Lloyd wrote: Why would the electron temperature beyond 2AU be higher during solar max than during solar min?
I haven't studied those data, but I'll at least mention the interpretation within my model. CMEs expel positive ions, creating a charge imbalance in the Sun, which motivates a catch-up current of electrons out of the Sun. So the solar wind in general, and the electrons in particular, should be a tad hotter during the solar maximum, because this is when the CMEs are active. But I don't see any reason why the electrons would be hotter only beyond 2 AU, if that's what they're saying.
Lloyd wrote: Does Bob's Plasmoid model require that electrons stream into the Sun during solar min and out during solar max?
The plasmoid part of it doesn't have any heliospheric (much less any galactic) currents. But the other piece does. Here's what he said in a previous post:
bobinski wrote: I went on to suggest that the Alfven circuit is concerned with rotation, not the Sun's power output; the Alfven circuit may be related to the solar cycle; bulk plasma with high electron velocities in the azimuthal direction (i.e. around the Sun in the equatorial plane) drifts inwards & outwards radially in different halves of the 22-year cycle. This current is seen as the heliospheric current sheet; whatever energy it contains is partly converted to/from coronal rotation and partly stored in the solar equatorial torus which grows to a maximum at solar minimum.
So that's the Alfven circuit is as Alfven had it, not entering or exiting the Sun, and just involving the heliosphere.
Lloyd wrote: If so, did he show any evidence that electrons stream into the Sun during solar min? The electron temperature decrease beyond 2AU during solar min isn't evidence of electrons streaming in, is it?
If the current sheet changes direction each cycle, then during one minimum the electrons would be flowing inward, and during the next minimum they would be flowing outward. Does that sound right? I don't think that I agree, but I think that this is what he's saying.
Lloyd wrote: Do you agree with Bob that: 1. the corona drives the HCS (heliospheric current sheet) during half of the solar cycle and they reverse during the other half? 2. high latitude electrons drive the fast solar wind impinging on the equatorial HCS? 3. that misalignment between a galactic Birkeland current and the heliosphere could produce the solar cycle?
1. My model has the HCS flowing in the same direction the whole time, but with the intensity varying from minimum to maximum.
2. Yes, the fast solar wind is high latitude electrons, and these follow the Sun's toroidal magnetic field lines, from the poles toward the equatorial plane. These are long lines, so where they meet is far from the Sun, like at the tips of the helmet streamers.
3. I "think" that the Alfven circuit, which Bob adopts, is supposed to be entirely within the heliosphere, and perhaps mainly just in the corona? Anyway, my model doesn't have a galactic current. The interstellar wind impinges on the heliopause, and positive ions get embedded deeper than electrons. This sets up a double-layer, making the interior of the heliosphere positively charged, with a negative cap. But these are steady-state double-layers (i.e., CFDLs).
Lloyd wrote: I get the impression that Bob's model would require about the same huge magnetic field and visible electric current near the Sun that the anode Sun model would require.
The plasmoid model does require a huge magnetic field, since magnetic pressure is what sets up and maintains the CFDLs. I wasn't aware that the anode model had a magnetic field — I thought that it was just electrostatics. But I think that you're right that the plasmoid model, the anode model, and the compressive ionization model for that matter, all have an electric current in and around the Sun. The difference is that the plasmoid model has a leaky magnetic confinement; the anode model has a net positive charge inside a DL acting as a voltage regulator; and the compressive ionization model has CFDLs that slowly recombine as a consequence of mass loss to CMEs and to the solar wind. So all of them have arc discharges producing the solar power.
Lloyd wrote: Wouldn't Bridgman's calculation still apply, which shows that an undetected current would be way to weak to produce the Sun's radiation?
I think that this only applies to any model with a galactic current, which necessarily would pass by the space-based instrumentation. In my model, and in Bob's plasmoid model, the charges have already recombined within the first 10 solar radii, and thus show no current by the time they get out to where the instruments are.
Lloyd wrote: Would the torus around the solar equator (I think during solar max) be an electron cloud and would that slow down the solar wind ejected at low latitudes?
I don't know about the equatorial torus. Is this just the helmet streamers, which are more prevalent near the equator during solar min?
Lloyd wrote: Do you think there's anything to Bob's theory about the solar cycle?
Now I'm confused. I thought he was saying that the Alfven current doesn't enter or exit the Sun, and that there isn't any galactic current — it's all inside the heliosphere. But on page 33 of the Google Doc, he says, "So it seems possible that the solar cycle is due to the galactic current bleeding into the solar system in one cycle and leaking back out again in the next cycle."
Anyway, I don't subscribe to a galactic, or even heliospheric, source for the solar cycle. Things like differential rotation and torsional oscillation vary regularly with the cycle, and the inertial forces are enormous. I don't see anything external to the Sun that could control the momentum of such large parcels with such specificity.
Lloyd wrote: It seems that both explanations may have trouble with the Maunder Minimum, when there were no sunspots.
I don't have much of an explanation for the Maunder Minimum either. In my model, there are s-waves doing laps around the Sun, centered on the equator, and 120 Mm below the surface. These waves are constrained by both positive and negative feedback. In other words, there are forces that accentuate and attenuate them. Competition between these feedback loops creates the oscillations in the differential rotation, and thus the sunspots, and power output. It's not a slam-dunk answer — it's just a possibility, but it does tie all of the factors together. Anyway, it has no answer for variations on any longer scale. I'm still wondering if something like the barycenter phases don't play a role. But I haven't made any progress there.
Lloyd wrote: As Brant indicated, I think your accretion theory is the hardest part of your model to understand or believe.
I'll let you know when I've done more work on that part.
Two kinds of Stars Your description of the difference in these two models is accurate. It all comes down to how much spin the stellar system has.
justcurious wrote: How can someone who doesn't know anything about electricity or how it works, possibly provide explanations and theories of an electric sun?
Easy — just by typing on a keyboard. Then, if there is something that I say that doesn't sound right, you generously point out the error. If you assert something that doesn't ring true to me, I point out the error. At the end of the day, some or all of us have learned something. What part of that do you not understand?
Lloyd
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Galactic Current Charles, what you may have misunderstood in Bob's transcript is that he said Alfven's galactic Birkeland current doesn't penetrate the photosphere. I take it he means that it stops at the corona, so the HCS drives the corona during half of the solar cycle, and in the other half the corona drives the HCS. By the way, do you know if there's a formula to estimate energy from luminosity in galactic filaments, like in the Orion cloud?
Bob said that in "Alfven's 1941 paper ... he argued that the field-aligned currents from the Sun cause orbital rotation of the heliospheric current sheet by the Faraday motor mechanism". And he said "The recent evidence from the IBEX mission suggests that the heliosphere sits in the center of a galactic Birkeland current".
Have you analyzed any of that and did you find any agreement with Bob's ideas on those?
Star-Forming Current Remnant?
Bob said: Charles Bruce considered that the filamentation around established stars is a low-current remnant of the high-current formative phase which we see clearly in star-forming regions. [So] Suppose there is a remnant current flowing past the Sun.
Do you agree that a high-current phase is seen in star-forming regions? And, if there is a remnant current flowing past the Sun, would it still need to produce large, easily visible, arc discharges within a few solar radii of the solar surface? If so, what would be about the minimum diameter of such discharges?
Plasmoid Power
CC said: A plasmoid strong enough to maintain the distinct current-free double-layers in the Sun would require an extremely powerful, well organized magnetic field. The Sun's actual magnetic field is poorly organized, and averages 1 Gauss, merely twice the strength of the Earth's magnetic field.
How strong would a solar plasmoid's magnetic field have to be to maintain a CFDL? What formula would you use to estimate that? And is there a formula to determine how much a solar plasmoid would shrink in 11 years as it leaks enough current to supply all of the solar radiation? How much energy would a plasmoid Sun produce?
CFDLs Did you know, as Bob said, ... "that plasma also forms a (current-free) double-layer to separate areas of plasma with different properties, such as temperature, or degree of ionization"? Would temperature-induced double-layering affect your model at all?
Blueberries Not Pinched? Did you read the specs for CJ's blueberry experiment? If so, was it very similar to lightning striking hematite soil? Are the blueberries likely to be very similar to fulgurites? Do you know why they would become hollow? Might it be from expansion in the liquid stage?
Test Knowledge of Electric Forces Do you want to compare your knowledge of electronics etc with JustCurious? What electrical phenomena have you studied and understood or what have you not studied?
upriver
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
So if the sun was fed at the poles by some energy source it might be noticeable. Here is a study of the solar polar plumes...
Bob wrote: The recent evidence from the IBEX mission suggests that the heliosphere sits in the center of a galactic Birkeland current.
Lloyd wrote: Have you analyzed any of that and did you find any agreement with Bob's ideas on those?
Oh OK, I missed that. Anyway, there isn't a lot to go on here. Does the interstellar wind bulge around the heliosphere, or pinch down on it "as we would prefer"? But the statement on pg. 33, that "the solar cycle is due to the galactic current bleeding into the solar system in one cycle and leaking back out again in the next cycle," is an eyebrow-raiser. Things like differential rotation and torsional oscillation vary regularly with the cycle, and the inertial forces are enormous. I don't see anything external to the Sun that could control the momentum of such large parcels with such specificity. At most, one might say that processes inside the Sun fell into step with galactic oscillations. But if we are to say that galactic currents are calling the cadence, we have to remember that the only evidence of the solar cycle comes from the Sun itself. So I'm looking at factors in the solar interior for an explanation of the cycle. And to my knowledge, the current in the HCS is always flowing outward. Or did I miss something there too?
Lloyd wrote: By the way, do you know if there's a formula to estimate energy from luminosity in galactic filaments, like in the Orion cloud?
Power can be estimated from luminosity, if you know the distance, and if you know the opacity of the atmospheres around the light sources. But I don't know the formulas.
Bob, pg. 29 wrote: Alfven's 1941 paper ... he argued that the field-aligned currents from the Sun cause orbital rotation of the heliospheric current sheet by the Faraday motor mechanism.
I think that the HCS twists because it's a current in the presence of the galactic arm magnetic field. I also believe that this is the force responsible for all of the rotation in the solar system, including the rotation of the Sun & the planets, and the orbits of the planets around the Sun. I also think that this might be what causes the interstellar wind. If you have negatively charged bodies surrounded by positive plasma, moving in the presence of a magnetic field, the negative stuff spins in one direction, and the positive stuff spins in the other. The difference then causes a "wind" of positive plasma past the negative bodies.
Bob wrote: Charles Bruce considered that the filamentation around established stars is a low-current remnant of the high-current formative phase which we see clearly in star-forming regions. [So] Suppose there is a remnant current flowing past the Sun.
Lloyd wrote: Do you agree that a high-current phase is seen in star-forming regions?
I don't see evidence of currents powerful enough to do much, and I don't see how currents would form stars if they were there. So I think that this is an undeveloped epiphany.
Lloyd wrote: And, if there is a remnant current flowing past the Sun, would it still need to produce large, easily visible, arc discharges within a few solar radii of the solar surface?
That all depends on how much power you're going to attribute to it. If you want all 1026 watts to come from a remnant current, the footpoints of that current on the solar surface will be the brightest features on the Sun, like the footpoints on the central electrode in a plasma lamp.
Lloyd wrote: If so, what would be about the minimum diameter of such discharges?
I "think" that in a vacuum, the speed of electrons asymptotically approaches the speed of light. If it could achieve it, I "think" that theory has it that they would be pinched into an infinitesimal thread. But due to collisions with nucleons in the interplanetary medium, they wouldn't get that fast. In lightning, electrons move at an estimated 1/10 the speed of light, and they get pinched into discharge channels that are a couple of centimeters across. In the far less dense interplanetary medium, I'd expect the speed to be more like 9/10 the speed of light. But I don't know how to calculate exactly how much pinch effect you'd get at that speed. For our purposes, we can just say "extremely thin filaments". But they would glow brightly, in synchrotron radiation, as well as x-rays and gamma rays from collisions with nucleons that strayed into the discharge channel. So we'd know all about such filaments by now if they were there.
Lloyd wrote: How strong would a solar plasmoid's magnetic field have to be to maintain a CFDL? What formula would you use to estimate that?
I'm working on a finite element analysis engine for calculating such things. (See this for more info.) It basically just takes all of the factors operating on a parcel and adds them up, to find out which way the parcel wants to go. I have it working just for the gravitational and hydrostatic factors. It divides the Sun into 100,000 equal-volume parcels. Then it starts at the top, and calculates the gravity acting on the topmost layer, given an arbitrarily low density. This yields the pressure that the top layer will exert on the next layer down. Starting with that layer, and for the rest of them, it calculates the density, given the model temperature, and the pressure exerted on it by the weight of the overlying layer(s). Knowing the density, it can calculate the gravitational force, and thus the pressure exerted on the layer below it.
Just taking gravity & hydrostatics into account, the calculations confirm the Dalsgaard model, assuming that the temperatures in the "fusion furnace" model are correct. Unfortunately for Dalsgaard, this doesn't predict the helioseismic boundaries inside the Sun, or the distinct limb, since the ideal gas laws would have a smooth density gradient, from the maximum in the core, to nothing at an infinite distance away. So this proves that other factors must be present. And, of course, the only possible candidates are electromagnetic.
I'm still researching how to estimate the degree of ionization, given the pressure, once you hit the triple point in the phase diagram. Unfortunately there isn't much to go on there, so I'm also considering other strategies. Anyway...
What I've definitely learned so far, by getting my fingernails dirty with these calcs, is that there's no mistaking that the solar density gradient is non-Newtonian. In the chromosphere, the density is provably less than a laboratory vacuum. So there is effectively zero hydrostatic pressure being exerted on the photosphere. And yet the photosphere has the properties of a liquid (i.e., its hydrodynamic flows, its opacity, etc.). So the density jumps way up, for no apparent reason. That "reason" can only be electromagnetism. I'm saying that it's electrostatics, while Bob is saying that it's electrodynamics, but either way, the force could be calculated the same way, as it needs to supply all of the pressure that isn't being supplied by hydrostatics, to get a photosphere that dense.
Now, if we could somehow figure out exactly how dense the photosphere actually is, we could calculate exactly how much force is actually being exerted on it. Unfortunately, I'm still trying to figure out how to do this. I know that it's "a lot". I just don't know how to gauge the density of a liquid from a distance, just on the basis of its hydrodynamic behaviors and/or opacity, and not already knowing the degree of ionization (which affects viscosity, wave transmission speeds, and electron uptake). I guess that if there was an easy measure of this, we would have already figured all of this out.
We do know that the "mystery force" is EM, and it's unidirectional, because of how flat the surface of the Sun is. (If at any point the mystery force was going in a different direction, then at that point, the elevation of the surface would be different, because the pressure holding the plasma down would be different.) We know the magnetic field isn't consistently normal to the surface. We also know that it averages only 1 Gauss. The Earth's magnetic field averages 1/2 Gauss. Does the Earth's atmosphere have a density ledge that's 1/2 as distinct as the solar limb? No, it doesn't have any density ledge at all — it just tapers off to nothing, at a rate that is predictable by the ideal gas laws. IMO, that rules out the magnetic force as the organizing principle at the solar surface, even with such rough estimates. So the force that produces the nice, clean edge of the Sun can only be electrostatics. The photosphere is charged, and there's an opposite charge below, and the electric force is pulling the photosphere down, compacting it far more than gravity ever could.
In my model, this electrostatic layering is caused by compressive ionization deeper inside the Sun. This can go on to induce charges in screening layers, of which the photosphere is just one. But compressive ionization isn't the only way to get CFDLs. Bob's model could be considered identical to mine, except that instead of compression accomplishing the initial charge separation, it's magnetic pressure in the toroidal plasmoid. The overlying charged double-layers would behave the same, regardless of what separated the charges in the core. So in this image...
...I'm saying that compressive ionization creates 5 charged layers. You could visualize Bob's model just by thinking that the positive charge in the core is caused by magnetic pressure instead of compression, and then the charges in the other layers (however many of them there might be) are induced.
How much magnetic pressure would it take? It would have to be at least as much as the electrostatic force in each double-layer. If you create a body of charge, then you get a corresponding double-layer, and the electric force between them equals the amount of force that it took to separate the charges. The double-layer then induces a charge in an overlying layer, for the same reason. Any net charge is going to attract an opposite charge, which will form a CFDL. The photosphere is just such a CFDL, with a charge that was induced by an opposite charge below it. The electric force that binds the photosphere to the lower layer is the direct result of a charge separation even deeper, that had to be at least as strong. So if we could calculate the force binding the photosphere to the next lower level, we'd have a minimum amount of force that would have to be supplied, by compressive ionization, or by a toroidal plasmoid.
But this doesn't mean that the toroidal plasmoid is safely buried deep inside the Sun, separating charges with magnetic pressure, which result in induced layers of opposite charge for purely electrostatic reasons. The magnetic field from the plasmoid would still be apparent at the surface, even if the double-layers were formed purely by the electric force. The only way to have a powerful plasmoid in the core, and not have a powerful field at the surface, would be if charged double-layers were rotating at the same speed, and in the same direction, where the magnetic fields would cancel out. But then you'd have extreme velocities nearer the surface, and we'd expect to see these in the helioseismic data, which we don't. I know I'm just guessing here, without running the numbers, but my guess is that this rules out the toroidal plasmoid as the internal charge separation mechanism.
Lloyd wrote: Would temperature-induced double-layering affect your model at all?
In my model, temperatures should be well distributed, minus the cooling effect of ionization.
Lloyd wrote: Did you read the specs for CJ's blueberry experiment?
What specs?
Lloyd wrote: Are the blueberries likely to be very similar to fulgurites?
Fulgurites are from lightning drilling down through the soil, seeking the conductivity at the water table, and melting the soil on the way. My guess is that the blueberries are artifacts of splatter within a crater. As concerns ones that were found to be hollow, I'd have to know the dimensions to even hazard a guess. Most substances expel gases when they cool, and since they cool from the outside, the gases are purged toward the inside. Some substances form bubbles throughout. I guess certain substances might chase all of the gases to the core?
Lloyd wrote: Do you want to compare your knowledge of electronics etc with JustCurious?
Here's a thought — we could test our knowledge AND accomplish something in the process, by discussing the physics of solar models!
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Charles Chandlers says that toroidal plasmoids don't form in solar flares. Yet, they have been observed. The issue is over the INTERPRETATION of their formation:-
"A spectacular erupting feature with a plasmoid-like structure is observed before and during the solar flare that occurred on the limb on 1991 December 2 with the Yohkoh soft X-ray telescope. The rise of a loop structure starts ~10 min before the flare, evolving to a plasmoid-like structure in the impulsive phase of the flare. The speed of the rising loop (plasmoid) is almost constant (~96 km s-1) throughout the observation. A clear X-shaped structure is formed underneath the rising plasmoid, and a bright soft X-ray loop is formed below the X-point. The X-shaped structure indicates a magnetic neutral point with a large-scale magnetic separatrix structure. Inverse-V-shaped high-temperature ridges are located above the soft X-ray loop and below the X-point. We interpret these as reconnected loops heated by slow shocks." http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/483/1/507
"Radio emission of four solar flares with high-frequency slowly drifting structures is presented. Three sub-classes of these structures were recognized. It is shown that the April 15, 2001 X14.4 flare started with the slowly drifting structure associated with a plasmoid ejection observed by TRACE in the 171 Å line. The August 18, 1998 event presents an example of the drifting pulsation structure (DPS) which is well limited in frequency extent at both sides. A further example of the DPS, but followed by clouds of the narrowband dm-spikes, was observed during the November 23, 2001 flare. Finally, in the case of the April 12, 2001 flare, the drifting pulsation-continuum structure was recorded at the same time as the metric type II radio burst, i.e. in different frequency ranges. The slowly drifting structures were analyzed and in two cases their relation to hard X-ray emission was studied. Possible underlying physical processes are discussed assuming the plasmoid ejection model of eruptive solar flares." http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=c ... right.html
I posted earlier in this thread that accurate measurements of faculae regions between solar granules (both at minima and maxima) continue to reveal magnetic field regions of 1K+ gauss. Polar faculae have particularly high gauss-readings, which may be consistent with Don Scott's observations (among others) of currents powering the sun at the pole. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11164#p79727
Also, regarding Current Free Double Layers. I suggest Charles Chandler takes some time to learn about them, here:-
You don't NEED what you think you need for such DL's to form.
And regarding the Vemasat Lab spherules. Again, Chandler continues to ignore the morphologies generated that show they are distinct from just "slag". I'm sure they know the difference between the two. Unless you want to ask him to perform another experiment with a "control", or just outright accuse him of scientific incompetence? I'm wondering if Lloyd or Chandler want an honest debate here or they are just throwing their hypothetical assumptions around.
P.S.
We can get very basic and intuitive with these questions. Charles has to answer how galaxies are maintained and formed via his appeal to Feynmanistic "like-like-likes" assumptions. Or shall we just state that the "dark matter" filaments and black holes are responsible? I'd stick with the idea that despite the fact that the "dark matter" filaments that connect galaxies together only have weak radio and micro-wave emissions - their cross-sectional area is vast. Galaxies, in particular - galaxy clusters - are typically found in areas where these "dark-matter" filaments intersect the most (according to observations from Max Planck Institute and others). I'd go with the idea that the dense plasma focus (pinching of currents via their coerced merging together) is the most elegant explanation for galaxies, particularly AGN's and quasars. A "filament" may appear too electrically weak to power a star, but in a small "pinch" region the power and magnetic field can suddenly increase vastly and exponentially. And regarding electron drift velocity, Don Scott has addressed this here:- http://electric-cosmos.org/SolarElecFlux2013.pdf
Still...Charles wants to talk more about his quantitative model. So, not sure if I'm going to continue posting here.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Again, regarding spectrally-deficient readings of the solar magnetic-field, we have the importance of mapping inter-granular "flux-tubes":-
The magnetic field in the photospheric layers of the Sun is found to occur not in a homogeneous form but in discrete concentrations of intense field. The most obvious form of magnetic flux (magnetic field strength times surface area occupied by the field) is seen in SUNSPOTS but it turns out that much smaller arrangements of magnetic field are to be found in the lanes between granules where downdraughts occur (see SOLAR PHOTOSPHERE: GRANULATION). These are the photospheric flux tubes: small-scale concentrations of intense magnetic field. The tubes have diameters of a few hundred kilometers or smaller and field strengths of 1–2 kG. Generally found in intergranular lanes, they are subject to the dynamical nature of the photospheric environment with its sound waves and flows. The tubes are isolated flux tubes in that their immediate surroundings are essentially field-free.
There is a network of > 1 kG field flux tubes located at granular boundaries and an intra-network magnetic flux within of very low magnetic field strength close to zero. Network elements consists of tiny, unresolvable flux tubes, like those of faculae. Unlike faculae, though, they are always brigther than the background quiet sun and their contrast remains relatively consistent from disk centre to limb. The importance of the network in long term irradiance variations is not understood.
The surface magnetic field of the Sun is structured on a wide range of scales, from the largest sunspot active regions tens of Mm across down to the 100 km scale "magnetic elements" that are by definition the smallest observ-able forms of magnetic flux in the photosphere. The observations of sunspots decaying by gradual breakup into smaller structures and of pores forming via accumulation of magnetic elements, have logically resulted in the so-called "magnetic element hypothesis", i.e. that there is an elementary unit of magnetic flux from which larger structures are assembled.
As solar telescope designs, site selection, and imaging techniques improved, ever smaller examples of isolated bright points and magnetic features were discovered in both plage and quiet Sun network regions. To date, many observations have achieved sub-03 angular resolution and have resulted in measurements of magnetic element apparent size, brightness, field structure, dynamics, and evolution (Nisenson et al. 2003; Berger & Title 2001; Mulleret al. 2000; Berger et al. 1998b; van Ballegooijen et al.1998; Berger & Title 1996; Berger et al. 1995; Muller et al.1994; Muller 1994; Keller 1992; Muller & Keil 1983; Muller1983). All of these studies generally supported the idea that virtually all of the small-scale structure in active and quiet network regions was composed of filamentary fluxtubes of kilogauss strength (we exclude here the internet-work regions which are thought to possess so-called "tur-bulent" flux with fields on the order of 10–100 G, Stenflo1994). Recent imaging results Dom´ınguez Cerde˜na et al.(2003a) using speckle interferometery reconstructed mag-netograms show evidence of localized kilogauss-strength concentrations filling much of the intergranular lanes in quiet Sun, i.e. far from any active region or network sites. Finally, detailed spectropolarimetric modelling indicates that "kilogauss strength" flux tubes may be "microstruc-tured" with a variety of field strengths on kilometer scales(S´anchez Almeida & Lites 2000; Sanchez Almeida 1997)thus implying that still higher resolution is required for direct measurement of flux tubes. The progression of results leads to the natural expectation that with increasing spatial resolution we should continue to resolve smaller discrete kilogauss-strength flux tubes, at least down to 10 km scales.
I'd wager that the sun is mostly glow-discharge plasma responding to a complex flow of electric currents and associated magnetic-fields with fluxes in current-input creating the solar-cyle. And plasmoids CAN form in solar flare ejections, given the presence of very strong magnetic fields in inter-granular regions. Exploding double-layers may well be the cause, if the pinched-current region is too strong to maintain the Debye sheath.
meemoe_uk
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
That was a great lecture by bob.
At 29:40 Bob starts describing the alternating nature of the galactic birkeland current, the alfvén mechanism, and the solar cycle.
If the galactic current is net bleeding energy into the solar system in one cycle and net bleeding energy out in the next cycle, then there should be evidence of energy loss and energy gain within the solar system over the course of 2 solar cycles. What kind of energy? Bob and Alfvén focus on angular momentum.
In a 1993 paper by M. F. Woodard and K. G. Libbrecht " Observations of Time Variation in the Sun's Rotation ", they find the sun's rotation does vary with time by about 1% over a the sampled 3-5 years.
Is this the evidence of momentum energy loss/gain required by the Charge Free Double Layer model? It would require the sun to alternately slow down over 1 cycle, then speed up the next.
I think the paper only looks at 5 years of data at most. This is not long enough to see the pattern the CFDL model requires, but at least they've found some variation over the course of the solar cycle as the CFDL model predicts. By now, the measurements that the 1993 paper used, will have extended another 20 years so there should be sufficient data now to test the CFDL model.
PersianPaladin wrote: Charles Chandlers says that toroidal plasmoids don't form in solar flares. Yet, they have been observed.
C'mon dude. Here's what I actually said:
CharlesChandler wrote: Also, it "might be" just an assumption that it is a magnetic field that is keeping these clusters of electrons organized, thus justifying the term "plasmoid". I don't have access to that journal, so you'll have to tell me: did they explicitly discount the possibility of a clump of positive ions at the centers of these clusters, which would make them electrostatic plasma cells, instead of electrodynamic plasmoids? If so, can you supply the quote?
So you took a "might be" and turned it into an assertion that you consider to be wrong.
Anyway, you go on to state that "the issue is over the INTERPRETATION of their formation..." which is correct, and you supply the quote from the paper, for which I thank you. OK?
As concerns the paper, it certainly sounds like they're describing plasmoids. I'm just suspicious of the reconnection model, as so much of it is abstract and non-physical. But to actually have an opinion here, I'd have to study the data. I didn't see that "they explicitly discounted the possibility of a clump of positive ions at the centers of these clusters, which would make them electrostatic plasma cells, instead of electrodynamic plasmoids" as I questioned earlier.
PersianPaladin wrote: Also, regarding Current Free Double Layers. I suggest Charles Chandler takes some time to learn about them, here...
Ummm... my whole model of stellar formation from the collapse of a dusty plasma is based on Debye sheaths, and the resulting body force from the "like-likes-like" phenomenon. So yes, I'm familiar with the effects of differences in electron & nucleus temperatures. And yes, a Debye sheath is certainly a CFDL. But if that's all you had, the Sun would be negatively charged (oops, there goes the Anode Sun model), surrounded by a sheath of positive plasma, which would fully insulate it electrically from the heliosphere, and with no currents (yep, there goes the whole Electric Sun model). So I think that there's more to it than that, and electron temperature isn't the only way to get charged double-layers. I'm saying that compressive ionization is another way, and I agree with Bob and you that toroidal plasmoids are yet another way, though I disagree with Bob that there is a toroidal plasmoid at the center of the Sun, and I'm reserving judgement on the CME thing.
PersianPaladin wrote: And regarding the Vemasat Lab spherules. Again, Chandler continues to ignore the morphologies generated that show they are distinct from just "slag". I'm sure they know the difference between the two. Unless you want to ask him to perform another experiment with a "control", or just outright accuse him of scientific incompetence?
You're right — the authors didn't mention the typical characteristics of slag, so they didn't rule it out. Frankly, I never picked one up off the floor and looked at it with a magnifying glass, so I don't know what the characteristics are. Brant, did you ever look at one, or did you just sweep them all into a dust pan and throw them away like I did? But mind you — I didn't call them slag because of the physical characteristics, or in spite of them. I'm questioning how a 0.25 mm charge stream (i.e., typical in arc welding) is going to pinch a 1 mm blueberry. I don't think it's possible. But I'm not accusing anybody of anything, because I don't care about the personalities involved here — I'm not seeking personalities — I'm seeking the truth!
PersianPaladin wrote: I'm wondering if Lloyd or Chandler want an honest debate here or they are just throwing their hypothetical assumptions around.
We very definitely want an honest debate, devoid of personal attacks, and full of accurate information and open-minded inquiries. When questions are asked, they have to be answered, or clearly designated as open questions. We've done a lot of work, and we've made a lot of mistakes (me especially), but we've learned a lot, and we're enjoying it, so we're going to continue. We started out knowing that the Universe is electric. We thought that we knew how. But we kept questioning, and found that we didn't know as much as we thought. We entertained other possibilities, and some of them afforded more accurate descriptions of the phenomena. In the end, the theories will match the observations to the full precision of the data. And this will constitute proof that the Universe is electric. We all know that the standard model is busted, and that EM is the only other possibility. So we know that it can be proved. But EM has a lot of properties, and there might be many ways — all with EM — to explain something. The wrong EM explanation is going to be just as wrong as the gravity explanation. So like I said earlier, pick the wrong EM explanation and everybody shakes their heads and walks away. Pick the right one and the picture comes into perfectly clear focus. This is what we're after. So you need not challenge our loyalty to the EM paradigm. We're just looking to increase the accuracy & specificity — that's all. We're on the same side.
PersianPaladin wrote: Charles has to answer how galaxies are maintained and formed via his appeal to Feynmanistic "like-like-likes" assumptions.
They're not "assumptions". Gerald Pollack (among others) have proved that this is real. I haven't run the numbers to find out whether the "like-likes-like" force fully accounts for the collapse of dusty plasmas, or leaves something on the table. But I do know that dusty plasmas are ionized (or we wouldn't call them plasmas). The charging mechanism is electron temperature, as noted above, and this creates overlapping Debye sheaths. This is definitely a recipe for a batch of "like-likes-like" forces. So the analysis of organizing forces has to acknowledge gravity, which is real, and the LLL force, which is real too. Anything left over is open to debate.
PersianPaladin wrote: And regarding electron drift velocity, Don Scott has addressed this here...
I don't understand how he gets 1.6 × 10-7 A/m2. He's got 4 × 1016 A. The surface area of the Sun is 6.08 × 1018 m2. Just divide the one by the other and you get 6.58 × 10-3 A/m2. (Tell him not to feel bad — in double-checking his numbers, I found an even bigger error in mine. ) Anyway, I don't know what this does to Tom Bridgman's or Bob Johnson's velocity estimates.
PersianPaladin wrote: Still...Charles wants to talk more about his quantitative model.
If people ask me questions, I'm obligated to answer. I apologize for being verbose at times. But when, for example, somebody asks how we would calculate the force necessary to maintain the CFDLs in question, that's a non-trivial question, and cannot be answered in a just a sentence or two.
As concerns the currents in the intergranular lanes, I "think" that this is consistent will all of the models. The difference between the anode & cathode models is just in the direction of the current. And I "think" that the plasmoid model just has stuff leaking out, so this would be where it's leaking the most, I guess.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
This is an important talk for anybody to watch, just to get an idea of how complex and dynamic our sun's magnetic field and plasma structure is.
At 14 minutes in, Dr Saku Tsuneta (erroneously) assumes that "convective collapse" and MHD pressure-forces may be responsible for the magnetic-field intensification of over 1KG in inter-granular regions:-
It's an interesting talk generally - and reveals the current issues that the mainstream is exploring. He also discusses the vertical polar kG field as well as significant coronal activity above the poles, during the quiet-sun periods (28 mins in).
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Charles...please explain how "electrostatics" can account for hard x-ray emissions in detection of torroidal plasmoids in solar flares (which are themselves - an electro-dynamic event)?
The Soft X-ray Telescope (SXT) on board Yohkoh revealed that the ejection of X-ray emitting plasmoid is sometimes observed in a solar flare. It was found that the ejected plasmoid is strongly accelerated during a peak in the hard X-ray emission of the flare. In this paper we present an examination of the GOES X 2.3 class flare that occurred at 14.51 UT on 2000 November 24. In the SXT images we found multiple plasmoid ejections with velocities in the range of 250-1500 km/s, which showed blob-like or loop-like structures. Furthermore, we also found that each plasmoid ejection is associated with an impulsive burst of hard X-ray emission. Although some correlation between plasmoid ejection and hard X-ray emission has been discussed previously, our observation shows similar behavior for multiple plasmoid ejection such that each plasmoid ejection occurs during the strong energy release of the solar flare. As a result of temperature-emission measure analysis of such plasmoids, it was revealed that the apparent velocities and kinetic energies of the plasmoid ejections show a correlation with the peak intensities in the hard X-ray emissions.
Plasmoids exist in space. They have been formed in the lab with electron temps similar to that of the solar atmosphere (example here ftp://77.47.129.53/pub/konfer/2007/XVII ... P12-05.pdf. They don't all have the same densities and thus we should consider the possibility that matter density and mass of the sun may be considerable less than we've long assumed.
Is this too hard to explain?
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
The discovery of rivers of plasma flowing beneath the surface of the Sun, seems to connect with the Alfven and Don Scott model of secondary currents produced by time-varying magnetic fields from polar currents:-
Subsurface currents can account for part of the electro-dynamic behaviour of the sun as well as magnetic reversals.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
PersianPaladin wrote: Charles...please explain how "electrostatics" can account for hard x-ray emissions in detection of toroidal plasmoids in solar flares (which are themselves - an electrodynamic event)?
First of all, skimming the paper you cited, most of the hard x-ray emissions were coincident with the initial acceleration of the plasmoids. So the flare, the x-rays, and the outward acceleration of plasma all occurred at the same time. I don't understand the difference between this and a garden-variety flare with accompanying CME. There is a flare, and plasma is ejected. The only difference seems to be that previous literature says that the flare, which produces hard x-rays, also ejects mass into the corona (CME), while in this paper, by repeatedly referring to x-ray producing plasmoid ejections, they make it sound like the plasmoid is emitting the x-rays. In other words, the CME causes the flare. But this doesn't sit comfortably with the facts that flares only sometimes have associated CMEs, while CMEs never occur in the absence of flares. Furthermore, without actually identifying the physical forces, and instead invoking the magnetic energy storage and release terminology of standard MHD, the debate on prime movers hasn't even been opened yet. The white light flare, the x-rays, and the acceleration of plasma all occurred at the time. Which caused which? To answer that, we'd have to start talking about the driving forces.
IMO, flares are arc discharges. The explosive release of electrostatic potential in the electric reconnection eventTM produces x-rays, gamma rays, and a lot of heat. Mozina et al. have shown that nuclear fusion is occurring in these so-called electric reconnection eventsTM (i.e., arc discharges). IMO, these are the forces that accelerate plasma outward. So the prime mover is the electric force, that causes the flare, that causes the CME, in that order.
After ejection, sometimes the plasma re-flashes. This is especially true of balloon CMEs. In my model, the plasma that is ejected comes from a positive layer (i.e., the topmost 20 Mm of the Sun). Chasing after it is a waft of electrons. In transit, they produce synchrotron radiation. When the electrons catch up to the ions, there is charge recombination, producing a flash of white light, and some soft x-rays.
You're welcome to say that the plasmoid causes the flare, and then ejects itself. Or that a plasmoidal structure in the Sun causes the flare, and ejects a baby plasmoid. But sooner or later, to continue the discussion productively, you'll have to define plasmoids in physical terms. Just thinking of them as containers for magnetic energy doesn't enable further analysis. Are they tokamaks, where magnetic energy gets converted to angular momentum? How do plasmoids emit hard x-rays — it isn't nuclear fusion in the annular core. There are a lot of possibilities there, but the MHD literature is too vague and abstract for direct inclusion in any mechanistic treatment of the topic. So you have to pick through it, and find the source data, and start wondering about physical forces yourself.
PersianPaladin wrote: Plasmoids exist in space.
Yes. I consider black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, blazars, quasars, BL Lacs, and white dwarfs to all be toroidal plasmoids. Surely there are other instantiations of the same principles. So you don't have to sell me on the existence of plasmoids.
PersianPaladin wrote: We should consider the possibility that matter density and mass of the sun may be considerable less than we've long assumed.
OK, here's the deal. This thread is entitled, "The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model". It's a legitimate topic of conversation. I personally believe that all of the possible models should be enumerated, and that the reasons for/against should be added to the body of literature. Even if one of the possibilities gets dismissed, it shouldn't be removed from the literature, because things that get dismissed don't always stay dismissed. (The reasons against sometimes are shown, by ongoing research, to be specious, and the possibility is resurrected. This moves a lot faster if the whole argument doesn't have to begin again from the beginning.) So if information is gathered in the process of exploring a possibility, it should be clearly and succinctly described, to help the next guy. But to move forward, questions have to be answered, or explicitly labeled as open questions. My question about the solar toroidal plasmoid model is, "Where are the magnetic fields?" My understanding of what Bob was saying would expect powerful, well-organized magnetic fields. Is that not correct? If so, where are they? Perhaps it's time that somebody do a diagram of the solar plasmoid model. I can do one, but I don't want to inject my assumptions that deep into it. Of course I'm going to do a diagram of something that isn't going to work, because I disagree. But that wouldn't be a productive use of anybody's time. So the champions of the model should do the diagram, and all of the relevant electric, magnetic, inertial, and/or gravitational forces should be labeled. Then we can debate whether or not it would work, if it actually existed, and whether or not the data match the model.
BTW, my list of the solar models on the table, and my attempt to faithfully represent the contentions for/against, can be found here. Forum discussions are great for airing out ideas, but after the fact, they're impossible to follow. So we're "trying" to get the reasoning assembled into coherent documents that formally state the key points for each model. If your model isn't accurately represented there, it's up to you to supply a better representation.
PersianPaladin wrote: The discovery of rivers of plasma flowing beneath the surface of the Sun, seems to connect with the Alfven and Don Scott model of secondary currents produced by time-varying magnetic fields from polar currents...
What are the primary electromotive forces in Scott's model?
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
PersianPaladin wrote: The discovery of rivers of plasma flowing beneath the surface of the Sun, seems to connect with the Alfven and Don Scott model of secondary currents produced by time-varying magnetic fields from polar currents...
What are the primary electromotive forces in Scott's model?
The polar currents. Currents coming in/out of the poles. A time varying current produces time-varying magnetic fields, and these time-varying magnetic fields can induce secondary currents. That good'ol right hand rule again.
Recommended learning material from MIT (free!):
Electricity and Magnetism
Course Highlights: This course features a complete set of videotaped lectures. The 36 video lectures on Electricity and Magnetism, by Professor Lewin, were recorded on the MIT campus during the Spring of 2002. Prof. Lewin is well-known at MIT and beyond for his dynamic and engaging lecture style.
Why are Charles Chandler's opinions and views compared to Thornhil and Scott? There is no comparison. Charles is "trying" to learn, the others are seasoned scientists and researchers. Not to mention that Charles doesn't even know anything about electricity. What's going on here?
No offence Charles, I'm learning just like you. I just don't understand why anyone takes you so seriously that's all.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
justcurious wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: What are the primary electromotive forces in Scott's model?
The polar currents. Currents coming in/out of the poles.
So what causes the currents coming in/out of the poles? Is it the magnetic fields? If so, what causes the magnetic fields? Is it the electric currents? I'm looking for the prime mover here. Work is being done, and that requires the release of stored energy. What is the nature of that energy?
justcurious wrote: I just don't understand why anyone takes you so seriously that's all.
Then, if there is something that I say that doesn't sound right, you generously point out the error.
If you assert something that doesn't ring true to me, I point out the error.
At the end of the day, some or all of us have learned something.
What part of that do you not understand?
) Anyway, I don't know what this does to Tom Bridgman's or Bob Johnson's velocity estimates.
PersianPaladin wrote:If people ask me questions, I'm obligated to answer. I apologize for being verbose at times. But when, for example, somebody asks how we would calculate the force necessary to maintain the CFDLs in question, that's a non-trivial question, and cannot be answered in a just a sentence or two.produces x-rays, gamma rays, and a lot of heat. Mozina et al. have shown that nuclear fusion is occurring in these so-called electric reconnection eventsTM (i.e., arc discharges). IMO, these are the forces that accelerate plasma outward. So the prime mover is the electric force, that causes the flare, that causes the CME, in that order.
