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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
So I don't CARE if you want to claim that the plasma above your solid surface isn't opaque, it doesn't matter to this argument. You still end up with the solid surface at a temperature of at least 5700 K. Which is, well, not possible.
Click to expand...

It absolutely *does* matter to your argument because by your definition a 6K photophere cannot sit below a 20K chromosphere and neither one of them can sit underneath of a million degree corona.
 
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1958IAUS....6..135D/0000135.000.html

FYI dasmiller, here was that link to Dungey's paper on electrical discharges in solar flares. I won't overwhelm you with papers, let's just go through them one at a time. If you don't like Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma, perhaps this one is more to your liking? Perhaps you're fine with Peratt's definition. Either way, the event can be looked at from the B orientation (magnetic reconnection) or the E orientation (electrical discharge), it really doesn't matter. Both sets of maths work, they just approach it from different orientations. Alfven preferred the "particle' or "circuit" (E) orientation over the B orientation. He systematically rejected the B orientation at "reconnection" points in "current carrying" plasmas in favor of a "circuit" and 'exploding double layer" (aka electrical discharge) orientation. Dungey seems to be the most adept and "going both ways". :) II think you'll like his work.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It absolutely *does* matter to your argument because by your definition a 6K photophere cannot sit below a 20K chromosphere and neither one of them can sit underneath of a million degree corona.
Click to expand...

Well, no. The chromosphere and the corona are observably NOT blackbody radiators. So they don't need to be, and are not, opaque. They're not even close to opaque. All of this has been explained to you before. You lose. Again.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Well, that ionization state (particularly that high), along with gamma and x-rays must be "explained" sooner or later.
Click to expand...

If the ionization state is consistent with the temperature, then the ionization state is simply incidental and we should focus on the temperature rather than ionization.

By "simple", don't you mean you can be "certain" occurs "naturally" around multiple large physical objects in this solar system?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I mean phenomena that can be understood with my less-than-complete understanding of physics. I have only a vague understanding of plasma physics, so I'm not weighing in on those parts.

It's better in one very obvious way. A "large current flow" (which seems to be where we have dumbed it down to) produces a "pinched filament" that can "light up" the filament in many wavelengths all along the filament, much like you see in an ordinary plasma ball. How does the current model explain *ONE* (singular) coronal loop at a million + degrees? What's the heating mechanism if not a "large current flow/discharge" through a pinched filament?
Click to expand...

That's the sort of question I leave to others, and I believe it's been addressed. But if the coronal loop is simply an electric arc between two points on the surface that are somehow sustaining massively different voltages despite the huge current, then why does the loop rise? Are you picturing this as a gigantic Jacob's ladder?

Give me some time today, I've got a lot of "honey do" stuff going on today, but I'll start by rounding up Dungey's paper unless you've already read it, and wish to comment on it.
Click to expand...

I've skimmed it, and my takeaway was different from yours, but I'll take another look.
 
Is there a coherent "electric sun" theory that has been presented since Alfvens ideas were elaborated on by Don Scott in his book "the electric sky", in his rather vague (yet quite novel and plausible) model ?

This was back about 2008 ish.

If not im going to have to be skeptical that the 'electric sun' theory is standing the test of time.
 
Zeuzzz said:
If not im going to have to be skeptical that the 'electric sun' theory is standing the test of time.
Click to expand...


Thing is people seem to use the term "electric sun theory" for numerous completely different theories that happen to involve charge separation.

What model is this thread focusing on? link?
 
Last edited:
Electric Sun and the Photosphere II

Perpetual Student said:
OK, now a I am confused. What is this saying?
Photosphere
The visible surface of the Sun, the photosphere, is the layer below which the Sun becomes opaque to visible light.[47] Above the photosphere visible sunlight is free to propagate into space, and its energy escapes the Sun entirely. The change in opacity is due to the decreasing amount of H− ions, which absorb visible light easily.[47] Conversely, the visible light we see is produced as electrons react with hydrogen atoms to produce H− ions.[48][49] The photosphere is tens to hundreds of kilometers thick, being slightly less opaque than air on Earth. Because the upper part of the photosphere is cooler than the lower part, an image of the Sun appears brighter in the center than on the edge or limb of the solar disk, in a phenomenon known as limb darkening.[47] Sunlight has approximately a black-body spectrum that indicates its temperature is about 6,000 K, interspersed with atomic absorption lines from the tenuous layers above the photosphere. The photosphere has a particle density of ~1023 m[/sup]−3[/sup] (this is about 0.37% of the particle number per volume of Earth's atmosphere at sea level; however, photosphere particles are electrons and protons, so the average particle in air is 58 times as heavy).[44]
Click to expand...
LINK
On the one hand, it says, "the photosphere, is the layer below which the Sun becomes opaque to visible light." On the other hand it says, " (it is) slightly less opaque than air on Earth." Less opaque than air means more transparent than air. not so? So, would that not imply we can see features below the photosphere, as Mozina proposes? (I hate myself for saying this!:mad:)
Click to expand...
Tim Thompson said:
I only have a few minutes before I am off to a family reunion so let me just say this: It is the base of the photosphere and not literally the photosphere itself that is opaque. That happens at a depth of about 400 km, and I have posted extensively on this in the past. Mozina says it happens at a depth of about 4800 km, where we will find a "rigid" surface. So the real bone of contention is the difference between 400 and 4800 km (and of course the insane idea of a "rigid" surface that breaks every law of physics you can think of). We can see the photosphere in projection by looking at the limb of the sun and there is no way you can see to a depth of 4800 km, so direct observation falsifies Mozina's claim. All he can do in response is say "I don't believe that" (ignoring all real observations and all real physics in the process) and appealing to a horribly min-interpreted image (movie) that he does not understand at all. You will have to wait until tonight or tomorrow for more from me, but I am sure somebody else can chime in.
Click to expand...

Having returned from the family reunion and a visit with my 88 year old aunt, allow me to point out that all of this about the opacity of the photosphere is, as one might expect, a recycled conversation. Been there, done that, with Mozina (and others), to no avail.

From 26 Jun 2009 ...
Tim Thompson said:
Michael Mozina said:
The huge problem in your idea is that the photosphere is far too thin to be a "black body" in the first place.
Click to expand...
That is not true. The "thinness" of the plasma is irrelevant. It's the optical depth which determines whether or not the plasma will radiate as a black body. The solar photosphere plasma has an optical depth of 1.0 where it has a mass density of only 2.78x10-7 gm/cm3 (but an electron number density 7.7x1013/cm3 and a hydrogen atom number density 1.2x1017/cm3). An optical depth that high guarantees a black body spectral energy distribution.

It is well known that the emission from the solar photosphere is an approximate black body. It is in fact a superposition of multiple black bodies at multiple temperatures, since we can see emission from throughout the depth of the photosphere. The temperature profile shows 6520 Kelvins at optical depth 1, down to a minimum 4400 Kelvins at optical depth 4x10-4, after which the temperature increases again to 5160 Kelvins at optical depth 5x10-6. The base of the photosphere, about optical depth 24, has a temperature 9400 Kelvins. The region around optical depth 1 contributes most strongly to the black body shape; lower regions of higher optical depth are more opaque, and higher regions of lower optical depth emit less thermal energy. That's why the best fit single temperature black body for the photosphere is about 6000 Kelvins.

I am using the profile given in Solar Astrophysics by Peter V. Foukal (Wiley-VCH, 2004, 2nd edition), page 153. The inversion technique for building the temperature profile is briefly described in section 5.2.2, but far more detailed descriptions & explanations can be found in any book on atmospheric modeling, where inversions are long standing techniques.

The shape of the photosphere SED is well represented in the diagrams on the Wikipedia page for solar radiation. Foukal's book gives far more detailed information for the curious reader.
Click to expand...

In the post above, optical depth is defined such that I = I0 * e-tau where tau is the optical depth (I have probably misused the word here and it should be opacity instead, but this is the way I have used it so I proceed apace to maintain consistency), I0 is the radiation intensity at the source and I is the radiation intensity measured by the observer. So at an optical depth of 24, as I have used it, then the observed light intensity is down by a factor of e24 or 2.65x1010 (that means the observed radiative intensity is 3.78x10-11 of the intensity at the source). That level is about 100 km below the level where the optical depth (tau) = 1. The optical depth itself increases exponentially, so if you go down another 100 km, the optical depth will be at least an order of magnitude greater. As anyone can see, this certainly counts as "opaque" by any physically reasonable standard. The idea that one could see to a depth of 4800 km through such a medium, via electromagnetic radiation, is physically ridiculous.

Also see my posts from the following days, Atmospheric Profile Inversion Techniques, and Re: Validity of plasma properties & inversion techniques, which give references to the validity of the techniques used to derive atmospheric profiles from the observations. These methods, especially limb sounding, have been heavily validated in our own atmosphere, where in situ measurements are used to verify the inversions. Other relevant posts from the same time frame are Optical Depth, Solid Surface and Photosphere, Solid Surface and Photosphere II, 171 Angstroms & the Solar Transition Region, and 171 Angstroms & the Solar Photosphere & Chromosphere. All of these posts date from the same time period, June & July 2009, about 18 months ago. And here we are going over the same old thing again like it never happened. An endless loop.

We visit the same topic again in the spring of 2010: Photospheric Opacity and Photospheric Opacity and Composition. And from the summer of 2010: Solar Black Body Emission.

Bottom Line: There is no physical justification for the idea that the photosphere is transparent or translucent beyond a depth of approximately 100 km below the level where the optical depth (as I have defined it here) is equal to one.
 
Solar "Electrical Discharges" I

Michael Mozina said:
I'll be happy to exclude/include (depending on how you want to see it) you too Tim if you're willing to accept that discharges happen in plasma and you agree to *SOME* definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma. At least then we'll have a place to begin. I think tusenfem and I can communicate, maybe you and I can do that too. Do you accept either Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma or Dungey's definition?
Click to expand...

First, allow me to reference my own previous comments on this point:
Tim Thompson said:
As we have seen in the last several pages, and especially the very informative post 1441 from tusenfem, what the words "electric discharge" actually means seem to be user dependent. It would appear that Mozina wishes to limit the meaning to the phrase "An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy" ignoring everything else. I have always argued that electrical discharges were impossible in a plasma, but then I always simply assumed that the words meant what everybody would naturally expect them to mean in a colloquial sense, the catastrophic reunion of separated charges across a breakdown potential (lightning, for instance). Only now, after so many years, has Mozina actually defined those words and only now do I (we) realize that the colloquial meaning is not what he had in mind (or at least not what he has in mind now).

It seems to me that whether or not one wishes to call the hot plasma an "electrical discharge" is not really the point. It is certainly a poor choice of words, designed to generate confusion in the absence of a constantly repeated definition. But the real issue is the physics that underlies the words. What physically is really happening is the point. This is where Mozina runs into the brick wall of physics and catastrophically fails the test. He rejects magnetic reconnection in favor of exploding double layers, even though physics rejects the latter in favor of the former. He rejects the frozen flux approximation for magnetic fields in a plasma even though physics requires it. These two points are the most fundamental and critical points in this entire discussion. Everything in the physics of coronal heating, coronal loops, flares & CME's stems from these two critical concepts (with some thermodynamics & radiative transfer thrown in, but they don't yet seem to be points of contention).

As long as Mozina rejects these two critical concepts of physics, magnetic reconnection and the frozen flux approximation, then this discussion and all other similar discussions everywhere are doomed at once to become infinite loops of the same thing over & over & over & over again, ad infinitum, as has become the case for this discussion. Quite simply it's Mozina vs. physics, and I choose physics over Mozina every time.
Click to expand...

See tusenfem's post 1441, linked above, where we find tusenfem quoting you quoting Peratt: "An electric 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" and tusenfem comments, "I note the MM just highlights magnetic energy, whereas, as usual, he forgets about the rest of the text."

Now, to answer your question, I do not think that the definition you present is Peratt's definition, I think it is your own definition; certainly a variation on Peratt's, but sufficiently restricted to count as your own interpretation and therefore your own definition. I would not use that definition on the grounds that it is overly general, and I reject it. I require a breakdown of a potential barrier to qualify as an electrical discharge. Therefore I continue to maintain that, by my definition, "electrical discharges" are impossible in a plasma. However, I am cognizant of the fact that by your specific definition of "electrical discharge" ("An electric discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy.") then "electrical discharges" do occur in a plasma. But I maintain that, whether or not I (or anyone else) "accepts" your definition of "electrical discharge" is in fact not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not you use your own chosen definition in a physically reasonable and self consistent manner. That said I will further maintain that you do not use your own definition in a physically reasonable or self consistent manner, and therefore it is fair to say that you yourself reject what you have come to call "Peratt's definition" (which is in fact your own definition).

You fail to use your own definition in a self consistent manner because, as you say, the release of "magnetic stored energy" counts as an "electrical discharge". While there is a unified science of electromagnetism, this should not be construed to imply that "electrical" and "magnetic" are indistinguishable. The release of magnetic stored energy simply is not electrical so it is not self consistent to call it "electrical". And you do not use your own definition in a physically reasonable way because you want flares to be generated by exploding double layers in a physical environment that is not conducive to the generation of plasma double layers (although I defer to the expertise of tusenfem who's PhD research is on the specific topic of plasma double layers). You also reject magnetic reconnection, which definitely happens in real laboratory plasmas, and which definitely counts as the release of stored magnetic energy, and is therefore an "electrical discharge" by your definition (though not by mine).

Bottom Line: It all really boils down to what I said before and quoted above, that it does not really matter how one wishes to define the words "electrical discharge"; as long as we talk about that we simply avoid the real issue altogether. The real issue is simply this: What is (are) the physical process(es) of energy release that trigger flares & CME's? You (Mozina) say magnetic induction & exploding double layers. Physics, on the other hand, says mostly magnetic reconnection, with some magnetic induction, magnetic buoyancy and rarely (if ever) exploding double layers. As long as this difference lasts, we are at an impasse between Mozina & physics. It's just that simple.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Give me a break! Of course it does. How did that plasma get so hot anywhere near an "opaque" 6K surface? What could possibly do that *BESIDES* a "discharge" in a *SINGLE* coronal loop, besides current flow that PINCHES the thread and ionizes the elements in the thread?
Click to expand...

And as usual the important point just goes right over your head.
The plasma in the loop is already ionized otherwise it would not be a plasma. Further ionization of e.g. Fe to a level of 20+ (from say a level 5+) is not a break down of the medium and inherently the properties do not change, like in the case of a neutral gas, where the medium goes from non-conducting neutral to a state of conducting ionized. That is a break down of the medium.

The currents flowing in the loop, as I told you, are heating up the plasma through the plasma's resistivity (either by particle-particle or particle-wave interactions) and the more current you drive through it the hotter it will become (up to a certain level, naturally).

Now, from your discussion, it is clear that you want to use the very loose definition of discharge, i.e. that it is just a strong current through a gas. I think it is a ridiculous definition for a discharge, but I guess we have to live with that. Then you come up with a pinch (naturally), and that just increases the current density and as the dissipation goes with the magnitude of the current density, then naturally the heating and the further ionization of the plasma (if possible) will be stronger.

Michael Mozina said:
So you're claiming they are a million degree *INSIDE* of that "opaque" material?
Click to expand...

No, dumbhead, that is not what I wrote. The Fe will be ionized in the Sun proper (otherwise it cannot rise with the magnetic field, because it would not stick, basic plasma physics thank you very much). It will have something like 5+ or so (humble estimate, not necessarily correct) and then through the heating of the plasma by the current be ionized further quite possibly to 20+.

Really. I am trying hard to keep this a pleasant conversation, but if you don't even read accurately what I write down, than it is getting real hard to keep this pleasant. So, read carefully what I write, think about it, look it up in your books or on the web and then maybe answer me.

Michael Mozina said:
Notice that lightning/electrical discharges emit gamma rays in the Earth atmosphere, so it's likely that "discharges" are also responsible for gamma rays from flares too.
Click to expand...

Yes and tha annihilation of matter-antimatter can create gamma rays too. Just because on thing happens at one place immediately means that it also happens in another place.

Question: from what region do the gamma rays originate in solar flared?

Michael Mozina said:
Yes it does. It changes the TEMPERATURE of that "gas" to very high temperatures as the z-machine has demonstrated on MANY occasions.
Click to expand...

Have I ever claimed anything else? yadayadayada

Michael Mozina said:
It doesn't matter to me which definition you prefer, I"m fine, as long as we can all agree on what a "discharge" in a plasma is.
Click to expand...

Oh bejeweled blizz, you hop from one definition to another, one time you want to have a current as a discharge and then you want a one line cut out from Peratt as a discharge.
 
Tim Thompson said:
Having returned from the family reunion and a visit with my 88 year old aunt, allow me to point out that all of this about the opacity of the photosphere is, as one might expect, a recycled conversation. Been there, done that, with Mozina (and others), to no avail.

From 26 Jun 2009 ...


In the post above, optical depth is defined such that I = I0 * e-tau where tau is the optical depth (I have probably misused the word here and it should be opacity instead, but this is the way I have used it so I proceed apace to maintain consistency), I0 is the radiation intensity at the source and I is the radiation intensity measured by the observer. So at an optical depth of 24, as I have used it, then the observed light intensity is down by a factor of e24 or 2.65x1010 (that means the observed radiative intensity is 3.78x10-11 of the intensity at the source). That level is about 100 km below the level where the optical depth (tau) = 1. The optical depth itself increases exponentially, so if you go down another 100 km, the optical depth will be at least an order of magnitude greater. As anyone can see, this certainly counts as "opaque" by any physically reasonable standard. The idea that one could see to a depth of 4800 km through such a medium, via electromagnetic radiation, is physically ridiculous.

Also see my posts from the following days, Atmospheric Profile Inversion Techniques, and Re: Validity of plasma properties & inversion techniques, which give references to the validity of the techniques used to derive atmospheric profiles from the observations. These methods, especially limb sounding, have been heavily validated in our own atmosphere, where in situ measurements are used to verify the inversions. Other relevant posts from the same time frame are Optical Depth, Solid Surface and Photosphere, Solid Surface and Photosphere II, 171 Angstroms & the Solar Transition Region, and 171 Angstroms & the Solar Photosphere & Chromosphere. All of these posts date from the same time period, June & July 2009, about 18 months ago. And here we are going over the same old thing again like it never happened. An endless loop.

We visit the same topic again in the spring of 2010: Photospheric Opacity and Photospheric Opacity and Composition. And from the summer of 2010: Solar Black Body Emission.

Bottom Line: There is no physical justification for the idea that the photosphere is transparent or translucent beyond a depth of approximately 100 km below the level where the optical depth (as I have defined it here) is equal to one.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, actually I know for a fact he told me the truth in that quote because we both agreed on that point actually. The discussion then became about what held those mass flows in such persistent angular shapes, and there was no resolution to that difference of opinion.
Click to expand...
This is what he stated:
In a recent email from Dr. Kosovichev, he explained these features in the following quote:
"The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.
We know this from the simultaneous measurements of solar magnetic field, made by SOHO. These are not solid structures which would not have mass flows that we see.
These images are Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A.
The Doppler shift measures the velocity of mass motions along the line of sight. The darker areas show the motions towards us, and light areas show flows from us. These are not cliffs or anything like this. The movie frames are the running differences of the Doppler shift. For the illustration purpose, the sunquake signal is enhanced by increasing its amplitude by a factor 4."
Click to expand...
There can be no difference of opionion about the cause of the "mass flows" as I have emphasised.
If you think that there are solid nickel structures in the images then you are wrong.

Michael Mozina said:
Ya. How is it relevant in terms of what we see in the image?
Click to expand...
Because your debunked idea about an iron surface/crust is not a debunked idea about a nickel surface/crust.
 
Where are Peratt's many pages on electrical discharges within plasma

Michael Mozina said:
I understand how it's "defined", I just don't agree with it, much like RC and GM seem to DENY the definition provided by Peratt of a discharge in a plasma.
Click to expand...
You cannot disagree with a defintion. The defintion of the photosphere is the layer where light escapes from a star. By defintion no light can come from under a photosphere.

What you are takiing about is the "mozisphere" which is the physically impossible layer where light magically gets through 4800 kilometers of plasma.

You are in denial that Peratt defines electrical dischargesw using 2 sentences. These together are the usual defintion that involves the breakdown os a dielectric medium.

You remain ignorant that in section 1.5 Peratt never discusses electrical discharges within plasmas.
1.5. Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
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.
Click to expand...

The page never mentions electrical discharges inside plasmas. The closest to that is the section title above. It does mention
  • the generation of particle beams, X-rays and microwaves
  • lightning is noted as "the discharge mechanism at work"!
  • aurora
Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
First asked 7 December 2010
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
Well screw my nipple nuts and send me to Alaska.

My PhD supervisor already calculated this in 1990, Flaring interactions between accretion disk and neutron star magnetosphere, Aly, J. J.; Kuijpers, J., Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 227, no. 2, Jan. 1990, p. 473-482. This paper was the basis for my paper on flares near black holes.
Click to expand...
Wow - that is close to my first thought when I read the news article: neutron star -> strong magnetic field -> lots of energy available for magnetic reconnection -> really energetic electrons and positrons emitted from the star. Add in the magnetic field of the nebula and you get gamma ray bursts.
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
And as usual the important point just goes right over your head.
The plasma in the loop is already ionized otherwise it would not be a plasma.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that. :) It's a question of HOW MUCH current flow, and how HIGHLY ionized the plasma then becomes due to that current flow. The whole definition of an electrical discharge BEGINS in a plasma.

Further ionization of e.g. Fe to a level of 20+ (from say a level 5+) is not a break down of the medium and inherently the properties do not change, like in the case of a neutral gas, where the medium goes from non-conducting neutral to a state of conducting ionized. That is a break down of the medium.
Click to expand...

Ya, but we are not discussing discharges through a GAS, now are we? Some "greater" concentration of "current flow' is going to be required in order to explain multi-million degree plasmas anywhere near an "opaque" 6K surface.

The currents flowing in the loop, as I told you, are heating up the plasma through the plasma's resistivity (either by particle-particle or particle-wave interactions) and the more current you drive through it the hotter it will become (up to a certain level, naturally).
Click to expand...

Great. We are in total agreement on that point. It's all a function of the pinch and current flowing through the pinched filament.

Now, from your discussion, it is clear that you want to use the very loose definition of discharge, i.e. that it is just a strong current through a gas.
Click to expand...

No, I'm looking for *ANY* definition of an "electrical discharge" in a "plasma" (already ionized gasses) so we can discuss Dungey's paper, and get on with it. If you insist on deviating from a relatively 'standard" definition from the realm of plasma physics, well, I guess I'll have to live with it, so long as we can *MOVE ON* in the conversation.

I think it is a ridiculous definition for a discharge, but I guess we have to live with that.
Click to expand...

I think it's utterly ridiculous you're arguing with a plasma physicist too, but then you reject Alfven's work too I suppose, or at least some of it. Even still, this is simply a "definition" of a discharge in a plasma. Unless one believe it's impossible to release EM energy into a plasma, it's must occur.

Then you come up with a pinch (naturally), and that just increases the current density and as the dissipation goes with the magnitude of the current density, then naturally the heating and the further ionization of the plasma (if possible) will be stronger.
Click to expand...

I am pleased that we seem to be in fundamental agreement on that point. It will help the conversation move along.

No, dumbhead, that is not what I wrote.
Click to expand...

:) I love how you guys get a free pass to attack the individual, whereas I get whole week off for calling someone a "crackpot". :) That's really amusing actually. Do you really think comments like that are going to help us communicate logically, or do you figure that is likely to elicit a more "emotional" response?

The Fe will be ionized in the Sun proper (otherwise it cannot rise with the magnetic field, because it would not stick, basic plasma physics thank you very much). It will have something like 5+ or so (humble estimate, not necessarily correct) and then through the heating of the plasma by the current be ionized further quite possibly to 20+.
Click to expand...

But then fundamentally we are talking about the "intersection" of two "discharges" at the point of "reconnection". It's not simply a "magnetic" process, it's an *ELECTRO*magnetic reconnection process.

Really. I am trying hard to keep this a pleasant conversation,
Click to expand...

Like the dumbhead comment? ;)

but if you don't even read accurately what I write down, than it is getting real hard to keep this pleasant. So, read carefully what I write, think about it, look it up in your books or on the web and then maybe answer me.
Click to expand...

You need to chill out a bit. FYI, I'm typically responding to these posts between tech calls at work, I'm responding to LOTS of individuals and sometimes I do in fact misread things from time to time because (drum roll please) "I'm human".

Yes and tha annihilation of matter-antimatter can create gamma rays too. Just because on thing happens at one place immediately means that it also happens in another place.
Click to expand...

Ya, but we already know that "discharges" produce them. We know "discharges" occur around every large body in the solar system with an atmosphere and a magnetic field and the sun has both. Why do we need to go looking for anything particularly exotic when we already KNOW a "natural' source of such photons in our *OWN* atmosphere?

Question: from what region do the gamma rays originate in solar flared?
Click to expand...

No doubt at the "base' of the loops where the "discharge" process heats plasma to millions of degrees.

Oh bejeweled blizz, you hop from one definition to another, one time you want to have a current as a discharge and then you want a one line cut out from Peratt as a discharge.
Click to expand...

Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma is clear, it's concise, and it's perfectly congruent with Dungey's use of the term. Why do we need to deny a perfectly good definition of a discharge in a plasma again? Oh ya, to protect *IGNORANCE* spewed by a couple of clueless individuals.

You and I seem to be able to communicate. Let's just focus on moving forward and I'll just ignore the ignorant for awhile, ok?

Alfven referred to these "pinched" filaments as "circuits", so what would be an appropriate term for two 'circuits" reconnecting and some change in topology between those two circuits?
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Wow - that is close to my first thought when I read the news article: neutron star -> strong magnetic field -> lots of energy available for magnetic reconnection -> really energetic electrons and positrons emitted from the star. Add in the magnetic field of the nebula and you get gamma ray bursts.
Click to expand...

I think Oliver wouldn't mind me posting his recent email comments on that neutron star since he sent that particular email to a list, not just to me personally:

Dear friends,

Dr. Al Church of the MITRE Federally Funded Research and Development Centers kindly send this copy of a new paper in Science Express: "Gamma-Ray Flares from the Crab Nebula"

The one hundred and sixty-eight (168) authors are listed alphabetically, beginning with A. A. Abdo, a National Research Council Research Associate, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC 20001, resident at Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375, USA.

The 168 authors represent NAS and fifty-four (54) other top-flight research institutions world-wide.

The new paper concludes, "The Crab Nebula is powered by the central neutron star which acts as a DC unipolar inductor and a source of an AC striped wind".

Proponents of the Electric Universe may be pleased. Neutron repulsion was overlooked.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

PS - We now have authoritative, government, consensus opinions on global warming, oscillating solar neutrinos, and energetic neutron stars!
Click to expand...
 
Michael, Peratt's definition requires a breakdown of a medium. In plasma, what is the medium and how does it breakdown?
 
Tim Thompson said:
Now, to answer your question, I do not think that the definition you present is Peratt's definition,
Click to expand...

I've quoted the him from his book, and I've cited the WHOLE definition several times. If you don't like the one his gave, how about you personally provide one that you can live with, and that is consistent with Dungey's use of the term, so we can discuss those "discharges" he describes in flares and we can discuss those gamma rays.

I'm open in terms of tweaking the overall definition if you feel it's necessary for some reason, but IMO Peratt's definition is excellent and I see no reason not to use it. What exactly *IS* your objection, *ACCEPTING* the fact that we are already describing "plasma" in and around "flares".
 
D'rok said:
Michael, Peratt's definition requires a breakdown of a medium. In plasma, what is the medium and how does it breakdown?
Click to expand...
False. The *DEFINITION* begin *IN* a plasma.

FYI, plasmas are typically not 100% ionized. They are usually "dusty" and/or they include non ionized atoms in them. The ionization around a "discharge" is typically "far in excess" of the plasma around that region, but the "discharge" proces occurs is a partially ionized plasma.
 
Michael Mozina said:
False.
Click to expand...
True.

Peratt said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Anyone who has not studied the requisite physics and does not have the required mathematical skills has no standing in this or any other discussion about solar physics.
But -- we all know that! From Martin Gardner's book, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science:

1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.
2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").
3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.
4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.
5.He coins neologisms.

Anyone come to mind?
 
D'rok said:
True.
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

If we were talking about a "gas" that "breakdown" he describes *WOULD BE* a dialectic breakdown. Since we are *already talking about a plasma*, the breakdown he describes is the type of "breakdown" that Alfven describes as an exploding double layer. That Mercury switch example is an example he *OFTEN* sites. Since it's already a "plasma", it doesn't require a dialectic breakdown of a NON plasma. That may of course happen as result of the discharge. In other words "gasses" embedded in the plasma may in fact "breakdown" and become ionized too, but that is *NOT* a requirement *IN* an existing plasma!
 
Perpetual Student said:
Anyone who has not studied the requisite physics and does not have the required mathematical skills has no standing in this or any other discussion about solar physics.
Click to expand...

Since you haven't read Cosmic Plasma, or Peratt's book, nor have you commented on Alfven's use of circuits, that lets you out of the discussion.

1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.
Click to expand...

Er, I'm no genius, I just "read"! Alfven won the Nobel, not me.

2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both.
Click to expand...

The only individuals I consider stupid and/or dishonest are the *HATER* of electric universe theory that never bothered to read the appropriate materials but still fancy themselves as smarter than the guy with the Nobel.

3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.
Click to expand...

Nope. EU/PC theory predates little old me by a hundred + years. It's not me against the world, it's the mainstream vs. other competing ideas, one of which I personal find more compelling than mainstream theory.

4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.
Click to expand...

But of course I love Einstein's work when it's not Kludged with stuff he never wrote about. You're the one attacking Alfven's work, the guy with the Nobel prize *WITHOUT* ever citing a single flaw in that work!

Your list clearly doesn't apply to me since PC theory isn't even MY theory in the first place and I'm citing *PREVIOUS AUTHORS*, not MYSELF. Ooops?
 
Michael Mozina said:
If we were talking about a "gas" that "breakdown" he describes *WOULD BE* a dialectic breakdown. Since we are *already talking about a plasma*, the breakdown he describes is the type of "breakdown" that Alfven describes as an exploding double layer. That Mercury switch example is an example he *OFTEN* sites. Since it's already a "plasma", it doesn't require a dialectic breakdown of a NON plasma. That may of course happen as result of the discharge. In other words "gasses" embedded in the plasma may in fact "breakdown" and become ionized too, but that is *NOT* a requirement *IN* an existing plasma!
Click to expand...
Tusenfem, who knows a thing or two about double layers, says you are wrong. You sound like you are just making crap up by combining jargon into a series of non sequiturs based on your own bizarre thought process and according to whatever it is that you think that jargon will do for your cause.

Sorry, but I think I'll stick to the plasma physicist's explanation. Suprisingly, it is quite easy to understand, even for a layperson like me. A layperson like you should be able to understand it too. Sadly, this seems not to be the case.
 
Michael Mozina said:
If we were talking about a "gas" that "breakdown" he describes *WOULD BE* a dialectic breakdown. Since we are *already talking about a plasma*, the breakdown he describes is the type of "breakdown" that Alfven describes as an exploding double layer. That Mercury switch example is an example he *OFTEN* sites. Since it's already a "plasma", it doesn't require a dialectic breakdown of a NON plasma. That may of course happen as result of the discharge. In other words "gasses" embedded in the plasma may in fact "breakdown" and become ionized too, but that is *NOT* a requirement *IN* an existing plasma!
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is talking about a dialectic breakdown.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I've quoted the him from his book, and I've cited the WHOLE definition several times. If you don't like the one his gave, how about you personally provide one that you can live with, and that is consistent with Dungey's use of the term, so we can discuss those "discharges" he describes in flares and we can discuss those gamma rays.
Click to expand...


So electrical discharges, according to the electric Sun proponents, are not like lightning here on Earth or the sparkles in a toy plasma ball as they have claimed in the past. Redefining terms is, of course, dishonest.
 
GeeMack said:
So electrical discharges, according to the electric Sun proponents, are not like lightning here on Earth or the sparkles in a toy plasma ball as they have claimed in the past. Redefining terms is, of course, dishonest.
Click to expand...

Speaking of dishonest behaviors, did you *EVER* intend to explain what Alfven meant by a "circuit" in reference to coronal loops?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Yes, I understand that. :) It's a question of HOW MUCH current flow, and how HIGHLY ionized the plasma then becomes due to that current flow. The whole definition of an electrical discharge BEGINS in a plasma.
Click to expand...

No apparently you do not understand as we can see of the next comment of yours.

Then please give the full definition of discharge that you are going to use from now on. Because in my view the plasma is a product of a discharge not the start.

Michael Mozina said:
Ya, but we are not discussing discharges through a GAS, now are we? Some "greater" concentration of "current flow' is going to be required in order to explain multi-million degree plasmas anywhere near an "opaque" 6K surface.
Click to expand...

No, we are talking about a current through a plasma, where there is no (Peratt's comment) break down of the medium. Just more ionization does not make a break down of the medium, that happens when it goes from non-conducting neutral to conducting ionized.

The heating part is discussed by me.

Michael Mozina said:
Great. We are in total agreement on that point. It's all a function of the pinch and current flowing through the pinched filament.
Click to expand...

There is no need to go and discuss pinches here. Also without pinches (look at those loops do they look pinched? I think not) will an increased current heat the plasma more.

Michael Mozina said:
No, I'm looking for *ANY* definition of an "electrical discharge" in a "plasma" (already ionized gasses) so we can discuss Dungey's paper, and get on with it. If you insist on deviating from a relatively 'standard" definition from the realm of plasma physics, well, I guess I'll have to live with it, so long as we can *MOVE ON* in the conversation.
Click to expand...

No, I am on solid ground, no one at this time will define a discharge as Dungey did it approximately 40 years ago. And actually it is just a word, that has absolutely no influence on what Dungey presented. He says discharge and then also says what he means: a strong current in a plasma. That is enough to discuss the Dungey paper. You have to use the definition in context, I can read the paper with the stingent definition of discharge, and that will get me nowhere. So, start discussing Dungey's paper, but then please start with paper 1 on which the comment was written to which Dungey replied again. Otherwise the discussion is useless, because we don't know the starting point of the discussion.

Michael Mozina said:
I think it's utterly ridiculous you're arguing with a plasma physicist too, but then you reject Alfven's work too I suppose, or at least some of it. Even still, this is simply a "definition" of a discharge in a plasma. Unless one believe it's impossible to release EM energy into a plasma, it's must occur.
Click to expand...

Well, I also disagreed with Duncan Bryant on the definition of a double layer and particle acceleration, so what. I do not reject Alfven, I do reject some of the things he claims because they have been shown to be incorrect (but that is not the point here). I think the definition is ridiculous, but for reading the Dungey paper I will have to accept that he calls a strong current through a plasma a discharge, otherwise I will not be able to understand what he is writing about. So from your comments I see you want to use the idea that a discharge is "a current in a plasma." I could live with that, if you would just have the balls to make a stand and say, I think it is this, which you will not do.

Michael Mozina said:
tusenfem said:
The Fe will be ionized in the Sun proper (otherwise it cannot rise with the magnetic field, because it would not stick, basic plasma physics thank you very much). It will have something like 5+ or so (humble estimate, not necessarily correct) and then through the heating of the plasma by the current be ionized further quite possibly to 20+.
Click to expand...
But then fundamentally we are talking about the "intersection" of two "discharges" at the point of "reconnection". It's not simply a "magnetic" process, it's an *ELECTRO*magnetic reconnection process.
Click to expand...

No we are not talking about an intersection of anything. I am talking about one loop, through which a current is driven and where further ionization takes place of the species that are present. There is nothing about reconnection going on here. I am just driving a current through a loop, point, nothing more, and have the plasma heated.

Michael Mozina said:
You need to chill out a bit. FYI, I'm typically responding to these posts between tech calls at work, I'm responding to LOTS of individuals and sometimes I do in fact misread things from time to time because (drum roll please) "I'm human".
Click to expand...

So, you think I have nothing else to do? You don't think that I am working hard every day? Maybe you should discuss less topics at the same time. Maybe you should ignore most of the post and spend more time thinking about stuff and trying to find out if it has merit and actually do a real discussion of a paper. You want to be the amateur plasma astrophysicist, and thus you have to put some effort in it.

Michael Mozina said:
Ya, but we already know that "discharges" produce them. We know "discharges" occur around every large body in the solar system with an atmosphere and a magnetic field and the sun has both. Why do we need to go looking for anything particularly exotic when we already KNOW a "natural' source of such photons in our *OWN* atmosphere?

No doubt at the "base' of the loops where the "discharge" process heats plasma to millions of degrees.
Click to expand...

Most of the X and gamma radiation is emitted by the footpoints, yes, where e.g. the electrons enter the Sun again and bremsstrahlung is emitted.

We don't know that discharges produce them, because we apparently don't know what a discharge is in this case. What I see there is a plasma filled magnetic tube that exits the Sun, and which through intial conditions and through footpoint shear, carries a current that gets increased in strength through an electromotive force. If the current gets too strong, i.e. if the drift velocity of the particles get greater than the thermal velocity an instability will start in the plasma (Buneman instability) and possible double layers can be created and we can get highly accelerated electrons and ions. So, that is all we need to know, we don't need to call this a discharge, it has no purpou


Michael Mozina said:
Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma is clear, it's concise, and it's perfectly congruent with Dungey's use of the term. Why do we need to deny a perfectly good definition of a discharge in a plasma again? Oh ya, to protect *IGNORANCE* spewed by a couple of clueless individuals.

You and I seem to be able to communicate. Let's just focus on moving forward and I'll just ignore the ignorant for awhile, ok?

Alfven referred to these "pinched" filaments as "circuits", so what would be an appropriate term for two 'circuits" reconnecting and some change in topology between those two circuits?
Click to expand...

Okay, then Peratt's complete definition of a discharge including the general break down of the medium. But then we will get into the discussoin of what break down is. (yet another ten pages or so)

Alfven called everything a circuit, there need not be a pinch, forget about that because that is just making things more complicated.

Well, for one thing you cannot describe reconnection in such a way, because the currents do not follow the cables that Alfven is defining, i.e. they no longer flow along the magnetic field. Near the region where it gets interesting, i.e. near the X line in the ion diffusion region, the Hall currents flow perpendicular to the magnetic field. But be my guest, build up your circuit model and then show how it works and show how it explains the data that Runov et al. (2003) measured with the 4 spacecraft Cluster mission. Now that's a starting point for discussions.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I think Oliver wouldn't mind me posting his recent email comments on that neutron star since he sent that particular email to a list, not just to me personally:
Click to expand...
"The Crab Nebula is powered by the central neutron star which acts as a DC unipolar inductor and a source of an AC striped wind".
One sentence from a paper's conclusion?
This hints at quote mining since there is no mention of this in the abstract.
Gamma-Ray Flares from the Crab Nebula
A young and energetic pulsar powers the well-known Crab Nebula. Here, we describe two separate gamma-ray (photon energy > 100 MeV) flares from this source detected by the Large Area Telescope on board the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The first flare occurred in February 2009 and lasted approximately 16 days. The second flare was detected in September 2010 and lasted approximately 4 days. During these outbursts, the gamma-ray flux from the nebula increased by factors of four and six, respectively. The brevity of the flares implies that the gamma rays were emitted via synchrotron radiation from PeV (1015 eV) electrons in a region smaller than 1.4 × 10–2 pc. These are the highest-energy particles that can be associated with a discrete astronomical source, and they pose challenges to particle acceleration theory.
Click to expand...
This is nothing to do with the Electric Universe fantasy since it is not cosmology - it is astrophysics (unipolar inductor).
 
D'rok said:
Tusenfem, who knows a thing or two about double layers, says you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Does he? It seems as though he and I are both comfortable with the terms "discharge" in a plasma at this point. What does tusenfem mean by that which is somehow different from my position?

You sound like you are just making crap up by combining jargon into a series of non sequiturs based on your own bizarre thought process and according to whatever it is that you think that jargon will do for your cause.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? I'm simply quoting Peratt about a definition of a discharge *IN* (yes, he uses the term *IN*) plasma. It's a darn simple definition too. It's only GM and RC that seem to *INSIST* that it is magically impossible to inject a plasma with additional energy via induction, etc.

Sorry, but I think I'll stick to the plasma physicist's explanation. Suprisingly, it is quite easy to understand, even for a layperson like me.
Click to expand...

Evidently not as *EASY* as you think if you think a dielectric breakdown is the same as a 'breakdown' in a plasma. A "breakdown" can occur for the reasons that Alfven outlines in his exploding double layer paper which *NO ONE* has ever commented on!

A layperson like you should be able to understand it too. Sadly, this seems not to be the case.
Click to expand...

You can and do understand it too. I think you're too worried about hurting other people's feelings. Dungey spoke of electrical discharges in reference to flares. Unless you think Dungey was less knowledgeable than GM about solar physics and plasma physics, I'd suggest you go with Dungey and ignore GM and RC.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Speaking of dishonest behaviors, did you *EVER* intend to explain what Alfven meant by a "circuit" in reference to coronal loops?
Click to expand...
Speaking of ignorance: what Alfven meant by a circuit in reference to coronal loops is the modeling of them as collections of electronic components such as resistors and inductors.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Does he? It seems as though he and I are both comfortable with the terms "discharge" in a plasma at this point. What does tusenfem mean by that which is somehow different from my position?
Click to expand...

tusenfem said:
So from your comments I see you want to use the idea that a discharge is "a current in a plasma." I could live with that, if you would just have the balls to make a stand and say, I think it is this, which you will not do.
Click to expand...


So given the agreement with tusenfem, and accepting the definition of an electrical discharge as simply "a current in a plasma" without the breakdown of a dielectric medium and the spark jumping and such, all that nonsense about solar flares being electrical discharges analogous to lightning here on Earth and sparks in a toy plasma ball was wrong.

And now we can discard that "sorta like lightning" and that stupid plasma ball analogy and amend the wording of the claim to be...

Michael Mozina said:
For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge a current in a plasma.
Click to expand...


Dam. Post #1635. Took long enough to get this far. Hope we don't have to listen to as many electric Sun proponents' arguments by lying, arguments from ignorance, various other logical fallacies, and more of that shifting the burden of proof dishonesty before a bit of quantitative objective support starts to come for that claim. It will also require making some quantitative objective distinction between all the currents in a plasma that exist all over the surface of the Sun as compared to those described as a solar flare which *IS* a current in a plasma.
 
Peratt and Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

As the whole section dealing with Electical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma is negligibly small in Peratt's book, I decided to copy it whole, to see what actually is said in that section.

Peratt said:
1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
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 detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiatiοη.

As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microωανes. Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m3 . This energy is the n
transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, via a transmission line. The discharge region, or load, encompαsses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiation (Figure 1 .2).

On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electrostatic energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.

The aurora is a discharge caused by the bombardment of atoms in the upper atmosphere by 1–20 keV electrons and 200 keV ions spirιlling down the earth's magnetic field lines at high latitudes . Here, the electric field accelerating the charged particles derιves from plasma moving across the earth's dipole magnetic field lines many earth radii into the magnetosphere. The potential energy generated by the ρlasma mοtion is fed to the upper atmοsphere by multi-megaampere Birkeland currents (Chαρter 2) that comprίse a transmission line, 50,000 kilometers in length, as theγ flow into and out of the discharge regions at the polar horm(Figure 1 .5). The generator region may encompass 1012 - 1013 km3 while the total discharge volume can be 109 -1010 km3 . The stored or generated and radiated energies and powers versus linear dimension (approximately, the cube root of the volume) of several cosmic plasma discharge objects are shown in Figure 1.19.
Click to expand...

That is the whole section. So, basically, Peratt does not discuss any discharges in cosmic plasma as defined in the first paragraph in this section. He basically discusses currents driven in a plasma through an EMF. The only real discharge he discusses shortly is lightning.

To call the aurora a discharge (something that Alfvén also did) makes sense only if you define a discharge as a current in a plasma. (and then we will forget about his dubious explanation of how these Birkeland currents are created and the comments about the polar horn where these currents should flow, this is hardly up to date with modern knowledge about magnetospheric physics).

Searching further in the book, you find the term discharge in the Schoenherr Whirl stabilisation (2.5.7) but that does not really add to anything in our understanding of the term, except that Peratt says a high current discharge.

Then we get already to 4.6.1 surface discharges, where there actually find the following:

Peratt said:
Surface discharges are produced by large electric fields that develop between the surface and subsurface layers in dielectric materials as a consequence of energetic charged-particle deposition. For example, when spacecraft dielectrics are exposed to bursts of kiloelectronvolt particles during magnetic substorms, the particles penetrate a few micrometers to a few millimeters, building up field strengths which may be of the order of hundreds of kilovolts per centimeter .
Click to expand...

and then there are two possibilities, (semi)conductors

Peratt said:
If the material is a conductor or a semiconductor, a conduction current will flow in response to the charge deposition and will effectively neutralize the field.
Click to expand...

or it is a insulator:

Peratt said:
If the material is an insulator, the space charge will build up at a rate faster than the local relaxation time, and the associated electric field will increase . When the field reaches a critical value that depends on the material, surface
smoothness, and porosity, a surface discharge will occur.
Click to expand...

So, in (semi)conductors there is just a current flow taking away the charge difference, but in a insulator something drastic can happen, a break down of the material, and the a discharge happens.

Then it moves to plasma gun arc discharges which also works with a breakdown of the gas.

Then something about Io's volcanic plumes:

Peratt said:
While an exact calculation of the breakdown field associated with a volcanic arc discharge requires precise knowledge about the region where the breakdown occurs2
2Comparison of the side-on penumbra morphology (Figures 4.20 and 4.22) to the side-on plume morphology (Figure 4 .26) suggests that the location of the electrical discharge may be well below the surface of lo.
Click to expand...

And the latter would make more sense, after reading the discussion about surface discharges earlier in the book (not shown here).

Then discharges creating double layers, where there is plasma created by a discharge.

Then discharges and synchrotron radiation in Z pinches, were discharge merely stands for high current.

So, basically Peratt is rather inconsequent in his usage of discharge, as it can either mean the discharging of a stored charge in a capacitor like situation in a circuit, or it can be a discharge with break down.

Okay, desparate housewives start, so time to stop.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Excuse me? I'm simply quoting Peratt about a definition of a discharge *IN* (yes, he uses the term *IN*) plasma. It's a darn simple definition too. It's only GM and RC that seem to *INSIST* that it is magically impossible to inject a plasma with additional energy via induction, etc.
Click to expand...
Excuse me but you are wrong (see tusenfem's post).
Peratt uses the title (not definition) "Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma" and then goes onto define an electrical discharge as:
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 detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.
Click to expand...

He never defines what an electrical discharge *IN* a plasma is in that section.
The text of that section never mentions electrical discharges *WITHIN* a plasma.
The text of that section is about electrical discharges that can create plasma, e.g. lightning.

You are lying: I have never stated that it is impossible to "inject a plasma with additional energy via induction, etc". I am not aware that GeeMack has ever stated this.

What is impossible is that solar flares are powered by induction. The time scales required for this rule it out as has been pointed out to you.
Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection V by Tim Thompson
Now consider this from me, in the post Magnetic Reconnection Redux VII, dated 17 January 2010:

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
Why not induction?
Now, Mozina insists that what we are really seeing is induction. Is this a reasonable assertion? At the level of real physics it appears to be unrealistic. We know that induction is invariably constrained (or unconstrained) by the characteristic diffusion time for the magnetic field in a given environment. Remember that in the process of induction, the magnetic field move with respect to the charged particles, and it is that relative motion between field & particle that determines the transfer of energy from the magnetic field to the particles. Let me quote once again from Priest & Forbes, this time from section 1.1 ("The Origins of Reconnection Theory"), pages 6-7: "For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 105 km is of the order of 106 yrs. Typically, phenomena like the solar flare and the substorm require a significant fraction of the stored magnetic energy to be converted within a few Alfven time-scales. Such rapid time-scales are easily achieved in ideal MHD processes, but not in non-ideal ones. Although ideal MHD processes can release energy quickly, they rarely release a significant amount because of the topological constraints which exist in the absence of dissipation. In contrast, magnetic reconnection is not topologically constrained, and therefore it can release much greater amounts of energy (Kivelson and Russell, 1995)."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



In about a week it will be a year of you not understanding
  1. Solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona in a period of 100 seconds.
  2. Induction would take a million years to release the energy of a solar flare for the global length scale of 100,000 km.
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
That is the whole section. So, basically, Peratt does not discuss any discharges in cosmic plasma as defined in the first paragraph in this section.
Click to expand...

Man, I have seen denial in a debate before, but never this bad, never in such numbers, and never to the exclusion of common sense and logic to this sort of an extreme.

Peratt's whole paragraph is a "definition" of an "electrical discharge* *IN* a plasma. It relates *TO* plasma. It's all *ABOUT* plasma. It's *ENTIRELY* consistent with Dungey's use of an "electrical discharge IN a plasma.

I guess the whole problem is that the moment you agree to Peratt's definition the debate is over. You'd rather live in pure denial of a "definition", and Dungey's consistent use of that very same term. Wow!

FYI, the IRS made *REALLY* bizarre payroll changes this year and since I sell an accounting program, it effects many hundreds (thousands?) of my payroll users. The updates are financially lucrative, but exhausting and time consuming. I'm not going to waste much more of my breath around here until we can all agree that:

A) electrical discharges occur in plasma
B) Dungey and others wrote about them
C) They have been associated with flares by Dungey and other authors.

Is anyone here willing to step beyond denial and have a rational conversation on this topic? Right now this conversation is simply not worth my time.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
So given the agreement with tusenfem, and accepting the definition of an electrical discharge as simply "a current in a plasma" without the breakdown of a dielectric medium and the spark jumping and such, all that nonsense about solar flares being electrical discharges analogous to lightning here on Earth and sparks in a toy plasma ball was wrong.
Click to expand...

Er, no. EU haters keep lying about the actual words that Dungey and Peratt used. They argue from pure and extreme ignorance of the material and never comment on it more than to handwave at it. They argue with nothing but logical fallacies, specifically ad homs galore, and they shift the burden of proof whenever they feel like it. All the while they refuse to read the materials, or at least rationally respond to the materials like Calqvist's use of circuits. They refuse to deal with the discharge aspects of any of the materials or even *ACKNOWLEDGE* Dungey's *USE* of the term 'electrical discharge in a plasma. The whole thing is argument by pure denial. EU haters are exactly like haters of evolutionary theory. They argue from exactly the same place, (ignorance) and with exactly the same primary defense mechanism, AKA *DENIAL*.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom