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

[Tubbythin]

Riding my bike home this evening, about a 10km ride, something popped up in my mind about exploding double layers. According to Alfvén the current in the loop is interrupted and then all energy is released in the double layer (exploding double layer).

Now, the important word here is interrupted, and thus we must conclude, with any definition of a discharge, that this would constitute an anti-discharge, as no charge is dissing anymore.

How interesting!

That's kinda what I was thinking given that the first reference I found to exploding double layers with google said that exploding double layers means plasmas where no current can flow. But I am by no means a plasma physicist so thought I might be missing something.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The definitions for "discharge" and "breakdown" you are tying to impose on people simply aren't consistent in any manner with the evidence you tried to present. That is all there really is to it as far as I'm concerned.
Note: I've not seen much quantitative evidence yet.

You know, it's statements like this that simply make me feel sad. I know you to be an honest and intelligent person from our conversations, and I simply do not understand your position on this specific topic.

I did not try to "impose" a definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma, I posted a definition by a plasma physicist. Does anyone else in this conversation have a Phd in plasma physics, because I know I sure don't? I specifically and intentionally looked *OUTSIDE* of myself for a legitimate definition of the term, and I cited the source. That term and definition provided by Peratt is consistent with Dungey's use of the term as well as *MANY* other authors. I can't for life of me understand why any of you are in basic denial of that fact, or blaming me for that fact (impose).

What makes me feel "sad" (I mean it emotionally makes me feel sad) is that you actually believe that no quantitative evidence has been presented. I have presented *AT LEAST* a half dozen papers with quantitative evidence, and I have also recommended *BOOKS* on this topic. In fact that link I provided earlier to Alfven's book actually has many of the first few chapters available for you to read anytime you wish to do so. Inside those chapters and papers you will find all the quantitative evidence you could ever hope for. I'm sad because if I am not reaching people like you with Calqvist's work Alfven's work, or Bruce's work, there's probably no way this conversation will ever have a good outcome.

 

[Reality Check]

Notice the terms "surpasses critical value" and "circuit energy is released"? What does Alfven mean by that?

How ignorant of you MM: Notice:

• Peratt is talking about the breakdown of a medium in a standard electrical discharge. There is no current and no current density until a critical value of electrical potential is reached and the breakdown.
• Alfven is talking about a current density reaching a critical value for a DL to explode.

"circuit energy is released" means that the energy contained in the circuit model is released, e.g. the magnetic energy from the inductors included in the electronic circuit model is released.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Riding my bike home this evening, about a 10km ride, something popped up in my mind about exploding double layers. According to Alfvén the current in the loop is interrupted and then all energy is released in the double layer (exploding double layer).

Ya, but he uses the term "induction", not "magnetic reconnection" of course.

Now, the important word here is interrupted, and thus we must conclude, with any definition of a discharge, that this would constitute an anti-discharge, as no charge is dissing anymore.

How interesting!

How interesting you didn't seem to understand *PERATT'S* (not your own) definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma:

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.

Whether you prefer "induction" like Alfven, or "magnetic reconnection", it's just the sudden release of stored magnetic energy into the plasma. It's still a "discharge" in plasma by *ANY* name. There is no such thing as an "anti-discharge" unless you can put energy back into the magnetic field, cool the plasma, lower the ionization state, etc, etc.

I don't suppose you have an *EXTERNAL* (from yourself) definition of an "anti-discharge" in a plasma?

 

[Michael Mozina]

How ignorant of you MM: Notice:

• 
  Peratt is talking about the breakdown of a medium in a standard electrical discharge.

• 
  
  But he never used the term "dielectric" now did he?
  
  

  There is no current and no current density until a critical value of electrical potential is reached and the breakdown.

  
  No. You clearly don't get the concept *AT ALL*. The "pinched filament" is already carrying large amounts of current and building up the "circuit energy" in the process. At some point the current flow becomes so great, the plasma can no longer carry that much current and it simply "explodes", because the plasmas pinches itself off and a "disruption" occurs in that current flow. The breakdown occurs *INSIDE* the pinch. He relates this all back to his Mercury switch experience by the way.
  
  
  

  "circuit energy is released" means that the energy contained in the circuit model is released, e.g. the magnetic energy from the inductors included in the electronic circuit model is released.

  
  Hey cool! Notice now how it fits Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma:
  
  

  1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
  An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy .

 

[Reality Check]

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

That term and definition provided by Peratt is consistent with Dungey's use of the term as well as *MANY* other authors. I can't for life of me understand why any of you are in basic denial of that fact, or blaming me for that fact (impose).

No one is blaming you for anything except the fact that you cannot grasp the difference between Peratt's and Dungey's usage of the term "electrical discharge".

Their usage is not consistant. They mean different things by the term "electrical discharge".

Peratt uses the standard defintion that excludes them in plasma. He never uses the term with respect to plasma. Otherwise you could answer:

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

Dungey never defines electrical discharge. If it is the standard definition than it cannot happen in a plasma. However the context of his use is that of a large current density. So his usage differs from Peratt

1. No energy release is mentioned in the 1958 presentation.
2. There is no breakdown.

 

[Reality Check]

But he never used the term "dielectric" now did he?

No he did not and I did not say that he did.

No. You clearly don't get the concept *AT ALL*. The "pinched filament" is already carrying large amounts of current and building up the "circuit energy" in the process. At some point the current flow becomes so great, the plasma can no longer carry that much current and it simply "explodes", because the plasmas pinches itself off and a "disruption" occurs in that current flow. The breakdown occurs *INSIDE* the pinch. He relates this all back to his Mercury switch experience by the way.

I clearly get the concept *AT ALL TIMES*.
You clearly don't get the concept *AT ALL*: Peratt is not talking about double layers thus

There is no current and no current density until a critical value of electrical potential is reached and the breakdown.

Hey cool! Notice now how it fits Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma:

Hey cool! Notice now that you are still wrong because Peratt never defines a discharge in a plasma.

 

[D'rok]

That term and definition provided by Peratt is consistent with Dungey's use of the term

No. You are not paying attention at all. Here is Peratt's definition again:

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.

And here is Dungey's definition again:

A 'discharge' will be a region [of a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion] in which the electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field, so that all the electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities.

Rational people can clearly see that these are two different definitions of the same term. They are not compatible.

 

[D'rok]

Dungey never defines electrical discharge. If it is the standard definition than it cannot happen in a plasma. However the context of his use is that of a large current density. So his usage differs from Peratt

1. No energy release is mentioned in the 1958 presentation.
2. There is no breakdown.

You are correct, except that Dungey does define "electric disharge" in the original paper. See my post above for that definition.

 

[GeeMack]

Peratt already provided us with that.

No, he did not. People who can actually understand what they read have determined that he did not. And if for one second any of the electric Sun nutters claim Peratt's "definition" of an electrical discharge is the one they are going to use, the next second they're babbling about Alfvén's use of the term discharge, or Dungey's, or a 100 year old picture of Birkeland's simulation of Saturn for god's sake. And since all those people used the term(s) differently, the electric Sun cranks have not, and apparently will not provide a clear, concise, and objective definition of the term.

The crackpots' strategy seems to be, given the repeated, dishonest, and failed arguments in this thread, to not define terms objectively, then nobody can point out exactly why it's doesn't support the crazy claims. Well as has been mentioned many, many times, not just by me but by pretty much everyone in these discussions who isn't proposing some kind of wacky electric Sun conjecture, that is wholly dishonest. It is a lie, a sham, a fraudulent way to pretend to do science.

It's simply that none of you wish to accept it, because the moment you do, this debate is over.

The minute someone accepts it, for the purpose of moving the discussion forward, two thing happen. The first thing is that real scientists and knowledgeable amateurs use that definition to shred the nutty claim that solar flares are electrical discharges. Then the second thing that happens is the crackpots jump to Dungey or Alfvén or Birkeland and dishonestly change the definition they so desperately wanted to use a minute ago.

It's therefore a twilight zone episode around here where denial reigns supreme. No amount of lab evidence, like that iron ionization paper, or mathematical presentations like Alfven's use of exploding double layers can or will ever be addressed. It's just a denial-merry-go-round around here because none of you will accept Peratt's very simple, very clean, very elegant *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge *IN* a plasma. Round and round and round we go, ad-homs and denial in post after post after pointless post.

The argument that Peratt has provided a definition of the term "electrical discharge" is a lie. Using a term in the heading of a section of material, then neglecting to follow up on that heading within the body of the material, is shoddy science. Peratt's mistake in that regard has been described many times here already. Claiming it is an objective, clear, and concise definition is a simple, plain, and obvious argument by lying. And all those here who are not electric Sun cranks seem to have recognized it as such.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are correct, except that Dungey does define "electric disharge" in the original paper. See my post above for that definition.

Did someone post the link to his original paper? It's been busy at work, so I may have missed it. Where did you get that definition?

Rational people can clearly see that these are two different definitions of the same term. They are not compatible.

Well, yes and no they are different, well, sort of. In terms of compatibility however, I completely disagree. How so?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, he did not. People who can actually understand what they read have determined that he did not.

No. People in denial continue to believe anything they want.

And if for one second any of the electric Sun nutters

More ad homs? Who would have guessed? Those EU hater nutters just can't make a scientific argument so all they do is rely on ad homs, lies and outright denial. Yawn.

 

[GeeMack]

Well, yes and no they are different, well, sort of. In terms of compatibility however, I completely disagree. How so?

So the claim that an objective, concise, clear definition of the term "electrical discharge" has been provided is demonstrably another lie. Nothing is clear, concise, objective, and "yes and no" and "sort of", not in common English is isn't. So the claim has been proven, in that single post, to be a lie.

And we're still waiting for the objective quantitative evidence to support this ridiculous claim...

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

Yeah, right, sure it is.

​

 

[Michael Mozina]

The argument that Peratt has provided a definition of the term "electrical discharge" is a lie.

Pathological lies won't change history GM.

Originally Posted by Peratt
1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic PlasmaAn 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.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hey cool! Notice now that you are still wrong because Peratt never defines a discharge in a plasma.

Hey cool, pure denial on your part:

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.

 

[D'rok]

Did someone post the link to his original paper?

Nope. But this is the third time I've posted the definition.

Where did you get that definition?

From the original paper. I should think you'd be familiar with that paper.

Well, yes and no they are different, well, sort of. In terms of compatibility however, I completely disagree. How so?

They are not referring to the same phenomenon at all.

 

[Tubbythin]

You know, it's statements like this that simply make me feel sad. I know you to be an honest and intelligent person from our conversations, and I simply do not understand your position on this specific topic.

I did not try to "impose" a definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma, I posted a definition by a plasma physicist. Does anyone else in this conversation have a Phd in plasma physics, because I know I sure don't? I specifically and intentionally looked *OUTSIDE* of myself for a legitimate definition of the term, and I cited the source. That term and definition provided by Peratt is consistent with Dungey's use of the term as well as *MANY* other authors. I can't for life of me understand why any of you are in basic denial of that fact, or blaming me for that fact (impose).

Tusenfem discussed this in detail in a number of posts on page 41 and 42.
In summary - how I understand it at least - there are (at least) two completely different definitions of discharge flying around. One which involves the breakdown of a dielectric medium and one in which we are talking about unusually large currents in a conductor. In no way are these the same thing.
Then there is the issue of breakdown. As far as I understand it... breakdown of a dielectric medium basically means that a insulator becomes a conductor. Breakdown of a conductor means it ceases to function as a conductor. From the little I've read about exploding double layers, (one of) the interesting things about such an occurrence is that part of the plasma ceases to conduct.
And from this you claim:

As long as we're talking about intellectual honesty, let's talk cause/effect relationships established here on Earth. 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.

But discharges in the atmosphere refers to the breakdown of a dielectric and the transformation of an insulator into a conductor. Conversely talking of exploding double layers, as far as I can tell, must mean failure of a conductor to conduct. In other words you are simply constructing a fallacy of equivocation.

What makes me feel "sad" (I mean it emotionally makes me feel sad) is that you actually believe that no quantitative evidence has been presented. I have presented *AT LEAST* a half dozen papers with quantitative evidence, and I have also recommended *BOOKS* on this topic. In fact that link I provided earlier to Alfven's book actually has many of the first few chapters available for you to read anytime you wish to do so. Inside those chapters and papers you will find all the quantitative evidence you could ever hope for. I'm sad because if I am not reaching people like you with Calqvist's work Alfven's work, or Bruce's work, there's probably no way this conversation will ever have a good outcome.

But there is no evidence that you have actually understood anything that you have linked to. Presenting links mostly seems to consistent of cherry picking small excerpts out of context at best. The rest of the time it is just a link from which we're meant to ascertain what you are talking about by ourselves.

 

[D'rok]

In other words you are simply constructing a fallacy of equivocation.

That's the long and the short of it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope.From the original paper. I should think you'd be familiar with that paper.

I told you it had been years since I read it. I never in my wildest expectations thought his *DEFINITION* would become such a hot topic, so I'd like to see the actual verbiage again if you don't mind.

Where did you get that quote then?

They are not referring to the same phenomenon at all.

They sure look to be referring to a high speed current flow through a plasma that would heat plasma, create pinches, etc in a LOCALIZED event, all the same things Peratt discusses. How are they radically different concepts on your mind? Wouldn't the "electron flow' tend to "pinch' the plasma in to filaments and such?

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's the long and the short of it.

No, denial (of Peratt's definition) is the long of short of it. The rest is just "filler".