* 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.
Sparky
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
Charles seems to have thought out his theory well. But he keeps using "field lines", as in, "-If there is a difference in net charge from one sunspot to the other, an electric current between the two will follow the magnetic field lines."
There must be a better way to explain this.
Is he trying to say that plasma will be confined by a continuous minimal or greater level of flux density within the field?
saul
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
Thanks for the interesting reading
I like the internal electric convection model it is more compelling than being forced to appeal to externally driven currents. It's also nice that you reassert the importance of gravity. After all, what other force could separate opposite charges
I'm curious why you choose Osmium, Platinum, Nickel, and Iron. What about all those other elements in the abundances data you use?
I'm also curious how the Hydrogen phase diagram looks under the conditions you outline. Is "liquid" really the right term?
cheers -
CharlesChandler
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
saul wrote: It's also nice that you reassert the importance of gravity. After all, what other force could separate opposite charges
It wasn't my first thought, that's for sure. But in the end, the electromotive force has to come from somewhere, and there are few choices. Gravity is one of them, and that figures significantly. The other is another unlikely candidate: momentum. (For more info, see my post on the related thread: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315#p71863) A collapsing dusty plasma has most of its energy built up in the translational velocity of the matter. Where does all of that energy go? The consolidation of all of the resting thermal energy of the plasma (even at only 2.7 K), by the ideal gas laws, plus the thermalization of the implosion, should produce temperatures way out of range for condensed matter. So I'm contending that most of that thermal energy is converted into electrostatic potential, via compressive ionization. The far weaker force of gravity helps, but its role is to accentuate the pressure in the core, so it gets ionized first. This sets up electrostatic layering. See the other post for more info, but like I said, if we're talking electric stars here, we need an electromotive force.
saul wrote: I'm curious why you choose Osmium, Platinum, Nickel, and Iron. What about all those other elements in the abundances data you use?
All of the elements are present, but Os, Pt, Ni, Fe, He, & H are the ones that are the most abundant, so they stand out.
saul wrote: I'm also curious how the Hydrogen phase diagram looks under the conditions you outline. Is "liquid" really the right term?
It's actually more like supercritical fluid, or liquid metal. And the actual behaviors of such high-pressure plasmas get really interesting, and there are a lot of unanswered questions. This is where classical atomic physics, quantum mechanics, and laboratory science all shake their heads and walk away in different directions. Are plasmas really ionized at their liquid densities, or have all of the electrons already become disassociated (at least for the lighter elements)? If so, is there really a Coulomb barrier still there, or is it just a free particle soup? There will still be compressive ionization due to gravity, as it operates on the nuclei more forcefully than on the electrons. But is there a "liquid line" where there is a state change? I have my reasons for believing that what is going on is similar to what I'm describing, but the particle physics of it is nowhere near as simple as I'm presenting.
Sparky
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
Are plasmas really ionized at their liquid densities, or have all of the electrons already become disassociated (at least for the lighter elements)? If so, is there really a Coulomb barrier still there, or is it just a free particle soup?
Certainly an interesting view
IMNSHO, If it is conducting, it is a plasma. And if it is a conducting plasma, there may very well be the charge separation layers.
If there were a Coulomb barrier breakdown, wouldn't there be fusion? Producing it's own plasma signature
THANKS
meemoe_uk
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
here's the meemoe_uk electric sun model The sun is the electrode in the middle. The heliopause is the glass sphere case Unlike the plasma balls arcs, most of the sun-heliopause current is in dark plasma.
... hmm, anyone seen a spinning plasma ball? that would make it a bit more like the sun.
CharlesChandler
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
Indeed. But those who are well-versed in the properties of electromagnetism will then have questions...
"What EM configuration would get the discharge to emanate equally from all over the surface of the electrode, as it does on the Sun, instead of from distinct electrode spots, as it does in a plasma ball?"
"Why does the current from the Sun typically only pinch down into a filament once it is over a full radius away from the electrode, as we see in the helmet streamers?"
meemoe_uk
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
OK, in light of recent criticism in the scientific literature, here's meemoe_uk's electric sun model v2. No observable pinching at the surface, no distinct electrode spots on the sun, plasma filaments are in dark mode.
meemoe_uk
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
Hmm, looking at my 1st electric sun model, I wonder if what appears to be the surface of red giant and red super giant stars are in fact highly excited heliopauses. They are excited this way by the very active central star.
Is this a new conjecture? Will the name meemoe_uk go down in the history books?
CharlesChandler
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
Can you upload the image directly to thunderbolts (on the "upload attachment" tab of the "post a reply" form), if it's not too big, or otherwise make the image accessible? For me, it's just saying, "This photo is currently unavailable."
meemoe_uk wrote: I wonder if what appears to be the surface of red giant and red super giant stars are in fact highly excited heliopauses. They are excited this way by the very active central star.
Excited by what? (I "think" that I'll agree, but I can't be sure for lack of specificity.)
meemoe_uk wrote: Will the name meemoe_uk go down in the history books?
You never know...
meemoe_uk
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
Hi Charles. I'm currently looking for a decent place to upload photos to. I used to use photobucket, but it got revampeddowngraded and now I find when you link to images on that it gives thumbnails, same for many sites. That last image was a flickr image and I've just realised only I can see it. It's just a snapshot of this youtube vid
In a plasma ball its the interaction of the arcs at the glass surface that is the heliopause. In a real heliopause, the stellar wind combines with opposite charge particles, electrons fall into lower energy states and give off energy. For this to happen to create the appearance of a super giant stellar surface, the stellar wind must be much more powerful than the sun's, and the radial distance to the heliopause likely smaller than the sun's.
meemoe_uk
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
Hi CC, just had a quick read of your solar model. Good work! Quite a shock to realise I got thru an undergraduate module in stellar physics without questioning the high density hydrogen and helium core assumption.
Have you had any reactions from old-model believers when you confront them with hydrogen and helium not being dense enough at core pressures?
I think they'd include radiation pressure at 15million K that squashes hydrogen sufficiently together.
meemoe_uk
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
Hi Charles. Just a general question about the sun. Does the sun have polar jets? I wonder if this is a source of hydrogen for the sun, i.e. the jets pull hydrogen onto the sun. Now that the old solar model is discredited,the question of how old the sun is and how long it will last is open again. I think you've done some reasoning to say there still plenty of fuel in the sun. But I'm wondering if the sun is capable of gaining mass when it passes thru regions of the galaxy with relatively high gas density. Perhaps on average the sun does gain mass like this with time. Perhaps the future of the sun is to continue gaining mass this way and grow into larger category star, and maybe give birth to other objects thru that process often described on this forum whereby a plasma ball splits into 2 to increase surface area and therefore reduce charge density.
I see you've got some evidence for the sun attracting substantial amounts of gas on your site.
CharlesChandler
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
OK, I took some screenshots of the video. Basically, it looks like the guy got himself a vintage plasma ball where all of the neon/argon/xenon has leaked out, which would have given him the blue & orange colors, while the nitrogen & oxygen he's got in there are just producing a green corona near the central electrode, and some orange coronas (from ionized oxygen) near the outer sphere. The fact that only half of the inner orb is exposed makes for an increased current density at the "equator", as all of the current from the "southern hemisphere" exits there. At a low current density, this just makes a diffuse glow radiating outward.
Once the channels form, they migrate upward, in a Jacob's Ladder effect (i.e., the discharge channel is hotter, so it rises, tugging the electrode footpoints along). But the resistance of nitrogen & oxygen is much higher than neon, so the current doesn't get pinched down into a discrete filament. In other words, he just isn't pumping enough volts into the rig to get arc discharges in nitrogen & oxygen. (If he up'd the volts, it would probably overheat.)
I agree that a lower current density prevents the discharge channels from getting consolidated into tight footpoints on the electrodes. But that's in nitrogen & oxygen, at standard atmospheric pressure, where it takes 100 kV/m to get a corona discharge, and 3,000 kV/m to get an arc discharge. Resistance varies directly with gas density, and at the surface of the Sun, the atmosphere is thinner than a laboratory vacuum. My calcs show that the current density on the surface is 481 A/m2. Passing through a decent vacuum, that should be easily sufficient to pinch down into a discrete discharge channel. Sometimes it does, as this appears to be the nature of spicules. But why doesn't it occur all over the surface?
BTW, when reading up on plasma balls, I found some of the wording in the Wikipedia article to be rather curious.
The filament is thinner because the magnetic fields around it, augmented by the now-higher current flowing through it, causes a magnetohydrodynamic effect called self-focusing: the plasma channel's own magnetic fields create a force acting to compress the size of the plasma channel itself.
The filaments in plasma balls are caused simply by the z-pinch effect. So why invoke MHD? And "self-focusing" is actually an optical effect, where photons in a strong electric field get polarized and focused. It has nothing to do with the consolidation of electric currents. So they're pushing the MHD agenda so hard these days that not only will it dominate all new research, but they're in the process of revising existing stuff to make it look like it was MHD all along. I don't mean to sound militant about this, but I think it's worth noting when lines like this are crossed, as it is clearly bad science, and getting worse.
As concerns the heliosphere, the stuff that I've been reading recently suggests that the solar wind is still expanding at its customary 450 km/s, while the interstellar winds are coming in at a measly 23 km/s. One researcher (H. D. May) believes that at the heliopause, the conflicting winds strip off electrons, due to their lower inertial forces. This results in the heliosphere getting infused with positive ions from the interstellar winds, with a negative double-layer at the heliopause. I'm convinced that the net positive charge in the heliosphere helps draw electrons out of the Sun. I can account for the 481 A/m2 as electrons leaving the Sun due to the loss of positive ions in the solar wind. But once the positive ions are expelled from the Sun, and the electrons chase after them, there then needs to be something to get the particles out of the Sun's gravitational field, or they'll just rain back down. This can only be evidence of electron drag in an electric field that has to do with more than just charge separations at the surface of the Sun. Hence the infusion of positive ions from the outside, from the interstellar winds, is an important piece. But unlike in the Juergens model, I'm not saying that the build-up of electrons in the heliopause is the source of electrons streaming inward. Rather, those electrons stay where they are, and electrons from the Sun are streaming outward.
But then there is the question of why the solar wind stops at the heliopause. We can expand a termination shock. But that should still be expanding, if the solar wind is steadily flowing outward. So is the heliosphere actually expanding? Or did it expand out to its existing dimensions, and now, something has stopped it, and which might start pushing in?
meemoe_uk wrote: Have you had any reactions from old-model believers when you confront them with hydrogen and helium not being dense enough at core pressures? I think they'd include radiation pressure at 15million K that squashes hydrogen sufficiently together.
I have corresponded with well-known scientists. While I was impressed with their willingness to respond to the queries of an amateur, with only a few exceptions they were totally apathetic about the issues that I'm raising. The fact of the matter is that in the last 100 years, mainstream astronomy has become a fully abstract discipline. Models that break physical laws just aren't a problem anymore, because scientists don't think in physical terms anymore. For example, in the literature on the Voyager data, they're talking about "foamy magnetic bubbles", as if magnetism is actually a fluid! MHD was originally just a way of simplifying plasma computations, which used to require integrating through all of the effects of so many point sources, but which could be approximated with fluid dynamic math, the same way it approximates the effects of molecular motions. But now, it's no longer an approximation — it's an abstraction. And it seems that modern scientists really like abstractions, as it is tough to find a flaw in work when it isn't even connected to anything physical.
meemoe_uk wrote: Does the sun have polar jets?
It has "coronal holes" in which the solar wind is much faster (800 m/s instead of 400 m/s). But I'm not sure that there is any evidence that there is a greater density of particles in the fast wind. (I actually think that the fast wind is mainly electrons. Regardless...) I don't think that the fast wind in coronal holes constitutes polar jets.
meemoe_uk wrote: Now that the old solar model is discredited, the question of how old the sun is and how long it will last is open again. I think you've done some reasoning to say there still plenty of fuel in the sun. But I'm wondering if the sun is capable of gaining mass when it passes thru regions of the galaxy with relatively high gas density. Perhaps on average the sun does gain mass like this with time. Perhaps the future of the sun is to continue gaining mass this way and grow into larger category star, and maybe give birth to other objects thru that process often described on this forum whereby a plasma ball splits into 2 to increase surface area and therefore reduce charge density.
There have been some interesting discussions on this. While it seems that the net flow in the solar wind is outward, there is also "some" evidence of plasma flowing inward. This "seems" to be the exception rather than the rule, at least in the current epoch. I think that the consensus is that this is still an open issue.
And how old is the Sun? That's an open issue too. If the geologic record is accurate, the solar output has been steady for at least a couple million years. But some of the assumptions in geology are a little too convenient, and I don't think that the age numbers are anywhere near as solid as scientists maintain.
Lloyd
Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model
Charles: If the geologic record is accurate, the solar output has been steady for at least a couple million years. But some of the assumptions in geology are a little too convenient, and I don't think that the age numbers are anywhere near as solid as scientists maintain.
I guess you noticed that Walter Brown, in his Hydroplate theory, shows that pretty convincingly, i.e. that the geologic record is not dated accurately. As I discussed with Web recently on another thread, based on Brown's info and Web's studies, we think it's likely that the continents, where nearly all of the sedimentary rock is located, were all formed within the last 10,000 years ago or so. That means all of the sedimentary rock would date about that age, nearly all of it having been deposited at once. Web seems to be more certain of this than I am and he has a much better background in geology. And I don't think he's a creationist per se. I hope to find better proof one way or the other asap.
By the way, I don't see any problem with my images from Photobucket. Is it only newer images that don't work well?
MHD was originally just a way of simplifying plasma computations, which used to require integrating through all of the effects of so many point sources, but which could be approximated with fluid dynamic math, the same way it approximates the effects of molecular motions. But now, it's no longer an approximation — it's an abstraction. And it seems that modern scientists really like abstractions, as it is tough to find a flaw in work when it isn't even connected to anything physical.
meemoe_uk wrote:It has "coronal holes" in which the solar wind is much faster (800 m/s instead of 400 m/s). But I'm not sure that there is any evidence that there is a greater density of particles in the fast wind. (I actually think that the fast wind is mainly electrons. Regardless...) I don't think that the fast wind in coronal holes constitutes polar jets.
