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

[Tubbythin]

If you mean "simulated on a computer" instead of "produced in a lab", then you're onto something. So far as I know, the only "neutrino generators" that exist are theoretical software models that are utterly divorced from any physical constraints and not bound by the laws of physics as they're understood.

No, I meant produced in a lab. Like MINOS.

 

[Tubbythin]

Electromagnetic theory does not deal with "particles", you're thinking of particle physics.

Electromagnetic theory deals with charges, including charged elementary particles and charged nucleons (ie protons).

Further, what we observe is positively charged particles (protons) accelerating away from the sun, not neutral particles.

No, what is observed is positively and negatively charged particles being accelerated away from the Sun.

This is another problem for stellar fusionists, as their models suggest there should be a flood of neutrons from the sun, but we don't observe that.

Erm, reference for this? In the standard solar model there are no (or very few) free neutrons in the Sun. The SSM suggests there should be many many neutrinos produced. That is exactly what is observed in countless experiments.

 

[Tubbythin]

I've closed the thread while I deal with the various infractions, post moves and edits.
Ok, I've moved the worst offenders out. I've reopened the thread. Understand, this threa generates a lot of reports and is therefore watched quite closely. Any further shenanigans will be dealt with. Stay on topic. Do not attack the arguer, even in a passive-agressive manner. If it's not about the topic at hand, don't post it. If you find that you cannot post about the topic without commenting on the other posters, then stop...leave, ignore this thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

Is it ok to comment on the standard solar model when it is brought up? Or does that constitute OT? If so, please accept my apologise for (parts of) the last two posts. I missed your editing of your warning before I posted them. Oops.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is an important thing to remember. Regardless of whether the sun is rigid or gaseous, the fundamental aspects of plasma cosmology dictate still that they will be powered by electricity, not "gravity" collapse of a gas. The idea that gases compress themselves under their own weight is laughable, that's never been demonstrated in the lab, and is readily falsified by a fourth grade chemistry experiment.

Do you think that F = GMm/r², using the commonly accepted value of G, is a reasonably accurate description of gravitational forces?

 

[The Man]

An interesting paper on opacity in high energy density plasma.


http://www.sandia.gov/pulsedpower/prog_cap/pub_papers/09OpacityTutorial PhysPlasmas16_058101.pdf


Another on pulsed power and the first 40 years at Sandia National Laboratories.

http://www.sandia.gov/pulsedpower/newsreleases/reports/Pulsed_PWR_1st_40yrs.pdf

 

[kmortis]

Is it ok to comment on the standard solar model when it is brought up? Or does that constitute OT? If so, please accept my apologise for (parts of) the last two posts. I missed your editing of your warning before I posted them. Oops.

[as mod] Since the thread is about the Electric Sun theory, the Standard Solar model would be on topic as a counter point to the OP.[/as mod]

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Can someone explain the basics of this theory to me? I've literally never heard of it.

 

[kmortis]

Can someone explain the basics of this theory to me? I've literally never heard of it.

From what little I've been able to glean, and I'm sure i'll be corrected where I'm wrong, the theory states that the sun is not fuled completely via nucular fusion, but is in whole or in part fueld by electric fields that are fed by currents carried by plasma. Think of the sun as a light bulb and the wires are streams of plasma.

Of course, I could be misreading everything.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection VI

(like the one I cited above, Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Eric Priest & Terry Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000).

It's funny you should cite this book. Out of the hundreds of pages, and the dozens of times the authors use the term "magnetic energy", they never once define the term, just as you haven't defined it. They use this term dozens of times without ever putting forth a working definition of the term. What is "magnetic energy", Timmy-Thom?

Magnetic energy (the energy stored in a magnetic field)

That definition doesn't come from the book Timmy-Thom cited, and it isn't referenced anywhere in that book, either. I take it this is the definition you personally subscribe to. Can you explain this phenomenon of storing energy in a magnetic field? Can we exploit this to power devices by storing energy in a magnetic field instead of in batteries? Or is that how batteries work, by storing energy in magnetic fields? Does a magnetic field have more magnetic energy when it's at a higher temperature or less? Can a magnetic field even have a temperature? I confess I was never taught the answers to these questions in school.

Here is the definition of "magnetic energy" from the hyperphysics webpage cited by Reality Check

[latex]\eta_\B = \dfrac{B^2}{2\mu}[/latex]

Here is the definition of "magnetic energy" from the book I cited, link shown above, found on page 73 by looking in the index for the subject "magnetic energy".

[latex]W_m (t) = \int_D \dfrac{B^2}{(2\mu)}dV[/latex]

Notice the common term in both equations:

[latex] \dfrac{B^2}{2\mu}[/latex] (where [latex]\mu[/latex] is the magnetic permeability of free space)

The definition from the hyperphysics webpage is actually the energy density of the magnetic field, that is the energy per unit volume of the field. It is the standard definition as found in any textbook on electromagnetism you choose to pull off the shelf, and it is explicitly stated on that webpage that it is in fact the energy density.

Now you see that the definition of magnetic energy as found in the Priest & Forbes textbook is simply the volume integral over the domain D of the magnetic field energy density, which of course translates into the total energy of the magnetic field.

So, to start we see that the term "magnetic energy" is in fact defined in the book, despite complaints to the contrary, and that it is in fact found in the index at the back of the book (took me 3 or 4 minutes counting the time it took to go get the book). Secondly, the definition of the field energy density is basic freshman physics, found in any textbook. Thirdly, volume integrals are a very standard application from basic calculus. Anybody who has ever studied mathematics beyond simple algebra knows very well that the volume integral of a density is simply the sum of the density over the volume.

I did not define my terms because they are very basic, common knowledge, and assumed they were already known by the participants in this discussion. I will be happy to present the appropriate definitions if asked. There is no conspiracy to hide information at work here, only my own naive expectation that people actually understand areas of science where they appear to claim expertise beyond the amateur level.

All that said, the physics of magnetic reconnection is presented in great detail, in both physical theory and laboratory practice, in many sources, some of which I have already cited numerous times in the past. Therefore I will assert that vague & general claims that the process is impossible just don't fly. The science is presented in detail, and counter arguments should be presented in equal detail in order to consider them to be worthy of consideration at all.

 

[Tubbythin]

From what little I've been able to glean, and I'm sure i'll be corrected where I'm wrong, the theory states that the sun is not fuled completely via nucular fusion, but is in whole or in part fueld by electric fields that are fed by currents carried by plasma. Think of the sun as a light bulb and the wires are streams of plasma.

This seems to be at least part of what is being claimed. Of course, (imho) to call it a theory rather than a collection of disparate hypotheses would be giving it far more credit than it deserves. But that is just my opinion.

 

[Ziggurat]

Can someone explain the basics of this theory to me? I've literally never heard of it.

Well, it's not really a coherent theory. Most advocates won't actually give you any quantitative description, but the basic idea is that electricity, not nuclear fusion, powers the sun. Here's an example page which tries to explain one version of it:
http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0801-electric-i.htm

It estimates the sun has a voltage of about 10 billion volts. The model needs ridiculously high voltages in order to produce enough power without making the current too large. But the voltages themselves are far too large, and would cause the surface of the sun to explode at relativistic speeds.

If you drop the voltage to reasonable levels, then you can't get enough current without it being completely obvious that there is no such current flowing in the solar system. There's also the energy problem: the total energy budget for such models doesn't work without offloading that energy to somewhere other than the sun, but that doesn't solve the problem of where it comes from, and it doesn't solve the problem of why it's all powering the sun and not the actual source. None of it withstands any real scrutiny.

 

[Ziggurat]

That definition doesn't come from the book Timmy-Thom cited, and it isn't referenced anywhere in that book, either. I take it this is the definition you personally subscribe to. Can you explain this phenomenon of storing energy in a magnetic field?

Read up on inductors. That's what they do. They're magnetic analogues to the energy capacitors store in electric fields.

Can we exploit this to power devices by storing energy in a magnetic field instead of in batteries?

Yes, we can. There are practical limitations, though, which prevent this from being useful as a general-purpose energy storage method. You can't use permanent magnets for the task because there's no good way to extract the energy from them (the energy from demagnetization usually turns into internal thermal energy without a method for extracting that energy). You need to use electromagnets with persistent currents. But if your electromagnet has any resistance, then your energy storage device will "leak" (you'll constantly lose energy through resistive heating), making it a very poor storage mechanism. You can do it with superconductors, but that requires cooling which isn't practical or economic for most applications. In fact, you can get rather dramatic examples of this with superconducting magnets when they "quench". The magnet stores a lot of energy in the field, and if the magnet gets too warm, it stops superconducting and the current will heat the coils. That slows down the current, dropping the magnetic field. The loss of energy in the field is what drives the current through the resistive coils. In a rather short period of time, all that energy stored in the fields gets turned into thermal energy inside the coils. If there's any coolant left (usually liquid helium), it tends to boil really fast at that point. A superconducting magnet quench can be fairly dramatic, and quite startling if you're in the lab when it happens.

Or is that how batteries work, by storing energy in magnetic fields?

Nope, batteries work by chemical potential energy. You could call that energy stored in (microscopic) electric fields, if you want, but magnetic fields don't contribute to chemical batteries.

Does a magnetic field have more magnetic energy when it's at a higher temperature or less? Can a magnetic field even have a temperature?

Static magnetic fields have no temperature. Same with static electric fields. One can assign a temperature to electromagnetic fluctuations, though. And that's basically where the theory of blackbody radiation comes from.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Read up on inductors.

I have. Does this response indicate you are declining to explain your position? That's fine, too. In fact I prefer it that way, bad ideas have a way of causing brain damage.

There are practical limitations, though, which prevent this from being useful as a general-purpose energy storage method.

Yeah, the "practical limitation" is that this phenomenon is imaginary. It exists in your mind but not in reality.

You can't use permanent magnets for the task because there's no good way to extract the energy from them

How can that be? You state above that storing magnetic energy is a trivial feat. So it's easy to store and impossible to recover? Interesting...

But if your electromagnet has any resistance, then your energy storage device will "leak"

If it has any resistance, in other words if it's a real object, that's important to note. Your hypothesis only applies to objects you imagine.

The magnet stores a lot of energy in the field, and if the magnet gets too warm, it stops superconducting and the current will heat the coils.

This has nothing to do with "stored magnetic energy", which is nonsense, really.

All you've offered to support your claim are non-relevant examples that actually don't verify your claims. In each case you seem to be talking about generation of magnetic fields by using electric fields. How is that even remotely "storing magnetic energy"?

[ETA -

You also haven't even defined the term "magnetic energy". If you spend all that time explaining how it can occur, but never define it, we (and you) still don't know what you're talking about.

]

 

[Arthur Mann]

Well, it's not really a coherent theory.

You say it's not a coherent theory, yet you spend all this time trying to refute it with your imagination and consensus of Google hits.

 

[Ziggurat]

You say it's not a coherent theory, yet you spend all this time trying to refute it with your imagination and consensus of Google hits.

I have refuted what little quantitative information I have seen put forth regarding electric sun theories. You have not tried to put forth any quantitative information. If you put forth any quantitative information, I can evaluate it. If you do not, then logically I cannot. But I won't keep looking for better electric sun models on my own when the ones I have found keep failing.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Here is the definition of "magnetic energy" from the hyperphysics webpage cited by Reality Check

Here is the definition of "unicorn":

a white horse with a long horn growing from its forehead

Does being able to quote a definition of something make it real?

Notice the common term in both equations:

Oh, so you're defining "magnetic energy" with an equation? That's a novel approach to defining words, using math.

The definition from the hyperphysics webpage

Hyperphysics?

So, to start we see that the term "magnetic energy" is in fact defined in the book, despite complaints to the contrary

You cite various definitions, just one is contained in the book you reference, and which doesn't agree with the definition proposed by your "hyperphysics" web site. I also never made claims about this book, or the "hyperphysics" web site, only about posters in this forum who couldn't seem to define "magnetic energy" but were using the term freely.

Secondly, the definition of the field energy density is basic freshman physics, found in any textbook.

Now you're talking about "field energy", and how do you avoid circularity in all of these definitions? It seems to me they all suffer from circularity, they rely on their own definitions being correct in order for the definition to even have any empirical referent at all.

All that said, the physics of magnetic reconnection is presented in great detail, in both physical theory and laboratory practice, in many sources, some of which I have already cited numerous times in the past.

I realize you believe this, but it takes more than belief to constitute science. Magnetic field lines are not even physical, they are imaginary, how can they "reconnect", or for that matter do anything real? How can you manipulate imaginary objects?

 

[Arthur Mann]

I have "faith" in Peratt's work

Outstanding, you're making progress. I guess. Except for the "faith" thing...

The defintion of an electrical discharge is that it happens by the breakdown of a dielectric material.

I'm not familiar with this definition of electric discharge. In what way do electric discharges require a dielectric breakdown? What if there is no dielectric (as we readily observe is the case in plasmas)? How can there still be discharges? We observe them, clearly they're real, the only thing that doesn't agree here is your definition. Perhaps it's a specialty definition that only applies in certain circumstances.

Peratt clearly states that electrical discharges happen through the breakdown of a material.

False.

In electrical engineering a breakdown is the transition of a dielectric medium to a conducting state.

True, but not relevant. In electric discharges in plasma there is no "dielectric". There are double layers, but they do not operate as do dielectrics.

 

[Arthur Mann]

I have refuted what little quantitative information I have seen put forth regarding electric sun theories.

False. You have contradicted them, but mere contradiction is not refuting. To refute something you have to more or less prove it's wrong. When that's impossible, refutation is impossible, despite your strenuous claims to the contrary.

You have not tried to put forth any quantitative information.

False.

If you put forth any quantitative information, I can evaluate it.

Evaluate the math proving laboratory experiments using electric discharge in plasma scale very nicely with observed solar flare phenomena.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Do you think that F = GMm/r², using the commonly accepted value of G, is a reasonably accurate description of gravitational forces?

What I think it that gravitational forces do not apply to plasmas, because they are only negligibly affected by gravity, they are dominated utterly by electromagnetic forces. I think this because it's demonstrably so. If you disagree, perform decades of experiments, like Peratt has, then publish, like Peratt has.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, the "practical limitation" is that this phenomenon is imaginary. It exists in your mind but not in reality.

Pay attention. The practical limitations prevent its use as a general purpose storage device. They do not prevent it from being used at all. The energy stored in magnetic fields does get used, and it does have an effect. In fact, I already described a real-world effect that I've seen, first hand. The energy stored in inductors is also used to generate the starting spark in many fluorescent lamps.

How can that be? You state above that storing magnetic energy is a trivial feat. So it's easy to store and impossible to recover? Interesting...

It's trivial to store and extract that energy in an inductor (ie, an electromagnet). It's not so simple to store or extract that energy in a permanent magnet. But it doesn't matter, we don't even need to consider permanent magnets.

If it has any resistance, in other words if it's a real object, that's important to note. Your hypothesis only applies to objects you imagine.

Superconductors? Nope, I don't imagine them. I've seen them. I've used them. Superconducting magnets use persistent currents to maintain large magnetic fields without any external power source all the time. It's quite standard. Your ignorance of such devices, and your disbelief in their existence, is of no consequence.

This has nothing to do with "stored magnetic energy", which is nonsense, really.

It has everything to do with stored magnetic energy. That's where the energy expended in a quench comes from. Where do you think it came from?

In each case you seem to be talking about generation of magnetic fields by using electric fields.

There is no electric field in a superconducting magnet operating in persistent mode.

You also haven't even defined the term "magnetic energy".

Because Tim already defined it. It's the same definition that pretty much every textbook uses. I can even cite several, from undergraduate general physics to graduate electrodynamics, including the page number, if you really care.