View Single Post
 31st March 2011, 03:22 PM #197 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 969 Laboratory Magnetic Reconnection & Induction Originally Posted by Tim Thompson As I have pointed out before, magnetic reconnection is observed directly to happen in laboratory plasmas. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina No, DISCHARGES are directly observed in laboratory plasmas. PARTICLES AND CIRCUITS do the "reconnecting", not *JUST* the magnetic field topology! That's the whole problem with your claim. You can't even produce the process without *CURRENT* and "circuits". Rubbish. Lest we forget, from 13 February 2009 ... Originally Posted by Tim Thompson Representative comments; clearly Mr. Mozina, and others no doubt, reject the concept of "magnetic reconnection" altogether. This is an uncomfortable position to take, since "magnetic reconnection" is directly observed in controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments (i.e., Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008; Cheng, et al., 2008; Yamada, et al., 2007; Yamada, Ren & Ji, 2007; Yamada, et al., 2006; Sarff, et al., 2005 & etc.; Yamada, 1999 reviews the previous 20 years of laboratory plasma studies of magnetic reconnection). So, Mr. Mozina, have you ever read any of the papers I cited here? No, you have not. Have you ever read any papers describing laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not. Have you ever examined the design & procedures of laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not. Have you ever examined the data coming out of any laboratory magnetic reconnection experiment? No, you have not. So, how the hell do you know what is really going on? "Particle reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" are buzzwords of your own invention which have no basis in physical reality. You have been asked to physically describe what they are supposed to mean on too many occasions to count, and have failed to do so every time. So I still have no idea what you think you are talking about. But I do know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that it is the "reconnection" of the magnetic field and not the "reconnection" of anything else, especially the currents & particles, which is the source of energy. I know this because I know that the topology of the magnetic field changes first (we call that "cause") and the accelerated currents flow afterwards (we call that "effect"). Since cause precedes effect rather more often than effect precedes cause, magnetic reconnection is the obvious answer. This is why people do things called "experiments". I realize you have much disdain for such menial tasks and prefer to live a life of academic seclusion, but the rest of us have faith in the ability of the real world to actually show us what is really happening, if we just bother to look. You should bother someday yourself, you might actually learn something (perish the thought!). Originally Posted by Michael Mozina What's clear from the empirical physical 'experiments' done on MR theory is that they "short circuit' two CURRENT CARRYING FILAMENTS and call it "magnetic reconnection". That's just baloney. Have you ever examined the design & procedures of laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not. Have you ever examined the data coming out of any laboratory magnetic reconnection experiment? No, you have not. So, how the hell do you know what is really going on? No, as a matter of fact, it is not only not clear, it's not even possible because the like charges of the currents would repel each other, or are you now going to war against Coulomb too? And what about the magnetic fields generated by the currents in the filaments, which will surround the filaments in solenoidal shape? By what process do you suppose they might conveniently get out of the way and allow the bare naked currents to "reconnect"? Originally Posted by Michael Mozina They other obvious thing about all the so called "experiments' done to date is that NONE OF THEM actually tried to falsify the claim. They never explain what is physically unique and different from the kinetic energy particle transfers that Alfven describes in his double layer paper, or the transfer of photon kinetic energy to charged particles, *PROPERLY CALLED INDUCTION*. Instead they *ASSUME* things like the E field remained stable even while the thread size shrinks! The whole this is goofy. The particle reconnect. The current flows change direction. It's no mystery and no magnetic lines ever actually 'reconnect'. They just exist as a result of the current and their topology is directly related to the flow of that current as it changes over time. Have you ever examined the design & procedures of laboratory magnetic reconnection experiments? No, you have not. Have you ever examined the data coming out of any laboratory magnetic reconnection experiment? No, you have not. So, how the hell do you know what is really going on? Sorry to but into this reverie with shocking facts, but there are these things called "measuring devices" in laboratories. They are used to measure things. Amongst the many things that can be measured are electric currents, electric fields and magnetic fields. So no, they do not assume that the electric field is constant, they measure the electric field, which cannot be constant and is not constant, because of Faraday's Law (or maybe now you are going to war against both Coulomb & Faraday?). They also measure the magnetic field and the electric currents. Funny thing is the magnetic field changes first (we call that "cause") and the electric currents change afterwards (we call that "effect"). How dare Mother Nature disagree with Mozina! Who does she thing she is, anyway? Originally Posted by Michael Mozina They never explain what is physically unique and different from the kinetic energy particle transfers that Alfven describes in his double layer paper, or the transfer of photon kinetic energy to charged particles, *PROPERLY CALLED INDUCTION*. Of course they do. In fact, they always do. But since you can't read, you are hardly likely to realize this. however, for those who can read, and for the umpteenth time already since December 2009 ... Originally Posted by Tim Thompson Reference the book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Eric Priest & Terry Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Magnetic reconnection is not induction. Here is the induction equation in a plasma as given in Priest & Forbes, page 5: (1) $\partial \boldsymbol B / \partial t = \nabla \times (\boldsymbol v \times \boldsymbol B) - \nabla \times (\eta \nabla \times \boldsymbol B)$ Here $\eta$ is the magnetic diffusivity. If $\eta$ is uniform then the induction equation reduces to ... (2) $\partial \boldsymbol B / \partial t = \nabla \times (\boldsymbol v \times \boldsymbol B) + \eta \nabla^2 \boldsymbol B$ [ .... ] 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 All of this occurs in the first few pages of the book, but evidently Mozina has not even bothered to look at it. [ ... ] This entire thread is just one constant repetition of the same tired old arguments: real physics vs. the pure prejudice of Mozina. It will never change because Mozina will never learn. So get used to zillions of pages to come with no change & no progress & no real physics ever from Mozina. That you can count on. Considering the "current" state of affairs, I must say I am impressed with the predictive power of the statement I made in those last few sentences from two years ago. And I boldly predict that, two years hence, the "current" state of affairs will remain unchanged. __________________ The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell