Solar wrote: One can have "jets" emitted from cathode spots under electric discharge phenomena as is known but one can *ALSO* have anode spot arcs and the emission of anode plumes as well. Consider the following please:
When a region of the anode becomes sufficiently hot to emit vapor, an anode spot is formed. If the anodic vapor pressure is sufficiently high to overcome the momentum flux from the cathode spot jets, an anodic plasma plume will penetrate into the inter-electrode space, as seen here extending downwards from the upper electrode (anode). This photograph was taken a few ms's after the previous photo, during the same Cu vacuum arc pulse, but here with a current of about 4 kA. The anodic plasma plume also confines the propagation of the cathode plasma jet, here shown as a narrow layer close to the cathode surface. – ARCS AND SPARKS PHOTO GALLERY: Tel Aviv University
I posted that reference, and do watch the film, a few years ago and simply never let go of it because it has the finest example of the 'suppression' of cathode emission as plasma 'condenses' on the anode surface. Note that the "anode" is on the right –hand side as you watch the film; the "cathode" is on the left. To the point made by Persian Paladin the nomenclature has been a long standing problem. It causes a lot of digging through the literature because there are so very many interpretive explanations used to establish conceptual relations to electrical phenomena both theoretical and experimental; we all know how frustrating this can be for the independent investigator. As such the term "anode tufting" is simply a conceptualization, the principle may also be related to the term "anode sputtering" (sources).
The two posts by Persian P and Seasmith above are spot on imho. The sun 'interconverts', 'tranduces', or 'transforms' energy so there is a dual omni-directional 'conversion' process that is occurring that may see the stellar crucibles manifesting the characteristics of being either an "anode" and/or a "cathode" owing to a certain hysteresis, or "lag", in the is rhythmical 'processing' and circulation of the energy.
I would guess that this phenomena are related to solid cathode and anodes... The vacuum of the space in between the earth heliosphere and sun is less than 10^-9 torr.
I believe the sun is a converter not a battery... And I believe the sun also displays cathode phenomena as opposed to anode phenomena.
If you take the experiments literally and apply them directly to the sun(the sun is a solid cathode) then there is no conflict with the solar model...
Try it and see what happens....
upriver
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Try googling: "Formation of self-organized cathode patterns in arc discharge" as opposed to "Formation of self-organized anode patterns in arc discharge"
The so called "tangled magnetic fields" on the surface was not the magnetic field I was referring to. Zoom out a bit so you can visualize the whole solar system and the heliosheath. All the models and info show or describe a heliosheath containing two poles separated by a current sheet. some drawings I found on NASA's website even suggest that these magnetic fields just spiral away from the sun completely towards some infinitely distant place. Is the sun an exception to the magnetic dipole? Is the suns magnetic field composed of two magnetic monopoles? To me this is a fundamental question which I plan to find some answers. I did try google a few days ago, but no answers.
I also tried googling helical transformer and only came up with one patent. Looking at its shape, it must have another use other than a transformer... that looks like a rather inefficient transformer. The supposed magnetic fields shown in the picture you posted are interesting. But they don't address the bigger question of how the Sun's magnetic field is shaped. It's like looking at the trees, I was rather trying to see the forest. But thanks for taking the time to share.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Solar wrote: One can have "jets" emitted from cathode spots under electric discharge phenomena as is known but one can *ALSO* have anode spot arcs and the emission of anode plumes as well.
The more I think about it, the less I see the analogy between the Sun and an anode glow, or a cathode glow for that matter. Look carefully at the images and movies of glow discharges, and you'll see that the edges of such phenomena are indistinct — the luminosity tapers off gradually. Now look at images/videos of the surface of the Sun. It's very distinct. Furthermore, the surface supports hydrodynamic behaviors, such as the Benard cells erupting on the surface, known as granules. Now show me where anybody has ever seen Benard cells in an anode or cathode glow. I know that you can dismiss it as a trivial difference, but you have to learn to look past your constructs & expectations, to see what's actually there, which sometimes reveals a fundamentally different nature. In no sense are anode/cathode glows capable of hydrodynamic behaviors. Anode/cathode spots involve convection, but by definition, the spot has to be the exception rather than the rule. (If the entire electrode is "spotting", that's not a bunch of "spots" — the whole electrode is in arc mode, and the convection goes away.) So a detailed examination of the solar imagery reveals that the glow discharge analogy is crude at best.
It would be more accurate to say that solar granules occur in a plasma under extreme pressure, making it act like a liquid, and it has a current flowing through it. Electron drag supplies an uplift, while the +ions are held down by the electric force. In a low viscosity fluid, if there are forces tugging the fluid in both directions, inconsistencies in the fluid will resolve into Benard cells, with updrafts in the center, and downdrafts around the outside. This tells us volumes about the true nature of what's going on at the surface of the Sun, because it's the right branch of physics. Crookes tube analogies are not.
So if we're going to clean up the terminology, which is a laudable goal, we also might want to improve the quality of our observations, and stop trying to describe the Sun in terms of our favorite laboratory analogies that actually are not analogous at all.
Solar wrote: As such the term "anode tufting" is simply a conceptualization, the principle may also be related to the term "anode sputtering"
Frankly, I think that we should stop talking about "tufting". After all of these years, I still have yet to see a clear laboratory demonstration of "tufting". I also cannot find an accepted definition anywhere in the literature. The surface of the Sun certainly looks furled (though it's much better described as Benard cells). But "tufting" is the epitome of vague terminology. If we're going to use this word, the first thing we have to do is define it.
justcurious wrote: ...even a simple concept like anode vs cathode isn't clear cut for me...
Me too. More and more I'm saying "electron drift" with a specified direction, instead of anode/cathode/current. To an EE, an electric current is a domino effect in an electron cloud. It isn't the migration of charged particles. The dictionary definition says it's so, but this isn't how EEs think, because in practical electricity on Earth, it doesn't happen. So plasma physicists talk about drift velocities, due to electric fields, minus resistances (which are due to particle collisions, not just binding energies in the conduction bands of atoms). So EEs and PPs tend to talk past each other when the topic is electricity in space, and while it all still comes from first principles, the applications are radically different, and PersianPaladin is right that we need to check the applicability of our terms and analogies.
justcurious wrote: Regarding the importance of determining the flow of electrons far away from the Sun... PP suggests this is not important and I look forward to the evidence he will post. Personaly, I think we should explain as much as possible.
I agree, and I agree with Brant that anodes and cathodes are actually very different. Since a proton is 1836 times heavier than an electron, inertial forces result in dramatically different drift ballastics. For one thing, electrons generally do most of the moving, in space and in a copper wire, and the implications of this cannot be forgotten. For example, Scott's model has a positively charged Sun, and a drift of +ions away from the Sun as a consequence. That would make sense, but it doesn't explain why the +ions drift out, instead of electrons drifting in. Johnson corrects this, and then looks for the evidence of an inward electron drift, and rather finds nothing but evidence of a fast electron drift away from the Sun, with a slower drift of +ions which looks more like the consequence of electron drag. So all of the particles are moving away, but at least in the first 10 solar radii, the electrons are moving faster, so there's a net negative current away from the Sun. Birkeland simulated this, but only with the Sun as the negative electrode.
So again, if we're going to improve the accuracy of our statements, we have to improve the accuracy of our statements (i.e., we have to make more accurate observations, invoke the right branches of physics, and use the proper terminology).
justcurious wrote: These plumes also tend to narrow and filament suggesting Birkeland currents. They are either reaching out to something at the heliosphere, and/or towards the planets.
Indeed. The electron drift emanates from all points on the surface of the Sun, and then follows magnetic field lines in the corona. In a solenoidal field, this redirects polar currents toward the equatorial plane (out in the corona). But at the equator, the electric field takes over, and breaks the electrons out of the magnetic field and pulls them out into space, creating the spike on top of the helmet streamers. Near the Earth, the inverse happens. Charged particles in a consolidated stream impinging on the magnetosphere near the equatorial plane are split into poleward currents. So Birkeland was right, and the evidence continues to prove it.
justcurious wrote: Would it be possible to use a novelty plasma ball analogy to explain this?
No — that's a discharge without the solenoidal magnetic fields.
justcurious wrote: And while on the topic of the Sun's magnetic field, dose anyone know what it looks like? Because from what I read so far the North and South magnetic poles are separated by the HCS which extends all the way out to the Heliosphere. So where would the field lines meet? If they don't, then we have a Sun composed of two monopoles, something considered impossible by all scientists and engineers.
Indeed, "open field lines" shouldn't be possible, and on that topic, the mainstream just starts issuing MHD astrobabble to mask their confusion. IMO, this is easy to understand. The quiet Sun's rotation generates a solenoidal magnetic field, though it has alternating layers of charge, and whichever layer is rotating faster generates the dominant field. Due to a phenomenon known as torsional oscillation, layers inside the Sun speed up and slow down with respect to each other as part of the solar cycle. If those are charged layers, it also explains the inversion of the solenoidal field through the cycle. The active Sun is, of course, considerably more complex. Anyway, as mentioned above, in addition to the solenoidal field, there is also an electron drift that gets consolidated into distinct charge streams at the tips of the helmet streamers. The magnetic field lines follow the outside of the streamers, to the tip, and then continue on out into space. To me, this just means that solenoidal lines of force got redirected into axial lines of force inside Birkeland currents, which never "close" the way solenoidal lines do. So whenever the literature refers to "open magnetic flux tubes", I hear "Birkeland currents with axial magnetic fields".
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
No explanation or description anywhere regarding the Sun's magnetic field. It is presumed that it is a dipole, reversing every 22 years. In a dipole we should be able to draw topographic style lines of force from one pole to another.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
@justcurious: did you see the last paragraph in my previous post?
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
One important point I would like to raise regarding Don Scott et al's "Anode" sun model is the way that he and Wal perceive the Sun as an electrode powered by a "pinched" galactic filament.
Now, the main problem I have with this is the fact that we are yet to measure a sufficient density of incoming electrons at varius distances above the Sun's poles to account for the arc discharges in the photosphere. We are also yet to detect sufficient strength magnetic fields that would be produced by these currents. As you've seen in this thread already, I have looked through several instrumental sources regarding the complex magnetic field of the Sun - including readings about the poles. We must understand that though the resolution of space-craft readings directly above the poles is poor; the HINODE team (as well as others) have got a good grasp on the sort of vertical magnetic flux that can be detected. While magnetic fields of 1-2 Kilogauss have been detected in a certain radial region above the north pole of the Sun during the "quiet phase", this field greatly reduces when the Sun enters the "maxima" phase. Thus, in order to understand the Sun as an electrically discharging body we must stick to looking at the permanent (non-seasonal) magnetic features.
Arc discharges require a higher current density than glow discharges. In order to account for the arcing of the photosphere in Don Scott's model; we need an incoming electron density that is shown to increase significantly from 1AU to 0.01 AU inward to the solar body. Data that reflects such an electron density is yet to be found to demonstrate such a current. This leaves the model with an apparent problem.
Now, Don Scott did mention a concept known as the "plasma frequency" which describes the brownian movement of electrons with respect to their interactions with nearby ions. Electrons tend to drift very slowly as they jump from the orbital (outside the valence zone) influence of one ionatom to another:- http://electric-cosmos.org/SolarElecFlux2013.pdf
Now, if you exclude the Sun's own "positive column" particle acceleration of electrons and ions in the solar wind (which cannot be used to calculate incoming galactic electrons) - then one must examine the average electron density of the ISM (inter-stellar medium):-
Now, this would by definition - result in a very slow rate and density of electron drift in this region of the ISM (and that is generally the case throughout the galaxy, excluding the behaviour of high-energy cosmic rays). Fortunately, our sun is travelling through the galactic arm at over 430,000 miles per hour which would allow it to compensate for the basic lack of electron inflow by scavenging free electrons (loosely bound to nearby ions) at one end of the solar double-layer.
I am stating that neither galactic cosmic rays (which are too diffuse generally) or free electrons contain sufficient cross-sectional density and rate of flow to actually power the Sun if one regarded the Sun as analagous to a laboratory electrode.
If we look at the "space tornadoes" 44,000 miles above our Earth that have been implicated in powering the aurora; we can see that measurements of total electron flow inside these huge field-aligned currents is of the order of 100,000 amperes. Very high indeed, but the current-density per cross-section (even though it does vary with altitude) is too low to produce arc discharges in the Earth's ionosphere. It is however high enough to produce glow discharges as the electrons collide with diffuse atoms and ions in the Earth's atmosphere. What produces these field-aligned vorticies? That is debatable - but it does appear that our magnetosphere consists of several double-layers that are responsible for the acceleration of particles between plasma boundaries.
Regarding the aurora and the location of DL's, Markland et al have found a "particle accelerator" region a few thousand miles above the Earth. Marlund also found that auroral curtains (field-aligned spikes of current) are part of an electric circuit with incoming and outgoing charged particles:- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 122540.htm
With respect to the Sun, I am hypothesizing that the region just above the chromosphere is an equivalent "particle accelerator" region. The "spicules" have been found to be composed of "double threads", suggesting that they are currents aligned to the magnetic field and the flow observed is often bi-directional. They are also found virtually everywhere on the solar limb, according to the latest papers and measurements I've examined. The strong vorticity in these spicules suggest that the current-density in this region is locally high enough to produce arc-discharges in the photosphere. This happens when the electrons collide with atoms and protons residing in that region. Spicules share fundamental magnetic vorticity features with that of "solar tornadoes" and are speculated to be related. Another interesting thing I found is that the structure of the coronal magnetic field:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar ... _Lines.jpg
I always suggest it wise to look for repeating patterns.
With regard to solar cycles, I suggest this arises from changes in the particle density and electron density of the regions that the Sun is moving through. But I am of the view that neither the ISM or cosmic rays can be involved in "powering the sun" in the sense of them "pinching" down and impinging on the conductive solar electrode. However, instead I think that the high-velocity of the Sun allows it to move through the galactic region and collect sufficiently large numbers of electrons at the top-layer of the coronachromospheric double-layer as part of its dischargevoltage equalization with the lower-potential environment.
Of course, people can raise issues regarding apparent anomalies in the solar wind with respect to protonelectron ratios but again I refer them back to the fact that gas-discharge tubes typically haven an even ratio of positive and negative charges in the "positive column" outward from the Anode. The acceleration of protons via electric fields upward towards the solar corona causes signficant collisions of protons with atoms and their velocity is greatly reduced. Electrons will thus always be present in the solar wind due to their greater mobility. Scott writes:-
"it should be pointed out that the solar wind acceleration mechanism described here is an obvious consequence of that model. The ES hypothesis states that outward bound positive ions and protons (that will become constituents of the solar wind) rise up from the photosphere, accelerate through a plasma double layer (DL) and collide with neutrals, other atoms, and ions in the lower corona. Their radially directed (kinetic energy) velocity is thereby brought almost to a standstill. Electrons that were associated with these ions drift downward, back out of the lower corona, and serve to maintain the DL as per the Langmuir requirement22. These electrons tend to fill the 'electron trap' that is formed by the relatively high-voltage photospheric plasma granule cells. This is a probable cause of the relatively short life-times of those cells (usually measured in hours or days).
The ionic kinetic energy transformed into thermal activity at the base of the corona produces the greater than 2 million Kelvin temperatures measured there by spectroscopic observation. It also results in the almost complete ionization of the coronal plasma. But then, what happens to those positively charged ions? They are still there. These now relatively quiescent positive charges constitute the 'excess' positive charge density region (over and above the quasi-neutral charge densities of the background plasma) referred to in the above discussion and shown in figure 6."
And, for the final time - an Anode in a plasma vacuum - by definition, is a positively-charged electron collector. Ask any electrical engineer. Now, in space we have a very similar environment. Our Sun, being a great anomaly of positively charged particles with respect to the ISM will act as an Anode with respect to the environment. Anodes and cathodes can arc and they can glow - it comes down to the current-density. No ifs, no buts.
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote: @justcurious: did you see the last paragraph in my previous post?
Yes. Although I can't understand most of it. It does not answer this question of what the solar magnetic field looks like.. this supposed magnetic dipole, divided by a current sheet extending out to the heliosphere... am I the only person in the world who believes this is of great significance?
upriver
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
Solar wrote: One can have "jets" emitted from cathode spots under electric discharge phenomena as is known but one can *ALSO* have anode spot arcs and the emission of anode plumes as well.
The more I think about it, the less I see the analogy between the Sun and an anode glow, or a cathode glow for that matter. Look carefully at the images and movies of glow discharges, and you'll see that the edges of such phenomena are indistinct — the luminosity tapers off gradually. Now look at images/videos of the surface of the Sun. It's very distinct. Furthermore, the surface supports hydrodynamic behaviors, such as the Benard cells erupting on the surface, known as granules. Now show me where anybody has ever seen Benard cells in an anode or cathode glow. I know that you can dismiss it as a trivial difference, but you have to learn to look past your constructs & expectations, to see what's actually there, which sometimes reveals a fundamentally different nature. In no sense are anode/cathode glows capable of hydrodynamic behaviors. Anode/cathode spots involve convection, but by definition, the spot has to be the exception rather than the rule. (If the entire electrode is "spotting", that's not a bunch of "spots" — the whole electrode is in arc mode, and the convection goes away.) So a detailed examination of the solar imagery reveals that the glow discharge analogy is crude at best.
It would be more accurate to say that solar granules occur in a plasma under extreme pressure, making it act like a liquid, and it has a current flowing through it. Electron drag supplies an uplift, while the +ions are held down by the electric force. In a low viscosity fluid, if there are forces tugging the fluid in both directions, inconsistencies in the fluid will resolve into Benard cells, with updrafts in the center, and downdrafts around the outside. This tells us volumes about the true nature of what's going on at the surface of the Sun, because it's the right branch of physics. Crookes tube analogies are not.
So if we're going to clean up the terminology, which is a laudable goal, we also might want to improve the quality of our observations, and stop trying to describe the Sun in terms of our favorite laboratory analogies that actually are not analogous at all.
I would have a tendency to agree with you Charles on the lack of anode tufting as well as convection cells in lab experiments...
However my not fully formed hypothesis to deal with this observation was to suppose the amount of metal plasma(iron plasma) from thermionic emission was capable of providing a fluid like medium to account for the observations... My thought was because it is an iron plasma it would account for the observations...
The reason that i didnt go with the liquid surface ala Robitallie even after reading all of his stuff is because I didnt see liquid motions around the loop, cme and flare foot prints... As well as not seeing liquid motions over most of the photosphere except for the solar Tsunami's...
Image of the solar surface below the photosphere./ Similar to Mozina RD images...
CharlesChandler wrote: @justcurious: did you see the last paragraph in my previous post?
Yes. Although I can't understand most of it. It does not answer this question of what the solar magnetic field looks like.. this supposed magnetic dipole, divided by a current sheet extending out to the heliosphere... am I the only person in the world who believes this is of great significance?
Also... your explanation is based on the rotation of the sun or its surface. The problem with that is, the magnetic poles switch between north and south but the rotation doesn't. It was one of the very good points brought forth in Johnson's critique (ie homopolar motor effect causing spinning). Your line of thinking seems similiar, except that it would be the rotation causing the magnetic field instead of the other way around. It's looking more and more (to me at least) that Alfven's idea of a double torus is not so crazy after all.
Michael Mozina
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
PersianPaladin wrote: One important point I would like to raise regarding Don Scott et al's "Anode" sun model is the way that he and Wal perceive the Sun as an electrode powered by a "pinched" galactic filament.
Now, the main problem I have with this is the fact that we are yet to measure a sufficient density of incoming electrons at varius distances above the Sun's poles to account for the arc discharges in the photosphere. We are also yet to detect sufficient strength magnetic fields that would be produced by these currents. As you've seen in this thread already, I have looked through several instrumental sources regarding the complex magnetic field of the Sun - including readings about the poles. We must understand that though the resolution of space-craft readings directly above the poles is poor; the HINODE team (as well as others) have got a good grasp on the sort of vertical magnetic flux that can be detected. While magnetic fields of 1-2 Kilogauss have been detected in a certain radial region above the north pole of the Sun during the "quiet phase", this field greatly reduces when the Sun enters the "maxima" phase. Thus, in order to understand the Sun as an electrically discharging body we must stick to looking at the permanent (non-seasonal) magnetic features.
FYI, the mainstream bases that temperature claim on a series of false and erroneous assumptions related to their oversimplified "black body" calculations which they apply to a single atmospheric layer. I'm inclined to agree with Dr. Scott (& Wal and others) that the photosphere is experiencing a glow mode discharge, whereas solar flares and images seen in 171A (iron ion images) are examples of the arc discharge processes IMO.
I am inclined to agree with you however, and your basic logic as it relates to the strength of the magnetic fields and their usefulness in ruling out various solar models.
Essentially there are 6 basic "electric sun" models to choose from which all must be evaluated, along with lots of combination options:
There are *internally* powered anode and cathode models to choose from. There are also two externally powered, "hard wired" (through atmospheric plasma) solar models to select from. There's actually two more "wireless" (externally powered) options which brant has discussed, (one of them anyway), and of course we must consider combinations of any or all of those options.
I agree with your assessment in terms of your observation of a lack of a strong enough magnetic field to justify the concept of a "hard wired", mostly externally powered solar theory. I would also say that while early neutrino measurements favored an externally powered solar model, more recent observations of neutrino 'flavor changing' tend to favor an internally powered model, or at least a model that "releases" it's energy locally (within the solar atmosphere). Any model that we support has to account for the same total number of neutrinos as the standard model.
I also think the location and behaviors of the "arc" discharges are the key to deciding if the heliosphere or the solar surface acts as an anode. While I may disagree with Dr. Scott's assessment in terms of solar polarity, I think he's right about the photosphere experiencing a glow mode discharge.
I don't believe however that the type of discharge (glow or discharge) in the photosphere affects your basic argument. In terms of the implication of externally powered solar model, I believe your basic assessment is correct. IMO the strength of the sun's overall magnetic field is simply "too small" to explain a huge transfer of energy from heliosphere to the solar surface. In a "hard wired" scenario, where the atmosphere must conduct externally transferred current, I'd expect to observe powerful plasma filaments flowing *into* the sun near the poles, and much stronger magnetic fields.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Michael....
Dr. Scott states that the photosphere is in "arc mode":-
And he'd be right too. It exhibits all the properties of that mode of plasma and current-density, regarding the high-intensity UV light output that is constantly measured. Also, recent higher resolution instruments have found that the glowing "granules" in the photosphere are composed of small transient filaments with considerably large magnetic fields:- http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/yurchyshyn1514.pdf
The so called "tangled magnetic fields" on the surface was not the magnetic field I was referring to. Zoom out a bit so you can visualize the whole solar system and the heliosheath.
,JC,
If you go to the second link listed above, the very first entry provides several Hundred images of various heliospheric views:
(or google image: sun magnetic field )
You can also google: image: spherical transformers
the info is out there, but a lot is behind paywalls
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
seasmith wrote: If you go to the second link listed above, the very first entry provides several Hundred images of various heliospheric views:
It does not show it, as mentioned in the previous responses, But thanks for trying to help. I'll try and figure it out on my own. Alfven's double torus is starting to look like a very good hypothesis.
