of the magnet and the compass points at the magnet. Move the magnet away from the compass and the field of the needle will reconnect to the magnetic field of the earth. Repeat as many times as you feel necessary until you stop believing in "magic magnets".

So reconnecting with the field of the earth... I learned that as being attracted or being repulsed by the earths magnetic field.

Thats what magnets do, attract or repulse.

Really, opposite fields do not reconnect, they merge or attract...

Like fields repel, there is a dividing line between them.

If you have 2 magnets next to each other of opposite poles and you switch them around, I would not call that reconnection.
If 2 magnets are stuck to each other is that because the are reconnected??

In the instance of the refrigerator magnet you are going from attraction to repulsion and back again. You can call it reconnection but I dont think Faraday or Ampere ever thought of it that way.

You need to think it terms of current flow and how the magnetic field decreases or increases in response to current flow. The topology changes because the plasma flow changes. That is the only way it can be.

The magnetic field is supported by the plasma flow and tubes. Without those there is no place for the magnetic field to originate.

Magnetic fields do not form tubes, no way no how unless you have a specially wound coil like a helical wound solenoid.

The only way a field can be anchored to anything is if it anchored to the permanent magnet or to the current flow that generates it.

 

[Reality Check]

So reconnecting with the field of the earth... I learned that as being attracted or being repulsed by the earths magnetic field......

Read the posts

• Nothing to do with the field of the earth - all to do with the fields in the examples.
• Nothing to do with switching bar magnets around.
• Nothing to do with sticking magnets together.

Reconnecting magnetic field lines is the definition of magnetic reconneciton. Live with it.
Magnetic fields do form tubes. Live with it.

 

[brantc]

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Heating in a loop is really just the acceleration of the particles and if we are viewing it at 171 to 192nnm then it is about 1 to 2 million degrees or 100 to 200eV.

Just acceleration is NOT heating. Mainly the electrons will be accelerated by the EMF in a loop. These will NOT emit these emissions, but the ions will that are hit by the accelerated electrons. If all particles would be accelerated you would not see zilch, there have to be coulomb collisions in order to transport the energy of the electrons (the ions can usually be taken as a neutralizing background) to the ions.

Acceleration is making the particles hotter because their energy is changing, greater eV. Yes, the electrons will be accelerated by the electric fields in the loop, providing an EMF.

Heating is when the energy transfers from the electrons to the ions via coulomb collisions to the ions.

They(electrons) will emit radiation as long as their speed or direction is changing. This is called synchrotron.
When they "hit" another particle this is call Bremstralung or deceleration radiation.

 

[brantc]

Read the posts

• Nothing to do with the field of the earth - all to do with the fields in the examples.
• Nothing to do with switching bar magnets around.
• Nothing to do with sticking magnets together.

Reconnecting magnetic field lines is the definition of magnetic reconneciton. Live with it.
Magnetic fields do form tubes. Live with it.

Reconnecting field lines. Maybe the definition is wrong?? I see that all the time "is defined as". Like that really makes it right!

Would opposite poles attracting be considered reconnecting field lines?

Or is it same poles repelling considered reconnecting?
Or is the act of moving from attraction to repulsion to attraction that is reconnection?

And you have not shown me anything that could be considered a magnetic tube that does not require plasma and that exists on its own.

It is a mathematical tool to describe flux tubes as magnetic tubes with no origin(from the right hand rule).

I still dont know what reconnecting field line is. Is it if you cut a line and then tie it back together?

Because thats not how a magnetic field works.

It it is being "cut" or "going away"than the current is decreasing and the magnetic field is decreasing.
If it is "reconnecting" with another field line then the current is increasing and the fields are merging.

The only way to stop a magnetic field is to turn off the current. You cannot "chop" a magnetic field or change its topology with out changing the current flow pathways, unless its a bar magnet.

If you have 2 wires next to each other and you turn on the current and the magnetic fields merge or repel, which one is reconnection?

 

[Reality Check]

Reconnecting field lines. Maybe the definition is wrong?? I see that all the time "is defined as". Like that really makes it right!

Since you do not know what magnetic reconnection is:

Magnetic reconnection is the process whereby magnetic field lines from different magnetic domains are spliced to one another, changing their patterns of connectivity with respect to the sources.

Would opposite poles attracting be considered reconnecting field lines?

No.

I still dont know what reconnecting field line is. Is it if you cut a line and then tie it back together?

No.

I suggest that you buy one of the many textbooks on magnetic reconnection rather than relying on your lack of knowldege.

The explanations given in this thread are quite clear. Do you want me to try to dumb them down further for you? That would be quite difficult since they are quite simple to start with.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
This is a semantic complaint. Consider the field

If we vary a and b, we change the magnetic field. For ALL a < b, the points (-1,1) and (1,1) are connected by a magnetic field line. For ALL a > b, the points (-1,1) and (-1,-1) are connected by a magnetic field line. Whether or not you consider that line real is irrelevant: the field is real, and the rules for drawing the line are unambiguous. So we can call this as magnetic reconnection. You may object to the label, but your objection is purely semantic: what's happening (the change in the magnetic field) is real, and the rules for determining whether or not what's happening fits our definition of the term are clear and consistent.

This can be demonstarted with refrigerator magnets as The Man posted in another thread and mentioned in this thread.

Originally Posted by The Man
MM, take a couple of refrigerator magnets (the flat rectangular business card or credit card company types), they have alternating north south stripes (generally running vertically). If you place two back to back and slide them across each other you will feel those magnetic stripes alternately repelling and attracting each other. When you feel it switching from resisting the sliding to that sliding being easier (and being pulled in that direction) that is magnetic reconnection as field lines from the stripes on one refrigerator magnet reconnect to the next stripes on the other refrigerator magnet. No “magic magnets”, just what magnets do and reconnection that you can experience in your own kitchen or home. You could do the same thing with a compass and a magnet, the compass needle being itself a small magnet. When the magnet is far from the compass the needle is connected to the earths magnetic field as you bring the magnet closer to the compass at some point the felid of the needle reconnects to that of the magnet and the compass points at the magnet. Move the magnet away from the compass and the field of the needle will reconnect to the magnetic field of the earth. Repeat as many times as you feel necessary until you stop believing in "magic magnets".

 

[brantc]

A magnetic flux tube, in principle, is just a bundle of field lines, for which the magnetic flux through the start and end surface is the same, period, end, no further, that's it, final, nothing more to write down.

Now, naturally, we have to chose a surface, for example the cross section of Io, which then creates the Io flux tube. Note, that here the situation is different as in this definition the magnetic field lines are moving along the surface, entering and exiting, but in the end, as it is quasi-stationary, the flux "through Io" remains relatively constant.

Now, take a foot point on the sun for a coronal loop or a prominence. There the field is rather well anchored in the photosphere and not such motion is happening with the field lines, but they can move as a collective, which they do. They shear the field, generating a EMF.

In all, we still don't need any plasma whatsoever, as magnetic fields can quite easily exist in vacuum or in neutral gas.

Magnetic fields can exist anywhere. But thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about the cause of these magnetic fields.

I understand your definition of flux tube.

And the shape of these magnetic fields.

But that does not tell you the origin of this tube shaped magnetic field. That field is attached to the source, a current flow.

Just like you cannot detach the magnetic field from a bar magnet. It has a shape that is determined by the shape of the (electro)magnet.

You cannot get a tube shaped magnetic field "flux tube" without the right hand rule. It will be wrapped around a wire or plasma. That is physics.

It will not happen without the involvement of current or electron flow.

 

[brantc]

Since you do not know what magnetic reconnection is:

Quote:
Magnetic reconnection is the process whereby magnetic field lines from different magnetic domains are spliced to one another, changing their patterns of connectivity with respect to the sources.

I know what the definition of reconnection is.

Magnetic domain is a microscopic term that was hijacked by astrophysics to represent something that is incorrectly identified.

It was from the first papers describing reconnection as an event happening between 2 ill defined areas of magnetism. This was before they knew about flux tubes.

You could say that flux tubes have "magnetic domains" that reconnect(bad).

But what is really happening is that the flux tubes touch, current flows between them changing the magnetic field to a different configuration(the famous X), then they "reconnect" back to the original flux tube pair configuration.

I know whats happening but what I am trying to get from you guys is a physical description of the whole area including before and after configuration of the flux tubes, magnetic field and plasma using plain englizhs.

 

[Reality Check]

I know what the definition of reconnection is.

Magnetic domain is a microscopic term that was hijacked by astrophysics to represent something that is incorrectly identified.

Magnetic domain is a convenient term to use (and yes it can be confused by the ignorant with the microscopic usage). The wikipedia article is careful to put 'domain' in quotes when it first uses the term.

I know whats happening but what I am trying to get from you guys is a physical description of the whole area including before and after configuration of the flux tubes, magnetic field and plasma using plain englizhs.

If you want a real explanation then read a textbook.
But...
Plain englizhs and simplified for you (and so probably wrong!):

Using solar flares as an example:

1. Plasma convection within the Sun's body twists up the Sun's magnetic field to form magnetic flux tubes.
2. These magnetic flux tubes do not contain electrical currents. They are embedded in plasma, i.e. they do not contain a vacuum, but the plasma is not constrained to flow along the tube.
3. Hydrodynamic pressures mean that the magnetic flux tube floats up through the body of the Sun.
4. Eventually the magnetic flux tube pokes up above the photosphere into the chromosphere and corona.
5. Chromospheric plasma is observed to fill the magnetic flux tube. This plasma does travel along the tube. It does cause a magnetic field - your "curl b" field.
6. This extra magnetic field twists the already existing magnetic field of the flux tube. This forms "bundles of field lines that connect from a particular place to another particular place". This allows magnetic reconnection to occur. The separator reconnection diagram in the article is a simplified view of what happens. The real theory is much more complex.

Plain enough?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Snow/rockslides only occur on sufficiently steep slopes. So suppose I look at a contour map of some hills and find a spot where the contour lines are close together. I point at that spot and say "here's a spot where there's a high risk for a dangerous avalanche". Sound reasonable?

Not according to Zeuzzz. After all, slopes are continuous, they're not composed of discrete lines. So, says Zeuzzz, isn't it dubious to base an energy releasing process like an avalanche on the properties of these lines, rather than the actual slope?

Yes THAT sounds perfectly reasonable but however that is not analogous to magnetic reconnection. If it were then it would be quite different. To have a contour map of a hill first before discovering it and then finding that where your drawn contour lines are actual detectable lines with various "properties"across the hill, just like in MR they too break and create x spots in places releasing energy. Slightly odd co-incidence eh?

So in MR, can you please state the exact "properties of these lines". Thanks.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
(Aldous Huxley)

"You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird… So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing – that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something."
Richard Feynman, Physicist and 1965 Nobel Prize laureate (1918-1988)

 

[brantc]

Magnetic domain is a convenient term to use (and yes it can be confused by the ignorant with the microscopic usage). The wikipedia article is careful to put 'domain' in quotes when it first uses the term.


If you want a real explanation then read a textbook.
But...
Plain englizhs and simplified for you (and so probably wrong!):

Using solar flares as an example:

1. Plasma convection within the Sun's body twists up the Sun's magnetic field to form magnetic flux tubes.
2. These magnetic flux tubes do not contain electrical currents. They are embedded in plasma, i.e. they do not contain a vacuum, but the plasma is not constrained to flow along the tube.
3. Hydrodynamic pressures mean that the magnetic flux tube floats up through the body of the Sun.
4. Eventually the magnetic flux tube pokes up above the photosphere into the chromosphere and corona.
5. Chromospheric plasma is observed to fill the magnetic flux tube. This plasma does travel along the tube. It does cause a magnetic field - your "curl b" field.
6. This extra magnetic field twists the already existing magnetic field of the flux tube. This forms "bundles of field lines that connect from a particular place to another particular place". This allows magnetic reconnection to occur. The separator reconnection diagram in the article is a simplified view of what happens. The real theory is much more complex.

Plain enough?

Thank you very much RC. It makes it alot easier to compare models or ideas. tusemfem or Tim can chime in to say whether they agree with this simple assessment.

I've looked at the text books. Its not plain English!! They describe whats happening at that one area where you always see the X with math but not the surrounding structure or driving forces.

If you think about it a process or problem should be describable in plain English(physical principles). And then you could derive a formula to quantify it.

So now we can compare models of reconnection and plasma filled flux tubes to see if they work everywhere.

From the lab to GRB's.

 

[brantc]

Acceleration of charged particles is, indeed easiest by electric fields.

Shearing motion of the foot points generates currents in the loops.

But you are forgetting a lot of stuff in the reconnection part here. I would advise to take a look at the simplest models of a reconnecting loop by Kuperus & van Tend for example to fully understand the basics of what is happening, and which electric fields are created and which field aligned currents are created around the reconnection region. Your view of this process is way to simplistic.
Looking at the base of the loops, you can see from the magnetogram that there are different polarities at the ends of the loops.



And you would be wrong about the different polarities, they will only generate different polarities of electric field when they have the same motion. The electric field that is created in the loop, the EMF, is given by the cross product vxB, so you cannot say that "generally speaking ... opposite ... opposite."

I'm saying that there are 2 different polarities under the photosphere on the solar surface that do not move around that provide the electric field that starts the flux tube that turns into a coronal loop.

Here is a plain English Kuperus & van Tend.

A DYNAMIC MODEL OF FILAMENT ERUPTIONS AND TWO RIBBON FLARES
http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/~npmk/docs/circuit_model_1/circuit_model.html

Cartoon of loop.
http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/~npmk/docs/circuit_model_1/cartoonmartens-kuin.jpg

 

[tusenfem]

Acceleration is making the particles hotter because their energy is changing, greater eV. Yes, the electrons will be accelerated by the electric fields in the loop, providing an EMF.

Okay, I guess we are playing semantics here.
And the last sentence is a bit ambiguous, the electric field IS the EMF.

Heating is when the energy transfers from the electrons to the ions via coulomb collisions to the ions.

Which we NEED in order to get your 171 - 192 nm emission, which comes from Fe XV and NOT from the electrons.

They(electrons) will emit radiation as long as their speed or direction is changing. This is called synchrotron.
When they "hit" another particle this is call Bremstralung or deceleration radiation.

Yes, synchrotron emission can occur, but the faster aligned the electrons the less they will emit.
Bremsstrahlung happens at the footpoints of the loops, generating Xrays.

Magnetic fields can exist anywhere. But thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about the cause of these magnetic fields.

I understand your definition of flux tube.

And the shape of these magnetic fields.

But that does not tell you the origin of this tube shaped magnetic field. That field is attached to the source, a current flow.

In general, the magnetic fields of the Sun are created in the convection layer of the Sun, where random/statistical processes generate seed fields (i.e. very small current loops), which sometimes live long enough to get deformed by the convetion (alpha) and differential rotation (omega) of the Sun. These processes of stretching and folding the seed fields is what is called the alpha-omega-dynamo.

As there has the be pressure equilibrium, the increasing field strength of these loops (doughnuts) makes that there will be less plasma inside these loops, making then buoyant, and part of them eventually will poke through the surface of the Sun.

Now, the currents generating these loops can and will be located below the surface. However, with the outside part of the loops being filled with plasma and embedded in plasma and the field lines being curved (loop, arcade) some currents need to flow (where and in which direction?). Note, however, that I am not talking about any twisting of the flux tube.

Just like you cannot detach the magnetic field from a bar magnet. It has a shape that is determined by the shape of the (electro)magnet.

You cannot get a tube shaped magnetic field "flux tube" without the right hand rule. It will be wrapped around a wire or plasma. That is physics.

In the case that there is no EMF generated along the tube, there will be no
"wrapping around wires."
Unless I have to read this sentence differently, and you are talking about the direction of the currents which are "wrapped around the tube."

It will not happen without the involvement of current or electron flow.

The magnetic field needs a source, currents, but the source need not be local, that is what you are forgetting here.

I'm saying that there are 2 different polarities under the photosphere on the solar surface that do not move around that provide the electric field that starts the flux tube that turns into a coronal loop.

That does not make any sense, if the magnetic field does not move around, then it cannot generate an electric field. About the generation of a flux tube, see above.

Of course we KNOW that currents are flowing along the magnetic loops, because we see the shearing motion of the foot points and we observe the effects of such currents.

 

[Reality Check]

If you think about it a process or problem should be describable in plain English(physical principles). And then you could derive a formula to quantify it.

I am not sure what you mean by this.
A process or problem may be able to be described in simple English. You may have to write a book to explain it. But that is just a lot of simple English.

Any formula to quantify the process has nothing to do with the English description or its simplicity. It has to do with the laws of physics. That formula will be as complicated as needed to quantify the process. The "formula" for magnetic reconnection in real situations (like solar flares and the magnetosphere) is complex.

Models of reconnection and plasma filled flux tubes do work everywhere that there is reconnection and plasma filled flux tubes. There is an well known problem with the current models of magnetic reconnection - "observed reconnection happens much faster than predicted by MHD in high Lundquist number plasmas". But there are a couple of theories to explain that.

 

[GeeMack]

If you think about it a process or problem should be describable in plain English(physical principles). And then you could derive a formula to quantify it.

As nice as that would be, it is an unreasonable expectation, and possibly one of the reasons you find this stuff so difficult to understand. It's like Michael Mozina's appeal to pretty pictures method of doing science. It is doomed to failure from the start, as can be seen from the fact that using that method, he has never once succeeded in understanding physics. Not even a little bit.

 

[sol invictus]

Yes THAT sounds perfectly reasonable but however that is not analogous to magnetic reconnection. If it were then it would be quite different.

Why is it not analogous? By exactly your "logic", using contour lines to find areas of avalanche danger is nonsense.

To have a contour map of a hill first before discovering it and then finding that where your drawn contour lines are actual detectable lines with various "properties"across the hill, just like in MR they too break and create x spots in places releasing energy. Slightly odd co-incidence eh?

Sorry, but I can't follow that. Individual contour lines aren't detectable. Individual magnetic field lines are detectable either, in both cases for exactly the same reason - the underlying phenomenon is continuous.

So in MR, can you please state the exact "properties of these lines". Thanks.

We've been over that many many times in these threads. You never accept or learn anything, so no thanks, I'll pass. If you want to know the answer, learn some E&M.

 

[Michael Mozina]

As nice as that would be, it is an unreasonable expectation, and possibly one of the reasons you find this stuff so difficult to understand. It's like Michael Mozina's appeal to pretty pictures method of doing science. It is doomed to failure from the start, as can be seen from the fact that using that method, he has never once succeeded in understanding physics. Not even a little bit.

You're so full of it. I "understand' that an electrical discharge is not a "magnetic reconnection" event. Evidently Alfven didn't understand even a little bit of physics either because he called "magnetic reconnection" of form of "pseudoscience" and he invented MHD theory. But you're some much smarter than Alfven aren't you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do you even READ what is written or do you just immediately start dishing out tripe? Nowhere have I said that there are "field lines curled into little flux tubes" in vacuum. The idea is preposterous.

Of course it is, along with your notion that "magnetic topology changes"="magnetic reconnection". Do I smell a full retreat here or what?

But I guess the fact that you have nothing of substance to offer, you just come up with your own misinterpretation of what other people are saying.

Well, what exactly are you saying then? If you can't make these "flux tubes" show up in a pure "vacuum", then they must include a "current flow"' component to them don't you think?

The really lame part of this conversation is that it has deevolved into childish personal attack rather than stay focused on the physics. There's so much back peddling, and pure distraction going on now it's ridiculous. *EVERYTHING* is now a form of "magnetic reconnection". Magnetic attraction is now magnetic reconnection. Magnetic repulsion is now "magnetic reconnection". Induction is now "magnetic reconnection" and a "atmospheric magnetic field topology changes (AKA "discharges") are also a form of "magnetic reconnection".

You can't and never will produce a "magnetic flux tube" in a vacuum. The "flux tube' and the winding effect we see is a direct result of the current flow that produces the magnetic field and creates the "Birkeland current".

You've simply done exactly what Parker did with "magnetic reconnection" during Alfven's lifetime. It was pseudoscience then, it's pseudoscience today, and it will forever be a form of "pseudoscience". Magnetic field do not and cannot "disconnect", or "reconnect" to any other magnetic field line. Like Alfven said, not a single line is ever broken, it's simply a 'circuit" oriented phenomenon. The only thing "reconnecting" in the plasma are the particle of plasma, and the "circuits' that create those "magnetic flux tubes" you keep talking about.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sorry, but I can't follow that. Individual contour lines aren't detectable. Individual magnetic field lines are detectable either, in both cases for exactly the same reason - the underlying phenomenon is continuous.

If it's continuous, how does it 'disconnect" and then "reconnect" to some other field line?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Now, the currents generating these loops can and will be located below the surface.

They also have to be located all along the whole loop, just like any ordinary filament requires "current flow" through the filament to stay "lit" and "active". The moment we "cut the circuit" the whole loop dissipates and "collapses".

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11432

Crashing loops

Another surprise sighting is that of giant magnetic field loops crashing down onto the Sun's surface as if they were collapsing from exhaustion, a finding that Golub describes as "impossible". Previously, scientists thought they should emerge from the Sun and continue blowing out into space.

You guys are always "surprised" because you ignore E!

 

[tusenfem]

Nowhere have I said that there are "field lines curled into little flux tubes" in vacuum. The idea is preposterous.

Of course it is, along with your notion that "magnetic topology changes"="magnetic reconnection". Do I smell a full retreat here or what?

This has all to do with your weird idea of "curled," where ever did you come up with that? You are hopelessly mixing various statements into an incomprehensible whole that you try to sell as "my" notions. That kite does not fly. And neither is this a "retreat."

Well, what exactly are you saying then? If you can't make these "flux tubes" show up in a pure "vacuum", then they must include a "current flow"' component to them don't you think?

The really lame part of this conversation is that it has deevolved into childish personal attack rather than stay focused on the physics. There's so much back peddling, and pure distraction going on now it's ridiculous. *EVERYTHING* is now a form of "magnetic reconnection". Magnetic attraction is now magnetic reconnection. Magnetic repulsion is now "magnetic reconnection". Induction is now "magnetic reconnection" and a "atmospheric magnetic field topology changes (AKA "discharges") are also a form of "magnetic reconnection".

You can't and never will produce a "magnetic flux tube" in a vacuum. The "flux tube' and the winding effect we see is a direct result of the current flow that produces the magnetic field and creates the "Birkeland current".

You've simply done exactly what Parker did with "magnetic reconnection" during Alfven's lifetime. It was pseudoscience then, it's pseudoscience today, and it will forever be a form of "pseudoscience". Magnetic field do not and cannot "disconnect", or "reconnect" to any other magnetic field line. Like Alfven said, not a single line is ever broken, it's simply a 'circuit" oriented phenomenon. The only thing "reconnecting" in the plasma are the particle of plasma, and the "circuits' that create those "magnetic flux tubes" you keep talking about.

I give up on you MM.
I have never claimed that EVERYTHING is now MRx, that is YOUR claim.
I have never claimed you can get a flux ROPE (not tube) without current.
And so I can go on with your twisting words and claims of various posters.

And again it is a rant from you, and nothing substantial has been presented apart from the fact that good ole Hannes called it a pseudo science, and so we are back at page 1 of this thread.

As soon as you present a REAL circuit model, I might discuss with you again.
I also note that I quoted twice what Tony Lui said about the Ej paradigm of MHD and that is was NOT a circuit representation.
You have nicely ignored that, now why would that be?