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

[Dancing David]

I would think that any paper on "sputtering" would do, but I'm finding this paper particularly interesting at the moment:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0410239

Keep in mind that Birkeland expected the solar wind to contain pretty much equal numbers of both charged particles.

No MM, it does not, you are not answering the question, once again and engaging in vague word semantics, you have failed to answer the question.

The last time it was waves, now it is sputtering.

You know what exactly the problem is and so you avoid it.

Your ES model has the interstellar space at one charge and the sun at another, therefore there would be no solar wind of mixed particles, you would have charged particles going in opposite directions, towards the pole of opposite charge.

You know that and you refuse to explain why your ES model defies known physics.

So i ask you again, what experiment would show this effect.

Sputtering doesn't, nor do the papers you have presented in the past.

If the interstellar medium s positive then there would be negative charges flowing to it, and visa verse.

You know that, so where does the mixed solar wind come from?

I ask you politely and respectfully, this is a major contradiction between reality and the ES model.

 

[Dancing David]

From wiki
"Some of the ions' kinetic energy is transferred to the cathode. This happens partially through the ions striking the cathode directly. The primary mechanism, however, is less direct. Ions strike the more numerous neutral gas atoms, transferring a portion of their energy to them. These neutral atoms then strike the cathode. Whichever species (ions or atoms) strike the cathode, collisions within the cathode redistribute this energy until a portion of the cathode is ejected, typically in the form of free atoms. This process is known as sputtering. Once free of the cathode, atoms move into the bulk of the glow discharge through drift and due to the energy they gained from sputtering. "

Now here is the problem MM, sputtering refers to a local phenomena and involves fractional parts of the cathode and mechanical energy.

The problem is the solar wind is predominately mixed, it does not show mechanical ejection of fractional parts. For your model to work the vast majority of solar wind would be of the opposite charge to the interstellar medium, and you know that, that is the flow direction of cathodes and anodes.

they do not ever describe a mixed flow from the cathode and anode, they describe a primarily opposite charged flow. And so for your ES model to be correct, you would have a dominantly single charged solar wind, that then has portions which are charged differently by sputtering, this is not what is seen.

And still, where is this mixed solar wind in cathode and anode interactions.

You know that it is almost always a huge dominance of electrons flowing from teh cathode to the anode.

So again I ask you, where is anything like the mixed solar wing shown in cathode and anode interactions.

 

[tusenfem]

FYI, I'm not sure what you mean by "what is the data" exactly, so if I don't address your question properly, let me know, I'll try again.

The "data" in terms of the actual solar wind makes it very clear that the sun is in fact "disintegrating" just as Birkeland's cathode model predicts. The solar wind is mostly electrons, protons and highly charged helium since they are the "lightest" of the positively charged ions. Not coincidentally, He+2 is more prevalent than He+1.

It would also be logical to expect that some of the exiting electrons and protons will pair up again as they flow through the solar system.

FYI, Birkeland's theory also "predicts" a Parker spiral. Since protons have an opposite charge from electrons, they flow outwardly at the equator in different directions. The flow of the particle is determined by it's charge according to Birkeland. He lays out all the math in terms of the particle movement near the back of the book. Fascinating stuff actually.

My god, this is pure and utter nonsense,
Keep to your iron surface, MM

 

[tusenfem]

Sputtering????

First you insist that Birkeland had a solar model we should read, and now you've backed off to "read any paper on sputtering"? What sort of engine do you have on those goalposts?

I've done a fair amount of sputtering work over the years and I see no reason whatsoever to connect it to the solar wind.

Indeed, sputtering and the sun are two totally different subjects.
Sure, the solar wind can sputter off particles of the Moon, or even from Mercury.
I don't think MM actually understands what sputtering is, but hey that's nothing new.

 

[ben m]

I don't think MM actually understands what sputtering is, but hey that's nothing new.

Yep. As soon as we identified *an ion* that doesn't do bound-free scattering of 171A light (Neon VII or whatever it was), Michael declared that the Sun was transparent to 5000km and refused to talk about opacity any further. He actually knows virtually nothing about Ne VII, and that's how he likes it.

As soon as we admitted that there are ways for plasmas to be out-of-equilibrium, Michael declared that the photosphere's Ne VII is out-of-equilibrium. No further thermodynamic arguments could be applied to it, the problem is solved. He actually knows virtually nothing about thermo, and that's how he likes it.

As soon as he learned that there exists *some* process (sputtering) that *sometimes* emits variably-charged atoms and ions, he declared that the Solar Wind was explained. No further sputtering-related physics is worth learning; the problem is solved. He actually knows virtually nothing about sputtering, and that's the way he likes it.

 

[iantresman]

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).

Depending on how you define circuits you may be right, but I disagree with you. But you are in good company. Walter J. Heikkila writes:

In a review of his book Cosmic Plasma (1981), a reviewer (Kulsrud, 1983) said "It is not easy to understand how pieces of plasma are to behave like wires while the rest of the plasma is to be ignored". Similar statements have been voiced by others (e.g., Vasyliunas, 1984).

I will come to Hannes Alfvén's defense on these two questions, as I too have had difficulties with referees, and readers.

It seems to me that if it can be modelled as a circuit, and more importantly, behaves like a circuit, then if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there is more than just semantics.

You're right, there are no physical wires, resistors, capacitors and batteries in a plasma. But plasmas may behave in a very similar way, transferring charged particles, produce an IMF, store charge, produce filamentary currents and transmission lines, etc etc. Conceptually, there are the equivalent of circuits in plasmas. It's up to individuals to decide whether this is enough.

 

[tusenfem]

Many a plasma process can be modeled by a circuit. This it taking the long wavelength approximation, where all micro physics is integrated over the system to give overall quantities. So instead of looking detailed at the particle interactions in the plasma (i.e. collisions, wave particle interactions, particle-field interactions, ...) this is replaced by a total resistivity R in a circuit. However, we should never confuse the true plasma with the circuit that can model it, as e.g. in the circuit the current must go along the wires (which are often the magnetic field lines) but in the real plasma the current can also flow perpendicular to the magnetic field.

So, just like MHD, circuit description of plasma processes is an approximation at an even larger scale than MHD.

 

[iantresman]

Many a plasma process can be modeled by a circuit. This it taking the long wavelength approximation, where all micro physics is integrated over the system to give overall quantities. So instead of looking detailed at the particle interactions in the plasma (i.e. collisions, wave particle interactions, particle-field interactions, ...) this is replaced by a total resistivity R in a circuit. However, we should never confuse the true plasma with the circuit that can model it, as e.g. in the circuit the current must go along the wires (which are often the magnetic field lines) but in the real plasma the current can also flow perpendicular to the magnetic field.

So, just like MHD, circuit description of plasma processes is an approximation at an even larger scale than MHD.

Sure, an approximation, by definition does not give the whole story. And I'd argue that even an actual wired circuit is an approximation of what is going on, perhaps giving the mistaken impression that the electrons transfer energy through the wires. But it is still a circuit that conveys useful information about some of the physics that is going on.

 

[ben m]

Sure, an approximation, by definition does not give the whole story. And I'd argue that even an actual wired circuit is an approximation of what is going on, perhaps giving the mistaken impression that the electrons transfer energy through the wires. But it is still a circuit that conveys useful information about some of the physics that is going on.

If I give you a wired circuit, you can tell me (just using the circuit equations) how it behaves under a wide range of circumstances. "OK, you've seen it with the input at 5V, can you predict what happens at 10V? Now I'll cut this wire ..."

With plasma it's the opposite. Give me a plasma for which you claim to have a circuit model. I'll stick a grounded Langmuir probe into the middle and put +10V on it. Can you tell me what happens? Can you add my probe to your circuit model? You can't---suddenly it's a totally different circuit. What you will do is start over, solve (or observe) the microphysics of the new plasma, and make up a new circuit model that fits. Which is of course possible; circuits equations can model pretty much anything you throw at them.

But it doesn't mean the plasma "is" a circuit. When Alfven plugs an inductance into a solar-flare circuit, is that a real inductance---energy stored as B^2---or a kinetic inductance, and if so of what species, and where?---or something else that just coincidentally varies as d^2Q/dt^2? You don't know, and you don't care. You just (as tusenfem says) average over whatever-the-heck is going on, and if there's a d^2Q/dt^2 term in there you slap the word "inductance" on it.

 

[iantresman]

With plasma it's the opposite. Give me a plasma for which you claim to have a circuit model. I'll stick a grounded Langmuir probe into the middle and put +10V on it. Can you tell me what happens? Can you add my probe to your circuit model? You can't---suddenly it's a totally different circuit. What you will do is start over, solve (or observe) the microphysics of the new plasma, and make up a new circuit model that fits. Which is of course possible; circuits equations can model pretty much anything you throw at them.

But it doesn't mean the plasma "is" a circuit.

You make some very good points, and if you are define a circuit only by the ability to make good predictions, then I will agree with you. On the other hand, I like to think that circuits that can be modelled in plasma are just rather complex

 

[Reality Check]

I would think that any paper on "sputtering" would do, but I'm finding this paper particularly interesting at the moment:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0410239

Studies of a hollow cathode discharge using mass spectrometry and electrostatic probe techniques

Hollow cathode discharges (HCD) are capable of generating dense plasmas and have been used for development of high-rate, low-pressure, high-efficiency processing machines. The geometric feature of a HCD promotes oscillations of hot electrons inside the cathode, thereby enhancing ionization, ion bombardment of inner walls and other subsequent processes[/QUOTE]
I cannot see why you should be interested in this paper unless you are still have the fantasy that electrical discharges can happen in plasma and have the delusion that this paper about using hollow cathode discharges to generate plasma is about imaginary electrical discharges in plasma.

 

[Reality Check]

http://books.google.com/books?id=8G...EwAQ#v=onepage&q=sputtering birkeland&f=false

Better yet, try 21.2.3

Better, yet try to understand what you read, Michael Mozina.
This is nothing to do with solar physics, Saturn or Birkeland's spluttering from metallic balls.
This is the sputtering of ions from the icy moons of Jupiter. These are a source of the atmosphere of these moons.

 

[Reality Check]

Depending on how you define circuits you may be right, but I disagree with you.

The defintion of circuit models (e.g. the one used by Alfven) is very clear:

1. Look at the physical processes.
2. Replace resistance/inductance/capacitance by resistors/inductors/capacitors
3. Wire your components together.
4. There you have it - a circuit model of the physical process.

You're right, there are no physical wires, resistors, capacitors and batteries in a plasma. But plasmas may behave in a very similar way, transferring charged particles, produce an IMF, store charge, produce filamentary currents and transmission lines, etc etc. Conceptually, there are the equivalent of circuits in plasmas. It's up to individuals to decide whether this is enough.

Plasmas do not act like electronic circuits that much. For example they are ionized gases, not solids .

There are no 'equivalent of circuits' in plasma. This is the point that Micheal Mozina cannot grasp: the circuit models of plasma processes such as solar flares are models. They are the long wavelength approximation of the actual physical process. They replace the details of what is happening with large scale properties such as the overall resistance of the plasma.
It is appropriate to use a circuit model of a plasma when you are interested in the overall properties of the plasma.

The other approach is the MHD approach where the plasma is treated as a fluid. This allows the inclusion of the details of the electromagnteic interactions in the plasma (something I suspect that you would want!). So you get things such as Alfvén waves which are a candidate for coronal heating and magnetic reconnection (also a coronal heating candidate).
It is appropriate to use a MHD model of a plasma when you are interested in the detailed properties of the plasma (e.g. the topology of electromagnetic fields)

 

[Reality Check]

On the other hand, I like to think that circuits that can be modelled in plasma are just rather complex

Actually, as far as electronic circuits are concerned, the circuit models of plasma are absurdly simple !
Look at Figure 3 in the Onel and Mann paper that MM cites a lot. They simplify to a circut model with a few resistors and a power supply.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No MM, it does not, you are not answering the question, once again and engaging in vague word semantics, you have failed to answer the question.

The last time it was waves, now it is sputtering.

If you go back and check DD, you'll see that I mentioned the term sputtering quite some time ago. It's the process of "disintegration" that Birkeland writes about during those experiments.

You know what exactly the problem is and so you avoid it.

Your ES model has the interstellar space at one charge and the sun at another, therefore there would be no solar wind of mixed particles, you would have charged particles going in opposite directions, towards the pole of opposite charge.

No! That is absolutely NOT what Birkeland's LABORATORY model actually PREDICTS DD! In the lab, it's not that simple, particularly when there's a heliosphere and very strong magnetic fields to consider. The disintegration process that he discusses will absolutely continue, but the positively charged particles will flow out toward the heliosphere with the negative ones DD. He specifically predicts both types of particles to come from the sun, and in fact he expect them to explain the growth of planets over time!

Have you tried your claim in the lab DD, complete with magnetic fields and such? If so, can you cite a paper?

You know that and you refuse to explain why your ES model defies known physics.

First you'll have to demonstrate that it actually does defy any known physics in the lab because to my knowledge it does NOT! If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears. It's not as though Birkeland's cathode terella was a "simple" cathode DD. It contained a very powerful EM field inside that cathode that plays a significant role in flow of particles. The interstellar winds buffeting the heliosphere also have a significant effect on the flow of particles. You can't simply assume it works exactly like an ordinary cathode in some ideal conditions that are in no way similar to the experiments Birkeland performed.

So i ask you again, what experiment would show this effect.

I told you what it was. You can choose to accept it or not, but you can't say that I avoided your question. Those high speed electrons streaming from the surface are going to slam into particles in the solar atmosphere and push them out toward space on a constant basis. Some areas of the heliosphere will be relatively "negatively" charged compared to that particle and will attract it. The constant flow of electrons past the positively charged ion continues to attract it as well.

Sputtering doesn't, nor do the papers you have presented in the past.

Honestly DD, did you even actually read Birkeland's experiments in the lab? Why didn't he predict what you expected him to predict in terms of particle movements? Why didn't he predict that only NEGATIVELY charged particles came from the sun? Did he botch his experiments? Did he mess something up in the lab?

If the interstellar medium s positive then there would be negative charges flowing to it, and visa verse.

The ISM is a CURRENT just as the solar wind is a CURRENT. That current flows past the heliosphere, just as the current of the solar wind flows past the magnetosphere. Just like the magnetosphere, the heliosphere acts to "buffer" us from that external current, but it too is composed of both positively and negatively charged particles DD. The heliosphere is a complicated place, just as the magnetosphere is a complicated place. The currents are "directed" around at the heliosphere but both types of particles flow in the heliosphere just as both types of particles flow in the magnetosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I cannot see why you should be interested in this paper unless you are still have the fantasy that electrical discharges can happen in plasma...

Until you leave Denialville RC, nobody can save you, not Dungey, not Peratt, not me, not anyone. As soon as you accept that electrical discharges have been associated with solar flare events since as far back as Dungey and Bruce, your whole show falls apart. Since you can't go into PURE denial about Dungey, you'll pull some other pretzelesque bending of logic type of rationalization that defies description. You bend reality to the point of absurdity to avoid the fact that Dungey also claimed that discharges can occur in plasmas. His use of the term "electrical discharge" is absolutely 100% congruent with Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma, specifically the release of stored EM energy. The ionization process isn't the FULL RELEASE OF STORED ENERGY. It's just ONE PART of an ENTIRE RELEASE OF ENERGY. Stop burying your head in the sand. It's not working anymore RC.

 

[Michael Mozina]

My god, this is pure and utter nonsense,
Keep to your iron surface, MM

What is really utter nonsense is that you've never set RC and GM straight on the topic of electrical discharges in plasmas. You don't care about HONEST dialog.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yep. As soon as we identified *an ion* that doesn't do bound-free scattering of 171A light (Neon VII or whatever it was), Michael declared that the Sun was transparent to 5000km and refused to talk about opacity any further. He actually knows virtually nothing about Ne VII, and that's how he likes it.

As soon as we admitted that there are ways for plasmas to be out-of-equilibrium, Michael declared that the photosphere's Ne VII is out-of-equilibrium. No further thermodynamic arguments could be applied to it, the problem is solved. He actually knows virtually nothing about thermo, and that's how he likes it.

As soon as he learned that there exists *some* process (sputtering) that *sometimes* emits variably-charged atoms and ions, he declared that the Solar Wind was explained. No further sputtering-related physics is worth learning; the problem is solved. He actually knows virtually nothing about sputtering, and that's the way he likes it.

Just out of curiosity ben, have you ever actually read Cosmic Plasma, or Peratt's book, or do you know virtually nothing about it, and that's the way you like it? Have you actually read Birkeland's book?

 

[dasmiller]

As soon as you accept that electrical discharges have been associated with solar flare events since as far back as Dungey and Bruce, your whole show falls apart.

You keep coming back to this point and I confess I simply don't understand where you're going with it. What's the significance of the fact that electricity was suggested as the power source for solar flares a long time ago?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You keep coming back to this point and I confess I simply don't understand where you're going with it. What's the significance of the fact that electricity was suggested as the power source for solar flares a long time ago?

The significance is that it then becomes possible to describe coronal loops as circuits, and to describe solar flares as simply "electrical discharge" events in a current carrying plasma. It allows us to finally see the E orientation as it's supposed to be seen, not just the B orientation! I guess that's why RC doesn't want to go there. We no longer need "magnetic reconnection" theory since Alfven's double layer paper explains such processes WITHOUT it.