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

[Michael Mozina]

With lightning, is it or is it not true that the amount of energy there is to produce photons depends on the potential difference at breakdown which depends on the dialectric?

Initially yes. What happens *AFTER* it's already ionized to say a +1 state, and how do we get iron to a +20 ionization state?

 

[Tubbythin]

Initially yes. What happens *AFTER* it's already ionized to say a +1 state, and how do we get iron to a +20 ionization state?

Only initially?

 

[Reality Check]

Just "suppose" we need to sustain a plasma at a thousand plus degrees for a few milliseconds or a few hours. ....

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that plasmas are created by heating up gasses, liquids or solids until their atoms ionize. For liquids and solids the ionized atoms escape the material.

Many experiments use alternating currents to generate plasma.
Many experiments use RF fields to generate plasma.
Many experiments use lasers to generate plasma.

 

[Tubbythin]

Just "suppose" we need to sustain a plasma at a thousand plus degrees for a few milliseconds or a few hours. How would you suggest that we go about doing that if *NOT* using "current flow" to heat the plasma, and sustain the plasma at those temperatures for as long as we need it to stay at those temperatures? Let's up that requirement into the millions of degrees now, and how would you go about it? I'll let you have all the electricity you need in our thought experiment.

Since when did a lightning strike last for a few hours?

 

[GeeMack]

I didn't ask you to. I asked you to support or rescind your false statement:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711945&postcount=1198

The more you keep denying responsibility to support your own statements, the more you demonstrate the pathological nature of your position and the more you demonstrate your own "projection" in terms of your claims about "dishonesty" as well.

That dishonest argument was addressed thoroughly and often, here in post #406 on December 7, for example. And although the concept of default position relative to the burden of proof is interesting and worthy of discussion somewhere on a skeptics' forum, it is off topic for this thread. If anyone doesn't understand it, start a new thread or PM me and I'll be glad to explain it again. But any continued spamming of that particular rant in this thread will be reported as an attempt to derail the discussion.

The point, which seems to have been intentionally ignored in favor of the off topic rant was this...

A solar flare can't be the same kind of electrical discharge as lightning right here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball. The solar atmosphere is plasma, a conductor, not a dielectric medium. No amount of conflating cause with effect or vice versa, no amount of stalling by screwing around with semantics, and no amount of arguing by lying and spitting on dead scientists' graves will change that.

So regarding this claim...

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

Define the term "electrical discharge" in a concise, unambiguous way. Then take the next step and provide objective quantitative evidence that shows there's a legitimately scientific basis for the claim. Here we are with over 1900 posts in this thread and absolutely no progress has been made by the electric Sun adherents since the first post. Zero. Not a single word of compelling support has been offered.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that plasmas are created by heating up gasses,

Ya, typically in "discharge chambers" and the heat is typically sustained by a continuous "discharge" through the plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Only initially?

Alright, let's try this approach:

From SDO images we know that iron reaches AT LEAST a +20 state of ionization inside coronal loops. *OTHER THAN* current flow through that iron, plasma, what *ELSE* might sustain *ONE* coronal loop at MILLIONS of degrees and emit photons from +20 FE ions for hours on end?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Define the term "electrical discharge" in a concise, unambiguous way.

Been there done that, just another example of 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.

You simply remain in denial of the presentation, or you remain in denial of it's validity, one or the other, and you're certainly no plasma physicist.

 

[Tubbythin]

Alright, let's try this approach:

From SDO images we know that iron reaches AT LEAST a +20 state of ionization inside coronal loops. *OTHER THAN* current flow through that iron, plasma, what *ELSE* might sustain *ONE* coronal loop at MILLIONS of degrees and emit photons from +20 FE ions for hours on end?

Michael, to be honest, I don't really care. The point I'm trying to make (and have been repeatedly) is that the observed properties of lightning (primarily the amount of energy released) is strongly dependent on the dielectric properties of the air. Therefore your rant about comparing the observations of lightning and the Sun is clearly nonsense.

 

[Tubbythin]

Been there done that, just another example of pure denial on your part.



You simply remain in denial of the presentation, or you remain in denial of it's validity, one or the other, and you're certainly no plasma physicist.

So, if it is a clear definition... which form of breakdown is it referring to?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, to be honest, I don't really care. The point I'm trying to make (and have been repeatedly) is that the observed properties of lightning (primarily the amount of energy released) is strongly dependent on the dielectric properties of the air. Therefore your rant about comparing the observations of lightning and the Sun is clearly nonsense.

That's simply not true. I don't even know how to bridge this gap at the moment. The comparison Peratt makes to lightening is intentional. It's an example of "discharges" occurring through a plasma. The ionization process is just a SIMPLE step in what is then a DISCHARGE THROUGH PLASMA just like any other discharge through any other plasma. The current flow will continue to sustain the plasma at high temperatures and emit high energy photons for as long as the current flows through the plasma. The moment the current stops, the light show is over. The light show is *SUSTAINED* by current, not the breakdown itself.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, if it is a clear definition... which form of breakdown is it referring to?

He's referring to *ANY* EM breakdown which which results in sudden energy release *INTO* an *EXISTING* plasma. He's essentially describing Alfven's work and circuit breakdowns in that definition, not dielectric breakdowns *EXCLUSIVELY*. I suppose a dielectric breakdown in a gas also results in exactly the same "event" as described in his cause/effect comments about high energy photons, etc.

 

[Tubbythin]

That's simply not true. I don't even know how to bridge this gap at the moment. The comparison Peratt makes to lightening is intentional. It's an example of "discharges" occurring through a plasma. The ionization process is just a SIMPLE step in what is the a DISCHARGE THROUGH PLASMA just like any other discharge through any other plasma. The current flow will continue to sustain the plasma at high temperatures and emit high energy photons for as long as the current flows through the plasma. The moment the current stops, the light show is over. The light show is *SUSTAINED* by current, not the breakdown itself.

You're saying that the statement "the observed properties of lightning is strongly dependent on the dielectric properties of the air (by which I am primarily referring to the potential needed for breakdown) is not true?"

 

[Tubbythin]

He's referring to *ANY* EM breakdown which which results in sudden energy release *INTO* an *EXISTING* plasma.

Then he isn't referring to lightning.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're saying that the statement "the observed properties of lightning is strongly dependent on the dielectric properties of the air (by which I am primarily referring to the potential needed for breakdown) is not true?"

No. FYI, I think I've answered 40 phone calls today and dozens of emails as well as trying to engage myself in these conversations. At the moment my head hurts. If you don't mind, I think I need to take a break. I'll try again a bit later to explain myself more clearly. I think some coffee might help about now.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Then he isn't referring to lightning.

Doesn't Peratt compare an electrical discharge in a plasma to lightning? Why do you think he did that?

 

[Tubbythin]

No. FYI, I think I've answered 40 phone calls today and dozens of emails as well as trying to engage myself in these conversations. At the moment my head hurts. If you don't mind, I think I need to take a break. I'll try again a bit later to explain myself more clearly. I think some coffee might help about now.

Fair enough.

 

[Tubbythin]

Doesn't Peratt compare an electrical discharge in a plasma to lightning? Why do you think he did that?

I dunno, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, if it is a clear definition... which form of breakdown is it referring to?

Ya know.....

It's not really fair to blame me (or Peratt) for any lack of clarity about the term "breakdown" in his definition *SIMPLY* because none of the rest of you have actually read his whole book. I realize (and you must realize) that I can't post his entire book here on JREF, so I expect the critics to read his work on their own. It's not my personal job to explain everything that Peratt explains in his book again on this forum while being blamed the entire time for any confusion on your part.

 

[Tubbythin]

Ya know.....

It's not really fair to blame me (or Peratt) for any lack of clarity about the term "breakdown" in his definition *SIMPLY* because none of the rest of you have actually read his whole book. I realize (and you must realize) that I can't post his entire book here on JREF, so I expect the critics to read his work on their own. It's not my personal job to explain everything that Peratt explains in his book again on this forum while being blamed the entire time for any confusion on your part.

The problem is that you seem to be using it inconsistently.