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

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong again MM !
There is no breakdown of a dielectric medium in that quote.

Where in Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma do you see the term "dielectric"? You're making that up.

 

[Michael Mozina]

While you're at it...

When did Dungey claim a "dielectric breakdown" was required in an "electrical discharge" *IN* a flare?

 

[Reality Check]

Where are Peratt's many pages on electrical discharges within plasma

So what? That does not mean that additional EM energy cannot be injected into a plasma! Oy. Round and round and round we go.
...strawman snipped...

Of course additional EM energy can be injected into a plasma!
But only a truly delusional person would think that lightning can happen in a plasma because that requires the breakdown of a dielectric medium.
Only an a truly ignorant person would think that gasses as in a planetary atmosphere are the same as the plasma in a solar atmosphere.

Where have I heard that before? Oh ya:

Where have I heard that before? Oh ya:

Originally Posted by Peratt
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 detemined 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 radiatiοη.

Round and round and round we go. When are you going to get off the cherry picking, denial and ignorance merry-go-round?

You are demonstrating again that the answer to Do you know the difference between a title and a definition? is that you are ignorant of this.

And your delusion that Peratt states that are electrical discharges in plasmas implies that Peratt is so incompetent that he asserts this and never follows up on it in his book:

Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010
​

He completely ignores a vital aspect of plasmas. He completely forgets to collect his Nobel Prize for this !

 

[Michael Mozina]

Round and round and round we go. When are you going to get off the cherry picking, denial and ignorance merry-go-round?

The only one "cherry picking" is you. Please highlight the word "dielectric" in Peratt's definition RC. I already explained the "circuit breakdown" that Alfven and Peratt were describing.

 

[Reality Check]

Where in Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma do you see the term "dielectric"? You're making that up.

Where in my post do I mention Peratt? You're making that up.

 

[dasmiller]

Since you brought up Dungey again, I've read through that paper a couple of times and I'm still not seeing anything compelling about it. As others have pointed out, it's a rebuttal to a criticism of a previous paper, so without the previous papers, it's hard to take it too seriously. Are we supposed to simply assume that Dungey sufficiently refuted Cowling? Doesn't Cowling get a say in the matter?

Of course. In fact Dungey gave him a say in the matter and addressed his concerns.

Do we actually have the text of Cowling's concerns, and do we know that Cowling agreed that his concerns had been satisfactorily addressed?

The primary point of having you start with Dungey is for you to notice that 50+ year history of the association between what Dungey calls a "reconnection" event and what he also refers to as an "electrical discharge' events.

I reread that paper 3 times for that? A nomenclature timeline?

Again, what do you see in Dungey's paper that you believe supports Electric Sun? I gave you my evaluation:

As for the content of the paper, Dungey may (or may not; I don't know enough about plasma physics to really say) have shown that some aspects of observed flare behaviour may not have been inconsistent with an electric flare model, but even Dungey used the phrases "might be explained by," "may be accounted for," "could result from," "may have energy comparable to," etc. He evidently didn't consider the data to be compelling.

The thing that could have made his paper compelling would have been some nice, quantified predictions that could have been verified/falsified by subsequent observations. Unfortunately, there aren't any. (He tacitly acknowledged that the single quantifiable prediction - the 1 meter thickness - was difficult to reconcile with the observations of the day).

So all we have is few pages from the middle of a debate, stating that the observations available in 1958 were not definitely inconsistent an electric discharge flare theory.

Do you agree with my assessment? I'm assuming you don't, but can you tell me where we disagree?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Where in my post do I mention Peratt? You're making that up.

So in essence you're just in denial of the definition itself, and in denial that additional stored EM energy can suddenly be injected into a plasma, is that it?

 

[Tubbythin]

Where in Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma do you see the term "dielectric"? You're making that up.

Well if it doesn't involve dielectric breakdown then it bears no relation to the observations that...

Here on Earth we observe that "discharges" occur in our atmosphere. Such "discharges' emit gamma rays, x-rays, high energy photons galore. They heat plasma to millions of degrees in the lab. They ionize iron to high states of ionization. They do *ALL* the things we observe in flares. An intellectually honest person would simply note that when we observe gamma rays, x-rays, and other high energy photon emissions from *ANY* atmosphere from any body in space, it's most like a "discharge" process involved.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well if it doesn't involve dielectric breakdown then it bears no relation to the observations that...

How do you know that *NO* (zero) atoms are ionized in the process? How ionized is carbon in a low temp region of sunspot? Neon?

 

[Reality Check]

When did Dungey claim a "dielectric breakdown" was required in an "electrical discharge" *IN* a flare?

He did not.
You seem to have a reading problem and/or a memory problem.
I was using the standard defintion of electrical discharge which includes lightning. You know the lightning that you ignorantly compared to solar flares.

FYI: Dungey uses the term "electrical discharge" to describe large current densities *IN* a flare in 50 year old papers.
Apparently modern textbooks call currents in plasmas ... currents !

 

[Tubbythin]

How do you know that *NO* (zero) atoms are ionized in the process? How ionized is carbon in a low temp region of sunspot? Neon?

What does this have to do with anything? Your claim was that discharges in the Sun are related to discharges in our atmosphere. But if one kind of discharge is the breakdown of a dialectric medium turning an insulator into a conductor and the other is not then the only relation is through word games. This is no better than ascribing the properties of a mechanical storage device to a three month period of the year.

 

[Reality Check]

So in essence you're just in denial of the definition itself, and in denial that additional stored EM energy can suddenly be injected into a plasma, is that it?

You are lying.
ETA
I never metion Perat tin the No Circuit disruption: No Breakdown of the circuit post.

I do not deny that Peratt's defintion of an electrical discharge is

Originally Posted by Peratt
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 detemined 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 radiatiοη.

I do not deny that additional stored EM energy can suddenly be injected into a plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

He did not.

So again, you're just making this up as you go.

You seem to have a reading problem and/or a memory problem.
I was using the standard defintion of electrical discharge which includes lightning.

No. You're using the standard definition of a discharge *IN A GAS* and then trying to *INSIST* that it somehow applies to "plasma", plasma can't break down, therefore discharges can't happen in plasma. That's absurd! Are you a plasma physicist like Peratt, or are you just winging the plasma physics part entirely? I don't suppose you've read his book or anything like that?

You know the lightning that you ignorantly compared to solar flares.

Both are "discharges". One is a discharge in a gas, one is a discharge in a plasma. Other than that, they are virtually identical.

FYI: Dungey uses the term "electrical discharge" to describe large current densities *IN* a flare in 50 year old papers.

He also wrote some of the oldest papers on "reconnection", too. So what if its fifty years old? Alfven's work isn't that old, but you've just handwaved at it a bit and pretty much ignored the whole gist of the 'sudden release of stored magnetic energy" that he describes.

Apparently you're just in denial of the whole concept of a "discharge" so you insist on "dumbing it down" to "current flow", is that how the denial-go-round works?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do we actually have the text of Cowling's concerns, and do we know that Cowling agreed that his concerns had been satisfactorily addressed?

Do you still have some specific concern?

I reread that paper 3 times for that? A nomenclature timeline?

No, it's called "historical accuracy" and historical fact.

Again, what do you see in Dungey's paper that you believe supports Electric Sun?

I believe that it clearly demonstrates that "reconnection" is an "electromagnetic" process involving "discharges". Dungey's work on "reconnection" theory is also some of the oldest work in that field. He was comfortable with both a B and E orientation to these events. Later astrophysicists have simply forgotten all about how to use the E orientation at the point of "reconnection".

Do you agree with my assessment? I'm assuming you don't, but can you tell me where we disagree?

Well, that same criticism would have to also be said of "magnetic reconnection" theory as well, since we can't be *CERTAIN* of that either. Even still, the sudden release of stored magnetic field energy into a plasma is simply a discharge. It's not "special" in any way, irrespective of what you call it before hand. IMO the term "magnetic reconnection" is inappropriate since Dungey makes it quite clear that it involves 'electrical discharges", meaning it's an "electromagnetic" process. The term "magnetic" is simply a "dumbed down" term.

I produced a paper awhile back on real "experiments" in the lab with "discharges' and how they relate to iron ionization. I'll have to round that paper up next so we have some laboratory confirmation to consider.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I do not deny that Peratt's defintion of an electrical discharge is

I do not deny that additional stored EM energy can suddenly be injected into a plasma.

Then where exactly is the mental disconnect? In other words, where is the circuit interruption?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What does this have to do with anything?

What does your personal need for a "dielectric breakdown" have to do with anything?

Your claim was that discharges in the Sun are related to discharges in our atmosphere.

Which claim are we discussing now? The one I was trying to support was the claim that flares *ARE* electrical discharges.

But if one kind of discharge is the breakdown of a dialectric medium turning an insulator into a conductor and the other is not then the only relation is through word games.

That is just silly. They are both related by "powerful current flows' and "sudden releases of stored EM energy". One release of energy occurs in a gas, the other occurs in plasma. Other than that they are still EM processes were stored EM energy is released "suddenly' into the medium.

 

[Reality Check]

Electrical discharges yet again

So again, you're just making this up as you go.

So again you are fantasying: That is what Dungey implies in his paper - an electrical discharge mentioned in the context of a large current density.

No. You're using the standard definition of a discharge *IN A GAS* and then trying to *INSIST* that it somehow applies to "plasma", plasma can't break down, therefore discharges can't happen in plasma. That's absurd!

That is adbsurd and ignorant!
Plasma conduct. They are dielectric materials that have already broken down (for billions of years for solar plasma). They cannot break down

Both are "discharges". One is a discharge in a gas, one is a discharge in a plasma. Other than that, they are virtually identical.
[/quoote]
Wrong: The term electrical discharge is used for a discharge in a gas and a discharge in a plasma. The term used is absolutely identical.


The things being described are hugely different:

• discharge in a gas = a sudden current between area of different voltage enabled by the breakdown of a dielectric medium.
• discharge in a plasma = a sudden change in an existing current producing a large current density.

Apparently you're just in denial of the whole concept of a "discharge" so you insist on "dumbing it down" to "current flow", is that how the denial-go-round works?

That is a lie: I do not deny that concept of discharge., It is a word in the English language !
What you are in denial of is the different meanings of the term electral discharge (see above).


I do not deny or dumb down that

1. The standard defintion of electrical discharge involves dielectric breakdown.
2. Peratt's defintion of electrical discharge in section 1.5 of his book is basically the standard definition. His defintion does not include that it can happen within a plasma.
   He includes the word "generally" so should have added an extra sentence or two explaining the exceptions to his definition.
3. Some authors describe a large current density in a plasma as an electrical discharge.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So again you are fantasying: That is what Dungey implies in his paper - an electrical discharge mentioned in the context of a large current density.

It doesn't *IMPLY* anything. It clearly *STATES* that it's an "electrical discharge". You're intentionally "interpreting" whatever you want to hear now, and not addressing the words written in the paper. How exactly can I deal with pure denial?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Which statement do you disagree with RC?

1) Electrical discharges happen in plasma
2) Dungey (and others) wrote about them in relationship to solar flares

 

[Reality Check]

Then where exactly is the mental disconnect? In other words, where is the circuit interruption? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif

Yes you are confused (or mentally disconnected) !
There is no such thing as a circuit interruption in plasma.

If you are talking about Alfven's circuit model of solar flares then the circuit model always exists. Read his papers - he has figures showing the circuit model. They existed when he wrote the papers. They still exist now.
From a circuit model you can calculate the currents. These are current disruptions or even "interruptions".

Many processes can suddenly inject energy into a plasma, e.g. external electromagnetic fields or pumping them up with laser beams. I am not sure what you think that has to do the thread.