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

The Man · Jan 22, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Hmmm. Well, yes, but... We do sort of end up at that "which came first" question, the current or the magnetic field. Yes however, the "pinch" is produced by the magnetic field around the current.

No we don’t because the question wasn’t "which came first", it was specifically “What force or forces “evacuates the area around the filament” and confines the current to that reduced cross sectional area?”.

Michael Mozina said:
In terms of the how part, there are two kinds of energy "stored/contained" inside and around the filament, the particle kinetic energy moving through and in the filament, and the magnetic field energy around the filament. Both types of energy are "contained" (probably a better word) within that moving "circuit". The one part of this issue that through me for a loop for a bit was the concept of "moving circuits". The filament acts as a wire, but it's a moving flowing wire that has it's own kinetic energy that has to be accounted for, not simply the magnetic field pinching the filament.

So again kinetic energy and magnetic field energy, where is the electrical energy or electrical field energy? How and where is that stored? How and where is it released?

Kinetic energy is generally not considered to be “stored”, potential energy is. However, kinetic energy can be redirected by the application of a force. How does the redirection of kinetic energy fit with your discharge as a release of stored EM energy? What force or forces redirects this “particle kinetic energy”.

Michael Mozina said:
I will try to round up Wheatland's paper again for you so we can discuss where the circuits begin, but suffice to say they must begin far under the surface of the photosphere, and must be deeply embedded in the photosphere. They are highly energized as they pierce the surface. If we're going to stick to standard theory, I suppose it's possible they could extend to the core for all I know. I personally don't thing they extend more than 4800KM into the photosphere however.

Where they begin is irrelevant to how and were they store the energy as well as how and to where that stored energy is released. For all you know there is no energy that is stored and just kinetic energy is redirected, so it doesn’t seem that you do know.

Michael Mozina said:
Keep in mind that at times I'm simply explaining Alfven's theory in a "matter of fact" manner.

Keep in mind that you claimed to be able to explain. So you should be able to do so in just your own words even if what you simply quote form Alfven doesn't.

Michael Mozina said:
Not at all. I happily round you up some other papers to look through later today.

Be prepared to demonstrate that you understand those papers and in particular their relevance by explaining them in your own words.

Michael Mozina said:
Well, again, there is electron particle kinetic energy flowing through the filament, there is ion kinetic energy within the filament, there is heat stored in the filament, and there is a magnetic field pinching the whole thing together that stores energy. The term "circuit" also has exploratory value IMO because it allows us to describe these events in a standard electrical engineering fashion, and that is in fact exactly what Alfven did.

OK, so “electron particle kinetic energy” with “ion kinetic energy” which would give you some average kinetic energy represented by temperature. Along with the “magnetic field pinching the whole thing together that stores energy”. Again where is the electrical energy or electrical field energy? How and where is that stored? How and where is it released?

“standard electrical engineering fashion” involves components with values and includes how energy is both used and stored by such components, not the simple and ubiquitous assertion of “The term "circuit"”. Again the simple term "circuit" that you have equated to a solar flare or coronal loop has no probative or exploratory value. How and where your EM energy is stored in that "circuit", how it is released and where it is released to from that "circuit" does. I am still waiting for you to demonstrate that you can “describe these events in a standard electrical engineering fashion”.

Michael Mozina said:
There's heat as well, but we could just treat that as particle kinetic energy. Keep in mind that as long as the current flows, the magnetic field energy remains 'stored'. The moment the current is disrupted, but whole energy contained in the loop, both particle kinetic energy and magnetic field energy will "explode".

Actually we have to treat temperature as a measure of the average kinetic energy, because that’s what it is by definition.

Well you’ve still only got kinetic energy that can be redirected by some force and energy stored in the magnetic field. Again where is the electrical energy or electrical field energy? How and where is that stored? How and where is it released?

Also if the magnetic field is acting to pinch the filament then some of that energy is not stored but transferred to kinetic energy in the particles confining them to a smaller cross-sectional area.

Michael Mozina said:
Ultimately, yes.

So how does that redirect the kinetic energy of the particles?

Michael Mozina said:
It is transferred via induction (explosively) to the surrounding plasma.

So the discharge, the solar flare and the redirection of the kinetic energy of the particles is driven by the collapse of the magnetic field once the current is interrupted by the pinching due to the magnetic field. Again where exactly are any electrical fields storing and releasing energy in any of this. It seems more like you’re trying to develop a magnetic model for solar flares and the sun rather then an electric one.

Tim Thompson · Jan 23, 2011

Comments on Magnetic Reconnection IV

Zeuzzz said:
What is your understanding on the physical effects of magnetic reconnection? (not field lines, topologies, magnetic energy, etc. Although these are fine models to attempt to explain properties of the field what testable real world effects does it produce and with what reconnection rate?)

You are asking me to describe magnetic reconnection without reference to physics. It might be possible to do so with considerable linguistic exertions, but I cannot imagine what the value of such an exercise could possibly be. Unless you alter your unreasonable list of conditions I cannot respond.

Tim Thompson · Jan 23, 2011

Magnetic Reconnection Redux XV

Michael Mozina said:
I agree that both Alfven's "circuit" orientation and "reconnection" maths work on paper, but at the level of physics, IMO it's "induction" doing the work.

I need to know what you think you mean by saying that the "maths work on paper" (the likes of which you have said many times). Does this mean only that the mathematics of magnetic reconnection is self consistent? Or does it carry the broader and more effective meaning that one usually associates with mathematical physics, namely that predictions made using the mathematics will correctly anticipate the results of physical experiments?

Why do you think induction rather than reconnection is at work? Consider from just over a year ago (Magnetic Reconnection Redux V, 30 December 2009) ...

Tim Thompson said:
Reference the book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Eric Priest & Terry Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Magnetic reconnection is not induction. ...

The conversion of magnetic energy into a current always operates on a time-scale characteristic of the system, and that time scale is controlled by the ability of the magnetic field to move through the conductor, in order to create a dB/dt term from which the current is generated. That time-scale in a plasma is rather different than it is for a fixed conductor. Here we find the real deal once again in Priest & Forbes:

"In space physics the distinction between ideal and non-ideal processes is important because simple estimates imply that magnetic dissipation acts on a time-scale which is many orders of magnitude slower than the observed time-scale of dynamic phenomena. 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."
Priest & Forbes, page 6

Can you point out specific errors in what is said here?

tusenfem · Jan 23, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ASTRA...3...29S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670..841S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PhyS...65..185F
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...532..616W

IMO the last paper by Wheatland is the most interesting because it shows that the loops are highly energized as they exit the surface of the photosphere. The rest are links to other references that I have used/referred to earlier in this thread.

You may have missed it but about 1400 posts ago (on page 25) I actually discussed the Wheatland paper. You never really commented on my discussion, not that I care.

So, how about actually discussing the papers that you link to, what do you think is important, what should we learn from the papers that you link to?

Really I could just say to you: "Read Melrose, Instabilities in Space and Laboratory Plasmas."

Michael Mozina · Jan 23, 2011

The Man said:
No we don’t because the question wasn’t "which came first", it was specifically “What force or forces “evacuates the area around the filament” and confines the current to that reduced cross sectional area?”.

Ok.

So again kinetic energy and magnetic field energy, where is the electrical energy or electrical field energy?

Well, personally I'd say it's about 4800KM under the surface of the photosphere, but in standard theory, it could be ANYWHERE under the surface of the photosphere, but according to Wheatland it would necessarily need to be pretty deep into the photosphere.

How and where is that stored?

According to Alfven it was more like it was "generated" by the rotation of the plasma somewhere the conductive zone, and the release was related to a convection pattern change. In Birkeland's terella experiments, the discharge took place at the physical surface of the sphere. In both cases it would probably be more accurate to say the energy was "routed" to specific locations and guided by the elecromagnetic field arrangements inside the sun.

How and where is it released?

It's released via induction to come other "circuit". Keep in mind there are virtually an unlimited number of individualized threads/circuits running through not only coronal loops,but also from the surface of the photosphere (and deeper) out to the heliosphere.

Kinetic energy is generally not considered to be “stored”, potential energy is. However, kinetic energy can be redirected by the application of a force. How does the redirection of kinetic energy fit with your discharge as a release of stored EM energy? What force or forces redirects this “particle kinetic energy”.

As the filament itself "breaks down", that "stable flow" isn't connected to anything specific anymore, and that kinetic energy free to "induct/flow" into any other surrounding circuit or into no specific "circuit" at all. It could (and sometimes does) simply blow out into space as a CME.

Where they begin is irrelevant to how and were they store the energy as well as how and to where that stored energy is released. For all you know there is no energy that is stored and just kinetic energy is redirected, so it doesn’t seem that you do know.

I would say that there magnetic field energy stored in the field itself, and there is also particle kinetic energy that is redirected, particularly when two of them "reconnect".

Keep in mind that you claimed to be able to explain. So you should be able to do so in just your own words even if what you simply quote form Alfven doesn't.

I'll do my best to do so and THEN quote Alfven. That seems to be your preferred method of communication and it's the one I'm most comfortable with as well.

Be prepared to demonstrate that you understand those papers and in particular their relevance by explaining them in your own words.

Okey Dokey.

OK, so “electron particle kinetic energy” with “ion kinetic energy” which would give you some average kinetic energy represented by temperature.

Hmmm. Can it be represented strictly by temperature when it's highly focused and directionalized (is that even a word?) like that? It seems to me that the high temperature acts to increase resistance since it's not as inclined to "go with the flow" and that movement of the particle is likely to be more "random' based on photon emission patterns from inside the ions themselves.

Along with the “magnetic field pinching the whole thing together that stores energy”. Again where is the electrical energy or electrical field energy? How and where is that stored? How and where is it released?

It's released because the circuit is broken and it has to go somewhere. The electric field is "variable" at the smallest levels, but overall the sun acts as a cathode with respect to the heliosphere. Alfven's model was more of a "outward flow" from everywhere around the sun except at the poles. He used the term unipolar inductor. In his model "most" of the sun acts as a cathode with respect to the heliosphere, whereas in Birkeland's model, that is also true at the poles.

“standard electrical engineering fashion” involves components with values and includes how energy is both used and stored by such components, not the simple and ubiquitous assertion of “The term "circuit"”. Again the simple term "circuit" that you have equated to a solar flare or coronal loop has no probative or exploratory value.

The term itself may not, but then we have to get into the physical mechanics of how it works, (like a tornado) and how that redirection of kinetic and magnetic field energy is release from the filament.

How and where your EM energy is stored in that "circuit", how it is released and where it is released to from that "circuit" does.

I agree. The devil is in the details.

I am still waiting for you to demonstrate that you can “describe these events in a standard electrical engineering fashion”.

I'll try, but I'll admit right now, you're likely to be more of an "expert" on this part of this discussion than I am sooner or later. You certainly have a better background (much like Aflven) than I have on electrical engineering. Feel free to correct me when you feel it's appropriate, I won't take it personally.

Actually we have to treat temperature as a measure of the average kinetic energy, because that’s what it is by definition.

Ok. I guess the only thing I'm concerned about is that the higher the temperature, the more likely it is that the ion will be emitting higher energy photons that are more likely to have an 'equal by opposite" effect on the ion, and is likely to be more 'random' than the "current/particle flow" itself.

Well you’ve still only got kinetic energy that can be redirected by some force and energy stored in the magnetic field.

Alright.

Again where is the electrical energy or electrical field energy? How and where is that stored? How and where is it released?

I think the most appropriate answers are that the core itself acts as the ultimate "generator", albeit only due to upwelling plasma that rotates into "currents", or due to "currents" coming directly from the core. The current flow is variable at the local level, but the "source" is technically pretty stable in terms of total energy output.

Also if the magnetic field is acting to pinch the filament then some of that energy is not stored but transferred to kinetic energy in the particles confining them to a smaller cross-sectional area.

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it.

So how does that redirect the kinetic energy of the particles?

Once the circuit is broken, the particle flow where the will, and that will depend on local conditions in and near that particular particle, not necessarily the rest of the circuit.

So the discharge, the solar flare and the redirection of the kinetic energy of the particles is driven by the collapse of the magnetic field once the current is interrupted by the pinching due to the magnetic field.

Yes!

Again where exactly are any electrical fields storing and releasing energy in any of this. It seems more like you’re trying to develop a magnetic model for solar flares and the sun rather then an electric one.

Again, I think it might be prudent for us to think in terms of a stable electric field somewhere inside the core of the sun, and a "variable" condition in the solar atmosphere. I don't think it will necessarily be easy to explain where the strong current come from in Alfven's model, whereas in Birkeland's model, it would probably be related to the outside dense material somewhere under the photosphere. The dense material could be a heavier plasma, or a solid crust in Birkeland's model. In a solid crust scenario, that variation is likely to be related to volcanic surface activity. In a dense plasma model, or in Alfven's model, it's likely to be related to a convection pattern that follows that "guiding center' magnetic field line until becomes extremely powerful. A change in the convection pattern would change the electric field somewhere in the photosphere and the release of energy would come from under the surface of the photosphere, not just above that surface.

That does lead us to a few "predictions" of pretty much all electric solar model that are "different from' standard solar theory. There is no "transition region" required in an "electric sun" theory of coronal loops/circuits. The could be (and probably must be) highly energized even as the reach the surface of the photosphere and should become visible *IMMEDIATELY* upon exiting the photosphere, not somewhere higher in the atmosphere.

GeeMack · Jan 23, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
That does lead us to a few "predictions" of pretty much all electric solar model that are "different from' standard solar theory. There is no "transition region" required in an "electric sun" theory of coronal loops/circuits.

Then the electric Sun conjecture is falsified because there is a transition region as measured by contemporary solar research. So, as has been demonstrated many, many times, the claim has failed.

The Man · Jan 23, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Ok.

Well, personally I'd guess it's about 4800KM under the surface of the photosphere, but in standard theory, it could be ANYWHERE under the surface of the photosphere, but according to Wheatland it would necessarily need to be pretty deep into the photosphere.

What “standard theory” is this? What does your personal guessing have to do with this “standard theory”, unless that is this “standard theory” you are reffering to? So you don’t really know where it is or how is stores energy. What even makes you think it is an electrical field?

Michael Mozina said:
According to Alfven it was more like it was "generated" by the rotation of the plasma in somewhere the conductive zone. In Birkeland's terella experiments, it took place at the physical surface of the sphere. In both cases it would probably be more accurate to say the energy was "routed" to specific locations and guided by the magnetic field arrangements inside the sun.

What “conductive zone”? What generates an electrical field? Why do you think it would be “more accurate” to say anything that you have said above as it is evidently mere speculation and very poor speculation at that?

So even though you're claiming electrical fields “about 4800KM under the surface of the photosphere” your energy is still “"routed" to specific locations” by “magnetic field arrangements inside the sun”?

Are you claiming that there is no stored electrical energy or energy stored in electrical fields in this consideration?

Michael Mozina said:
It's released via induction to come other "circuit". Keep in mind there are virtually an unlimited number of individualized threads/circuits running through not only coronal loops,but also from the surface of the photosphere (and deeper) out to the heliosphere.

“to come other "circuit".” ? Do you mean to ‘become another “circuit”’? If that is the case and as it was already in a “circuit” before, that doesn’t make your EM energy ‘release’ very meaningful as it is now just ‘stored’ in another one of your “circuits”.

Michael Mozina said:
As the filament itself "breaks down", that "stable flow" isn't connected to anything specific anymore, and that kinetic energy free to "induct/flow" into any other surrounding circuit or into no specific "circuit" at all. It could (and sometimes does) simply blow out into space as a CME.

What ‘thing’ “specific” was that "stable flow" connected to before and why?

Michael Mozina said:
I would say that there magnetic field energy stored in the field itself, and there is also particle kinetic energy that is redirected, particularly when two of them "reconnect".

Two of what "reconnect"? So again are you claiming that there is no stored and released electrical energy in this consideration?

Michael Mozina said:
I'll do my best to do so and THEN quote Alfven. That seems to be your preferred method of communication and it's the one I'm most comfortable with as well.

You can quote Mickey Mouse for all I care, I’m only interested in seeing that you actually understand the subjects being discussed and I’m still not seeing it. Certainly not in whatever you think that mass of baseless speculation and loose association you just posited was.

Michael Mozina said:
Okey Dokey.

Hmmm. Can it be represented strictly by temperature when it's highly focused and directionalized (is that even a word?) like that? It seems to me that the high temperature acts to increase resistance since it's not as inclined to "go with the flow" and that movement of the particle is likely to be more "random' based on photon emission patterns from inside the ions themselves.

Very good, the temperature represents the random kinetic energy of the particles when you "go with the flow" or more specifically in a reference frame that is co-moving with the current. I had thought about making that specific caveat after I had made the post but decided only to address it if someone else thought to bring it up. Glad to see that it was you.

Michael Mozina said:
It's released because the circuit is broken and it has to go somewhere. The electric field is "variable" at the smallest levels, but overall the sun acts as a cathode with respect to the heliosphere. Alfven's model was more of a "outward flow" from everywhere around the sun except at the poles. He used the term unipolar inductor. In his model "most" of the sun acts as a cathode with respect to the heliosphere, whereas in Birkeland's model, that is also true at the poles.

Why what drives the current after the circuit is broken? What was driving it in that original circuit? What “specific” ‘thing’ was it being driven to and why?

The “smallest levels” are those that are insignificant.

Please define (in your own words) a “cathode” and what you think it means to be a “cathode with respect to the heliosphere”.

Michael Mozina said:
The term itself may not, but then we have to get into the physical mechanics of how it works, (like a tornado) and how that redirection of kinetic and magnetic field energy is release from the filament.

I agree. The devil is in the details.

Which is what I was saying. Looks like you got some details in electronics and basic electromechanical theory to learn.

Michael Mozina said:
I'll try, but I'll admit right now, you're likely to be more of an "expert" on this part of this discussion than I am sooner or later. You certainly have a better background (much like Aflven) than I have on electrical engineering. Feel free to correct me when you feel it's appropriate, I won't take it personally.

I’m trying to but what is there to correct in just baseless speculation other then to tell you it is just baseless speculation. Also I noted before your explanation didn’t include any electrical fields storing or releasing energy in any way and now you simply speculated that it is somewhere below the photosphere and “"variable" at the smallest levels”. Your own explanation doesn’t give the electrical part of EM any definitive or significantly contributory role in your release of EM energy.

Michael Mozina said:
Ok. I guess the only thing I'm concerned about is that the higher the temperature, the more likely it is that the ion will be emitting higher energy photons that are more likely to have an 'equal by opposite" effect on the ion, and is likely to be more 'random' than the "current/particle flow" itself.

Basically the higher the temperature the more random collisions there will be between particles in that reference frame that “goes with the flow” of the current. Also the pinch effect will reduce overall volume thus increasing the temperature (and average number of collisions) even with no change in thermal energy.

Michael Mozina said:
Alright.

So now your not interested in electrical energy being store and/or released?

Michael Mozina said:
I think the most appropriate answers are that the core itself acts as the ultimate "generator", albeit only due to upwelling plasma that rotates into "currents", or due to "currents" coming directly from the core. The current flow is variable at the local level, but the "source" is technically pretty stable in terms of total energy output.

Well of course, a nuclear powered "generator" that generates convection currents in the, well, convective zone just below the photosphere and just above the radiative zone Welcome to the standard solar model. That would be the most appropriate answers but it still doesn’t get you any electrical fields storing or releasing energy nor powering the sun. Please let us know when you do find them though.

Michael Mozina said:
Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it.

No problem

Michael Mozina said:
Once the circuit is broken, the particle flow where the will, and that will depend on local conditions in and near that particular particle, not necessarily the rest of the circuit.

“will” what? Will be redirected? The question wasn’t ‘will the particle flow be redirected’ it was “how does that redirect the kinetic energy of the particles?”

Michael Mozina said:
Yes!

Again, I think it might be prudent for us to think in terms of a stable electric field somewhere inside the core of the sun, and a "variable" condition in the solar atmosphere.

Why?

Michael Mozina said:
I don't think it will necessarily be easy to explain where the strong current come from in Alfven's model, whereas in Birkeland's model, it would probably be related to the outside dense material somewhere under the photosphere.

Please show where Birkeland ever proposed such a “model” of the sun.

Michael Mozina said:
The dense material could be a heavier plasma, or a solid crust in Birkeland's model. In a solid crust scenario, that variation is likely to be related to volcanic surface activity. In a dense plasma model, or in Alfven's model, it's likely to be related to a convection pattern that follows that "guiding center' magnetic field line until becomes extremely powerful. A change in the convection pattern would change the electric field somewhere in the photosphere and the release of energy would come from under the surface of the photosphere, not just above that surface.

Where and how, specifically? Baseless speculations about an “electric field somewhere” somehow releasing energy isn’t going to help you demonstrate you actually know what you’re talking about.

Michael Mozina said:
That does lead us to a few "predictions" of pretty much all electric solar model that are "different from' standard solar theory. There is no "transition region" required in an "electric sun" theory of coronal loops/circuits. The could be (and probably must be) highly energized even as the reach the surface of the photosphere and should become visible *IMMEDIATELY* upon exiting the photosphere, not somewhere higher in the atmosphere.

Are you sure you understand what the "transition region" refers to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_transition_region

tusenfem · Jan 24, 2011

MM said:
Well, personally I'd guess it's about 4800KM under the surface of the photosphere, but in standard theory, it could be ANYWHERE under the surface of the photosphere, but according to Wheatland it would necessarily need to be pretty deep into the photosphere.

The Man said:
What “standard theory” is this? What does your personal guessing have to do with this “standard theory”, unless that is this “standard theory” you are reffering to? So you don’t really know where it is or how is stores energy. What even makes you think it is an electrical field?

MM said:
According to Alfven it was more like it was "generated" by the rotation of the plasma in somewhere the conductive zone. In Birkeland's terella experiments, it took place at the physical surface of the sphere. In both cases it would probably be more accurate to say the energy was "routed" to specific locations and guided by the magnetic field arrangements inside the sun.

The Man said:
What “conductive zone”? What generates an electrical field? Why do you think it would be “more accurate” to say anything that you have said above as it is evidently mere speculation and very poor speculation at that?

The magnetic field of the Sun is generated in the convective zone (not the conductive, I would hope the Sun conductive anywhere) through eddie motion, sheared motion, etc. as described in the alpha-omega dynamo theory. This drives the currents that create the loops that come out of the photosphere. This shearing motion is also the generator of the EMF that also creates the currents along the loops. The Wheatfield paper (as discussed 1400 posts ago) however, concludes that the shearing motion of the footpoints of the loops is not the main cause for the currents in the loops, but that there are generators below the photosphere.

Birkeland’s terrella, naturally, can never ever model this, for obvious reasons. There is a whole thread about discussing Birkeland’s work (not the MM was ever interested in joining that discussion), he never ever claimed that the Sun had a solid metal surface (I might have missed where he quoted that, but MM usually refrains from giving specific information like the page number on which to find claims), the Terrella was meant to study the aurora, then he tried to model the rings of Saturn

I do not think you need to worry about the electric energy of the system, as that is basically taken care of through the currents in the loops.

MM said:
It's released via induction to come other "circuit". Keep in mind there are virtually an unlimited number of individualized threads/circuits running through not only coronal loops,but also from the surface of the photosphere (and deeper) out to the heliosphere.

The Man said:
“to come other "circuit".” ? Do you mean to ‘become another “circuit”’? If that is the case and as it was already in a “circuit” before, that doesn’t make your EM energy ‘release’ very meaningful as it is now just ‘stored’ in another one of your “circuits”.

Note here, that (apart from “to come other circuit” which is clearly not English) there is a HUGE mix up here. The word “circuit” is used for two different things. For one, circuit is used for the loop, next to that “circuit” is also used for the circuit representation of the loop. MM does not seem to be able to understand that the two are different. You can have loops moving together, but in circuit representation you cannot have two circuits moving together. On would have a time changing resistance or a mutual impedance or or or to describe that.

MM said:
As the filament itself "breaks down", that "stable flow" isn't connected to anything specific anymore, and that kinetic energy free to "induct/flow" into any other surrounding circuit or into no specific "circuit" at all. It could (and sometimes does) simply blow out into space as a CME.

This “explanation” is just throwing word together to make them sound profound, but “free to induct/flow”, is that supposed to mean anything?

MM said:
Hmmm. Can it be represented strictly by temperature when it's highly focused and directionalized (is that even a word?) like that?

Yes, it can. ESPECIALLY in a magnetoplasma there are different temperatures of the plasma, there is the perpendicular and the parallel temperature, and the two need not be equal, and usually are not. That is basic plasma physics 101.

The Man · Jan 24, 2011

tusenfem said:
The magnetic field of the Sun is generated in the convective zone (not the conductive, I would hope the Sun conductive anywhere) through eddie motion, sheared motion, etc. as described in the alpha-omega dynamo theory. This drives the currents that create the loops that come out of the photosphere. This shearing motion is also the generator of the EMF that also creates the currents along the loops. The Wheatfield paper (as discussed 1400 posts ago) however, concludes that the shearing motion of the footpoints of the loops is not the main cause for the currents in the loops, but that there are generators below the photosphere.

Birkeland’s terrella, naturally, can never ever model this, for obvious reasons. There is a whole thread about discussing Birkeland’s work (not the MM was ever interested in joining that discussion), he never ever claimed that the Sun had a solid metal surface (I might have missed where he quoted that, but MM usually refrains from giving specific information like the page number on which to find claims), the Terrella was meant to study the aurora, then he tried to model the rings of Saturn

I do not think you need to worry about the electric energy of the system, as that is basically taken care of through the currents in the loops.

Oh I’m not worried about it, but I was hoping that if Michael couldn’t find (himself) such stored and released electrical field energy or if I got him to think and actually talk about his own descriptions of the driving forces he might eventually realize that the loop currents are driven by a magnetically induced EMF like a, well, generator.

It is absolutely ludicrous to pretend that Birkeland had or even imagined a solid metal surface for the sun just because of the terrella experiments. It would be like claiming that aeronautical engineers who used solid metal representations of aircraft in wind tunnel testing believed that the actual aircraft had to be made of one solid chunk of metal. Sometimes it is just the shape that you’re primarily looking to represent.

tusenfem said:
Note here, that (apart from “to come other circuit” which is clearly not English) there is a HUGE mix up here. The word “circuit” is used for two different things. For one, circuit is used for the loop, next to that “circuit” is also used for the circuit representation of the loop. MM does not seem to be able to understand that the two are different. You can have loops moving together, but in circuit representation you cannot have two circuits moving together. On would have a time changing resistance or a mutual impedance or or or to describe that.

So noted, also I’m still wait for Michael show his change in “"circuit" topology” and how it results in the release of energy.

tusenfem said:
This “explanation” is just throwing word together to make them sound profound, but “free to induct/flow”, is that supposed to mean anything?

Perhaps it just means “"circuit" topology” (which would make the answer to your question no)?

tusenfem said:
Yes, it can. ESPECIALLY in a magnetoplasma there are different temperatures of the plasma, there is the perpendicular and the parallel temperature, and the two need not be equal, and usually are not. That is basic plasma physics 101.

Interesting, thanks tusenfem.

Reality Check · Jan 24, 2011

Scott's ignorance of the basics of nuclear physics

Haig said:
That's right you are using the wrong model.

Here's Don Scott's latest paper on the Sun's electric field:

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/SunsEfield92210.pdf

You mean the same Don Scott who thinks that all of the fusion in the Sun happens at the top of the photosphere which demonstrates an ignorance of the basics of nuclear physics:

Fusion creates gamma rays from the annihilation of electrons and positrons.
Observations of the Sun detect gamma rays that result from the annihilation of electrons and positrons result from solar flares not from the photosphere.
The fact that there are not enoiugh gamma rays detected to account for the amount of fusion needed to power the Sun means that they have to be shielded somehow, i.e. by the fusion happening deep within the Sun.

Add to this

Scott predicts that the Sun is about the size of the Earth

Reality Check · Jan 24, 2011

Scott requires that we are wrong about gases, gravity and fusion

Haig said:
Here's Don Scott's latest paper on the Sun's electric field:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/SunsEfield92210.pdf

Another point about Don Scott's idea: It requires that much of what we know about physics is wrong!
What happens in Scott's world when a ball of hydrogen the mass of a star forms?
Using the known laws of physics, scientists can calculate that

The hydrogen at the center of the star will experience a certain pressure.
The hydrogen at the center of the star will be at a certain temperature.
Given that pressure and temperature, nuclear fusion will happen.

Scott requires that

The physics of gases is wrong and/or
Our understanding of gravity is wrong and/or
Nuclear physics is wrong.

And just in case you are still ignorant of the other flaws in the electric sun idea, Haig:

It requires a large enough charge on the Sun that it explodes.
That is one point the PDF file you cite on his web site pussy-foots around. It does not connect his idea to reality by not doing any calculations. That makes his model (as in the PDF) a fantasy.
Scott's ignorance of the basics of nuclear physics
Scott predicts that the Sun is about the size of the Earth

Let me know if there is anything in these posts that you cannot understand.

Reality Check · Jan 24, 2011

Michael Mozina's unsupported assertions about Birkeland's work

tusenfem said:
Birkeland’s terrella, naturally, can never ever model this, for obvious reasons. There is a whole thread about discussing Birkeland’s work (not the MM was ever interested in joining that discussion), he never ever claimed that the Sun had a solid metal surface (I might have missed where he quoted that, but MM usually refrains from giving specific information like the page number on which to find claims), the Terrella was meant to study the aurora, then he tried to model the rings of Saturn.

I think that we can take anything that MM asserts about Birkeland's work as wrong initially unless he has the sense to cite the source.
He has made a number of unsupported assertions about Birkeland's work

MM - Just what are Birkeland's cathode-ray pencils in modern terms
28 December 2009
Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
7th July 2009
Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
7th July 2009
Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
7th July 2009
Is Saturn the Sun?
14th July 2009
Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind
28 December 2009
Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
27th April 2010
Where in Birkeland's book does he state that the Sun is a metal globe?
12th May 2010

Michael Mozina · Jan 24, 2011

The Man said:
Oh I’m not worried about it, but I was hoping that if Michael couldn’t find (himself) such stored and released electrical field energy or if I got him to think and actually talk about his own descriptions of the driving forces he might eventually realize that the loop currents are driven by a magnetically induced EMF like a, well, generator.

Well, the loops are in fact powered by a 'generator' somewhere in the photosphere. FYI, I really won't have much time this week to respond to boards. Since W-2's are due at the end of the month and I sell and accounting program that includes payroll, this is typically a busy week. This year is unusually busy due to all the state and federal tax table changes this year. I really can't do these conversations justice during work at the moment without making absolutely silly mistakes like "conductive" rather than "convective". Bear with me a bit. I'm very much enjoying your entrance into the conversation and I look forward to continuing our discussions, but it may be a bit. I even have some evening commitments this week, so bear with me.

Reality Check · Jan 25, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Well, the loops are in fact powered by a 'generator' somewhere in the photosphere.

Can you

Define what a 'generator' is?
Cite your sources for the assertion that these 'generators' exist in the photosphere?
For example what is the observational evidence for these 'generators'?
Explain why you say "somewhere in the photosphere" rather than the actual location(s) stated in the sources?

And: What does "powered by" mean?
The energy within coronal loops is primarily contained in their magnetic fields. That is why the circuit models of solar flares have inductors in them. The circuit models also have a generator (or battery) to represent currents flowing through the plasma in the coronal loop. The energy of these currents is small.
The magnetic flux tubes that form coronal loops exist before they fill with plasma. Thus the currents from the 'generator' do not 'power' the loops.

The Man · Jan 25, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Well, the loops are in fact powered by a 'generator' somewhere in the photosphere. FYI, I really won't have much time this week to respond to boards. Since W-2's are due at the end of the month and I sell and accounting program that includes payroll, this is typically a busy week. This year is unusually busy due to all the state and federal tax table changes this year. I really can't do these conversations justice during work at the moment without making absolutely silly mistakes like "conductive" rather than "convective". Bear with me a bit. I'm very much enjoying your entrance into the conversation and I look forward to continuing our discussions, but it may be a bit. I even have some evening commitments this week, so bear with me.

Take your time because I (and I’m sure others do as well) really do want you and am trying to get you to think about and make you own explanations in your own words. Not just quote or paraphrase something some else said but understand the principles involved and apply them yourself.

GeeMack · Jan 25, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Well, the loops are in fact powered by a 'generator' somewhere in the photosphere.

What a load of unsupported nonsense.

Perpetual Student · Jan 25, 2011

GeeMack said:
What a load of unsupported nonsense.

Please be civil, GeeMack. The "generator" is likely to be Helios rubbing his fur loincloth with a piece of amber.

Michael Mozina · Jan 25, 2011

The Man said:
Take your time because I (and I’m sure others do as well) really do want you and am trying to get you to think about and make you own explanations in your own words. Not just quote or paraphrase something some else said but understand the principles involved and apply them yourself.

Fair enough.

GeeMack · Jan 25, 2011

Perpetual Student said:
Please be civil, GeeMack. The "generator" is likely to be Helios rubbing his fur loincloth with a piece of amber.

We do have as much legitimately scientific evidence to support that nutty notion as we do for any other explanation for this claim...

Michael Mozina said:
Well, the loops are in fact powered by a 'generator' somewhere in the photosphere.

But then the claim contains the usual ambiguous terms in quote marks, terms that may go undefined for weeks. So it's probably just more of the same kind of scientifically useless nonsense we've seen so far from the electric Sun adherents.

Michael Mozina · Jan 25, 2011

The Man said:
What “standard theory” is this?

FYI, in an effort to keep this conversation moving, I'll pick away at your post today as I get time, probably a point or two at a time. That probably was not a good choice of terms on my part, perhaps "hydrogen/helium plasma model" would be a better term. Alfven did in fact stick to a hydrogen plasma solar model in terms of the sun's composition. In my mind (probably not in everyone's mind) that's a "standard" solar model, whereas the one on my website is not a standard solar model. It's a plasma layered, solid crust, cathode sun model. Both are examples however an an "electric" solar theory that would both have quite similar predictions at the surface of the photosphere with respect to the currents in the coronal loops.

What does your personal guessing have to do with this “standard theory”,

Nothing. That 4800KM number relates to an entirely different solar model, specifically the one on my website.

So you don’t really know where it is or how is stores energy. What even makes you think it is an electrical field?

Wheatland's work makes me believe an electric field must be involved. Do you have a better explanation for those observations?

What “conductive zone”?

I meant "convection".

Oy. It is just too hectic at work this week to do this conversation justice.

What generates an electrical field?

Presumably that is related to the rotation/convection process in the photosphere. If however charge particles follow a magnetic field line all along the field line, that line originates in the core somewhere. Wheatland's work only suggests that the currents are powerful at the surface, it doesn't say WHERE inside the photosphere those strong currents develop. Sorry, I have to stop here for now..... Stay tuned.....

Michael Mozina · Jan 25, 2011

FYI, TM, that was supposed to have been "some other circuit", not "come other circuit". The unique thing about these circuits is that they are composed of plasma and therefore they are "mobile" and can occasionally "short circuit" themselves together.

GeeMack · Jan 25, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
FYI, TM, that was supposed to have been "some other circuit", not "come other circuit". The unique thing about these circuits is that they are composed of plasma and therefore they are "mobile" and can occasionally "short circuit" themselves together.

Adding more and more made up nonsense to the pile doesn't get any closer to actually supporting the ridiculous claims.

Michael Mozina · Jan 25, 2011

The Man said:
It is absolutely ludicrous to pretend that Birkeland had or even imagined a solid metal surface for the sun just because of the terrella experiments. It would be like claiming that aeronautical engineers who used solid metal representations of aircraft in wind tunnel testing believed that the actual aircraft had to be made of one solid chunk of metal. Sometimes it is just the shape that you’re primarily looking to represent.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

You are of course correct that his cathode sun theories do not *INSIST* upon a "solid" surface, as I have pointed out in other threads, hence the use of term "rigid' in all our published papers. His cathode model simply can be adapted and used that way since that's exactly how the experiments actually functioned.

IMO, it's highly *UNLIKELY* however that a cathode sun would produce a "mixed" (as opposed to plasma layered) atmosphere. Any sort of spherical plasma cathode under the surface of the photosphere is likely to be considerably more dense and cooler than the lighter, less dense outer layers, including the surface of the photosphere.

Michael Mozina · Jan 25, 2011

GeeMack said:
Adding more and more made up nonsense to the pile doesn't get any closer to actually supporting the ridiculous claims.

Why are you even engaged in this conversation at this point?

Edited, breach of rule 0.

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

Michael Mozina · Jan 25, 2011

The Man said:
Two of what "reconnect"?

Two circuits "short circuit" as they touch inside the double layer that forms between the filaments.

So again are you claiming that there is no stored and released electrical energy in this consideration?

I'm saying exactly the opposite actually. I am claiming that it is the moving particles (current) that do the "reconnecting" inside the double layer that forms between the two circuits. Those particles *already* have kinetic energy BEFORE any double layer transactions. Any change in "circuit topology' is a result of that "current" following the "path of least resistance" and the magnetic field topology follows right along with the changes in current (plasma flow) topology.

Michael Mozina · Jan 25, 2011

Tim (or anyone for that matter),

Could you please explain to me what the physical (not mathematical) difference is between what Priest is calling "magnetic diffusion", "magnetic reconnection" and standard ordinary "induction"? There are so many different terms in play here I have no idea how or if magnetic diffusion is even different from "magnetic reconnection" let alone that either of them is actually not "induction" with a silly name. How (physically) are these three names "different" at the level of physics. IMO any transfer of magnetic field energy to particle kinetic energy is simply "induction'. What (physically) makes "magnetic reconnection' a "faster" process than ordinary induction?

GeeMack · Jan 25, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

You are of course correct that his cathode sun theories do not *INSIST* upon a "solid" surface, as I have pointed out in other threads, hence the use of term "rigid' in all our published papers. His cathode model simply can be adapted and used that way since that's exactly how the experiments actually functioned.

His experiments actually functioned with a hollow brass ball in a mostly evacuated glass chamber. It had an electromagnet inside which was connected to an outside power source with wires. His experiments were primarily targeted to his ideas about the Earth, particularly auroras. His silly idea that Saturn's rings were glowing electrons has been shown to be complete bunk. And his dabbling with some ideas about the Sun was just that, dabbling.

Oh, and the link to the 100 year old article, the one where some unnamed reporter interprets Birkeland's comments to mean that the Sun spews particles which become planets, does not in any way support the silly idea that the Sun is powered by electricity or that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges. It describes some concepts that have been demonstrated beyond any doubt to be complete nonsense. Science has moved forward in the past 100 years, any electric Sun adherents' arguments from incredulity and ignorance notwithstanding.

IMO, it's highly *UNLIKELY* however that a cathode sun would produce a "mixed" (as opposed to plasma layered) atmosphere. And sort of spherical plasma cathode under the surface of the photosphere is likely to be considerably more dense and cooler than the lighter, less dense outer layers, including the surface of the photosphere.

This is also, objectively and quantitatively, a completely unsupported conjecture.

Michael Mozina · Jan 25, 2011

The Man said:
What ‘thing’ “specific” was that "stable flow" connected to before and why?

FYI, I apologize profusely for cutting up your posts like this, but it's just too busy at work to try to answer the whole thing at once and I'd like to keep the conversation moving.

The "thing" I'm trying to describe to you is a river/flow of highly mobile particles that form a "flowing thread" in the solar atmosphere. In some cases they can be akin to the base of a tornado/twister, or an ordinary plasma ball filament. The more current, the stronger the rotation of the thread and the more kinetic energy is being "contained" inside the thread. The stable flow that it's connected to are the areas near the surface that contain those currents observed by Wheatland. Once the circuit is interrupted, all that "contained" kinetic/particle/directional flow, along with the magnetic field that is containing it, will be release in one giant explosive event.

If two circuits "short circuit" inside of a double layer, *BOTH* circuits might erupt. If the current inside the double layer takes a new path through that double layer, a "rewiring/reconnection" process may ensue, but the point of "rewire/reconnection" will be HOT and potentially explosive.

tusenfem · Jan 25, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Two circuits "short circuit" as they touch inside the double layer that forms between the filaments.

I'm saying exactly the opposite actually. I am claiming that it is the moving particles (current) that do the "reconnecting" inside the double layer that forms between the two circuits. Those particles *already* have kinetic energy BEFORE any double layer transactions. Any change in "circuit topology' is a result of that "current" following the "path of least resistance" and the magnetic field topology follows right along with the changes in current (plasma flow) topology.

and when are you finally going to show how a double layer is formed between two touching circuits? Really, you have claimed that for years already, but up to now you have never ever given a detailed explanation of anything.

I have asked before, how do these circuits touch, in what direction is the double layer electic field pointed, etc. etc.

Michael Mozina · Jan 25, 2011

The Man said:
Why what drives the current after the circuit is broken?

The kinetic energy/momentum of the particles will continue to carry the particles forward, and their cumulative relative charge compared (with respect) to the surrounding plasma it runs into will also drive the movement of particles. In addition, induction from the magnetic field collapse will also drive the movement of plasma.

What was driving it in that original circuit?

It is presumably that generator in the photosphere.

What “specific” ‘thing’ was it being driven to and why?

The plasma movement around the sunspot creates relative positive and relatively negative "islands" of upwelling plasmas. That charge separation drives the basic circuit.

Again, I'm sorry for responding one idea at a time, but it's the only way I'll be able to respond today.

tusenfem · Jan 25, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Tim (or anyone for that matter),

Could you please explain to me what the physical (not mathematical) difference is between what Priest is calling "magnetic diffusion", "magnetic reconnection" and standard ordinary "induction"? There are so many different terms in play here I have no idea how or if magnetic diffusion is even different from "magnetic reconnection" let alone that either of them is actually not "induction" with a silly name. How (physically) are these three names "different" at the level of physics. IMO any transfer of magnetic field energy to particle kinetic energy is simply "induction'. What (physically) makes "magnetic reconnection' a "faster" process than ordinary induction?

Magnetic diffusion is the diffusion of a magnetic field through a conductor. E.g. if you have a magnetic field and put in a metal ball in it, it will take time for the magnetic field to penetrate through the ball. This is described by the (magnetic) diffusion equation (this describes the behaviour of the magnetic field itself):

[latex]
(\sigma \mu)^{-1} \nabla^2 {\bf B} = - \frac{\partial {\bf B}}{\partial t}
[/latex]

Note that this is related to the break down of the frozen in condition in a non-ideal plasma.

Induction is the response of a conductor to a time varying magnetic field, which follows from Maxwell's equations:

[latex]
\nabla \times E = - \frac{\partial {\bf B}}{\partial t}
[/latex]

naturally, under certain conditions this equation can be turned into the diffusion equation. This leads to Lenz' law, where a conductor tries to negate a forced change in the magnetic field that is penetrating it. An example is the moon Europa, where the time varying magnetic field of Jupiter induces a secondary magnetic field in the conducting ocean under the ice.

Magnetic reconnection is the topological change of the magnetic field through an X-point, where anti-parallel magnetic fields are pushed together and the field goes through a change and field lines from being anti-parallel turn into strongly bent field lines connecting the "upper" and the "lower" regions, creating a strong magnetic tension.

Even though there is a wee bit of math here, I think the difference between the three should be apparent.

In a general plasma, with conductivity σ, the magnetic field is not frozen in and can move with respect to the plasma (diffuse) with the diffusion time scale given by (σμ)^-1, which means if you look at processes much shorter than this time scale, you can work with the frozen in condition, because before the magnetic field significantly moves from where it was in the plasma, the process has finished.

When this plasma is exposed to an time varying external magnetic field, like e.g. in a tokamak, as a conductor, it will resist this magnetic field, setting up currents, which are induced by that external field. This is a way of heating the plasma. However, it is different from diffusion, because the field is kept out of the conductor, because it is time varying. (If it no longer varies, then the diffusion kicks in again).

Neither of these two processes, however, can describe the topological changes that happens in reconnection. From an anti-parallel field

Code:

-------------------------->
-------------------------->
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<--------------------------
<--------------------------

Where we cannot assume that the field has one strength. The xxx is the current sheet between the two field directions coming out tof the plane of the paper. And this changes into:

Code:

------\             /---------->
-----\  \          /   /----------->
xxxxxx|x|xxxxxxxxxx|x|xxxxxxxxxxxx
<----/  /          \  \----------
<------/            \----------

Now, even if there were a guide field along the current sheet, there is no way you can use diffusion to reach this, nor is it possible to use induction to get to this topology of the magnetic field. (well, the drawing is not so cool, but you get the picture.)

tusenfem · Jan 25, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
The kinetic energy/momentum of the particles will continue to carry the particles forward, and their cumulative relative charge compared (with respect) to the surrounding plasma it runs into will also drive the movement of particles. In addition, induction from the magnetic field collapse will also drive the movement of plasma.

This makes no sense at all, what is the "cumulative relative charge" supposed to mean? I guess this is still your claim that a current carrying plasma is not charge neutral, which is nonsense. And that charge will drive movement????

Michael Mozina said:
The plasma movement around the sunspot creates relative positive and relatively negative "islands" of upwelling plasmas. That charge separation drives the basic circuit.

No, this is your misinterpretation of what Wheatfield writes about whether currents are neutralized or not. Go back to my post 994 or so, where I discuss what Wheatfield says. Currents are driven by EMFs and not by positive or negative upwellings, whatever those may be.

The more you try to explain the more you show how little (plasma) physics you know.

Michael Mozina · Jan 25, 2011

tusenfem said:
The more you try to explain the more you show how little (plasma) physics you know.

At least I knew discharges occur in a plasma and the difference between a current and a 'discharge'.

You might try keeping the sniping to a minimum and I might actually start responding to you again. Your overall description of magnetic diffusion vs. induction was somewhat helpful although what exactly do you mean by a "frozen in" magnetic field inside of a moving plasma filament? What exactly is "frozen" about the magnetic field rather than the magnetic fields moving around the thread acting to "pinch" the current carrying thread? How is anything "frozen" in light atmospheric plasma?

Michael Mozina · Jan 25, 2011

Neither of these two processes, however, can describe the topological changes that happens in reconnection.

I'm interested in speed and timing between them. Tim has been contending that the reason it cannot be induction that transfers magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is because induction is too slow. How (physically) is "magnetic reconnection' any faster than induction at transferring magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy?

Reality Check · Jan 25, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
That probably was not a good choice of terms on my part, perhaps "hydrogen/helium plasma model" would be a better term. Alfven did in fact stick to a hydrogen plasma solar model in terms of the sun's composition.

Alfven did not just "stick to a hydrogen plasma solar model in terms of the sun's composition".
Alfven in fact stuck to the standard solar model. That is why his model of solar flares starts with

Plasma in the photosphere.
A magnetic flux tube filled with plasma (a coronal loop).

He then modeled the physical situation as a theoretical circuit containing elements such as

a generator to represent the currents in the plasma.
inductors to represent the magnetic energy in the magnetic flux tube.
a double layer to represent the assumed formation of a double layer in the coronal loop.

GeeMack · Jan 25, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
At least I knew discharges occur in a plasma and the difference between a current and a 'discharge'.

That would, of course, be a false statement if we're talking about an electrical discharge like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball. Not only would it be a lie to claim that, but moving the goalposts is also dishonest and certainly not scientific.

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

Reality Check · Jan 25, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
I'm interested in speed and timing between them. Tim has been contending that the reason it cannot be induction that transfers magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is because induction is too slow. How (physically) is "magnetic reconnection' any faster than induction at transferring magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy?

Tim has not been contending this.
He has been quoting a textbook that states that induction is too slow to account for the time scale of observed solar flares.

Magnetic diffusion depends on the magnetic field being transfered from atom to atom, i.e. diffusing into the material (read tusenfem's post). Plug in the numbers for solar plasma and for a length scale of 100,000 km, you have a time scale of a million years.

The observed time scale for solar flares is 100 seconds.

Magnetic reconnection

A current problem in plasma physics is that observed reconnection happens much faster than predicted by MHD in high Lundquist number plasmas: solar flares, for example, proceed 13-14 orders of magnitude faster than a naive calculation would suggest, and several orders of magnitude faster than current theoretical models that include turbulence and kinetic effects. There are two competing theories to explain the discrepancy. One posits that the electromagnetic turbulence in the boundary layer is sufficiently strong to scatter electrons, raising the plasma's local resistivity. This would allow the magnetic flux to diffuse faster.

P.S.
What is "magnetic reconnection' and how does it differ from magnetic reconnection?

W.D.Clinger · Jan 25, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
Tim (or anyone for that matter),

Could you please explain to me what the physical (not mathematical) difference is between what Priest is calling "magnetic diffusion", "magnetic reconnection" and standard ordinary "induction"? There are so many different terms in play here I have no idea how or if magnetic diffusion is even different from "magnetic reconnection" let alone that either of them is actually not "induction" with a silly name. How (physically) are these three names "different" at the level of physics. IMO any transfer of magnetic field energy to particle kinetic energy is simply "induction'. What (physically) makes "magnetic reconnection' a "faster" process than ordinary induction?

tusenfem said:
Induction is the response of a conductor to a time varying magnetic field, which follows from Maxwell's equations:

[latex]
\nabla \times E = - \frac{\partial {\bf B}}{\partial t}
[/latex]

naturally, under certain conditions this equation can be turned into the diffusion equation. This leads to Lenz' law, where a conductor tries to negate a forced change in the magnetic field that is penetrating it. An example is the moon Europa, where the time varying magnetic field of Jupiter induces a secondary magnetic field in the conducting ocean under the ice.

Magnetic reconnection is the topological change of the magnetic field through an X-point, where anti-parallel magnetic fields are pushed together and the field goes through a change and field lines from being anti-parallel turn into strongly bent field lines connecting the "upper" and the "lower" regions, creating a strong magnetic tension.

Without any math at all, for Michael Mozina's sake:

In an electrical circuit, a large series inductance discourages the current from changing rapidly. (The choke on your power supply discourages high frequency noise from entering your computer.)

Magnetic reconnection can create dramatic boundaries between magnetic domains, so currents in the vicinity of those boundaries can change rapidly in response to relatively small changes in the location of the boundary.

So the physical effects of induction and magnetic reconnection are pretty different. Induction discourages currents from changing rapidly. Magnetic reconnection encourages currents to change faster.

That's a grotesque oversimplification, but it's more accurate than saying induction is the same as magnetic reconnection, as Michael Mozina has been doing for hundreds of posts.

The Man · Jan 25, 2011

Michael Mozina said:
FYI, in an effort to keep this conversation moving, I'll pick away at your post today as I get time, probably a point or two at a time. That probably was not a good choice of terms on my part, perhaps "hydrogen/helium plasma model" would be a better term. Alfven did in fact stick to a hydrogen plasma solar model in terms of the sun's composition. In my mind (probably not in everyone's mind) that's a "standard" solar model, whereas the one on my website is not a standard solar model. It's a plasma layered, solid crust, cathode sun model. Both are examples however an an "electric" solar theory that would both have quite similar predictions at the surface of the photosphere with respect to the currents in the coronal loops.

Please show where Alfven explicitly asserted an "electric" solar theory, meaning that the sun was power by not fusion but electricity.

A “solid crust” has far fewer degrees of freedom than plasma. So thay are likely to have considerably different "predictions at the surface of the photosphere with respect to the currents in the coronal loops”. Why don’t you give use some of the predictions of your “solid crust” that would differ from a plasma surface and explain the specific reason for that difference.

Michael Mozina said:
Nothing. That 4800KM number relates to an entirely different solar model, specifically the one on my website.

Fine describe in detail this “solar model” of yours and specifically where it would be observationally different form the current astrophysical solar model.

Michael Mozina said:
Wheatland's work makes me believe an electric field must be involved. Do you have a better explanation for those observations?

Which observations specifically are you referring to? Your own description didn’t seem to require any energy being stored or released from electrical fields.

Michael Mozina said:
I meant "convection". Oy. It is just too hectic at work this week to do this conversation justice.

That’s no problem. What happens in the convection layer? Why is it called the convection layer?

Michael Mozina said:
Presumably that is related to the rotation/convection process in the photosphere. If however charge particles follow a magnetic field line all along the field line, that line originates in the core somewhere. Wheatland's work only suggests that the currents are powerful at the surface, it doesn't say WHERE inside the photosphere those strong currents develop. Sorry, I have to stop here for now..... Stay tuned.....

Why would if have to originate “in the core somewhere”? If it is related to a “rotation/convection process” then why not related to such a process in the, well, convection layer. Does Wheatland's work even say those current develop due to some “process in the photosphere”? If yes then give the citation.

Michael Mozina · Jan 25, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:
Without any math at all, for Michael Mozina's sake:

In an electrical circuit, a large series inductance discourages the current from changing rapidly.

Hmmm. The coil in my car demonstrates that the current in any circuit can still change rapidly and induce currents in another circuit rather "rapidly". Are you all trying to suggest that every single bit of the energy released in the induction process all has to take place at the point of "reconnection" and ONLY the point of "reconnection"? I don't get it. I haven't read Priests paper yet, so I have no idea how ANY sort of "induction" process could possibly take "years". That doesn't even sound feasible, let alone supportable.

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

Unbanned zombie poster

Muse

Muse

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

Illuminator

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned