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

Michael Mozina · Sep 23, 2011

Tubbythin said:
This is so obvious it is mind-boggling that Michael doesn't get it. You don't need any qualifications to understand it at all. I'm pretty sure if you told a ten year old at school that air is an insulator and plasmas are conductors then they could understand this idea perfectly.

Ya, and I thought a 10 year old could understand Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma too. Go figure.

Michael Mozina · Sep 23, 2011

ben m said:
Nope. An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electrostatic energy.

From Anthony Peratt's book:

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.

Where do you see the term "electrostatic"?

dasmiller · Sep 23, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Underwater_welding.jpg[/qimg]

1) The charge separation that's driving the arc did not occur in saltwater. In fact, the generators with which I'm familiar make extensive use of insulators to make sure that the charges, once separated, stay separated.

2) a 1 cm arc isn't lightning.

Michael Mozina · Sep 23, 2011

dasmiller said:
1) The charge separation that's driving the arc did not occur in saltwater.

Who cares? Even your solar theory requires electric fields in the core doesn't it?

2) a 1 cm arc isn't lightning.

It is an "electrical discharge".

ben m · Sep 23, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
From Anthony Peratt's book:

Where do you see the term "electrostatic"?

Sorry, I didn't realize Anthony Peratt was the authority on all electrical terminology. Henceforth I will use the word "discharge" to mean "anything that happens on the Sun that EU theorists hope to compare to a Z-pinch"; I will use "reconnection" to refer to the American cottontail rabbit; and I will use "experiment" strictly to refer to the Birkeland terrella of 1903.

That's pretty silly terminology, but if Anthony Peratt said so then what choice do we have?

Do you think electrostatic energy is present on the Sun, MM? Don't answer that, I don't even have a dictionary capable of interpreting your answer.

Michael Mozina · Sep 23, 2011

ben m said:
Sorry, I didn't realize Anthony Peratt was the authority on all electrical terminology. Henceforth I will use the word "discharge" to mean "anything that happens on the Sun that EU theorists hope to compare to a Z-pinch"; I will use "reconnection" to refer to the American cottontail rabbit; and I will use "experiment" strictly to refer to the Birkeland terrella of 1903.

That's pretty silly terminology, but if Anthony Peratt said so then what choice do we have?

Do you think electrostatic energy is present on the Sun, MM? Don't answer that, I don't even have a dictionary capable of interpreting your answer.

I'm sorry ben, I didn't realize that you personally were the only authority of value as it relates to the topic of plasma physics. I dare say that anyone trying to define the term "electrical discharge" in a plasma is likely to avoid the term "electrostatic".

The utter irony from my perspective is that you absolutely, positively need that continuous charge separation to be occurring in plasma just as much as I do. You folks need to explain those magnetic fields just as much as I do. It's highly unlikely that you'll be able to successfully explain those magnetic fields without a persistent, and consistent charge separation inside of plasma.

dasmiller · Sep 24, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Right. By skipping Carquvist, you're essentially "skipping" the guy that best mathematically modeled a coronal loop. Nifty. By skipping Alfven and his protege, you then effectively bypass everyone and anyone that has provided you with any early maths! How cute!

As I understood it, you were posting a list of papers etc that you thought hadn't been addressed. I skipped those three because, as I said, I believed that they had been addressed. I don't need to bypass them if they've already been run over.

Yes, you do. You also need to read his actual work, not a simple press release.

Then stop posting links to the press release. Sheeesh!

Quite the contrary. He goes through his entire list of objections and addresses them directly.

without seeing Cowlings complaints, how am I to know that Dungey addresses all of them? And how are we to know that Cowlings agrees with Dungey's responses?

He consistently associates "electrical discharges" and "reconnection" events. He understands that "current" does the work. You folks don't get it.

Dungey's beliefs are simply not relevant to this discussion, any more than anyone else's beliefs. What matters is how well the models match with observations and well-understood physics.

I need some coffee right now, but I'll come back to the rest of your post to see if it's actually worth responding to. The whole desire to flippantly ignore the work of Carlqvist, Alfven and Peratt is really cute and all, but how blatant can you be?

If you profess to actually "want maths", what in the hell are you doing by ignore their work with "circuits" in relationship to solar flares?

You use the word "ignore" in an unusual and ironic way.

Michael Mozina · Sep 24, 2011

http://spaceweather.com/images2011/24sep11/x2.mov

That last x-class flare was pretty interesting for a couple of reasons. Not only does it clearly show the electrical discharge event, the shock wave that ensues follows a path that makes prefect sense in a Birkeland solar model, but looks to defy the laws of physics in the standard model.

That was really cool!

sol invictus · Sep 24, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
From Anthony Peratt's book:

Where do you see the term "electrostatic"?

Right there: "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."

The issue here is that plasmas are extremely good conductors - that's part of the definition of "plasma". So it's more or less impossible for significant electric energy to be stored in a plasma, because any transient electric fields that appear immediately discharge before they can build up (that's how conductors work - they conduct charge and efficiently cancel electric fields). So ben is correct - it's pretty much impossible by definition to have any significant electric discharge in plasma.

Magnetic fields are another story - they can store significant amounts of energy, and that energy can be suddenly released in an event known as "magnetic reconnection".

sol invictus · Sep 24, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
sol invictus said:

Can you quote Birkeland saying that he thought solar flares had anything to do with electrical discharges?

Click to expand...

Hmm. I can't recall the exact verbiage that he used to describe them, but maybe. That's a question that is worth looking up as I get some time this weekend. It probably won't happen today at work however.

Any progress on that?

GeeMack · Sep 24, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
http://spaceweather.com/images2011/24sep11/x2.mov

That last x-class flare was pretty interesting for a couple of reasons. Not only does it clearly show the electrical discharge event, [...]

Well no, it actually does not clearly show any such thing.

[...] the shock wave that ensues follows a path that makes prefect sense in a Birkeland solar model, [...]

Birkeland's solar model, to use the term very loosely, was a hollow brass ball with an electromagnet inside suspended in a vacuum chamber by a tube with wires inside it.

[...] but looks to defy the laws of physics in the standard model.

An Amanita bisporigera looks very much like an Agaricus campestris. One makes a great addition to an omelet or stew while the other may cause horrible symptoms including vomiting, cramps, delirium, convulsions, diarrhea, and possibly death. Looking at pretty pictures is arguably one of the poorest methods of objectively understanding how the Universe works.

Michael Mozina · Sep 24, 2011

GeeMack said:
Well no, it actually does not clearly show any such thing.

Yes it does. It clearly shows the release of stored EM energy, AKA an "electrical discharge" according to Dungey, Bruce and many others.

Birkeland's solar model, to use the term very loosely, was a hollow brass ball with an electromagnet inside suspended in a vacuum chamber by a tube with wires inside it.

AKA a "cathode" sun. In this case a RIGID cathode sun.

Looking at pretty pictures is arguably one of the poorest methods of objectively understanding how the Universe works.

OBSERVATION is the key to understanding how the universe works. It's a pity you put so little value on it. Did you even notice the fact that the shock wave changes direction? I doubt it. I doubt therefore you'd even have A CLUE how to explain it.

Michael Mozina · Sep 24, 2011

dasmiller said:
As I understood it, you were posting a list of papers etc that you thought hadn't been addressed.

No, I said you folks IGNORE them and the implications of the material in them.

To quote Tim's claim:

Mozina has never once, in all these years, even tried to present anything one might call a "scientific" argument.

When I hear statements like that, it's hard to believe that he actually heard, listened to, or seriously considered anything I've presented.

I skipped those three because, as I said, I believed that they had been addressed. I don't need to bypass them if they've already been run over.

"Addressed" how exactly? Yes, you folks made a few comments about them, but then you go right back to ignoring the implications in the papers none the less. You folks squeal like a stuck pig for maths, and then you promptly ignore them. I show you mathematical explanations of how plasma pinches produce gamma rays like we observe in flare events, and somehow I've still presented "no scientific argument" anyway. What a load of BS!

without seeing Cowlings complaints, how am I to know that Dungey addresses all of them? And how are we to know that Cowlings agrees with Dungey's responses?

I don't and I don't. He did however address each issue he presented quite methodically and he explained where Cowlings made his error. Did you find some specific fault with his rebuttal that you'd like to comment on?

Dungey's beliefs are simply not relevant to this discussion, any more than anyone else's beliefs. What matters is how well the models match with observations and well-understood physics.

Yes. That's why I provided papers that demonstrate all the things that electrical discharges can do, and how they apply to solar flares. Discharges are capable of ionizing iron to very high energy states, and do so in the lab. Yep, we see that happen in solar flare events. Discharges produce radio waves. Yep, we see that too. Discharges produce neutron capture signatures. We see that too. Discharges can heat plasmas to millions of degrees and sustain them at those temperatures virtually indefinitely. Discharges produce x-rays. Guess what flares do? Discharges produce radio waves in the lab, and guess what flares do? Discharges produce gamma rays here on Earth, and I've provided you with the maths to explain how pinches create such photons. Discharges in fact occur naturally around EVERY body in the solar system with an atmosphere and a magnetic field and the sun has the biggest atmosphere and magnetic field in the system.

Compare and contrast that with your pathetic little weakling of a theory called "magnetic reconnection". "Reconnection" experiments produce NONE of the more important things on that list in the lab. What you can "reconnect" in the lab turns out to be nothing more than ORDINARY CURRENTS, and the whole experiment requires "charge separation" to work in the first place!

I think the problem here is that you folks feel that if you handwave a little bit at every paper I have presented, you can then somehow completely discard and ignore it too. That's about as silly as it gets, but that's exactly what you're doing.

Nevermind the fact that I went through those experiments with you to show you that CURRENT did the "reconnecting". You ignored that too.

Michael Mozina · Sep 24, 2011

sol invictus said:
Any progress on that?

Na, I took the night off. I'll check it out for you though late this afternoon. I have some honey-do things on my list today. I'll add your request to the list.

Michael Mozina · Sep 24, 2011

sol invictus said:
Right there: "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."

I can't believe we both missed that earlier.

Nice catch.

The issue here is that plasmas are extremely good conductors - that's part of the definition of "plasma".

So what? That pinched copper tube was an extremely good conductor too. That didn't stop the stored EM energy from flowing through it. In fact the conductive aspect is a NECESSITY in terms of being able to carry the current and to complete the discharge process. In other word it can ONLY happen in a "conductor", which is why the air is ionized in a typical lightening strike.

So it's more or less impossible for significant electric energy to be stored in a plasma, because any transient electric fields that appear immediately discharge before they can build up (that's how conductors work - they conduct charge and efficiently cancel electric fields).

Then the standard solar model is falsified by the same logic sol. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim the sun's core has a persistent electric field that drives the magnetic field, and also try to claim that plasmas can't hold a persistent charge! So which is it? Did you just falsify both models, or do persistent electric fields exist in the sun?

So ben is correct - it's pretty much impossible by definition to have any significant electric discharge in plasma.

Boloney. We can see it happening all the time in solar satellite images. By your definition the standard solar model is also falsified. So do you accept that as well?

Magnetic fields are another story - they can store significant amounts of energy, and that energy can be suddenly released in an event known as "magnetic reconnection".

Those magnetic field do not exist in the absence of "current" in plasmas sol.

Michael Mozina · Sep 24, 2011

The more I watch that video of the last x-class flare, the happier I am.
http://spaceweather.com/images2011/24sep11/x2.mov

That shock wave is totally awesome! It takes off from the flare toward the 10:00 direction. The shock wave travels a short distance and gets split in two. One part of it travels relatively straight, while the other part of the shock wave gets bent and redirected like it is traveling right down a mountain valley pass, and it ends up moving in a six oclock direction by the time it dissipates itself. Way cool!

sol invictus · Sep 24, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
So what? That pinched copper tube was an extremely good conductor too. That didn't stop the stored EM energy from flowing through it. In fact the conductive aspect is a NECESSITY in terms of being able to carry the current and to complete the discharge process. In other word it can ONLY happen in a "conductor", which is why the air is ionized in a typical lightening strike.

You're not getting it, Michael. Yes, for electric energy to discharge you need a conductor. Yes, electrical energy discharges through conductors. But it's more than that - once you have a conductor, you can't stop electric fields from discharging. That's the nature of conductors and electric fields.

What happens in real electric discharges, like lightning, is that in the initial state you have an insulator (air in that case). That allows an electric field to build up - there's no way for it to discharge. But when the field reaches a critical value, it ionizes the air along a channel (turning it temporarily into a plasma) and discharges through that channel (i.e., lightning).

But if the air was conductive to begin with - for instance if it was plasma instead of air all along - the electric field could never have built up at all, because as soon as it tried it would discharge.

It's really, really simple. It's the reason why you can't charge up a battery if you connect a wire across its terminals.

Then the standard solar model is falsified by the same logic sol. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim the sun's core has a persistent electric field that drives the magnetic field, and also try to claim that plasmas can't hold a persistent charge! So which is it? Did you just falsify both models, or do persistent electric fields exist in the sun?

You've just conflated all sorts of basic concepts. I can't be bothered to try to sort them out for you, it's rather pointless.

ben m · Sep 24, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
So what? That pinched copper tube was an extremely good conductor too. That didn't stop the stored EM energy from flowing through it. In fact the conductive aspect is a NECESSITY in terms of being able to carry the current and to complete the discharge process.

Go look at a Z-pinch, Michael. Or a spark chamber or railgun or discharge device of any sort.

Look for the big SWITCH. Do you know what a switch is? Do you think the Z-pinch would work if the switch was always closed?

Michael Mozina · Sep 24, 2011

sol invictus said:
You're not getting it, Michael. Yes, for electric energy to discharge you need a conductor. Yes, electrical energy discharges through conductors. But it's more than that - once you have a conductor, you can't stop electric fields from discharging. That's the nature of conductors and electric fields.

What happens in real electric discharges, like lightning, is that in the initial state you have an insulator (air in that case). That allows an electric field to build up - there's no way for it to discharge. But when the field reaches a critical value, it ionizes the air along a channel (turning it temporarily into a plasma) and discharges through that channel (i.e., lightning).

But if the air was conductive to begin with - for instance if it was plasma instead of air all along - the electric field could never have built up at all, because as soon as it tried it would discharge.

It's really, really simple. It's the reason why you can't charge up a battery if you connect a wire across its terminals.

You've just conflated all sorts of basic concepts. I can't be bothered to try to sort them out for you, it's rather pointless.

I strongly urge you to read the first few chapters (the free ones) of Cosmic Plasma sol. Alfven clearly explains how current carrying plasmas form themselves into pinched threads which generate magnetic fields and evacuate the areas directly around those threads to insulate them from the surrounding plasmas. He explains the math and everything.

All you need to generate "electrical discharges" in 'current carrying' plasmas is to "short circuit" a couple of those coronal loop circuits. While the massive currents flow through the atmosphere unimpeded, it's just a "current". When two of the circuits short circuit themselves, it's a "discharge". Likewise, if one loop gets "pinched" to the point of failure, it's also an "electrical discharge".

The 'insulator' your looking for is found in those evacuated areas directly around the loops.

The "switching" process that ben seems to be fishing for can be accomplished with a simple change in the current flow pattern topology. Eventually they'll create a "discharge" event when a circuit is either interrupted, or two or more of them short circuit themselves together.

Michael Mozina · Sep 24, 2011

I gotta say that today's x-class flare and the video I cited along with the Helioviewer movies of the event are just so amazingly cool. It's almost motivation enough to make me update my website again.

Don't worry ben. I'll be updating my website soon with A LOT more materials to support my theories.

Wow! That shock wave was definitely one of the the coolest things I've ever seen in solar satellite images. I absolutely love SDO's high resolution capabilities and all it's new wavelengths. Some of you folks may simply ignore those "cute little looks like a bunny images", but I place a *very* value on pure observation, not just "pretty little maths".

Let me guess? "Shock wave? What shock wave?"

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

Banned

Banned

Just the right amount of cowbell

Banned

Unregistered

Banned

Just the right amount of cowbell

Banned

Philosopher

Philosopher

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Philosopher

Unregistered

Banned

Banned

Share this page

ISF - Join now!