Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Michael Mozina]

Your "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic does not mean that there are discharges in that movie. As anyone who know basic physics knows:

[*]Electrical discharges ("discharge process") occur through the breakdown of dielectric medium.

All plasmas (including the photosphere) are "dusty" plasmas. They are not fully ionized. They can reach a "more ionized" state.

Plasmas are highly conductive. They are not dielectric.

So what? Some plasmas will still conduct better than others, and plasmas will form "magnetic ropes" in the presence of large currents.

Your "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic is not evidence that LMSAL was wrong (Trace Spacecraft Discovers Moss on the Sun).
Actual astronomers (with real expertise in astronomy rather than just imaging that they see things in images) measure that solar moss events start 1200KM *ABOVE* the photosphere.

Boloney. The loops originate *UNDER* the photosphere. We can even observe the effect of those loops on the surface of the photosphere in the 1600A images. We can watch the loops come up and through that surface. You've got white light images of exactly that same effect. The discharge comes *UP THROUGH* the photosphere.

You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that astronomers know that coronal loops are *HIGHLY* energized as they emerge from the photosphere and get even more *HIGHLY* energized during flare activity.

A lightening bolt doesn't start releasing high energy photons *ONLY* at some point in the atmosphere. It does so *ALONG THE WHOLE DISCHARGE FILAMENT*. You're ignoring physics entirely. Those discharge loops directly effect the surface of the photosphere in white light, in 1600A, in 1700A too. There's no way in hell that the loops are not emitting 171A light at some magic position in the sky. They release high energy photons all along the discharge channel. They would become *HIGHLY* visible the moment they left the photosphere, even if the photosphere is made of the materials you claim it to be made of rather than as I claim it to be. It wouldn't matter one iota, the discharge filaments would be instantly visible the moment they exited your 'photosphere".

 

[GeeMack]

All plasmas (including the photosphere) are "dusty" plasmas. They are not fully ionized. They can reach a "more ionized" state.

So what? Some plasmas will still conduct better than others, and plasmas will form "magnetic ropes" in the presence of large currents.

So what? So there is no discharge as you so commonly and erroneously seem to believe, that's what.

Boloney. The loops originate *UNDER* the photosphere. We can even observe the effect of those loops on the surface of the photosphere in the 1600A images. We can watch the loops come up and through that surface. You've got white light images of exactly that same effect. The discharge comes *UP THROUGH* the photosphere.

And once more I remind you and the other readers that your qualifications to understand solar imagery, at any level, for any reason or purpose, have been challenged, repeatedly. And never once have you been willing or able to demonstrate that you have any qualifications at all in that area. Your looks-like-a-bunny approach is an amateur, or more definitively a childlike way to go about making a scientific determination. And in your case, when your guesses are compared to the informed analyses of those who designed the satellite programs and the equipment, and those who monitor and analyze the data, your guesses run directly contrary to those experts in the field who clearly are qualified.

It is a case where either all the educated, trained, experienced, and qualified people in various fields relating to solar physics are wrong and you alone are right, or you are wrong. You have never been able to provide a legitimate argument to support your against-the-mainstream claims, and have only offered arguments from incredulity and ignorance, and occasionally arguments which even you must know are flat out untrue fabrications, and therefore anything you offer as an opinion on the issue may be dismissed as unsupported and unqualified.

A lightening bolt doesn't start releasing high energy photons *ONLY* at some point in the atmosphere. It does so *ALONG THE WHOLE DISCHARGE FILAMENT*. You're ignoring physics entirely. Those discharge loops directly effect the surface of the photosphere in white light, in 1600A, in 1700A too. There's no way in hell that the loops are not emitting 171A light at some magic position in the sky. They release high energy photons all along the discharge channel. They would become *HIGHLY* visible the moment they left the photosphere, even if the photosphere is made of the materials you claim it to be made of rather than as I claim it to be. It wouldn't matter one iota, the discharge filaments would be instantly visible the moment they exited your 'photosphere".

Your qualifications to understand the electrical science involved in a discharge have been challenged. The mechanics of an electrical discharge have been explained to you many, many times over the past half dozen years, and several times in this thread alone, yet you continue to misrepresent the science and misunderstand that it can't possibly be happening the way you believe it is on the Sun's surface. This only goes to support the position that you simply do not possess any relevant scientific qualifications. Your opinion on this, as with your opinion on anything to do with solar imagery, may be dismissed as unfounded, unsupported, and unqualified.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok. Where was the work done? Where did the energy come from?

Was there any motion at the point of contact? How could work have been done if there was not F*D?

Forces does use energy even if there is no motion.........

Your mistake is thinking that the "point of contact" of interest here is between the bar and her hand. It isn't. It's between her arm (which is applying a force) and her body. And that point of contact WAS in motion as she pushed off. Her arm did work on her body. But NOT on the bar.

Freshman physics here, brantc. And you're failing, badly.

 

[brantc]

I could. But then again, you could simply answer the question. Well, you could if you knew the answer, anyway. Likewise, the webpage you suggest could answer the question, if they knew the answer. So at this point I can only assume that neither you nor the champions of the aether hypothesis can actually answer the question: Where along the sun-Earth path are photons created? I find your collective inability to answer this question somewhat revealing, since I had already figured it out myself, and it really isn't very hard to do. Furthermore, while the question is easy to answer, that answer turns out to be a critical element in proving that the aether hypothesis regarding photons must be false.

First, the answer. It is well known that the intensity of any light source varies as the inverse square of the distance between the source and the detector, independent of that distance. This makes sense; since solid angle depends on the inverse square of the distance, it's simple geometry that this should be true of the brightness of any source. Now, according to the aether hypothesis, light sources do not emit photons, they emit massfree charges which then decay into photons. All we have to do is make sure that process preserves the invariant dependency on the inverse square of the distance. So, I assume that the intensity of massfree charges itself depends on the inverse square of the distance, where "intensity" is the number count of charges per unit area at the detector, which is exactly what it means for photons. If the fraction of charges per unit area that decay into photons remains constant with distance, then the number of photons at any given point along the trajectory between source and detector must also vary as the inverse square of the distance. If the rate of production of photons were not constant in this manner, then the light intensity of a given source would not be always dependent on the inverse square of the distance, but rather would depend on the variable production rate of photons. So the answer must be that photons are created constantly along the entire line of sight between source (sun, star, etc.) and detector (CCD, eyeball, etc.).

Now, armed with this answer, let us consider an important fact about photons, namely that they interact only very weakly with magnetic fields As your own aether hypothesis webpage tells us: "2.3. Photons and massfree charges also differ in their physical effects. Photons are not deviated, displaced or disturbed by electrical or magnetic fields.". In fact, photons are expected to interact with the extreme magnetic fields found on pulsars & neutron stars (10⁸ - 10¹² Gauss (G), and possibly as high as 10¹⁵ G), resulting in considerable pair production. However, for any magnetic field of ordinary intensity, then it is indeed true that chargeless photons are not deviated or deflected by the magnetic field. Astronomically, this means that photon propagation through the universe is unaffected by the typically weak magnetic fields along the photon trajectory (10^-5 - 10^-4 G inside galaxies; 10^-10 G between galaxies). However, it should be pointed out that the massfree charges are not so unaffected even by these small magnetic fields. Before the massfree charges decay into photons, they will be deflected by the magnetic fields that will be ubiquitous along the entire trajectory of the particles.

The deflection of the parent charged particles by magnetic fields, before they decay into photons, must result in the appearance of photons being deflected by magnetic fields. But we already have a great deal of astronomical experience which shows that photons are deflected as anticipated in general relativity, by gravity only. It must especially be the case that, inside the solar system, where the interplanetary magnetic field is highly variable, then so must the propagation of light within the solar system be equally variable. Such an effect would surely be obvious, but is in fact invisible. The fact that photons are not deflected by magnetic fields, a fact acknowledged on the aether hypothesis photon webpage, is by itself sufficient to confidently establish that if photons are the product of the decay of parent particles, then those particles cannot themselves carry any electric charge.

I think the question is " How come the trail of photons are not bent by magnetic fields if they are the result of propagating "massfree" charges?

"As a sidenote, Aetherometry does not need to take recourse to the notion that an alternative to General Relativity must invoke massbound photons subject to deviation by local gravitational fields. Since all blackbody photon production is local and the result of decelerating massbound charges, the scatter of the latter and its relative direction are sufficient to explain observed redshift distributions, as well as the much reviled or ignored distributions of blueshifts, without any need for an invocation of the bending of light by spacetime or its gravitational field. "

<snip>

"2.2. In accordance with the preceding, Aetherometry claims that solar radiation is electrical, not because it is composed of photons, but because it consists of propagating massfree charges. Unlike massbound charges, massfree charges have no fixed spin orientation with respect to forward propagation. They can be thought of as net spin 0 charges. But at any time, they may have an effective spin that is either -1/2 or +1/2 (actually, -1 and +1, as spin, in Aetherometry, is a number property of angular momentum, not of the number of 'hyperdimensions' attributed to states of polarization, as it is in Quantum Electrodynamics)"



Ambipolar massfree energy (Orgone and DOR), aka Tesla radiation
Electric massfree energy consists of ambipolar charges that are devoid of inertial effects and propagate longitudinally. In contrast to the monopolar charges (electrons, protons) that characterize ordinary massbound electricity, ambipolar charges continuously alternate between polar states, or, to say it more accurately, constantly vary their polarity during forward propagation. Ambipolar electricity is a massfree phenomenon. Field capture of ambipolar energy by massbound (monopolar) charges results in their acceleration; deceleration of the same massbound charges results in the local production of blackbody photons. The Correas have published the cosmic spectrum of ambipolar radiation and the corresponding blackbody spectra emitted from electrons and protons, providing exact new equations that profoundly alter the conventional theory of electromagnetism. They have also demonstrated how the continuous ambipolar spectrum contains two biologically and physically distinct regions that correspond to W. Reich's distinction between orgone (OR) energy and DOR (dorgone or deadly orgone). The cutoff between OR and DOR occurs at 79.4 keV. This is a strictly aetherometric discovery.
http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/index.html

<snip>

"Photons (ionizing or nonionizing), 'kinetons', gravitons, ambipolar charges and particles or units of latent massfree energy are all massfree particles associated with specific physical interactions or manifestations. The demonstration of these particles' existence, and the proposed new model and mathematical formalism (see Aetherometric Microfunctional Transformative Algebra below) that address their specific properties, have been extracted from a nexus of systematic and diverse experimental investigations into physical and biological systems, gathered under the rubrics of Experimental Aetherometry, Aetherometric Biology, and The Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity (AToS)."
http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/index.html

So the answer to your question I believe is that the propagating massfree charges do not have fixed polarity when they move.

In addition.
A new concept of energy and a new integral function for its forms
The fundamental aetherometric concept is the expanded function of energy. Energy is a five-dimensional event, capable of phase superimposition in multiples of five-dimensional events ('raising energy to the nth power'). With this new functional approach, the energy-event becomes a micromachine, a wave-synthesizer capable of fine-structure definition. Energy is not simply the potentiality of work, but work seen or unseen, useful or useless, converted or not. The continuous creation of Space across sequential instants of Time is the ontological work of energy, the evidence that a flux of energy has a power and performs sensible work. Space is, in this sense, the work of the perpetual flux of massfree energy, just as universal Time is at once its synchronous beat and its eternal duration. Energy flows in packets, in quantized units, whether Planckian or not. Energy flux is "molecularized" or particulate. Every energy unit (see Leibniz's monad), irrespective of physical nature, is a synthesis of a spatial volume flowing or 'beating' with a resonant simultaneity, the production of a difference being found at the core of the new concept of energy: energy is a synthesis of the different - particle and waves, Space and Time manifolds, conjugate series of physical objects, different constituents, different properties or qualia"

 

[Reality Check]

All plasmas (including the photosphere) are "dusty" plasmas. They are not fully ionized. They can reach a "more ionized" state.

You need (as always) to learn some science, Michael Mozina.
All plasmas are plasmas (that is rathe robvious) They have various degrees of ionization. They are not fully ionized. They can reach a more ionized state.

Dusty plasmas are plasmas with dust. They are a subset of plasmas.
All plasmas (including the photosphere) are not "dusty" plasmas. Some plasmas (but not the photosphere) are dusty plasmas.

So what? Some plasmas will still conduct better than others, and plasmas will form "magnetic ropes" in the presence of large currents.

So what?
All plasmas conduct and thus are not the insulating medium required from electrical dicharges.

Boloney. The loops originate *UNDER* the photosphere.
We can even observe the effect of those loops on the surface of the photosphere in the 1600A images. We can watch the loops come up and through that surface. You've got white light images of exactly that same effect.

We know the loops originate *UNDER* the photosphere. Astronomers observer the magnetic loops emerging from *UNDER* the photosphere, filling with plasma and thus becoming coronal loops.
We agree that the loops originate *UNDER* the photosphere.

But what I said was:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Your "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic is not evidence that LMSAL was wrong (Trace Spacecraft Discovers Moss on the Sun).
Actual astronomers (with real expertise in astronomy rather than just imaging that they see things in images) measure that solar moss events start 1200KM *ABOVE* the photosphere.

So:
Boloney - nothing to do with loops.
Everything to do with the physical measuremenats that solar moss starts 1200KM *ABOVE* the photosphere.
To be more exact stating the science that you have ignored again:

High-resolution Imaging of the Solar Chromosphere/Corona Transition Region (page L98) measures "an average base height above the white-light limb for the moss layer of 2.8 Mm (sigma ~ 0.9 Mm)".
​

The discharge comes *UP THROUGH* the photosphere.

Only someone ignorant of the requirements for an electrical discharge would think that the loops are electrical discharges (see below).

A lightening bolt doesn't start releasing high energy photons *ONLY* at some point in the atmosphere. It does so *ALONG THE WHOLE DISCHARGE FILAMENT*.

I never said that. What I said was

You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that astronomers know that coronal loops are *HIGHLY* energized as they emerge from the photosphere and get even more *HIGHLY* energized during flare activity.

That is a temporal variation not a spacial variation. They emerge and then there is flare activity.

You're ignoring physics entirely.
...snipped physically impossible "discharge" stuff....

And once more time:
Electrical discharges require an dielectric medium to break down in order to create the discharge. You do not get electrical discharges though a conducting medium. You have admitted that you know that plasmas conduct.

 

[tusenfem]

All plasmas (including the photosphere) are "dusty" plasmas. They are not fully ionized. They can reach a "more ionized" state.

Dusty plasmas and non-fully ionized plasmas are not synonymous.
Dusty plasmas have grains in them which are much larger than the atoms and ions of the plasma. The sized of the grains are usually 100 nm or larger and they can be charged up to 10 volts or something. And then it depends on the charge of the grains and on the density of the grains whether the electromagnetic forces q(E+VxB) dominate over the total gravitational forces to see what is dominant.
A non-fully ionized plasma is a plasma that consists of neutrals, ions and electrons. Multiple species may be present, however in this case all the atoms and ions have approximately the same size. The ionization level of a plasma is easily shown to be given by the Saha equation. And yes, they can reach a higher ionization level if the temperature rises.
Naturally, you can make it all as complicated as you like and start working with dusty non-fully ionized plasmas. However, neutrals are not dust.

So what? Some plasmas will still conduct better than others, and plasmas will form "magnetic ropes" in the presence of large currents.

Sure, some plasmas can conduct better than others, however, the usual plasma conducts as good if not better than copper. So, you can twist and turn, but there is no way you are going to make a dielectric out of a plasma. There is nothing there to keep the charges separate over a large distance, to make the electric field build up and then have a break down.
And what does magnetic ropes have to do with this all? A magnetic rope is not a dielectric. Do you know anything at all about plasmas, did you ever read the books by Alfvén and Peratt?

Boloney. The loops originate *UNDER* the photosphere. We can even observe the effect of those loops on the surface of the photosphere in the 1600A images. We can watch the loops come up and through that surface. You've got white light images of exactly that same effect. The discharge comes *UP THROUGH* the photosphere.

It is not a discharge, it is an increase in the current that is running in the loop through e.g. the shear motion of the foot point. As a plasma is never ideal there is resistivity and this heats the loops, which amongst others makes them shine.
And the emergence of a magnetic loop is most definitely not a discharge as you seem to claim in the above. That is just a tube of plasma that is lighter than its surroundings, because more magnetic and thus less gas pressure, thus less plasma, thus an upward buoyancy force.
Please stop redefining completely well defined physical terms.

A lightening bolt doesn't start releasing high energy photons *ONLY* at some point in the atmosphere. It does so *ALONG THE WHOLE DISCHARGE FILAMENT*. You're ignoring physics entirely. Those discharge loops directly effect the surface of the photosphere in white light, in 1600A, in 1700A too. There's no way in hell that the loops are not emitting 171A light at some magic position in the sky. They release high energy photons all along the discharge channel. They would become *HIGHLY* visible the moment they left the photosphere, even if the photosphere is made of the materials you claim it to be made of rather than as I claim it to be. It wouldn't matter one iota, the discharge filaments would be instantly visible the moment they exited your 'photosphere".

Again, your lack of physical knowledge is showing. It is not a discharge!!!!!!!!!!!! This is getting so tedious.

 

[brantc]

And once more time:
Electrical discharges require an dielectric medium to break down in order to create the discharge. You do not get electrical discharges though a conducting medium. You have admitted that you know that plasmas conduct.

"
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. If the two points are separated by a vacuum, there can be no discharge. The transfer of matter between the two points is necessary, since only matter can carry electric charge. This matter is usually electrons, each carrying a charge of 4.803 x 10-10 esu. Electrons are very light, 9.109 x 10-28 g, and so can be moved with little effort. However, ions can also carry charge, although they are more than 1836 times heavier, and sometimes are important carriers. Where both electrons and ions are available, however, the electrons carry the majority of the current. Ions can be positively or negatively charged, usually positively, and carry small multiples of the electronic charge.:"
http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/dischg.htm

In the case of loops the initial discharge is low power or leakage current. The main discharge is a flow of current from point A to point B to equalize a charge imbalance.

If I put a wire in a plasma a discharge will happen. A plasma is a discharge.

You do not need a dielectric medium to break down. You just need the current to be greater than the medium will conduct easily.
If the plasma cant conduct the current it will form flux tube to conduct the current more efficiently thereby discharging the electron imbalance.

 

[ben m]

"
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.

Yep. That's why there are no discharges in a plasma. You never create a conducting path; the conductivity is high everywhere already.

 

[Reality Check]

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.
...

That supports the basic physics that several people have been telling your. Plasmas are always conducting (they conduct better than metals). There can be no creation of a conducting path to allow an electrical discharge.

If I put a wire in a plasma a discharge will happen. A plasma is a discharge.

No - a plasma is a mixture of ions and electrons.

You do not need a dielectric medium to break down. You just need the current to be greater than the medium will conduct easily.
.

That is almost right.
You do need a dielectric medium to break down to create the conducting path that an electric discharge follows. But dielectric media conduct to a really small degree.

If the plasma cant conduct the current it will form flux tube to conduct the current more efficiently thereby discharging the electron imbalance

Wrong: Flux tubes are not formed around currents.
You do not need flux tubes to fix the "electron imbalance". The simple fact that plasmas are highly conductive means that charges will be balanced. That is why plasamas are quasineutral.

However your physically impossible solid iron surface on the Sun will not have electrical discharges from it for many reasons, e.g.

• It does not exist!
• It would be surrounded by a conducting plasma which rules out electrical discharges.
• Electrical discharges have distinctive X-ray emissions that have not been detected.
• There is no difference in electrical potential on your physically impossible solid iron surface on the Sun to create the electrical discharges from point to point on the surface.

 

[Ziggurat]

You do not need a dielectric medium to break down.

Yes, you do.

You just need the current to be greater than the medium will conduct easily.

And what, precisely, do you think that means? It means that the current is sufficient to drive the system through a phase transition from a dielectric state to a conducting state. No phase change, no discharge. Oh, the conductivity of plasma can change, but it's a continuous change, there's no phase transition when you're already in the plasma state to begin with.

 

[brantc]

[/B]
That supports the basic physics that several people have been telling your. Plasmas are always conducting (they conduct better than metals). There can be no creation of a conducting path to allow an electrical discharge.

And before you turned on the current to create the plasma there was no current(no discharge).
Then you turned on the electricity and lo and behold there was a discharge. This discharge did not care what the medium of transfer was.
All it cared about was equalizing the charge imbalance.

And along as there was a charge imbalance then everything in the path was subject to electrification.

Consider a gas in a chamber with an electrode at each end. You introduce one electron of say 2keV into the chamber. The electron hits an atom and dislodges another electron, you have an ion and 2 free elections. These electrons run around until they thermalize and are recaptured. The last electron runs out of energy and is probably captured by the vessel wall.
If you had an electron with enough energy you could make a plasma with that one electron.

And its a discharge because that electron is going from the cathode to ground/anode....

No - a plasma is a mixture of ions and electrons.

"It is possible to produce a plasma which is not quasineutral. An electron beam, for example, has only negative charges. The density of a non-neutral plasma must generally be very low, or it must be very small, otherwise it will be dissipated by the repulsive electrostatic force."
Wiki

I imagine that its also possible to produce proton plasma....LHC?

That is almost right.
You do need a dielectric medium to break down to create the conducting path that an electric discharge follows. But dielectric media conduct to a really small degree.

I guess you could consider vacuum a medium but I dont. I consider any matter to be the medium and you can measure the K of any medium.

"Dielectric Values"
"Dielectric Constant (k) is a number relating the ability of a material to carry alternating current to the ability of vacuum to carry alternating current. The capacitance created by the presence of the material is directly related to the Dielectric Constant of the material."
http://www.clippercontrols.com/pages/dielectric-values

They have some conductivity so all you are really doing is specifying a macroscopic (vs a microscopic) amount of electrons during some condition, a "discharge".
Take capacitors in an audio circuit. Dielectric yet there is a signal in the circuit due to the "field". Everything conducts to some degree...

Wrong: Flux tubes are not formed around currents.

Where do you think the magnetic field comes from? Go back and read the reconnection thread again. Especially the part about flux transfer events and CLUSTER observations.
Specifically the flux tube forms with a magnetic field following the right hand rule. Then there is a flux transfer event and you are left with the collapsing field around the flux tube which creates a field aligned current flow down the center. A flux tube is. highly dynamic.

Now the reason for the formation of a flux tube, specifically in an existing plasma, is that the discharge current exceeds the plasmas current carrying capability at that moment in time. Kinda like lightning.

Identification of a Quasiseperatrix Layer in a Reconnecting Laboratory Magnetoplasma.
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/papers//Lawrence_PhysRevLett_QSL.pdf

Here is a whole gallery of high current discharges in plasma.
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/pages/gallery.html

You do not need flux tubes to fix the "electron imbalance". The simple fact that plasmas are highly conductive means that charges will be balanced.

Over what time frame?? When you light up a plasma you can see the chamber take a certain amount of time to light up all the plasma, seconds if its big..
Charge imbalance wants to balance at the speed of light. It forms a flux tube to achieve that goal.

However your physically impossible solid iron surface on the Sun will not have electrical discharges from it for many reasons, e.g.

• There is no difference in electrical potential on your physically impossible solid iron surface on the Sun to create the electrical discharges from point to point on the surface.

This one is of particular interest. Electricity has a speed associated with it. Over large distances, 30000Km, you will get a charge imbalance. The solar surface is constantly discharging electrons and ions into the plasma surrounding the sun. The solar surface has and elevated surface temperature at some points leading to greater emission leading to unbalanced charges at the surface. Plasma on the other hand is an even better conductor than iron some there is less of a chance of structures forming unless there were some sort of high current discharges.
Maunder's Butterfly Diagram is a map of the surface charge imbalance.
Why the pattern? I dont know, nobody knows although I believe it has to do with the way current flows in and around the sun.

"Local helioseismology with MDI-SOHO has revealed unexpected aspects of the dynamics of supergranulation as well as wave-speed anomalies and complex flow patterns below sunspots and active regions."
http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/seismo/papers/sicily.pdf

Evidence for a solar coronal thick-target hard X-ray source observed by RHESSI

Astrid M. Veroniga, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, John C. Brownb and Laura Boneb

Received 17 September 2004;
revised 13 January 2005;
accepted 20 January 2005.
Available online 26 February 2005.

Abstract

We study a solar flare hard X-ray (HXR) source observed by the Reuven Ramaty high energy solar spectroscopic imager (RHESSI) in which the HXR emission is almost entirely in a coronal loop so dense as to be collisionally thick at electron energies up to not, vert, similar45−60 keV. This contrasts with most events previously reported in which the HXR emission is primarily from the loop footpoints in the collisionally dense chromosphere. In particular, we show that the high loop column densities inferred from the GOES and RHESSI soft X-ray emission measure and the volume of the flare loop are consistent with the coronal thick-target interpretation of the HXR images and spectra. The high column densities observed already at the very beginning of the impulsive phase are explained by chromospheric evaporation during a preflare which, as Nobeyama 17 GHz radio images reveal, took place in the same set of nested loops as the main flare.

 

[TjW]

If a charge imbalance is being corrected, charges are moving.
If charges are moving, there should be an associated magnetic field, the value of which can be calculated with great precision.
Where is it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yep. That's why there are no discharges in a plasma. You never create a conducting path; the conductivity is high everywhere already.

That's simply not correct. If the current flow is strong enough, the plasma will create "current carrying threads" and the conductivity will not be equal everywhere.

 

[Reality Check]

And before you turned on the current to create the plasma there was no current(no discharge).
....

What are you talking about? There is no current that was turned on to create the plasma on the Sun.

The simple physics is that plasma conducts enough to exclude electrical discharges through it.

"It is possible to produce a plasma which is not quasineutral. An electron beam, for example, has only negative charges. The density of a non-neutral plasma must generally be very low, or it must be very small, otherwise it will be dissipated by the repulsive electrostatic force."
Wiki

That is correct but we are talking about astronomical plasma with is a mixture of ions and electrons.

I guess you could consider vacuum a medium but I dont. I consider any matter to be the medium and you can measure the K of any medium.

I do not consider vacuum a medium and never stated that.

Where do you think the magnetic field comes from?

The originalte from currents.
The do not form around currents

Now the reason for the formation of a flux tube, specifically in an existing plasma, is that the discharge current exceeds the plasmas current carrying capability at that moment in time. Kinda like lightning.

That is ignoring the simple physics again, brantc - lightning happens in a dielectic medium (air).

Identification of a Quasiseperatrix Layer in a Reconnecting Laboratory Magnetoplasma.
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/papers//Lawrence_PhysRevLett_QSL.pdf

Here is a whole gallery of high current discharges in plasma.
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/pages/gallery.html

Wrong again, brantc.
The high current discharges are used to create the plasma by ionizing a gas. This is a common laboratory technique to create plasma.

And you cannot even read captions - non of the gallery images are labeled as electrical discharges through plasma. I suspect that is a case of the "I see bunnies in clouds" logic that we often see from people like you (e.g. Micheal Mozina).

But you have been consistently wrong (deluded?) about both of these sources for quite a while.
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/pages/gallery.html

Over what time frame??
[/qupte]
Over the time frame for charges to move the characteristic length in the plasma: Debye length (I think it is less than a metre for the photosphere).

Plasma on the other hand is an even better conductor than iron some there is less of a chance of structures forming unless there were some sort of high current discharges.

Plasma does form structures without physically impossible high current discharges.
Maybe you know that sunspots exist ?

"Local helioseismology with MDI-SOHO has revealed unexpected aspects of the dynamics of supergranulation as well as wave-speed anomalies and complex flow patterns below sunspots and active regions."
http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/seismo/papers/sicily.pdf

This flow goes right through your physically impossible solid iron surface on the Sun! Though the paper itself does not trace the flows vey deep. You mneed to look at the papers the Micheal Mozina has cited for the measurement of flows that go through both his and your iron surface/crust/thingies

You ignored the points so here they are again:

• your physically impossible solid iron surface on the Sundoes not exist!
• It would be surrounded by a conducting plasma which rules out electrical discharges.
• Electrical discharges have distinctive X-ray emissions that have not been detected.
• There is no difference in electrical potential on your physically impossible solid iron surface on the Sun to create the electrical discharges from point to point on the surface.

Evidence for a solar coronal thick-target hard X-ray source ...

Nice paper. What has it to do with the topic?

 

[Reality Check]

That's simply not correct. If the current flow is strong enough, the plasma will create "current carrying threads" and the conductivity will not be equal everywhere.

That is simply not what ben m stated:

Originally Posted by ben m
Yep. That's why there are no discharges in a plasma. You never create a conducting path; the conductivity is high everywhere already.

He is saying that there can never be an electrical discharge in a plasma because the plasma already has a high conductivity everywhere.

An electrical discharge requires that a conducting path is created for the discharge to follow. If the medium is always conducting then you can never get an electrical discharge. You can get an electrical current, e.g.
The development of coronal electric current systems in active regions and their relation to filaments and flares.

Of course the conductivity in a plasma varies, e.g. according to the ionization and density of the plasma.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course the conductivity in a plasma varies, e.g. according to the ionization and density of the plasma.

Indeed. Discharge happens when the transition in conductivity from non-conducting to conducting is discontinuous. But it's not possible to get such a transition in a plasma, because it's already conducting: the conductivity can vary, but it does so smoothly and continuously.

 

[GeeMack]

Yep. That's why there are no discharges in a plasma. You never create a conducting path; the conductivity is high everywhere already.

That's simply not correct. If the current flow is strong enough, the plasma will create "current carrying threads" and the conductivity will not be equal everywhere.

This has been explained to you perhaps dozens of times. There are no discharges in a plasma. Certainly not if applying the commonly accepted scientific definitions for the words "discharge" and "plasma". It is impossible for discharges, as you seem to want to describe them, to be occurring on the surface of the Sun. You will have to provide an alternate explanation.

 

[tusenfem]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed off-topic comment.

Dear brantc,
I have read your postings now for a long time and it seems to me that you still have a lot to learn about how plasma physics and its application in space works. There are several very good books on this topic: Kivelson & Russell (Introduction to space physics) and Baumjohann & Treumann (Basic space plasma physics), and naturally there is also the book by Peratt (Physics of the plasma universe) and if you want to go to "historic documents" you can read Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma or Cosmical Electrodynamics, however I would refrain from the latter two until you have read more introductory books.

Now, let's look at what you posted about plasmas (in the laboratory and/or in space):

And before you turned on the current to create the plasma there was no current(no discharge).
Then you turned on the electricity and lo and behold there was a discharge. This discharge did not care what the medium of transfer was.
All it cared about was equalizing the charge imbalance.

brantcare you too fixed on currents! There is no need AT ALL for currents in creating natural plasmas. Just heat up the gas enough and ionization will take place. That is the way it works in nature. Or you can have a source of UV radiation near a neutral gas, and the photoionization will kick the electrons from their atoms and in this way it is rather easy to create a plasma. Naturally, you would have to see whether the constraints on what a plasma is are fulfilled, otherwise you just have an (partially) ionized gas and not a plasma. What these conditions are (i.e. when you can talk about a plasma and not just an ionized gas) can be found in the introductory plasma physics books that I quoted above.

It's only in the laboratory that we have to use electrical methods to create a plasma. Like I did in the Alfvén laboratory in Stockholm (whilst Hannes Alfvén was still walking around) in the double plasma machine. A part from my paper on how this machine works:

The experiments are performed with a double-plasma machine which was also used by Lindberg [7,8] (figure I), which consists of a heated cathode chamber (C), in which argon gas is inserted and the plasma is created. Connected to this cathode chamber by a glass tube is a grounded middle chamber (M) to which a vacuum pump is connected and in which a Langmuir
probe is situated, so that the density of the ingoing beam of plasma into the glass tube (G) at the anode side of the middle chamber can be measured. At the end of the glass tube (G) is situated the anode to which we can apply a voltage which causes a DL to be created inside the glass tube.

(in case you cannot obtain this paper then I can send you an electronic copy)

Even without a voltage on the anode, the heated gas in the glass tube could be "lit" by using a "Tesla", then no current, just plasma shining in a pretty pink colour. Then I'd turn on the voltage to create an anode sheath and then increase the voltage in order to transform the sheath into a double layer and place it in the middle of the glass tube. THEN current was flowing, but only AFTER I turned on the voltage.

There was also no "charge imbalance" how can there be, because the gas was ionized from neutral, so there never was a chance to get any charge imbalance.

And along as there was a charge imbalance then everything in the path was subject to electrification.

I have to point out that gramatically this is not a sentence. Maybe you can rewrite this in a clear way so we can discuss this point.

Consider a gas in a chamber with an electrode at each end. You introduce one electron of say 2keV into the chamber. The electron hits an atom and dislodges another electron, you have an ion and 2 free elections. These electrons run around until they thermalize and are recaptured. The last electron runs out of energy and is probably captured by the vessel wall.
If you had an electron with enough energy you could make a plasma with that one electron.

That is one way of creating a plasma, that is correct, the process is happening in luminescent tubes. However, that is not what happens in space, no matter how much you want it to. Then you might want to say, well that is how lightning is working. However, there the path is not created by an electron, but through electrical breakdown of the atmosphere at several MegaVolts per meter electric fields. From Wiki: Electrical breakdown occurs within a gas (or mixture of gases, such as air) when the dielectric strength of the gas(es) is exceeded. Regions of high electrical stress can cause nearby gas to partially ionize and begin conducting.

And its a discharge because that electron is going from the cathode to ground/anode....

Yes, in the laboratory, in space, however (and that is still where the sun is, whether it is an metal ball a la Terella or an actual ball of plasma) things happen differently, compress a gas enough, using the ideal gas law PV=NRT and Saha's equation and then put 1 and 2 together and you find if you compress a gas enough (under gravity for example) the temperature rises and Saha shows you what happens, more and more ionization.

"It is possible to produce a plasma which is not quasineutral. An electron beam, for example, has only negative charges. The density of a non-neutral plasma must generally be very low, or it must be very small, otherwise it will be dissipated by the repulsive electrostatic force."
Wiki

I imagine that its also possible to produce proton plasma....LHC?

There is such a field as the physics of non-neutral plasmas, and it is rather complicated. And yes an electron beam (or a proton beam for that matter, a bit more difficult to produce) can be considered such plasmas. Electron guns usually have strong magnetic fields to bind the electrons so that they don't fly away.

However, I would challenge you to find significantly non-neutral plasmas in space.

I guess you could consider vacuum a medium but I dont. I consider any matter to be the medium and you can measure the K of any medium.

They have some conductivity so all you are really doing is specifying a macroscopic (vs a microscopic) amount of electrons during some condition, a "discharge".

Take capacitors in an audio circuit. Dielectric yet there is a signal in the circuit due to the "field". Everything conducts to some degree...

Yeah, everything conducts, brantc, to some degree and often the degree is zero. I feel that is just a very childish way of getting what you want, without having to really think about the (plasma)physics that is involved in the electrical break down of a isolator.

Where do you think the magnetic field comes from? Go back and read the reconnection thread again. Especially the part about flux transfer events and CLUSTER observations.
Specifically the flux tube forms with a magnetic field following the right hand rule. Then there is a flux transfer event and you are left with the collapsing field around the flux tube which creates a field aligned current flow down the center. A flux tube is. highly dynamic.

Unfortunately you give a very bad description of what an FTE is and I feel you have the wrong impression of how they work and are created. It is not your fault, because usually press releases do not really go into details well enough or dumb the physics down for the general public.

FTEs are something very specific at the Earth's magnetopause, where fluxtube/ropes enter into the Earth's magnetosphere through reconnection processes. It is really quite interesting

In a flux tube there is already field aligned flow or else how would you get the twisted magnetic fields. And then "collapsing field around the flux tube which creates currenst" this is pure and utter drivel.

To anyone who is interested in FTEs please follow this link to ADS.

Now the reason for the formation of a flux tube, specifically in an existing plasma, is that the discharge current exceeds the plasmas current carrying capability at that moment in time. Kinda like lightning.

No, that is not how a flux tube is created. You can find how they are created in books on solar plasma physics. A good book to start would be Kirk, Melrose & Priest Plasma Astrophysics.

If there is a current in a plasma that exceeds the "thermal current" that can be carried by the plasma, then a double layer is formed and NOT a flux tube. This process is nothing like lightning at all, like you claim. And then again, you'd be hard pressed to find an unmagnetized plasma in space, it is rather unclear from your description if you are talking about a magnetized or unmagnetized plasma in which you want to let these currents flow.

Over what time frame?? When you light up a plasma you can see the chamber take a certain amount of time to light up all the plasma, seconds if its big..
Charge imbalance wants to balance at the speed of light. It forms a flux tube to achieve that goal.

Naturally, it CANNOT balance a charge imbalance "at the speed of light" because plasma consists of massive particles which cannot move at the speed of light, but that is only nitpicking. Furthermore, there are specific speeds in plasmas at which signals can be transmitted, most of the time this will be the Alfvén velocity.

This one is of particular interest. Electricity has a speed associated with it. Over large distances, 30000Km, you will get a charge imbalance. The solar surface is constantly discharging electrons and ions into the plasma surrounding the sun. The solar surface has and elevated surface temperature at some points leading to greater emission leading to unbalanced charges at the surface. Plasma on the other hand is an even better conductor than iron some there is less of a chance of structures forming unless there were some sort of high current discharges.
Maunder's Butterfly Diagram is a map of the surface charge imbalance.
Why the pattern? I dont know, nobody knows although I believe it has to do with the way current flows in and around the sun.

This is going much further than we can discuss right now, because I still have the feeling that you have some difficulties with the basics of plasma physics and electrodynamics. Until we have cleared these problems up, we cannot go any further as that will hamper the descriptions that we have to make of the processes happening on the sun. Naturally, we are here for you if you have any specific questions on the topic, don't hesitate to ask.

Looking forward to a good and fruitful (though slightly timelike hampered) discussion.

Best regards
1005

 

[tusenfem]

That's simply not correct. If the current flow is strong enough, the plasma will create "current carrying threads" and the conductivity will not be equal everywhere.

What you are describing here is everything BUT a discharge.
Please read my answer to brantc.
And really Michael, did you ever read any books by Alfvén?
And it would be nice if you gave some examples, like published papers, to support your claims (though I guess the answer will be read Birkelands book).

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is simply not what ben m stated:

He is saying that there can never be an electrical discharge in a plasma because the plasma already has a high conductivity everywhere.

So what? The plasma is no different than a copper wire in that respect. Just because you have SOME current flowing through the wire does not mean it's incapable of conducting a lot more current.

An electrical discharge requires that a conducting path is created for the discharge to follow. If the medium is always conducting then you can never get an electrical discharge. You can get an electrical current, e.g.

Tell that to the last solar flare RC. In plasma those conductive paths form when the conductive plasma forms dense moving "threads" inside the plasma. These threads become the "conductive paths" inside the plasma and the plasma no long UNIFORMLY conducts current. The z=pinched threads become the primary conductors.