It was discovered, some five decades ago, that low-frequency electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in conducting fluids, such as plasmas, even though they cannot propagate in rigid conductors. Hannes Alfven, in 1942, investigated the properties of plasmas, assuming the plasma medium to be a highly conducting, magnetized and incompressible fluid. He found that a distinctive wave mode arises in the fluid, propagating along the magnetic field direction (Alfven 1942). This wave is now called the shear or torsional Alfven wave. The existence of the wave, in the conducting fluid mercury, was experimentally verified by Lundquist (1949). The importance of the waves discovered by Alfven for space and astrophysical plasmas was soon realized, and the compressible plasma case, which leads to the fast and slow magnetoacoustic waves in addition to the shear Alfven wave, was treated by Herlofsen (1950). The Alfven and magnetoacoustic waves, which are the basic low-frequency wave modes of magnetized plasmas, have been the subject of intense study in the succeeding decades. The main reason for the great interest in these waves is that they play important roles in the heating of, and the transport of energy in, laboratory, space and astrophysical plasmas. The "Alfven wave heating" scheme has been investigated theoretically and experimentally as a supplementary heating scheme for fusion plasma devices, and it has been invoked as a model of the heating of the solar and stellar coronae. The waves are believed to underlie the transport of magnetic energy in the solar and stellar winds, transfer angular momentum in interstellar molecular clouds during star formation, play roles in magnetic pulsations in the Earth's magnetosphere, and provide scattering mechanisms for the acceleration of cosmic rays in astrophysical shock waves. These and other applications of Alfven and magnetoacoustic waves in the fusion, space physics and astrophysics fields are the subject of this book. In realistic physical problems in all plasma environments, Alfven and magnetoacoustic waves propagate in nonuniform plasmas. As a result, the waves may be reflected, transmitted or absorbed. The practical question of the heating to high temperatures of laboratory fusion plasmas that are contained in a vessel, and are therefore necessarily nonuniform, involves such processes. The space and astrophysical environments where the waves are found are also inevitably nonuniform.
Dr. Neil, Cramer. The Physics of Alfvèn Waves. Berlin: Wiley VCH, 2001. Print.
Standing waves are used in Sonoluminscence. Strangely enough, Alfvèn Waves have a Standing Wave counterpart, from page 160.
The instabilities of standing, rather than propagating, pump waves have been studied by Hung (1974) and Lashmore-Davies & Ong (1974), with a generalization to the strongly driven regime, where nonresonant acoustic modes are generated, by Chian & Oliveira (1994) and Chian (1995). Standing structures of Alfven waves in the Earth's environment may be generated as the waves are guided along field lines in the magnetosphere-ionosphere system and reflected by the lower ionosphere. Such standing waves have been observed by the Viking satellite in the 0.1-1 Hz frequency range trapped within a density cavity of high VA between a half and a few Earth radii. Another example of a standing wave that may be subject to modulational and decay instabilities is that of the lo plasma torus.
There seem to be a lot of simularities here with Sonoluminiscence. If we take the "magnetoacoustic plasma wave" coming from the Galactic Core as the acoustic wave we'd use in the lab for sonoluminescence, well, there you have it. badabing badaboom
upriver
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
orrery wrote: upriver,
I thank you for your analysis. However, I am not convinced. The Sun shows to me obvious evidence of a time-harmonic electric field which I believe can simulate the processes involved in Sonoluminescence at a local level on the photosphere at the granulation regions and elsewhere with Alfven waves taking the place of sound waves. In any case, I will take your words under advisement and keep you up to date with my theory. Sonoluminescence is being used as an analogy to a "harmonic Alfven-Wave" counterpart where the Sun is a "low frequency harmonic oscillator".Localized Standing Waves on the Sun, can be used in much the same fashion as acoustic Standing Waves are used in Sonoluminescence.
A plasma bubble is trapped in a alfvenic standing wave, resulting from harmonic oscillations on the sun, a fast oscillation creates a sudden change in pressure resulting in a sort of sonoluminscence analogy.
If your talking about standing waves thats one thing but sonoluminscence is the process of the bubble collapsing and emitting a burst of light at Rmin(smallest bubble radius) due to heating of the gases into a plasma. Its a discreet process and I think you would be able to detect that type of action pretty readily..
On a large scale that would be similar to the standard model and Charles' Compressive ionization model.. The difference is that we have a bounded pocket of gas to operate on. With stellar collapse models we have no such thing... Its a decreasing density sphere under the control of gravity up until the time it makes its tachocline and other layers.
What sonoluminscence has taught me is the other part of the picture of emission spectrums at different pressures... For me it was convincing evidence (in addition to Robitallie's work)that a blackbody was the result of solid matter or highly compressed plasma...
There again I dont think you can have standing waves in a decreasing density plasma ball. The impedance mismatch(reflection) is what helps build the standing wave internally...
In my model the standing waves are driven by the electrical currents in the shell causing a magnetostrictive effect similar to a piezo electric driver on a sonoluminscence experiment.
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: I suppose someone already hypothesized that the center of the Sun is super cold?
CharlesChandler wrote: In the present [compressive ionization] model, stars have a lot more potential energy than just burnable hydrogen, and more than just fusable hydrogen. Stars actually have all of the thermal energy of a dust cloud that collapsed, which makes the standard model's 15 MK look frigid by comparison. Of course, all of that thermal energy, if it was still thermal, would be impossible in condensed matter. But it isn't thermal — it has mostly been converted to electrostatic potential. The core of a star might actually be at absolute zero, though with enough potential to heat a stellar system for billions of years.
But believe me when I tell you that you could contribute a lot to the solar modeling initiative. You have already taught me things I didn't know about electromagnetism. I'd be really interested in getting a thorough critical review from someone like you. I'm willing to share authorship, if you're willing to put in the time. There is no doubt in my mind that there are still errors in my work, some of which you could spot. The team so far includes Lloyd Kinder, Brant Callahan, Michael Mozina, and myself. None of us agree on everything, but all of us brought a lot to the table, and did a lot of work. Authors never agree on everything. But you could supply something that none of us could, because you're an EE. At the very least, there are surely things that just aren't explained the right way, which self-educated people would never be able to fix. More seriously, there might be fundamental errors. So like I said, it's not too late to get into the game — it's early, and the teams are just now forming up. If you want to be a player, come on!
I am flattered by your kindness and willingness to invite me to participate in your research efforts, after all the little swings I threw at you Most people don't appreciate my sarcasm and take offense. I believe you may be overestimating my technical know-how. I studied EE over 15 years ago and never practiced (mostly working with computers. I don't know how active I can be in your efforts as I have 2 jobs, 3 kids and a wife. But I'd be very happy to chime in here and there and learn new things.
Regarding the Anode vs Plasmoid.... it appears that Johnson was pretty thorough in going back and verifying some of the foundational theories, particularly Juergens', and verifying the data on which they were based. For now, I'll trust that he has done the proper due dilligence. Recently I have been reviewing Johnson's slides again with a fresh mind (previoulsy, trying to analyse satellite data wore me out) . The Alfven model of a spiral/vortex type of heliospheric current sheet with perpendicular currents and B-Fields throughout, solved the mystery (for me at least) of a current sheet extending all the way out to the heliosphere dividing the north and south solar magnetic poles (ie resembling two monopoles). It was also stated that currents were flowing east-west (as opposed to north-south) at the heliosphere. This would be in line with Alfven's model of currents spiraling and "flattening" (smaller radial component at the extremeties). I reconcile the north/south divide (ie how to draw a field line from the north to the soth pole) in the following manner:
The currents and B-Fields have both a radial and a sideways component in the current sheet (as Alfven suggests). As we get closer to the heliosphere, the current has almost no radial component remaining (ie circling around the sun), and as it does so, would flow down around the outer edge of the heliosphere and back down underneath. To visualise this, I use a toroid or donut as an analogy, as you wrap wires around it (as when building a coil) the wire comes out from the donut hole, wraps over the donut and disappears again underneath as it goes over the outer edge, goes underneath, then comes out the hole again.
The current sheet according to Alfven (from what Johnson states, I did not read Alfven yet) has the current and the B-field spiraling in and out of the Sun in opposite spiraling directions, in a way that the B fields and current are always perpendicular. the B-field and current also have a radial component and a circular component with respect to the Sun. This looks very much like a toroidal vortex, which has both a toroidal and poloidal component.
One problem I had with the anode model is that... there are many statements regarding the obvious similiarities between anode tufting and the sun's chromospere. But I can't find any pictures of laboratory anode tufting to judge for myself. Although I don't have a clear definition of a "plasmoid", it does appear to me that the solar system is in a vortex of sorts.
One of the main points that Johnson makes in critiquing the Anode model is that the energy output of the sun does not fit with the observed data. I don't know how this total power output was derived, I presume Juergens papers would describe it. Do you know off-hand? The other point that annoys me is the observed data. I tried figuring out what the data says. Most papers describing the data use the "bad science" language (ie magnetic ropes etc), include many corrections, and the math gets out of hand, and I also have a feeling some of the "summarized data" may be distorted by preconceived ideas (mathematical corrections). It got so complicated that I gave up trying to validate the data, you almost have to be an expert on the measuring equipment itself (among other things). If anyone has good links or references regarding hard data obtained by satellites would be very nice.
Johnson postulates that the plasmoid model is not driven by an outside current. And that the 22 year solar cycle is just a side effect of the galactic scale birkeland currents, causing current to seep in and seep out of the solar system. Well, looking at it from an EE lense, we would call that AC, alternating current. Although we never imagined currents of that scale (such a low frequency), what is to say they don't exist? IMO nothing but our own imagination. I don't see any problem with an AC current powering the Sun. But that opens up a whole lot of other questions. The double torus in the Sun that Johnson refers to (from Alfven) is quite interesting. It might explain how the Sun at times ends up with two magnetic poles of the same polarity (ie 2 north poles). This was observed recently, lasted for about a month.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
justcurious wrote: Most people don't appreciate my sarcasm and take offense.
It's easy to be misunderstood on the 'Net, so as a general rule, it's a mistake to take something personally when you haven't even met the person in real life.
justcurious wrote: But I'd be very happy to chime in here and there and learn new things.
Cool. A little bit of effort over a long period of time, and by many people, still adds up to a lot. And BTW, any colleagues that you might have who might be willing to provide a critical review of my work should be encouraged to do so. You never know where you might get a decent suggestion.
justcurious wrote: I can't find any pictures of laboratory anode tufting to judge for myself.
I never found any either, and even the verbal references in the literature are quite sparse.
justcurious wrote: I don't know how this total power output was derived...
We can get that just from measuring the amount of EM energy that bombards a unit area, and then multiplying that by the surface area of a sphere with a radius equal to that distance from the Sun. It's quoted as 1025 to 1026 watts.
justcurious wrote: If anyone has good links or references regarding hard data obtained by satellites would be very nice.
I could work on putting together a "fact sheet" from my notes, but you're right — clean facts are hard to come by. On Lloyd's suggestion, I did a Tabular Comparison of some of the solar models, and I list the relevant facts, and how each model accounts for them. This is an excellent format, so I'll keep chinking away at it, as I gather more information.
justcurious wrote: I don't see any problem with an AC current powering the Sun. But that opens up a whole lot of other questions.
Like, why wouldn't it ignite everything else in the solar system, including us?
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: I don't know how this total power output was derived...
We can get that just from measuring the amount of EM energy that bombards a unit area, and then multiplying that by the surface area of a sphere with a radius equal to that distance from the Sun. It's quoted as 1025 to 1026 watts.
If it's as simple as that, I would suggest that the power output needs to be revisited. I'm pretty certain that the power output over a spherical surface around the sun would not be uniform, based on the heliospheric current sheet and CMEs alone. So measuring a point or small patch in space around the sun, and then extrapolating over a sphere seems very inadequate. So how do they measure the output? Is it based on how bright the sun appears ie how much light it emits? Is it based on how much heat is generated? Is it a measure of the strength of the radiated EM waves across the full spectrum, or it it an indirect measurement based on observed phenomena believed to be related to the solar power output?
I like your table of solar model comparisons. It's a nice kind of quick cheat-sheet.
Lloyd
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Anode vs Plasmoid JC, you seem to have the impression that Bob Johnson supports Juergens' anode Sun model, but, if so, you totally misunderstood him, as he gave 4 or so reasons why the anode Sun model does NOT work, which is why he came up with his plasmoid Sun model as an alternative. If you want to be helpful, how about commenting on the EU Theory Debate thread? Presently, I'm trying to find any hard evidence that Marklund convection or electric discharges can condense matter. If you can find anything on that, you'd be helping the EU theory that you support.
Tabular Comparison
CC said: On Lloyd's suggestion, I did a Tabular Comparison of some of the solar models, and I list the relevant facts, and how each model accounts for them. This is an excellent format, so I'll keep chinking away at it, as I gather more information.
Charles, how would you like it to be even more excellen?. Below is what Juergens did (now at http://saturniancosmology.org/juergensa.htm). See how easy he made it to tell at a glance that the EU explanation for lunar rilles was far better than any other? TABLE 1: Competence of Various Sinuous Rille Theories
Rille Characteristics and Proposed Rille Origin Theory 1. erosion via water 2. erosion gas cloud 3. formed by gas blow 4. formed by lava tube 5. electric eruption Theory: __________1_____2_____3____4_____5 wider at high end __C ____C ____O ____B ____A channel sinuous ___A ____C ____O ____C ____A upper end crater ___B ____B ____O ____B ____A ends at diff. elev. __A ____A ____O ____A ____A no out wash dep. ___C-X __C-X __B ____C-X __A no chan. bridges ___A ____A ____O ____B-C __A chan. cratering ____O ____O ____A ____O ____A trav. high ground ___X ____X ____B ____X ____B stray fr. surf. dip ___C-X __C-X __B _____C-X __B on ridge crest ______X ____X ____A ____B ____A strata exposure ____B ____B ____A ____C-X __A-B strata upturned ____X ____X ____A ____X ____A rille clustering _____C ____C ____B-C __B-C __A-B rille crossing ______C-X ___C-X __A-O __C-X __B 2nd rille in bottom __B ____C ____C ____C ____B
SYMBOLS: __A. Predictable on basis of theory; __B. Permissible in terms of theory; __C. Permissible, but difficult to explain; __O. Apparently irrelevant in terms of theory; __X. evidence precludes theory.
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Lloyd wrote: Anode vs Plasmoid JC, you seem to have the impression that Bob Johnson supports Juergens' anode Sun model, but, if so, you totally misunderstood him, as he gave 4 or so reasons why the anode Sun model does NOT work, which is why he came up with his plasmoid Sun model as an alternative.
How did you come to that conclusion? I repeatedly stated that Johnson did a good job (IMO) of critiquing the Juergens Anode model.
Lloyd wrote: If you want to be helpful, how about commenting on the EU Theory Debate thread? Presently, I'm trying to find any hard evidence that Marklund convection or electric discharges can condense matter. If you can find anything on that, you'd be helping the EU theory that you support.
There isn't anything to find. If you don't understand the basics of filamentation and how electric currents running through plasma bring plasma closer together, I suggest you read the Essential Guide on this website. Here is the underlyng principle (two parallel currents attract each-other):
Note that the above formulae are simplified, infinitely long wires, perfectly parallel, etc (ie academic). IN the case of plasma, you can think of the wires as small strands of currents that attract eachother and bunch up into bigger filaments. Since the plasma is composed of free-moving particles, they can easily move (as opposed to a solid current carrying wire). The Merklund convention if I understand it correctly, goes a step further in explaining or predicting the layering of different types of particles depending on their masses and charges.
If I don't comment on your other threads it's because I have limited time and prefer to focus on the threads of interest to me. I hope the above explanation of filamentation and Merkund convection finaly explains it for you. If not, please read the Essential Guide. Thanks for making your own threads and topics and not forcing everyone to debate on unrelated topics. Also, I'm not really interested in debating, I prefer discussions. I don;t care who is right or wrong, I'm more interested in understanding nature.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
justcurious wrote: I'm pretty certain that the power output over a spherical surface around the sun would not be uniform, based on the heliospheric current sheet and CMEs alone. So measuring a point or small patch in space around the sun, and then extrapolating over a sphere seems very inadequate. So how do they measure the output?
As far as I know, that's how they do it, but I'll poke around a bit and see if there's another way. For some reason I seem to remember reading that the equatorial output is greater than the polar output. I'll post it if I can find the data.
Lloyd wrote: How would you like [the tabular comparison] to be even more excellent?
I'm headed in that direction, but I'm still studying the various models and pulling together the info.
justcurious wrote: Here is the underlyng principle (two parallel currents attract each-other)...
That's how magnetic fields push matter together. But if you take a second look, you realize that it isn't just any old matter — it's ions getting pushed together, and the push varies with the degree of ionization — the more ionized, the greater the push. Ah but the question is how does the magnetic pinch effect cause condensation? The more ionized the matter, the greater the Coulomb force pushing the atoms apart, and it doesn't take much to prevent condensation. In Marklund convection, heavy elements that are highly ionized are congregating nearer the axis. How do you get highly ionized heavy elements to condense?
There seem to be a lot of simularities here with Sonoluminiscence. If we take the "magnetoacoustic plasma wave" coming from the Galactic Core as the acoustic wave we'd use in the lab for sonoluminescence, well, there you have it. badabing badaboom
The standing waves are in the loops... They are created at the loop footprints mostly....
This to me means that there is a severe impedance mismatch at the loop footprint.... Something almost close to a solid otherwise the impulses would lose too much energy to form a standing wave...
It turns out that you can determine the impedance of the reflecting surface by looking at the return pulse strength....
This might be the way to tell what the solar surface is made of... In the case of the loops if you see a 90% reflectance of the transmitted energy you can be pretty sure that the surface is solid... If it is a double layer at the loop foot prints which has approximately the same density as the loop, you should get a greatly reduced reflection. If the density at the loop footprints is twice the loop you should see a corresponding signal........
This might be the killer app we have been looking for...
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: Here is the underlyng principle (two parallel currents attract each-other)...
That's how magnetic fields push matter together. But if you take a second look, you realize that it isn't just any old matter — it's ions getting pushed together, and the push varies with the degree of ionization — the more ionized, the greater the push. Ah but the question is how does the magnetic pinch effect cause condensation? The more ionized the matter, the greater the Coulomb force pushing the atoms apart, and it doesn't take much to prevent condensation. In Marklund convection, heavy elements that are highly ionized are congregating nearer the axis. How do you get highly ionized heavy elements to condense?
I guess it depends on your definition of "condense". The pinch effect makes the plasma denser. If you are wondering about how Marklund Convection sorts matter of different types and contributes to ion recombination, and if you are not satisfied with the Essential Guide (Chapter 6) explanation, you may want to check Anthony Peratt's website: http://www.plasma-universe.com/Marklund_convection which has links to books and abstracts, and also to Marklund's web page (http://researchprojects.kth.se/index.ph ... 33/pb.html) where he teaches space and plasma physics in the school of electrical engineering, KTH - Royal Institute of Technology (Sweden). Have you read Marklund's paper on the topic?
seasmith
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Scientists discover sun's 'magnetic heartbeat' causes solar flares
The new study, led by the University of Montreal's Paul Charbonneau, described that modelling the Sun has been a sticky problem for decades. ...According to the model, every 40 years the Sun's zonal magnetic field bands switch their polarity.
The first attempts in the 1980s captured only a rough approximation of the turbulence inside of the Sun. Turbulence happens at both large and small scales.
When energy from turbulence dissipates, the turbulence flows into smaller and smaller whirlpool shapes, called vortices.
On the Sun, dissipation takes place at a scale of tens of yards. That's extremely minute, compared with the huge size of the Sun, as compared to the Earth.
Charbonneau said the Sun produces more dark sunspots during that time – which dim it somewhat – but it also creates small magnetic structures that brighten the surface.
However, how these structures form is still under investigation. Charbonneau and his team are examining how the magnetic field on the Sun affects the transport of energy from the inside to the outside.
"There's a link between convective energy transport and the magnetic cycle, and you can measure that through going through the simulation and pulling out the flows, the primary variables," Charbonneau said.
"Once you have a magnetic cycle that builds up and develops in the simulation, you can analyse how that affects convective transport and the Sun's luminosity," he added.
JC said: If you don't understand the basics of filamentation and how electric currents running through plasma bring plasma closer together, I suggest you read the Essential Guide on this website.
I understand the claims of Marklund convection etc pretty well. I used to assume that it was virtually proven that it, or electric discharges, can condense solid or liquid matter out of plasma, but after discussing with Charles for a while, I've had major second thoughts. Peratt's theory is that galactic currents in space, at least in the denser molecular clouds or nebulae, collect plasma together into large globules that become stars. But, so far, I don't even find evidence that large electric discharges, like lightning, can condense solid or liquid matter out of plasma or gas. And the galactic filaments, although they do appear to be electric currents, seem to be very weak currents, much less dense than lightning on Earth.
Charles has an abstract on his site about giant nebula-wide lightning that is thought to form chondrules which many meteors are composed of, similar to Martian blueberries, but the abstract alone isn't enough to show any evidence that electric discharges can produce chondrules from gas or plasma. CJ Ransom did experiments to show that electric discharges can produce Martian blueberries in the lab, but that was apparently simply the melt from the hematite soil that he used. It's a simple matter to melt high iron soil into hollow balls of iron shells, but is there evidence that electric discharge can take atoms in the air and form little solid or liquid globules? And if the EU theory is that stars are plasmoids like ball lightning, it would help to know what ball lightning is. Does anyone know? Have they been produced in the lab? I checked out one of the papers Hoz mentioned recently too and it makes somewhat specific claims about how Marklund convection can condense matter, but it doesn't seem to mention any actual evidence or proof.
If you're aware that Bob considers the Anode Sun model disproven, I don't understand why you dismiss his proofs. He said he found that Juergens used several references in support of Juergens' theory, but Bob found that none of the references actually did support the theory.
As for Brant, are you sure the high degree of reflectance from coronal loop footpoints would be consistent only with reflection from a solid? Are you sure the reflection wouldn't be that great from supercritical fluid? I think Charles found that supercritical fluid has blackbody radiation like a solid does.
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Lloyd wrote: If you're aware that Bob considers the Anode Sun model disproven, I don't understand why you dismiss his proofs. He said he found that Juergens used several references in support of Juergens' theory, but Bob found that none of the references actually did support the theory.
On the contrary, I find that Johnson did a good critique of the Anode model. I also found that he did good due dilligence in checking the sources and data supporting the anode model. At the beginning I was not so convinced, due to me being tired. After reviewing his presentation and slides, and some basic fact checking, I am now more sceptical of the anode model. I did find it hard to decode the satellite data. All I have access to is summarized articles about the data. Bob himself also stated the data was hard to come by. I don't know where you get the idea that I dismissed his proofs. Bob's presentations are excellent, his thoughts and reasoning well presented, I am a great fan. His presentation of the famous waterbridge experiment is brilliant, and so far he has (IMO) produced the best critiques of the EU models.
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
seasmith wrote: Scientists discover sun's 'magnetic heartbeat' causes solar flares[/size]
Interesting news. Maybe "discovered" is a bit of an exageration? Seems they "discovered it" in their computer simulated Sun model (which assumes convection?).
upriver
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Lloyd wrote: As for Brant, are you sure the high degree of reflectance from coronal loop footpoints would be consistent only with reflection from a solid? Are you sure the reflection wouldn't be that great from supercritical fluid? I think Charles found that supercritical fluid has blackbody radiation like a solid does.
Lloyd,
In this case I am talking about energetic reflections of an acoustic wave like nature.. Electro Mechanical transmission/reflection impedance....
In this case it seems as though a standing wave is established immediately... Either the loop is directly driven by a sine wave source or the surface reflection is nearly 100%. Normally when you hit something with an impulse there is a finite amount of time required to set up a standing wave depending on the Q of the system... Going to have to explore this avenue to see where it goes!!! Numerical Simulations of Slow Standing Waves in a Curved Solar Coronal Loop "However, the results still differ from the observations (Wang et al. 2002, 2003a, 2003b), which show that the standing mode is excited within 1 wave period after a trigger takes place. From a fit of the damped sine function we find that the attenuation time is τ = 1202 s = 1.44P. This value is smaller than the observational damping time for loops observed with SUMER (Wang et al. 2002, 2003a, 2003b)." http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/668 ... .text.html
And it appears that they last longer(smaller damping) than the simulation says they should...
And BTW, any colleagues that you might have who might be willing to provide a critical review of my work should be encouraged to do so. You never know where you might get a decent suggestion.
justcurious wrote:I never found any either, and even the verbal references in the literature are quite sparse.
