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

[iantresman]

Things to note:

• No mention of actual discharges in plasma.
• The discharge needs a breakidown of a dielectric medium (generally).
• The 'Cosmic Plasma" part of the section title (which MM, is not the definition ) is the title of a book by Alfven.

I think that if we look at the progress of a discharge, then breakdown of a dielectric occurs immediately before the discharge itself. But if a plasma is a weak dielectric, then breakdown is quick, and the plasma may appear to go straight to, for example, glow discharge mode.

I assume that plasma may behave as a dielectric as they may have a dielectric constant.(ref)

While ''Cosmic Plasma'' is the name of Alfvén's book. Peratt does have a chapter in his book "1.5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma" which is part of the section title, and is not a reference to Alfvén book in this case.

 

[Reality Check]

But if a plasma is a weak dielectric, then breakdown is quick, and the plasma may appear to go straight to, for example, glow discharge mode.

Plamas are highly conductive. Thus any plasma goes straight to a current mode, not any 'discharge' mode.

And you need to learn what a glow discharge is:

An electric glow discharge is a plasma formed by the passage of current at 100 V to several kV through a gas, often argon or another noble gas.

A discharge that creates plasma, not an existing plasma.

 

[GeeMack]

You are lucky - I just posted Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge.

Electrical discharges happen because a dielectric medium (e.g. a gas) break down under the influence of an intense electromagnetic field. So they require the existence of the dielectric medium before the discharge happens.

Plasma is not a dielectric medium - it is conductive. If you apply an electromagnetic field then currents immediately flow. You do not get the characteristics of a discharge, i.e. no current until a threshold is reached and then a sudden current.

And if we stop at the end of the oft quoted first sentence of Peratt's description...

1.5 Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy.

... even pulling a refrigerator magnet off the front of the refrigerator would constitute an electrical discharge. When they drop a load of steel into a railroad car at the scrap metal yard it would be an electrical discharge. That kind of ambiguity, aside from being just plain silly, would render the term completely useless for a scientific discussion about an electric Sun conjecture. Well, unless the continued insistence on dishonestly redefining perfectly good terms is a red herring to avoid discussion of legitimate objective solar and plasma physics.

However...
In older magnetic reconnecting papers (the only example that has been cited is Dungey's), the high current density caused by the reconnection is called an electrical discharge. This is not the modern usage.

And even if we consider the term "electrical discharge" to be a sort of synonym for the results of a magnetic reconnection event, it certainly doesn't support a conjecture which appears to be based in great part on rejecting magnetic reconnection.

 

[iantresman]

Plamas are highly conductive. Thus any plasma goes straight to a current mode, not any 'discharge' mode.

So you are defining the "discharge" as the breakdown of the dielectric, and not the resulting "current mode".

I'm guessing that the word "discharge" sometimes (perhaps mistakenly) refers to both the dielectric breakdown and the resulting current mode?

 

[Reality Check]

So you are defining the "discharge" as the breakdown of the dielectric, and not the resulting "current mode".

That is basically it , except I am not defining. it. It is Peratt and other textbooks that define it this way.
Before the discharge you have a dielectric preventing any current from flowing. That is obviously impossible in a conductive medium like a plasma.

This is why there are no textbooks or papers (despite MM's fantasies) that analyze electrical discharges in plasma.

 

[tusenfem]

FYI, I'm still waiting for you to come to terms with the fact that I don't reject your desire to model the plasma interactions using MHD theory.

I use whatever is necessary for the problem. That could be MHD, that could be circuit, however, when I was doing my research on double layers I needed to go to the whole shebang of plasma physics.

I just want you to give your process a legitimate scientific description. If you change the topology of a couple of circuits, it's "circuit reconnection'.

Yeah right, "circuit reconnection." Show me your actual model that describes the particle acceleration observed in the reconnection exhausts in a circuit model.

If you change the topology of a couple of field aligned currents, it's "current reconnection', even if you personally choose to model it based on the B orientation!

Yeah right, "current reconnection." Show me your actual model that describes the particle acceleration observed in the reconnection exhausts in a circuit model.

I don't care that you orient yourselves with B as long as you recognize what you're physcally doing at the level of currents and circuits. I don't see any evidence that most of this crew even appreciates that, even if you do, and I'm not even sure about you actually.

I don't care that you don't care.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is basically it , except I am not defining. it. It is Peratt and other textbooks that define it this way.

BS. That's is NOT how Peratt defined it. He defined it as a fast release of stored EM energy, not a breakdown of a dielectric medium! Talk about intellectual dishonesty! The fact your EU haters in crime let you get away with this nonsense simply demonstrates that EU haters couldn't care less about honest scientific dialog.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I use whatever is necessary for the problem. That could be MHD, that could be circuit, however, when I was doing my research on double layers I needed to go to the whole shebang of plasma physics.

So just out of curiosity, why do you embrace only half of it?

Yeah right, "circuit reconnection." Show me your actual model that describes the particle acceleration observed in the reconnection exhausts in a circuit model.

Pick any experiment you want that begins with an E field and do it yourself. Just leave in the E's. Why do you expect me to be your math mommy anyway? Isn't this your personal field of mathematical expertize?

I don't care that you don't care.

The only thing I actually care about is the fact you never set RC straight, and you never put "truth" before mob mentality. It says volumes about your motives.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, unless the continued insistence on dishonestly redefining perfectly good terms is a red herring to avoid discussion of legitimate objective solar and plasma physics.

Irony overload. That seems to be YOUR personal claim to fame. Whom shall I believe, a professional that is employed at Los Alamos and has written books on plasma physics and worked under Alfven, or a couple of RANK amateurs like myself that I met in cyberspace who never even bothered to read either Alfven's book or Peratt's book?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think that if we look at the progress of a discharge, then breakdown of a dielectric occurs immediately before the discharge itself. But if a plasma is a weak dielectric, then breakdown is quick, and the plasma may appear to go straight to, for example, glow discharge mode.
I assume that plasma may behave as a dielectric as they may have a dielectric constant.(ref)
While ''Cosmic Plasma'' is the name of Alfvén's book. Peratt does have a chapter in his book "1.5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma" which is part of the section title, and is not a reference to Alfvén book in this case.

RC and GM are not interested in the fact that plasmas tend to have a dielectric constant that can change over time, nor are they interested in the fact that Peratt defined the term "electrical discharge in cosmic plasmas" as a sudden release of stored EM energy. All they care about are distorting scientific historical facts, and continuing to persecute any and all EU oriented theories by attacking individuals. It really doesn't matter what you say to them. They both go right back into pure unadulterated denial of scientific fact.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How idiotic - I do not hate EU. The science in EU is so pitiful that there is nothing to hate.

Your biases prevent you from even accepting a simple scientific definition of an electrical discharge from Peratt. Your personal bigotry has blinded you to physics.

 

[Dancing David]

Bye Michael, I await your answer.

 

[Reality Check]

BS. That's is NOT how Peratt defined it. He defined it as a fast release of stored EM energy, not a breakdown of a dielectric medium!

BS. That is you quote mining Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge.

He defined it as sudden release of stored EM energy plus a breakdown of a dielectric medium. Without the second part, there is no sudden release of energy - just a normal current.

 

[Reality Check]

Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook

RC and GM are not interested in the fact that plasmas tend to have a dielectric constant that can change over time, nor are they interested in the fact that Peratt defined the term "electrical discharge in cosmic plasmas" as a sudden release of stored EM energy.

That is stupid - I am interested in your (new?) assertion that "plasmas tend to have a dielectric constant that can change over time".

Dielectric constant of a plasma

I know the difference between a title and a definition: "electrical discharge in cosmic plasmas" is the section title. Do you know the difference between a title and a definition
First asked 11 January 2011

I know that you are quote mining Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge and not even an entire sentence! The actual defintion is:

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.

I know that Peratt does not gives an example of actual electrical discharges in plasma":
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010

I know that his examples are electrical discharges through solids and gases:
Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning which happen in air not plasma?
First asked 3rd February 2011

I know that you cannot find any other textbook to support your assertion:
Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook?


P.S. Where are Alfven's "HUNDREDS of papers on circuit theory as it applied to plasma?

 

[Reality Check]

Your biases prevent you from even accepting a simple scientific definition of an electrical discharge from Peratt.

How ignorant of you MM.
I accept the simple scientific definition of an electrical discharge from Peratt (Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge).
That defintion happens to agree with the actual scientific definition of an electrical discharge

An electrical discharge results from the creation of a conducting path between two points of different electrical potential in the medium in which the points are immersed. If the supply of electrical charge is continuous, the discharge is permanent, but otherwise it is temporary, and serves to equalize the potentials. Usually, the medium is a gas, often the atmosphere, and the potential difference is a large one, from a few hundred volts to millions of volts.

What I do not accept is you quote mining that definition.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is stupid - I am interested in your (new?) assertion

I'm not even the least bit interested in debating anything with you at this point RC. You're stuck in pure denial of a scientific definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma based on pure blind personal bigotry. There's no logic to your statements anymore. There's nothing there but twisted bigotry designed to suit yourself. What's the point? Do I believe you or Peratt? By DEFINITION Peratt and Dungey claim that it's possible for electrical discharges to occur in plasmas. You claim it's impossible. You or Dungey? According to Dungey, solar flares involve "electrical discharges". Whom shall I believe? You or Peratt? Whom shall I believe? What are your personal qualifications in the realm of plasma physics RC? I know that Peratt studied under Alfven. I know he is/was professionally employed at Los Alamos. I know you haven't even read Cosmic Plasma.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How ignorant of you MM.
I accept the simple scientific definition of an electrical discharge from Peratt (Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge).
That defintion happens to agree with the actual scientific definition of an electrical discharge


What I do not accept is you quote mining that definition.

Irony overload! You're completely ignoring the DEFINITION itself! By definition it's physically possible for plasmas to experience electrical discharges RC. He then makes a COMPARISON of an electrical discharge in a plasma to an "electrical discharge" that HAPPENS to involve a dielectric change. So what?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Bye Michael, I await your answer.

Ooops. Did I miss a post? I'll go back and check.

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Ask Peratt whether your 'electrical dicharges in plasma' assertion is correct

Whom shall I believe, a professional that is employed at Los Alamos and has written books on plasma physics and worked under Alfven, or a couple of RANK amateurs like myself that I met in cyberspace who never even bothered to read either Alfven's book or Peratt's book?

The fallacy in that statement is obvious: Alfvén and Peratt are not the only people in the entire world to ever have written books on plasma physics.
Continuously insisting that people read these 2 books is dumb.
Thinking that not reading these 2 books has anything to do with the science is also dumb.

FYI: This RANK amateur like yourself has never read an entire book on plasma physics (it was covered in a few chapters in an undergraduate textbook so I have always had a general knowledge of it). But this RANK amateur unlike you, has an education in physics.
This RANK amateur can do research and learn about plasma physics.
This RANK amateur can read and understand Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge.

What we are pointing out is that your ignorance of physics has lead you to a major blunder - quote mining Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharge in order to support your personal definition of electrical discharge.

But here is an thought, Michael Mozina:
You have this assertion that electrical discharges can happen in plasma when the definition of electrical discharge rules it out.
Why don't you ask this "professional that is employed at Los Alamos and has written books on plasma physics and worked under Alfven" (Anthony Peratt) whether your assertion is correct?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I take that as a resounding if wordy no, so where are these events in modern cathodes and anodes MM?

Why is it suddenly my responsibility to find an example of his experiments being recreated in modern times DD? I haven't really run across any terella experiments, complete with internal EM fields recently.

Seriously, I asked you for modern data, and I am sure that there are plenty of modern cathodes around.

Seriously DD, sputtering occurs in modern experiments too.

You said quite clearly that the sun is a cathode and so i will ask you a simple question, show me recent research that show positive ions flowing away from a cathode. (if the cathode has a negative charge, or negative ions from a positive cathode)

I have already done that DD. You don't like the concept of sputtering, but it's the process Birkeland means and describes when he describes the disintegration of the cathode. I can't change history to suit you, and I can't change the fact that sputtering happens in modern experiments that I have already cited.

There are probably hundreds of introductory texts that discuss cathodes and how electrons flow from them to anodes.

Sure, but Birkeland's terella was more than a simple cathode, and the heliosphere is more than a simple anode.

I am amazed at your inability to actually answer the question.

FYI, I'm amazed at your inability to accept sputtering as an answer. I'm not sure what else to offer you since that is exactly what Birkeland meant when he claimed that the cathode disintegrated, and that is exactly why he predicted that positive ions came from the sun.

As long as we're both answering questions here DD, how come you haven't addressed my questions about Birkeland's work and his predictions. Why did he "predict" that positive ions came from his cathode? Was he wrong? Did he botch the experiments in some way?