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

[GeeMack]

Well, in some ways, YES, it's "like" the processes that can and do release energy in PLASMAS, but of course we're talking PLASMA so the storage mechanisms are different, as are the release mechanisms. At least you seem to grasp the basic concept of a "discharge". That's progress IMO.

Yep. And baby vomit is a discharge. And squeezing toothpaste from a tube. I acknowledged many pages ago that ejaculations are discharges. As did Peratt when he described the genital discharges shown in some rock carvings as being electrical discharges. Now that we've finally all acknowledged that the term electrical discharge is so ambiguous as to be worthless, as Tim Thompson has been saying for weeks, and tusenfem of course, and Reality Check and others, maybe this can be addressed...

So if there's something that differentiates the standard model from the electric Sun conjecture, if there's something about electricity powering the Sun or CMEs being some kind of gigantic electric sparks, if solar flares are alleged to be like lightning here on Earth, that process needs to be explained. It requires a description of the process, the physics, a quantitative objective explanation of how that electrical whatchamacallit works and how it differs from the contemporary understanding that solar flares are the result of magnetic reconnection. And if the electric Sun conjecture isn't different, or if it can't be explained physically, scientifically, quantitatively, and objectively, then it is bunk, unscientific, and not really a valid conjecture at all.​

 

[Reality Check]

Huh? You just need to accept the fact that some things are plasmas and some things are solids and discharges can and do occur in 'conductors". I guess that's the real sticking point for you eh? Why? Can't you understand that some things are in a plasma state to begin with, and other things are not? Can't you accept that discharges occur in both solid and plasma "conductors"?

Huh?
Anyone with any knowledge of physics accepts the fact that some things are plasmas and some things are solids.
No one with any knowledge of physics would think that discharges can and do occur in 'conductors" because the definition of discharge rules it out from happening in a conductor like a plasma.
Someone looking at older papers (like Dungey) should understand the context of the term discharge is high current density and that it is ignorant to use that term outside that context.

Dungey's explanation makes it clear that it's a particle "reconnection" process, not only a "magnetic" process. That's the part we will all have to discuss next.

No his explanation does not. Particles do not "reconnect". That's the part you will have to show exists next.

The only real question is HOW that energy is released from the storage mechanism (circuit) and what kind of energy is involved. Sooner or later we'll have to get into the key points of Alfven's double layer paper, but before we do that I want to make sure everyone grasps the concept of kinetic energy that is "contained/stored" inside the circuit, not simply the magnetic field energy AROUND the plasma.

The only real question is when (if ever) you will understand that a circut model of a solar flare is a model.
It would be insane to think that this resistors, etc in the circuit model actually exist on the Sun. It is just as ignorant to think that the circuit (as in Alfven's paper) actually exists on the Sun.

There are other models that have actual electric currents. It is really easy to grasp the concept of kinetic energy in these currents - it is just the high school definition of kinetic energy, i.e. masses with a velocity have kinetic energy.

The fact that the amount of kinetic energy contained in plasma can not account for the amount of energy in solar flares was addressed in the magnetic reconnection thread.

But it sounds like you have done or found some analysis that shows the contribution of the kinetic energy of currents to flares. Please present it.

 

[Reality Check]

No, I do not need to do that. You seem to have an emotional need to do so, but that is not a requirement in my book. The atoms in the solid lattice are not plasmas, but I *SUPPOSE* you could call the electrons flowing through that conductor a "discharge".

Yes you do.
It would be idiotic to fall into your semantic trick of cherry picking the first sentence of Peratt's definition as a definition of an electrical discharge within plasma, we get to rather idiotic situations. For example a capacitor discharging is a "a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy". Thus you will have us redefine solids as plasma.

And now you are also defining wires as plasma!

You tell me. How did Onel and Mann define it?

No you tell me: What is a "circuit"? How does it differ from a circuit (no quotes)? How did Onel and Mann define it?

Great question. Besides the particle kinetic energy flowing inside the plasma filament, what other energies must we consider?

Then answer it.
There is a tiny bit if kinetic energy from the moving particles in plasma. The majority of energy is in the electric and magnetic fields. That is why Alfven put resistors and inductors in his circuit model of solar flares.

One would involve a full breakdown of the circuit, whereas the latter might only require a "rewiring event" to occur and neither circuit needs to fully erupt.

What is a "rewiring event"?
Can you show me an image of an actual ciruit on the Sun (including the wires, resistors and inductors) ?

I'm not. I'm convinced however that your side is ignoring the particle kinetic energy in the "circuit" however, and that's one of the key issues we need to discuss next.

1. I do not belong to any "side".
2. Solar physics does not ignore the particle kinetic energy in plasma.
3. Thus your "key issue" does not exist.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes you do.
It would be idiotic to fall into your semantic trick of cherry picking the first sentence of Peratt's definition as a definition of an electrical discharge within plasma, we get to rather idiotic situations. For example a capacitor discharging is a "a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy". Thus you will have us redefine solids as plasma.

No, *WE* don't, even if *YOU* feel the need to do that. WE, or at least *I* can accept that discharges occur in plasma conductors and solid conductors. Can you?

And now you are also defining wires as plasma!

No, I am noting that plasmas tend to carrying currents in 'pinched filaments' that act very much like "wires" as you call them as Alfven clearly explained in his work as well.

No you tell me: What is a "circuit"? How does it differ from a circuit (no quotes)? How did Onel and Mann define it?

They do it in pretty much the same way Alfven did it. It's a "current carrying filament".

Then answer it.
There is a tiny bit if kinetic energy from the moving particles in plasma. The majority of energy is in the electric and magnetic fields. That is why Alfven put resistors and inductors in his circuit model of solar flares.

You seem to *COMPLETELY* underestimate the amount of particle kinetic energy it takes to heat plasmas and sustain plasmas at millions of degrees Kelvin for *HOURS* on end.

What is a "rewiring event"?
Can you show me an image of an actual ciruit on the Sun (including the wires, resistors and inductors) ?

Have you even commented on Onel and Mann's work yet?

I do not belong to any "side".

Oh sure you do. You were crusading against all EU oriented ideas on this website before I started even posting here. You engage yourself in all such conversations. You certainly engage in "crusade" like behaviors.

Solar physics does not ignore the particle kinetic energy in plasma.

I didn't say solar physics in general. I don't think Onel and Mann underestimate it. I do however believe that YOU personally underestimate it, as do pretty much all the ANTI-EU crusaders involved in this thread.

Thus your "key issue" does not exist.

We'll see. What happens when two circuits "short circuit" RC?

 

[tusenfem]

You tell me. How did Onel and Mann define it?

Great question. Besides the particle kinetic energy flowing inside the plasma filament, what other energies must we consider?

One would involve a full breakdown of the circuit, whereas the latter might only require a "rewiring event" to occur and neither circuit needs to fully erupt.

I'm not. I'm convinced however that your side is ignoring the particle kinetic energy in the "circuit" however, and that's one of the key issues we need to discuss next.

There is NO particle kinetic energy in a circuit, there is current, resistivity, capacity, inductance and a battery, that is all.

Why don't YOU MM start with discussing the Önel & Mann paper, explain to us what is important, what we should get out of it, etc. etc.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Now that we've finally all acknowledged that the term electrical discharge is so ambiguous as to be worthless,

No, that's just more denial on your part. Nothing new there however.

So if there's something that differentiates the standard model from the electric Sun conjecture, if there's something about electricity powering the Sun or CMEs being some kind of gigantic electric sparks, if solar flares are alleged to be like lightning here on Earth, that process needs to be explained. It requires a description of the process, the physics, a quantitative objective explanation of how that electrical whatchamacallit works and how it differs from the contemporary understanding that solar flares are the result of magnetic reconnection. And if the electric Sun conjecture isn't different, or if it can't be explained physically, scientifically, quantitatively, and objectively, then it is bunk, unscientific, and not really a valid conjecture at all.

But that would require that you actually read and respond to that Onel and Mann paper, or Alfven's double layer paper, or the paper by Wheatland or something that actually explains these things. When can I expect you to do that?

 

[tusenfem]

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009CEAB...33..141O

It seems to me that the next logical step would be to discuss this paper (again). Did you find your earlier comments on this paper, or shall we just start over?

No, I was mistaken, I discussed another circuit paper, somewhere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is NO particle kinetic energy in a circuit, there is current,

What is that "current" if not particle kinetic energy? What generates the heat if not "resistance" to that flow of particle kinetic energy through the conductor?

Why don't YOU MM start with discussing the Önel & Mann paper, explain to us what is important, what we should get out of it, etc. etc.

Well the first thing you "should" get out of it is that the "circuit" is the "storage" device. Before I leap to any conclusions that we might actually agree on this point, maybe I better ask for a show of hands? Who willingly accepts that the "circuit" is the basic "storage" device of "circuit energy"?

 

[GeeMack]

No, *WE* don't, even if *YOU* feel the need to do that. WE, or at least *I* can accept that discharges occur in plasma conductors and solid conductors. Can you?

An electrical discharge as defined so far in this discussion, is when a refrigerator magnet is pulled from the refrigerator and the kid's crayon drawing of the Thanksgiving turkey falls to the floor. And although the electric Sun adherents agree that's what it is, it is also completely stupid to describe that event as an electrical discharge as well as being completely irrelevant to these concerns...

So if there's something that differentiates the standard model from the electric Sun conjecture, if there's something about electricity powering the Sun or CMEs being some kind of gigantic electric sparks, if solar flares are alleged to be like lightning here on Earth, that process needs to be explained. It requires a description of the process, the physics, a quantitative objective explanation of how that electrical whatchamacallit works and how it differs from the contemporary understanding that solar flares are the result of magnetic reconnection. And if the electric Sun conjecture isn't different, or if it can't be explained physically, scientifically, quantitatively, and objectively, then it is bunk, unscientific, and not really a valid conjecture at all.​

Of course if there is no such valid conjecture, the ignorance is totally understandable.

 

[Michael Mozina]

An electrical discharge as defined so far in this discussion, is when a refrigerator magnet is pulled from the refrigerator ...

No. We're specifically discussing things/items/stuff in a PLASMA state. Do you comprehend that?

 

[tusenfem]

What is that "current" if not particle kinetic energy? What generates the heat if not "resistance" to that flow of particle kinetic energy through the conductor?

Oh for crying out loud, I am so glad I will be away for a couple of weeks here. As usual, you are mixing up view points. There is the schematic view of the loops etc in Fig. 2 and then there is the circuit translation of that system in Fig. 3 of Önel & Mann. In Fig. 3 there are no particles, there is current in Amps. Unless you understand that you cannot talk about single particles in the view of Fig. 3, it is totally useless to even start discussing this paper with you.

Well the first thing you "should" get out of it is that the "circuit" is the "storage" device. Before I leap to any conclusions that we might actually agree on this point, maybe I better ask for a show of hands? Who willingly accepts that the "circuit" is the basic "storage" device of "circuit energy"?

No, the circuit of Fig. 3 is a large wavelength approximation of the situation sketched in Fig. 2. One can use this circuit description to get an estimate of the total energy in the system, often loosely referred to a the circuit energy, and it can be shown that this is equal to thee plasma physical energy that can be calculated for the system.

However, the circuit is not a thing that can store stuff like a box on a shelve, the energy of the system is stored in particle energy, magnetic energy etc. The ciruit is just an abstact approximation of the system.

The heating of the plasma in Fig. 2 would be described by the ion and electron distribution functions f_i,e(x,v,t) and the collision cross section σ_{ii, ee, ie}(x,v,t) and then some complicated integrals. In the circuit description you may say that IR is the heating, however you know nothing about the how and what, do the ions or the electrons gain or lose energy, etc. etc.

 

[GeeMack]

No. We're specifically discussing things/items/stuff in a PLASMA state. Do you comprehend that?

I comprehend that the phrase "things/items/stuff" is wholly contradictory to the notion that we're "specifically" discussing anything. I also comprehend this...

Final Definition:
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. (Nothing more, nothing less, take it or leave it)

I'll take it.

... therefore, by definition as agreed upon by the electric Sun adherents in this discussion, when a refrigerator magnet is pulled from the refrigerator and the kid's crayon drawing drops to the floor, that is an electrical discharge. Remember...

(Nothing more, nothing less, take it or leave it)

... and...

I'll take it.

So if there's something that differentiates the standard model from the electric Sun conjecture, if there's something about electricity powering the Sun or CMEs being some kind of gigantic electric sparks, if solar flares are alleged to be like lightning here on Earth, that process needs to be explained. It requires a description of the process, the physics, a quantitative objective explanation of how that electrical whatchamacallit works and how it differs from the contemporary understanding that solar flares are the result of magnetic reconnection. And if the electric Sun conjecture isn't different, or if it can't be explained physically, scientifically, quantitatively, and objectively, then it is bunk, unscientific, and not really a valid conjecture at all.

I do understand why the continued ignorance if there is no such valid conjecture.

 

[Michael Mozina]

However, the circuit is not a thing that can store stuff like a box on a shelve, the energy of the system is stored in particle energy, magnetic energy etc. The ciruit is just an abstact approximation of the system.

It seems to me that this is YOUR (erroneous) belief because you see everything in terms of mathematics rather than physics. There is a PHYSICAL thing, a filament that forms in the plasma. It's not just an "abstraction", it's a physically functioning plasma PINCH composed of real plasma, real ions and real electrons flowing through it. The heat source that sustains those coronal loops to millions of degrees Kelvin is is called "resistance" to "current flow". They can remain at millions of degrees for DAYS due to the heat created by the resistance to the flow of electrons through the plasma.

You and I see thing from radically different perspectives. You seem to approach everything as a mathematical abstraction, and you seem unaware of the physics going on, or at least you treat the physical system in a completely "abstract" manner, when in fact it has "physical substance" and it's "quite real' in every conceivable physical way, just like a tornado has physical substance that will rip a house a apart in seconds.

Not everything is a "mathematical abstraction". Some physical processes have tangible physical components, with tangible physical kinetic energy. That's certainly true of a Bennett Pinch as Alfven calls it.

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Citations for assertion that kinetic energy provides energy to heat plasma

No, *WE* don't, even if *YOU* feel the need to do that. WE, or at least *I* can accept that discharges occur in plasma conductors and solid conductors. Can you?

I can accept that the definition of "discharge" (and the quotes are there for a reason MM!) that allows for electrical discharges in conductors

No, I am noting that plasmas tend to carrying currents in 'pinched filaments' that act very much like "wires" as you call them as Alfven clearly explained in his work as well.

That is correct - currents that happen to flow along the length of plasma filaments look like currents that flow along the length of any conductor.

What has this to do with what seems to be your delusion that Alfven's circuit model is of actual wires, resistors and inductors on the Sun?

You seem to *COMPLETELY* underestimate the amount of particle kinetic energy it takes to heat plasmas and sustain plasmas at millions of degrees Kelvin for *HOURS* on end.

You seem to *COMPLETELY* be unable to read what I posted. I never posted an estimate. I asked you to post your estimate.

Micheal Mozina:
You claim that kinetic energy of plasma particles provides an unspecified (by you but presumably not minor) amount of energy to "heat plasmas and sustain plasmas at millions of degrees Kelvin for *HOURS* on end".
In other words your claim looks like that the energy in electromagnetic fields is minor compared to the kinetic energy of plasma particles.

Please cite your sources for that assertion.

Have you even commented on Onel and Mann's work yet?

No - post a link to it and if it is interesting I may.

Oh sure you do. You were crusading against all EU oriented ideas on this website before I started even posting here. You engage yourself in all such conversations. You certainly engage in "crusade" like behaviors.

I agree - I am in a "crusade" against scientific woo like the EU oriented ideas. You are under the delusion though that I am part of some "side" on this issue. That is not so. I just know enough physics to see that the EU ideas are largely non-science mixed with the EU proponents ignorance of actual science.

We'll see. What happens when two circuits "short circuit" RC?

What does "short circuit" mean?

 

[Michael Mozina]

... therefore, by definition as agreed upon by the electric Sun adherents in this discussion, when a refrigerator magnet is pulled from the refrigerator and the kid's crayon drawing drops to the floor, that is an electrical discharge. Remember...

No, we're talking about event's *IN PLASMA*, the kind of plasma we find in "circuits" near the solar surface. Hello? Earth to GM, come in?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009CEAB...33..141O

I do understand why the continued ignorance if there is no such valid conjecture.

I'm still waiting for you to comment on *ANY* relevant materials. When might I expect you to do that?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I can accept that the definition of "discharge" (and the quotes are there for a reason MM!) that allows for electrical discharges in conductors

When can I expect you to post a definition of an electrical discharge that *DOESN'T* allow electrical discharges to occur in/through conductors?

What has this to do with what seems to be your delusion that Alfven's circuit model is of actual wires, resistors and inductors on the Sun?

When can I expect you to comment on his work that is specifically related to this topic RC? Did he not compare them to actual wire, real resistance and use the term "induction'? Are you claiming it's my imagination that he himself used these terms?

You seem to *COMPLETELY* be unable to read what I posted. I never posted an estimate. I asked you to post your estimate.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009CEAB...33..141O

I agree - I am in a "crusade" against scientific woo like the EU oriented ideas.

IMO you refuse to differentiate between woo and physics to the point that you treat Alfven's work as "woo". You're so lost on "crusade", you can't see the forest for all the trees. I think you've lost the ability to be "tolerant" of viewpoints that don't fit with your preconceived belief that all PC/EU theories are "woo".

You are under the delusion though that I am part of some "side" on this issue. That is not so.

Ya, it's true. You and GM stick together like glue, right or wrong.

I just know enough physics to see that the EU ideas are largely non-science mixed with the EU proponents ignorance of actual science.

If and when I see you comment on that Onel and Mann paper, then you can talk to me about 'ignorance" and "actual science". When might I expect that from you?

What does "short circuit" mean?

You've never heard the term used before?

 

[tusenfem]

It seems to me that this is YOUR (erroneous) belief because you see everything in terms of mathematics rather than physics. There is a PHYSICAL thing, a filament that forms in the plasma. It's not just an "abstraction", it's a physically functioning plasma PINCH composed of real plasma, real ions and real electrons flowing through it. The heat source that sustains those coronal loops to millions of degrees Kelvin is is called "resistance" to "current flow". They can remain at millions of degrees for DAYS due to the heat created by the resistance to the flow of electrons through the plasma.

No, I am not looking at it mathematically. You obviously want to have your own definition of circuit theory.

Here is how I and lots of other plasma physicists see it.
There is the plasma physical system, in this case Fig. 2 of Önel & Mann, where there are loops on the Sun, with plasma(currents) flowing along the field, with instabilities and whathaveyounots in the plasma, pinches, double layers ......
Now to do some easy calculations, one can translate (as Ö&M call it) this whole system into a representative circuit, their Fig. 3. In that case you just approximate e.g. the instabilities etc. by a global resistance.

Now, you don't want the circuit representation of Fig. 2, you want to see Fig. 2 as the "circuit", and then talk about currents and a resistivity (but what resistivity and where and is it uniform?).

Now, I love double layers (as you may know) and whatever happens in there I cannot describe with a circuit, I love plasma instabilities and that cannot be studied with circuits either, I need to look at the flowing plasma and the shear and the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability that will appear on the boundary of those two different plasmas.

You and I see thing from radically different perspectives. You seem to approach everything as a mathematical abstraction, and you seem unaware of the physics going on, or at least you treat the physical system in a completely "abstract" manner, when in fact it has "physical substance" and it's "quite real' in every conceivable physical way, just like a tornado has physical substance that will rip a house a apart in seconds.

YOU are the one who wants to do "circuit theory" without making clear what you really understand by that. Do you see that as Fig. 3 of Ö&M or what?

Maybe you should read about the piston behaviour of the magnetic field in the Earth's magnetotail pushing in and pulling out plasma through moving in and out of the flux tube. Nothing mathematical there, just looking at the data, looking at how the plasma moves, what the magnetic field does etc.

I play with a full house, data, interpretation, math, modeling etc. etc. etc.

Not everything is a "mathematical abstraction". Some physical processes have tangible physical components, with tangible physical kinetic energy. That's certainly true of a Bennett Pinch as Alfven calls it.

And clearly the reason for a circuit description goes way over your head.

 

[Reality Check]

When can I expect you to post a definition of an electrical discharge that *DOESN'T* allow electrical discharges to occur in/through conductors?

When can I expect you to rerad and understand Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge that *DOESN'T* allow electrical discharges to occur in/through conductors?

When can I expect you to comment on his work that is specifically related to this topic RC? Did he not compare them to actual wire, real resistance and use the term "induction'? Are you claiming it's my imagination that he himself used these terms?

Oh you mean: Generation of Large Scale Electric Fields in Coronal Flare Circuits by Önel, H.; Mann, G.

Then you are wrong:

• I have commented on it.
  

  The paper allows for the possibility of magnetic reconnection as I pointed out on 14 January 2010 (a whole year ago )
  
  
  (emphasis added)
  ETA: Note that there has to be some form of "magnetic connection between two oppositely charged areas through the corona" before the author's mechanism can work.
  
  The significant advantage a circuit approach has over MHD (not just magnetic reconnection) is that it is easy to calculate the gross properties of the system, e.g. the total energy release.
  The significant disadvantage a circuit approach has over MHD (not just magnetic reconnection) is that it cannot model the details.

• They never compare the coronal flare circuits to "actual wire, real resistance".
  They assume that there are actual electrical ciurrents through plasma (not wires!). Plasma of course has resistance.
• They use the term inductance. So what - plasma has inductence. Big surprise !

IMO you refuse to differentiate between woo and physics to the point that you treat Alfven's work as "woo".

IMO you still have no idea what Alfven wrote:

• He wrote nothing about the EU woo.
  His theory was Plasma Cosmology not the non-science that is "plasma cosmology" today.
• I have never stated that any part of Alfven's work is woo.
  Plasma Cosmology has string evidence against it, e.g. none of the predicited X-ray emissions from ambiplaama, no match to the CMB, etc.
  The circuit theory of solar flares is valid but only good for the large scale properties of flares.
  His MHD work is still valid.

Ya, it's true. You and GM stick together like glue, right or wrong.

Nah, its false . Responding to a poster persistently displaying a basic ignorance of science is not "sticking together".

You've never heard the term used before?

I guess I will have to cater for your inane quoting so the question should be:

What does ""short circuit"" mean?
​

As opposed to short circuit (a current along a path that did not previously exist)

 

[Perpetual Student]

Just thought I'd check in to see if any progress is being made here. While Mozina remains on ignore, I can see from other responses that he is continuing his endless definitions strategy. In fact, I see we have a new term to contend with: "short circuit." Now, having worked in electronics for several years, short circuit is a term I am somewhat familiar with. But what could "short circuit" mean? I'll return in a few days to see if any progress is made on the term "short circuit." As a "perpetual student," I am always eager to learn something new.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, I am not looking at it mathematically. You obviously want to have your own definition of circuit theory.

Here is how I and lots of other plasma physicists see it.
There is the plasma physical system, in this case Fig. 2 of Önel & Mann, where there are loops on the Sun, with plasma(currents) flowing along the field, with instabilities and whathaveyounots in the plasma, pinches, double layers ......
Now to do some easy calculations, one can translate (as Ö&M call it) this whole system into a representative circuit, their Fig. 3. In that case you just approximate e.g. the instabilities etc. by a global resistance.

Sure. In terms of calculating the *TOTAL* energy in the system, that's fine. When Alfven got to the point of "instability" (pinches inside double layers and whathaveyyouots in the plasma), he switched to his "exploding double layer" approach. At some point the plasma pinch is simply incapable of "carrying the load' and it "explodes" according to Alfven.

Now, I love double layers (as you may know) and whatever happens in there I cannot describe with a circuit, I love plasma instabilities and that cannot be studied with circuits either, I need to look at the flowing plasma and the shear and the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability that will appear on the boundary of those two different plasmas.

That's the point where Alfven's double layer paper comes in.

YOU are the one who wants to do "circuit theory" without making clear what you really understand by that.

Oh please! I can't even get half your cohorts to accept the *FACT* that "discharges" occur in plasmas/conductors! Don't even *THINK* about preaching to me about understanding circuit theory and how Alfven applied it to solar atmospheric events. We'll get there t, but you could speed things up by dragging RC out of denial kicking and screaming if necessary. He's still clueless, and you aren't lifting a finger to clear things up.

I play with a full house, data, interpretation, math, modeling etc. etc. etc.

No, you're playing with blinders on, and ignoring the particle kinetic energy entirely IMO. You certainly don't have a *FULL HOUSE* that includes LAB TESTS to demonstrate that your concepts of capable of generating gamma rays, neutron capture signatures in plasma, high iron ionization states, etc, etc, etc, all the thing that *electrical discharges* are KNOWN TO CAUSE in laboratory experiments.

And clearly the reason for a circuit description goes way over your head.

Right. Your side can't even figure out what a *DISCHARGE* is, it *STILL* believes that discharges cannot occur in conductors, and it's in total denial of Peratt's definition of an electrical discharges *IN* a *PLASMA*. Don't even think about preaching at me. Anytime you want to help pick up the pace around here, you can drag RC, kicking and screaming into *PHYSICS* anytime you'd like. That would certainly help move things along.

I'll go round up the other Wheatland paper again, and the relevant quotes so we can look a "circuit energy" again, and talk about "release mechanisms" in *CURRENT CARRYING* plasmas!