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

[W.D.Clinger]

I didn't dismiss anything other than the term the mainstream uses to describe "circuit reconnection". FYI, you seem to be confusing my position with Alfven's position on this topic.

No, my mistake lay in assuming you had read the Wheatland paper you recommended to us. Apparently you did not read that paper, and did not realize you were dismissing its predictions as "pseudo-science".

IMO this one quote says volumes. With the exception of T, the entire "PC/EU" haters of the world seem to know very little if anything about what Birkeland and Alfven actually wrote, all they know is "hearsay" from a couple a folks they heard in cyberspace.

I've read enough to doubt whether Birkeland actually made the incorrect prediction you attributed to him, knew you well enough to suspect that your only sources for it were cyberspace "hearsay", was cautious enough to qualify my repetition of your hearsay with "If Birkeland predicted", and was skeptical enough to ask you for a citation...

...which you have not provided.

Your post was just another dodge. I'll take that as your admission that Birkeland never made the prediction, and that you were blowing smoke.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nobody is persecuting the electric Sun conjecture or those who support it, so the appelation "haters" is rather dishonest and uncivil. The truth of the matter is none of the proponents have ever been able to show that Birkeland actually believed what they claim he did. And since they haven't, it is reasonable to accept that either they don't know what Birkeland really meant, or they are unable to articulate Birkeland's position in a cogent way, or that they are being dishonest with the name dropping. The preponderance of the evidence suggests it is a combination of the above.

Case in point.....

 

[Michael Mozina]

Could you be more pathetic?

How come you folks get away with arguing against the *INDIVIDUAL* rather than the topic? Could your arguments be any more pathetic? Did you even bother reading the paper Tim, or dealing with those voltages that were found? Have any of you discussed Alfven's circuit orientation to flare events, let alone point out why *ITS WRONG*?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, my mistake lay in assuming you had read the Wheatland paper you recommended to us. Apparently you did not read that paper, and did not realize you were dismissing its predictions as "pseudo-science".

Apparently I'm tired of having my words twisted like a pretzel.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The observation that current patterns in active regions are typically unneutralized has important consequences for flare physics and more generally for our understanding of magnetic fields on the Sun, as outlined by Melrose (1991, 1995) and Leka et al. (1996). First, it indicates that twisting and shearing of the footpoints of coronal magnetic fields are not responsible for the large-scale currents that are observed and, hence, that the in situ storage model for flares is invalid. Magnetic flux emerges at the photosphere with large-scale electric currents already flowing in it and with free energy already present.

Note that Wheatland's observations are consistent with satellite imagery as well:

 

[tusenfem]

How come you folks get away with arguing against the *INDIVIDUAL* rather than the topic? Could your arguments be any more pathetic? Did you even bother reading the paper Tim, or dealing with those voltages that were found? Have any of you discussed Alfven's circuit orientation to flare events, let alone point out why *ITS WRONG*?

That is because this specific individual refuses to get into any real scientific discussion, does not understand the papers he quotes and cites as support for his claims (and then turn out to work against him when one actually reads these papers) and when asked to defend himself, this individual starts claiming that "it is not my model, it is that of Alfie or Birkie," and that was the end then of the discussion, apart from the same old pictures that get shown again (Birkeland trying to create Saturn's rings in the Terrella experiment, next to a picture of the Sun in X-rays).

Oh, by the way, the individual we are talking about is you MM.

 

[GeeMack]

Note that Wheatland's observations are consistent with satellite imagery as well:

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15%20April%202001%20WL.gif[/qimg]

That picture has nothing to do with Wheatland's observations. Or at least nobody has ever made the effort to quantitatively explain that picture and describe the quantitative relationship to Wheatland's observations. Science isn't done by looking at a picture, guessing that it looks like something that might support some crackpot conjecture, and declaring that it therefore does. Certainly nothing that could be objectively described as legitimate science anyway.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Sun & Circuits

How come you folks get away with arguing against the *INDIVIDUAL* rather than the topic?

I DID NOT ARGUE AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL RATHER THEN THE TOPIC.

You make me laugh. Could you be more pathetic? Eddington never made any "prediction" at all (with or without the "" marks) concerning voltages at the sun. He does not discuss electric currents or electric fields or magnetic fields in his book at all. What he did say was that he expected the sun to carry a small net excess positive charge, and that the electrostatic voltage of that excess charge would be about 4370 Volts. But never anywhere in the book did he even hint that this was THE voltage at the surface of the sun, you just made that part up in your fevered imagination. You should try actually reading something before you decide to pontificate from on high about how wrong it is.

No standard model ANYWHERE ever predicted voltages at the sun that are remarkably different than what we observe, so far as I know. If you think otherwise, then cite the source, but try to get it more or less right this time.

That is a statement ON TOPIC. You misinterpreted Eddington, and that is ON TOPIC. You made a false statement that the standard model failed to predict correct voltages, and that is ON TOPIC. Now you are just trying to hide behind some imagined persecution instead of STAYING ON TOPIC.

Show us where Eddington predicted what you say he predicted, or admit you were wrong. Show us where the standard model fails as you say it does, or admit you are wrong. Those requests are ON TOPIC. Do you have anything ON TOPIC to say or not?

Did you even bother reading the paper Tim, or dealing with those voltages that were found?

Yes I did read the paper. Yes, I dealt specifically with the voltages found, where I showed that you screwed up big time in thinking that was what Eddington was talking about. Can you show where the standard model fails to "predict" such voltages? No? I didn't think so.

Have any of you discussed Alfven's circuit orientation to flare events, let alone point out why *ITS WRONG*?

Lest we forget (February 4 , 2010) ...

Mozina never responded. Let us be clear on something: it is the physics that Mozina does not understand at any level. It is the physics that Mozina constantly gets wrong. We can never teach Mozina physics because he is immune to learning, already quite convinced that his ignorance is in fact knowledge, he is beyond hope. But that need not apply to others reading this thread. So let me do something I said I would not do, since Mozina will never answer the questions above. Let me explore what Hannes Alfven really says about magnetic reconnection (not surprisingly, Alfven does not say what Mozina claims he says).

The following passages are transcribed from the book Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven; D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1981. All of the emphasis (italics) are Alfven's from the original text, none are mine. First, Alfven addresses boundary conditions.

Page 28, section II.5.1 - Boundary Conditions
"Consider a volume V of space limited by a surface S. The properties of the plasma inside of S depend on the boundary conditions. Thus by changing the current through S, we can change the behavior of the plasma. As was seen in the preceding paragraph, the properties of the plasma depend on the whole circuit in which the current flows. This means that we can describe the plasma inside of S by parameters inside S only if i = 0 everywhere on S.
Hence, even if we know all plasma parameters (like density, temperature and magnetization) at every point inside S, we can describe the plasma properties theoretically only if there is no electric current crossing the surface. Therefore, the boundary problems have to be analysed very carefully."
​

This is a necessary consequence of Alfven's adoption of the circuit formalism for describing the physics of plasmas. He takes the position that it is not possible to properly describe the physics of plasmas by local variables alone, but that one must include the entire circuit, hence is requirement that no electric current can flow into or out of a given volume, if you want to use only local parameters to describe the plasma.

This leads into Alfven's specific statement about magnetic reconnection ...

Page 29, section II.5.3, - 'Magnetic Merging' Theories
"What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface. In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface."
"All theories of 'magnetic merging' (or 'field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention. This does not mean that all papers in which 'magnetic merging' is used are of no interest, because there exist some good papers (e.g., Hill, 1975) in which the term is merely a synonym for "current sheet acceleration".
​

These two paragraphs reveal a serious weakness in Alfven's method, in the context of modern plasma physics, and reveal precisely why Alfven was in fact wrong to reject magnetic reconnection. His statement above was correct, and as far as I know remains correct to this day. He was right to reject magnetic reconnection in the context of the boundary conditions he laid out, but carefully note what Alfven actually says, in Alfven's own words: "All theories of 'magnetic merging' (or 'field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention." Alfven did not categorically reject the idea of magnetic reconnection, he only rejected it in cases where his boundary conditions apply. The problem, of course, is that his boundary conditions can be quite unrealistic and do not apply in most cases to real plasma in space, and this is where Alfven fails: Alfven's boundary condition requirements do not necessarily reflect the physical state of real plasmas, either in space, or in the laboratory.

Magnetic reconnection requires oppositely directed magnetic fields. Parallel magnetic fields cannot reconnect. Alfven's boundary conditions establish only parallel magnetic fields and therefore rule out at once all cases where one would expect magnetic reconnection to occur. Hence, Alfven is right to claim that magnetic reconnection will not occur when his boundary conditions are satisfied. But he was wrong to assume that his boundary conditions were physically realistic when applied to real space & astrophysical plasma. He was wrong to require all plasmas to satisfy boundary conditions which automatically rule out magnetic reconnection.

Alfven established faulty boundary conditions because he was guided by a faulty paradigm, namely the circuit paradigm for describing the physics of plasmas. That paradigm has serious limitations. It is still used by plasma physicists today, but has limited application. Alfven's reliance on this circuit formalism may have been good enough to establish the basics of plasma physics and the basics of ideal MHD, but was not good enough to handle the advances that have given us modern plasma physics. None of the modern plasma physics text books I have in my library apply the circuit analogy to plasma physics the way Alfven did. It simply does not apply to realistic space plasma physics in most cases, and we can in fact deal with all cases today using the local parameters of the plasma without appealing to Alfven's limiting boundary conditions.

Now, let me add the caveat that I am not a specialist in plasma physics (although I actually have coauthored one paper in space plasma physics: Bolton, et al., 1989). But I do have a master's degree in physics, I can read plasma physics text books, and most importantly of all, I know when to ask for help. So I acknowledge hints from tusenfem on interpreting Alfven in this case. I don't think I am making any big mistakes here, but feel free to correct any errors (even the little ones).

Finally, once again, I direct the interested reader to the book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Application; Priest & Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Section 4.2 describes the Sweet-Parker mechanism, and section 4.3 describes the faster Petschek mechanism, both of which are reconnection mechanisms that take place in plasma environments which are not allowed to exist under Alfven's restrictive boundary conditions.

As tusenfem has pointed out already (1 December 2010) ...

What I mean is that there are processes on small scales that are very important in plasma physics, i.e. scales smaller than the length of the solar magnetic loop (to stay with that example) and all these micro-scale physical processes are all heaped together to be described as an overall resistance R and an overall capacitance C. What you are looking at in the circuit approximation is a long wavelength approximation of the MHD equations which are again an approximation of full plasma physics. It means that you cannot look at processes that have a length scale smaller that the length of the magnetic loop.

The circuit APPROXIMATION is still used in plasma physics and plasma astrophysics today. The circuit description has never been abandoned. But it cannot deal with "microphysical" processes and so is of necessarily limited value. You seem to think that if you can just show somebody successfully using a circuit model, then you have struck some kind of blow against the mainstream. But in fact, all you are doing is reinforcing the standard model, which explicitly does use (and explicitly always has used) the circuit APPROXIMATION to describe space & astrophysical & geophysical plasma.

So I have to say I just don't get the point you are trying to make? Are you arguing that the circuit APPROXIMATION is correct? OK, nobody says it isn't, we just put intelligent limits on it (that's what the word APPROXIMATION means, you know). Are you trying to argue that the circuit APPROXIMATION is the one and only way to understand solar & astrophysical plasmas? If so, then you are simply wrong. But you might want to explicitly say what it is you are trying to prove. You know, something beyond the scope of the one-liner.

Hey, you think this UPPER CASE thing will catch on?

 

[Haig]

Can this actually happen? First of all there are no numbers on the axes in the figure, so how strong is this electric field? Why not put numbers there? Never mind, we will just take Juergens' numbers, which says that the potential drop is of the order of 10⁹ volts.
...snip...
This in not exact, this is just an approximation to keep things simple, but all the physics is in there. Now, when the corona has a temperature of 15 million degrees then the mean free path for one of those ions leaving the double layer will be 6 10¹⁰ m which corresponds to about 100 solar radii or up to the orbit of Mercury!!!. So basically they will fly through the corona without even having one collision!

I am gladly proven wrong my Mr. Scott, naturally, there are also no numbers given for the amount of ions that are accelerated in the double layer.

Ah, once more ... do I even have to say it again?

(this took me all of 20 minutes of my lunchtime!)

And just for fun, it should be noted that these accelerated ions would emit so called "linear acceleration radiation" in the double layer, basically my PhD thesis was on this kind of radiation from double layers.

Impressive effort, well done. As you know Scott and others don't agree with you. "But one cannot judge the validity of a scientific opinion based on an individual’s “accreditation.” and "The answer is, I’m a layperson who has followed discovery with a particular interest in the work of independent researchers who are skeptical of the current scientific consensus" :-

Electric Universe: A Cosmology for the 21st Century

In the electric model, the Sun's external energy source is the reason why temperatures rise SPECTACULARLY with distance from the surface of the Sun - precisely the reverse of what one would expect if heat were radiating from the Sun's core. From about 4400 degrees K at 500 kilometers (300 miles) above the photosphere, the temperature rises steadily to about 20,000 degrees K at the top of the chromosphere, some 2200 kilometers (1200 miles) above the Sun's surface. At this point an abrupt increase occurs, eventually reaching 2 million degrees in the corona. And even farther from the Sun, the energetic activity of ionized oxygen atoms reaches an astonishing 200 million degrees! This is the last thing one would expect of a nuclear furnace hidden in the core of the Sun. But it is the observed nature of a corona discharge.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/new_cosmology.htm


Nature doesn't have to follow mathematical models but mathematical models have to follow nature.

tusenfem your obviously a clever guy. Is there anything that would falsify the mainstream view of Nuclear fusion in the stellar interior? or is it sacrosanct?

Let's see if I understand you, Haig.

You are one of those who does not accept that physics is quantitative, right?

No, wrong. Quantitive in the sense of numbers, values, equations, calculations, estimates, orders-of-magnitude etc is important in my view. However, it's not always easy or possible for various reasons.

Maybe, maybe not. It's usually pretty easy to spot the people who are just parroting somebody else, but since you are already doing exactly that, what have you got to lose? It's one thing to have your own ideas, regardless of how right or wrong they may be, but quite another to avoid all thought of your own and just cut & paste whatever somebody else says.

I still think so. Mainstreams standard defence against new ideas (from outsiders) is to ridicule them and pepper the heretics with ad homs , then quietly take up the new ideas (or the parts they feel it's safe to e.g. magnetism). It's quite arrogant of you to assume I have no ideas of my own.

I have asked before, without success, but will try again. How do you know, based on your own personal knowledge of science, that the things you cut & paste, have any valid content at all? And if you have no personal knowledge as a basis for judgement, then what criteria do you use?

Results. Theories are great but if you add another Ptolemaic epicycle each time it's falsified they become a religion.

It is not the least bit audacious for the common person to question the tenability of popular scientific theories. In fact, it is often the non-specialist, one who is less encumbered by prior beliefs and conflicts of interest, who can more easily discern what is before his eyes

http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/new_cosmology.htm

The fact that you can understand the English does not make the science right. If, as you say, you are just a "numpty layman", then how do you know that the science is right?

by judging the results.Electric Universe: A Cosmology for the 21st Century

Don Scott is wrong, for reasons I already mentioned above. But since you are only a numpty layman, how would you know, one way or the other?

It won't surprise you to know Donald E. Scott says you are wrong and spells it out in great detail in this rebuttal : - http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.pdf

So, how can a numpty layman, like me, judge who is right?

Well, Every day, all over the world, groups of numpty layman (normally 12) are asked to give their verdict after judging the evidence from both sides. Sure the Jury system has it's flaws.

Another example, is when masses of numpty laymen, every few years, get to choose who will govern them. Ok, so politicians are far less trusted than scientists .... well that is until Climategate.

 

[Haig]

Adhering to Fusion

In reality, as Electric Universe theorist Wal Thornhill points out, stars reside within plasma sheaths perhaps as great as a light-day in extent. They are the borders between the electrical influence of the stars and the currents flowing through the galaxy.

As Wal wrote: "The Sun’s plasma sheath, or 'heliosphere' is about 100 times more distant than the Earth is from the Sun. To give an idea of the immensity of the heliosphere, all of the stars in the Milky Way could fit inside a sphere encompassed by the orbit of Pluto. The Sun’s heliosphere could accommodate the stars from 8 Milky Ways! It is clear from the behavior of its relatively cool photosphere that the Sun is an anode, or positively charged electrode, in a galactic discharge. The red chromosphere is the counterpart to the glow above the anode surface in a discharge tube. When the current density is too high for the anode surface to accommodate, a bright secondary plasma forms within the primary plasma. It is termed 'anode tufting.' On the Sun, the tufts are packed together tightly so that their tops give the appearance of 'granulation.'”

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090707fusion.htm

The Electric Glow of the Sun

The discovery that blasts of particles escape the Sun at an estimated 400- to 700-kilometers per second came as an uncomfortable surprise for advocates of the nuclear powered model. Certainly, the “pressure” of sunlight cannot explain the acceleration of the solar “wind”. In an electrically neutral, gravity-driven universe, particles were not hot enough to escape such massive bodies, which (in the theory) are attractors only. And yet, the particles of the solar wind continue to accelerate past Venus, Earth, and Mars. Since these particles are not miniature “rocket ships,” this acceleration is the last thing one should expect!

According to the electric theorists, a weak electric field, focused on the Sun, better explains the acceleration of the charged particles of the solar wind. Electric fields accelerate charged particles. And just as magnetic fields are undeniable witnesses to the presence of electric currents, particle acceleration is a good measure of the strength of an electric field.

A common mistake made by critics of the electric model is to assume that the radial electric field of the Sun should be not only measurable but also strong enough to accelerate electrons toward the Sun at “relativistic” speeds (up to 300,000 kilometers per second). By this argument, we should find electrons not only zipping past our instruments but also creating dramatic displays in Earth’s night sky.

But as noted above, in the plasma glow-discharge model the interplanetary electric field will be extremely weak. No instrument placed in space could measure the radial voltage differential across a few tens of meters, any more than it could measure the solar wind acceleration over a few tens of meters. But we can observe the solar wind acceleration over tens of millions of kilometers, confirming that the electric field of the Sun, though imperceptible in terms of volts per meter, is sufficient to sustain a powerful drift current across interplanetary space. Given the massive volume of this space, the implied current is quite sufficient to power the Sun.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050427sun.htm

 

[Ziggurat]

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg[/qimg]

 

[Ziggurat]

Adhering to Fusion
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090707fusion.htm

The Electric Glow of the Sun
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050427sun.htm

You can post links till the cows come home, but none of them actually address what I've challenged you about. None of them can account for the total power output of the sun. In fact, if you actually paid attention to your own links, you would see that neither of them even tries to. This consistent failure is why nobody who actually understands physics pays any attention to these "models".

 

[Haig]

none of them actually address what I've challenged you about. None of them can account for the total power output of the sun.

I don't agree. this quote from HERE makes the point IMHO: (my bold)

To avoid misunderstanding of this concept, it is essential that we distinguish the complex, electrodynamic glow discharge model of the Sun from a simple electrostatic model that can be easily dismissed.

Again, I think your points (and much more) are addressed in this pdf by Scott.(my bold)

D. E. Scott Rebuts T. Bridgman

The detailed dynamic behavior of every plasma cloud in outer space is not yet fully describable by tensor algebra. Isn‘t it premature in the extreme to leap into mathematical complexity when one is still just developing a model and attempting to identify and isolate the cause and effect variables and mechanisms?

John von Neumann said, “There‘s no sense in being precise when you don‘t even know what you‘re talking about.”

I do recognize that clothing your assumptions thickly with mathematics can be an effective propaganda tool. We are just honest enough not to do it.

for such quantities as voltage, altitude, temperature, and current density at a star‘s surface. We don’t know those numbers yet – we haven’t gone there to measure them. These are only qualitative not quantitative descriptions (but are preferable to quantitative but erroneous descriptions).

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

 

[nvidiot]

John von Neumann said, “There‘s no sense in being precise when you don‘t even know what you‘re talking about.”

Oh FSM I think you just caused a nuclear meltdown of all the irony meters across the cosmos.

 

[Haig]

Oh FSM I think you just caused a nuclear meltdown of all the irony meters across the cosmos.

Yip, I did think of snipping that bit out before I posted. Nice one

Solar Breeze

Plasma physicist Tony Peratt wrote: “...electric fields aligned along the magnetic field direction freely accelerate particles. Electrons and ions are accelerated in opposite directions, giving rise to a current along the magnetic field lines.”

Rather than shock fronts or so-called "magnetic reconnection events," the solar wind receives its impetus from an electric field that emanates from the Sun in all directions. The easiest way for charged particles to accelerate is within such a field. The Sun's e-field extends for billions of kilometers, ending at the heliospheric boundary, which the twin Voyager spacecraft are just now beginning to penetrate.

The "mysterious" acceleration of positively charged solar wind particles is an electrical phenomenon that is predicted by the Electric Sun model.

Solar flares are labeled C, M, or X: light, medium, or powerful. The January 17 CME was rated X3. However, on September 7, 2005, an X17 CME impacted Earth's magnetosphere, knocking out radio transmissions and overloading power station transformers. A veritable cosmic tornado of positive ions poured into the electrically charged environment of our planet.

Is it a coincidence that hurricanes Katrina and Rita occurred on either side of the second largest X-flare ever recorded?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/091207breeze.htm

 

[Perpetual Student]

That ONE and only ONE thread was announced in your threads, I even recall that you looked forward to it (no I am not going to search for that). And then, what happens, I read, analyse and write about Birkeland's work, and after several bumps, also by DeiRenDopa, MM is not interested.

Figures!

FYI here is that thread.

I have observed and experienced this behavior many times now. It does seem to be hopeless!

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't agree. this quote from HERE makes the point IMHO: (my bold)


Again, I think your points (and much more) are addressed in this pdf by Scott.(my bold)

No, it isn't addressed. It's dismissed without any real justification. And with (still) no calculation or estimation of the total power output of the sun. None. Zero. Nada. Nothing.

D. E. Scott Rebuts T. Bridgman

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

This quote CONFIRMS my criticism that the EU folks can't account for the total solar power output: "These are only qualitative not quantitative descriptions". In other words, they have no idea whether or not their "model" can account for the most important feature of the sun.

But it's worse than that. FAR worse. Not only do they not HAVE the numbers, there are no POSSIBLE numbers that will work. Pick any combination of voltage and current you want, and none of them will produce reasonable results. There simply is no possible way to get power outputs that large from electromagnetism without producing results that obviously contradict observations. Fix the power output and either the voltage is so large the sun will explode or the current is so large it will burn out WAY too fast. Fix the voltage so the sun doesn't explode and the current so it doesn't burn out to fast and the power output will be so low the sun won't even be visible.

Nothing works. And the reason is simple: they are wrong.

 

[Perpetual Student]

But it's worse than that. FAR worse. Not only do they not HAVE the numbers, there are no POSSIBLE numbers that will work. Pick any combination of voltage and current you want, and none of them will produce reasonable results. There simply is no possible way to get power outputs that large from electromagnetism without producing results that obviously contradict observations. Fix the power output and either the voltage is so large the sun will explode or the current is so large it will burn out WAY too fast. Fix the voltage so the sun doesn't explode and the current so it doesn't burn out to fast and the power output will be so low the sun won't even be visible.

Is there a source you can direct me to that quantifies this?

 

[Ziggurat]

Is there a source you can direct me to that quantifies this?

I ran through some calculations here, using 10^10 volts as suggested by one EU advocate. With that high a voltage, the sun would literally explode. But it still only has about 10^9 Coulombs of charge, and at 10^10 volts, we need a current of about 3.8x10^16 amps in order to provide the observed 3.8x10^26 watts. But that would discharge the sun in under a millisecond. So the model has far too high a voltage, AND far too large a current. Drop the voltage and you need to raise the current to keep the power constant, making it discharge faster. Drop the current to make it last longer and you need to raise the voltage to keep the power output sufficiently high, making it explode even more violently. Drop both the current AND the voltage by the same factor, and the lifetime remains under a millisecond even while the power drops. Lower the voltage to a realistic level and drop the current enough to last even a year, and the power output will be so low that the sun would be black.

 

[nvidiot]

That, MM, is the kind of answer we want when we ask for a quantification of voltage, current and power output.