• There is a problem with the forum sending notifications via emails. icerat has been informed. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
Please present the definition, and cite the source. I want to see if your memory still serves you. :) Its the part in yellow I'm worried about. :)
Click to expand...
Here you go
Originally Posted by Peratt 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.
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
FYI MM - you are wrong.

Alfven never states that a coronal loop is a circuit. That would be idiotic. A circuit is a conceptual model of wires connecting resistors, inductors, batteries and double layers.
Click to expand...

I don't know why I post anything to this thread. You never read it or respond to it:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6754609&postcount=1722

D. Solar Prominence Circuit. Solar Flares

The circuit consists of a magnetic flux tube above the photosphere and part of photosphere (see Fig. 10). The generator is in the photosphere and is due to a whirl motion in sunspot magnetic field. Generator output increases circuit energy which can be dissipated in two different ways: ( 1 ) When current density surpasses critical value, an exploding DL is produced in which most of the circuit energy is released. This causes a solar flare. Hénoux (1985) has recently given an interesting study of solar flares and concludes that a current disruption by DL's is an appealing explanation of solar flares. (2) Under certain circumstances the electromagnetic pressure of the current loop may produce a motor which gives rise to a rising prominence (Alfvén and Carlqvist, 1967; Carlqvist, 1982b).
Click to expand...

The part in yellow is where the "discharge" occurs.
 
The Man said:
A plasma is a gas. The gas in this case is a dielectric however, a difference you seemed determined not to mention. The only reason there is a “buildup (storage) of” charge is because that gas is a dielectric.
Click to expand...

In THAT particular case, yes, but so what? In the case of flares, a buildup of the circuit energy occurs in the circuit/pinch itself. The release of that energy and the ensuing discharge are a result of the exploding double layer reaching a critical point. The "buildup" is a different process, but the discharge itself is pretty much the same. Once the circuit energy is depleted through the exploding double layer, the discharge is complete.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I don't know why I post anything to this thread. You never read it or respond to it:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6754609&postcount=1722

The part in yellow is where the "discharge" occurs.
Click to expand...
You are lying - I have read that quote many times and responded to it.
As I posted:
Originally Posted by Reality Check
FYI MM - you are wrong.

Alfven never states that a coronal loop is a circuit. That would be idiotic. A circuit is a conceptual model of wires connecting resistors, inductors, batteries and double layers.
Click to expand...
The part in yellow is not Alfven stating that a coronal loop is a circuit.

He is saying that the circuit energy (the model) is released when a DL is created and explodes (the proposed physics).
D. Solar Prominence Circuit. Solar Flares
The circuit consists of a magnetic flux tube above the photosphere and part of photosphere (see Fig. 10). The generator is in the photosphere and is due to a whirl motion in sunspot magnetic field. Generator output increases circuit energy which can be dissipated in two different ways: ( 1 ) When current density surpasses critical value, an exploding DL is produced in which most of the circuit energy is released. This causes a solar flare. Hénoux (1985) has recently given an interesting study of solar flares and concludes that a current disruption by DL's is an appealing explanation of solar flares. (2) Under certain circumstances the electromagnetic pressure of the current loop may produce a motor which gives rise to a rising prominence (Alfvén and Carlqvist, 1967; Carlqvist, 1982b).
Click to expand...
 
Laymen and professionals use the word "discharge in a number of ways:


A battery is said to discharge as it transforms chemical energy into electrical energy.
A capacitor is said to discharge stored electric energy when a circuit is completed.
An inductor is said to discharge stored magnetic energy when the magnetic field collapses (current is turned off).
A charged cloud discharges its stored electrical energy when the insulating nature of air is breached.

There are likely to be more such diverse usages of the word discharge. They all involve a current -- either rapid or slow, depending on the source and conducting medium. Whatever some 50 year old paper or text said about discharges in the sun or solar flairs clearly needs to be precisely defined for any modern conversation to take place.

So Mozina's comment that solar flairs are themselves discharges needs a further definition to be rationally discussed. Has he provided such a definition?
 
The selective ignorance on the part of electric Sun adherents is amazing amusing. The fact that they claim to want a scientific discourse, but steadfastly ignore their responsibility to define the terms they use, demonstrates unequivocally that they don't really want discourse, that they are liars. But if there are any electric Sun proponents who haven't weighed in yet, or for that matter anyone who thinks solar flares are electrical discharges, the claim was...

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


The implication, based on many comments made by electric Sun adherents, is that the "electrical discharge" mentioned is akin to an electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or like sparks in a toy plasma ball. So just for the sake of clarity, is it reasonable to describe the claim as this?...

"A solar flare is an electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball."​


If not, we will accept that the term "electrical discharge" in the claim is not like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball. And then, in order to move forward, the term "electrical discharge", as used in the claim, will need to be defined in an unambiguous objective way.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Laymen and professionals use the word "discharge in a number of ways:
Click to expand...

Yes, but I provided a PROFESSIONAL/PUBLISHED definition and as far as I know, you're all LAYMEN on this topic, just like me. Thus far, when asked, you've run like creationists when asked to present even so much as a published PROFESSIONAL DEFINITION of an electrical discharge to support your claim of a need for a dielectric breakdown for a discharge to occur. I small a rat.

Wake me up when someone FINALLY provides a "published definition" to work with. Right now, all I'm hearing are "back pocket" claims devoid of scientific support.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
The selective ignorance on the part of electric Sun adherents is amazing amusing.
Click to expand...

If you think that's amusing you should be on my side of the aisle watching you dodge that question about the meaning of Peratt's first sentence, not to mention Alfven's use of circuits. I've seen creationists run from direct questions before, but WOW, this is like watching rats running from a sinking ship. Release of stored EM energy? What energy? Published definition of a discharge from us? What definition? Sheesh.
 
Last edited:
I need something to eat now. t, please tell me where things stand and pick one of ALFVEN's papers or books (since I know you have them both), and one or more of his equations and or circuit diagrams to discuss. I want to start with his work, not your work or my work.
 
Michael Mozina said:
If [...][*irrelevant complaint snipped*]
Click to expand...


Okay, one more time...

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


The implication, based on many comments made by electric Sun adherents, is that the "electrical discharge" mentioned is akin to an electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or like sparks in a toy plasma ball. So just for the sake of clarity, is it reasonable to describe the claim as this?...

"A solar flare is an electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball."​

It seems none of the against-the-mainstream claimants are willing to clarify their terms here. And if it's just some random words strung together, it's not even a claim. It's nonsense.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Yes, but I provided a PROFESSIONAL/PUBLISHED definition and as far as I know, you're all LAYMEN on this topic, just like me. Thus far, when asked, you've run like creationists when asked to present even so much as a published PROFESSIONAL DEFINITION of an electrical discharge to support your claim of a need for a dielectric breakdown for a discharge to occur. I small a rat.

Wake me up when someone FINALLY provides a "published definition" to work with. Right now, all I'm hearing are "back pocket" claims devoid of scientific support.
Click to expand...

Why do you want someone else to define a term that is critical to your claim that solar flares are electrical discharges? Just explain what you mean by discharge. Forget about what is published or not; forget about dead discredited people. Just tell us what you mean by electrical discharge when you say that a solar flare is an electrical discharge, and describe the mechanism you have in mind. Can you do that or not? Fess up!
 
Perpetual Student said:
Why do you want someone else to define a term that is critical to your claim that solar flares are electrical discharges? Just explain what you mean by discharge. Forget about what is published or not; forget about dead discredited people. Just tell us what you mean by electrical discharge when you say that a solar flare is an electrical discharge, and describe the mechanism you have in mind. Can you do that or not? Fess up!
Click to expand...


With over 2000 posts in the thread and not a lick of forward motion since the opening post, I'll put $20 on "not".
 
Michael Mozina said:
An electrical discharge in a plasma is the rapid release of stored electromagnetic energy. Whether it's stored in the electric field or the magnetic field, once it's release, it results is a discharge of stored energy. Once the discharge is complete, the process is complete. A flare is such a process. It's a massive release of EM energy into a confined region of plasma.
Click to expand...

If that's your definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma, do you believe that the mainstream solar model is not consistent with it? Does the mainstream model require that flares are powered by neither electricity nor magnetism?
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, you aren't a "hater" in my book, and I'm not complaining about our conversations at all.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I never felt that you put me on the list of "haters."

You did see the word discharge in there with respect to flares however, right?
Click to expand...

As I recall, yes, but what's the relevance?

FYI, I'm not trying to demonstrate a WHOLE ELECTRIC SUN theory out of Dungey's one paper. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that discharges happen in "conductors"!
Click to expand...

For many definitions of "discharge," that's trivially true. For others, it's trivially false. Using Dungey's definition, it's trivially true that discharges happen in conductors. Dungey's paper provided no support for the idea that discharges happen in solar flares.

I'm not trying to suggest Dungey's one paper proves everything by itself about an electric sun
Click to expand...

You complained that nobody addressed Dungey's paper. I feel that I addressed it.

Are you suggesting that the paper proves or even supports anything about the electric sun?

I'm simply noting that discharges occur in plasmas and have been associated with solar flares for 50 or more years!
Click to expand...

What's the relevance of the 50 years?
 
dasmiller said:
Michael Mozina said:
An electrical discharge in a plasma is the rapid release of stored electromagnetic energy. Whether it's stored in the electric field or the magnetic field, once it's release, it results is a discharge of stored energy. Once the discharge is complete, the process is complete. A flare is such a process. It's a massive release of EM energy into a confined region of plasma.
Click to expand...

If that's your definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma, do you believe that the mainstream solar model is not consistent with it? Does the mainstream model require that flares are powered by neither electricity nor magnetism?
Click to expand...


So for purposes of clarifying this claim...

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


... what do we get?

Crank: A solar flare is an electrical discharge.

Skeptic: Define "electrical discharge".

Crank: An electrical discharge is a solar flare.​

When asked to clarify the claim that a solar flare is an electrical discharge, the response is that an electrical discharge, for purposes of the claim, is a solar flare. To address that argument directly: It's raw unadulterated stupid. It's the same evasive dishonest circular illogic that we have been pointing out since this thread was opened. I still have a $20 bill that says this is as good as it will ever get, and that no objective or quantitative support will ever be provided by any electric Sun adherent.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Not me, you. I'm completely fine with a circuit breakdown inside an exploding double layer. You're the one insisting on a dielectric breakdown.
Click to expand...
Wow - so many errors in one post :jaw-dropp!.
  • There is no such thing as a "circuit breakdown".
  • There is no circuit inside a double layer.
    A double layer can be part of a circuit model of a physical situation, e.g. a coronal loop. There is a standard symbol for this (-DL-).
  • The only situation that I insist on a dielectric breakdown is when the definition of electrical breakdown being used includes a dielectric breakdown.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I need something to eat now. t, please tell me where things stand and pick one of ALFVEN's papers or books (since I know you have them both), and one or more of his equations and or circuit diagrams to discuss. I want to start with his work, not your work or my work.
Click to expand...
Who is this addressed to and why should anyone want to discuss Alfven's work in a thread about the electric sun idea?
ETA: Maybe by "t" you mean tusenfem. In that case I suggest that you start a new thread to discuss Alfven's work rather than tainting his reputation with the electric sun pseudoscience.

Alfven did not think that the Sun was powered like a lightbulb as in the electric sun idea.

Alfven did not think that solar flares were caused by electric discharges. He thought that they were caused by exploding double layers. See Solar flares are not caused by electrical discharges.


See the Double Layers in Astrophysics (proceedings from a 1986 workshop). Alfven's keynote address includes
  • Figure 3 (page 22) - a simple circuit with a motor, inductor, generator, resistor and DL.
  • Figure 10 (page 26) - Prominence-solar flare circuit with 2 motors, 2 inductors and a DL.
Alfven's use of electronic circuit models to represent coronal loops is standard plasma physics. Thinking that means the sun is electric would be as ignorant as thinking that electronic circuit models of the economy means that economic is electric.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Alright t, where exactly did we leave off, and what exactly CAN we agree on?

Do you agree that a "discharge" in a plasma is possible, and it is defined as the release of stored EM energy? Do you understand the difference (thanks to The Man) between current and a discharge? Do you agree that a circuit "stores" electromagnetic energy? Do you agree that this stored EM energy can be "released" in a cataclysmic event, Do you agree that stored energy is released in a violent event that is correctly described in Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma? I need to know *EXACTLY* where we stand before we start talking about specific circuit diagrams and I insist that we start with *ALFVEN's* diagrams and maths, not yours.
Click to expand...

The answers to the first questions should be obvious, had you spend some time to really understand what I have been writing all this time.
There is not difference between Alfven's circuit diagrams or mine, I just made use of standard circuit notation. As Alfven never discussed reconnection, he never made a circuit of it, so you cannot use his diagrams.

Michael Mozina said:
FYI The Man,....

I'm not sure why you all feel that it is so damn important for me to reword Dungey or Peratt's sentences for you to all be happy, but if that makes you happy.....
Click to expand...

As long as you cannot explain in your own words what you mean with all these processes then it will never ever be clear to us if you really understand it.
(like "FYI Alfven stored his EM energy in the coronal loop circuit itself." shows that you don't understand the physics, mixing up two viewpoints, one is the plasmaphysics of the coronal loop, one is the circuit representation of this coronal loop. heck it is not even clear what you mean by circuit anymore)

So basically, we have nothing to talk about anymore.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
First of all, I believe that I have already showed a superior understanding of discharges than my detractors by BUSTING THE FALSE CLAIMS made by GM and RC, something nobody else has done from their side of the aisle.

I want to *FIRST* discuss the circuits and topics presented and the materials by *ALFVEN*, not me, and not t. Do you have some problem with that for any particular reason? IMO we all need to learn to walk before we can run.

Do you agree or disagree?
Click to expand...

And so Mikey starts making demands on the next person who moves a little step in his direction, reaching him a hand.

Of course, if he really wanted to discuss Alfven's circuits, he would have done so, ignoring all other posts, and just go on his way to describe and explain what Alfven does.

But, no, it's all about the fight, nothing else. I think it is pathological.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Yes they are. It's just one type of discharge among many types.
Click to expand...

Wow, I went through a how shipload of definitions of discharges in one of my posts, and that was brushed away by MM.

Now we get tot know that are many types of discharges, but I guess it only has merit when MM claims it to be so, being the heir-apparent of Alfven.
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI RC, the coronal loop is a "circuit" according to Alfven. Alfven talks about the "circuit energy", and the release of that energy. What *ELSE* has been shown to emit gamma and x-rays *NATURALLY* here on Earth and other large bodies in the solar system with a magnetic field and an atmosphere?
Click to expand...

No it can be described as a circuit, but the subtleties between the "common speech" use of circuit and the "plasmaphysical speech" use of circuit is lost on you.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The part in yellow is where the "discharge" occurs.
Click to expand...

Here is the whole mathematical section from Cosmic Plasma. Note that Alfvén uses circuit, but from the 0.5 L I2, which does not occur in MHD or plasma physics, it is clear he talks about a circuit representation. Unfortunately, the language is (with many an author, me included) often ambiguous, and one needs to be well versed in the topic, not to let first impressions misguide you.

Alfvén said:
III .8 . Solar Prominence Circuit and Solar Flares
As the Sun is still outside the reach of spacecraft, detailed diagnostics of solar plasmas is impossible, and theories of solar phenomena will necessarily remain speculative, or in any case, unconfirmed by high-quality diagnostics . However, if we combine solar observations with careful extrapolations from regions which have been explored by spacecraft, we may clarify several solar physics problems.

Because of its filamentary structure, we conclude that a solar prominence is due to a current . In the photosphere, there are motions with velocity v, which are sometimes irregular (e .g ., originating from the granulations), and sometimes systematic (e .g ., from whirls around Sun-spots, or from the non-uniform rotation of the Sun) . As the photosphere is magnetized (field = B), its electric voltage V varies from point to point . If a magnetic field line above the photosphere runs between point A to another point B,
the voltage, [latex]V= \int_{A}^{B} {\bf v} \times {\bf B} d{\bf s}[/latex], between A and B is applied to this field line, and may cause an electric current along the field line . The circuit is similar to the auroral circuit, but simpler ; it consists of a magnetic flux tube intersecting the solar surface at two points, and a photospheric or subphotospheric connection between these points .

With v ~ 104 m/s , B = 10-3 T (10 G), given the distance between A and B to be of the order of 108 m, we find V = 109 V. However, if v and B are irregular (vary in a more
or less random way), V could have much smaller values . On the other hand, the values for v and B are by no means extreme . We may put 108 –109 V as typical values . According to Alfven and Carlqvist (1967), the electric current is expected to be 1011 – 1012 A (1010 – 1011 emu), a value which has been confirmed observationally by Moreton and Severny (1968) . The inductance of the circuit is 10 H, and the stored energy is 0.5 LI2 = 1023 joule (1030 erg).

The size of a prominence circuit is comparable to that of the auroral circuit . The currents are much larger, because of the higher e .m.f. and the higher conductivity (the high resistivity of the upper ionosphere is replaced by a low resistivity due to the high temperature) . As in the auroral circuit, a double layer may be produced . The auroral double layer is often rapidly fluctuating, giving rise to the rapid variability of auroral phenomena. The prominence double layer is still more variable ; indeed, it can explode, thus producing solar flares . A theory of solar flares, based on such current disruptions, has been worked out by Carlqvist (1969, 1973) . He has presented a quantitatively consistent theory of solar flares.

Much effort has been spent on attempts to explain solar flares by a magnetic field formalism (a survey of these efforts is given by Heyvaerts (1979)) . For reasons given in Chapter I (see Figure I .4), such an explanation is inadequate . To be more specific, since the boundary conditions are not correctly introduced in the magnetic merging theories of solar flares, these theories cannot explain the rapid concentration of the entire circuit's inductive energy at the point of disruption . On the other hand, there are theories which account for a solar flare as a disruption of a current, but attribute the disruption to instabilities other than exploding double layers . Such theories deserve to be taken seriously .
Click to expand...

However, Foukal & Hinata (1991) write about exploding double layers in their section 4.1.1.2. show the unlikelyhood of one strong exploding double layer. Unfortunately, the paper is a scanned pdf, from which I cannot copy and past, but it is freely available for anyone, and I don't feel like typing a whole section.
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
However, Foukal & Hinata (1991) write about exploding double layers in their section 4.1.1.2. show the unlikelyhood of one strong exploding double layer. Unfortunately, the paper is a scanned pdf, from which I cannot copy and past, but it is freely available for anyone, and I don't feel like typing a whole section.
Click to expand...
Foukal & Hinata (1991) write about exploding double layers in their section 4.1.1.2.

Here and Here

Source Here

edit:
"However, you should also read what they write (which you usually don't)" Just trying to help the discussion along tusenfem. No need to thank me or anything :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Foukal & Hinata (1991) write about exploding double layers in their section 4.1.1.2.

Here and Here

Source Here
Click to expand...

As I also said, they discuss it.
However, you should also read what they write (which you usually don't)

If this potential drop is associated with a double layer, it take place over a distance of several Debye lengths. [snip]
The thickness of a single double layer is far too small to produce an observable emission measure. [snip]
Moreover, such laboratory experiments indicate the formation of multiple unstable double layers. [snip]
If many double layers are formed the total emission measure of electrified plasma might be sufficient to observe.
Click to expand...

So like I say, putting all knowledge together, they come to the conclusion that one single exploding double layer is not what is happening at the sun.
 
Before I try to play catch up today, did *ANYONE* post a PROFESSIONAL/PUBLISHED definition of a discharge that *REQUIRES* a dielectric breakdown, yes or no? If not, I'm not even going to bother today to respond to most of you. Without a *DEFINITION* to work with, you're all full of hot air. t and I have things to discuss. The rest of you OWE ME a *PUBLISHED DEFINITION* of a *DISCHARGE*, that absolutely, positively *REQUIRES* a dielectric breakdown or *INSISTS* that a "discharge" cannot happen in a conductor. You've made two claims, neither of which you've supported. You pulled *BOTH* of them out of you back pocket. You all lied in other words. I'm waiting......
 
By *ALL* I mostly mean GM and RC and *ANYONE ELSE* that *INSISTS* that a dielectric breakdown is an absolute *REQUIREMENT* for a "discharge", or believes that a discharge cannot happen inside of a conductor. Both of those *UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS* are false, and I'm getting off the denial-go-round, even you will not.
 
dasmiller said:
If that's your definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma, do you believe that the mainstream solar model is not consistent with it? Does the mainstream model require that flares are powered by neither electricity nor magnetism?
Click to expand...

Well, I've said all along that "magnetic reconnection' or any transfer of stored magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is in fact a "discharge". IMO "magnetic reconnection" is a stupid title, but the math is otherwise correct, so the only thing I can actually complain about is calling induction "magnetic reconnection". Overall however, it's a minor point IMO. I'd be fine with calling it "electromagnetic reconnection", but it's easier IMO to demonstrate that it is a form of "circuit reconnection" based on Alfven's own work.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Before I try to play catch up today, did *ANYONE* post a PROFESSIONAL/PUBLISHED definition of a discharge that *REQUIRES* a dielectric breakdown, yes or no? If not, I'm not even going to bother today to respond to most of you. Without a *DEFINITION* to work with, you're all full of hot air. t and I have things to discuss. The rest of you OWE ME a *PUBLISHED DEFINITION* of a *DISCHARGE*, that absolutely, positively *REQUIRES* a dielectric breakdown or *INSISTS* that a "discharge" cannot happen in a conductor. You've made two claims, neither of which you've supported. You pulled *BOTH* of them out of you back pocket. You all lied in other words. I'm waiting......
Click to expand...

Why do you want someone else to define a term that is critical to your claim that solar flares are electrical discharges? Just explain what you mean by discharge. Forget about what is published or not; forget about dead discredited people. Just tell us what you mean by electrical discharge when you say that a solar flare is an electrical discharge, and describe the mechanism you have in mind. Can you do that or not? Fess up!
 
Perpetual Student said:
Why do you want someone else to define a term that is critical to your claim that solar flares are electrical discharges?
Click to expand...

I don't. I want to you all to accept the professional, published definition I provided. If not, I expect you to demonstrate all your claims, just like everyone else, with published work. Is that too much to ask?

I'm getting off the denial go round. Do you have any evidence that a dielectric breakdown is an absolute *REQUIREMENT* for a "discharge" to occur, or that discharges cannot occur in a conductor, yes or no? I'm done with denial.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
By *ALL* I mostly mean GM and RC and *ANYONE ELSE* that *INSISTS* that a dielectric breakdown is an absolute *REQUIREMENT* for a "discharge", or believes that a discharge cannot happen inside of a conductor. Both of those *UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS* are false, and I'm getting off the denial-go-round, even you will not.
Click to expand...

We have already amply established that the word "discharge" is used in a variety of ways, not always involving a dielectric breakdown. Why is this still an issue with you? Given the inconsistent usage of this word, how can there be some official definition? Just tell us what you mean by discharge and move on!
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
We have already amply established that he word "discharge" is used in a variety of ways, not always involving a dielectric breakdown. Why is this still an issue with you?
Click to expand...

It's important that we agree upon a *DEFINITION* that is true. I provided a published definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma, just like we are all supposed to do on a science forum. You do recognize this is a science forum not a spiritual forum, right? I expect PUBLISHED SUPPORT of all claims, not just MY claims. Got it?

Given the inconsistent usage of this word, how can there be some official definition? Just tell us what you mean by discharge and move on!
Click to expand...

I have done that with a *PUBLISHED* work. If you will not accept it, you must clearly explain *WHY* you refuse to accept it, and provide a *BETTER* one in terms of science. That means it *MUST BE PUBLISHED*. Got it?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Well, I've said all along that "magnetic reconnection' or any transfer of stored magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is in fact a "discharge". IMO "magnetic reconnection" is a stupid title, but the math is otherwise correct, so the only thing I can actually complain about is calling induction "magnetic reconnection". Overall however, it's a minor point IMO. I'd be fine with calling it "electromagnetic reconnection", but it's easier IMO to demonstrate that it is a form of "circuit reconnection" based on Alfven's own work.
Click to expand...

So if I wave a conducting loop through a magnetic field (as is done in high school physics demonstrations), and create a current (moving electrons), I also have a discharge? How else can I interpret your comment, "any transfer of stored magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is in fact a 'discharge'"?
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's important that we agree upon a *DEFINITION* that is true. I provided a published definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma, just like we are all supposed to do on a science forum. You do recognize this is a science forum not a spiritual forum, right? I expect PUBLISHED SUPPORT of all claims, not just MY claims. Got it?



I have done that with a *PUBLISHED* work. If you will not accept it, you must clearly explain *WHY* you refuse to accept it, and provide a *BETTER* one in terms of science. That means it *MUST BE PUBLISHED*. Got it?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by *PUBLISHED*? If I were to author a paper with some definition of discharge, and *PUBLISH* it, would that now become an official definition for you?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Before I try to play catch up today, did *ANYONE* post a PROFESSIONAL/PUBLISHED definition of a discharge that *REQUIRES* a dielectric breakdown, yes or no? If not, I'm not even going to bother today to respond to most of you.
Click to expand...


Good.

Without a *DEFINITION* to work with, you're all full of hot air.
Click to expand...


The onus of providing the definition is on the crackpots making the claim that a solar flare is an electrical discharge. Having made many attempts to elicit such a definition, and having met with total failure on the part of the crackpots to provide that objective unambiguous definition, it can only rationally be assumed that there is not one. It is dishonest to blame the critics of the crank claims for the crackpots failing to meet their responsibility.

t and I have things to discuss. The rest of you OWE ME a *PUBLISHED DEFINITION* of a *DISCHARGE*, that absolutely, positively *REQUIRES* a dielectric breakdown or *INSISTS* that a "discharge" cannot happen in a conductor.
Click to expand...


Nobody owes anyone anything, the badgering taunting tantrum notwithstanding.

You've made two claims, neither of which you've supported. You pulled *BOTH* of them out of you back pocket. You all lied in other words. I'm waiting......
Click to expand...


The responsibility for defining the terms of this claim...

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


... falls on the cranks making/supporting the claim.

Michael Mozina said:
By *ALL* I mostly mean GM and RC and *ANYONE ELSE* that *INSISTS* that a dielectric breakdown is an absolute *REQUIREMENT* for a "discharge", or believes that a discharge cannot happen inside of a conductor. Both of those *UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS* are false, and I'm getting off the denial-go-round, even you will not.
Click to expand...


Argument by hollering tantrum and total lack of substantive content noted.

But just to allow the cranks to demonstrate that they are willing to engage in a rational discussion, I'll offer this again...


The implication, based on many comments made by electric Sun adherents, is that the "electrical discharge" mentioned is akin to an electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or like sparks in a toy plasma ball. So just for the sake of clarity, is it reasonable to describe the claim as this?...

"A solar flare is an electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball."​

It should be an easy one to answer. Yes, the electrical discharge under discussion is like lightning here on Earth and the sparks in a toy plasma ball, or no, the electrical discharge under discussion is not like lightning on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball.

And this "definition" of an electrical discharge...

Michael Mozina said:
An electrical discharge in a plasma is the rapid release of stored electromagnetic energy. Whether it's stored in the electric field or the magnetic field, once it's release, it results is a discharge of stored energy. Once the discharge is complete, the process is complete. A flare is such a process. It's a massive release of EM energy into a confined region of plasma.
Click to expand...


... is only saying a solar flare is an electrical discharge which is defined as a solar flare. As I mentioned before, it is, as an argument, raw stupid.

Perpetual Student said:
We have already amply established that he word "discharge" is used in a variety of ways, not always involving a dielectric breakdown. Why is this still an issue with you? Given the inconsistent usage of this word, how can there be some official definition? Just tell us what you mean by discharge and move on!
Click to expand...


Hear, hear!
 
Perpetual Student said:
So if I wave a conducting loop through a magnetic field (as is done in high school physics demonstrations), and create a current (moving electrons), I also have a discharge? How else can I interpret your comment, "any transfer of stored magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is in fact a 'discharge'"?
Click to expand...

*IN A PLASMA*, anytime we take *STORED* electromagnetic energy and turn it into particle kinetic energy, it is an "electrical discharge". As The Man explained, the term "discharge" infers a gradual or fast release of that stored energy. In a *PLASMA*, that release is typically 'fast', not "gradual". and it has the effect on the surrounding plasma that Peratt describes in his definition.

Anytime we take 'stored' EM energy and we "discharge" that energy into a plasma we will get "particle kinetic energy' and the effects described by Peratt. Is that clear enough? I am really trying.
 
GeeMack said:
Good.
Click to expand...

When can I expect you to support or rescind your claim that a discharge cannot occur in a plasma, or provide a *PUBLISHED DEFINITION* to support that claim? Denial is an ugly thing. Denying responsibility to support *YOUR OWN* claims is still *DENIAL*.

What does Peratt mean by his first sentence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom