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

Status
Not open for further replies.
tusenfem said:
Riding my bike home this evening, about a 10km ride, something popped up in my mind about exploding double layers. According to Alfvén the current in the loop is interrupted and then all energy is released in the double layer (exploding double layer).

Now, the important word here is interrupted, and thus we must conclude, with any definition of a discharge, that this would constitute an anti-discharge, as no charge is dissing anymore.

How interesting!
Click to expand...

That's kinda what I was thinking given that the first reference I found to exploding double layers with google said that exploding double layers means plasmas where no current can flow. But I am by no means a plasma physicist so thought I might be missing something.
 
Tubbythin said:
The definitions for "discharge" and "breakdown" you are tying to impose on people simply aren't consistent in any manner with the evidence you tried to present. That is all there really is to it as far as I'm concerned.
Note: I've not seen much quantitative evidence yet.
Click to expand...

You know, it's statements like this that simply make me feel sad. I know you to be an honest and intelligent person from our conversations, and I simply do not understand your position on this specific topic.

I did not try to "impose" a definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma, I posted a definition by a plasma physicist. Does anyone else in this conversation have a Phd in plasma physics, because I know I sure don't? I specifically and intentionally looked *OUTSIDE* of myself for a legitimate definition of the term, and I cited the source. That term and definition provided by Peratt is consistent with Dungey's use of the term as well as *MANY* other authors. I can't for life of me understand why any of you are in basic denial of that fact, or blaming me for that fact (impose).

What makes me feel "sad" (I mean it emotionally makes me feel sad) is that you actually believe that no quantitative evidence has been presented. I have presented *AT LEAST* a half dozen papers with quantitative evidence, and I have also recommended *BOOKS* on this topic. In fact that link I provided earlier to Alfven's book actually has many of the first few chapters available for you to read anytime you wish to do so. Inside those chapters and papers you will find all the quantitative evidence you could ever hope for. I'm sad because if I am not reaching people like you with Calqvist's work Alfven's work, or Bruce's work, there's probably no way this conversation will ever have a good outcome.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Notice the terms "surpasses critical value" and "circuit energy is released"? What does Alfven mean by that?
Click to expand...
How ignorant of you MM: Notice:
  • Peratt is talking about the breakdown of a medium in a standard electrical discharge. There is no current and no current density until a critical value of electrical potential is reached and the breakdown.
  • Alfven is talking about a current density reaching a critical value for a DL to explode.
"circuit energy is released" means that the energy contained in the circuit model is released, e.g. the magnetic energy from the inductors included in the electronic circuit model is released.
 
tusenfem said:
Riding my bike home this evening, about a 10km ride, something popped up in my mind about exploding double layers. According to Alfvén the current in the loop is interrupted and then all energy is released in the double layer (exploding double layer).
Click to expand...

Ya, but he uses the term "induction", not "magnetic reconnection" of course.

Now, the important word here is interrupted, and thus we must conclude, with any definition of a discharge, that this would constitute an anti-discharge, as no charge is dissing anymore.

How interesting!
Click to expand...

How interesting you didn't seem to understand *PERATT'S* (not your own) definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma:

Originally Posted by Peratt
1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy . This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiatiοη.
Click to expand...

Whether you prefer "induction" like Alfven, or "magnetic reconnection", it's just the sudden release of stored magnetic energy into the plasma. It's still a "discharge" in plasma by *ANY* name. There is no such thing as an "anti-discharge" unless you can put energy back into the magnetic field, cool the plasma, lower the ionization state, etc, etc.

I don't suppose you have an *EXTERNAL* (from yourself) definition of an "anti-discharge" in a plasma? :)
 
Reality Check said:
How ignorant of you MM: Notice:

  • Peratt is talking about the breakdown of a medium in a standard electrical discharge.
Click to expand...


  • But he never used the term "dielectric" now did he?

    There is no current and no current density until a critical value of electrical potential is reached and the breakdown.
    Click to expand...

    No. You clearly don't get the concept *AT ALL*. The "pinched filament" is already carrying large amounts of current and building up the "circuit energy" in the process. At some point the current flow becomes so great, the plasma can no longer carry that much current and it simply "explodes", because the plasmas pinches itself off and a "disruption" occurs in that current flow. The breakdown occurs *INSIDE* the pinch. He relates this all back to his Mercury switch experience by the way.


    "circuit energy is released" means that the energy contained in the circuit model is released, e.g. the magnetic energy from the inductors included in the electronic circuit model is released.
    Click to expand...

    Hey cool! Notice now how it fits Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma:

    1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma
    An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy .
    Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Where are Peratt's many pages on electrical discharges within plasma

Michael Mozina said:
That term and definition provided by Peratt is consistent with Dungey's use of the term as well as *MANY* other authors. I can't for life of me understand why any of you are in basic denial of that fact, or blaming me for that fact (impose).
Click to expand...
No one is blaming you for anything except the fact that you cannot grasp the difference between Peratt's and Dungey's usage of the term "electrical discharge".

Their usage is not consistant. They mean different things by the term "electrical discharge".

Peratt uses the standard defintion that excludes them in plasma. He never uses the term with respect to plasma. Otherwise you could answer:
Dungey never defines electrical discharge. If it is the standard definition than it cannot happen in a plasma. However the context of his use is that of a large current density. So his usage differs from Peratt
  1. No energy release is mentioned in the 1958 presentation.
  2. There is no breakdown.
 
Michael Mozina said:
But he never used the term "dielectric" now did he?
Click to expand...
No he did not and I did not say that he did.


Michael Mozina said:
No. You clearly don't get the concept *AT ALL*. The "pinched filament" is already carrying large amounts of current and building up the "circuit energy" in the process. At some point the current flow becomes so great, the plasma can no longer carry that much current and it simply "explodes", because the plasmas pinches itself off and a "disruption" occurs in that current flow. The breakdown occurs *INSIDE* the pinch. He relates this all back to his Mercury switch experience by the way.
Click to expand...
I clearly get the concept *AT ALL TIMES*.
You clearly don't get the concept *AT ALL*: Peratt is not talking about double layers thus
There is no current and no current density until a critical value of electrical potential is reached and the breakdown.
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
Hey cool! Notice now how it fits Peratt's definition of a discharge in a plasma:
Click to expand...
Hey cool! Notice now that you are still wrong because Peratt never defines a discharge in a plasma.
 
Michael Mozina said:
That term and definition provided by Peratt is consistent with Dungey's use of the term
Click to expand...
No. You are not paying attention at all. Here is Peratt's definition again:
Peratt said:
An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.
Click to expand...


And here is Dungey's definition again:

Dungey said:
A 'discharge' will be a region [of a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion] in which the electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field, so that all the electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities.
Click to expand...

Rational people can clearly see that these are two different definitions of the same term. They are not compatible.
 
Reality Check said:
Dungey never defines electrical discharge. If it is the standard definition than it cannot happen in a plasma. However the context of his use is that of a large current density. So his usage differs from Peratt
  1. No energy release is mentioned in the 1958 presentation.
  2. There is no breakdown.
Click to expand...
You are correct, except that Dungey does define "electric disharge" in the original paper. See my post above for that definition.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Peratt already provided us with that.
Click to expand...


No, he did not. People who can actually understand what they read have determined that he did not. And if for one second any of the electric Sun nutters claim Peratt's "definition" of an electrical discharge is the one they are going to use, the next second they're babbling about Alfvén's use of the term discharge, or Dungey's, or a 100 year old picture of Birkeland's simulation of Saturn for god's sake. And since all those people used the term(s) differently, the electric Sun cranks have not, and apparently will not provide a clear, concise, and objective definition of the term.

The crackpots' strategy seems to be, given the repeated, dishonest, and failed arguments in this thread, to not define terms objectively, then nobody can point out exactly why it's doesn't support the crazy claims. Well as has been mentioned many, many times, not just by me but by pretty much everyone in these discussions who isn't proposing some kind of wacky electric Sun conjecture, that is wholly dishonest. It is a lie, a sham, a fraudulent way to pretend to do science.

It's simply that none of you wish to accept it, because the moment you do, this debate is over.
Click to expand...


The minute someone accepts it, for the purpose of moving the discussion forward, two thing happen. The first thing is that real scientists and knowledgeable amateurs use that definition to shred the nutty claim that solar flares are electrical discharges. Then the second thing that happens is the crackpots jump to Dungey or Alfvén or Birkeland and dishonestly change the definition they so desperately wanted to use a minute ago.

It's therefore a twilight zone episode around here where denial reigns supreme. No amount of lab evidence, like that iron ionization paper, or mathematical presentations like Alfven's use of exploding double layers can or will ever be addressed. It's just a denial-merry-go-round around here because none of you will accept Peratt's very simple, very clean, very elegant *DEFINITION* of an electrical discharge *IN* a plasma. Round and round and round we go, ad-homs and denial in post after post after pointless post.
Click to expand...


The argument that Peratt has provided a definition of the term "electrical discharge" is a lie. Using a term in the heading of a section of material, then neglecting to follow up on that heading within the body of the material, is shoddy science. Peratt's mistake in that regard has been described many times here already. Claiming it is an objective, clear, and concise definition is a simple, plain, and obvious argument by lying. And all those here who are not electric Sun cranks seem to have recognized it as such.
 
D'rok said:
You are correct, except that Dungey does define "electric disharge" in the original paper. See my post above for that definition.
Click to expand...

Did someone post the link to his original paper? It's been busy at work, so I may have missed it. Where did you get that definition?

Rational people can clearly see that these are two different definitions of the same term. They are not compatible.
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no they are different, well, sort of. In terms of compatibility however, I completely disagree. How so?
 
GeeMack said:
No, he did not. People who can actually understand what they read have determined that he did not.
Click to expand...

No. People in denial continue to believe anything they want.

And if for one second any of the electric Sun nutters
Click to expand...

More ad homs? Who would have guessed? Those EU hater nutters just can't make a scientific argument so all they do is rely on ad homs, lies and outright denial. Yawn.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Well, yes and no they are different, well, sort of. In terms of compatibility however, I completely disagree. How so?
Click to expand...


So the claim that an objective, concise, clear definition of the term "electrical discharge" has been provided is demonstrably another lie. Nothing is clear, concise, objective, and "yes and no" and "sort of", not in common English is isn't. So the claim has been proven, in that single post, to be a lie.

And we're still waiting for the objective quantitative evidence to support this ridiculous claim...

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


Yeah, right, sure it is.
:dl:​
 
GeeMack said:
The argument that Peratt has provided a definition of the term "electrical discharge" is a lie.
Click to expand...

Pathological lies won't change history GM.

Originally Posted by Peratt
1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic PlasmaAn electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy . This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiatiοη.
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
Hey cool! Notice now that you are still wrong because Peratt never defines a discharge in a plasma.
Click to expand...

Hey cool, pure denial on your part:

Originally Posted by Peratt
1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy . This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually detemined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiatiοη.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
Did someone post the link to his original paper?
Click to expand...
Nope. But this is the third time I've posted the definition.
Where did you get that definition?
Click to expand...
From the original paper. I should think you'd be familiar with that paper.

Well, yes and no they are different, well, sort of. In terms of compatibility however, I completely disagree. How so?
Click to expand...
They are not referring to the same phenomenon at all.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
You know, it's statements like this that simply make me feel sad. I know you to be an honest and intelligent person from our conversations, and I simply do not understand your position on this specific topic.

I did not try to "impose" a definition of an electrical discharge in a plasma, I posted a definition by a plasma physicist. Does anyone else in this conversation have a Phd in plasma physics, because I know I sure don't? I specifically and intentionally looked *OUTSIDE* of myself for a legitimate definition of the term, and I cited the source. That term and definition provided by Peratt is consistent with Dungey's use of the term as well as *MANY* other authors. I can't for life of me understand why any of you are in basic denial of that fact, or blaming me for that fact (impose).
Click to expand...
Tusenfem discussed this in detail in a number of posts on page 41 and 42.
In summary - how I understand it at least - there are (at least) two completely different definitions of discharge flying around. One which involves the breakdown of a dielectric medium and one in which we are talking about unusually large currents in a conductor. In no way are these the same thing.
Then there is the issue of breakdown. As far as I understand it... breakdown of a dielectric medium basically means that a insulator becomes a conductor. Breakdown of a conductor means it ceases to function as a conductor. From the little I've read about exploding double layers, (one of) the interesting things about such an occurrence is that part of the plasma ceases to conduct.
And from this you claim:
As long as we're talking about intellectual honesty, let's talk cause/effect relationships established here on Earth. Here on Earth we observe that "discharges" occur in our atmosphere. Such "discharges' emit gamma rays, x-rays, high energy photons galore. They heat plasma to millions of degrees in the lab. They ionize iron to high states of ionization. They do *ALL* the things we observe in flares. An intellectually honest person would simply note that when we observe gamma rays, x-rays, and other high energy photon emissions from *ANY* atmosphere from any body in space, it's most like a "discharge" process involved.
Click to expand...
But discharges in the atmosphere refers to the breakdown of a dielectric and the transformation of an insulator into a conductor. Conversely talking of exploding double layers, as far as I can tell, must mean failure of a conductor to conduct. In other words you are simply constructing a fallacy of equivocation.

What makes me feel "sad" (I mean it emotionally makes me feel sad) is that you actually believe that no quantitative evidence has been presented. I have presented *AT LEAST* a half dozen papers with quantitative evidence, and I have also recommended *BOOKS* on this topic. In fact that link I provided earlier to Alfven's book actually has many of the first few chapters available for you to read anytime you wish to do so. Inside those chapters and papers you will find all the quantitative evidence you could ever hope for. I'm sad because if I am not reaching people like you with Calqvist's work Alfven's work, or Bruce's work, there's probably no way this conversation will ever have a good outcome.
Click to expand...
But there is no evidence that you have actually understood anything that you have linked to. Presenting links mostly seems to consistent of cherry picking small excerpts out of context at best. The rest of the time it is just a link from which we're meant to ascertain what you are talking about by ourselves.
 
D'rok said:
Nope.From the original paper. I should think you'd be familiar with that paper.
Click to expand...

I told you it had been years since I read it. I never in my wildest expectations thought his *DEFINITION* would become such a hot topic, so I'd like to see the actual verbiage again if you don't mind.

Where did you get that quote then?

They are not referring to the same phenomenon at all.
Click to expand...

They sure look to be referring to a high speed current flow through a plasma that would heat plasma, create pinches, etc in a LOCALIZED event, all the same things Peratt discusses. How are they radically different concepts on your mind? Wouldn't the "electron flow' tend to "pinch' the plasma in to filaments and such?
 
Tubbythin said:
Tusenfem discussed this in detail in a number of posts on page 41 and 42.
In summary - how I understand it at least - there are (at least) two completely different definitions of discharge flying around. One which involves the breakdown of a dielectric medium
Click to expand...

Only your side is discussing such a requirement. Dungey and Peratt imposed no such requirement.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No. People in denial continue to believe anything they want.
Click to expand...


The persistent personal attacks are noted.

More ad homs?
Click to expand...


Nope. An ad hom would be like if someone said solar flares aren't electrical discharges because electric Sun proponents don't have the brains god gave a flea. Nobody is saying anything like that. What we're all saying is that nobody has provided quantitative objective support for the claim that solar flares are electrical discharges, yet there are apparently people who, in the face of that complete and total lack of supporting evidence, would steadfastly maintain the position that it is true. That, by definition, makes them crackpots. And once again, that's what puts the "E" in JREF. :)

And we're still waiting for the objective quantitative evidence to support this silly claim...

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


... yet it doesn't appear to be forthcoming. Maybe a good place to start would be defining the term "electrical discharge" in an objective, unambiguous way, since that hasn't been done yet, either.
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
But there is no evidence that you have actually understood anything that you have linked to.
Click to expand...

What kind of an argument is that? None of you have commented much on Alfven's "circuit" of the sudden release of "circuit energy" from that "circuit", or how it relates to Peratt's definition. I haven't seen the slightest evidence that your side of the aisle has even *READ* the materials presented, let alone *UNDERSTOOD* them. Wake me up when you're ready to talk about the sudden release of "circuit energy" like Calqvist, and Alfven and Peratt and many, many, many others who's work I have linked to this thread and the flare thread.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I told you it had been years since I read it. I never in my wildest expectations thought his *DEFINITION* would become such a hot topic,
Click to expand...
Then you shouldn't have misrepresented it.
so I'd like to see the actual verbiage again if you don't mind.
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6752170#post6752170
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6752708#post6752708
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6757512#post6757512

Where did you get that quote then?
Click to expand...
The original paper.



They sure look to be referring to a high speed current flow through a plasma that would heat plasma, create pinches, etc in a LOCALIZED event, all the same things Peratt discusses. How are they radically different concepts on your mind? Wouldn't the "electron flow' tend to "pinch' the plasma in to filaments and such?
Click to expand...
Where does Dungey refer to plasma specifically? Where does Dungey talk about a breakdown of the medium? How is Dungey's definition distinguished from a current? Why does Peratt use lightning as an example?

Actually, everybody else is doing a much better job of pointing out the differences. I refer you to Tubbythin 's post, for example.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6757773#post6757773
 
Michael Mozina said:
Only your side is discussing such a requirement. Dungey and Peratt imposed no such requirement.
Click to expand...

You were trying to use the properties of thunderstorms to support your case. You remember thunderstorms, those things with lightning. Lightning that occurs due to dialectric breakdown of the air. If dialectric breakdown is not relevant then neither are thunderstorms.
 
Michael Mozina said:
What kind of an argument is that?
Click to expand...
Michael it is up to you to make your argument not us to make it for you.

None of you have commented much on Alfven's "circuit" of the sudden release of "circuit energy" from that "circuit", or how it relates to Peratt's definition. I haven't seen the slightest evidence that your side of the aisle has even *READ* the materials presented, let alone *UNDERSTOOD* them. Wake me up when you're ready to talk about the sudden release of "circuit energy" like Calqvist, and Alfven and Peratt and many, many, many others who's work I have linked to this thread and the flare thread.
Click to expand...
I've commented about your claims about Alfven and exploding double layers. I may be a bit confused in this respect, perhaps you could iron it all out for me?
 
Tubbythin said:
You were trying to use the properties of thunderstorms to support your case. You remember thunderstorms, those things with lightning. Lightning that occurs due to dialectric breakdown of the air. If dialectric breakdown is not relevant then neither are thunderstorms.
Click to expand...


... or toy plasma balls, another laughable comparison that has been made numerous times by proponents of the unsupported claim that solar flares are electrical discharges.
 
D'rok said:
Then you shouldn't have misrepresented it.
Click to expand...

I haven't.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6752170#post6752170
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6752708#post6752708
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6757512#post6757512

The original paper.
Click to expand...

I found you quoting him, but I never saw a link to the source of that quote. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to be sure I understand where that definition came from (which paper), and at the moment I'm not clear.

For discussion purposes however:

A 'discharge' will be a region [of a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion] in which the electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field, so that all the electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities.
Click to expand...

Where does Dungey refer to plasma specifically?
Click to expand...

In the yellow part specifically.

Where does Dungey talk about a breakdown of the medium?
Click to expand...

Where does Peratt claim that the medium *MUST* break down every single time?

How is Dungey's definition distinguished from a current?
Click to expand...

I don't really know how to answer that since ultimately a "discharge" is a "current flow" as well. It's more a questions of "how much". It's like asking when does a pond become a "small lake"?

Why does Peratt use lightning as an example?
Click to expand...

Because it's an example of a discharge.

Actually, everybody else is doing a much better job of pointing out the differences. I refer you to Tubbythin 's post, for example.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6757773#post6757773
Click to expand...

IMO that is only because you *WANT* to find "differences" rather than trying to see them as the same. The *INTENT* makes all the difference in the world. It's called "conformational bias."
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
You were trying to use the properties of thunderstorms to support your case. You remember thunderstorms, those things with lightning. Lightning that occurs due to dialectric breakdown of the air. If dialectric breakdown is not relevant then neither are thunderstorms.
Click to expand...

The dielectric breakdown requirement doesn't apply to plasma! Why? Because it's *ALREADY A PLASMA*! Grrr.

In every other way it's still a "discharge' and that "discharge" continues on *THROUGH* the plasma, even *AFTER* the dielectric breakdown! Oy.
 
Tubbythin said:
Michael it is up to you to make your argument not us to make it for you.
Click to expand...

I have. No one wants to address it! "Circuit energy? What circuit energy?" Rapid release of EM energy? What rapid release of energy?" The whole conversation is surreal IMO

I've commented about your claims about Alfven and exploding double layers. I may be a bit confused in this respect, perhaps you could iron it all out for me?
Click to expand...

The basic concept is that Alfven describes a coronal loop as a "circuit" of energy. He talks about the "circuit energy", and the sudden and rapid release of all that EM energy. In terms of the magnetic field to particle kinetic energy transfer process, he refers to it as 'induction", but in every other respect, it's just a rapid release of the magnetic field energy into the plasma, just like "reconnection' theory. All such theories *REQUIRE* a rapid transfer of magnetic field energy into the plasma, which is by *DEFINITION* an 'electrical discharge" in a plasma.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I haven't.
Click to expand...
Yes, you have.

I found you quoting him, but I never saw a link to the source of that quote. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to be sure I understand where that definition came from (which paper), and at the moment I'm not clear.
Click to expand...
You would be clear if you read my posts. The title of the paper is there. Besides, there's no need to prevaricate; you know precisely which paper we're talking about.

In the yellow part specifically.
Click to expand...
How interesting. That wasn't what you said the first time you read this definition.
MM said:
That definition fits with these sorts of observations, but a plasma is a plasma not a gas.
Click to expand...

Why have you changed your mind?


Where does Peratt claim that the medium *MUST* break down every single time?
Click to expand...
Oh, so that's just an optional part of the definition, eh? This is getting quite loosey goosey, isn't it?



I don't really know how to answer that since ultimately a "discharge" is a "current flow" as well. It's more a questions of "how much". It's like asking when does a pond become a "small lake"?
Click to expand...
Discharge = current. Current = discharge. Kind of useless. Still, tusenfem granted this to you, but you still wouldn't talk to him about it. That is just petulance.


Because it's an example of a discharge.
Click to expand...
Is it the same type of discharge that you claim happens in plasma? Does it require a dielectric breakdown? Does it fit Dungey's definition? Is it the same as a current?

IMO that is only because you *WANT* to find "differences" rather than trying to see them as the same. The *INTENT* makes all the difference in the world. It's called "conformational bias."
Click to expand...
Good grief. The differences are plainly evident in the text. We can't help you if you won't deal with them.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
The dielectric breakdown requirement doesn't apply to plasma! Why? Because it's *ALREADY A PLASMA*! Grrr.
Click to expand...
I gather that a plasma doesn't need to break down.

In every other way it's still a "discharge' and that "discharge" continues on *THROUGH* the plasma, even *AFTER* the dielectric breakdown! Oy.
Click to expand...
The observed properties of lightning are what they are precisely because there is a dielectric breakdown of an insulator! If there was no dielectric breakdown there would be no lightning. Do you understand this?
 
Michael Mozina said:
I have. No one wants to address it! "Circuit energy? What circuit energy?" Rapid release of EM energy? What rapid release of energy?" The whole conversation is surreal IMO
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. Show me the post in which you showed us all how calculation of circuit energy matched with observed data.

The basic concept is that Alfven describes a coronal loop as a "circuit" of energy. He talks about the "circuit energy", and the sudden and rapid release of all that EM energy. In terms of the magnetic field to particle kinetic energy transfer process, he refers to it as 'induction", but in every other respect, it's just a rapid release of the magnetic field energy into the plasma, just like "reconnection' theory. All such theories *REQUIRE* a rapid transfer of magnetic field energy into the plasma, which is by *DEFINITION* an 'electrical discharge" in a plasma.
Click to expand...
I asked about exploding double layers.
 
Tubbythin said:
I'm sorry. Show me the post in which you showed us all how calculation of circuit energy matched with observed data.
Click to expand...

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813

Was there any particular problem with this paper that Haig provided earlier?

I asked about exploding double layers.
Click to expand...

I would of course refer you to his paper, but I'm sure that's not what you're looking for. I'm fuzzy however on what exactly you ARE looking for. Could you be more specific?
 
Tubbythin said:
I gather that a plasma doesn't need to break down.
Click to expand...

And the other shoe is that "discharges" can still occur in plasma *without* any such dielectric breakdown requirement.

The observed properties of lightning are what they are precisely because there is a dielectric breakdown of an insulator! If there was no dielectric breakdown there would be no lightning. Do you understand this?
Click to expand...

In the sense that if there wasn't an insulating process involved somewhere, it wouldn't happen, yes. In the sense that a strong electrical current continues to run through that ionized "lightning bolt", it keeps heating the plasma for some time, it pinches the plasma, it causes the plasma to emit high energy photons, etc, the breakdown is irrelevant. It's the 'current flow' that drives the bright light show and sustains that light show. The moment the current stops flowing, the show is over.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
And the other shoe is that "discharges" can still occur in plasma *without* any such dielectric breakdown requirement.
Click to expand...
Well that depends on your definition of breakdown.

In the sense that if there wasn't an insulating process involved somewhere, it wouldn't happen, yes. In the sense that a strong electrical current continues to run through that ionized "lightning bolt", it keeps heating the plasma for some time, it pinches the plasma, it causes the plasma to emit high energy photons, etc, the breakdown is irrelevant. It's the 'current flow' that drives the bright light show and sustains that light show. The moment the current stops flowing, the show is over.
Click to expand...
The breakdown is entirely relevant. Without it there would quite simply be no lightning. It is only because the air is an insulator that we can have such a big potential difference. Without it there would be no lightning. And the maximum size of the potential difference depends on the nature of the dialectric medium in question. How then can you conclude that this is irrelevant when it controls the fundamental properties of the discharge?
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
Was there any particular problem with this paper that Haig provided earlier?
Click to expand...
The main problem is that you haven't as you claimed, presented it.

I would of course refer you to his paper, but I'm sure that's not what you're looking for. I'm fuzzy however on what exactly you ARE looking for. Could you be more specific?
Click to expand...
Well, it is my (extremely limited I'll admit) understanding of exploding double layers that such events lead to 'bits' of plasma that cease to conduct (and this is one reason why they are interesting). This seems to be the exact opposite of what you want for your argument. Have I got this completely wrong (I'm quite willing to believe I have).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom