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

[Reality Check]

This explanation from Scott settles it for me and see Alfvens Solar Prominence Circuit "Exploding DL produces Solar Flare"

It is quite obvious and totally settled that Alfven and others published a theory that modelled the plasma in a sunspot and the plasma-filled magnetic flux as a circuit containing a DL among other elements. The existence of the papers rather settles it .

However thanks for the figure.

 

[Haig]

It is quite obvious and totally settled that Alfven and others published a theory that modelled the plasma in a sunspot and the plasma-filled magnetic flux as a circuit containing a DL among other elements. The existence of the papers rather settles it .

That model is an "electric sun" one. Glad to have you agree with that

Care to give your analysis of Scott's "The Electric Sun Hypothesis" ?
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

However thanks for the figure.

Your welcome, here's another:-

 

[Locknar]

Please stop the bickering, non-topic accusations, etc. (and yes, the means you GeeMack and Michael Mozina); post on topic, and keep it civil/polite. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Ziggurat]

Care to give your analysis of Scott's "The Electric Sun Hypothesis" ?
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

Total, complete, unmitigated garbage. It's based on Jeurgen's deeply unphysical charged sun idea.

Your welcome, here's another:-

Note the complete lack of any numbers associated with anything on those figures.

 

[Reality Check]

That model is an "electric sun" one. Glad to have you agree with that

You are wrong - the model is a plasma physics one.


I do hope that you are not as ignorant as another poster in this thread and can tell the difference between

• the physical system that Alfven is modeling and that he states is a magnetic flux tube filled with plasma (a coronal loop) and a sunspot (also made of plasma).
• the theoretical model used to describe the plasma physics.

Alfven believed that the theory behind magnetic reconnection was inadequate to model solar flares. IMO he was right - in 1986 but science has progressed and he is no longer right.
Thus he proposed a different plasma physics mechanism - the double layer. He modelled a coronal loop using an electronic circuit as in the previous figure (not Scott's imaginary image) and added a DL.

There is no electric sun model. There is an idea from Scott that is rather idiotic. The Sun is not a giant lightbulb. Quite comprehgensively debunked in "The Electric Sky, Short-Circuited" by W.T. Bridgman

Care to give your analysis of Scott's "The Electric Sun Hypothesis" ?
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

You first - start by citing all of the scientific papers that Scott has published on the hypothesis that you read during your analysis.

I do not thank you for posting an image fronm a crank web site. ThIS is the science section of the forum. Please stick to published scientific material.

 

[Reality Check]

Until and unless you can PROVIDE A PUBLISHED DEFINITION to support your claim, your claim to speak for other physicists remains in dispute. Do you recognize that?

Both claims are supported: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.

That post

1. CONTAINS A PUBLISHED DEFINITION of the usual use of the term electrical discharge by Peratt.
2. CONTAINS A PUBLISHED DEFINITION of a rare and outdated use of the term electrical discharge by Dungey

 

[Tubbythin]

Care to give your analysis of Scott's "The Electric Sun Hypothesis" ?
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

As far as I can tell, his first claim - "Most of the space within our galaxy is occupied by plasma (rarefied ionized gas) containing electrons (negative charges) and ionized atoms (positive charges)" is wrong and it goes downhill from there very quickly.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Both claims are supported: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.

That is irrelevant since both definitions begin in a plasma/ionized gas/conductor. I'm still waiting for a PUBLISHED definition that suggests a discharge cannot occur in a plasma/conductor as you have claimed.

 

[Tubbythin]

That is irrelevant since both definitions begin in a plasma/ionized gas/conductor. I'm still waiting for a PUBLISHED definition that suggests a discharge cannot occur in a plasma/conductor as you have claimed.

So why does Peratt talk about breakdown of a medium?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So why does Peratt talk about breakdown of a medium?

He does that because the "circuit" breaks down, and the magnetic field energy is transferred into particle kinetic energy via induction. That release of stored circuit energy is an "electrical discharge".

 

[Tubbythin]

He does that because the "circuit" breaks down, and the magnetic field energy is transferred into particle kinetic energy via induction. That release of stored circuit energy is an "electrical discharge".

And the medium in question?

 

[Michael Mozina]

And the medium in question?

The *ENTIRE* definition takes place in a "plasma".

 

[Tubbythin]

The *ENTIRE* definition takes place in a "plasma".

So what are the small scale properties of the plasma that determine when breakdown occurs?

ETA: So the definition does NOT cover lightning?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So what are the small scale properties of the plasma that determine when breakdown occurs?

Typically Alfven begins by comparing it to his Mercury switch incident where the current was so great the plasma couldn't carry it and simply exploded. It was the incident that got him involved in plasma physics.

ETA: So the definition does NOT cover lightning?

It's just a "different" kind of "breakdown" that still results in a 'discharge" of electromagnetic energy.

 

[Tubbythin]

Typically Alfven begins by comparing it to his Mercury switch incident where the current was so great the plasma couldn't carry it and simply exploded. It was the incident that got him involved in plasma physics.

That didn't answer the question.

It's just a "different" kind of "breakdown" that still results in a 'discharge" of electromagnetic energy.

But lightning isn't the breakdown of a plasma and you just insisted only plasmas were considered in the definition.

 

[Reality Check]

He does that because the "circuit" breaks down, and the magnetic field energy is transferred into particle kinetic energy via induction. That release of stored circuit energy is an "electrical discharge".

That is wrong: Alfven has the circuit model.



Peratt is the guy who

• defines an electrical discharge as generally needing the breakdown of the transmission medium. A plasma is already broken down (they conduct) and so he is not talking about plasma.
• goes onto discuss aurora and lightning in his "Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma" page. He does not actually discuss electrical discharge in plasma there! Thus the "In" in the section title does not mean "within" or "occurring inside" or have anything to do with a plasma having electrical discharges inside it.
• only mentions electrical discharges in that one page
  Don't you find that strange for such an important aspect of plasma?
• never discusses the physics of electrical discharges within plasma
  Don't you find that strange for such an important aspect of plasma?
• never discusses the physics of electrical discharges within plasma
  Don't you find that strange for such an important aspect of plasma?
• never discusses the physics of electrical discharges within plasma
  Don't you find that strange for such an important aspect of plasma?
• never discusses the physics of electrical discharges within plasma
  Don't you find that strange for such an important aspect of plasma?
• never gives any examples of electrical discharges within plasma
  Don't you find that strange for such an important aspect of plasma?

 

[Reality Check]

That is irrelevant since both definitions begin in a plasma/ionized gas/conductor. I'm still waiting for a PUBLISHED definition that suggests a discharge cannot occur in a plasma/conductor as you have claimed.

It is relevant because only one defintion begins in a plasma/ionized gas/conductor.

Peratt is the guy who

• defines an electrical discharge as generally needing the breakdown of the transmission medium. A plasma is already broken down (they conduct) and so he is not talking about plasma.
• goes onto discuss aurora and lightning in his "Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma" page. He does not actually discuss electrical discharge in plasma there! Thus the "In" in the section title does not mean "within" or "occurring inside" or have anything to do with a plasma having electrical discharges inside it.
• only mentions electrical discharges in that one page
  Don't you find that strange for such an important aspect of plasma?
• never discusses the physics of electrical discharges within plasma
  Don't you find that strange for such an important aspect of plasma?
• never discusses the physics of electrical discharges within plasma
  Don't you find that strange for such an important aspect of plasma?
• never discusses the physics of electrical discharges within plasma
  Don't you find that strange for such an important aspect of plasma?
• never discusses the physics of electrical discharges within plasma
  Don't you find that strange for such an important aspect of plasma?
• never gives any examples of electrical discharges within plasma
  Don't you find that strange for such an important aspect of plasma?

 

[The Man]

And there we go....

Yes, I noted the same problem myself as our posts crossed. And this is exactly the problem. I have provided a perfect definition of an electrical flare in a plasma IMO, and from a true/real "expert". The moment I deviate from it, even by a SINGLE word, the problems begin. Why do you have any problem just using the definition by Peratt and going with it? There's no point in my doing a personal tap dance just to find flaws in my personal presentation when we can stick with the definition provided by an "expert". Jane, get me off this denial-go-round crazy thing......

"an electrical flare in a plasma"? what is that?

The problem is you keep changing words, and you have given differing definitions of “discharge”. So pick one and clearly identify it or just say what you mean by “discharge” like “the release of stored EM energy”. If you don’t like tap dancing so much then stop dancing around and say just what you mean.

 

[The Man]

In THAT particular case, yes, but so what? In the case of flares, a buildup of the circuit energy occurs in the circuit/pinch itself. The release of that energy and the ensuing discharge are a result of the exploding double layer reaching a critical point. The "buildup" is a different process, but the discharge itself is pretty much the same. Once the circuit energy is depleted through the exploding double layer, the discharge is complete.

Well that was the case referenced. How do you build up this “circuit energy” particular in an area that is very conductive? “reaching a critical point”? Sounds like a breakdown. What is breaking down? If it is something that does not easily permit the flow of charges through it (an insulator) and can be polarized, then it would meet the definition of a dielectric.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric

 

[Michael Mozina]

"an electrical flare in a plasma"? what is that?

The problem is you keep changing words, and you have given differing definitions of “discharge”. So pick one and clearly identify it or just say what you mean by “discharge” like “the release of stored EM energy”. If you don’t like tap dancing so much then stop dancing around and say just what you mean.

My apologies. Since I equate a flare and a discharge as one and the same process, I inadvertently used the term "flare", when I meant to use the term "discharge". I'd say that was a Freudian slip on my part. Sorry.