meemoe_uk wrote: But when he admits to resorting to an exotic mix of mathematic models of gravity, electro-magnetism, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics to try explain spontaneous z-pinch of a gas nebula into a star...
Actually, I'm not "explaining spontaneous z-pinches" at all. Here's what I said in a previous post:
CharlesChandler wrote: I'm of the opinion that the force binding matter together into a star is definitely EM, but it isn't electrodynamics (i.e., the z-pinch). Rather, it's electrostatics. I've been studying the properties of compressive ionization, where matter under sufficient pressure gets ionized because there isn't the room for electrons between the atoms. The result is charged double-layers that cling tightly together due to the electric force between them. And this explains many, many things about the Sun. So I think that this is the way to go.
So the z-pinch is in your framework, and it's so deep that you hear it in my words, even though I said the exact opposite.
To get a cosmic current to prefer passing through a planet instead of the free space around it, the conductivity of the planet would have to be greater than the conductivity of free space. That's where a curious debate starts, concerning the actual conductivity of free space. A vacuum is commonly considered to be a perfect insulator, and this precept permeates EU theory, where planets, stars, and galaxies are connected with plasma extension cords that facilitate the passage of a current from one to the next. But the standard working model of electric currents in the EE community doesn't hold up in plasmas. If a vacuum was a perfect insulator, and if the massive amount of space between two atoms in a plasma is (by definition) a vacuum, electric currents in a plasma would not be possible. For that matter, neon lights wouldn't work. If electrons couldn't make the leap through the free space between atoms because of the infinite resistance, electric currents through neon would flow only during particle collisions, which means that the current would flow at the speed of sound. In fact, the current flows at roughly 1/100 the speed of light (i.e., 3 Mm/s). On closer inspection, resistance at the atomic level is a function of the binding energies of the atoms, and at the macroscopic level, it's that times the number of hops an electron has to make to get where it's going. In other words, electrons lose some time whenever they encounter an atom. In an excellent conductor, with weak binding energies in the valence shell, the time lost is small. In an insulator that grabs onto electrons and doesn't let go of them, or causes them to simply bounce off, the time lost is substantial. In a plasma, with a much greater mean free path, the resistance is lower. In a perfect vacuum, the resistance is zero, as there is simply nothing to slow down the electrons. (To see the relevant formulas, see this tutorial.)
So for an electric current to prefer a planet to free space, the free space would have to be not a vacuum, but rather, atoms with a much higher resistance, such that even with the longer mean free paths in the free space, the resistance would be greater. The lighter elements are, in fact, resistors, at least at low temperatures. But I don't think that currents will prefer planets to free space. The density of these plasmas increases with proximity to gravitational sources, so if they're resistors, they'll insulate the planets, and the internal conductivity won't matter.
There are, of course, electric currents in space. But to be powerful enough to do the kinds of things credited to them, the night sky should be alive with visible arc discharges from each node to each node in the electric circuit, and this, of course, is not what we see. Just a couple thousand amps in the lightning strike is enough to light up the night sky, and these are visible from out in space. So how many millions of amps are you saying are hopping from one planet to the next? The currents responsible for the aurora are high-voltage, but low-amperage, and they don't do much work. The thought that auroral currents spin planets like unipolar motors only persists until you plug in the numbers.
meemoe_uk
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
ok, just replace 'z-pinch' with 'imploding dusty plasma'. Your idea is that if a nebula implodes under gravity, it just sticks to itself, the rebound is converted into electrostatic potential. I don't think thats what happens. Is there any evidence in the lab for this momentum into E potential theory?
Other stuff u say....
The amount of energy stored in the Sun's electrostatic potentials is enormous. Remember that the heat sink absorbed 15 orders of magnitude of thermal energy. How do we get that heat back? By charge recombination.
I thought there was an established calculation which showed that the energy from gravity collapse of a stellar mass gas cloud would only last 10^5 to 10^7 years at solar power. Regardless of how the sun stores the energy, your model requires more energy by a factor of at least 100 if we accept the sun is at least 4.6 billion years old. I think EU and conventional astrophysics agree on and are right in saying stars are powered by more than just their gravitational potential well. e.g. Nuclear fusion, external electric power.
But it would be at least theoretically possible to prove that it takes that much mass to get the compression necessary for a star, on the basis of the gravity necessary to create the required degrees of ionization. I'm still working on those calcs. It's a fourth-order tensor, being a non-linear feedback loop between gravity, hydrostatic pressure, electrostatic attraction, and electrostatic repulsion. Ah, if I live long enough...
'get' being the operative word. How do you get an ionized core star into existence? I don't fancy some magic trick epic event whereby a stellar mass cloud collapses into a star volume and its energy switches from KE to electro-static. This is the part of your theory I have issue with. The creation of the star. Not the electrostatic setup of an existing star part.
Ok, hope thats clarified. Next some electric resistance theory, a paragraph starting....
To get a cosmic current to prefer passing through a planet instead of the free space around it, the conductivity of the planet would have to be greater than the conductivity of free space...
with a conclusion
So for an electric current to prefer a planet to free space, the free space would have to be not a vacuum, but rather, atoms with a much higher resistance
I dont agree. The electric current would prefer the iron medium of a planet over free space. Electrons find it difficult to travel in free space because by definition they are away from positive charge, therefore they have required energy to overcome electrostatic binding. Electrons find it easy to move in a conductor because, relative to free space travel, electro static potential is not something that has to be overcome, because they are always close to the positive charges in a conductor. By analogy, the electrons flow around the atoms in a conductor like river water around stones in the river, but to get them through free space is like getting the river to flow over a hill. As you suggest, once a planetstar has attracted a cosmic current, the gas around the star becomes ionized, and therefore offers an alternative conducting path besides the star. This is interesting because we need to look at ways to ionize the core of a star to get your model working.
So how many millions of amps are you saying are hopping from one planet to the next?
I'm wasn't talking about that.
Since gravity is such a weak force, it takes a lot of it for this to happen. Hence there is a minimum mass for something to become a star. This mass is well-known, having been derived heuristically.
That's something else I'm not convinced about. White dwarf stars are considered to be small planet sized, similar to the size of the Earth. I reject most of condensed matter theory, like neturonium and what not. Yes you can some condensed ionized matter at the core of a star, but not much. Such small stars therefore require alternative explaination. I think white dwarfs and their ilk are small isolated planets that have attracted a cosmic current that we normally attribute only to stars.
I'm not sure if your whole post is a decoy full of red herrings to distract from what I was pointing out to you. I will rehash what I was pointing out to you. If you address these points as specifically as you can then I won't feel like you are decoying. - The ionized core model you have is somewhat satisfactory once the star has been created - Your model doesn't explain star creation : specifically - Your gas cloud gravity collapse causing momentum into electric static potential to create the ionized core and explain away the rebound momentum is too fanciful without some extra factor e.g - An already existing planet can capture some matter every time a z-pinch or gravity collapse occurs when it is in a gas nebula. Further - Your power source for the star is in question, explain why it isnt short of power by a factor of 100 to 10000. - specifically you seem to ignore nuclear fusion and external current as possible power sources for stars. - In your opening statement in your last post, you seem to be throwing out some of the z-pinch and electric theory in the EU community in favour of conventional gravity collapse theory. If z-pinches and cosmic currents aren't so key in creating stars, then why the filamentary arrangements of stars, plasmas and gas clouds in the galaxy?
CharlesChandler
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
meemoe_uk wrote: Your idea is that if a nebula implodes under gravity, it just sticks to itself, the rebound is converted into electrostatic potential. I don't think that's what happens. Is there any evidence in the lab for this momentum into E potential theory?
The key issue is not the momentum, but the pressure that results from it. This can come from momentum, which hasn't been tested to my knowledge, or just from pressure caused some other means, which has.
Saumon, D.; Chabrier, G., 1992: Fluid hydrogen at high density: Pressure ionization. Physical Review A, 46 (4): 2084-2100
BTW, there is another level of complexity in my model concerning what developed the momentum in the first place. I'll get into that if you ask. I normally don't mention it, because gravity is an OK conceptual model, and if the topic is just what keeps the star wrapped so tight in the end, it doesn't matter. But gravity, not acknowledging the existence of cold dark matter, is too weak to cause the collapse. So my model has another piece for that.
meemoe_uk wrote: I thought there was an established calculation which showed that the energy from gravity collapse of a stellar mass gas cloud would only last 10^5 to 10^7 years at solar power.
If you can find the reference for it, it would be useful to me. I don't doubt it — I'd just like to see how they got those numbers.
meemoe_uk wrote: Regardless of how the sun stores the energy, your model requires more energy by a factor of at least 100 if we accept the sun is at least 4.6 billion years old.
That depends on how they calculated the gravitational potential, and on how the age of the Sun is determined. I'm not saying that you're wrong — I'm just saying that I don't know how to evaluate this.
meemoe_uk wrote: I don't fancy some magic trick epic event whereby a stellar mass cloud collapses into a star volume and its energy switches from KE to electro-static.
Momentum getting converted into hydrostatic pressure, in excess of the hydrostatic equilibrium, isn't magic. (Do you drive a car that uses air shocks? ) The conversion of extreme pressure to electrostatic potential is arguably less well tested, and though there is lab support (as noted above), the reality is that there have been very few tests at the kind of extreme pressures that exist in the Sun. Earlier in this thread we discussed some of the underlying theory (i.e., is it a supercritical fluid, or a liquid metal, or degenerate matter?). So it's definitely a debatable issue. But I'd call it hypothesis, not magic.
meemoe_uk wrote: Electrons find it easy to move in a conductor because, relative to free space travel, electro static potential is not something that has to be overcome, because they are always close to the positive charges in a conductor.
I would use a different analogy to explain what you're talking about. Consider that we have a wire, 1 meter in length, and we supply a negative charge to one end. If we supply a positive charge to the other end, we get electrons flowing through the wire, from the cathode to the anode.
The electrons still want to get from the cathode to the anode, but do they follow the shortest path between two points, and go from the cathode directly to the anode? No, because of the reason you cited — to get away from the wire, they have to overcome the binding energy. So they prefer to follow the wire to the point nearest to the anode. Then, if the voltage is sufficient, they'll arc through the vacuum to the anode. I think that we'd agree on that point.
But you're talking about a current that originated from elsewhere in space, traveled through space to get to a planet, and after it gets through the planet, it heads on out to some other destination in space. We can think of the planet as a wire.
The question is: does the current go through the wire, or by-pass the wire and go through the vacuum? You're saying that binding energy gets the electrons to prefer the wire, but if the current originates from outside the wire, binding energy hasn't come into play yet. Those electrons are just zipping through free space, already having overcome the binding energy in whatever cathode they used to call home, and they won't encounter the same impediment until they get into the wire, and then try to get back out of it. But in this case, that doesn't matter. Electrons get an energy drop on entering the wire, and then get stepped back up on exiting it. So the net energy difference is zero.
The real issue is just what is going to happen to the electric field with that conductor sitting there in the middle? If it was actually a wire, the field would be highly focused at each end, and the electrons would definitely follow the E-field lines into the wire and out the other end. If the geometry is a sphere, the E-field lines will still be focused (just not as much as at the tips of a wire). So the electrons still prefer the (spherical) conductor instead of free space. You haven't specified how far away the cathode and anode are, but realistically speaking, if it's another star, that's a long way away, and there isn't going to be a voltage drop from one end of the "wire" to the other.
But we still have to take into account that the star has an atmosphere, and the current has to get through all of those gas or plasma atoms. If the atoms are hydrogen or helium, at low temperatures, they're insulators. So there goes your focused E-field. If the atmosphere is extremely hot, that's not so much of a problem.
Further away from the star, in the interstellar medium, the plasma is extremely thin, so it presents little resistance. So the real question is: how much resistance does the current get if it simply goes around the star, versus plowing through the star's atmosphere, then through the star, and then through the atmosphere on the other side? And that's an excellent question! I don't know the answer to that one.
But I do know that if the current prefers the star, the entry and exit points will be circular caps, like the aurora, as this is how the E-field lines intersect with a spherical conductor. If you're going to say that the Sun is powered by a current flowing through it, you really have no choice but to predict evidence of a solar aurora, but this doesn't exist.
meemoe_uk wrote: White dwarf stars are considered to be small planet sized, similar to the size of the Earth. [...] I think white dwarfs and their ilk are small isolated planets that have attracted a cosmic current that we normally attribute only to stars.
The size of a white dwarf is theoretical, not empirical. None are close enough that we can measure the included angle. Scientists can't figure out how to get the extreme angular velocities and unbelievable magnetic fields out of a star-sized object made of normal matter, so they go with degenerate matter that has collapsed (like a neutron star) with an incredible gravitational field. But I reject all of that. I have another model for what I call "exotic" stars, and this includes black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, quasars, blazars, and white dwarfs, all of which have a lot in common, and which have nothing to do with normal stars.
meemoe_uk wrote: If you address these points as specifically as you can then I won't feel like you are decoying.
OK...
meemoe_uk wrote: Your model doesn't explain star creation. Specifically, your gas cloud gravity collapse causing momentum into electric static potential to create the ionized core and explain away the rebound momentum is too fanciful without some extra factor (e.g., an already existing planet can capture some matter every time a z-pinch or gravity collapse occurs when it is in a gas nebula).
"Too fanciful" isn't really specific enough to address directly. You have to think it through in mechanistic terms, and if you think that there is a missing piece, you have to ask about that piece.
meemoe_uk wrote: Your power source for the star is in question, explain why it isn't short of power by a factor of 100 to 10000.
This might be a problem, but as noted above, I need more data before I can address this directly.
meemoe_uk wrote: Specifically you seem to ignore nuclear fusion and external current as possible power sources for stars.
The neutrino output from the Sun, if taken at face value and without any ad hoc alternations to quantum mechanics, indicates that 1/3 of the solar power is from nuclear fusion. I'm saying that the other 2/3 is from arc discharges. But I don't see any evidence of interstellar currents, so I'm going with electrostatic potentials within the Sun, and between the Sun and the heliosphere, not between the Sun and another star.
meemoe_uk wrote: If z-pinches and cosmic currents aren't so key in creating stars, then why the filamentary arrangements of stars, plasmas and gas clouds in the galaxy?
This is addressed by the "other piece" to which I alluded at the beginning of this post. Just ask... but this post is already overloaded...
meemoe_uk
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
OK I looked it up. The life time of a star powered only by gravity collapse is estimated using Kelvin - Helmholtz contraction theory. For the sun its 30million years.
The equation for a simple model is
t = G M^2 / L R where t = life time of star G = gravity constant M = mass of star L = luminosity of star R = Radius of star
The conversion of extreme pressure to electrostatic potential is arguably less well tested, and though there is lab support
Creating electro-static potential using momentum to create pressure ( i.e. slamming bits of matter together to knock off electrons ) isn't the tricky part. It's the lack of any rebound effect that bothers me. If you can elaborate more on what happens to all that rebound energy once the momentum of collapse is overcome, I'd be interested.
Thanks for the detailed model of inter stellar current. You say
Further away from the star, in the interstellar medium, the plasma is extremely thin, so it presents little resistance.
While most of interstellar space is pretty much a vacuum, I think currents between stars exist in filaments of relatively dense plasma. And you suggest the thicker the plasma, the greater the resistance. I'm not that good at plasma. Is that a rule?
those electrons are just zipping through free space, already having overcome the binding energy in whatever cathode they used to call home
I wasn't thinking interstellar currents are effectively free charges. I think such currents are neutral plasma filaments. I'm not too clued up on how capable stars are at throwing out cathode rays. The surface of the sun is about 6000 Kelvin, this is only about 0.5 electron Volts. The corona is 3.5million K, which is about 270 electron Volts. To get a nice TV picture, a cathode ray tube needs to get each electron up to around 5000 electron Volts or a temperature of about 55 million kelvin. I admit I'm not too read up on cathode rays, but it strikes me the sun is short of a few coils round a transformer required to generate temperature hot enough to completely break the electro-static atomic binding and thus emit a steady stream of cathode rays ( free electrons ). But I'm open to correction here.
But I think we are in agreement that for either free charge or neutral plasma filament that an interesting question is
how much resistance does the current get if it simply goes around the star, versus plowing through the star's atmosphere, then through the star, and then through the atmosphere on the other side?
Birkeland put arcing currents thru iron balls to see what would happen. The current would seek the ball if it reduced the length of the arcs. This was to minmize the work needed to break ( ionize ) a path thru the air. Of course once a path of air is ionized, it has lower resistance than the iron ball it is seeking. Thinking about it, if a plasma filament is able to connect stars over light years, then its also going to bypass the relative high resistance of a large iron ball ( star ). Iron is attracted to electric currents as much as vice-versa. Alfven said plasma insulates itself from any object, so this should include stars on an interstellar plasma filament. Anyway... this is the EU forum we are in! Someone here should know about this.
If you're going to say that the Sun is powered by a current flowing through it, you really have no choice but to predict evidence of a solar aurora, but this doesn't exist.
During major aurora on Earth, the aurora reaches down to to mid latitudes. I wonder if the sun's visible surface is a high power aurora that has reached the equator. Alternatively, and perhaps more likely is that any such light from a solar aurora would be lost in the much higher magnitude BB light of the sun, or can modern equipment factor that out?
I have another model for what I call "exotic" stars, and this includes black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, quasars, blazars, and white dwarfs, all of which have a lot in common, and which have nothing to do with normal stars.
You really are independent from conventional and EU theory. I follow Don Scott on most of this stuff. Eric Leaner already has micro quasars ( plasmoids ) working in the lab and producing net energy. His theory behind his lab work was based on EU quasar theory, so I have to go with the EU theory on quasars. Why have you created another theory? What is Eric thinking wrong yet still getting EU predicted results?
"Too fanciful" isn't really specific enough to address directly.
Its the nullification of rebound that bothers me. See above.
The neutrino output from the Sun, if taken at face value and without any ad hoc alternations to quantum mechanics, indicates that 1/3 of the solar power is from nuclear fusion. I'm saying that the other 2/3 is from arc discharges.
In that case you've still got to get past Kelvin Helmholtz then, cos this only extends the lifetime of the sun by 50% to 45 million years.
justcurious
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
Lloyd wrote: * Charles Chandler has been working hard for the past year or so on a solar model that gets into explaining the details of known solar features and data. He's been working with Brant Callahan and Michael Mozina, who also have different solar models, but which also have similarities. They all three agree that the Sun appears to be a cathode, whereas Wal Thornhill and Don Scott, like Ralph Juergens before them, think it's an anode. I believe CC's model is much more detailed than Wal's, but CC welcomes anyone to look for major and minor errors in his own model, or just ask questions or make comments, if you like. * His new thread is at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~ and his website, where his model is posted in detail, is at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5237.
Don't know the direction of the electric field radiating from the Sun? Surely this must be easy to measure in space. Wouldn't it answer the question as to whether the Sun is an anode or a cathode? Or am I missing something?
CharlesChandler
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
meemoe_uk wrote: The life time of a star powered only by gravity collapse is estimated using Kelvin - Helmholtz contraction theory.
Thanks for tracking this down. This assumes that the star has already condensed, so it doesn't address the amount of resting thermal energy in the original dusty plasma, nor the momentum in the collapse that all gets thermalized. So that number is going to be way low.
meemoe_uk wrote: Creating electro-static potential using momentum to create pressure ( i.e. slamming bits of matter together to knock off electrons ) isn't the tricky part. It's the lack of any rebound effect that bothers me. If you can elaborate more on what happens to all that rebound energy once the momentum of collapse is overcome, I'd be interested.
You're absolutely right — that's the key piece. The imploding dusty plasma should bounce off of itself, since it should overshoot the hydrostatic equilibrium. And looking at the numbers, 1020 K isn't a star — it's a hydrostatic bomb! So how does it clank together, instead of rebounding?
The missing piece here is electrostatic layering. But let's walk through it, one step at a time.
If the dusty plasma overshoots the hydrostatic equilibrium, and develops an enormous pressure, sufficient to ionize the matter, then we have to figure the effects of that ionization. All other factors being the same, the pressure would be the same throughout, so the ionization would be the same. Hence it would be a positively charged imploded dusty plasma, with a halo of free electrons around the outside that were expelled by the extreme pressure. At this point, we might say that the momentum that was converted to hydrostatic pressure has now been converted to electrostatic repulsion, and the thing should still bounce off of itself.
But we have one more force to take into account. It's the weakest of them all — gravity — but in this context, it figures significantly. Just at the point that the implosion has completed, and all of that hydrostatic and electrostatic pressure has built up, the force of gravity is at its greatest. And since it is purely attractive, it will create a pressure gradient, with the greatest pressure in the center. So the center gets ionized first. Then an interesting thing happens. Electrons expelled from the core congregate outside of the ionization threshold, but still within the dense matter that has imploded. So now you have a positive core, surrounded by a negative double-layer. Then a really interesting thing happens. The negative double-layer induces a positive charge around its outside.
Why this happens might be counter-intuitive, but it is a direct consequence of the inverse square law. If I apply a positive charge to an anode submerged in a non-conducting medium (so we can just focus on the electrostatics), I can expect a negative double-layer to appear next to the anode. And I can expect the net charge of the negative "virtual cathode" to equal the positive charge in the anode. But consider what it would be like to be a neutral atom swimming around the outside of the negative layer. The anode and the virtual cathode are equally matched. So what is the field that I see? Is it nothing, because all of the E-field is between the anode and the virtual cathode? No. I have protons in my nucleus that are repelled from the anode and attracted to the cathode, and likewise electrons that are attracted to the anode and repelled by the cathode. But sitting on the outside of a negative double-layer that has thickness, the cathode is closer. Due to the inverse square law, its charges are more significant to me. So the net effect is that my protons are attracted to the cathode, and my electrons are repelled by it. Thus I get positively ionized.
So we started out with an imploding, neutrally charged dusty plasma... +- +- +- +- +- +- +- +-
Gravity created more pressure in the center, so it got ionized first, creating a negative double-layer... +- +- | +-- | + + | +-- | +- +-
Then the virtual cathode ionizes the plasma around it... +-- | + | +-- | + + | +-- | + | +--
Note that only the core ionization is forced (by pressure), while the other ionization is induced. But the result is that now we have 4 charged double-layers, with an electric force pulling them together. Whoops — now we have another force to calculate! And this force is going to be way, way more powerful than gravity. All the more interesting is the fact that this is a force feedback loop. Gravity created the ionization. The ionization instantiated an electric force between the charged double-layers that pulls them together more forcefully. This further compacts the plasma. Denser plasma has a denser gravitational field. And more gravity increases the degree of ionization. Thus the electric and gravitational forces conspire to generate a much more powerful force, and that's what grabs ahold of the plasma, and won't let it rebound.
And this doesn't just answer for what holds the Sun together. It identifies the nature of the energy coming out. That's all electrostatic potential in there, and the energy release is that of charge recombination. Hence the primary power source in the Sun is arc discharges.
meemoe_uk wrote: And you suggest the thicker the plasma, the greater the resistance. Is that a rule?
Yes. I learned that when studying atmospheric electrification. The breakdown voltage of the air varies directly with the density. At STP, it's 3 MV/m. At the top of a thunderstorm, 12 km above ground level, where the density of the air is 1/3 that near the ground, it's 1 MV/m. In the stratosphere, it's even less. This is why geophysicists refused to admit that blue jets, sprites, elfs, etc., were possible for so long — they couldn't understand how you could get enough charge separation with so little resistance, such that an electrostatic discharge would be possible. But what happens is the top of the thunderstorm is positively charged. Above the cloud, a negative double-layer builds up, attracted to the positive charges in the cloud. If the cloud issues a "positive" strike (positive cloud to negative ground), all of that positive charge goes away, and the negative double-layer no longer has any business being so well-organized. So just as fast as the cloud issued the positive strike, the equal-but-opposite reaction is an upward negative charge stream toward the positive ionosphere. So it's the charge separation in the higher-resistance troposphere that makes discharges in the stratosphere possible. Anyway, if you plot out the known resistances per density and extend the line to zero density, the resistance is zero.
meemoe_uk wrote: I wasn't thinking interstellar currents are effectively free charges. I think such currents are neutral plasma filaments.
Here you have to make sure you're using the appropriate set of principles. To an EE, an electric current is the shifting of the electron cloud, which exists only as far as the unbroken chain of covalent bonds goes (i.e., to the end of the wire). To a plasma physicist, an electric current is the "drift" of unbound charged particles. These are very different phenomena, and what I've seen so far is the EEs and PPs tend to pretty much talk past each other when the topic is EM. So when you say "plasma filaments", you really have a mixed metaphor there. If it's plasma, there isn't any electron cloud in the valence shells — there are individual atomic nuclei (not molecules), and there is a whole lot of empty space between them, through which the electrons have to "drift" for there to be a current. That isn't a filament, and it isn't going to act like a wire. Outside of an electron cloud, the resistance is just a direct function of the mean free path of an electron, where the longer the mean free path, the fewer the collisions, and the higher the average speed.
meemoe_uk wrote: The surface of the sun is about 6000 Kelvin, this is only about 0.5 electron Volts. The corona is 3.5million K, which is about 270 electron Volts. To get a nice TV picture, a cathode ray tube needs to get each electron up to around 5000 electron Volts or a temperature of about 55 million kelvin.
Temperature and ionization are actually indirectly related, and the one does not equal the other. There are actually two things that can ionize an atom: temperature, and an E-field. So it takes 5000 eV to overpower the binding energy in a CRT's electron gun. But that isn't caused by 55 MK temperatures — it's caused by a 40 kV electric field. (At 55 MK, the TV would probably melt.) For more proof, here's an image of the Sun taken in 171 Å emissions, which are from Fe IX/X, which has an ionic temperature of about 1.5 MK.
Why would the iron be running 1.5 MK, when the surrounding hydrogen is only 6000 K, and there is only 1 iron atom per every 30,000 hydrogen atoms in the photosphere? The lighter hydrogen atoms should have more kinetic energy than the heavier iron atoms. This only makes sense if we acknowledge that there might also be an electric field ionizing the atoms.
Furthermore, the Sun's 6000 K is in the form of black-body radiation, which has never been associated with electron volts, or with anything physical at all for that matter. So you actually have a mixed bag of different types of measurements, and the conclusions are not necessarily so direct.
meemoe_uk wrote: Such light from a solar aurora would be lost in the much higher magnitude BB light of the sun, or can modern equipment factor that out?
We could measure the light on the limb, to get away from the internal light source. I think that if the Sun was externally powered, we'd see steady-state arc discharges in the solar atmosphere, brighter than the surface (by definition, if that's where all of the power is coming from).
meemoe_uk wrote: You really are independent from conventional and EU theory.
Yep.
meemoe_uk wrote: Eric Lerner already has micro quasars ( plasmoids ) working in the lab and producing net energy.
Focus fusion isn't producing net energy yet, at least as of their Jan. 3, 2013 report.
meemoe_uk wrote: His theory behind his lab work was based on EU quasar theory, so I have to go with the EU theory on quasars. Why have you created another theory? What is Eric thinking wrong yet still getting EU predicted results?
What Lerner is doing in the laboratory doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what goes on out in space. The voltages required for focus fusion are huge. If you scale that up to a quasar, then you would sorta expect to see the effects of such a huge current (i.e., arc discharges through space, brighter than the quasar), and such evidence isn't there. There are bipolar radio jets, so there is a current. But to get the energy for a quasar out of the low-frequency synchrotron radiation in the bipolar jets is a heckuva stretch.
But I should congratulate you on your questions. You actually understand the problems here. That puts you on a very short list. Don't give up your inquiries. I ain't always right, and you ain't always wrong, and where this leads is anybody's guess at this point. But those who don't know there's a problem are definitely not looking for a solution, and those who do not understand the problem are definitely not going to understand the solution.
justcurious wrote: Don't know the direction of the electric field radiating from the Sun? Surely this must be easy to measure in space. Wouldn't it answer the question as to whether the Sun is an anode or a cathode? Or am I missing something?
Another excellent question!!! Believe it or not, that's extraordinary clarity in astronomy, to ask such an obvious question. I wish I knew the answer, but I have certainly looked. I would think that this would be a standard cheat-sheet factoid, like the radius of the Sun, the luminosity of the Sun, the electric charge of the Sun... But I haven't seen this anywhere. The solar wind is considered to be "quasi-neutral", which means that it's plasma, so it's all charged matter, but if there are roughly the same number of positive and negative charges, a volume of it is net neutral. But that doesn't speak to whether or not the Sun has a net charge, and if so, which polarity it is. A current-carrying wire is net neutral, but if there is a potential from one end to the other, there's going to be a current. The E-field "should" be easy to measure in space, and I don't know why it hasn't been (at least to my knowledge). Obviously you'd have to get away from the Earth, so its charge wouldn't be a factor. The Debye sheath around the spacecraft would perturb the field, but I'd expect that to be omnidirectional, and would be easy to eliminate. Wafting concentrations of solar wind don't help, but they should be able to average all of that our, right? Anyway, if anybody has any data on this, I'd love to see it.
Here's what I said in a previous post:
CharlesChandler wrote:So the z-pinch is in your framework, and it's so deep that you hear it in my words, even though I said the exact opposite.It's a fourth-order tensor, being a non-linear feedback loop between gravity, hydrostatic pressure, electrostatic attraction, and electrostatic repulsion.
Ah, if I live long enough...
I have another model for what I call "exotic" stars, and this includes black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, quasars, blazars, and white dwarfs, all of which have a lot in common, and which have nothing to do with normal stars.
meemoe_uk wrote:OK...
