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

[Michael Mozina]

FYI Tim, here was Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma. It's from his book: Physics Of The Plasma Universe.

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 determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent processes such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microwανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.

The discharge region, or load, encompasses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiation (Figure 1 .2). On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electrostatic energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.

 

[Haig]

You keep using that number, but 1) that number comes from electrostatics, which you're saying is wrong to use, 2) you don't understand what that number even means, and 3) if you did know, you'd realize it's simply not applicable here.

Your saying electromagnetic forces are not applicable to Don Scott's diagram of the Electric Sun model's draft circuit diagram?

That's the difference between mainstream and EU/PC views, obviously.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your saying electromagnetic forces are not applicable to Don Scott's diagram of the Electric Sun model's draft circuit diagram?

I'm saying you have no idea what the magnitude of any relevant electromagnetic forces actually is.

Again, do you know where that number comes from?

Would you like to learn?

Would you care to find out why that number isn't relevant to the sun?

 

[Haig]

I'm saying you have no idea what the magnitude of any relevant electromagnetic forces actually is.

Again, do you know where that number comes from?

Would you like to learn?

Would you care to find out why that number isn't relevant to the sun?

Sure, please go ahead.

 

[Tubbythin]

Don't think so.

No, you have.

Ziggurat and tusenfem are using the electrostatic model, when in fact it's electrodynamic.

So why quote a number from electrostatics?

Don't you think electromagnetic forces some x39 powers of magnitude stronger applies here?

Nope.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Speaking of discharges...

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_0094.mpg
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/xray_5m.html

If you look at the SDO images today in 94A, you can see the fast release of electromagnetic energy (AKA electrical discharges) occurring in the northern hemisphere today. The GOES satellite observes those flares/discharges as "spikes" in the x-ray output of the sun.

 

[Haig]

So why quote a number from electrostatics?

So what's the correct number, in your view, from the electrodynamic model?

 

[Ziggurat]

Sure, please go ahead.

The number comes from the ratio of the electrostatic attraction between a single electron and a single proton to the gravitational attraction between a single electron and a single proton.

Now, let's see that this means if we're not dealing with a single electron and a single proton. Let's say I have a single electron on my left, and a small ball of Y protons on my right. The electrostatic force will scale up as Y, and the gravitational force will scale up as Y as well, so we get the same ratio.

Now suppose I've got one electron on my left, and a small ball of X protons and Y electrons on my right. The electrostatic force will scale up as X - Y, while the gravitational force remains close to X (assuming we don't have Y >> X). What does this mean if X = Y? Why, it means we have no electrostatic force! And here we learn an important lesson: electrostatic forces can cancel, but gravitational forces don't.

In fact, it is the very strength of electromagnetism which precludes large charge imbalances. Large charge imbalances take huge forces to create in the first place, and those huge forces will act to quickly dissipate the imbalance. Only small charge imbalances are stable over any significant time scale. So when we look at the sun, which has something like 10⁵⁷ protons, the electromagnetic force that an electron experiences is not 10⁵⁷ times stronger than for a single proton, not even close. But the gravitational force IS 10⁵⁷ times stronger.

And 10⁵⁷ is a lot bigger than 10³⁹
So, if you want to compare the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force on the scale of anything larger than a single electron and a single proton, your 10³⁹ is irrelevant. What matters is the mass and the charge imbalance. On any large scale, the charge imbalance will always be a tiny fraction of the total number of charges. Which means that electromagnetism is quite frequently irrelevant next to gravity. That's why we don't bother with electromagnetism when calculating the orbits of satellites, or the trajectory of the moon: gravity dominates completely. If you want to show that it's stronger in a particular case, you need to have numbers to back that up. And... you don't. You never do. The only numbers you guys have ever produced is Jeurgens' numbers, and those are absurd and easily debunked.

 

[tusenfem]

Something I missed from a few pages back HERE

Your right tusenfem I'm no mathematician (my bold) but I'd like to present Scott's rebuttal of your calculation.

I haven't the time to brush up on my math so I posted on the Thunderbolts forum your calculation and asked for the flaws to be pointed out. It turns out it had been discussed on there years ago, link HERE

Don Scott

My god, that is the lamest "refutation" that I have ever seen. And it is not by Don Scott but by Steve Smith.

So I was a factor 10 off with the voltage, but then it gets said "well these values are just conjecture, so guesses.

Okay, then my current is 10x too high, but through the whole calculation that means that the magnetic field is 10x smaller, still very much too high.

I uses the thickness of the current sheet of 1 solar radius, which is a good approximation for the heliospheric current sheet, and will only be a factor few different. This assumption comes f

rom the Earth's current sheet, as I wrote. From the Wind website we find We can make only an average estimate of current sheet thickness by assuming that the solar wind flows radially from the sun at 420 km/s. The average thickness was found to be 6.4 x 10⁴ km. With the solar radius 7 x 10⁵ I am actually overestimating the thickness of the sheet!!

I cannot help that Juergens never published his rubbish, and incomplete at that, so I have to improvise here. Bringing Alfven in play is fine, having the current sheet blow up near the Sun does not matter for the current flowing in the heliospheric current sheet near the Earth.

Ulysses did not measure these currents. Oh the currents can be field aligned???? Sure, no problem, but then they will still give a toroidal magnetic field, how can you have a current without its associated toroidal magnetic field? Is Mr. Smith by chance Michael Mozina in disguise?

And then some stuff that has no relevance.

Indeed to get the spiral magnetic field you need spiral current, however going into a co-rotating system with the Sun takes away this problem, but that is beside the point. It is then said the field is nanoTesla near the Earth and Alfven estimates 3 x 10⁹ Amp. Obviously the total current that I got was much much larger, but Smith does not talk about that anymore, he just stops at what Alfven estimates, and not what one would get from Juergens' model (I wonder why????)

then his conclusions:
1. okay I can go with that
2. the paths are very clear, therefore we have found the heliospheric current sheet
3. apparently Mr. Smith does not know how aurora are generated, there is no direct connection from the sun through the cusp, the aurora producing particles come from inside the Earth's magnetosphere, mainly from the tail
4. stupid discharge blah blah
5. this does not make any sense, brownian motion does not bring a magnetic signature, drift current of electrons does
6. heck, still infancy, when Alfven is supposed to have created the basics in his solar current system in the 60s? (if I am not mistaken)
7. oh dear, a false dichotomy, they don't believe in my thing, but they do believe in something I don't believe in, how can that be! Gimme a break!

You can copy this late-evening after a glass of wine or two reply to Smith's coments on the thunderdolts forum if you like.

This rebuttal is pathetic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Is Mr. Smith by chance Michael Mozina in disguise?

Er, no.

 

[GeeMack]

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_0094.mpg
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/xray_5m.html

If you look at the SDO images today in 94A, you can see the fast release of electromagnetic energy (AKA electrical discharges) occurring in the northern hemisphere today. The GOES satellite observes those flares/discharges as "spikes" in the x-ray output of the sun.

Of course if you look at the Sun anytime in almost any wavelength, and anywhere on the Sun, you'll see the fast release of electromagnetic energy, so that argument is irrelevant.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Of course if you look at the Sun anytime in almost any wavelength, and anywhere on the Sun, you'll see the fast release of electromagnetic energy, so....

Discharges happen in plasma!

 

[Haig]

My god, that is the lamest "refutation" that I have ever seen. And it is not by Don Scott but by Steve Smith.

Your wrong, it was Scott. Just scroll down three posts and you'll see this:

Re: Mathematical Criticism of the Electrical Sun
by Steve Smith » Fri Feb 06, 2009 4:48 pm

Make sure you note that it is Don Scott's reply that I posted and not mine.

Are you claiming you never knew of Scott's refutation of your calculation?

 

[Tubbythin]

So what's the correct number, in your view, from the electrodynamic model?

Without a model it is impossible to say.

 

[GeeMack]

Discharges happen in plasma!

So do ejaculations!

Of course a discharge, when defined as something that happens in a plasma, can occur in a plasma. It's circular, a simple logical fallacy. If we define the term "dribble" as something that happens in a plasma, then a dribble can happen in a plasma. So a solar flare *IS* an ejaculation. A common definition for the term ejaculation is, "the act of throwing or darting out with a sudden force and rapid flight". It's that easy. But that's not science, it's wordplay.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So do ejaculations!

At least you're finally on the right track in terms of "release of energy".

Of course a discharge, when defined as something that happens in a plasma, can occur in a plasma. It's circular, a simple logical fallacy.

No, it's a simple statement of physical fact and it gives us a UNIVERSAL way to describe all fast releases of EM energy in the atmospheres of *ALL* large bodies in the solar system with a atmosphere and a magnetic field, *INCLUDING* the sun. That's progress.

 

[GeeMack]

At least you're finally on the right track in terms of "release of energy".

No, it's a simple statement of physical fact and it gives us a UNIVERSAL way to describe all fast releases of EM energy in the atmospheres of *ALL* large bodies in the solar system with a atmosphere and a magnetic field, *INCLUDING* the sun. That's progress.

Fortunately that ridiculous claim that solar flares are electrical discharges like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball has been abandoned and left behind. That's progress. But of course it's also dishonest goal post shifting, and is, as always, noted.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Fortunately that ridiculous claim that solar flares are electrical discharges like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball has been abandoned and left behind.

No, you've evidently been left behind and you still don't know it.

That's progress. But of course it's also dishonest goal post shifting, and is, as always, noted.

Are you ever going to address Peratt's first sentence? Don't you have someone else to harass?

 

[The Man]

Essentially the currents running through the plasma creates a magnetic field that becomes aligned with the current. That magnetic field acts to "pinch" the plasma into "filaments", sometimes "tubular" filaments. The magnetic field around the filament acts to evacuate the regions around the filament, creating an insulating effect directly around the filament.

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

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Magnetic_rope.png/300px-Magnetic_rope.png[/qimg]

So it is the magnetic field that is doing all the work in that ““PINCH effect” developing.

The energy is stored in the "circuit' that goes though and under the photosphere, as well as high above the photosphere. Alfven has a pretty good single paragraph description of how this all works. I'll try to round it up again for you today. Be patient however, it's really busy again today (thank you very much SS administration ).

How and where is it stored in your “"circuit' that goes though and under the photosphere”? Be specific if you can and if you can’t then just admit that you are not sure. If you don’t know where the energy is stored in your “circuit' then you don’t know that energy is or can be stored in your “circuit'.

Scientists tend to use the term 'may' rather than will, when describing their theories. The same process takes place inside of an ordinary plasma ball, although the process is somewhat different because it's not all ionized matter inside of a plasma ball, but the process is quite similar. Current carrying filaments tend to carry the bulk of the current while the rest of the plasma is not carrying much current at all, certainly far less than the filament.

It still wasn’t an explanation and most Scientists use the term “may” rather than “will” because they can only demonstrate that it “may” but not that it “will”.

Well, what exactly did you expect him say about his own theories?

I didn’t expect him to say anything, I expected that what you claimed was an explanation would explain what you claimed it would, was I expecting too much?

It's stored in the coronal loop "circuit".

Where in the circuit? Again this is the same thing as with “discharge” if you just define the “coronal loop” as your "circuit" the energy of the coronal loop is somewhere in your “circuit”. Again it is simply and trivially true just based on you equating the “coronal loop” with your “circuit”, it has no probative or exploratory value. However where and how that “circuit” stores energy does have probative and exploratory value

Well, it's essentially accumulated by increasing the current through the loop, which increases the particle kinetic energy *AND* the magnetic field energy around the filament.

So increasing “particle kinetic energy *AND* the magnetic field energy”, is that where your EM energy is stored? I see the “M” directly related to “magnetic field energy” particularly in the increasing and storage of your “EM” energy. However I don’t see the “E” in “particle kinetic energy” usually that means the electrical field is transferring energy to the particles not storing it in an electrical field. Unless you are referring to a polarization as in a dielectric where the energy is stored and the electrical field maintained by the polarization of the dielectric? Much like a spring stores mechanical energy when compressed the dielectric stores electrical energy when polarized.

Essentially the plasma reaches the limit of the amount of current it can carry before the plasma starts to become "noisy" due to collisions, the plasma heats up, the filament becomes unstable, and the resistivity of the filament jumps through the roof. The whole things then "explodes/discharges'.

So the resistivity is what changes to result in the breakdown of the current path. Current density can increase without increasing the overall current by the way. So the increase in current density as a result of the pinching by the magnetic field may be all that is needed. What happens to that magnetic field and the energy it has stored once the current is interrupted?

It's released as a result of the physical breakdown of the filament/circuit. Once the "pinch" creates a gap in the filament, the whole thing erupts.

So the ‘pinching’ of the filament by the magnetic field causes a “gap in the filament” or interrupts the current path. Again what happens to the magnetic field and the energy it has stored once the current is interrupted by the 'pinching' of the magnetic field?

 

[The Man]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6753100&postcount=1692

Here's the one paragraph explanation from Alfven from the Double Layer conference in 1986:



I also posted a paper from Wheatland in this thread that demonstrates that Alfven was correct about the currents beginning far under the photosphere in a very highly energized state.

So here he is specifically referring to the magnetic field (specifically the “whirl”) as the “generator” and the excessive current density leading to the “exploding DL”. The other case seems to simply refer to the “electromagnetic pressure” producing or giving “rise to a rising prominence”.