• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ya, typically in "discharge chambers" and the heat is typically sustained by a continuous "discharge" through the plasma.


So a discharge is just current?

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?


It sure as hell isn't electrical discharge the way contemporary physicists would use the term. And if it's an electrical discharge in the bastardized and ever changing form we get from the electric Sun cranks, they still don't have the brains to calculate the power requirements for such a phenomenon. No quantitative explanation means it's a guess, without any quantitative or objective support. Children's pretend science is done by guessing. Real science isn't.

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.


It isn't about me. And since I'm not in denial of anything, that argument is a lie. As for the position of plasma physicists, every single one of them who has weighed in on the subject here, at the BAUT, or on any forum since the beginning of the Internet has held the opinion that the electric Sun crackpots are a bunch of nuts without a clue.

But if the dishonest misrepresentation of Peratt's comment is to be used as the definition of an electrical discharge, it's not an electrical discharge like we see in lightning and the sparks in a toy plasma ball. Not even close. And it isn't the same thing as Dungey's alleged description.

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. [...]


No, it's not fair to blame Peratt for the fact that no electric Sun crackpot, no matter how hard they try, can twist his words into a big enough knot to support the crazy notion that solar flares are electrical discharges. That's not what he meant. The blame falls squarely on those who dishonestly cherry pick his words and try to manufacture support for an unsupportable crackpot conjecture.

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


And has been for the pretty much all 655 posts in this thread.
 
Last edited:
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.
Tusenfem posted the whole section. There was nothing there. He also searched the rest of the book. There was nothing there. Quit blaming us for Peratt's craptacular scholarship. You hitched your wagon to him; own it.
 
A hater's model of circuit reconnection

It has been said by MM:
I don't personally reject "reconnection' theory as "pseudoscience", I simply refer to it as "circuit reconnection" (my preference) or "electromagnetic reconnection". I don't actually outright "reject" it the way Alfven did, and I haven't now for many years.

So then, as MM never deigned us worthy enough to show how his model of circuit reconnection works, I took it upon myself to work it out. (sigh)
The easiest way to do that is to take a magnetic loop on the Sun, and have it erupt as in the the figure, and a plasmoid is ejected.

picture.php


Now, the first problem one sees is that this is a 3D picture, let’s first try the 2D simple case.

First we have a loop of length L, exiting and entering the solar surface. This loop will carry a current I and has a driving battery V at the foot points and a resistivity R by the plasma and and inductance L. Note that these are all total numbers, integrated over the whole loop. This is necessary because otherwise we cannot give a circuit representation of this structure.

The RLC circuit is our starting point, which describes the loop at the beginning. Now something happens, the field somewhere in the middle of the elongated loop is brought together. And then through reconnection a plasmoid is created the flies away. We then have a situation in which there are two circuits, the smaller loop and the plasmoid. In this case circuit 1 will remain on the Sun and circuit 2 will slowly dissipate on the circuit time scale.

picture.php


Now the question is, how do we replace the arrow labeled “How???” Here lies the crux of the problem, because there we are getting into smaller scale stuff than the length L of the loop, and that is bad for the circuit description. So, at the moment there is no fill-up for the “How???”

Maybe that is because we simplified things, by making it 2D, so we will take a 3D tube. Current flowing along the loop, twisted field lines, thus it might be appropriate to define two directions, one along the axis and one around the axis. So we split up the circuit, and I put in a loop for the part that gets split off from the solar loop.

When the tube is pushed together (where the X-line would form) there will be an increase in the current between the two parts of the loop (Maxwell), and that is represented by the Vextra in the circuit. Then the reconnection starts, so we have to make the current flow in the extra loop on the left, which will be separated from the part on the right. Now, one can think of a slowly increasing variable resistor (the box with the arrow), that goes to infinity over time, and that there is truly a capacitor in the loop (which would be the diffusing magnetic field, as there is no driver for the current and resistivity will slowly dissipate the current).

This is a very simple model of “circuit reconnection.” If one is an electrical engineer (which I am not) one could come up with some more complicated realistic circuit. However …

Note that this whole “circuit reconnection” is based on large scale properties, everything is defined for the whole tube, and thus, the real physics that is happening during the reconnection event is replaced in this case by a time varying resistor (from zero to infinity). Therefore, we cannot say anything about particle acceleration, or how the magnetic field looks like during the whole process. However, is it kind of useful to make an estimate of the total energy in the circuit that can (maximally) be released and some of the time scales (like the dissipation time of the cut-off loop).
So, there you have it, “circuit reconnection.” I have no idea what you might want to do with this kind of model, as the main interest of reconnection is on the meso and micro physics scale.

Well, that's my contribution, maybe that MM can take it as a starting point.
 
Michael, it looks like the ball is well and truly in your court. Let's see what you've got.
 
So a discharge is just current?

No. Do you have some sort of trouble comprehending the English language? Let's go though Peratt's definition, line by line, and you tell me what you think it means, ok? At the moment you clearly do NOT understand what an electrical discharge in a plasma is, so I'll try to take it slowly for you, line by line. I won't bother with other trivial parts of our discussions until you 'get it'. If you don't understand the definition, there no way to have a rational discussion.

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.

Keep in mind that the text in bold is simply the *DEFINITION* of a discharge in a plasma. The YELLOW part is the one line definition of a discharge. Tell me what you think it means so I'm sure you understand the *BASIC* definition. At that point we can discuss the *EFFECTS* and we can have some idea of what to look for when trying to pick out a "discharge" in a plasma.

It sure as hell isn't electrical discharge the way contemporary physicists would use the term.

Are you a contemporary plasma physicist like Peratt? Yes or no?
 
Last edited:
Dear T,

Thanks for hanging in there and for responding with useful diagrams, topics and questions. I HONESTLY appreciate your efforts. Depending on the work load today, I may not be able to fully respond to your whole post in a single sitting, but I will try to work on the basic issues, maybe one post per issue. I'd like to start to by agreeing on the flow of electrons in the colored diagram. Shall we agree that the arrow represent the basic flow of electrons through the circuit(s)?
 
FYI, so you have some idea of where this is conversation is headed:

The point of 'reconnection' is going to be a "double layer" that forms between the two "circuits". I actually tend to agree with you that it's likely to be a short lived event, and a violent one. IMO that could cause a "rewiring" of the two circuits, and an explosive double layer process during "reconnection". The "particle flow" has kinetic energy, and the magnetic field has energy. Alfven consistently refers to the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy as "induction", but if you wish to call it 'magnetic reconnection", we'll simply have to agree to disagree for a bit, but it's the same "basic" idea, and still fits with Peratt's one line definition of a "discharge" IMO.

I'll work on your post as I get time today, but bear with me. It's been the busiest January in many years, and I'm swamped with phone calls due to tax table changes. I may even wait to respond to parts of it until I have some focused time so I can give it the attention it deserves. Hang in there.
 
The problem is that you seem to be using it inconsistently.

I thought about it last night, I'm still not completely clear why it seems that way to you at the moment. I think perhaps the best way for me to respond would be for me to answer T's questions, talk about the circuits, the point of reconnection, the explosive double layer that forms, the 'reconnection' (of particles) and such. I think once that conversation is complete you will have a much better handle on what I mean. For the time being my time is quite limited, and I think it might just be better for both of us, to let me focus on T's questions, and I think all your questions will be addressed in that same process. Does that sound good?
 
T,

I think the first thing I'd like to do is round up a NASA simulation of a "reconnection" event. I think it will help me explain my points a little better and give you a better visual handle on what I'm trying to describe. It's an excellent simulation of what I think a "reconnection" event looks like, how it behaves, and it explains the reconnection process visually in way that will save me a lot of words.
 
Tusenfem posted the whole section.

Ya, one section from an entire book. ;)

There was nothing there.

Huh? What do you mean by 'nothing'? I assure you that there are many equations and lots of text in Peratt's book. We first need to agree upon what *SHOULD BE* a very simple definition of an electrical discharge. If we can't get that far, what's the point of even discussing the rest of the book?

He also searched the rest of the book. There was nothing there.

Again, I have no idea what you mean by "nothing"', and I suspect you're putting words in T's mouth. It could of course be my fault. I admit it's busy at work this month, and I've missed a few posts/points here and there. What exactly do you mean by "nothing"?

Quit blaming us for Peratt's craptacular scholarship.

Excuse me? It's a simple "definition". It's really a very *EASY* definition to comprehend. I have no idea why you folks are having a hard time with it. I cannot even personally think of a "better" definition. Do you have one from a professional plasma physicist that you believe would be better? I'll see if it's possible to bridge any gaps between them.

You hitched your wagon to him; own it.

I have no problem doing that. I'd just like to see your side (not necessarily you personally by the way) "deal with it". :)
 
Last edited:
Dear T,

Thanks for hanging in there and for responding with useful diagrams, topics and questions. I HONESTLY appreciate your efforts. Depending on the work load today, I may not be able to fully respond to your whole post in a single sitting, but I will try to work on the basic issues, maybe one post per issue. I'd like to start to by agreeing on the flow of electrons in the colored diagram. Shall we agree that the arrow represent the basic flow of electrons through the circuit(s)?
Maybe you should lay off all the pot-shotting and just focus on this core issue. After all, how often do you get a plasma physicist who is willing to work with you on the ideas you hold so dear?

It's a pretty good test of your sincerity, seriousness and capacity, I would say. If you brush this off, game over.
 
I'd like to start to by agreeing on the flow of electrons in the colored diagram. Shall we agree that the arrow represent the basic flow of electrons through the circuit(s)?

There are three kinds of arrows in the color drawing (one big fat blue, one thiner red, one on the field lines) neither of those have anything to do with current flow direction. The fat blue ones show the motion of the magnetic field towards the Xpoint, the thinner red ones show the outflow of the magnetic field away from the Xpoint, the small ones show the direction of the magnetic field. The current can flow either parallel or anti-parallel to the field, that is undetermined in the figure. The direction of the current is rather unimportant in this whole thing

NOTE: In my second diagram the battery Vextra is the wrong way around (twice)!!! How stupid could I be??
 
Last edited:
Tusenfem posted the whole section. There was nothing there. He also searched the rest of the book. There was nothing there. Quit blaming us for Peratt's craptacular scholarship. You hitched your wagon to him; own it.

Indeed I did, and I found that Peratt uses discharge in various meanings in his book, as is pretty clear from my post.
 
Maybe you should lay off all the pot-shotting and just focus on this core issue. After all, how often do you get a plasma physicist who is willing to work with you on the ideas you hold so dear?

Work with me, or argue with me? :) They are two entirely different concepts after all. :)

It's a pretty good test of your sincerity, seriousness and capacity, I would say. If you brush this off, game over.

I'm ready for the conversation to move forward, believe me, and I agree that T is making a concerted effort at a real scientific discussion.
 
This is not a simulation, this is a very nice artist impression of what happens on the Sun from Conceptial Image Lab Animation.

Yes, I understand that. I was simply posting it as a handy visual reference. Would you agree that each one of the loops contains "stored magnetic energy" in the 'circuit"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom