Thunderbolts Forum

'11-01-31, 20:46 Lloyd	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection * Charles, do you consider that the granulation of the Sun is not electric discharge from the galactic current? Thornhill considers tornadoes on Earth to be slow electric discharges, and the solar granules are similar discharges, except for being much larger and in arc mode. He said the insides of Earth tornadoes have been reported to be bright, as in arc mode, also, and that Martian dust devils also show arc mode discharge at their bases. Maybe you've already read this webpage, http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf, but could you point out what parts of the following passage you agree with and what parts you disagree with? It is clear from the behavior of its relatively cool photosphere that the Sun is an anode, or positively charged electrode, in a galactic discharge. The red chromosphere is the counterpart to the glow above the anode surface in a discharge tube. When the current density is too high for the anode surface to accommodate, a bright secondary plasma forms within the primary plasma. It is termed “anode tufting.” On the Sun, the tufts are packed together tightly so that their tops give the appearance of “granulation.” ... As noticed by Scott, the tufted plasma sheath above the stellar anode seems to be the cosmic equivalent of a ‘PNP transistor,’ a simple electronic device using small changes in voltage to control large changes in electrical power output. The tufted sheath thus regulates the solar discharge and provides stability of radiated heat and light output, while the power to the Sun varies throughout the sunspot cycle. >> The Sun’s plasma sheath. The white curve shows how the voltage changes within the solar plasma as we move outward from the body of the Sun. Positively charged protons will tend to “roll down the hills.” So the photospheric tuft plasma acts as a barrier to limit the Sun’s power output. The plateau between (b) and (c) and beyond (e) defines a normal quasi-neutral plasma. The chromosphere has a strong electric field which flattens out but remains non-zero throughout the solar system. As protons accelerate down the chromospheric slope, heading to the right, they encounter turbulence at (e), which heats the solar corona to millions of degrees. The small, but relatively constant, accelerating voltage gradient beyond the corona is responsible for accelerating the solar wind away from the Sun. Credit: W. Thornhill (after W. Allis & R. Juergens), The Electric Universe. Note: Sunspots are a phenomenon that is not expected in the standard thermonuclear model of stars. “The very existence of sunspots is intriguing. They should be heated quickly from the sides and disappear. They should never have formed — but they do form. Their behavior is so strange that there is still argument between scientists as to why they are there at all.” — Ronald Giovanelli, Secrets of the Sun.. Sunspots are a clearing of the tufts where a dark discharge from an equatorial plasma toroid encircling the Sun punches through them. Birkeland had the general idea figured out in 1913! The dark center, or umbra, of the sunspot shows the cooler temperature of the Sun beneath the bright plasma. The sunspot penumbra, in which we are looking at the sides of the “hole” punched through the tuft layer, shows the structure of the tufts. They are bright tornadic cylinders of plasma, thousands of kilometers long. Tornadoes are constrained by strong electromagnetic forces to be a slow form of lightning discharge. This explains why solar granulations last for about 10 minutes before slowly fading to be replaced by others. They have nothing to do with convection, although they do dredge material from below. * Here's a comparison of solar granules in sunspots with an artificial fire tornado.
'11-02-01, 03:48 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection Sparky, I'm still working on a response to your post. You guys are tag-teaming me... Lloyd wrote:Do you consider that the granulation of the Sun is not electric discharge from the galactic current? That's correct — I don't find the "anode tufting" thing to be convincing (discussed further down). Lloyd wrote:Thornhill considers tornadoes on Earth to be slow electric discharges, and the solar granules are similar discharges, except for being much larger and in arc mode. He said the insides of Earth tornadoes have been reported to be bright, as in arc mode, also, and that Martian dust devils also show arc mode discharge at their bases. You just HAD to mention tornadoes... If you ever want to blow an entire cold rainy weekend reading a 200-page paper on the EM nature of tornadoes, might I suggest: The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms I actually found my way into the EU camp because of my interest in tornadoes. I got a great deal of inspiration, and a lot of useful suggestions, from my interactions with people on this board. But I ended up going way, way past anything you'll ever find in the EU literature. The EU theory of tornadoes is that they are electrostatic discharges between the ground and the cloud. The technical term for this is a "discharge vortex", and the theory was originally proposed in the 1960s by Dr. Bernard Vonnegut (among others). But this was subsequently shown to be inadequate for actually explaining how tornadoes work. Still convinced that tornadoes are electromagnetic, I tracked it all of the way down, and I demonstrated how a wide variety of tornadic properties can be explained to a high degree of specificity with EMHD principles. Tornadoes are electromagnetic, but not in the sense that Vonnegut and the EU camp think they are. If all of the mysteries of the Universe could be solved with simple electrostatic discharges, they would have been solved at least by the mid 1900s. If you think that these possibilities haven't been considered, you're mistaken. They were considered, and the problems still weren't solved. THEN scientists flaked out, and started doing all of this make-believe math with all of these artificial constructs that sound really cool, but don't actually have anything to do with what sane people would call real, such as black holes, neutron stars, magnetic reconnection, etc. They're ignoring obvious electromagnetic properties of the Universe, but not because they never considered them. They're ignoring them because none of the simple solutions worked out. This tells me that EM is the missing ingredient, but it's not simple electrostatics. A complete description of tornadoes, at a high degree of specificity, only becomes possible in a fully-coupled electromagnetic and fluid dynamic framework. The fact that my work hasn't been assimilated into the main body of EU literature tells me that you guys don't want complete theories — you just want narrowly-defined ideas that sound revolutionary (even though they aren't), and that sound like they'll solve the whole riddle (even though they won't). OK, that's way too harsh. You guys are on the right track, but you have to give scientists more credit. They may be crazy, but they're not stupid. It will take more than just a brave new idea to solve the mysteries of the Universe. It will take open-mindedness, and perseverance. Be prepared to part with your most cherished beliefs, and don't expect it to be pretty. Seek the truth. In the end, nature is elegant, but you have to forsake pleasantries and look for the nuts and bolts of how things work in order to arrive at the most elegant solution of all — the truth. To put it another way, Mother Nature will tell you how SHE wants it to be elegant, which might be different from the cool new idea that you started off with... (At least so it has always been with my studies...) Thornhill wrote:When the current density is too high for the anode surface to accommodate, a bright secondary plasma forms within the primary plasma. It is termed “anode tufting.” How, exactly, does the current density become too high for the anode, when the anode is plasma at a minimum of at least 3,000 K (the temperature inside a sunspot and so, presumably, the temperature deeper inside the Sun)? At that temperature, the plasma is an excellent conductor. Furthermore, from what (little) literature I could locate on anode tufting, it's questionable whether it's even relevant. The tufts occur in a weakly-ionized gas near an anode, where a secondary space charge builds up, resulting in some of the gas going up to the next degree of ionization. These are short-scale effects with high voltages near a solid anode starting out with neutrally-charged gas that develops two different levels of ionization. Yet the plasma in the photosphere is pure plasma — bare atomic nuclei and free electrons. Ionization energies are irrelevant — there are not going to be two different species of plasma near the "anode." Scott wrote:The tufted plasma sheath above the stellar anode seems to be the cosmic equivalent of a ‘PNP transistor,’ a simple electronic device using small changes in voltage to control large changes in electrical power output. The tufted sheath thus regulates the solar discharge and provides stability of radiated heat and light output, while the power to the Sun varies throughout the sunspot cycle. No tufts, no transistor effect. Thornhill wrote:The white curve shows how the voltage changes within the solar plasma as we move outward from the body of the Sun. The diagram states that the voltage changes, but it does not demonstrate how such a charge separation could persist. Both hot plasma and the near-perfect vacuum of space are excellent conductors. You don't get shielding layers in space charges in excellent conductors. Such a curve is only possible in a gas that has some capacitance. Thornhill wrote:Positively charged protons will tend to “roll down the hills.” Better not let Sparky hear you talk like that! Here I would agree with his fundamental argument against me. Protons don't roll down anything, and thinking that the solar wind is protons getting sucked out of the Sun by a galactic voltage is ignorant of the difference in mass between a proton/neutron pair versus a free electron. If the Sun is positively-charged, and if there is a galactic voltage, it should be electrons flowing in, and that's all it should be. It should also be remembered that if there was any kind of substantial charge imbalance, with the Sun possessing any kind of major positive charge compared to its surroundings, the electrostatic repulsion would drive the particles apart. If the only thing that is containing the charges is gravity, and if the electric force is 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity, only an infinitesimal net charge can be contained by gravity. And yet we see a sustained arc discharge in the photosphere? Thornhill wrote:As protons accelerate down the chromospheric slope, heading to the right, they encounter turbulence at (e), which heats the solar corona to millions of degrees. They encounter turbulence in the corona, but not in the chromosphere, where the density of the plasma is logarithmically greater? Thornhill wrote:Sunspots are a clearing of the tufts where a dark discharge from an equatorial plasma toroid encircling the Sun punches through them. Birkeland had the general idea figured out in 1913! The dark center, or umbra, of the sunspot shows the cooler temperature of the Sun beneath the bright plasma. The sunspot penumbra, in which we are looking at the sides of the “hole” punched through the tuft layer, shows the structure of the tufts. They are bright tornadic cylinders of plasma, thousands of kilometers long. In what sense are sunspots "dark" discharges? At 3,000 ~ 4,500 K, they should be in arc discharge mode. Dark/glow/arc discharges have specific thresholds — they're not qualitative terms, where plasma is dark if it is only 3,000 K, which is cool by comparison to neighboring plasma at 6,000 K. Thornhill wrote:Tornadoes are constrained by strong electromagnetic forces to be a slow form of lightning discharge. I don't FREAKING think so. I demonstrate that tornadoes can only be accurately described as bottleneck discharge vortexes. (See the URL listed above for way, way more info than you ever needed to know about tornadoes.) Thornhill wrote:This explains why solar granulations last for about 10 minutes before slowly fading to be replaced by others. What explains why solar granulations last for about 10 minutes? The fact that they have been equated with tornadoes, which last about 10 minutes? Thornhill wrote:They have nothing to do with convection... Agreed. Thornhill wrote:...although they do dredge material from below. How? With low pressure from a tornadic updraft?
'11-02-01, 13:03 mharratsc	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection Charles, you said: You don't get shielding layers in space charges in excellent conductors. Actually, yeah you do. 'Double-layers' are maintained by their magnetic fields... not the dielectric properties of the conducting plasma! The EU theory of tornadoes is that they are electrostatic discharges between the ground and the cloud. Whaa...? Man... I remember spending quite a good amount of time trying to convince you that tornadoes were a portion of the atmospheric part of the Earth-Sun-Galaxy-etc' circuit... where did 'electrostatics' ever come into this? o.O It will take more than just a brave new idea to solve the mysteries of the Universe. It will take open-mindedness, and perseverance. Be prepared to part with your most cherished beliefs, and don't expect it to be pretty. Seek the truth. In the end, nature is elegant, but you have to forsake pleasantries and look for the nuts and bolts of how things work in order to arrive at the most elegant solution of all — the truth You are preaching to the choir, brother! This is the same stuff that EU proponents have been barking at mainstream scientists for how long now? The 'nuts and bolts' are the electrodynamic properties of matter, which- in my 'humble' opinion- mainstream science tries to observe in piecemeal detail, rather than looking for the larger,scalar patterns of electrodynamics within the Universe. To put it another way, Mother Nature will tell you how SHE wants it to be elegant, which might be different from the cool new idea that you started off with... Exactly bud- Nature doesn't invent something new when an existing method will suffice. This is a chief complaint from plasma physicists and EU proponents regarding mainstreamist tendencies to look for 'new physics'... electrodynamics are scalar to over 19 (or more?) orders of magnitude! But anyway, in regards to anode tufting- that's not some hypothetical figment of the imagination, it's a witnessed effect in plasma labs. Application to the 'granules' on the Sun is not a big stretch of the imagination to anyone with some background in electrical sciences. What IS a stretch of the imagination is thinking of those things as 'convective cells' of heat being transfered through a medium without any radiative loss to the medium of convection! How long could you have 'convective cells' running through a cooler region without it eventually heating up to the temperature of the matter coming out of the convective cell? Or else cooling the matter in the cell to the temperature of the surrounding medium (like cooling a hydraulic line by running it through a gas tank in an aircraft wing)? I still don't understand how they suggest that thermal equilibrium isn't reached on the Sun's surface in all this! Anyway- dunno if any of that helps, but... I'm tryin!
'11-02-01, 13:52 mharratsc	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection Hey Charles... on a completely thread-derailing tack- in all your investigations on tornadic supercells and whatnot, did you ever hear about high altitude electrical phenomena associated with them? I know that sprites and jets are associated with thunderstorms... but anything specific about supercells at all? The reason why I ask is this: I've heard a great deal more about sprites and jets in regards to arc discharges (lightning) than I have regarding ELVE's... so I'm wondering- might ELVE's be more than just a higher altitude phenomenon? Perhaps they are a volumetrically greater yet less dense discharge, that might be a companion of (what I feel to be, at least) the volumetrically greater yet less dense lower altitude discharge phenomenon of supercell phenomena (like tornadoes, perhaps)? My thinking is that- with tornadoes- we see glow mode discharges (luminosity) just as we do with ELVE's, rather than arc discharges like jets and sprites. I do realize that we see lightning strikes in the vacinity of many tornadoes, but I see them as perhaps secondary discharge channels of the primary charge movement in these situations. Just thinking out loud- should probably take this to a different thread, actually. :
'11-02-01, 20:34 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection CharlesChandler wrote:...so it will all be pure plasma... Sparky wrote:yes, agreed....and most of it will be in arc mode, conducting, using either Birkeland or heretofore undiscovered "X currents.".. Yes, we're discovering a new type of current here... maybe... or not... Maybe I'm just discovering how little I know about this... But in a solar filament, there is an electric current. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's only 2 fundamental possibilities there: 1) there's an electrostatic potential between an anode and a cathode, or 2) there are time-varying magnetic fields that are inducing a current. If it's #2, you have to explain where the magnetic fields came from, and last time I checked, there isn't a reasonable hypothesis for that. So that leaves us with #1 — an E field between electrodes. There I think we agree. Then you have to explain the charge separation. And this is a heckuva problem, since as you point out, it's all hot enough to be an excellent conductor. Developing charge separations in a excellent conductor ain't easy, and all of the fancy things that can happen with shielding layers (as I discussed in my response to Thornhill, at Lloyd's request) are just not relevant. CharlesChandler wrote: You don't get shielding layers in space charges in excellent conductors. mharratsc wrote:Actually, yeah you do. 'Double-layers' are maintained by their magnetic fields... not the dielectric properties of the conducting plasma! OK, I'll accept that as a postulate. But you're gonna have to support it. What is generating the magnetic fields? You're not going to say that they're "frozen in" like magnetized rock, because it's random plasma. So doesn't that mean that these are electrodynamic fields? If so, that's what I'm talking about — [cover your ears, Sparky] moving electric charges generating magnetic fields that establish and maintain charge separations. Maybe we're both fighting straw men of our own creation, and not each other? Anyway, I just haven't seen the specificity in the literature to tell what, exactly, the EU model is saying. Now, if they are electrodynamic fields, you have to explain what set the charges in motion. And don't say that it's the electric force that is accelerating particles, because the question is: what accelerates the particles such that magnetic fields are created that can keep the particles separate? I can't help but think that some, or all, of the confusion here is purely terminological, and surely I am one primary source of the problem. But you guys gotta help me out here. CharlesChandler wrote:Opposite charges traveling in the same direction Sparky wrote:there we go with opposite, traveling charges...i would have to translate that into "normal electric current, electrons", and "variation #2 anti-electrical current, protons, somehow conducting, as an anti=electric current in ionic soup. OK, my terminology sucks, I get it. How about: parallel proton and electron streams, separated by the opposing magnetic fields that they generate? But they're not electric currents in any conventional sense, because they're not responding to a voltage. I think that what I'm up against here is simply that people who have been trained in EM just cannot think of currents as anything other than moving electrons. It makes sense, of course. An electron is 1/4000 the mass of a proton/neutron pair, so if there is an electrostatic potential, the electrons respond 4000 times more vigorously. In other words, the mental model is of atomic nuclei sitting there, with electrons hopping along from one nucleus to the next, as an electric current. But it's almost like people don't think that atomic nuclei have electrical properties, except in the sense that they can sit there and attract electrons if they don't already have enough. But if we know for a fact that we have plasma jets (including atomic nuclei) traveling at extreme speeds (several to many km/sec in photospheric loops, and at relativistic speeds in CMEs), then we have protons moving fast enough to generate magnetic fields. And time-varying magnetic fields can accelerate protons to relativistic speeds. The laboratory confirmation of that comes from tokamak research. So there's nothing in the principles of EM that state that all "currents" are the flow of electrons, and that only electrons generate (or can be influenced by) magnetic fields. It's just that "normally" currents are moving electrons, since they are so much lighter. Yet with that as the pretext, if we look at what's going on in the photosphere, we are immediately confronted with something that we cannot possibly understand. We have atomic nuclei in plasma jets in and under the photosphere getting accelerated to supersonic speeds. Convection can't do that. And neither can standard electric currents, since those always involve the electrons doing the moving, while the atomic nuclei just sit there and let the electrons bounce along. And it doesn't matter whether the electric current is because of an E field between two electrodes, or because of time-varying magnetic fields. The electrons get accelerated 4000 times more easily, so they do the moving. This leaves us without an explanation for the turbulent nature of the so-called convective zone. I agree that it's not accurately described as convection, but what is it? So what I'm trying to do is put all of the pieces together. We know that magnetic fields are present, and there is a 1-to-1 correspondence between the speed of the plasma and the strength and polarity of the magnetic fields. And opposing magnetic fields repel. So now you have a force that can separate charges, and keep them separate. Then we just have to figure out how the charge separation fails, with the resulting electric currents. This is what the "x current" is attempting to establish. CharlesChandler wrote:It's just a bunch of matter moving at an extreme speed, that overall is neutrally charged, though it's all pure plasma. Sparky wrote:Fusion Bomb? With no created voltage/magnetic/current pulse?...okay, let's call that "strange Fusion". But in a normal H He fusion there are voltage/magnetic/current pulse and all that plasma would conduct like crazy. if it is plasma in the sun, it is probably conducting, etc. No, it isn't strange fusion. It's charge separations that resulted in arc discharges that resulted in imploding discharge channels. Sparky wrote:okay, i'm with you, but getting more confused with these inventions. No, dang it — you should disagree — vehemently — because this is forcing me to identify the loose conjecture in my construct. But you also have to listen to what I'm saying, or this is going to get just plain tedious. CharlesChandler wrote:...if the speeds in question are capable of z-pinching charge streams... Sparky wrote:i suspect that z-pinch is more of a function of current density = magnetic field strength than any "speed" of the current carrying medium. Ampere's law states that the force of the magnetic field is the amount of charge times the speed at which the charge is moving. We wouldn't tend to think of speed as a factor, because normally it's the electrons that are moving, and their "speed" is a straight function of the resistance of the medium, so we wouldn't really look at that. Rather, it would be just the voltage that would determine the charge density which would determine the strength of the magnetic field. But if we're talking about z-pinches in positive ion streams, then the speed is quite variable. You have to accelerate the atomic nuclei, and then continue to overcome whatever friction and turbulence they might encounter. This is what is preventing tokamaks from achieving a net power output. They can get enough z-pinch in the atomic nuclei to get fusion, but it takes more energy to develop that pinch that they get out of it, due to friction and turbulence inside the containment chamber. Sparky wrote:...how they calculated the heat of the collapsing lightning strike... Not with a thermometer... It's by the nature of the EM radiation (the X-rays), which are emitted at specific temperatures. Sparky wrote:we see what appears to be plasma instabilities, that conventional gravity theorists explain away as massive objects. these "suns", "dark holes", and "neutron stars" appear to be created in huge z-pinches, or suns fissioning from other '"massive" objects which generate large energetic emissions. it is, in fact, the energetic emissions beyond our visual spectrum which can be detected and analyzed and compared to lab experiments. I agree in the inadequacy of the existing constructs (gravity, fusion furnaces, magnetic reconnection, etc.). But the EU model is just as over-simplified, and leaves just as much on the table as those other models. More responses after I take a break...
'11-02-02, 13:11 Sparky	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection " Charles, there's only 2 fundamental possibilities there: charles, aren't you using a logical fallacy, fallacy of false alternatives --? ...i suggest that many things are happening...plasma is "a wild and crazy guy"...and the disco sun is a wild and crazy place. "CharlesChandler wrote: You don't get shielding layers in space charges in excellent conductors.----in response to challenge to that you wrote,"that's what I'm talking about — moving electric charges generating magnetic fields that establish and maintain charge separations. Maybe we're both fighting straw men of our own creation,-" Are you not contradicting yourself? " parallel proton and electron streams, separated by the opposing magnetic fields that they generate? But they're not electric currents in any conventional sense, because they're not responding to a voltage.-" i am not comfortable with a pure proton current. i accept it by faith, since most of my interaction has been with electrons as electricity, since my backyard particle accelerator broke. why do you assume that there is no voltage.? and even if they are induced currents, they are conventional. 'No, it isn't strange fusion. It's charge separations that resulted in arc discharges that resulted in imploding discharge channels. i thought we were talking about a H>He fusion..[ i don't know the symbol for nuclear fusion] "-"force of the magnetic field is the amount of charge times the speed- okey,,,i never used that, as most of my experience is with ohm's law.. "-the EU model is just as over-simplified- that is what is presented to the layperson....my point was that we need to look at all the evidence ....if it can't be produced on a table top, it is very suspect.
'11-02-02, 13:38 mharratsc	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection Hey Charles, I finally found a paper that I think could answer some of your questions, if you've got some time to break it down. Prof. Scott had this paper that he had submitted to the IEEE available on his site: http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf If you had any specific questions on it, I'm sure we could get you some very specific answers to em.
'11-02-02, 15:51 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection mharratsc wrote:I remember spending quite a good amount of time trying to convince you that tornadoes were a portion of the atmospheric part of the Earth-Sun-Galaxy-etc' circuit. Hey Mike — yes, I remember that. Very high-quality discussion, in fact, and that jostled my thinking such that I was able to see a part of the problem that I hadn't seen, and without which, I never would have been able to work all of the way through it. But in the end, the range checking precluded consideration of a galactic current. The "fair weather field" is roughly 100 V/m, while the storm-generated fields are greater than 5 kV/m, and can reach as high as 100 kV/m in rare cases. So the external current is there, but it's less than 1/50 of the storm-generated fields, so I stopped looking at that. The insistence that there are properties that can only be explained by slow, sustained dark/glow discharges was nevertheless correct, and I had walked away from that, and when I revisited it, I was able to put the whole puzzle together. So my sincerest compliments to you for getting that piece in place. mharratsc wrote:In all your investigations on tornadic supercells and whatnot, did you ever hear about high altitude electrical phenomena associated with them? I don't know much about them, except that they're glow discharges, and that they are thought to occur in the space charge that builds up above the positively-charged anvil of a thunderstorm. When a lightning strike from the anvil down to the ground drains a bunch of charge out of the cloud, the space charge that was attracted to the anvil is released from its electrostatic attraction, and it snaps back up through the stratosphere, vigorously enough to excite the atoms to luminescence. Sometimes there are even arc discharges, but these are more rare. I haven't heard anything that was supercell-specific. The EM structure of a supercell is different from "normal" thunderstorms, but the difference is all in the way things get organized below the anvil. I think that above the anvil, it all looks to the stratosphere like just a normal thunderstorm on steroids. That's all I know. mharratsc wrote:Nature doesn't invent something new when an existing method will suffice. This is a chief complaint from plasma physicists and EU proponents regarding mainstreamist tendencies to look for 'new physics'... electrodynamics are scalar to over 19 (or more?) orders of magnitude! I totally agree. This is one of the curious things about how scientists act when their paradigms hit the wall. Instead of looking at other, existing forces, they start inventing forces. I tend to think of it like a used car salesman confronted with a lie. Does he then seek the truth? Noooooo... He makes up another lie! OK, I'm preaching to the choir again, so I'll shut up now... mharratsc wrote:But anyway, in regards to anode tufting- that's not some hypothetical figment of the imagination, it's a witnessed effect in plasma labs. Application to the 'granules' on the Sun is not a big stretch of the imagination to anyone with some background in electrical sciences. I only found one refereed paper on anode tufting: http://www.springerlink.com/index/C354504564222537.pdf I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, but I am questioning the relevance. You have to do more than just say that anode tufting exists. You have to get the laboratory data tied directly to the observable solar phenomena. Why hasn't anyone connected the dots yet? Is is because the dots cannot be connected? mharratsc wrote:What IS a stretch of the imagination is thinking of those things as 'convective cells' of heat being transferred through a medium without any radiative loss to the medium of convection! There we agree.
'11-02-02, 16:05 Lloyd	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection * Oops. Charles just posted before I could read his post. So I'll read it after posting this. * You guys continue to make interesting discussion, although a lot of it is a little over my head. * Here are several things I want to contradict Charles' possible assumptions about. 1. Solar convection cells: EU considers convection cells under the photosphere as probably non-existent. 2. Electrostatic voltage: EU considers electrostatic effects on the Sun to have been disproven over a hundred years ago. Instead, they propose electrodynamic effects, which are way stronger. 3. Plasma conductivity: I think MHD regards plasma as superconductive, but EU proponents, after Alfven I think, consider it much less so. I don't know if my understanding of Birkeland currents is correct, but my impression is that the double layers, one positive, the other negative, move in opposite directions. * Getting back to #2, electrostatics, I'll quote a little from this TPOD: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050301pithbal~. - A common mistake when first trying to understand the Electric Universe is to think in terms of electrostatics. Experiments with pith balls in Freshman Physics Lab come to mind. With a little imagination—and by plugging larger numbers into the equations—a model of “the pith ball sun” can be constructed. - ... The Electric Universe model is based on electrodynamics. And not simply on Freshman Physics electrodynamics from a textbook but on the electrical behavior of plasma as observed in laboratories and by spacecraft. Understanding actual plasma behavior requires rejecting familiar presuppositions: Bodies immersed in plasma aren’t isolated; they are connected by circuits. They often aren’t at equilibrium; most astronomical bodies are radiating energy because they are in unstable conditions and are moving toward equilibrium. Currents in plasma contract into linear filaments; and the force between filaments decreases linearly with distance, which makes it the most powerful long-range force in the universe. Plasma divides into cells that are separated by capacitor-like double layers; and this ensures that plasma phenomena are characterized by conditions of non-isotropy, discontinuity and inhomogeneity. - Assumptions and deductions imported from the “already known” of gravitational theory will lead to confusion and absurdity. As astronomer Halton Arp said in another context: “Sometimes it’s better not to know one wrong thing than to know a hundred things that are right.” The first step in understanding electricity in space is to set aside theories and to gain empirical familiarity with real plasma behavior. It is a step advocated by the father of plasma physics, Hannes Alfvén, in his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech. * Charles, your discussion of tornadoes is interesting too. I'll try to reread what you said and maybe discuss more before long. I'd like to see if the solar granules are likely to be tornadic or not and to understand your view on the EM forces in tornadoes. I think Thornhill considers them electrodynamic, rather than electrostatic. I'd also like to see if your view of anode tufting is actually different from Scott's et al. * Are you familiar with Peter Thomson's tornado theory? I think EU favors it. It's at http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/tornado/fusion/Charge_sheath~.
'11-02-02, 16:40 mharratsc	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection Charles said: But in the end, the range checking precluded consideration of a galactic current. The "fair weather field" is roughly 100 V/m, while the storm-generated fields are greater than 5 kV/m, and can reach as high as 100 kV/m in rare cases. So the external current is there, but it's less than 1/50 of the storm-generated fields, so I stopped looking at that. Your observation is correct, but I think your point of perspective is off. Storm currents are secondary currents in the planetary circuit. You know that we get over 100,000 amps in at the poles that are driving the aurorae, right? Storms are just 'leakage current' in the double-layers of the atmosphere, I think. When a lightning strike from the anvil down to the ground drains a bunch of charge out of the cloud, the space charge that was attracted to the anvil is released from its electrostatic attraction, and it snaps back up through the stratosphere, vigorously enough to excite the atoms to luminescence Same thing here- 'space charge' and 'electrostatic' are incorrect terms, I think. Charge equalizes from the upper double-layers down to the surface in mostly preferential 'zones of conductivity' at specific geographical regions, like 'tornado alleys'. Of course, with every such raw circuit on a sphere, there will continue to be smaller and smaller side currents on different axis (like a 3D Lichtenberg figurine, sorta), and the cellular nature of storm fronts with strong effects on the leading edge and weaker effects in trailing edges demonstrate that, I think. Lastly, I hope you may believe now that the EU model, from its lowest roots to its tallest branches, is all about electrodynamic circuits from top to bottom!
'11-02-02, 21:15 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection OK folks, we're going in circles here. And I think I know why. We're talking on two different levels. You guys are all just saying "plasma is good like that." I'm making specific contentions about moving electric charges, which you're trying to refute with the "plasma is good like that" mantra. mharratsc wrote:I finally found a paper that I think could answer some of your questions, if you've got some time to break it down. Prof. Scott had this paper that he had submitted to the IEEE available on his site: http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf If you had any specific questions on it, I'm sure we could get you some very specific answers to em. I responded to that here: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~ Lloyd wrote:Getting back to #2, electrostatics, I'll quote a little from this TPOD: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050301pithbal~ This is a wonderful example of the "plasma is good like that" theory. I agree that gravity doesn't explain the Sun, and neither does the fusion furnace. I also agree that simple electrostatics falls well short of the mark. So far so good. Then all of the anomalies are explained by saying that plasma does weird stuff??? That's not an explanation. Lloyd wrote:I'd also like to see if your view of anode tufting is actually different from Scott's et al. Scott's literature isn't specific enough to tell what he's talking about. Lloyd wrote:Are you familiar with Peter Thomson's tornado theory? I think EU favors it. I think that they just latched onto Thomson's work, because they thought that it would fit in. Actually, it's as different from the EU framework as my work is. He's basically saying that moving electric charges (I don't recall that he ever identified the sign of the charge) resolve into a solenoid in the wall of the tornado, and this gives it rigidity past the expectations of simple fluid dynamics. That would be sorta true, but like all other theories (except mine), it ignores the effects of friction at the ground level. Friction should slow down the air near the ground, which should reduce the electrodynamic forces at play, resulting in a weakening of the solenoid effect, and the vortex should fall apart at its base, for exactly the same reasons as a normal fluid dynamic vortex falls apart when it hits a solid boundary at that scale. Tornadoes, of course, are best organized at the ground level, which means that Thomson didn't solve the problem. Nor does the galactic current (i.e., discharge vortex) model, for the same reasons. Explaining a tornado means explaining the concentration of energy release at the ground level. A simple electric current isn't going to do that. When it hits the conductivity of the Earth, the energy gets distributed, not concentrated. You have to pay close attention to details if you want to understand the problems, and solutions, that I'm addressing, because I'm operating at the nuts-n-bolts level.
'11-02-03, 13:09 Sparky	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection Charles, "Then all of the anomalies are explained by saying that plasma does weird stuff??? That's not an explanation. agreed.....but that does suggest that a deep understanding of it is required in order to argue for or against a hypothesis explaining an observation. I could use a good old fashioned aurora right now to melt the iceberg that surrounds me.
'11-02-03, 14:22 Lloyd	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection * Here's Thomson's nuts and bolts from: http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/tornado/fusion/Charge_sheath~ * I picked out statements from that site that seem to attempt to explain a tornado vortex. Question marks in front mean those are statements I may need to understand better. Peter Thomson 1999/2002 __There are two different types of vortex: __The Turbulence or Shear Vortex is easy to produce by creating angled air currents and an updraft __The Charged Sheath Vortex develops within a large charge cloud __Repulsion between the charges is cancelled out __Two stationary particles carrying the same electrical charge will repel each other __Within an electric field they will form dipoles that attract __Two streams of dipoles develop a force of attraction __This vortex is a fast spinning tube of electrically charged air and dust __The high velocity of the particles creates very large electrodynamic forces (similar to solenoid electromagnet) __If several charged particles move in parallel, the magnetic forces between them draw them together __We know from Z pinch experiments that the electromagnetic forces that draw the particles togther is greater than the electrostatic charge that pushes them apart. __A magnetic field is produced by a moving charged particle __A moving charge in a magnetic field is subjected to a force perpendicular to both the magnetic field and the velocity __The particle is thus forced into a circular path ?__The magnetic fields of the moving charged particles cancel the surrounding magnetic field __Within a large charge cloud, a stream of [single charge?] particles forms a loop if there is no externally applied magnetic field __Within a large charge cloud, the flow is held as a coherent stream by the attraction between forces moving in parallel __If a charged particle strays toward the inner field, or toward the reversed outer field, the magnetic force pushes the charged particle back into the sheath ?__Any instability in velocity will cause greater magnetic fields in the faster region than in the slower regions __The faster region with the greater magnetic field will be pinched more, speeding up the flow, which increases the pinch and so on, becoming longer and thinner __But the extension can only force the stream into a loop, not a straight line __Since the outer force pushing inwards always remains the stronger, the vortex will compress and narrow __The opposing sheath wall spinning in the opposite direction prevents further compression __Within the center of the charged sheath vortex the fields reinforce each other to produce a powerful solenoidal field __These forces very powerfully keep the particles from flying outward __They also prevent the tube from collapsing inward __If new rotating charged material is constantly being added then this will also lengthen the tube ?__Because all the particles are held very firmly in place the sheath can transmit large amounts of energy from one end to the other [I guess it's similar to transmitting a pressure wave through a solid or liquid.] __The charge sheath vortex is the mechanism capable of transmitting the energy of a tornado from the clouds to the ground * Does anyone have corrections or clarifications to make for any of the above statements? * How does a charge sheath vortex differ from electric discharge? * Are Birkeland currents charge sheath vortices?
'11-02-03, 14:42 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection Sparky wrote:..a deep understanding of it is required in order to argue for or against a hypothesis explaining an observation... OK, I'll go along with that. I'm still looking for the literature that actually lays it out in specific terms. Sparky wrote:I could use a good old fashioned aurora right now to melt the iceberg that surrounds me. Up dare in da nord woods, eh?
'11-02-03, 15:23 Sparky	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection charles, to clarify, see the small white circle around a red area near the bottom, just inside the white fuzzy stuff?..green lines swirl in from the left and a few exit to the right...there is a small white spot in that..? Well, that is what i've been talking about ..what have you been talking about?..