Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[Michael Mozina]

Dungey's paper concluded that neither Lenz's law nor the pressure gradient would suffice to refute a discharge-based explanation, and that other features of flares were not necessarily incompatible with a discharge-based explanation.

And of course we have Lee's work that shows the same iron lines we observe in SDO images, and a few other "compatible/confirmed" observations.

If that is sufficient to prove that flares are, in fact, discharged-based, then by the same line of reasoning, we may safely conclude that the animal I occasionally see in my back yard is, in fact, a walrus because its skin covering (fur) and number of eyes (2) are not necessarily incompatible with the known characteristics of walruses.

I think it's you trying to see us a walrus, when it's clear it the neighborhood cat. Electrical discharges occur around *EVERY* physical body in the solar system with A) an atmosphere, and B) and magnetic field. The Earth certainly experiences them on a daily basis, as do the larger planets. The sun is the largest physical thing in the solar system and has the largest atmosphere and the largest magnetic field. It's only *LOGICAL* that it would experience *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES* like every other body in the physical solar system that meets those two requirements.

It seems that ordinary "electrical discharges" (as Peratt defines them too) do quite nicely to explain these events. Why would we need a magnetic reconnection Walrus when an ordinary neighborhood discharge cat is a more likely culprit?

 

[Michael Mozina]

See The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism, J.W. Dungey, 1958 (this is the paper that Mozina's "Dungey" comment above refers to).

"Certain other features of flares may be accounted for by the bulk motion resulting from a discharge at a neutral point.

Notice that Dungey's definition of a "discharge" is 100% compatible with Peratt's definition of a discharge. There's no physical difference between them.

Notice here that The effect of the discharge is to 'reconnect' the lines of force at the neutral point, and this happens quickly. The 'reconnection' upsets the mechanical equilibrium in the neighborhood in a way that can be visualized, if the lines of force are seen as strings. Then the mechanical disturbance will spread from the neutral point and may have energy comparable to the energy of the spot field in the solar atmosphere."
Dungey, 1958, page 139

So Mozina tells us that Dungey's explanation is 100% consistent but also tells us that magnetic reconnection is 100% pseudoscience. But Mozina overlooks that Dungey's 100% consistent explanation includes the 100% pseudoscience of magnetic reconnection. I will leave it as an exercise for the attentive reader to decide what impact this will have on the general credibility of Mozina's arguments.

It should show the reader that my credibility is very good. Notice that Dungey is talking about a "reconnection" of "currents" of *IONS* and *ELECTRONS* and includes the force of the circuit energy. It's entirely consistent with Alfven's work. It's entirely consistent with Peratt's definition. It's entirely consistent with Bruce's "discharge" theories. It's entirely consistent with Lee's work.

The *BEST* you can ever hope for is a "draw" here. I can comprehend *DUNGEY's* concept of RECONNECTION of *PARTICLES* because that is the same approach that Alfven uses. I might not be as harsh as Alfven and call "magnetic reconnection" a form of "pseudoscience", but Dungey makes it very clear that the PARTICLES of MASS flow are the things doing the RECONNECTING not just "magnetic lines".

I can accept the concept of "magnetic reconnection", and it would still be consistent with Peratt's definition of a "discharge". I've always accepted the concept that what you call "magnetic reconnection" is nothing more than "circuit reconnection" with a really bad name (on your part) that is not congruent with electrical engineering or particle physics theory.

I'd say I'm doing extremely well, whereas those who seem to be relying upon pure denial as a lifestyle seem to be stuck in a rut.

The parallels between talking to YEC proponents and PC opponents is astounding IMO. If I asked a YEC to explain what Darwin meant by the term "evolution", they would probably simply handwave at it, or ignore the question. Likewise when I ask about Alfven's use of circuits, I get handwaves, no comment and a lot of hard core denial. Likewise, when I mention Bruce's work related to propagation speeds of discharges and their relationship to flare propagation speeds, I get flippant handwaves at his work. Ditto for Lee and Dungey. I guess some folks feel like if they never personally read Darwin's work for themselves, or any other materials related to evolutionary theory, it will somehow disappear from the public record. Denial seems to be the key self defense mechanism.

 

[dasmiller]

I think it's you trying to see us a walrus, when it's clear it the neighborhood cat. Electrical discharges occur around *EVERY* physical body in the solar system with A) an atmosphere, and B) and magnetic field. The Earth certainly experiences them on a daily basis, as do the larger planets. The sun is the largest physical thing in the solar system and has the largest atmosphere and the largest magnetic field. It's only *LOGICAL* that it would experience *ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES* like every other body in the physical solar system that meets those two requirements.

But none of the other bodies in the solar system have electrical discharges that persist for hundreds of seconds and span a meaningful fraction of the circumference. And none of them are doing it within a conductive atmosphere.

To get a big, impressive discharge, one needs to build up charge separation. That's not too tough to do in a non-conductive atmosphere like Earth has (even the ionosphere doesn't conduct very well, and has "ion" right there in the name). But in a conductive medium, like, say, a plasma, I'd think that it would be very difficult to build up much of a charge separation because the charge would bleed off as quickly as it built up.

If a conductive fluid moving within a magnetosphere can generate discharges, why don't we see underwater lightning?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection IV

"The effect of the discharge is to 'reconnect' the lines of force at the neutral point, and this happens quickly. The 'reconnection' upsets the mechanical equilibrium in the neighborhood in a way that can be visualized, if the lines of force are seen as strings."
Dungey, 1958, page 139

Notice that Dungey is talking about a "reconnection" of "currents" of *IONS* and *ELECTRONS* ... I can comprehend *DUNGEY's* concept of RECONNECTION of *PARTICLES* ...

Notice that Dungey says, "'reconnect' the lines of force ... if the lines of force are seen as strings". The statement that the reconnecting is being done by lines of force could hardly be more explicit. And yet Mozina insists that Dungey actually says currents and ions and electrons and particles.

It should show the reader that my credibility is very good.

Need I say more?

 

[Michael Mozina]

See The Electric Sun from Don Scott's Electric Cosmos webpages. Near the top of the page, under heading "The Basics", we find this: "The Sun may be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies."

OK, all you fans of the electric sun, where is that current?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

Which "electric sun" theory are we discussing anyway?

There are scalar wave "electric sun" theories out there too. I believe such theories suggest an external power source, but electric sun theory is not limited to external power source concepts. In fact there's the possibility of MULTIPLE power sources in electric sun theories, not simply one. That's one of it's strengths actually.

I've been trying to keep this topic "generic" and focused primarily on *ATMOSPHERIC* events.

 

[dasmiller]

Which "electric sun" theory are we discussing anyway?

There are scalar wave "electric sun" theories out there too. I believe such theories suggest an external power source, but electric sun theory is not limited to external power source concepts. In fact there's the possibility of MULTIPLE power sources in electric sun theories, not simply one. That's one of it's strengths actually.

Vagueness is not usually considered a strength for a scientific theory.

I've been trying to keep this topic "generic" and focused primarily on *ATMOSPHERIC* events.

Fair enough.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Notice that Dungey says, "'reconnect' the lines of force ... if the lines of force are seen as strings".

AKA "Bennett Pinches" in plasma or "plasma pinches".

The statement that the reconnecting is being done by lines of force could hardly be more explicit. And yet Mozina insists that Dungey actually says currents and ions and electrons and particles.


Need I say more?

All he is describing are *BENNETT PINCHES* of PINCHED PLASMA FILAMENTS of "current flow". There's nothing magical about the "lines of force". Those "LINES" are in fact *DISCHARGE CHANNELS* and PINCHED circuits.

Need I say more?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do you think that all "discharge" processes magically stop the moment *SOME* material is ionized by an arc discharge?

It still comes right back to this question IMO. You folks seem to *ASSUME* that the "discharge" suddenly stops the moment that the first few elements are ionized! That isn't how it works. A "current carrying plasma" can even experience a "discharge" as defined by Peratt that ionizes the elements to much higher energy states and creates "pinches" in the plasma and "double layers" (those nails Alfven described).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yep. Plasma discharges, not electrical. Magnetic reconnection. And the plasma discharge is occurring above the chromosphere. None of it is support for, and all of it contradicts the idea of an electrical discharge from/to some physically impossible iron surface below the photosphere. If someone wanted to select a reference source that is particularly damning to the combined crackpot electric Sun, solid iron surface, and electrical discharge CMEs claims, Dungey's explanation couldn't be better.

Dungey's explanation sinks your ship. He's talking about *CURRENT FLOW DISCHARGES*. Do you believe that a *DISCHARGE* of an arc discharge stops the moment the first ions appear?

 

[Michael Mozina]

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microωανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, vi α a transmission line.

Which part in yellow do you NOT understand?

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.

Note Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge *IN* plasma:

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microωανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.

Care to rescind your pathologically false statement yet?

 

[Michael Mozina]

But none of the other bodies in the solar system have electrical discharges that persist for hundreds of seconds and span a meaningful fraction of the circumference. And none of them are doing it within a conductive atmosphere.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

Hmmm. Is that really true actually? Keep in mind that Alfven described a magnetic rope as a Bennett Pinch. It seems like the whole interplanetary medium is a "current carrying" medium. Part of the Earth's atmosphere is "conductive" (aurora), and some parts are less conductive.

To get a big, impressive discharge, one needs to build up charge separation. That's not too tough to do in a non-conductive atmosphere like Earth has (even the ionosphere doesn't conduct very well, and has "ion" right there in the name). But in a conductive medium, like, say, a plasma, I'd think that it would be very difficult to build up much of a charge separation because the charge would bleed off as quickly as it built up.

Keep in mind that virtually every "electric sun" theory *assumes* a charge separation between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere. The charge separation that was achieved in Birkeland's model (only working model I've seen) was created with the powerful electromagnetic fields he used inside the sphere to concentrate the current flows along the magnetic field lines.

If a conductive fluid moving within a magnetosphere can generate discharges, why don't we see underwater lightning?

You're essentially asking me why incredibly conductive plasmas and somewhat conductive fluids behave different in vastly different environments.

Edit:

Actually we do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_machine

The Z machine at Sandia National Laboratory. Due to the extremely high voltage, the power feeding equipment is submerged in concentric chambers of 2 megalitres (2,000 m³) of transformer oil and 2.3 megalitres (2,300 m³) of deionized water, which act as insulators.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2006/physics-astron/hottest-z-output.html

The phenomena also may explain how astrophysical entities like solar flares maintain their extreme temperatures.

The z-machine demonstrates a couple of other key similarities between discharges and solar flare activity, including the heat generated inside *INDIVIDUAL* coronal loops, as well as free neutrons:

http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2003/nuclear-power/Zneutrons.html

Both of these features are *OBSERVED* in flares.

 

[Reality Check]

Do you think that all "discharge" processes magically stop the moment *SOME* material is ionized by an arc discharge?

Of course not - have you never ssen the electricl discharges throug gas in plasma globes?

But by definition any net movement of charge through a plasma is a current.
By definition you cannot have an electrical discharge within a plasma because there is not dielectric medium to breakdown (a requirement for an electrical discharge)

 

[Reality Check]

Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges

Which part in yellow do you NOT understand?

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microωανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, vi α a transmission line.

Which part in yellow do you NOT understand, MM?

Even Anthony Peratt agrees with us as you quoted.



Also see Advances in numerical modeling of astrophysical and space plasmas (PDF)where he seems to repeat that page from his book.

1. "An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy".
2. "This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium."

The first sentence is what happens during the discharge.

The second sentence is what is required, i.e. the breakdown of the "energy transmission medium". Breakdown in electrical engineering means the transition of an insulating medium to a conducting medium. Conductive medium like plasma cannot break down since they are already broken!



The page never mentions electrical discharges inside plasmas. The closest to that is the section title above. It does mention

• the generation of particle beams, X-rays and microwaves
• lightning is noted as "the discharge mechanism at work"!
• aurora

He seems to be describing the role of electrical discharges in plasma physics, i.e. to generate plasma.


The confirmation of this is the fact that this section is only one page in his book Cosmic Plasma. The table of contents has no other reference to electrical discharges.
So Micheal Mozina:
First Asked 7 December 2010
Where are Anthony Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?

I think he is still alive - maybe you can contact him to ask him to cinform that he meant electric discharges in plasma, why his book ignores then except on that one page (according to you MM) and why he ignored such an Nobel Prize winning discovery.

 

[Reality Check]

It seems that ordinary "electrical discharges" (as Peratt defines them too) do quite nicely to explain these events. Why would we need a magnetic reconnection Walrus when an ordinary neighborhood discharge cat is a more likely culprit?

You mean Peratt's definition of electrical discharge and its role in creating plasma in the first two sentences of this single page in his book.

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.
.. goes onto talk about examples, lightning and aurora...

You remain wrong as he is does not mention electrical discharge through plasmas.

But prove me wrong by answering: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?

What you have so far is the standard definition of electrical discharges which rules it out within plasma and the title of the section ("Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma").

Why would we need a magnetic reconnection Walrus when an ordinary neighborhood discharge cat is a more likely culprit?

We need magnetic reconnection because it matches the features of solar flares.
Electrical discharges do not because they cannot happen within plasmas as Peratt's definition implies. That is the Elephant in the room that you are unable to understand.

 

[Reality Check]

AKA "Bennett Pinches" in plasma or "plasma pinches".

Wrong: Magnetic reconnection is a different physical event from plasma pinches.

All he is describing are *BENNETT PINCHES* of PINCHED PLASMA FILAMENTS of "current flow". There's nothing magical about the "lines of force". Those "LINES" are in fact *DISCHARGE CHANNELS* and PINCHED circuits.

All he is describing are *MAGNETIC RECONNECTION" of PLASMA FILAMENTS caused by magnetic fields. There is nothing magical about these magnetic lines of force. Those "LINES" are in fact "MAGNETIC FIELD LINES" and stated to be so in his presentation.


You should try to understand the presentation rather than misrepresenting its contents.

• No plasma pinches are mentioned.
• No pinched plasma filaments are mentioned.
• No "discharge channels" are mentioned.

The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism, J.W. Dungey, 1958

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2006/physics-astron/hottest-z-output.html

The z-machine demonstrates a couple of other key similarities between discharges and solar flare activity, including the heat generated inside *INDIVIDUAL* coronal loops solar flares, as well as free neutrons observed in some solar flares:

http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2003/nuclear-power/Zneutrons.html

Both of these features are *OBSERVED* in flares.

I fixed your misrepresentation of the z-machine news articles.

As usual you have no evidence that electrical discharges within plasma have been observed in the z-machine.
Z-pinches may happen in solar flares and are good candidates for their high temperature and the neutrons observed.
So far this is evidence against the electric sun idea.

 

[tusenfem]

AKA "Bennett Pinches" in plasma or "plasma pinches".

All he is describing are *BENNETT PINCHES* of PINCHED PLASMA FILAMENTS of "current flow". There's nothing magical about the "lines of force". Those "LINES" are in fact *DISCHARGE CHANNELS* and PINCHED circuits.

Need I say more?

I think not, if you think that a Bennet pinch will reconnect lines of force. The idea is preposterous, very much so because a Bennett pinch is quite the opposite of a neutral point that Dungey is talking about.

Now, how about your explanation for a stupid idiot (me) how exactly the observations of reconnection by Cluster (as in the Runov et al paper) are compatible with this so called circuit reconnection. This is only like the umpteenth time I am asking this and I get no answer. Don't you have a model for circuit reconnection?

 

[GeeMack]

Dungey's explanation sinks your ship. He's talking about *CURRENT FLOW DISCHARGES*. Do you believe that a *DISCHARGE* of an arc discharge stops the moment the first ions appear?

The discharge of an arc discharge is a plasma discharge not an electrical discharge. Maybe the term "electrical discharge" was being misused all this time where the term "plasma discharge" would have been more appropriate. An electrical discharge, as we know it in contemporary physics, requires the breakdown of a dielectric medium. The solar atmosphere is plasma, and plasma, being a conductor, doesn't provide the physical properties for such an occurrence within it.

So maybe it's been another case of sloppy verbiage and "electrical discharge" was just a crappy way to describe what the crackpots really mean. But if not, the claim that electrical discharges are or cause CMEs and solar flares has yet to be supported in a scientific, quantitative, and objective way.