Boloney. He knew it formed a "double layer" and that's how he treated it. Did you not read the paper or his quotes on this topic?
[/quote[
Okay, let's go to that paper and see what he writes at the end:
H.A. said:
E. Magnetic Substorms
According to Bostrom (1974) and Akasofu (1977), an explosion of the transverse current in the magnetotail gives an attractive mechanism for the production of magnetic substorms (see Fig. I 1). Bostrom has shown that an
equivalent magnetic substorm circuit is a way of presenting the substorm model. The onset of a substorm is due to the formation of a double layer, which interrupts the cross-tail current so that it is redirected to the ionosphere.
Just one example would suffice I think. This is basically what now is called "current disruption" (see the papers by Lui et al. that I quoted before), however, although there are now many observations by Cluster and THEMIS in the current disruption region, approximately 10 to 12 Earth radii down the tail. There have been NO measurements of a double layer that is exploding. There are lots of observations of instabilities in that tail region, which lead to disruptions of the cross tail current, part of which is diverted to the ionosphere. Although there are several other processes that do this, for example the braking of a bursty bulk flow sets up a current oppositely directed to the cross tail current and sets up the so called substorm current wedge. By the way
here is a whole list of Lui papers many on CD.
No self respecting electrical engineer would ever make the bonehead mistake of claiming that a "full continuum", without beginning or end could ever "disconnect" or "reconnect" to any other full continuum. He treated these scenarios from the "particle/circuit" orientation of MHD theory, just like that paper I cited on macroscopic circuits that cite his earlier work.
And what happens with the "full continuun" near the X-line where obviously B=0???????
You folks are like blind mice, trying to use the B "field" orientation to explain *EVERYTHING* that happens in plasma, rather than using both the E and B orientations as Alfven did. You therefore treat everything as 'magnetic yada, yada, yada", even discharges in plasma. You might as well claim that any electrical discharges is a "magnetic reconnection' event because the magnetic field topologies certainly change over time.
Mikey mikey, once more you make yourself look silly. Look at the Runov et al papers with observations near the reconnection sites and see the disucssion of
electrical currents. The fact that you stopped really reading anything not written by Alfven cannot be helt against us.
Now, when is that long awaited circuit description of reconnection coming?
Now, when is that BIG description of the plasma ball coming?
You are a relict, MM, and a fraud, promising much but delivering nothing.
And interesting that you say that Einstein may have come to accept quantum physics if he had been alive longer. The same goes for Alfven, if he would have been interested in plasma physics after the late 80s. But it did not interest him anymore, he wanted to study the resonances he envisioned in the Kronian rings. Ask people from the Alfven laboratory in Stockholm about the plot he hanged on the wall (several meters long) and how he wanted everyone he talked to to work on that.
!
!
) its very hard using field lines to explain the end result.
