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?
Well, correct me if I'm wrong. I believe one of the main assumptions in the Anode model (vs the nuclear furnace model especially) is that the mystery of the source of energy for the Sun would be resolved through the interstellar Birkeland currents. Hence, I think it's fair to say that the "prime mover", the "primordial force" if you will, would be the interstellar (and inter galactic) Birkeland currents. Then come the magnetic fields, then the secondary currents. Exactly like Persian Paladin stated. If I understand correctly, one of the main differences in the Plasmoid model is that the Sun relies less or not at all on outside energy sources (for example via interstellar Birkeland currents). I am in no way an expert on this stuff, but that is the message I remember from when I checked the presentation a while back. It asked some very interesting questions.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
justcurious wrote: The "prime mover", the "primordial force" if you will, would be the interstellar (and inter galactic) Birkeland currents.
Super. So here's Scott's model:
Now what I want to know is, "What could drive a galactic current in through the poles and out of the equator?" Here's a simulation of an electric field (positive at the top, negative at the bottom), with a more-or-less spherical conductor in the middle. The lines of force more-or-less intersect with the sphere perpendicular to it at every point. Once inside the conductor, the current is free to flow through the conductor, and out the other side. So the current goes into one side of the sphere, and out of the other.
No matter what I did, I couldn't get the lines of force to go in both poles, and out of the equator. What am I doing wrong?
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Charles Chandler wrote: 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.
That is both wrong and premature. The magnetic data that I posted regarding the sun certainly shows that it has electrodynamic properties and a very complex magnetic field (with potential large distribution of 1K+ fields in most intergranular lanes) at several layers, including below the photosphere.
A frank admission:-
Deciphering and understanding the small-scale magnetic activity of the quiet solar photosphere should help to solve many of the key problems of solar and stellar physics, such as the magnetic coupling to the outer atmosphere and the coronal heating1,2,3 . At present, we can see only ∼1% of the complex magnetism of the quiet Sun1,4,5, 6,7, which highlights the need to develop a reliable way to investigate the remaining 99%.
Charles Chandler wrote: 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.
That is both wrong and premature. The magnetic data that I posted regarding the sun certainly shows that it has electrodynamic properties and a very complex magnetic field (with potential large distribution of 1K+ fields in most intergranular lanes) at several layers, including below the photosphere.
Since hydrogen plasma doesn't have much of a magnetic dipole, the only way that it can be cause, or be influenced by, magnetic fields is for the plasma to be in motion, and therefore to be generating Amperian fields. In other words, it has to be involved in an electric current, or there has to be a current nearby. The plasma in the center of the granules is rising. When it gets to the top, it splays outward, and then it dives back down in the intergranular lanes. The speeds range between 2 km/s to 7 km/s, so we can expect powerful magnetic fields. But what sort of magnetic pressure could act on all of it, at the scale of the granule itself, to hold the plasma down, creating a non-Newtonian density gradient?
@justcurious: the quick turnaround of the plasma at the top of the granule should produce a railgun effect, by the right-hand rule, is that correct? If so, the magnetic pressure should send the plasma zipping out into space, railgun style. And yet the plasma is actually being held down forcefully. What is the nature of that force?
Thornhill wrote: The Electric Universe model is based on electrodynamics. And not simply on Freshman Physics electrodynamics from a textbook but on the electrical behavior of plasma as observed in laboratories and by spacecraft. Understanding actual plasma behavior requires rejecting familiar presuppositions: Bodies immersed in plasma aren't isolated; they are connected by circuits. They often aren't at equilibrium; most astronomical bodies are radiating energy because they are in unstable conditions and are moving toward equilibrium. Currents in plasma contract into linear filaments; and the force between filaments decreases linearly with distance, which makes it the most powerful long-range force in the universe. Plasma divides into cells that are separated by capacitor-like double layers; and this ensures that plasma phenomena are characterized by conditions of non-isotropy, discontinuity and inhomogeneity.
Assumptions and deductions imported from the "already known" of gravitational theory will lead to confusion and absurdity. As astronomer Halton Arp said in another context: "Sometimes it's better not to know one wrong thing than to know a hundred things that are right." The first step in understanding electricity in space is to set aside theories and to gain empirical familiarity with real plasma behavior. It is a step advocated by the father of plasma physics, Hannes Alfvén, in his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech.
That's fine. So show me the electrodynamic principles that explain this, and/or show me a laboratory demonstration of current going in through the poles and out of the equator, in conditions that are possible in space (i.e., not the simple artifact of laboratory wiring, but something that could actually happen in plasma). I want a mechanistic explanation. If you don't have one, say you don't have one.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote: Since hydrogen plasma doesn't have much of a magnetic dipole, the only way that it can be cause, or be influenced by, magnetic fields is for the plasma to be in motion, and therefore to be generating Amperian fields. In other words, it has to be involved in an electric current, or there has to be a current nearby. The plasma in the center of the granules is rising. When it gets to the top, it splays outward, and then it dives back down in the intergranular lanes. The speeds range between 2 km/s to 7 km/s, so we can expect powerful magnetic fields. But what sort of magnetic pressure could act on all of it, at the scale of the granule itself, to hold the plasma down, creating a non-Newtonian density gradient?
Good question. Scott et al state that the photospheric granules represent "anode tufting" and that the behaviour of the granules is associated with a DL. Scott writes:-
This region of the lower photosphere is, thus, an energy barrier that positive ions must surmount in order to escape the body of the Sun. Any +ions attempting to escape outward from within the Sun must have enough energy to get over this energy barrier. So the presence of this single positive charge layer at the bottom of the photospheric plasma serves as a constraint on unlimited escape of +ions from the surface of the Sun.
Granule Shrinkage and Movement
In order to visualize the effect this energy diagram has on electrons (negative charges) coming in toward the Sun from cosmic space (from the right), we can turn the energy plot upside down. Doing this enables us to visualize the 'trap' that these photospheric granules are for incoming electrons. As the trap fills, the energy of the granule (existing between b and c) decreases in height, and so the granule weakens, shrinks, and eventually disappears. This is the cause of the observed shrinkage and disappearance of photospheric granules.
Regarding magnetic fields, there is still a lot of work to do:-
The photospheric magnetic flux tubes with kG field strength and spatial scale of a few 100 km are ubiquitously found across the entire solar surface (Stenflo 1994). Those flux tubes appear as small bright points in the continuum and spectra lines (Keller 1992), and their dynamical properties have been well studied with filtergrams (for example, Title et al. 1989; Berger & Title 1996). On the other hand, their magnetic properties, which are studied in detail with precise spectropolarimetric measurements, have not been well understood. One of the fundamental problems in understanding these flux tubes is their formation. Since they are frozen-in with the plasma, magnetic fields are swept into the intergranular downflow regions. Through this process known as flux expulsion, the field strength is increased to the limit roughly given by the equipartition of the magnetic energy density of flux tubes and the kinetic energy density of the granular flows (Parker 1963; Galloway & Weiss 1981). However, this equipartition field strength is typically ∼400 G; further intensification is necessary to explain the formation of kG field strength flux tubes
Obviously you can notice the appeal to "frozen-in" fields and other erroneous concepts associated with "convective downflow". But powerful magnetic fields have been detected as part of alleged "downflow" into intergranular regions.
I presume you've also watched the video presentation I posted earlier.
With regard to your other questions, it would be nice if somebody more knowledgable than I could comment.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Reading through Don Scott's paper "On The Sun's Electric Field", there are some important reminders in there that should be taken into account:-
The Sun is not an isolated point charge within a vacuum. It is a body that exists surrounded by a sea of plasma. So the application of classical (free-space) electrostatic analyses to the solar environment is inappropriate.
The solar plasma (as any plasma) is not an ideal, zero-resistance entity. However, plasma generally cannot support high-valued electric fields. Typically, if a high valued voltage drop is imposed between two points in plasma, a DL will form somewhere between those points such that the greater part of the applied voltage difference will occur within it. Because of this, only low-valued electric fields can and do exist within the solar plasmasphere
Regarding photospheric "anode tufts"- one should be cautious about expecting consistently high vertical or horizontal magnetic fields detectable across them given that the Debye-lengths at that scale are likely to be tiny (due to considerable current-density) and our instrumentation still has a hell of a lot to detect:-
"In space plasmas where the electron density is relatively low, the Debye length may reach macroscopic values, such as in the Magnetosphere, Solar wind, Interstellar medium and Intergalactic medium (see table):" http://www.plasma-universe.com/Debye_length
Our sun has transient networks of magnetism (i.e. filaments of current) inside granules - particularly observable in supergranules ranging from 100-500G and networks of filaments between granules up to 2kG or possibly more. Even so the "mean field" is only 1-2G because most of the cross-sectional area of the arc-mode plasma is quasi-neutral, but still glowing as a result of kinetic interactions with the current-density. Also worth remembering that the energies here don't neccessarily need to be enormous, given the photospheric electron temps of approximately 5000-6000K which is considerably less hot than terrestial lightning arc-discharges.
PersianPaladin wrote: Good question. Scott et al state that the photospheric granules represent "anode tufting" and that the behaviour of the granules is associated with a DL. Scott writes:-
Scott wrote: This region of the lower photosphere is, thus, an energy barrier that positive ions must surmount in order to escape the body of the Sun. Any +ions attempting to escape outward from within the Sun must have enough energy to get over this energy barrier. So the presence of this single positive charge layer at the bottom of the photospheric plasma serves as a constraint on unlimited escape of +ions from the surface of the Sun.
OK, so let's have a look at that.
Indeed, this is a schematic for a current, but with a voltage regulator. The key to this is the Charge Density schematic at the bottom. A-B is the anode under the photosphere. This would instantaneously discharge all of its potential out to the heliosphere, except for the fact that there is a "double-sheath" at C-D-E. How does this create a barrier, limiting the +ions that can escape? A-B is positive, and so is C-D. This means that there is electrostatic repulsion between them. So it's electric pressure that holds back the +ions in A-B, and only a net charge in excess of the charge in C-D can get past the barrier. In other words, if the water is taller than the dam, the excess flows over the dam and escapes downstream.
This would be a workable schematic in electrical engineering, but in plasma physics, this configuration isn't sustainable. To understand why, we have to go back to Newton's 3rd Law, which states that any time a body exerts a force on another body, the same force is exerted back. So if C-D is +ions exerting electric force on A-B, due to the repulsion of like charges, A-B is exerting the same force back on C-D. But if C-D has a force that is pushing it away from the Sun, what is going to keep it from getting sent out with the solar wind? It isn't gravity, which is no match for the electric force. It isn't the negative charge in D-E, because that is pulling outward also. C-D-E can be thought of as a self-contained unit that could slide in or out, limited only by its inertia, and ever so slightly by gravity. But with the electrostatic repulsion between A-B and C-D, only an equal force pushing back in would hold it in place, resulting in the back-up of potential behind the "barrier". In other words, what holds back the water behind the dam? The internal strength of the dam. What if the dam can freely slide down the riverbed? Then the force of the water pushes the dam down the river, and effectively speaking, the dam might as well not be there.
So this is really just a bait-n-switch. Something has to regulate the voltage, to prevent the instantaneous discharge of all of the potential. So a double-layer is installed to exert the force. But what holds back the double-layer? Only your imagination! In the real world, this just isn't going to work.
Scott wrote: The Sun is not an isolated point charge within a vacuum. It is a body that exists surrounded by a sea of plasma. So the application of classical (free-space) electrostatic analyses to the solar environment is inappropriate.
But a detailed analysis of the behaviors of double-layers IS appropriate, and this has revealed a flaw in the anode model.
Scott wrote: The solar plasma (as any plasma) is not an ideal, zero-resistance entity. However, plasma generally cannot support high-valued electric fields. Typically, if a high valued voltage drop is imposed between two points in plasma, a DL will form somewhere between those points such that the greater part of the applied voltage difference will occur within it. Because of this, only low-valued electric fields can and do exist within the solar plasmasphere.
If electron temperature is the only charging mechanism, and if the resistance of the plasma is the only thing maintaining the charge separation, this is true. In fact, 6000+ K plasma is considered to be an excellent conductor — as good as a copper wire. So what maintains the charge separation between C-D and D-E? And if that is where all of the voltage drop is occurring, why isn't that where the arc discharges are occurring? But then again, these questions are moot, since it's not a realistic model anyway.
PersianPaladin wrote: Regarding photospheric "anode tufts"- one should be cautious about expecting consistently high vertical or horizontal magnetic fields detectable across them given that the Debye-lengths at that scale are likely to be tiny (due to considerable current-density) and our instrumentation still has a hell of a lot to detect:-
What do Debye lengths have to do with magnetic fields?
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Charles I think you need to look at this diagram that Don Scott included in his talk last year:-
You can see a negative charge-layer between the chromosphere and the lower-corona, which corresponds with the steep voltage drop.
Regarding the anode, positive ions are obviously going to try and leave the surface but only particularly energetic ions will be able to make it above the steep voltage peak towards the upper photosphere and lower chromosphere. Once here, their potential energy increases and that is why the chromospheric region (with lower plasma density) is full of spicules with the lower corona also glowing bright as a result of kinetic interactions (contributing to the high perceived temperature). The Anode Sun model can also account for the relatively even-ratio between ions and electrons in the solar wind, because in Geisslar discharge tubes of plasma - the "positive column" region typically has such an even distribution of negative and positive charges. I'm not sure why you're hypothesizing some form of Newtonian law to try and counter electrical engineering principles.
You ask "what is holding back the DL"? That makes little sense. Multiple layers of positive and negative charge form in current-carrying double layers and radially outward from the axial regions of Birkeland Currents. What causes these DL's to maintain themselves? Good question, but regardless - they are observed and thus we realise that plasma has a cellular structure that can isolate areas of different voltages from each other. Hence, why we need Langmuir Probes for plasmas.
And with regard to why there are no arc-discharges in the voltage-drop area? That's because the current-density is not high enough. However, there are collisional interactions with ions in the chromosphere and corona to produce the high temperature plasma there.
And regarding magnetic fields - we all know that electric currents create them. Electric currents exist in current-carrying double-layers where the Debye-length depends on the general electron-density within the quasi-neutral bulk plasma as a whole as well as other variables:-
In a plasma, the Debye length is
where λD is the Debye length, ε0 is the permittivity of free space, k is Boltzmann's constant, qe is the charge on an electron, Te and Ti are the temperatures of the electrons and ions, respectively, ne is the density of electrons, nij'is the density of atomic species i, with positive ionic charge jqe
EDIT - Don Scott writes:-
the region wherein the E-field is negative (a to b) constitutes an inward force. This region of the lower photosphere is, thus, an energy barrier that positive ions must surmount in order to escape the body of the Sun.
A negative electric field right at the surface of the sun serves as a barrier except for the most energetic positive ions. Why is the field negative at or below the photospheric surface? Because the bulk of the incoming current consists of electrons. Electron collisions with atomic specie may create a growing population of positive ions which eventually gain enough energy to leave the tuft regions. A positively charged layer may therefore exist within the photosphere (i.e. this is the Anode discharge or Anode glow region) itself until we get to the edge of the chromosphere.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
You as well as I know that the very morphology of the sun, i.e. its extreme roundness - seems to contradict Newton's 3rd Law with respect to inertial and gravitational forces. Why isn't it an oblate spheroid?
PersianPaladin wrote: Charles I think you need to look at this diagram that Don Scott included in his talk last year:-
I don't see the difference between that one and the one that I cited.
PersianPaladin wrote: I'm not sure why you're hypothesizing some form of Newtonian law to try and counter electrical engineering principles.
Newton's 3rd Law applies to all forces. Suppose you took two bar magnets, and oriented them N-to-N and S-to-S. There would be a repulsive force between them. How much force is there on each magnet? It will be the same for both of them. Hence in Scott's first diagram, whatever force C-D exerts on A-B is the same force that A-B exerts on C-D. Without any countering force, that double-sheath has no business being there.
Scott wrote: the region wherein the E-field is negative (a to b) constitutes an inward force. This region of the lower photosphere is, thus, an energy barrier that positive ions must surmount in order to escape the body of the Sun.
Exactly.
PersianPaladin wrote: A negative electric field right at the surface of the sun serves as a barrier except for the most energetic positive ions. Why is the field negative at or below the photospheric surface? Because the bulk of the incoming current consists of electrons.
No. This is electrostatic repulsion from C-D.
PersianPaladin wrote: You as well as I know that the very morphology of the sun, i.e. its extreme roundness - seems to contradict Newton's 3rd Law with respect to inertial and gravitational forces. Why isn't it an oblate spheroid? Again, Newtonian laws must fall under the purview and jurisdiction of plasma.
Nothing contradicts Newton's laws of motion. These are just generic laws that apply to all forces.
First law: If there is no net force on an object, then its velocity is constant. The object is either at rest (if its velocity is equal to zero), or it moves with constant speed in a single direction.
Second law: The acceleration of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass of the body, i.e., F = ma.
Third law: When a first body exerts a force "F1" on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force "F2 = −F1" on the first body. This means that F1 and F2 are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
There's nothing in there are gravity, inertia, or centrifugal force. I agree that the Sun's concentricity is non-Newtonian. But it isn't a violation of Newton's laws of motion. It's a violation of the premise that only gravity and hydrostatic pressure are necessary to explain the physical characteristics of the Sun.
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: The "prime mover", the "primordial force" if you will, would be the interstellar (and inter galactic) Birkeland currents.
Super. So here's Scott's model:
Now what I want to know is, "What could drive a galactic current in through the poles and out of the equator?" Here's a simulation of an electric field (positive at the top, negative at the bottom), with a more-or-less spherical conductor in the middle. The lines of force more-or-less intersect with the sphere perpendicular to it at every point. Once inside the conductor, the current is free to flow through the conductor, and out the other side. So the current goes into one side of the sphere, and out of the other.
Picture 3.png
No matter what I did, I couldn't get the lines of force to go in both poles, and out of the equator. What am I doing wrong?
First of all your model is wrong. "positive at the top, negative at the bottom", did you just invent that? I don't see it in Scott's model which you posted higher up.
2nd, you are probably confusing "lines of force" of electric vs magnetic fields.
3rd, you are probably using the same simulator you used before (ie to visualize a magnetic field caused by two parallel conducting wires) which gives incorrect and misleading results.
I don't really know Scott's model, I did not read his book. But I can definitely spot lots of your mistakes analyzing electric phenomena. Did you check that MIT resource? It will help you a lot.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Regarding electric currents and magnetic fields in the Sun. Consider these very basic facts:-
You can find the strength of the magnetic field from the amperes of current here. The Gauss strength of the photospheric magnetic field inside the tuft regions need not be more than 100 Gauss on average. Seems this fits with progress in modelling perceived magnetic fields:-
"we find a ubiquitous tangled magnetic field with an average strength of ∼130 G, which is much stronger in the intergranular regions of solar surface convection than in the granular regions. So the average magnetic energy density in the quiet solar photosphere is at least two orders of magnitude greater than that derived from simplistic one-dimensional investigations" http://rialto.ll.iac.es/folleto/researc ... P04042.pdf http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/~eduard/sola ... ovskyy.pdf
Hinode images show a consistently dynamic photosphere even during the "quiet sun" periods. Is it compression of magnetic field lines or convection? Or electric currents? Or is it "electric re-connection" within a condensed ionized ball of plasma?
I say that the Anode Sun is at least just as valid as any other model. Electrons power the sun, eventually ionizing local atomic specie that the Sun is passing through and creating enough energy for some of them to escape the negative electric-field and cause the mounded and transient tufts. This in turn results in a concentration of energetic positive ions in the chromosphere and the spicules in the chromosphere as well as the significant x-ray emissions into the lower corona. The chromosphere is negatively charged with respect to the positive ion concentration growing in the photosphere because of the lower plasma density and lesser cross-sectional concentration of ions. Hence, this forms a DL. The actual DL structure surrounding the plasma of the Sun may be more complicated than this, and I think there will be quite a bit more to study before we either discount or fully back this model.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Can somebody... anybody... tell me what drives the "main current increasing in strength" in this diagram?
As concerns the other diagram that I did, that was just to show what an external electric field would actually do. It wouldn't drive a current in through the poles and out of the equator, as in Scott's diagram. It would drive a current in one pole and out the other. I know that it doesn't produce the same results as Scott's diagram. My question is: what sort of fields would it take to produce Scott's diagram? Sorry I wasn't clear on that.
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote: Can somebody... anybody... tell me what drives the "main current increasing in strength" in this diagram?
As concerns the other diagram that I did, that was just to show what an external electric field would actually do. It wouldn't drive a current in through the poles and out of the equator, as in Scott's diagram. It would drive a current in one pole and out the other. I know that it doesn't produce the same results as Scott's diagram. My question is: what sort of fields would it take to produce Scott's diagram? Sorry I wasn't clear on that.
The main currents in the diagram are the ones going in or out of the poles. They would drive the other phenomena in the sun, in the model. However, if you read the first paragraph here http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm, Scott states that the powering of the sun by external electric currents is the most speculative aspect of the electric sun model, and that it is the one point that critics like to dwell on.
Does your simulator include time varying elements? Can you throw in an AC current or voltages or is it purely static? You really don't need a simulator to understand the basic principles. I would be very cautious with that simulator, it it the same one you used in analyzing the Chelyabinsk fireball?
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
justcurious wrote: if you read the first paragraph here http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm, Scott states that the powering of the sun by external electric currents is the most speculative aspect of the electric sun model, and that it is the one point that critics like to dwell on.
Well of course they do. Likewise, we constantly call attention to the disconnects in the standard model, since this is what convinced us that it isn't correct, and that's why we're looking at alternatives. But in reviewing the various alternatives, it's starting to look like the prime movers are an intractable problem in Scott's model. The behaviors of small parcels of turbulent plasmas are notoriously difficult to predict, but a large-scale, steady-state energy conversion should trace back to identifiable fundamental forces. Normally, I'd let anybody float any boat they wanted to, just to see where it led. But they've been maintaining this position for years now, and they haven't found a realistic EM configuration that would actually produce those currents. So it's time to start questioning whether or not there is one, and if there isn't, we need to investigate other possibilities, or we'll never get this stuff straight. We all have to have the ability to admit when we're wrong.
justcurious wrote: Does your simulator include time varying elements? Can you throw in an AC current or voltages or is it purely static? You really don't need a simulator to understand the basic principles. I would be very cautious with that simulator, it it the same one you used in analyzing the Chelyabinsk fireball?
You're welcome to play around with the simulators, since they're online, and free:
If you find any "incorrect and misleading results", can you please describe what was incorrect and/or misleading about them? I'd greatly appreciate it.
Did you find anything in my analysis of this diagram to be incorrect, or misleading?
Also, were you going to respond to my question about the railgun effect in the granules? The plasma is moving at supersonic speeds (2~7 km/s), and it comes up, splays out, and then dives back down. In doing a 180 degree turn, where the downdraft runs parallel to the updraft, there should be magnetic pressure between them. As the plasma turns the corner at the top, the magnetic pressure should accelerate it away from the Sun, just like the cross-piece in a railgun. This, of course, is not what happens — the plasma is held down firmly, despite whatever railgun effect there might be, and despite the absence of any hydrostatic pressure from anything above it. Can you explain how magnetic fields hold the plasma down, when they should be shooting it out into space?
In the real world, this just isn't going to work.
Scott wrote:But a detailed analysis of the behaviors of double-layers IS appropriate, and this has revealed a flaw in the anode model.
