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

[Michael Mozina]

It doesn't "help" the charge to build up. It isn't like a catalyst! It is absolutely essential. No insulator means no build up of charge and no sudden release of huge amounts of energy. The occurrence of lightning absolutely hinges upon the existence of a dielectric medium.

The "buildup" (not the RELEASE/DISCHARGE) requires an insulator. So what? I already 'briefly' explained to you that the currents will form into field aligned currents. The magnetic field around the current will act to PINCH the current into tightly wound "tornado like' filaments that Alfven compares to "wires". During the pinching process the magnetic fields act to evacuate the regions directly around the filaments. This less dense region acts to INSULATE the filaments from the surrounding plasma. I suggested to sol that he read the first three chapters (the free online chapters) of Alfven's book, Cosmic Plasma since Alfven explains all this, including the maths. Evidently he did that because he seems to grasp the idea now. I suggest you do the same if you ever expect to earn you particle physics merit badge in my book.

Earlier in the thread I rounded up some of my links. I'm pretty sure that a link to Alfven's book is in there somewhere.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7601955&postcount=3356

It requires the dielectric to become conductive.

Correct. In order for the actual "release of stored energy/electrical discharge" to occur, the medium has to become conductive. The flow of current, and the release of that stored energy, cannot occur WITHOUT a conductor.

Sigh. The potential difference that is achievable depends on the breakdown voltage of the insulating medium (effectively by definition). The bigger the potential difference the bigger the amount of energy that can be stored and then released. So the energy released at breakdown is dependent on the properties of the medium when it is an insulator, not its properties after breakdown.

It's pretty much the same with plasma only it's the total circuit energy that defines the potential release energy. Mann and Onel nail it pretty nicely actually. In fact I think they probably understand the concept at least as well as Alfven. They seem more adept to me actually, but that's just my opinion of course.

Why are you citing this here? I was asking for a definition of "breakdown". Unless the search function is faulty in my pdf browser then there isn't a single mention of the word breakdown in that article, let alone a definition.

Ya know...

If you're going to ask me for references on circuit theory in plasma physics, and you want to discuss the release of energy according to circuit theory, you're going to at least need to familiarize yourself with the materials that I believe are relevant. If you aren't going to make any effort, no particle physics/plasma physics merit badge for you.

I'm pretty sure they didn't use the vague, hand-wavy language you have been using.

No, in fact they use those dreaded "maths" you folks love so much, and they tied it all back to satellite imagery too, which is why I love it so much. It's a pity you're being scientifically lazy.

Then you are being totally inconsistent. One minute you tell us your model, because it is an electrical discharge (per your preferred definition), can show all the properties of lightning (which is an electrical discharge) but that MR only has one of the key observable properties. The next you are telling us that actually MR is also every bit as much an electrical discharge.

In terms of Peratt's definition it's an "electrical discharge" either way. In terms of what has been empirically done with "magnetic reconnection" in it's own right (separate from electrical discharges), it's a wimpy 1 of 6. If you can't physically distinguish your process however from an ordinary "electrical discharge in plasma", I don't need your theory *AT ALL*. It's a redundant and useless theory if you can't demonstrate it's "special" in terms of the release of energy inside the current sheet. In fact, Alfven outright rejected MR theory inside of a current sheet. Why? BECAUSE HE DIDN'T NEED IT, HE EXPLAINED IT WITHOUT IT!

No. Why should I waste my time when, if you had the slightest clue what you were talking about, you should be able to give a really simple answer?

I've given you the 25 cent version. If you want the full version I suggest you read those free chapters of Alfven's book for yourself and you read that paper by Onel and Mann. Both of them explain the release of "circuit energy" *WITHOUT* any need of 'magnetic reconnection'.

FYI, in the final analysis, I long ago offered to "compromise" so long as you gave your dumbed down maths a logical name. When we look at your lab tests, it's clear you dumbed down the maths because the E field that drives the whole experiment isn't mentioned in the formulas! They are all dumbed down to the B orientation. In the end you're all going to have to accept that the E/particle orientation is equally valid because Maxwell's equations solve in both directions, and you yourselves turn on the ELECTRICITY (E) in the lab to power most of your own experiments.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zj...onepage&q=Hannes Alfven Cosmic Plasma&f=false

There you go TbT, that's the link to first few chapters of Alfven's book. He provides you with the maths and the explanations to explain circuits in plasma in great detail.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, I am hiding some evidence that would show the world that the Sun has a solid iron surface.

You are certainly hiding any sort of high resolution RD images in 171A that you have created. For what purpose GM? Why would you personally go to ALL THE TROUBLE of creating them, only to post a single *EXTREMELY LOW* resolution image with text and other images on it? All I asked you to do is upload a link to a HIGH resolution original RD image of the events WITHOUT the extra processing, with the stupid text and the picture of yours truly pasted on them. There's only one logical reason you won't do it. You don't like what you see.

There's no point in wasting my time with you. Even when I offered you a completely objective way to "test" my theory, you refuse to post the results. Fine, I'll just create them myself and you can whine and complain about how they aren't "good enough" for you. That seems to be your intent anyway.

 

[Tubbythin]

The "buildup" (not the RELEASE/DISCHARGE) requires an insulator. So what?

So what??????? If you can't understand that the fact that key component in one scenario is completely absent in another scenario means the processes must be completely different then there really is no hope.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So what??????? If you can't understand that the fact that key component in one scenario is completely absent in another scenario means the processes must be completely different then there really is no hope.

I'm afraid you have it backwards. The "insulation" process is present as is the switching process. The insulation process is caused by the magnetic fields that surround the filaments and evacuate the regions around the filaments, effectively insulating them from the surrounding plasma. The "switch" occurs when two or more circuits touch, or one of the currents becomes so strong, the magnetic field "pinches" it apart and the whole thing explodes. The insulation and switching effects are present in both environments. You simply refuse to educate yourself in terms of plasma physics. No merit badge for you. Sorry.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm afraid you have it backwards. The "insulation" process is present as is the switching process. The insulation process is caused by the magnetic fields that surround the filaments and evacuate the regions around the filaments, effectively insulating them from the surrounding plasma.

This is not in anyway backwards. There is no insulation process in a lightning strike. There is an insulator. It is the specific properties of the insulator that largely determine the energy and therefore many of the properties of the strike. No insulator -> no build up of a potential difference -> no discharge.

The "switch" occurs when two or more circuits touch, or one of the currents becomes so strong, the magnetic field "pinches" it apart and the whole thing explodes. The insulation and switching effects are present in both environments. You simply refuse to educate yourself in terms of plasma physics. No merit badge for you. Sorry.

What switch? What are you talking about?

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is not in anyway backwards. There is no insulation process in a lightning strike. There is an insulator.

The insulator in plasma is the evacuated region directly around the filament that is kept evacuated by the magnetic field that surrounds the current.

It is the specific properties of the insulator that largely determine the energy and therefore many of the properties of the strike. No insulator -> no build up of a potential difference -> no discharge.

No problem. The currents of each circuit are insulated from one another UNLESS they touch. The loop is insulated from the outside plasma as long as the current flows and the loop doesn't touch another loop.

What switch? What are you talking about?

Read the paper by Mann and Onel, would you? It's stupid to make me repeat myself over and over because you refuse to read the paper. Holy cow. If yo don't like that paper, try Alfven's paper on coronal loops. It's not tied back to solar satellite imagery mind you, but it explains how the process works in mathematical detail.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/On The Fimamentary Structure Of The Solar Corona.pdf

 

[Tubbythin]

The insulator in plasma is the evacuated region directly around the filament that is kept evacuated by the magnetic field that surrounds the current.



No problem. The currents of each circuit are insulated from one another UNLESS they touch. The loop is insulated from the outside plasma as long as the current flows and the loop doesn't touch another loop.

So what is the breakdown voltage?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So what is the breakdown voltage?

Birkeland estimated his cathode sun to operate at around 600 million volts. I think Alfven was around a billion.

 

[Tubbythin]

Birkeland estimated his cathode sun to operate at around 600 million volts. I think Alfven was around a billion.

Between where and where?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Between where and where?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/On The Fimamentary Structure Of The Solar Corona.pdf

Between points A and C in Alfven's first image.

 

[Tubbythin]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/On The Fimamentary Structure Of The Solar Corona.pdf

Between points A and C in Alfven's first image.

And what insulator is breaking down in the gap between them?

ETA: it's clear from the Alfven figure that the material between A and C is in fact a conductor.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And what insulator is breaking down in the gap between them?

ETA: it's clear from the Alfven figure that the material between A and C is in fact a conductor.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Double Layers In Astrophysics.pdf

Please read the exploding double layer parts in particular. It's the circuit itself that fails in Alfven's view. It's only a PART of the circuit that fails in the Onel and Mann paper. Alfven's paper it essentially a single loop explosive event that is cause by a current overload on the filament. While plasma is in fact an 'excellent' conductor, it has limits in terms of the amount of current it will carry before simply failing completely. Alfven has a cute story where he describes his first experiences with explosive double layers. He was asked to investigate why it occurred. This paper represents his life's work in understanding how double layers in plasmas become unstable. I suggest you spend a few hours reading it. This guy won the Nobel. I'm just a guy you met in cyberspace. It's worth your time and effort. Stop being so damn lazy.

 

[Reality Check]

He provides you with the maths and the explanations to explain circuits in plasma in great detail.

Not stated correctly, MM.
Alfven applies circuit models to plasma. This is standard plasma physics.
You have a choice with modeling plasma. The one that got Alfven got his Nobel Prize is magnetohydrodynamics. This treats the plasma is an electromagnetic fluid. This allows the details of the physics to be explored but cannot model features such as double layers (AFAIK).
A circuit model of a plasma allows the modeling of features such as double layers but at a cost - it is an even greater approximation than MHD. You lose all of the details by replacing the space dependent quantities (e.g. resistivity) by a single value.

There are no actual circuits in plasma. That is as insane as thinking that there are giant resistors, inductors, etc connected by physical wires on the Sun (or that the Sun has an iron surface).

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Double%20Layers%20In%20Astrophysics.pdf

First error: This is not a paper by Alfven. It is the proceedings from a conference.
Error 1.5: The science in that conference was correct (as of 1986). However it is tainted by citing a document hosted on a crank physics web site. This guy cannot even understand that the melting point of iron is lower than the temperature of the Sun !

It's only a PART of the circuit that fails in the Onel and Mann paper.

Second error: There is "no circuit that fails" in the Onel and Mann paper

Alfven's paper it essentially a single loop explosive event that is cause by a current overload on the filament.

Third error: Alfven's actual paper on solar flares is a circuit model of solar flares. There is no 'current overload on the filament'. In fact in a circuit model there are no filaments!

I agree with MM - it is worth while reading the workshop proceedings for a historical context. It only has a speech from Alfven where he gets things wrong from our modern knowledge of plasma science but quite correct from the plasma science in 1986.

 

[GeeMack]

You are certainly hiding any sort of high resolution RD images in 171A that you have created.

Yep. I'm the only one on the planet who has the evidence. The conspiracy to hide the truth is in my power and my power alone. But for a little levity, how about a teaser? We can mess with the real scientists. The Nobel prize committee will be chomping at the bit wanting more!

(For HD select 720p and click the "full screen" button in the lower right corner.)​

Why would you personally go to ALL THE TROUBLE of creating them, only to post a single *EXTREMELY LOW* resolution image with text and other images on it?

It's no trouble at all. It's math.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's no trouble at all. It's math.

Ya, you did it without any software at all.

 

[Dancing David]

Birkeland estimated his cathode sun to operate at around 600 million volts. I think Alfven was around a billion.

And so why does the solar wind contain all three types of charge? You have yet to show any lab experiments where a cathode with release a 'wind' with all three charges. Such a large charge difference is not shown any where in the data about the solar system.

You know that you have yet to demonstrate the most fundamental aspect of this theory still MM.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And so why does the solar wind contain all three types of charge? You have yet to show any lab experiments where a cathode with release a 'wind' with all three charges. Such a large charge difference is not shown any where in the data about the solar system.

You know that you have yet to demonstrate the most fundamental aspect of this theory still MM.

By 'third' charge, I presume that you mean neutral atoms and/or neutrons. From the standpoint of empirical laboratory physics, you actually have that backwards. Birkeland EMPIRICALLY predicted both types of charged particles to come from the sun and he wrote about that process over 100 years ago. You might take a gander at my sig line sometime. That's a quote directly from his book. He already empirically predicted that process. In fact, I think I'll add that to my "list" of empirical correlations between "electrical discharges" and the release of both types of charged particles from the sun (not to mention a mechanism to explain neutral particles). "Electrical discharges" have been associated with 7 of 7 key solar flare observations. Your wimpy alternative still scores only one point. FYI, I actually felt sorry for your lowly empirical weakling of a theory so I pretty much just GAVE you that point.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Your wimpy alternative still scores only one point. FYI, I actually felt sorry for your lowly empirical weakling of a theory so I pretty much just GAVE you that point.

Calls like that put Tim Donaghy in prison.