CharlesChandler wrote: But I'm still not convinced that the expectations of the toroidal plasmoid model are met in the Sun (i.e., powerful, well-organized magnetic fields).
So why is there a toroid around the sun? I have never seen it myself, but keep reading about this toroid around the sun. How strong of a magnetic field do you need? What would be the underlying mathematics formulas or principles used to determine whether a magnetic field is strong enough for a toroidal plasmoid?
CharlesChandler wrote: As concerns the solar anode model, I remain unconvinced, since the crucial questions have not been answered. The polar currents can only be motivated by electric fields and/or time-varying magnetic fields. Realistic conditions for these have not been presented, much less associated with observations. The "model" actually just starts & ends with the simple assertion that the currents exist. And the implications of the assertions are not even fully considered. For example, this isn't a rebuttal...
You assume that the varying magnetic fields should generate the currents, and not the varying currents that generate magnetic fields. How do you explain the helical magnetic fields coming out of the poles like cones? Have you read Don Scott's papers published on his website? the ones that Persian posted? Or is he just making the stuff up? I would say you are incorrect in your statement of "not associated with observations". Yet you post a very speculative story from yahoo and space.com which you say supports your model or theory.
CharlesChandler wrote: Likewise, the assertions in the more general stellar formation model, based on z-pinches and Marklund convection, remain unsupported. Repeated mentions in the literature do not answer the questions. How does ionized matter condense, despite the electrostatic repulsion? In reality, ionization doesn't shift matter down the plasma-gas-liquid-solid series of physical states. It shifts it up.
Without getting into fusion, it is so obvious how the z-pinch effect can bring matter closer together far more efficiently than gravity could ever do. If you can't understand the filamentation process, then you will never be able to grasp the concepts of the electric universe. The electric force is zillions of times stronger than gravity. As far as I know, plasma can have both negative and positive charges, ions and electrons, (perhaps in different proportions). My guess is that it has all been reproduced in labs.
CharlesChandler wrote: But continued arguing is obvious pointless, as this is turning into just a filibuster, and I won't waste everybody's time by helping to keep it going.
To be fair, you asked questions, and people gave you the answers, over and over again the same questions and answers. So you may be right, sometimes arguing and debating might actually be pointless. Perhaps I (speaking for myself) don't understand you, perhaps you don't express yourself, and maybe also you have a hard time grasping some concepts and understanding others. There are always lessons to be learned. It's one thing to be trying to learn. But another thing to make statements like yours about Don Scott, a man of science who taught Electrical Engineering for years, when you yourself don't fully grasp the basics of electromagnetism. Unlike theoretical physicists, engineers are expected to build things that work. Have some respect.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Transformer action governs the solar plasma dynamics in Don Scott's model. The main polar currents actually get stronger and produce secondary looping currents in both hemispheres as a result of induction. I posted a diagram of subsurface currents earlier that look very similar to the dynamics offered by Don Scott. The photosphere at the poles, given the general dynamics of the photospheric plasma around the Sun - won't look much different given that the circulation isn't just one way. Did Birkeland's Terella show consistently more plasma density at the pole (where he had the power flowing in) than elsewhere? No. http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/1b ... 4vssmXoSOQ
This is from a TPOD by Michael Armstrong:-
We have just discussed the coronal loops – omega shaped arches in the Sun's magnetic field that extend up out of the photosphere into the lower corona. Eugene N. Parker correctly calls the coronal loops "bulges" in the Sun's magnetic field. He states: "The bulges emerge through the surface of the Sun, forming bipolar magnetic regions, or magnetically active regions, with lengths up to 200,000 km. The bipolar fields have opposite signs on opposite sides of the equator, and the algebraic signs of the fields reverse from one 11-year [sunspot] cycle to the next."
The image above shows a possible explanation of this phenomenon. According to Alfvén's stellar circuit, the main solar electric current flows into (or out of) each pole of the Sun. Making use of the "right-hand rule," we can visualize the directions of the encircling magnetic fields created by that current. If the strength of this current is increasing, the magnetic field will strengthen as well. Such time varying magnetic fields can induce secondary currents as shown in the figure. The secondary current will only exist when the magnitude of the linking magnetic field is growing or shrinking. This effect is utilized here on Earth in AC transformers and so is called transformer action.
If a secondary current filament is flowing southward from near the Sun's north pole and it is on or just beneath the Sun's surface, a looping magnetic field will emerge to the east of the current creating a north magnetic pole there. (Right thumb directed toward the south, fingers emerging up out of the surface on its east side.) The loop will move out above the Sun's surface and then return down into the surface forming a south magnetic pole to the west of the current.
Recall that a "north magnetic pole" is a region where the magnetic flux emerges from a solid. In the Sun's southern hemisphere, the secondary surface current is flowing northward toward the solar equator. The resulting magnetic field will emerge (north magnetic pole) to the west of the current and return down to the surface (forming a south magnetic pole) to the east of the current. Thus the action described by Parker ("The bipolar fields have opposite signs on opposite sides of the equator.") follows directly from Alfvén's circuit. Of course, the locations of the subsurface currents shown in the image above are speculative at this point. These reversing magnetic fields provide a classic example of a phenomenon that cannot be understood without reference to the electric currents that produce it.
Regardless of the direction of the main driving current coming into the Sun, the eleven-year reversal of the magnetic loops can be explained by transformer action. If the main magnetic field that induces the surface currents is growing in strength, the surface current will point in one direction. If the main magnetic field starts to weaken in intensity, the secondary (surface) current will reverse direction. Consequently the magnetic polarity of the loops will also reverse. Notice that this mechanism does not require the main solar driving current itself to reverse direction, only to vary in amplitude. It also does not depend on the direction of the primary current.
And regarding the actual magnetic fields of the general photosphere - including within the tufts and between them, I'm not going to repeat myself again. Only to say that the dismissal of electrodynamics because of a wrong assumption (based on spectrally deficient and older measurements) of the actual magnetic field strength of the Sun - is silly. Given the average deferred temp of the photosphere, the sort of magnetic field strength and current strength on average need not be that strong and also are not going to be found at equal scales across the sun's complex atmosphere. Not to mention again, the problem of the "missing magnetism" that the mainstream seems to have.
I was open enough to accept Charles Chandlers' reasoning regarding electrostatic forces in accretion of matter to form stars. However, I remain strongly convinced that the filamentary nature of star formation is governed by EM forces as the initiator - with other forces, including gravity and electrostatics - taking over from there.
As an aside, I found two interesting papers speculating on the formation of ball-lightning from "vortex rings" generated from the lightning channel. I have reservations about the mechanisms of generation regarding the vortex rings (I'd refer to the magnetic pinch instead), but the point is that this may roughly fit in with how matter may have spherically condensed via electrostatic and gravitational dynamic forces from torroidal plasma formations in a Z-pinched Birkeland filament in space. So there is a chance that just like in the BL models - the plasmoid instability has dissapeared inside our Sun shortly after its formation:- http://www.severestorms.ch/files/ISBL-06-Tar2.pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0910/0910.0783.pdf
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
For those interested in spherical plasma features forming in low-density plasma (depending on various pressures, flow-rates, voltages, etc) you can read about examples from experiments in these two links. These may or may not be technically referred to as "plasmoids".
The following is from a recent interview I did with Eric J. Lerner:-
Hoz: I first came across your work when I saw your lecture on "Focus Fusion" that was featured online by Google TechTalks back in October of 2007. It was a very impressive and exciting lecture, and I was particularly interested in how you connected dense laboratory plasmas with certain astrophysical phenomena. Since I saw your lecture I have looked into your other work, including your book "The Big Bang Never Happened" and you present an interesting case against the Big Bang as well as promote "Plasma Cosmology". Regarding the plasma cosmology paradigm, I'd be interested in asking you a number of questions with regard to the emergence of this paradigm and it's apparent marginalisation.
You have referred the work of Halton Arp, a former colleague of Edwin Hubble - who was forced out of his job after he questionned the mainstream interpretation of the expanding universe. He did this by proposing that quasars (which the mainstream sees as distant and very energetic objects at the furthest edge of the universe) - are actually much closer than we've been led to believe. Arp has looked at Active Galaxies and found that they are physically connected or associated with quasars. He finds that the light of the quasars are shifted towards the red end of the spectrum, not because they are further away than the galaxy - but because they have an intrinsic red-shift. Arp calls quasars "ejected plasmoids" and he contends that they eventually develop into galaxies. This also assumes that star-formation is occurring from these plasmoids. With regard to your research on dense plasmoids, do you think that Arp's hypothesis essentially leads to the conclusion that galaxies are essentially a form of dense plasmoid powered by external currents and steep voltage gradients in space plasma?
Eric: I think Chip Arp has demonstrated strong evidence that part of the AGN and quasar redshift is intrinsic. I don't think he has convincing evidence for his theory of galaxy formation or for his explanation of what the intrinsic z is caused by. As to the DPF plasmoids, they certainly get moving soon after formation, but the velocities we have observed of around 1000 km/sec are small compared to c, so could not explain large z. There are a lot of good reasons to think that velocities in plasma formation are scale-invariant, so I would not expect relativistic velocities in processes similar to the DPF on galactic scales. Of course, we can't rule out that there are other plasma processes that can accelerate bulk plasma to these velocities, but we have not observed that yet.
Hoz: On the 19th of May 2012, I published an exclusive piece for Zaman titled "Is there a revolution coming in space science?". It covers the work of a small band of scientists that promote the "Electric Universe" paradigm that attempts to expand on plasma cosmology. In the article I cover ESA's May 2012 discovery of filamentary star formation regions in dusty interstellar clouds, with the filaments remaining at a consistent width and with star formation occuring in the densest regions where currents intersect. Would you agree that this has implications for your work with dense plasmoids in the laboratory?
Eric: Researchers have been finding filamentary structures, often with hard evidence of magnetic compression, at all scales for decades. Filaments attract each other if the current are in the same direction and you get stronger pinching and higher density where they come together. This is not new, but an extension of a lot of work by many.
Hoz: Do you agree that we should seriously consider the possibility that stars are plasmoids that form in regions where electric currents in plasma merge and become focussed via magnetic forces?
Eric: I think a lot of evidence has been observed for this.
Hoz: In these plasmas, do you agree that the force of gravity only comes into play as a secondary force?
Eric: No, it really is an interplay between EM and gravitational forces. Without gravity you can't form the hierarchy of structure that we observe. You need both forces. This is explained at length in my book, which is based on earlier work by Alfven and others.
Hoz: And what are your thoughts on the observation by scientists that galaxies are typically found in regions where "dark matter" filaments (which give away their presence via electromagnetic energy) intersect?
Eric: These filaments are clearly plasma filaments and magnetic fields have been observed in some of them. I would add that to get filaments with dark matter computer simulations you need to add in unphysical processes like artificial viscosity.
Hoz: If stars and galactic centers are essentially formed via the "z-pinch" mechanism, do you think this has serious implications for the interpretations of the mass, density and composition of objects such as our sun?
Eric: We have a good grasp on the mass, density and composition of the sun. But why is it the mass that it is? The interaction of EM and gravitation fields can give us understanding of why stars are formed in certain mass ranges under given conditions. I've attached an old paper that describes this quantitatively. I now think the last sections of this paper, VI and VII about physical constants, are too speculative, and we have subsequently demonstrated that the universe is not expanding at all, but the rest of the paper is still sound and has stood the test of time.
Hoz: Electric Universe theorists propose that "Marklund Convection" is a significant process in condensing stellar matter and can potentially provide an explanation for the formation of planets. What are your thoughts on this? And do you think there are other or better qualitative explanations that can explain the condensation of matter from plasma?
JC said: Regarding anode vs plasmoid, it seems that Don Scott has pretty good rebuttals to the recent critiques of his model.
Let's see his arguments and see how they stack up against Bob Johnson's numerous arguments against the Anode model as well as Brant's evidence that polar currents are leaving the Sun, not entering it. If you don't know what Bob's arguments are, haven't you seen the video or the transcript? And, if necessary, I would volunteer to post his arguments against the anode model here.
You call anyone who disagrees with Don's model disrespectful, in which case you're disrespectful of Birkeland, whose terella experiments showed that an anode model didn't produce effects that resemble the Sun, but a cathode model duplicated many features, including the solar wind containing both electrons and ions, and the cathode model is what Charles, Brant and Mozina, as well as Oliver Manuel, all four apparently much better experts than you, find the most evidence for. If you define plasmoid as plasma with magnetic fields, the cathode modelers would agree that the Sun is a plasmoid, but if you define plasmoid as dense matter concentrated by magnetic fields, they probably would not agree, although Charles agrees, as I noted before, that galactic centers and exotic stars and quasars are plasmoids.
Alfven did not accept an anode model, nor I believe did Bostick, nor does Peratt. Thornhill seems to accept a hybrid of the anode and plasmoid models. So that's apparently Bob, Alfven, Peratt, Bostick (and Lerner?) and Thornhill for the plasmoid model, Juergens, Don and Thornhill for the anode model, and Birkeland, Manuel, Mozina, Brant and Charles for the cathode model.
I see Lerner agrees that gravity is an important force in star formation and that the mass and density of the Sun are known. Charles considers gravity important mainly after a nebula implodes electrically, because gravity then produces compressive ionization, as Thornhill agrees (about gravity producing compressive ionization). Charles found that the .27 and .7 Solar radii uncomformity levels in the Sun are due to density differences from various heavier elements. This is similar to Thornhill's model. Charles merely goes on to explain many of the details more thoroughly than does Thornhill, Lerner, or others, as far as I've seen so far.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Lloyd.......with respect to the good work of Charles Chandler, I think it is unfair to Mr Lerner to state that his work is "less thorough" than Chandlers. Really, you have little idea of what you're talking about. Have you read through his papers published for the IEEE or his book? Have you deciphered or understood his detailed quantitative mathematical arguments?
Lloyd
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Hoz, is it fair of you to misstate what I said? I said Charles' work is the best I've seen so far at explaining the most details of the Sun (and many astronomical objects). Since I've only read one of Lerner's books, one on the Big Bang, and a little on his website and some of your quotes of him, I haven't seen a lot of his material, but what I have seen from him have not explained things as thoroughly as has Charles.
If Lerner, Thornhill, or anyone else have more thorough explanations that seem plausible, I'd be glad to see them, and if I agreed that they seem better, I would readily admit it. And I readily admit that someone might have better explanations, but I simply haven't seen any of them yet. And, in order to see whose are best, I recommend reading Charles' material on his site, as well as anyone else's promising theories. It seems he recently posted a good summary of some of his main reasoning for his solar model in a paper he calls Preview at http://www.qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=8469.
If Lerner or anyone seems to have better explanations, I encourage you or anyone to post a summary or sample of them, or links to the material.
I don't know if English is your second language or not, since you speak it well, but if it is your second language, maybe you tend to misunderstand some English phrasing a little.
D_Archer
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
This post has probably been a long time coming, i think this is the time to post.
Charles may have some modeling expertise and does a good job at gathering data and trying to figure out how everything works for himself, but...
He is lacking in the most basic understandings of electrical engineering and plasma physics and seems to want to reinvent the wheel not one time but time and time again, which is a tiring process to follow, with his first posts at this board i just skipped them after the first paragraph, too longwinded, not enough meat and seemingly making everything up as he went along. As a mental exercise this can be fun for the person writing but for those that follow along not so much. I hope Charles does not take offense, it is just an observation/opinion on my part, the hard work and open mind is appreciated ofcourse.
Anyway, it is postive work all in all and i enjoy the energy in the recent sun threads and the varied models that are presented. Keep it up all.
Regards, Daniel
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Lloyd wrote: Hoz, is it fair of you to misstate what I said? I said Charles' work is the best I've seen so far at explaining the most details of the Sun (and many astronomical objects). Since I've only read one of Lerner's books, one on the Big Bang, and a little on his website and some of your quotes of him, I haven't seen a lot of his material, but what I have seen from him have not explained things as thoroughly as has Charles.
If Lerner, Thornhill, or anyone else have more thorough explanations that seem plausible, I'd be glad to see them, and if I agreed that they seem better, I would readily admit it. And I readily admit that someone might have better explanations, but I simply haven't seen any of them yet. And, in order to see whose are best, I recommend reading Charles' material on his site, as well as anyone else's promising theories. It seems he recently posted a good summary of some of his main reasoning for his solar model in a paper he calls Preview at http://www.qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=8469.
If Lerner or anyone seems to have better explanations, I encourage you or anyone to post a summary or sample of them, or links to the material.
I don't know if English is your second language or not, since you speak it well, but if it is your second language, maybe you tend to misunderstand some English phrasing a little.
Lloyd,
I'm not in full agreement with Lerner's paper (which I posted above and you ignored) about star and galactic formation, but it is folly to say that his work is less detailed than others.
Here are two more of his papers which talk about his view of quasars in the context of the electromagnetic "pinch" creating plasmoid-related dynamics:-
Let's not forget that any model of the Sun has to account for (and talk about) origins, as well as what we actually observe.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
As long as this is just an argument about who has better credentials, we'll never make any progress. So Lerner is an expert, because he has a BA in physics, and he got a book published? What if I can name 100 mainstream scientists, all with PhDs in physics, who have all published books, and who all think that Lerner is a quack? Does that mean that I won? Hardly.
In order to make any progress, we have to identify the issues, and seek answers. And when I say "answers", I mean directly addressing the issues. If I ask for the electromotive force, half a dozen references to literature that is on your side does not add up to an electromotive force.
We need to have a formal debate. Frankly, I think that Lloyd would be about as good of a moderator as anybody. He's sounding like he's on my side at this point, but if you've been keeping up with these threads, you'll see that he has never cut me any slack. He insists on thorough reasoning. He's the one who meticulously breaks text up into a series of individual sentences, and then requires that every sentence be fully supported. My therapist thinks that my drinking problem would go away if I stopped trying to answer all of his questions. But I don't mind the critical scrutiny, and I like heavy drinking, so I don't see a problem here. Lloyd is deeply vested in the EU paradigm, and will not abandon anything without good reason. So I'd like to suggest him as a moderator, but you're welcome to suggest somebody else. Regardless, I'll participate, as long as it isn't just one big snow job, where criticisms are met with ad hominem attacks on somebody's credentials, or issues are sidestepped by quoting related material, but which don't actually answer the question. Maybe my questions have actually been answered somewhere in here, and perhaps I'm just getting lost in the serpentine flow of the conversation. But if I'm confused, then surely many other people are confused as well. Why can't we find all of the assertions in one place? Why do we have to re-hash all of this stuff, over and over? We should be making progress here, not just spinning because we have our own pet prerogatives. So I think that we need to have a formal, moderated debate, and that the product of this debate should be a document that explains the questions and the answers, all in one place, so that everybody can see. Don't give me a reading list, and don't expect me to agree with the EU paradigm or else. If I was going to take anything on faith, I'd still be in the mainstream. In God I trust — everybody else has to show the math! If you can't explain your point, then perhaps you don't understand it. But I don't see the point in the name-calling, or in generalizing on somebody's command of the principles. If you understood physics, you'd still be in the mainstream, right? ra-ra-ra-ra...
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Because Charles, it is folly to talk about concepts without referring to the hard empirical, qualitative and quantitative work done by other people. Many of the clues are often within the work of others, and it often simply requires connecting the dots and also filling in the blanks with your own hypotheses andor experiments. Lerner has worked with plasmoids in the lab and thus his opinions on their behaviour is going to have more weight than most people. That is why I conducted the interview, at least partly.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
This may help bolster the case for the electrodynamics of Scott et al's solar model.
It seems most observations of chromospheric "solar tornadoes" seem to be at the polar regions:-
"Using the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, the scientists examined regions near the Sun's poles, where X-ray images had revealed bright spikes. "For the first time, we have found that they are in fact rotating columns of gas," says Richard Harrison of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford.
The solar tornadoes, some nearly as wide as the Earth, have wind speeds of up to 500 000 kilometres per hour."
Not to mention the polar regions are the source of the fast solar wind (which originates from a "patchy" KiloGauss magnetic field) and the poles are also the location of the global poloidal field. Also very strong vertical magnetic flux that coincides with positions of polar faculae (i.e. bright magnetic spots between granules) which get smaller and weaker with lower latitude. In the polar region, one polarity is apparently dominant with regard to the vertical field detected. The magnetic flux is overall stronger in the polar region than elsewhere, in the Quiet Sun. The "flux tubes" in the polar region are apparently connected to interplanetary space, whereas elsewhere - only a small fraction are connected to interplanetary space. This is from data and interpretations gathered by HINODE:- http://iactalks.iac.es/talks/view/193
This may also be of interest:-
Solar "supergranules" are apparently 10% smaller at higher latitudes. Perhaps indicating slightly higher overall current density andor magnetic flux:- http://astro.elte.hu/~kris/napfiz/quietsun.pdf
Overall, the photosphere over the poles doesn't look noticably different to that of elsewhere. But there are differences.
BTW - This is one of my favourite quotes and admissions, and it really does speak to remind us of the large amount of energy needed to maintain the chromosphere itself (among other things):-
"At present, we can see only 1% of the complex magnetism of the quiet Sun" - Trujillo Bueno et al, Nature (2004; Vol. 430).
bobinski
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
I see from the thread that Don Scott has published an update on his short paper regarding the electron data at the heliopause which he claims supports the Anode Sun model. In Don's revised model, he suggests that the driving voltage of the Anode Sun should be reduced from Juergens' 10 billion Volts to only 500,000 Volts.
I find this very interesting in itself.
I've also considered Don's arguments regarding the new electron data at the heliopause and drafted a short response. It's available here:
Scott argues that recent data from the heliopause demonstrates that the current necessary to power the Sun's output can exist at that location. But Juergens' model requires that the current flows through the entire heliosphere on its way to the photosphere.
Whatever the situation at the heliopause, the relevant published data from around 1AU does not support Juergens' Anode Sun. Reduction of the driving voltage by a factor of 20,000 as postulated by Scott simply exacerbates the problem by requiring electron velocities faster than the speed of light, if the published electron density data is correct.
bobinski
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CORRECTION:
The correct link to my reply to Don Scott is here:
I have enjoyed reading this debate on the different EU models. Many of the technical aspects are way above my "pay grade", to be honest, but I do have a couple of ideas/questions.
Could the primary source of power to "light" the Sun come from the entire heliosphere moving in what I believe is called the Interstellar Medium. Could this power source cause the charged particles within the heliopause to circulate(or drift) toward the Sun then outward in the solar wind? Perhaps the intense energy in the Corona(1-2 million degrees?) somehow drives the photosphere to arc. I guess I am thinking of the sun being ,in some aspects, a RESULT of these outer forces and not necessarily the primary generator.
Even though the size of the sun is so giant to us we might remember that it is very tiny relative to the Heliosphere.
Also, the discussion seems to mix two things that might be different; the "formation" of a sun, and the ongoing operation of our existing sun. I like the idea of a "pinch" creating what we call matter, but, would a continuous "pinch" be necessary to power an ongoing sun???
If you can't explain your point, then perhaps you don't understand it. But I don't see the point in the name-calling, or in generalizing on somebody's command of the principles. If you understood physics, you'd still be in the mainstream, right? ra-ra-ra-ra...
