As I have shown there is a different definition of discharge for different authors. Dungey actually says it is just an strong increase of the current in the plasma (wow did we not already have this stupid discussion?)
A discharge is not a "single well defined process." Therefore, I decide not to talk about the D word, but rather talk about the real processes that are happening.
IMO this is like talking about a discharge in the Earth's atmosphere, and claiming you don't want to talk about the discharge process, just the 'real processes' that are happening. Your statement makes no sense IMO.
However, because that would mean that you would actually have to learn plasma physics, which you won't, you keep on insisting on your pet word D,
Peratt used the "pet word" first, which is frankly where I picked it up. Dungey of course used the term 60 years ago, as did Bruce, so Peratt certainly didn't invent the concept. Just because you don't want to discuss discharges in plasma does not mean they don't occur.
which would magically describe a large variety of plasma physical processes, without having to bother about the details.
I don't need to know "all the details" about why discharges emit gamma rays, they just do. It's "probably" related to a "plasma pinch' process, but the fact discharges emit gamma rays is useful information. Not coincidentally, we see gamma rays from the high energy "discharges" in solar flares too.
Therefore I ban the D word.
That sounds suspiciously like a trip down denial lane from where I sit. If it makes you uncomfortable, fine, but you can't 'ban' the concept from discussion or consideration.
So if they are splitting in smaller double layers, then the posited explosion by Alfvén will not happen.
You're right. It will create small offshoots in those instances instead of an explosive event. It depends on the exact conditions of the circuit interruption.
Then please work it out, show us how "a few circuits" and "a few double layers" do it.
It's already been done by Alfven in his double layer paper. What do you need me for? He wrote lots of time about treating magnetic ropes/coronal loops as 'current carrying' circuits. If two of the touch and a double layer forms between them, his double layer paper simply applies. What's the big deal?
Come on, put your money where you mouth is, show how it is done. You won't ofcourse, because you can't.
Um, even assuming that were true, if I can't do QM or GR, should we toss those theories away too?
Just linking to the Onel & Mann paper is not an answer to this direct question, for obvious reasons, which I have stated in another message.
It is a direct answer to your question, it simply treats the process as a form of circuit interruption just as Alfven did, and all they did is add circuit elements as required. You act like it's impossible to add the necessary circuit elements to get a granular enough look at the process, yet you utterly ignore the fact that all your MR "experiments" begin and end with 'charge separation' and "current flow'. Shut off the electricity and the party is over.
I am not stuck on the D word, you keep on bringing it up, without realising that Dungey has a different definition of discharge than the one you agreed upon with Tim from Peratt.
No, not really. Dungey's use of the term in relationship to solar flares and "reconnection" events fits perfectly congruently with Peratt's definition. It's a short, fast release of EM energy.
No, the solar wind is NOT a current, it consists of equal amounts of positive and negative charge (quasi neutral) moving at the same speed, and thus there is NO CURRENT, can you get your electrodynamics straight please?
Read Birkeland's experiments. He *predicted* both positive and negative particles would flow from the sun based on *EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTATION* over 100 years ago. Got an example of magnetic reconnection that produces full sphere solar wind in a lab like Birkeland produced with a 'cathode sun'?
The only current that is there is the heliospheric current sheet, which is driven by the changing direction of the heliospheric magnetic field between the northern and the southern hemisphere, which is only slightly spiral.
Baloney. The whole thing is due to the charge separation between a cathode sun and a relatively positively charged "space". The surface of the sun simply interacts electromagnetically with the heliosphere just as the Earth interacts electromagnetically with it's magnetosphere, producing "spectacular" aurora around both poles.
Who the frak cares about a number? Alfvén stated a few times he did not believe in MRx, scientific experiments and space observations have proved him wrong.
No they haven't. All your MR events require "electricity" to make them work. Not one of them does squat in the absence of electricity in fact. That alone says volumes IMO and it mattered to Alfven as well. From the perspective of mathematics, an E oriented approach is certainly just as valid as any B oriented approach. The longer you try to hide from that reality, the longer you distance yourself from reality and "discharges" in general, but alas that was the point wasn't it?
I can easily round up some examples of completely "natural" electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere that released gamma rays. Got an experiment of an MRx event that emitted any gamma rays? We see gamma rays in some flare events along the footprints of the coronal loops. You're welcome to deny discharges might be responsible for those gamma rays, but I can show a direct cause/effect link between gamma rays and ordinary, common, and *natural* electrical discharges. The Z-machine shows that discharges can generate million degree temps and plenty of x-rays. That's tons more than you can do with "magnetic reconnection" in terms of real cause effect demonstrations.
.
