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

[tusenfem]

It's funny to see how quickly MM slipped back in his old habits, mailing the same sentences over and over again, like a broken record, even though he said he wanted to work on circuit reconnection or whatever he wants to call it.

Maybe someone should PM the mods and ask for this thread to be closed, to put MM out of his misery.

 

[The Man]

That seems to be par for the course since you've ignored everything else, evidently including The Man's very *excellent* explanation of the difference between a "discharge" and "current".

Of course The Man's very excellent explanation was pointing out that the electric Sun nutters are wrong.

While I thank you both for such rave reviews I think I need to try to clarify for Michael’s sake.


Again a discharge is a dissipation of an accumulated charge and while a current (motion of charged particles) is required for the dissipation of an accumulated electrical charge to occur. Such a dissipation of an accumulated electrical charge is not required for a current.

Let’s consider my stereo, a circuit which for this example is switched on and attached to my generator (not running yet). When I start my generator, charged particles are moved by the applied and varying magnetic fields resulting in a current without the dissipation of some previously accumulated charge. In fact this current results in a charge differential (voltage) being accumulated across the power supply of my stereo energizing it, the circuits of the stereo have now become charged. As my stereo plays that charge separation is maintained by my generator via the varying magnetic fields. As such and as the current flows through my stereo there is no dissipation of that charge. At least not in the overall circuit sense, at a component level however some components will charge and then discharge as a result of the normal operation of the stereo. We could however select a different and simpler device such as a light were this would not be the case. However the case of the stereo shows that while on an overall circuit level (during operation) there is no discharging of that circuit but at some smaller component level there still can be some. Were I to switch off the stereo or stop the generator that charge differential (voltage) across the power supply of my stereo would dissipate and the circuits of my stereo would discharge the previously accumulated and maintained charge. My stereo is now discharged.


If you are going to claim or assert that anything is, or is a result of, an electrical discharge Michael it is up to you to show specifically what charge is being dissipated and where it is being dissipated to. As simply the presence of an electrical current in no way requires or infers an electrical discharge. However an electrical discharge specifically refers to the reduction if not the complete dissipation of some accumulated charge and requires a current between areas of differing charge.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you are going to claim or assert that anything is, or is a result of, an electrical discharge Michael it is up to you to show specifically what charge is being dissipated and where it is being dissipated to. As simply the presence of an electrical current in no way requires or infers an electrical discharge. However an electrical discharge specifically refers to the reduction if not the complete dissipation of some accumulated charge and requires a current between areas of differing charge.

FYI, thank you again (profusely) for your input into this thread. It's extremely clear to me that you understand the not so subtle differences between current and a discharge. That's frankly a breath of fresh air, since all the haters have been trying to dumb down a "discharge" to a "current" and they seem unwilling to even discuss a one line definition of a discharge in a plasma, or accept that it's even POSSIBLE for a discharge to occur in a plasma!

The haters seem to be extremely confused about the difference between current and a discharge, so there's really no way to have a logical scientific conversation on the topic. I can explain to you that Alfven's approach stores his energy in the coronal loop "circuits" by running current through that circuit. I can explain to you that the circuit energy is then suddenly released/discharged inside an exploding double layer and I know that you at least have some understanding of what I am talking about from the standpoint of electrical engineering. Alfven was an electrical engineer, and I suspect you have some background in that field as well. I'll be honest, I started taking electrical engineering classes, but I found that software was my real love, not hardware and I didn't get that far into electrical engineering. From the few classes I took however, I at least understood the difference between current and a discharge.

FYI Alfven stored his EM energy in the coronal loop circuit itself. It was energized somewhere under the surface of the photosphere, and ultimately that energy is dissipated in an exploding double layer.

My problem as I see it, is that we're stuck on a denial-go-round because the haters don't understand what a "discharge" is. They don't understand the difference between a discharge and current. They don't want to talk about storing energy in circuits, or releasing that energy in explosive double layers. Instead, they are throwing arbitrary *REQUIREMENTS* on the term "discharge* that I personally never heard of in the few engineering classes I took, nor anywhere else in life until *THIS* specific conversation. When I ask them to provide a written and/or published definition of a discharge that *REQUIRES* a "dielectric breakdown", I get nothing but handwaves and accusations about how they continue to speak for nameless engineers around the world. Only the EU proponents and a few lurkers have noted that a discharge can occur in a conductor, but not a single hater is willing to come to terms with that reality. We're stuck on a hopeless denial-go-round based a false claim they made about what a "discharge' is. How can I work with that? I really would welcome any suggestions you might have, honestly.

When I said that a flare *IS* an electrical discharge, I was basing that claim/statement on the *DEFINITION* of a discharge that I understand to be correct, that has been published and that everyone can review and comment on. I have *NO* published definition of a discharge from their side that *REQUIRES* a "dielectric breakdown". They are essentially waving in their *OWN* arbitrary personal (false) beliefs about the need for a "dielectric breakdown" for a "discharge" to occur. That's pure nonsense.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Alright t, where exactly did we leave off, and what exactly CAN we agree on?

Do you agree that a "discharge" in a plasma is possible, and it is defined as the release of stored EM energy? Do you understand the difference (thanks to The Man) between current and a discharge? Do you agree that a circuit "stores" electromagnetic energy? Do you agree that this stored EM energy can be "released" in a cataclysmic event, Do you agree that stored energy is released in a violent event that is correctly described in Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma? I need to know *EXACTLY* where we stand before we start talking about specific circuit diagrams and I insist that we start with *ALFVEN's* diagrams and maths, not yours.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I never said that you stated that they were exactly the same.

Oh man, I actually get headaches talking to you. What exactly *ARE* you saying? Can a plasma experience an electrical discharge, yes or no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK, I'll bite again.
What is it about "I am a layman" that you do not understand? Why does it matter what I say about electrical discharges in plasma? The only practical application of the term discharge that I am personally familiar with is from my background in electronics (in which I made a living 45 years ago). Specifically, a charged capacitor will discharge when a circuit is completed.

Since when was a dielectric breakdown a *REQUIREMENT* for a discharge to occur?

Now, I have also become familiar with the usage of the term discharge here regarding the breakdown of an insulator,

Assuming any of you actually get around to posting a *REAL PUBLISHED DEFINITION* that actually does *REQUIRE* a dielectric breaking, that is a (an inapplicable) definition of a discharge *IN A GAS*, not a definition *IN A PLASMA*!

which seems to be a separate usage of the term, but somewhat related, in that both usages involve a surge of current.

Can I *EVER* hope that any of you will actually cite a real published definition or is this handwaving about the need for dielectric breakdown going to continue indefinitely without *ANY SUPPORT WHATSOEVER*?

So, my guess would be that since a plasma is a conducting medium, there can be no discharge unless some accumulated charge suddenly comes in contact with the plasma so that said accumulated charge discharges through the plasma.

The circuit stores EM energy which is released in explosive double layer events. Do you grasp the concept of "circuit energy" and the release of circuit energy?

I have no idea if such a thing is possible on the sun.

Dungey did. Did you read or comment on his work PS?

However, if I did develop a passion to find out, I would consult a modern text, a modern paper, or person trained and knowledgeable in such matters.

Great. Go round us up a DEFINITION of an electrical discharge in a plasma that REQUIRES a dielectric breakdown PS, because that is what *YOUR* side keeps claiming! Surely you can do that much, right?

Now, be honest and respond!

Respond to what exactly? Which of Alfven's papers and which specific formula he used that describes circuit energy or the release of that circuit energy would you personally like to discuss?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Mozina:
Your response was blatantly dishonest -- as usual! I have never pretended to define the word discharge here or on any other thread. I said that my familiarity with the word has to do with discharging capacitors, which do so through a conductor. I have never said anything about a dielectric breakdown!
The difference between a current and a discharge is quite clear and has been pointed out by others here many times. A current is a flow of electrons (or another ion); a discharge dissipates an accumulated charge by virtue of a surge (a very rapid or short lived current). Obviously, during the discharge the medium is conductive.
But I am not a solar physicist and do not know if discharges take place in solar plasmas.
Now, you said if I responded to you, you would explain in your own words 'the release of circuit energy in terms of "induction" and such.'
Will you now do so or was that another lie?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Mozina:
Your response was blatantly dishonest -- as usual!

Please refrain from questioning *MY* honesty when you *REFUSE* to comment on Alfven's use of circuits, circuit energy and the release of circuit energy, and you refuse to comment on anyone's statements but mine.

I have never pretended to define the word discharge here or on any other thread.

No, but others have, and never *ONCE* did you question *THEIR* definition, now did you? What kind of a "skeptic" only looks skeptically at *ONE* side's claims? If you have a background in electrical engineering and you're following this conversation, how come YOU never questioned their claim about a need for a dielectric breakdown for a discharge to occur?

I said that my familiarity with the word has to do with discharging capacitors, which do so through a conductor.

So a claim that a discharge cannot take place in a "conductor" is just pure nonsense, correct?

I have never said anything about a dielectric breakdown!

So you would agree that none is required in an electrical discharge, correct?

The difference between a current and a discharge is quite clear and has been pointed out by others here many times.

Could you please try to explain those differences to GM because he keeps trying to dumb it down to a "current"!

A current is a flow of electrons (or another ion); a discharge dissipates an accumulated charge by virtue of a surge (a very rapid or short lived current). Obviously, during the discharge the medium is conductive.
But I am not a solar physicist and do not know if discharges take place in solar plasmas.

Is there any particular reason you distrust Dungey and/or Peratt?

Now, you said if I responded to you, you would explain in your own words 'the release of circuit energy in terms of "induction" and such.'
Will you now do so or was that another lie?

Sure. We'll try rearranging Peratt's basic definition and give it a "surfer dude" vernacular for you.

Dude, an "electrical discharge" in a plasma is a righteous, awesome, tubular, super fast release of energy into the plasma, either stored magnetic field energy, or electric field energy. Got it dude?

 

[The Man]

FYI, thank you again (profusely) for your input into this thread. It's extremely clear to me that you understand the not so subtle differences between current and a discharge. That's frankly a breath of fresh air, since all the haters have been trying to dumb down a "discharge" to a "current" and they seem unwilling to even discuss a one line definition of a discharge in a plasma, or accept that it's even POSSIBLE for a discharge to occur in a plasma!

No problem, however it is not clear to me yet that you understand the difference between current and discharge as some of the definitions you were touting about discharge simply amounted to a current. In fact that is the very point some of those people you refer to as “haters” have been trying explain to you.

The haters seem to be extremely confused about the difference between current and a discharge, so there's really no way to have a logical scientific conversation on the topic. I can explain to you that Alfven's approach stores his energy in the coronal loop "circuits" by running current through that circuit.

Fine then explain Alfven’s “coronal loop "circuits"” and specifically how and where that circuit stores energy when a current is “running” “through that circuit”.

I can explain to you that the circuit energy is then suddenly released/discharged inside an exploding double layer …

Fine, then explain how that “circuit energy is then suddenly released/discharged inside an exploding double layer” and specifically what charge is being dissipated.

and I know that you at least have some understanding of what I am talking about from the standpoint of electrical engineering.

Unfortunately I’m still not sure that you do know what you are talking about and in fact your posting history demonstrate that you still don’t.

Alfven was an electrical engineer, and I suspect you have some background in that field as well. I'll be honest, I started taking electrical engineering classes, but I found that software was my real love, not hardware and I didn't get that far into electrical engineering. From the few classes I took however, I at least understood the difference between current and a discharge.

So what, I’ve worked most of my career as a Mechanical Engineer, and I’m still not sure you understand that difference you claim you understood. You will note that I did not quote or paraphrase anyone but simply expressed that difference in my own words and example. You need to do likewise to show you do understand and that you can in fact explain what you have claimed above to be able to explain and understand. A point nvidiot has been trying to make to you lately.

FYI Alfven stored his EM energy in the coronal loop circuit itself. It was energized somewhere under the surface of the photosphere, and ultimately that energy is dissipated in an exploding double layer.

Where in “the coronal loop circuit itself”, be specific. “energized somewhere under the surface of the photosphere”? Where and how specifically? “ultimately that energy is dissipated in an exploding double layer”? What energy, stored where and dissipated from what accumulated charge to where? Be specific, so far you have only shown that you can not explain what you have claimed nor do you understand what you have claimed to. It is up to you to demonstrate the veracity of your claims by using your own words and being specific.

My problem as I see it, is that we're stuck on a denial-go-round because the haters don't understand what a "discharge" is. They don't understand the difference between a discharge and current. They don't want to talk about storing energy in circuits, or releasing that energy in explosive double layers. Instead, they are throwing arbitrary *REQUIREMENTS* on the term "discharge* that I personally never heard of in the few engineering classes I took, nor anywhere else in life until *THIS* specific conversation. When I ask them to provide a written and/or published definition of a discharge that *REQUIRES* a "dielectric breakdown", I get nothing but handwaves and accusations about how they continue to speak for nameless engineers around the world. Only the EU proponents and a few lurkers have noted that a discharge can occur in a conductor, but not a single hater is willing to come to terms with that reality. We're stuck on a hopeless denial-go-round based a false claim they made about what a "discharge' is. How can I work with that? I really would welcome any suggestions you might have, honestly.

Your problem as I currently see it is that you can not demonstrate your understanding by explaining in your own words what you have above claimed you can explain. Perhaps you should have taken more “engineering classes”. What exactly are were these “engineering” classes that you took?

When I said that a flare *IS* an electrical discharge, I was basing that claim/statement on the *DEFINITION* of a discharge that I understand to be correct, that has been published and that everyone can review and comment on. I have *NO* published definition of a discharge from their side that *REQUIRES* a "dielectric breakdown". They are essentially waving in their *OWN* arbitrary personal (false) beliefs about the need for a "dielectric breakdown" for a "discharge" to occur. That's pure nonsense.

Who cares what “published definition of a discharge” you have or may not have. If you can’t explain it in your own words and identify what accumulated charge is being dissipated then it is demonstrably not something you understand nor identifiable by you as a discharge of anything. You’ve made some specific claims above to your ability to explain what you as yet have not, it is time to step up or step out.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI The Man,....

I'm not sure why you all feel that it is so damn important for me to reword Dungey or Peratt's sentences for you to all be happy, but if that makes you happy.....

I am still waiting for their side to acknowledge that a "discharge" is a release of stored EM energy, not simply a "current". If and when that ever happens, I'm sure the conversation will *EVENTUALLY* move forward. At the moment it seems like you all expect me to PERSONALLY duplicate work and statements that have already been done and presented to you simply so the peanut gallery can take pot shots at my statements and build strawmen of my statements, but if that's really what you want......

I have at least demonstrated the understanding of a "discharge" well enough to point out the *CLEAR ERRORS* being made by the haters, specifically that a "Discharge" cannot occur in a "conductor", and that a "dielectric breakdown" is a *REQUIREMENT* for a "discharge". What exactly have they said about a "discharge" that is correct, and why do I have to demonstrate any more expertize than I have already shown by pointing out *THEIR* errors? Shouldn't they have to demonstrate some kind of understanding of a "discharge"?

 

[Reality Check]

Solar flares are not caused by electrical discharges

Oh man, I actually get headaches talking to you. What exactly *ARE* you saying? Can a plasma experience an electrical discharge, yes or no?

You still cannot understand that some authors like Dungey and Alfven are using a different deffintion of electricl discharge then the usual definition!
So it is idiotic to just ask " Can a plasma experience an electrical discharge, yes or no?" without stating the definition of electrical discharge that you (Michael Mozina) are using.

So: What is the defintion of "electrical discharge" that you are using in your question?
Is it one of Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different. Or Alfven's?

Not that it matters because Solar flares are not caused by electrical discharges using any of the defintions that you have cited.

FYI: The modern practise is to not use the term electrical discharge wrt plasmas. That is why you have to go to a 50 year old paper to get that usage. I suspect that there are a few current papers that do use the term wrt plasma since it takes time for old habits to die.
So your question and assertion about solar flares are totally wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

FYI The Man,....

...
they have to demonstrate some kind of understanding of a "discharge"?

What is your defintion of a "discharge" that "they" have to demonstrate understanding".

I for example understand completely that dams discharge water. Is that it?
I understand completely that the usual definition of electrical discharge means that they cannot happen in plasma.
I understand completely that there exists a definition of electrical discharge used by some authors in the context of plasma which is a high current density.
I understand completely that there exists a definition of electrical discharge used by some authors in the context of plasma which is any current.

All of these different definitions of electrical discharge are the reason that they are no longer used in textbooks. Scientists have taken the sensible path of having just one definition and describing currents in plasma as ... currents !

 

[Michael Mozina]

You still cannot understand that some authors like Dungey and Alfven are using a different deffintion of electricl discharge then the usual definition

What "usual definition"? The one you *MADE UP*, and pull out out of your back pocket? What published definition have you *EVER* provided RC and WHERE does it include the REQUIREMENT of a "dielectric breakdown" to occur in a PLASMA?

No more stalling. Where's the *PUBLISHED SUPPORT* for your *UNSUPPORTED (and bogus) CLAIM*? Where's the *PUBLISHED* definition of an electrical discharge that supports your claim? Let's see it? No more stalling.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

What "usual definition"? The one you *MADE UP*, and pull out out of your back pocket? What published definition have you *EVER* provided

There is no "usual definition" of "circuit reconnection" because Michael Mozina pulled that phrase from the vicinity of his back pocket. Michael Mozina has cited no published definition of "circuit reconnection" (because there isn't one). Flaming at everyone else is just a stalling tactic.

No more stalling. Where's the *PUBLISHED SUPPORT* for your *UNSUPPORTED (and bogus) CLAIM*? Where's the *PUBLISHED* definition of an electrical discharge that supports your claim? Let's see it? No more stalling.

I haven't "brushed off" anything [wrt tusenfem's circuit reconnection post].

Is that so?

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'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'll catch the rest of your post after I grab a cup of coffee.

Keep in mind it's an *EXTREMELY* busy day at work today.

I'll try to pick up the rest of your post after this call....

Game over, fraud.

Michael Mozina's latest brush-off:

Alright t, where exactly did we leave off, and what exactly CAN we agree on?

Do you agree that a "discharge" in a plasma is possible, and it is defined as the release of stored EM energy? Do you understand the difference (thanks to The Man) between current and a discharge? Do you agree that a circuit "stores" electromagnetic energy? Do you agree that this stored EM energy can be "released" in a cataclysmic event, Do you agree that stored energy is released in a violent event that is correctly described in Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma? I need to know *EXACTLY* where we stand before we start talking about specific circuit diagrams and I insist that we start with *ALFVEN's* diagrams and maths, not yours.

(Insert laughing dog here.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is no "usual definition" of "circuit reconnection" because Michael Mozina pulled that phrase from the vicinity of his back pocket.

Ya, but at least *I ADMITTED IT* and explained what I meant. Never mind the fact you folks MADE UP the term "magnetic reconnection" to describe "current sheet acceleration" and "discharges" and a wee bit of induction.

Michael Mozina has cited no published definition of "circuit reconnection" (because there isn't one). Flaming at everyone else is just a stalling tactic.

No, but I have provided you with Alfven's exploding double layer paper to read and comment on, which none of you have done. That double layer paper describes *ANY* explosive double layer event in plasma, *INCLUDING* a double layer exchange between *TWO CIRCUITS*.

 

[GeeMack]

I mean exactly what Alfven means when he describes coronal loops as "circuits" and two such circuits happen to "reconnection" in an "exploding double layer" event.

What exactly does Alfvén mean?

No. That's not the point. The point is to cite *PUBLISHED* work, preferably not your own work, particularly in a science debate. I already provided a published *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge in a plasma that I am personally comfortable with that was written by someone with a knowledge of electrical engineering and plasma physics who's written a book on a related topic and who's published many papers on related topics.

So since that is a different meaning than that allegedly offered by Alfvén, which is different again from that offered by Dungey, then we can all accept that Dungey's description of an electrical discharge and Alfvén's description of an electrical discharge are off the table. We can simply drop those from the conversation at this point. Sounds like progress to me.

Sure, I'll be happy to as long as this is a two way conversation. While I'm sitting here learning a bit about the Latex features, how about you start by answering a couple of quick direct questions about whether an electrical discharge can occur in plasma. Yes or no?

We're still waiting on the electric Sun cranks' clear and objective definition of the term "electrical discharge".

No, its a term designed to get you to read and comment on Alfven's exploding double layer paper, that you all sort of handwave at, but never find a flaw in. You know, that paper from the conference where he called magnetic reconnection theory pseudoscience a ton of times?

Well of course it isn't anyone else's responsibility to demonstrate that the stupid electric Sun claims are false or to offer any alternative explanations. But that burden of proof/default position thing is a grade school science concept. Likely nobody here is stupid enough to overlook it.

I can explain to you that Alfven's approach stores his energy in the coronal loop "circuits" by running current through that circuit.

Then explain it.

I can explain to you that the circuit energy is then suddenly released/discharged inside an exploding double layer and I know that you at least have some understanding of what I am talking about from the standpoint of electrical engineering.

Then explain it.

From the few classes I took however, I at least understood the difference between current and a discharge.

Then explain it.

My problem as I see it, is that we're stuck on a denial-go-round because the haters don't understand what a "discharge" is.

Certainly not as used by the electric Sun adherents, for the simple reason that they've never actually defined it in a clear, unambiguous way.

They don't understand the difference between a discharge and current.

Then explain it.

They don't want to talk about storing energy in circuits, or releasing that energy in explosive double layers.

It's not their job to talk about it, unless the purpose here is to indulge some electric Sun crackpots' desire to talk all sciency. If there's something compelling about it that relates to the silly claim that solar flares are electrical discharges, the onus is on the proponents of that claim to explain it.

Instead, they are throwing arbitrary *REQUIREMENTS* on the term "discharge* that I personally never heard of in the few engineering classes I took, nor anywhere else in life until *THIS* specific conversation. When I ask them to provide a written and/or published definition of a discharge that *REQUIRES* a "dielectric breakdown", I get nothing but handwaves and accusations about how they continue to speak for nameless engineers around the world. Only the EU proponents and a few lurkers have noted that a discharge can occur in a conductor, but not a single hater is willing to come to terms with that reality. We're stuck on a hopeless denial-go-round based a false claim they made about what a "discharge' is. How can I work with that? I really would welcome any suggestions you might have, honestly.

I'd suggest, honestly, that someone claiming solar flares are electrical discharges should define exactly what is meant by electrical discharge in a clear, objective, and unambiguous way.

When I said that a flare *IS* an electrical discharge, I was basing that claim/statement on the *DEFINITION* of a discharge that I understand to be correct, that has been published and that everyone can review and comment on.

Yet other contradictory descriptions of the term were thrown in side by side with the one which is allegedly correct. And that, of course, negates the notion that a clear objective definition has been provided.

I have *NO* published definition of a discharge from their side that *REQUIRES* a "dielectric breakdown". They are essentially waving in their *OWN* arbitrary personal (false) beliefs about the need for a "dielectric breakdown" for a "discharge" to occur. That's pure nonsense.

Tough. The claim has been made that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges. It's not anyone else's responsibility to support that claim or to provide alternative explanations. That's not how science works. This is a grade school concept. It would be amazing if there were adults who consider themselves scientists who don't understand this.

I need to know *EXACTLY* where we stand before we start talking about specific circuit diagrams and I insist that we start with *ALFVEN's* diagrams and maths, not yours.

Then explain Alfvén's math.

Please refrain from questioning *MY* honesty when you *REFUSE* to comment on Alfven's use of circuits, circuit energy and the release of circuit energy, and you refuse to comment on anyone's statements but mine.

It's not anyone else's responsibility to support the crackpot claim that solar flares are electrical discharges. To ask anyone to do that is the epitome of dishonesty. This is grade school science.

Is there any particular reason you distrust Dungey and/or Peratt?

Dungey and Peratt meant different things with their use of the term electrical discharge. Which definition is being used in the claim that solar flare and CMEs are electrical discharges?

FYI The Man,....

I'm not sure why you all feel that it is so damn important for me to reword Dungey or Peratt's sentences for you to all be happy, but if that makes you happy.....

... followed by a conspicuous absence of any rewording of anything. Now there's a dishonest argument.

I am still waiting for their side to acknowledge that a "discharge" is a release of stored EM energy, not simply a "current". If and when that ever happens, I'm sure the conversation will *EVENTUALLY* move forward. At the moment it seems like you all expect me to PERSONALLY duplicate work and statements that have already been done and presented to you simply so the peanut gallery can take pot shots at my statements and build strawmen of my statements, but if that's really what you want......

... again followed by a conspicuous absence of any explanation or duplicating of anyone's work. Another dishonest argument, but not unexpected.

I have at least demonstrated the understanding of a "discharge" well enough to point out the *CLEAR ERRORS* being made by the haters, specifically that a "Discharge" cannot occur in a "conductor", and that a "dielectric breakdown" is a *REQUIREMENT* for a "discharge".

There are several definitions for the term "discharge". Peratt even explained an electrical discharge as a genital discharge. There is no requirement for the term to mean any particular thing at all. Of course if one wants to engage in a sane, intelligent discussion and use the term within that discussion, and be understood, then there is a requirement that the person using the term as a primary component of their claim define the term in an unambiguous objective way. The term "discharge", and more particularly the term "electrical discharge", has not been defined clearly and concisely in this discussion yet.

What exactly have they said about a "discharge" that is correct, and why do I have to demonstrate any more expertize than I have already shown by pointing out *THEIR* errors? Shouldn't they have to demonstrate some kind of understanding of a "discharge"?

No. What exactly "they" have said that is correct about a discharge is that there are several definitions for the term. And "they" have already demonstrated a variety of understandings of the term. Particularly "they" have shown that Alfvén, Dungey, and Peratt (with his association of an electrical discharge to a genital discharge) use the term differently, and that none of them uses it in a way that seems to support the claim...

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

 

[The Man]

FYI The Man,....

I'm not sure why you all feel that it is so damn important for me to reword Dungey or Peratt's sentences for you to all be happy, but if that makes you happy.....

No one has asked you to “reword” anyone’s assertions. That would be paraphrasing. What we are specificaly asking you to do is to demonstrate your understanding by explaining in your own words. Quoting or just paraphrasing does not demonstrate any understanding.

I am still waiting for their side to acknowledge that a "discharge" is a release of stored EM energy, not simply a "current".

Once again a discharge is specifically the dissipation of an accumulated charge. No charge dissipation, then no discharge and a charge that is being maintained is not being dissipated. The easiest way to show that there is something discharging is to show that its charge reduces.

If and when that ever happens, I'm sure the conversation will *EVENTUALLY* move forward. At the moment it seems like you all expect me to PERSONALLY duplicate work and statements that have already been done and presented to you simply so the peanut gallery can take pot shots at my statements and build strawmen of my statements, but if that's really what you want......

I want you to demonstrate that your claims before that you “can explain” were not simply fabrications on your part as it appears they in fact were, which of course would demonstrate your understanding of what you claimed you do understand. Hey how about acctualy addressing the circuit descriptions given by tusenfem? That might at least demonstrate you have some understanding of what you claim you understand an “can explain”. Stop hiding behind “Dungey or Peratt's sentences” or whomever you might want to cite today. You can take all the “pot shots” you want at what I’ve said, do you know why? Because I understand what I was explaining and as such I am more than capable of defending and supporting my own words in that explanation.

I have at least demonstrated the understanding of a "discharge" well enough to point out the *CLEAR ERRORS* being made by the haters, specifically that a "Discharge" cannot occur in a "conductor", and that a "dielectric breakdown" is a *REQUIREMENT* for a "discharge". What exactly have they said about a "discharge" that is correct, and why do I have to demonstrate any more expertize than I have already shown by pointing out *THEIR* errors? Shouldn't they have to demonstrate some kind of understanding of a "discharge"?

No you haven’t nor have you described any kind of discharge in a conductor. A discharge that requires the breakdown of a dielectric is exactly the type of discharge that occurs in lightning which if I recall was the type of discharge alluded to in reference to solar flares. Again you have demonstrated no expertise and have demonstrated a specific lack thereof. If you had any expertise and any knowledge of a discharge in a conductor you could easily describe it, the specific conditions and perhaps limitations in your own words as well as defend yourself against any “pot shots”. Of course if you don’t then obviously you can’t and there is no problem in admitting that, unless you just have a problem, well, admitting that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina's latest brush-off:
(Insert laughing dog here.)

WTF? It's been DAYS since his original post, I'm not clear if we are even communicating on the term "discharge" yet, and I have no idea how much "stuff" we can simply skip right through. I also explained I have no desire to talk about HIS circuits but rather the CIRCUIT and CIRCUIT energy presentations by Alfven. How is that "brushing him off"? Were you EVER intending to bust GM's false statements, or are you just taking potshots at people, not at false statements?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No one has asked you to “reword” anyone’s assertions. That would be paraphrasing. What we are specificaly asking you to do is to demonstrate your understanding by explaining in your own words. Quoting or just paraphrasing does not demonstrate any understanding.



Once again a discharge is specifically the dissipation of an accumulated charge. No charge dissipation, then no discharge and a charge that is being maintained is not being dissipated. The easiest way to show that there is something discharging is to show that its charge reduces.





I want you to demonstrate that your claims before that you “can explain” were not simply fabrications on your part as it appears they in fact were, which of course would demonstrate your understanding of what you claimed you do understand.

First of all, I believe that I have already showed a superior understanding of discharges than my detractors by BUSTING THE FALSE CLAIMS made by GM and RC, something nobody else has done from their side of the aisle.

Hey how about acctualy addressing the circuit descriptions given by tusenfem?

I want to *FIRST* discuss the circuits and topics presented and the materials by *ALFVEN*, not me, and not t. Do you have some problem with that for any particular reason? IMO we all need to learn to walk before we can run.

Because I understand what I was explaining and as such I am more than capable of defending and supporting my own words in that explanation.

But I already know that is true, I know you understand the difference between current and discharges, and I know you understand that discharges can occur in a plasma.

No you haven’t nor have you described any kind of discharge in a conductor.

Dungey certainly did. Was he in error. Yes or no?

A discharge that requires the breakdown of a dielectric is exactly the type of discharge that occurs in lightning which if I recall was the type of discharge alluded to in reference to solar flares.

Ok. Did Bruce make that connection, and did he present any evidence to support it? Am I obligated to duplicate it? Did Dungey also call it an electrical discharge? Does that not count as evidence of anything?

Again you have demonstrated no expertise and have demonstrated a specific lack thereof.

How so? Which statement have I made in this thread that is false that I haven't already admitted was false when presented with evidence to demonstrate it was false?

If you had any expertise and any knowledge of a discharge in a conductor you could easily describe it, the specific conditions and perhaps limitations in your own words as well as defend yourself against any “pot shots”.

But I specifically didn't try to trust *MY PERSONAL* beliefs. I started with an EXTERNAL (to myself source) for a reason. I'm happy to defend it. I'm happy to EXPLAIN it too. I want to see *THEM* do exactly the same thing. I want to see them start with an *EXTERNAL* (to themselves) definition of a 'discharge" in a plasma. Is that really too much to ask?

Of course if you don’t then obviously you can’t and there is no problem in admitting that, unless you just have a problem, well, admitting that.

Well, I freely admit that someone like yourself is much more likely to be adept at communicating the subtleties than an amateur like myself, but even an amateur like me knows that discharges can and regularly do occur in "plasmas/conductors". Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Michael Mozina]

What exactly does Alfvén mean?

He means that circuits contain circuit energy, and they store energy. That energy can then be released as a "discharge". Do you have any idea what the term "discharge" means yet?

So since that is a different meaning than that allegedly offered by Alfvén, which is different again from that offered by Dungey,

I understand that you personally perceive them to be different, but they both begin in a conductor, something you claimed was not possible. Care to acknowledge that point and deal with it yet?

then we can all accept that Dungey's description of an electrical discharge and Alfvén's description of an electrical discharge are off the table.

There is no "personal definition" of an "electrical discharge" except yours. All other electrical engineering uses of that the term have a specific meaning related to the storage, release and typically the dissipation of that stored EM energy. Since you refuse to acknowledge the difference between a current and a discharge they *SEEM* the same to you perhaps, but scientifically speaking they are *NOT* the same.

We can simply drop those from the conversation at this point. Sounds like progress to me.

If you were to explain what you think Peratt meant by his first sentence *THAT* would be progress. If you would acknowledge that discharges happen in plasma, THAT would be progress. If you would acknowledge that a DISCHARGE involves the storage and quick release of energy, THAT would be progress. This isn't progress.

I'm bored now of you and the phone is ringing. Are you ever going to put a *REAL PUBLISHED DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge the table? Yes or no?