Can you explain how magnetic fields hold the plasma down, when they should be shooting it out into space?
gravity?
Lloyd
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Hoz said: 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.
You guys seem to have forgotten or overlooked the fact that Bob Johnson detailed a number of reasons why he thinks the anode sun model is untenable, which is what led him to look for another model, and he came up with his plasmoid sun model instead. I thought you guys were supporting Bob Johnson's model, so now it's confusing to see that you're supporting the anode model too. How can you support contradictory aspects of two incompatible models?
I also want to recommend that you guys lighten up and act scientific like others of us do, instead of acting like everyone who has different ideas from your own is dumb or has ulterior motives etc. Readers here are turned off by unsportsmanlike behavior. Now shake hands and get back to the fight.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
He's right. If we wanted to have a little fun in a flame war, we'd all hop over to the JREF board and stir up something there. (Hmmm... haven't done that in a while... ) But we shouldn't be cluttering up t'bolts with argumentativeness. This board has the highest caliber of people on the 'Net IMO, and its members set the gold standard on open-mindedness and the easy exchange of information and ideas. Lloyd is as fine of an example as you're ever going to find. We should follow his lead. We all have different communicative styles, and it's easy to be misunderstood in writing. But if we ever get squared up and taking stances against each other, that's when the learning stops. So please accept my apologies if it seemed like I've been pushing my own agenda, and not listening to criticisms. I'm just looking for the truth.
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Hello there Charles... I feel that I have been a bit over the top in some of my comments previously, so I decided to forgive myself and be a good sport So let the fun times begin
CharlesChandler wrote: 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.
In another thread you had posted this image from a simulator you referred to as Paul Falstad's, nnd you had this commentary:
CharlesChandler wrote: Hang on a second — I might have answered my own question. Here are the lines of force from two opposing electric currents. I thought that the fields cancelled out, but it looks like they just get squashed together. That would explain the magnetic pressure between them (i.e., what I sometimes call the "magnetic push" effect). But I had never done the simulation to see what the lines of force were actually doing.
So the field from the cross-over current is actually parallel to those lines of force (at least in the middle), but it's trying to shove more field density in there, and that's where the magnetic pressure comes from?
Based on the diagram above, what would you say is happening at the wires? The diagram does not show or indicate that there is a force acting on the wires. It also suggests that the magnetic fields may be pushing against each-other which is not the case, however there is a force pulling/pushing the wires away from each other. It is due to the magnetic field of the other wire, but again you can't tell, it even looks like the wires may even be shielded from each-other's fields. Everyone loves visuals, but you might want to exercise caution in interpreting them. Also, I don't understand some of your terminology, I never heard of "magnetic pressure" before. I couldn't really understand your comments so I assumed the diagram confused you.
CharlesChandler wrote: 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?
I honestly did not have time to read all the posts in detail, however.... based on the above commentary... where do I begin??? Well, it's the first time I heard of a "railgun effect" on the Sun, that's very original! I must say that I disagree with much of your descriptions, there's no such thing as magnetic pressure, at least they never mentioned it once while I studied EE in my former life, and I haven't heard on the MIT online lectures which I reviewed a few months ago. Or maybe it's in the more advanced master's or doctorates, bleeding edge research LOL.
Magnetic fields don't accelerate charged particles, Electric fields do that. Magnetic fields will apply a force on a moving charged particle and alter it's course, the force always being perpendicular to the direction of the motion. I didn't invent it, it comes from the famous Maxwell's group of equations.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
justcurious wrote: So let the fun times begin
Indeed. And we need people like you. First because sometimes us "self-uneducated" folks get it wrong, and second because even if we get it right, we don't explain it properly. Only if our epiphanies can survive the translation into formal terminology will they ever become reality. So please don't give up on us, frustrating as it might be for you.
justcurious wrote: Based on the diagram above, what would you say is happening at the wires?
There is an outward force on the wires. The diagram shows the lines of force, and then also uses color to denote the field density (which you could have also gotten just by looking at the spacing of the lines). My "understanding" is that magnetic lines of force repel each other, which is why they splay outward from a bar magnet. Of course, in an Amperian loop, there is no splaying — they're just circular lines of force. But if you bring the fields of two opposing currents together, and considering the fact that magnetic lines of force do not intersect, the lines are redistributed evenly in a closer spacing (i.e., the spacing gets "squashed"). I've heard a number of ways of describing the resultant force. One way is to say that those lines are still repelling each other, and with more repulsion going on between the wires than on the outside, the net force is to the outside. Another way is to say that any time lines of force are deflected from where they would have been otherwise, the deflection constitutes a force. In this case, the Amperian loops otherwise would have occupied overlapping territories, and the superposition of the fields requires that the lines get deflected, hence the force. Speaking in terms of the right-hand rule is the next higher level abstraction. I prefer seeing the actual lines of force.
As concerns the magnetic forces in granules, I was questioning PersianPaladin on whether or not the magnetic force is responsible for the non-Newtonian density gradient. (By the ideal gas laws, the density of a gas or plasma organized by gravity should steadily decrease with distance from the center of gravity, and there shouldn't be any distinct edge. So the liquid-like surface of the Sun, topped by the extremely tenuous chromosphere, is non-Newtonian.) But despite the highly erratic orientations of magnetic fields at the surface, the tops of the granules are extremely consistent. So I'm wondering what configuration of the magnetic force would create a nice smooth surface like that. Then I mentioned the railgun effect, which "should" accelerate plasma out into space, but (obviously) does not.
justcurious wrote: I never heard of "magnetic pressure" before.
I think that the term is more common in plasma physics than electrical engineering. It's just another way of referring to the magnetic force, in a case where the force is repulsive.
CharlesChandler wrote: Can somebody... anybody... tell me what drives the "main current increasing in strength" in this diagram?
The main driving force of E/M is charge, Miles Mathis has described the basic charge field that underlies and drives E/M. His charge is photons (far infrared, he calls them ß-photons). Anti-photons come in at the north pole and photons come in at the south pole, charge mostly leaves the sun at the equator. With this basic premise, much enigma's about the sun (or any star) can be solved.
Kind regards, Daniel
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
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.
Okay.
An excess of electrons in the pinched current in the solar poles creates an overall negative electric field and current which causes ionization and a growing population of positive ions and associated collisions that make up the visible photosphere. The ions and protons basically form the Anode-Arc or Glow-region and through mutual repulsion try to escape. This may explain the bulging morphology of the anode tuft regions, with the most energetic ions escaping up the voltage hill. Regarding sunspots may be areas where the current-density is much lower and we can in fact see what are formerly solar granules around the penumbra turning into twisting and helical filaments that resemble Birkeland Currents. Perhaps this is a result of a steep voltage gradient. Areas above sunspots in the chromosphere and lower corona seem to have a particularly high release of photons - suggesting that the umbral electron current-density is not strong enough to confine the positive ions (that are also coming in via the penumbral filaments) within the tuft cells.
Now, the main issue with you seems to be the existence of the negatively charged DL region separating the photosphere and chromosphere. I'm saying that there is particle acceleration (in the form of spicules) occurring in the chromosphere, and the mainstream is trying to study this and why it's occuring:- http://www.ras.org.uk/component/db/?tas ... &recid=339
Now we can speculate on whether it's the result of a DL or some other electrodynamic process. I'm open to that. But it doesn't mean we need trash the entire Anode-Sun model. I think Don Scott is saying that both the photosphere and chromosphere constitute one DL which is composed of a positive layer below and negative above. But there may be more to it than that.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Don Scott writes:-
"The existence of the double layer of electric charge associated with each granule (separating it from the corona plasma above it) requires a certain numerical relationship between +ion and electron numbers in the total current. This required ratio of electron to ion motion was discovered, quantified, and reported by Irving Langmuir over fifty years ago. Spicules, tall jets of electrons that emanate from the boundaries between granules, supply many of those needed electrons. In this Electric Sun model, as with any plasma discharge, the granular cells disappear wherever the flux of incoming electrons impinging onto a given area of the Sun's anode surface is not sufficiently strong to require the augmentation of anode size they provide. At any such location, the photospheric cells collapse and we can see down to the actual anode surface of the Sun."
I am assuming that the ions and protons are confined as a result of the negative electric-field produced by the current, and this confinement breaks down when the current (and thus the electron-density) becomes low enough for the ions to be able to escape in larger numbers. Again, referring to the lower perceived current-density in the sunspot regions.
Do we have tentative evidence for a pinched current at the poles?
Well, if you look at the presentation on polar magnetic field strength at solar minima that I posted - you'll find an anomalously high strength field there in that region. Don Scott writes:-
In light of data received from the Ulysses probe (1990-2008) it is now known that there are strong s magnetic fields above the Sun's poles. Such spiral fields cannot exist in the absence of strong spiral electric currents. The spirals apparently get tighter (narrower, more dense) as they near the solar surface. Thus we conclude that the solar polar regions may experience vastly stronger current densities than lower latitude regions
This is my assumption. Don Scott can correct me or anybody else if we are wrong.
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: I never heard of "magnetic pressure" before.
I think that the term is more common in plasma physics than electrical engineering. It's just another way of referring to the magnetic force, in a case where the force is repulsive.
Thanks. Just another term describing a specific application and use-case, like pinch effects and so on. Seems a bit narrow though to be used and applied everywhere.
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: Magnetic fields don't accelerate charged particles, Electric fields do that.
Of course. I lack precision sometimes, thanks for the correction.
Lloyd
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Bob vs. Anode Sun Regarding the strong currents said to be observed at the solar poles, I think Bob Johnson remarked in the video that he would expect the tufted photosphere to be disturbed there, if there were a strong electric current entering the Sun at those locations. If anyone's interested I could look up the quote, or you can too. (Okay, I did it. See quote below.)
How do you guys support both Don's model and Bob's, since they're contradictory? And Bob definitely doesn't support the anode model. Did you not notice?
Bob's Transcript with Slides Bob was kind enough to post his transcript etc at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByVDJsY_ytfDTTlyN01taXc5MGs~. I was able to find Bob's quote pretty easily that I mentioned above, so here it is from pages 4 & 5.
Bob said: III. The Existing EU model of the Sun: Outstanding Questions - There seem to me to be two main questions relating to the EU model. - The first question is how to reconcile Juergens' and Alfvén's circuits. One involves a current flowing through the photosphere, the other does not. - Don Scott's diagram [Scott, The Electric Sky] combines the two ideas and shows the Alfvén current entering the photosphere at the poles and leaving at the equator. Therefore, one region should show anode tufting where the electron current enters, but the other region should not. - The puzzle is that the photosphere completely encircles the Sun; there does not appear to be any difference between the polar regions and the equatorial regions, suggesting that the current does not enter and leave the photosphere in the way the diagram shows.
Star-Forming Electric Currents At this post on another thread, http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~, I quoted an abstract I found on Charles' website that said giant nebula-wide lightning forms chondrules, which make up many meteors. Chondrules are small spherules similar to blueberries, tektites etc. I asked Charles if he considers it possible that this evidence etc may indicate that electric discharges could cascade from tiny sparks up to such giant lightning and thus form these objects and maybe eventually form aggregates large enough to produce compressive ionization in the cores the way Charles and Thornhill both describe. Charles, I hope you may get a chance to discuss that.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Lloyd wrote: Bob vs. Anode Sun Regarding the strong currents said to be observed at the solar poles, I think Bob Johnson remarked in the video that he would expect the tufted photosphere to be disturbed there, if there were a strong electric current entering the Sun at those locations. If anyone's interested I could look up the quote, or you can too. (Okay, I did it. See quote below.)
For want of repeating myself, I already referenced Don Scott's article (in my response above) which responded to this claim.
Don Scott wrote: The appearance of the photosphere at the poles of the Sun seems to be the same as it is at lower solar latitudes. Doesn't that disprove the idea that a concentrated polar flow of charge is located in the polar regions? No, because the powering flow of charge is only a small fraction of the ambient ion/electron population. That is not enough to change the character of the photospheric plasma
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
I would like to make a point here that the magnetic "pinch" process certainly isn't the only process involved in star formation. And of course, neither is gravity or any other force. The fact is - we don't know the processes involved.
However, pioneering work by people such as Hannes Alfven, Anthony Perratt and Gerrit Verschuur - have led the way towards refining radio astronomy and techniques of magnetic field detection that exposed the dominance of plasma processes in places that were previously never considered to be plasmas. For example, until fairly recently - it was believed that interstellar cloud regions dominated by apparent neutral molecules were essentially governed by gravitational accretion as a result of the very cold temperatures. But with the development of new techniques and higher resolutions - the filamentary structure of such clouds cast doubts on the marginalisation of EM forces that required gravitational collapse to play the central role.
Take this paper by Mr. Verschuur who utilises higher-resolution techniques to account for magnetic fields and currents that are the primary organising force of such clouds:- http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 79?LI=true
Later in 1999, Richard M. Crutcher (a respected astrophysics professor) further confirmed the important role of magnetic fields not only in molecular cloud formation, but also in star formation:-
The measurements of magnetic field strengths in molecular clouds make it clear that magnetic fields are a crucial component of the physics governing cloud evolution and star formation.
Those are just two examples. I previously posted the examples from Herschel observations of filaments in dusty interstellar clouds where stars have been found to be forming inside. The key question to ask - what are the organising forces at work?
Here's a quote from Hannes Alfvén cited from his NASA Keynote in 1986:-
Hannes Alfvén wrote: "That parallel currents attract each other was known already at the times of Ampere. It is easy to understand that in a plasma, currents should have a tendency to collect to filaments. In 1934, it was explicitly stated by Bennett that this should lead to the formation of a pinch. The problem which led him to the discovery was that the magnetic storm producing medium (solar wind with present terminology) was not flowing out uniformly from the Sun. Hence, it was a problem in cosmic physics which led to the introduction of the pinch effect…
However, to most astrophysicists it is an unknown phenomenon. Indeed, important fields of research, e.g., the treatment of the state in interstellar regions, including the formation of stars, are still based on a neglect of Bennett's discovery more than half a century ago… present-day students in astrophysics hear nothing about it."
Here he basically regards the loci of star formation to likely be within the Bennett Pinch region of a Birkeland Current in space. A filament can have a very low cross-sectional density of current flowing through it but have a very large Debye length and thus when pinched down (as a result of interactions with other filaments, or other areas of plasma) in certain very small regions - the current-density can vastly increase. The energy can become focussed enough for the magnetic field to generate considerable instabilities in the current filament - in forms such as kinks, sausage instabilities, torroidal doughnuts, etc. This is where Marklund Convection can come in as a force that can ionize neutral matter within a plasma and drag elements of different ionization potential further towards the axis of the column. This inward convection was regarded by Anthony Perratt as highly efficient method for accumulating matter. However, he did not say that it is highly efficient at "accreting" matter. We'll get to that later. But for now, I will quote from his paper:-
When an electric field is present in a plasma and has a component perpendicular to a magnetic field, radial inward convection of the charged particles is possible. Under the influence of the E × B force, both the electrons and ions drift with the velocity
v = E× B/B2 (3)
so that a portion of the plasma moves radially inward (Fig. 1). This mechanism provides a very efficient convection process for the accumulation of matter from plasma. The material should form as a filamentary structure about the twisted flux tubes, the lines of which are commonly referred to as "magnetic ropes" because of their qualitative pattern (Fig. 2). Magnetic ropes should tend to coincide with material filaments that have a higher density than the surroundings.
A stationary state occurs when the inward convection of ions and electrons toward the axis of a filament is matched by recombination and outward diffusion of neutralized plasma. The equilibrium density of the ionized component normally has a maximum at the axis (Fig. 3). However, because of the following mechanism, hollow cylinders, or modifications of hollow cylinders of matter, form about the flux tubes.
However, Charles Chandler is correct to say that neither Marklund Convection or Bennet Pinches, Theta Pinches or Z-Pinches are the only process that can account for the formation of spherical balls of ionized matter - i.e. stars. The sort of morphology that you'll get in Marklund Convection inside a pinched filament is typically a form of torroidal vortex - not spheres of accreted matter. However, given the filamentary zones of consistent width in which stars are being found to form in the densest filamentary regions (referred to by astronomers as "hub regions") - I am of the opinion that the EM force is the initiating force, but a host of other forces are likely to follow.
Once the matter starts to move radially inward via the electric and magnetic fields, ionized matter may be subject to Charles Chandlers' referenced "like-likes-like" force - essentially an electrostatic force which occurs once the matter is drawn radially inward, heated via collisions and further ionized to a sufficiently close proximity between two areas of negative polarity. Something also similar to the Van Der Waals or London force may also be involved in drawing the heated pinched matter together into the form of a condensed spheroid. As far as density is concerned - the hot accreted matter may well be less dense than the colder surrounding plasma; and to use a rather crude analogy - it will isolate itself in the same way that a light oxygen bubble will isolate itself from denser carbon dioxide gas in a sealed chamber; by forming a gas bubble.
Thus I'm arguing that EM forces via the Bennett Pinch in certain regions of Birkeland Currents are the initiating force that pulls in matter, heats it and then facilitates other forces to enable the matter to form the stars - via some form of electrostatic accretion.
However, I'm not going to leave it there. We need to know whether this accreted ionized ball of plasma leaves the filament containing the torroidal plasmoid inside it; or leaves it independently of any internal plasmoid. Could an Anode Sun model essentially be composed of an internal plasmoid?
What of the equatorial rotational anomaly? To save time, I'll quote Wal Thornhill from one of his articles on Saturn's atmosphere:-
Just as the Sun is driven fastest at the equator, so the Faraday motor effect of the encircling plasmoid drives Saturn's atmosphere faster at the equator than at higher latitudes.
Could a plasmoid account for both phenomena at the Sun and at Saturn? And how powerful do the magnetic fields need to be in the torroidal loopdoughnut structure that essentially makes up a plasmoid?
First of all, plasmoids are an inherent instability and even "stabilized" plasmoids demonstrate considerable vorticity:- http://jlnlabs.online.fr/plasma/gmr/
These balls have interesting properties (from the people whom I have spoken who have done silicon-wafer experiments) and have been known to fission into two, eject smaller balls as well as attract objects. I'd wager that the stability of these ionized balls of plasma (albeit technically not plasmoids) is closest to the morphology of our Sun. Electrical forces heated, fused and ionized light elements via the Bennett Pinch radially towards a torroidal vortex - however, electrostatic forces between the ionized matter organised it into a ball of plasma (just as we see in the silicon-wafer balls).
Now, if there isn't an external electric current powering our Sun; then surely it would've cooled and neutralized a long time ago? Or perhaps the charge is being bled out at a rate slow enough to allow an apparent degree of stability? But if that is the case - why have scientists measured an INCREASE in the solar magnetic field over the 20th century? This seems to account for the rise in temperature from the mid 20th century too. And what of the Solar Cycle? I posted earlier in this thread that Bob Johnson may have touched on something with regard to the Heliospheric Current Sheet being involved in the solar cycle - with an alternating directions of current-flows. The reason I think the Anode-Sun model is still valid is that it can account for the solar cycle, the stronger EM fields at the poles, the apparent even-ratio of electrons and positive ionsprotons in the solar wind (via the "positive column" Geissler Tube analogy), the structure of the chromosphere relative to the photosphere (with both zones forming different regions of one double-layer), and so forth.
Additionally, I have strong reservations with respect to trying to account for the actual "matter" composition of our Sun based on the mainstream understanding of "mass" with respect to stars and planets. As Wal Thornhill states - they suppose that mass = the amount of matter composing an object. As he writes:-
Einstein's famous equation, E = mc2, demonstrated that mass and electromagnetic energy are directly related. But mystification resulted when the earlier concept that related mass to 'quantity of matter' was unconsciously substituted. Textbooks and encyclopaedias today slip unnoticeably into the error of using the words 'mass' and 'matter' interchangeably. A NASA educational website tells us that "mass is a measure of how much matter a planet is made of." It shows that the confusion of mass with quantity of matter infects astrophysics.
The consequences are profound for cosmology. The mass of a celestial body cannot tell us about its composition. We cannot say what the Sun is made from! Another example is comet nuclei, which are electrically charged bodies. They register masses that should have them constructed like an empty sponge yet they look like solid rock. It is their appearance, together with the recently recovered high-temperature minerals (rock particles) from a comet, that give the accurate picture.
The extremely round morphology of our Sun doesn't state that Newtonian principles don't apply. But it certainly doesn't mean that gravitation is the primary force. And furthermore - we cannot say that we understand mass, matter or gravity in a universe governed by the confused and nonsensical avenues of General Relativity.
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Very nice summary Persian... I really enjoy your posts. Regarding anode vs plasmoid, it seems that Don Scott has pretty good rebuttals to the recent critiques of his model. What I wonder however is, if the stars and Sun were a plasmoid without and direct attachment or dependency to a specific Birkeland current, then what stops them from floating around randomly in space?
upriver
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
I posted an article about solar polar plumes because it has real bearing on the subject of energy inflow at the poles...
It seems as though the plumes are outgoing... So my question would be "Do you have energy(electrons- protons) coming in the poles as well as leaving the poles??" That doesnt seem right....I have been over most of the arguments that I have seen so far... Thats why I have settled on the model that I have come up with... I think that all of the solar phenomena are best explained by a thermionic emission from a solid surface model
I have access to a vibrational simulation program called COMSOL... I am going to try to model the sun... This should distinguish between models... A bounded sphere(hollow shell) should have a different set of vibrational modes than a decreasing density plasma ball or some other type of model...
Check out page 16 about the flux tubes... Polar Plumes and the Fast Solar Wind http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/RHESSI/nap ... _Velli.pdf STEREO Observations of Quasi-Periodically Driven High Velocity Outflows in Polar Plumes "Plumes are one of the most ubiquitous features seen at the limb in polar coronal holes and are considered to be a source of high density plasma streams to the fast solar wind. We analyze STEREO observations of plumes and aim to reinterpret and place observations with previous generations of EUV imagers within a new context that was recently developed from Hinode observations. We exploit the higher signal-to-noise, spatial and temporal resolution of the EUVI telescopes over that of SOHO/EIT to study the temporal variation of polar plumes in high detail. We employ recently developed insight from imaging (and spectral) diagnostics of active region, plage, and quiet Sun plasmas to identify the presence of apparent motions as high-speed upflows in magnetic regions as opposed to previous interpretations of propagating waves. In almost all polar plumes observed at the limb in these STEREO sequences, in all coronal passbands, we observe high speed jets of plasma traveling along the structures with a mean velocity of 135km/s at a range of temperatures from 0.5-1.5MK. The jets have an apparent brightness enhancement of ~5% above that of the plumes they travel on and repeat quasi-periodically, with repeat-times ranging from five to twenty-five minutes. We also notice a very weak, fine scale, rapidly evolving, but ubiquitous companion of the plumes that covers the entire coronal hole limb. The observed jets are remarkably similar in intensity enhancement, periodicity and velocity to those observed in other magnetic regions of the solar atmosphere. They are multi-thermal in nature. We infer that the jets observed on the plumes are a source of heated mass to the fast solar wind. Further, based on the previous results that motivated this study, we suggest that these jets originated in the upper chromosphere. " http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.3377
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
On the Call for Criticisms thread, the toroidal plasmoid model, at least as concerns stars other than the Sun, got a big boost from something Sparky found:
This paper talks about a "magnetorotational instability" that decelerates the inner portion of an accretion disc, and accelerates the outer portion. The implication for Chandrasekhar was that it allows the gravitational collapse in accretion discs that should have had too much centrifugal force. The implication for the authors of the article is that there might be ohmic heating in the accretion disc, due to the electric currents. The implication for the toroidal plasmoid model is that it's a way of generating relativistic angular velocities in the outer layers, necessary for the magnetic confinement that is the backbone of a toroidal plasmoid.
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).
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...
Don Scott wrote: The appearance of the photosphere at the poles of the Sun seems to be the same as it is at lower solar latitudes. Doesn't that disprove the idea that a concentrated polar flow of charge is located in the polar regions? No, because the powering flow of charge is only a small fraction of the ambient ion/electron population. That is not enough to change the character of the photospheric plasma.
He has to listen to himself talk. He's saying that the polar currents are so weak that they make an undetectable difference in the nature of the photosphere. That takes them out of the game. The only thing that's left of the anode model is the electrostatics, where he's got a positive charge held back by a "double-sheath" with no raison d'etre. Nor does he have a way of manufacturing excess positive charges to keep the thing running steadily for tens of thousands of years (at the very least), and the dodgy treatment of the charge imbalance problem is without an electromotive force. If there are clear answers to these questions, they have be presented by the champions of the model, or eventually, the inescapable conclusion will be that they simply do not exist.
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.
Frankly, I enjoy the critical scrutiny that has been applied to my assertions, because problems have been identified, and this has created opportunities for progress. But if the same scrutiny is applied to the anode model, and the z-pinched stellar formation model, and the solar plasmoid model, there isn't much left. 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. I just wanted to say that if there is a reality underneath all of this, and I am convinced that there is, we can zero in on it only by paying close attention to the anomalies, in our models, and everyone else's. Tough questions are opportunities for progress, not calls for tenacity. With argumentativeness, you can win arguments, but you can't win respect.
Nevertheless, as always, I extend my most sincere regards to all of those who labor tirelessly in these endeavors — even those with whom I disagree. We are the ones who are investing in humankind, and the wealth generated by scientific progress pays dividends forever.
) But we shouldn't be cluttering up t'bolts with argumentativeness. This board has the highest caliber of people on the 'Net IMO, and its members set the gold standard on open-mindedness and the easy exchange of information and ideas. Lloyd is as fine of an example as you're ever going to find. We should follow his lead. We all have different communicative styles, and it's easy to be misunderstood in writing. But if we ever get squared up and taking stances against each other, that's when the learning stops. So please accept my apologies if it seemed like I've been pushing my own agenda, and not listening to criticisms. I'm just looking for the truth.
And we need people like you. First because sometimes us "self-uneducated" folks get it wrong, and second because even if we get it right, we don't explain it properly. Only if our epiphanies can survive the translation into formal terminology will they ever become reality. So please don't give up on us, frustrating as it might be for you.
justcurious wrote:There is an outward force on the wires. The diagram shows the lines of force, and then also uses color to denote the field density (which you could have also gotten just by looking at the spacing of the lines). My "understanding" is that magnetic lines of force repel each other, which is why they splay outward from a bar magnet. Of course, in an Amperian loop, there is no splaying — they're just circular lines of force. But if you bring the fields of two opposing currents together, and considering the fact that magnetic lines of force do not intersect, the lines are redistributed evenly in a closer spacing (i.e., the spacing gets "squashed"). I've heard a number of ways of describing the resultant force. One way is to say that those lines are still repelling each other, and with more repulsion going on between the wires than on the outside, the net force is to the outside. Another way is to say that any time lines of force are deflected from where they would have been otherwise, the deflection constitutes a force. In this case, the Amperian loops otherwise would have occupied overlapping territories, and the superposition of the fields requires that the lines get deflected, hence the force. Speaking in terms of the right-hand rule is the next higher level abstraction. I prefer seeing the actual lines of force.I just wanted to say that if there is a reality underneath all of this, and I am convinced that there is, we can zero in on it only by paying close attention to the anomalies, in our models, and everyone else's. Tough questions are opportunities for progress, not calls for tenacity. With argumentativeness, you can win arguments, but you can't win respect.
