Michael Mozina wrote: Every electrical discharge results in resistance and heat. It might be more accurate to say that coronal loops simply transfer energy in the form of electrical current from the core that comes up through the crust, into an atmospheric fireworks display that releases huge amounts of energy in the form of heat into the solar atmosphere. There is some amount of fusion that occurs in the larger discharge events, but it's likely to be a minor factor IMO. The transition of electrical discharge current into atmospheric heat is taking place in coronal loops. Most of the loops are quite "small" in size, say a few kilometers, and less than a single pixel in an SDO image.
How does an electric current from the core pass through the solid iron crust, travel another 4000 km upward through 3000 K silicon (which is almost as good of a conductor as solid iron), and then create an arc discharge a few km long through the topmost neon layer?
To evaluate an hypothesis that contains an electric current, I look first for the electrostatic potential that will motivate the current, despite whatever resistance is there. I = V/R. To get an arc discharge, the volts have to be significant compared to the ohms. There also has to be a discrete channel in which dielectric breakdown has occurred. Otherwise, the current will be distributed in a broad glow or dark discharge, not concentrated in a high-temperature discharge channel.
So you have arcs in or above the neon photosphere as a substantial heat source. Where, exactly, are the electrodes on either side of these arcs, that instantiated the field that would cause dielectric breakdown precisely there? I think that if you start thinking mechanistically, and try to place the electrodes where they need to be, in order to create the arcs that you propose are there, you'll find that there is no way to instantiate those electrodes right there, at the ends of the arcs that you say are there (but which are too small to see). The reason is that as soon as you start pumping charges into these electrodes, the charges head for the opposite electrodes, and you'll never develop the potentials for arc discharges.
Arc discharges on the surface of the Sun (a.k.a., solar flares) certainly occur. But they are rare, and the EM context in which they occur is extremely complex. To explain them, the entire context has to be explained. Saying the flares can occur all the time begs the question of why they are only observed rarely, and how they could occur in normal circumstances where they should be impossible. Saying that we don't see them because they are so small (i.e., < 1 km) actually makes the EM problem even tougher. To get a major heat source out of a bunch of tiny arcs requires gazillions of them. How are you going to get the potentials for that many discharges, inside an excellent conductor?
All EM hypotheses concerning the Sun have to take into account the EM properties of the medium. 6000 K plasma is an excellent conductor. Think about that for a while, and make sure that it is built into your construct. Getting a current to come out of the Sun, headed for the heliosphere, is not hard, as 6000 K plasma is an excellent conductor. Getting current to arc from one point on the Sun to another is hard (and thus rare), as 6000 K plasma is an excellent conductor, and it's difficult to build up the potentials for an arc discharge inside an excellent conductor. In other words, can you get an arc discharge through the air, from one point on a copper wire, to another point? Why didn't the current just flow through the wire, eliminating the potentials as fast as you created them?
The only way to deflect a current out of a conductor, through another path of some kind, and back into the same conductor, is with an ExB force. So if there is an extremely powerful magnetic field there, current along the wire has to fight the magnetic field, and it might decide that it's easier to just arc along the magnetic field lines. This is how Birkeland created surface-to-surface arcs in his terrella experiments. But then you have to explain the magnetomotive force. In 6000 K plasma, there isn't going to be any "frozen in" ferromagnetism. So the only possible source of the magnetic field is going to be... an electric current. But that's a different electric current that generated that field, by definition, or there wouldn't have been clashing magnetic fields. So you have to explain that current, and the magnetic fields it generates, and how those magnetic fields deflect other currents. Then you have a complete model.
Michael Mozina wrote: The reason the chromosphere is hotter than the photosphere is because helium is thinner and therefore more resistant to the flow of current than the neon photosphere. Likewise the silicon plasma double layer is considerably thicker, cooler and more dense than the neon photosphere.
Resistance varies directly with density, not indirectly. Otherwise, dielectric breakdown in plasmas would never occur, and arc discharges would not be possible. As the current density increases, ohmic heating causes the plasma to expand, making it less dense. If this increased the resistance, the current density would be decreased, and thus the ohmic heating would go down. For dielectric breakdown to occur, the heat has to cause expansion, which reduces the density, which reduces the resistance, which increases the current density, which increases the ohmic heating, which causes more expansion. Thus a runaway process results in the resistance dropping to virtually nothing, and an instantaneous flash discharges all of the potential.
Lloyd
Re: Electric Sun Discussions
* Thanks, Charles, you may have answered all my questions, although I'll have to reread some of the answers to try to understand them better.
Lloyd
Re: Electric Sun Discussions
* Now I have a couple questions about your reply to MM. Solar Arc Discharging
* CC said to MM: [If you] try to place the electrodes where they need to be, in order to create the arcs that you propose are there, you'll find that there is no way to instantiate those electrodes right there, at the ends of the arcs that you say are there (but which are too small to see). The reason is that as soon as you start pumping charges into these electrodes, the charges head for the opposite electrodes, and you'll never develop the potentials for arc discharges.
* Couldn't lightning occur on the Sun something like the way it does on Earth? - And what if the silicon layer on the Sun were SiO2, like on Earth? - Quartz is SiO2 that's piezoelectric; pressure or friction generates electric currents in it. - Wouldn't the Sun be able to produce a lot more lightning per square km than on Earth, since there's much more turbulence that would subject SiO2 etc to more pressure and friction?
Electric Resistance
CC said: Resistance varies directly with density, not indirectly. Otherwise, dielectric breakdown in plasmas would never occur, and arc discharges would not be possible. As the current density increases, ohmic heating causes the plasma to expand, making it less dense. If this increased the resistance, the current density would be decreased, and thus the ohmic heating would go down. For dielectric breakdown to occur, the heat has to cause expansion, which reduces the density, which reduces the resistance, which increases the current density, which increases the ohmic heating, which causes more expansion. Thus a runaway process results in the resistance dropping to virtually nothing, and an instantaneous flash discharges all of the potential.
* It seems like that would mean space is a superconductor and there should be lots of instantaneous flash discharges throughout space, including between asteroids, moons, planets and maybe stars and quasars. - Also solid metals, like in electrical wiring, would have the most resistance to electric current. Wouldn't they?
Lloyd wrote: * Couldn't lightning occur on the Sun something like the way it does on Earth? - And what if the silicon layer on the Sun were SiO2, like on Earth? - Quartz is SiO2 that's piezoelectric; pressure or friction generates electric currents in it. - Wouldn't the Sun be able to produce a lot more lightning per square km than on Earth, since there's much more turbulence that would subject SiO2 etc to more pressure and friction?
SiO2 has a boiling point of 2500 K. Near the TOP, MM's model has the silicon running at 3000 K, as evidenced by the temperature in the umbra of sunspots, and 3000 K is at the low end of the range. So that's too hot for compounds. In plasma, there isn't going to be any charge separation like in thunderstorms, where there is electron transfer between ice particles, since plasma doesn't do electron transfer. I think in general that the thunderstorm metaphor could only account for occasional flashes, as it takes time for charges to build up, while the Sun stays lit up. So I'm looking at the sustained discharge between the solar cathode and the heliospheric anode as the primary energy source.
Lloyd wrote: * It seems like that would mean space is a superconductor and there should be lots of instantaneous flash discharges throughout space, including between asteroids, moons, planets and maybe stars and quasars.
A perfect vacuum, if it were possible, would be a perfect conductor. But that doesn't mean that there would be any flashes. In the presence of conductivity, it's hard to build up the potentials for discharges, as the charges can freely recombine. In order to get a flash, you need an insulator that can preserve the charge separation, and then you need to exceed the breakdown voltage of that insulator.
Lloyd wrote: - Also solid metals, like in electrical wiring, would have the most resistance to electric current. Wouldn't they?
Electrical wiring only "seems" to be a conductor here on Earth, when bathed in the atmosphere, which is an insulator. If you could somehow suspend a wire in a perfect vacuum, and if you applied a voltage to the ends of the wire, the current would prefer the vacuum instead of the wire, at least in terms of current density.
Of course, even space isn't a perfect vacuum, and the mean free path is somewhere between a centimeter and a meter. That seems like a lot of empty space, with extremely little resistance, but you have to remember that total resistance to an electric current is a function of the total amount of resistor. On an astronomical scale, there are a lot of particles between electrodes, even if, by our standards, there is a lot of empty space between the particles.
Lloyd
Re: Electric Sun Discussions
Space a Superconductor? * Charles, do you know of anyone else who accepts your idea that a vacuum is a superconductor? If not, or if it's not well proven, I suggest starting a thread to discuss that on the main board. That ought to stir up quite a bit of discussion among knowledgeable folks. If it is well-proven, I'd like to see a link or several on the proof. It seems that it ought to be pretty easy to prove, just by making a vacuum and seeing if a current will tend to flow through a wire in the vacuum or through the vacuum itself. A lot of satellites are orbiting in the Solar System and most of them are probably operating in the vacuum of space. I don't think they'd operate if the vacuum were a conductor, or at least they wouldn't operate long, as soon as any electrical component is exposed to the vacuum. (I saw an experiment on tv once in which a lifter was tested inside a vacuum with a glass door. It was found that the lifter didn't work, which indicated that it was producing an ion wind that was lifting it in the air, but not in vacuum.) Plan for Comparing Solar Models Objectively * I recently posted most of the following suggestion earlier on this thread. I'm taking out the questions that I previously included and adding a few more features etc. I suggest starting by comparing 4 theories just on the issue of the Solar Moss Layer. That's MM, BC, CC and MS, MS being Mainstream. I don't know of any other notable theories that cover the solar moss features. I think all of the features that occur in the solar moss images and appear to be on that layer should be included in the comparison test. I know of 7 features that I've seen on the satellite images of the solar moss, which I list below in a preliminary table. If anyone knows of any additional features that I overlooked, I'd like to hear about them. The finished table would have columns for each theory and symbols in each cell to indicate how well or poorly each theory explains each feature. Here's how I have the table organized thus far. Solar Moss Layer Features vs. Theories of MM, BC, CC, MS MM: Michael Mozina; BC: Brant Callahan; CC: Charles Chandler; MS: Mainstream 1a. solar moss 1b. evidence of extent 1c. evidence of height 1d. solid or fluid rotation rate 2. flickering pixels among the solar moss pixels 3. iron coronal rain 4. coronal loop footpoints 5. stationary tornadoes 6a. hot spots 6b. sunspots 6c. solid or fluid sunspot rotation rate 7. active regions 8. anything else? First Prove or Disprove MM and BC Solid Surface Models * I suggested recently that the easiest and quickest way to prove or disprove their solid surface models would be to time solar moss features for rotation rate at about 0 and 45 degree latitudes. But I just realized there's an even easier and quicker way, by timing sunspots at those latitudes, because I think both of them (BC and MM) say sunspots are volcanic events on the solid surface. I imagine that timing has already been done long ago, so it should just be a matter of looking up the data. I encourage all of you (BC, CC and MM) to look it up, because that should settle the matter of the theory of the solid surface real quick. This webpage has a series of sunspot images, but they may be at the same latitudes: http://astronomyonline.org/SolarSystem/SunspotRotation.asp. This page suggests that sunspots were used to measure the differential rotation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_rotation#Using_sunspots_~. This one has a video image for measuring the (differential?) rotation rate with sunspots: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/sunturn.shtml.
Solar
Re: Electric Sun Discussions
Charles.
You posted a reply in the "Liquid Hydrogen Plasma Star Model" (here) and my counter post to a section of your reply would take the topic more into "Electric Sun Discussion" - so I'll quote and reply to the pertinent portion here:
But there are problems in the existing electric theory of the Sun. Juergens thought that the Sun was the anode, and the heliosphere was the cathode, and that a flow of electrons into the Sun was the source of the energy. But the predictions of that model never matched up with any observations. If there was a flow of electrons into the Sun, it would get pinched into a discrete channel, and the footpoint would be the brightest spot in the sky. Yet such a footpoint has never been observed. So really, Juergens' model was "just" an alternative to the mainstream, and equally as problematic. Yet with the Sun as the cathode, and the heliosphere as the anode, everything makes sense,…
What are your thoughts on this:
Interestingly, "counterstreaming" sunward electrons have been observed by ACE, Genesis, Ulysses, and I think IBEX spacecraft during encounters with what are referred to as "co-rating interaction regions" (CIR). In conjunction with the fast solar wind of "coronal holes" these are regions wherein the predominant fast solar wind encounters the more equatorial oriented slow solar wind. CIR regions co-rotate with the Sun.
The following paper notes that electron counterstreaming is "frequently associated with "closed field lines" of interplanetary coronal mass ejections" (something one rarely hears about) whereas "electron counterstreaming" associated with CIRs occurs on "open field lines". The later "open field lines" needs to be taken in the context that it is simply not known were these field lines 'terminate'. They could extend out to the heliospheric sheath for all one knows. So there are basically two different sources of sunward bound electrons "interplanetary coronal mass ejections" and CIRs. With regard to an observation of the later conterstreaming electrons (CESs) and the orientation of ACE:
An enhanced sunward directed beam is apparent at 180 [degrees] immediately after the shock passage. The beam can be seen at all energies shown, a range from 142eV to 987 eV. Ordinarily, the superthermal electron flux away from the Sun exceeds the sunward directed flux on open interplanetary field lines. During the counterstreaming interval in Figure 3 the sunward flux was greater than the antisunward flux at 272 eV and higher energies. – Superthermal electrons in high-speed streams from coronal holes: Countersreaming on open field lines at 1 AU" – J. T Steinberg et al[/url]
Basically, according to the spacecraft's pitch angle distribution etc one can deduce these sunward bound counterstreaming electron beams during the passage of a CIR. Recall though that this is a dynamic that produces sunward bound conterstreaming electrons beams in addition to those produced by CMEs.
It is considered that the CSEs are generated ("leaked") at the leading edge of a CIR and later "magnetic focusing" produces a relatively narrow field-aligned beam". The article uses "shocks" and "reverse wave" characterizations and interestingly asserts that the 'focusing' of the counterstreaming beams, when closer to the Sun, "magnetically broadens" and "scattering" becomes important. So, that "inward to 1 AU when the beams originate at or beyond 5 AU" the ability of the CSEs to "retain a beam character" becomes limited. This means that such electrons - at least at closer distance - do not "pinch into a discrete channel".
If true then when the electron beams "broaden" at ranges of roughly 1 AU one would not expect to see a bright "footprint" on the Sun would they? Perhaps instead the broadening of the beam might induce numerous smaller beams or a more 'diffuse field'-like configuration.
I wonder *if* it's possible that these counterstreaming electrons could contribute a percentage necessary to build up potential prior to discharge by exceeding the breakdown voltage of the capacitor-like relation of a solar double-layer? It seems unknown at this time what formation the electrons take when closer than 1 AU though. That would make for an interesting study. The EU takes the counterstreaming electrons a bit further in this TPOD article with a bit of information from Jergens:
Care to comment on ion/electron ratio and the maintenance of a DL, the lack (perhaps) of a necessity for 'bright footprint' production with regard to an influx electrons in this counterstreaming manner? Also, I read in Llyod's "What is Solar Moss" that you were perhaps thinking of "solar moss" in relation to the Sun's electric field density. This is the way Jergens approached solar "spicules":
In 1979, Ralph Juergens wrote, The Photosphere: Is it the Top or Bottom of the Phenomenon We Call the Sun? In that seminal work, he first proposed that solar spicules are actually the way that the Sun re-supplies its electrical potential and maintains its photospheric double layer. In the image at the top of the page, an unmistakable twist can be seen in the largest spicule, identifying it as a Birkeland filament. In past Thunderbolts Picture of the Day articles, we have noted that these towering filaments are responsible for the transmission of electrical energy throughout the Sun, the solar system and the galactic environment. – "Spicules Complete the Circuit
So, in the same manner (perhaps) the dual sources for 'counterstreaming electron beams' (CME's and CIRs) may, at 1 AU and closer, 'break down' the beaming into even smaller filaments or a more diffuse 'field'. Perhaps "solar moss", supposedly found above "magnetic plages" or at the foot of "hot loops", indicates further 'screening' of the E-Field once charged particles are accelerated in it. "Spicules" seem to be related to "solar moss" as both seem to infer that they are like the Sun's 'plasma hair' standing on end in the midst of an electric field. They impress me as either positive or negative "streamers" looking for a "stepped leader". Nice video of "spicules" here:
Solar wrote: It seems unknown at this time what formation the [sunward] electrons take when closer than 1 AU though.
Indeed, they didn't show any evidence of the sunward electrons actually making it to the Sun. And when counter-streaming was observed, it was the exception rather than the rule. So this could more easily be taken as a refutation of the solar anode model than a confirmation of it.
Of course, I don't have any direct evidence from within 1 AU of the massive electron exodus that is central to my model. There are plenty of references to "electron strahl", which are beams of electrons leaving the Sun, and are typically found at the tips of helmet streams, and in spicules. Yet I'm saying that electrons are departing the Sun from every point on the sphere, while only in rare cases are they organized enough to catch our attention. I arrived at this position by playing with a variety of constructs, and the only one that could produce the full compliment of observed properties was the one that had the Sun as a cathode, emitting 2.93 × 1015 A, which causes 4.99 × 1024 W of ohmic heating. I'm not sure what would constitute make/break data for this model. Emerging from every point on the sphere, starting slowly and accelerating as they go, the electrons would not be famous for any kind of bremsstrahlung radiation, or massive deflections by the Sun's overall magnetic field, partly because the field is weak, and partly because of the low electron velocity. Maybe the data are out there, and I just don't know where to look.
Solar wrote: Care to comment on ion/electron ratio and the maintenance of a DL, the lack (perhaps) of a necessity for 'bright footprint' production with regard to an influx electrons in this counterstreaming manner?
Here's something that the TPOD article quoted:
Earl Milton wrote: In order to maintain a stable sheath between the photosphere and the corona a great many electrons must flow downward through the sheath for each ion which passes upward. The solar gas shows an increasing percentage of ionized-to-neutral atoms with altitude. Some of the rising neutral atoms become ionized by collision. Some fall back to the solar surface. The rising ions ascend into the corona where they become the solar wind. The descending gas flows back to the Sun between the granules - in these channels the electrical field is such that ions straying out from the sides of the photospheric tufts flow sunward, and hence the electrons flow outward. The presence of these channels is critical to the maintenance of the solar discharge…. Here we have an explanation for the spicules, huge fountains that spit electrons high into the corona.
I find statements like this to be too vague to critique. When evaluating an EM hypothesis, I look for the electromotive and/or magnetomotive forces that set up the conditions. Charged double-layers don't cause themselves — there has to be a prime mover. I sometimes (somewhat facetiously) refer to this as the "plasma is good like that" model, which basically states that plasma can do some really fancy things, and that explains everything. I'll be the first to admit the EM environments get complicated fast, and I'm still finding unexplored implications in my model. The only way to chase the ghosts and goblins out of the framework is to make specific contentions, starting from the prime mover(s), and to do the scale diagrams so you can visualize it all. If you still can't find a problem, then you do the order-of-magnitude math. If the model still works, then you start crunching real numbers to see if you have a real solution. This is what proponents of the Electric Sun model have to do. As long as it has been around, if somebody doesn't start fleshing it out soon, it will be dismissed simply on the grounds that if somebody could have made it work, they would have already. My personal opinion is that with the Sun as an anode, as Juergens had it, every time you try to make specific contentions, you hit brick walls. That's why I kept searching, and that's how I (eventually) settled on the solar cathode framework.
Stephen Smith wrote: In past Thunderbolts Picture of the Day articles, we have noted that these towering filaments are responsible for the transmission of electrical energy throughout the Sun, the solar system and the galactic environment.
I need to see a scale diagram of this, identifying the charged regions, and a description of the charge separation mechanism. Then I'll want to know what prevents the catastrophic release of all of the potential.
Solar wrote: Nice video of "spicules" here...
Excellent scoop! I consider this to be evidence of electron streams leaving the Sun. They would only emanate from such a broad region if they were widely dispersed, as the emissions of a cathode sitting on a current divider (with positive charges both above and below). Hence the electron streams accelerate as they move away from the divider, and eventually get pinched into electron strahls at the tips of the helmet streamers. I don't find any of the constructs for dispersion of incoming electrons (e.g., "magnetic broadening") to be fully mechanistic.
Lloyd
Re: Electric Sun Discussions
Brant Callahan Video of CME with stuff falling back to the sun through the photosphere: (Sunday, October 7, 2012 11:24 PM) Watch in HD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLpdFDGFdak
Michael Mozina Monday, October 8, 2012 11:26 AM - The amusing part from my perspective is that you can actually observe the dark "clumps" of dense surface (volcanic?) material being spewed upwards, then falling back again with a 'thud' as coronal rain. If that was in fact hydrogen/helium plasma it wouldn't be absorbing those wavelengths for starters, it should have simply blown out into space with that much momentum, and it should be "hotter', not cooler than the surrounding plasma if the plasma was heated by a 'reconnection' event. Instead those dark clumps of material fall back down to the surface with a thud, absorbing the 304A wavelengths as it goes.
Brant: Monday, October 8, 2012 11:29 AM Yes indeed. I like how the chunks fall through the photosphere showing how bright it is right underneath.
Charles Chandler Monday, October 8, 2012 1:37 PM - This is clear evidence of an electric field, first because of the non-ballistic trajectories, second because of the near-relativistic velocities, and third because of the bi-directional acceleration (i.e., some of the particles are getting accelerated away from the Sun, while others are pulled toward the Sun, which can only be opposite charges going in opposite directions in an electric field). - If that was in fact hydrogen/helium plasma it wouldn't be absorbing those wavelengths. - I agree, and continue that the heavier elements are capable of higher degrees of ionization, meaning that the ions will move faster in an electric field. This makes it easier to understand the near-relativistic velocities. H+ and He++ wouldn't really respond so dramatically, but Fe XV definitely would. - This doesn't prove that all of it is Fe. I personally think that it's a mix. The electrons are streaming out into space. Perhaps most of the hydrogen and some of the helium is succumbing to electron drag, and is therefore following the electrons outward. The heavier elements are less subject to electron drag, and more responsive to the electric field, so they are pulled back into the Sun. This makes it possible to understand the variety of non-ballistic behaviors. There is clearly an outward acceleration, and sometimes flashes at the boundary between the transparent, outwardly-moving particles and the opaque particles not so inclined to head outward. That's the electrons streaming [outward] toward the heliosphere, and sometimes recombining with ions. Some of the plasma lingers. That would be neutral or weakly ionized atoms. And then some of it is pulled forcefully back into the Sun. That's the highly ionized plasma. - The selective entry points of the plasma back into the Sun are interesting. There is a partial preference for active regions, and some of the plasma travels quite a distance horizontally to enter the Sun at an active region. IMO, "active regions" are places where the solar-heliospheric current is more robust (like cathode spotting). At the spots there is a greater negative charge density, and the positive ions are attracted to that. When they get into that charge stream, they flash due to electron uptake. Some of the plasma also finds its way back into the Sun at spicules, which I consider to be miniature active regions, with a higher current density than what is flowing through the granule bodies.
Michael: Monday, October 8, 2012 1:45 PM - It's definitely a 'mix' of elements IMO, including everything that might come from an active volcano. The iron an[d] nickel however get highly ionized and as Charles notes FeXX will definitely respond dramatically to EM fields. You're right on the money Charles in terms of the movements being a clear demonstration of the presence of electric fields. The plasma responds based on the physics of its charge. - FYI, in terms of the composition of coronal loops, Alfven wrote about concentric tornado like filaments, or loops within loops (filaments within filaments) with various loops arranged by their ionization potentials. That sounds likely to me. - Birkeland was able to get surface to surface discharges by using powerful internal magnetic field that undoubtedly helps set up the current patterns on the surface of the sphere.
Brant: Monday, October 8, 2012 2:59 PM - The larger cores of matter falling back to the sun definitely have a ballistic trajectory. The plasma that is being shed from the ballistic cores has a non-ballistic trajectory. - There are splashes at the impact sites. It reminds me as Michael says, "of a volcano". This is in line with the hyper-velocity blobs in coronal loop legs, just higher energy. - What we need is a experiment with a large cathode and a microscope to see the cathode and watch the processes. - To me this ([with] the cores) is clearly dense matter moving about as opposed to plasma under the influence of electricity.
Michael: Monday, October 8, 2012 3:20 PM - IMO the material that continues out into space is composed of the ejected materials that then connect themselves to a circuit that connect to the heliosphere. Some non/low ionized material doesn't connect itself to any circuits that are moving toward the heliosphere, nor to any circuits leading back to the surface. They simply follow a more ballistic trajectory with most of that material returning [to] the surface.
Charles: Monday, October 8, 2012 3:35 PM
MM: Birkeland was able to get surface to surface discharges by using a powerful internal magnetic field that undoubtedly helps set up the current patterns on the surface of the sphere.
- As the basis for a general model of the Sun, I can't find enough similitude there. There is no evidence that the Sun has a powerful internal magnetic field. So I have concluded that any B-field density greater than the background 1 Gauss is being generated by the cathode spot itself. In the weak overall field, the solar-heliospheric current in an active region experiences a Lorentz force that sends the electrons into a spiral around the B-field lines. The spiral itself is self-stabilizing, so it generates a much more powerful field (> 4000 Gauss), with its axis lining up with the overall field. - Where the solenoidal field from that spot dives back into the Sun, the polarity is reversed from the overall field. If another spot forms in the presence of that polarity, the electrons will spin in the opposite direction. So the second spot generates its own solenoidal field, just with the opposite polarity. Then you have two solenoidal fields, of opposite polarity, near each other, and they get coupled, with the axial lines going out one and into the other. All the while, the electrons are flowing out of the Sun and headed toward the heliosphere, and there aren't any surface-to-surface discharges between the coupled solenoids, unless there is a flare. - Flares do not follow the magnetic lines of force between the spots. Rather, one or the other of the spots will discharge into the positively charged photosphere. After the flare, there is a charge disparity between the spots, and then you get a surface-to-surface discharge through the coronal loops. But this is just charge equalization after the flare, not because of a powerful internal magnetic field. Hence Birkeland's loops only speak to post-flare activities, which are not characteristic of the quiet Sun, nor of stable spots. The primary discharge is between the Sun and the heliosphere, and this defines the behaviors of granules, spicules, and sunspots. Occasionally a secondary type of discharge occurs (i.e., a flare), and this sets up post-flare arcades. But that's the exception rather than the rule. - I'm starting to think of flares and CMEs as the mechanism that regulates the solar output. You've got this cathode that is discharging into the interplanetary medium (which is positively charged). But directly on top of the cathode you get this positive double-layer that builds up. Ohmic heating from the electrons flowing through this double-layer generates the light and the heat that we get from the Sun. During the quiet phase, the positive double-layer thickens up, trying to equal the charge in the cathode. But the thicker double-layer is subject to instabilities, and cathode spots form. Once these get organized, the electron density is far greater, and then you can get discharges from these concentrated charge streams directly into the top of the positive double-layer. Interestingly, these discharges blow pieces of the positive double-layer out into the interplanetary medium. This thins out the positive double-layer, reducing the ohmic heating directly above the cathode. And the expulsion of positive ions into the interplanetary medium perpetuates the solar-heliospheric current. Thus you get a self-stabilizing power output from the Sun. If the positive double-layer gets too thick, chunks of it get blown out into space. So you're only going to get so much ohmic heating out of the Sun. If it increases, it removes the reason for the increase, and it goes back to the way it was before. I think I remember reading somewhere that the thickness of the convective zone varies with the solar cycle. (I think they were actually talking about the depth of the tachocline, and it was all in the context of their MHD astro-babble, but whatever.) I'll see if I can't track that down. If the present line of reasoning is correct, the convective zone should thicken up during the quiet phase, and the active phase should thin it back out again.
Michael: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:09 PM - FYI, Brant - Since it just crossed my mind - It seems to me that you should be one of the first folks to work on the Saffire project, specifically on the wireless transfer of energy to the sphere. If they got that part working correctly it might simplify the wiring tremendously, and it would make it impossible to ignore the possibility of a wireless energy transfer.
Brant: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:49 PM - Good Idea. However, I think ... the voltage or power scales with the size of the sphere. If we are getting ~150 volts out of something the size of the sun then it would scale as a 1 foot sphere with a voltage of .00000004316 Volts. First I have to figure out how to measure it (across the poles?) as well as I dont have a voltmeter sensitive enough since the voltage is so low, and I have access to a really nice HP. Then I need to have several different spheres to see if it scales. - Any ideas?
Michael: Sunday, October 14, 2012 5:56 PM - I'd personally suggest that you do it the "best" way you see fit. I'd start "small" if I were you, and I'd accept the fact that you might not be able to completely "scale it up" in a "safe" manner, and it might be easier and safer to "hard wire it" at some point. If you could however show them how to get it to work, it would demonstrate your point at the level of empirical physics. That's enough IMO.
Charles: Monday, October 15, 2012 12:26 AM
LK: Does the sphere have to have a solid metal surface? Or can it be made of chicken wire, like Charles discussed? Or aluminum foil? If so, would it be practical to make it ten feet or 100 feet in diameter? If not, could it be a large plate, instead of a sphere?
- I suppose it can be whatever you want, if you can make a good case for it. But don't start with the practical aspects — start with the principles. If you're building an ELF antenna, you can look to the Sun to get a general idea of the geometric and elemental constraints. It's OK to be liberal in that respect — just constrain yourself to what is physically possible. Then what are the frequencies that are going to resonate in that geometry, with those elements? And how much power are you going to get out of that resonance?
Brant: ... I think the the voltage or power scales with the size of the sphere. If we are getting ~150 volts out of something the size of the sun then it would scale as a 1 foot sphere with a voltage of .00000004316 Volts. First I have to figure out how to measure it (across the poles?) as well as I dont have a voltmeter sensitive enough since the voltage is so low, and I have access to a really nice HP. Then I need to have several different spheres to see if it scales.
- How did you get ~150 volts? What are the amps? And the watts? - Also, is there any precedent for spherical antennas? - Is Schumann resonance relevant? At one point as I recall, we were talking about the ability of a density gradient in a gas to deflect photons toward the greater density. This means that planets & stars with atmospheres might be "trapping" photons that hit their limbs. These photons would get used up in ionizing the gas, which would then re-emit the photons, though in random directions, some of which would stream outward. Hence it would look like the star had an internal energy source, when really, it would be getting all of the energy from its environment. So there could be a lot of different possibilities here. - BTW, I did some more thinking on coronal loops, and I'm working my way to an interesting conclusion. You guys have been talking about these loops as arc discharges in molten iron. I have been disagreeing, because I couldn't see how you could develop the charge separations necessary for arc discharges, with the conductivity so high. In other words, if you start charging up one end of a copper wire, will the charge density eventually get to be so great that you'll start to see discharges leaping from one point on the wire to another? Of course not. The conductivity of the wire precludes any sort of charge separation whatsoever, at least inside the wire. So as soon as you start charging up one end of the wire, the charges flow through the wire at near the speed of light, and there is never any potential from one point on the wire to another. - This sent me searching elsewhere for the causal mechanisms. As you know, I eventually came to the conclusion that the solar-heliospheric current, emanating from the entire sphere at 481 A/m2, is the main power source. In sunspots, this current is more robust, and electrodynamic effects kick in, such as local magnetic fields that are much more powerful than the Sun's overall field. - So sometimes, this current decides to neglect the solar-heliospheric electric field, and instead, it arcs into the positive double-layer that builds up on top of the cathode. That would be the nature of solar flares. After the flare, there can be differences in charge density from one point to another on the surface, and neutralizing currents will follow magnetic field lines to get there. That would be the nature of coronal loops. - But why is there so much iron, in the loops and at the footpoints? I came up with "an" explanation, but I never really convinced myself of it, so I kept thinking. And here's what I realized. - If a sunspot is a solar-heliospheric current on steroids, like a cathode spot, and given that currents in plasmas insulate themselves with their magnetic fields, such that like charges are pinched and opposite charges are expelled, the negative charge density within the cathode spot should attract a strong positive double-layer as a sheath around it, though there won't be any discharges, because of the magnetic pressure. This means that the E-field can build up to extreme limits before there is a core-to-sheath discharge. Hence solar flares aren't just short-circuits of the solar-heliospheric current into the normal positive double-layer sitting on top of the solar cathode. Rather, solar flares are discharges from a self-insulating cathode spot into a highly charged sheath that built up around the current. If the E-field gets more powerful than the B-field, the "insulation" breaks down, and you get a core-to-sheath discharge. -So far so good. - Now consider the properties of that sheath. And just for a second, let's assume that the elemental composition is as I'm thinking — mostly hydrogen, but 1 part per 30,000 of iron. Interestingly, the iron is capable of much higher degrees of ionization than hydrogen. This means that in a powerful E-field, the iron will be ionized, and will be far more attracted to the negative charges in the cathode spot. So the iron will push the hydrogen out of the way, and you'll wind up with a positive sheath that is mostly iron. - Then there is a flare that ejects huge masses of iron (as Michael pointed out, that in the 304 Å imagery, hydrogen can't absorb that wavelength, so that ain't hydrogen). Then there is a discrepancy in charges from that sunspot to its neighbor, and there is a current following the B-field lines. And we find a [large amount] of iron, at the footpoints, and in the coronal loops. Well, if the solar-heliospheric currents in each sunspot had been developing powerful positive sheaths, which have high iron contents, and if you get a powerful current between the sunspots along B-field lines, then yes, you've got an arc from one iron slag heap to another. - Hence I'm coming to agree with what you guys have been saying all along. though we now have a larger framework that can fill in the details concerning the electromotive and magnetomotive forces. I think this thing has legs!
Brant: Monday, October 15, 2012 3:09 AM
CC: "How did you get ~150 volts? What are the amps? And the watts?"
- 150 volts or 150 eV is from the potential required to make 3800K or .3 eV under the photosphere to the top of the corona at 2 million K or ~181 eV. - This is the voltage required to accelerate the ions from 0 degrees to 2 million [K]. - The reason I think ... the emitting surface is right under the photosphere is because of the potential. .6 eV is really close to the 0 volt emitter; you have multiple points mapping the potential from the surface to the corona. - I still dont see how the EU isodense sun model would be an emitter without falling apart. They call it a pinch but its [too] round for that. - The amps would be some cross section of electron flow which is a variable depending on how you look at the surface. - Watts is just the amps times volts. The potential is pretty constant.
CC: "I have been disagreeing, because I couldn't see how you could develop the charge separations necessary for arc discharges, with the conductivity so high. In other words, if you start charging up one end of a copper wire, will the charge density eventually get to be so great that you'll start to see discharges leaping from one point on the wire to another? Of course not."
- My simplistic explanation was that the distance was so great that you could never get 2 spots on the surface that could [ever] equalize in real time. In addition there are huge current flows under the surface. And since plasma is a better conductor than iron(?), and with thermionic effects you would get a discharge from one point on the surface. This would head toward the area with the dearth of electrons forming a loop. - So I was trying [to] figure out what caused the butterfly patterns and how that interacts with the plasma torus and current sheet.
EU says "As noticed by Scott, the tufted plasma sheath above the stellar anode seems to be the cosmic equivalent of a 'PNP transistor,' a simple electronic device using small changes in voltage to control large changes in electrical power output. The tufted sheath thus regulates the solar discharge and provides stability of radiated heat and light output, while the power to the Sun varies throughout the sunspot cycle."
"NPN transistors are the most popular type. In the early days of manufacture, it was easier to make NPN transistors. The voltage and current capability could be made higher. This made them cheaper and most circuits were designed around NPN types."
- The PNP idea was from Ralph Juergens back from the days of the Germanium transistor when it was easier the make PNP
Charles: Monday, October 15, 2012 6:47 PM - As concerns the solar transistor idea, at this point I'm no longer really willing to consider it just as an idea. If Juergens or Scott could have worked out the solar instantiation of the transistor effect, we'd have schematic drawings by now. The fact that we don't could mean a lot of things. Either Juergens and Scott just didn't have the EE expertise to work it out, or they were too lazy, or they tried and it didn't work, leaving them with just an idea that never went anywhere. My opinion is that they both had the expertise, and neither of them were lazy. ))) That means that it just didn't work. I still looked at the idea a bit, despite my far lesser intellectual prowess. I concluded that at 6000 K, we don't even have dielectric breakdown, much less any sort of transistor effect. But I'm not basing my dismissal on my own casual inspection of the idea — I'm giving the experts credit for being up to the task, if it was do-able, which appears not to be the case. Likewise, I looked at Juergens' solar anode idea, and saw that it really didn't match up with any of the observables. Rather than presumptuously thinking that I could succeed where Juergens failed, I rather looked to try something that he didn't, which led me to the solar cathode idea. )) Anyway...
LK: Can you explain how magnetic pressure prevents discharging until the E-field gets stronger than the B-field?
- This is simply one of the implications of the magnetic pinch effect. The faster a current gets going, the stronger its magnetic field (by Ampere's law). This magnetic field exerts back-pressure on the moving electric charges that created it, pushing them together. So in spite of the electrostatic repulsion between like charges, they are consolidated. In precisely the same respect, they can be consolidated in spite of their electrostatic attraction to opposite charges outside of the current. In other words, the magnetic force is fighting the electric force. In the consolidation, it makes no difference whether the electric force is the repulsion of like charges, or the attraction of opposite charges. Either way, the magnetic force keeping the electrons together is at the same time keeping them away from the protons. So when talking about z-pinches, we are normally thinking of the equilibrium achieved just between the magnetic force pushing in, and a unipolar electric force pushing out (i.e., just the repulsion of like charges). I'm saying that the same thing will happen in a dipolar electric field, with like charges pushing out, and being pulled out by attraction to opposite charges outside of the current. - Needless to say, this dipolar electric field will be stronger, so in the end, the magnetic force loses, and the opposite charges recombine. But before this happens, the charge densities inside the current and in the oppositely charged double-layer will build up. IMO, this is the only way that the potentials for a flash can be developed, despite the excellent conductivity of 6000 K plasma.
LK: Can the E-field and B-field strengths of solar active regions be calculated or measured and can coronal loop discharges, solar flares, or CMEs be predicted on that basis?
- Very interesting question. I'm thinking that a major CME is caused by a flash at a depth greater than 4 Mm, because I'm thinking that the granular layer is 4 Mm deep, and it is too thin for any sort of explosive effect from a flash. (?) Charge densities > 4 Mm deep could [be] detected by the degrees of ionization (e.g., Fe XV lines). Actually determining the depth would take bi-directional measurements, to triangulate on the sources of the emissions. Perhaps this is what NASA was thinking when they commissioned the STEREO satellites. Anyway, I think that this will one day be do-able.
Brant: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:56 AM - Charles, Here is something I found that might help you in your (our) quest to locate some sort of surface below the photosphere. - I believe that white light flares are ... happening right at the loop footprint on the surface. No matter, the reason I believe this is useful is because its the deepest you can see into the sun by my estimation. - I also searched using "observation at solar opacity 1" to see if I can place multiple events at some level below the Photosphere.
Lloyd
Re: Electric Sun Discussions
White-Light-Flare Studies Brant asked me to include the following: Review of White-Light-Flare studies since 1960s Motivation: Vis and NIR observation on 2003-Oct-29 Can not download all references (>100) (some Journals are not accessible) Some studies were not published (research notes…) Some case studies are put into the table (slid #35) No Radio analysis is included Some phenomen[a] (like blue-WL) are not included because they only showed up few times in the literature and no longer being mentioned http://www.swrl.njit.edu/weekly_meeting/20091106/yx_wlf.pdf
I'll be the first to admit the EM environments get complicated fast, and I'm still finding unexplored implications in my model. The only way to chase the ghosts and goblins out of the framework is to make specific contentions, starting from the prime mover(s), and to do the scale diagrams so you can visualize it all. If you still can't find a problem, then you do the order-of-magnitude math. If the model still works, then you start crunching real numbers to see if you have a real solution. This is what proponents of the Electric Sun model have to do. As long as it has been around, if somebody doesn't start fleshing it out soon, it will be dismissed simply on the grounds that if somebody could have made it work, they would have already. My personal opinion is that with the Sun as an anode, as Juergens had it, every time you try to make specific contentions, you hit brick walls. That's why I kept searching, and that's how I (eventually) settled on the solar cathode framework.
Stephen Smith wrote:I need to see a scale diagram of this, identifying the charged regions, and a description of the charge separation mechanism. Then I'll want to know what prevents the catastrophic release of all of the potential.I still looked at the idea a bit, despite my far lesser intellectual prowess. I concluded that at 6000 K, we don't even have dielectric breakdown, much less any sort of transistor effect. But I'm not basing my dismissal on my own casual inspection of the idea — I'm giving the experts credit for being up to the task, if it was do-able, which appears not to be the case. Likewise, I looked at Juergens' solar anode idea, and saw that it really didn't match up with any of the observables. Rather than presumptuously thinking that I could succeed where Juergens failed, I rather looked to try something that he didn't, which led me to the solar cathode idea.
