Granted, the spherical striations in the plasma ring observed in 1987A is most likely more than just down to the "pinch" process in plasma - particularly when one refers to the lab experiments cited in the paper I referred to at the top of page 20 of this thread.
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
starbiter wrote: I'm not able to discuss the physics of these issues. I'm ignorant concerning physics. On the other hand i'm fairly visual. The videos Hoz has presented have been pretty much ignored on this thread. They show stars within circuits. The circuits are strong x-ray sources. It seems that Charles and Bob Johnson want us to believe the stars are self contained plasmoids without a connection to the circuits. The Sun and stars are supposedly self powered after being spit out by one of the circuits/filaments. This seems problematic to my lying eyes. Because we are within the electrical environment of the Sun it might not be possible to sense the connection between the Sun and galactic filaments. Dr Scott's paper suggests it might not be possible to sense the connection unless a the probe is quite close to the Sun. We may never be able to get a probe that close. I'm probably the insane one, but this is how things look to me.
Whether the Sun is anode or cathode is another matter. I'll let other more intelligent people work that out. I really wish we could have all the cast of EU characters discuss this issue here on the forum. Maybe Wal and Dr Scott could communicate through Hoz.
michael steinbacher
I have been asking myself the same questions. Although not an expert on the matter, I managed to remember a couple of things (hopefully the right ones) in another life when I studied electrical engineering. So anyways, here are my thoughts (and more questions).
From reading Bob's presentation, his questioning of an externally powered Sun is based on power consumption vs output of the Sun. According to him, it all doesn't add up and hence the Sun can't be powered externally, yet he leaves a little room for a bit of a connection which would explain other phenomena such as magnetic pole reversals. The energy would "seep in and out" of the Sun, but most of the energy is being consumed directly from the Sun itself, hence one day it would burn out. Electrically speaking, the Sun would be like a battery that eventually runs out of juice. Bob does not offer a solid alternative model, but rather gives some hints and leads as to the possible directions for further research. Well, at least that's how I understood it.
I went about trying to figure all this out for myself. Like yourself, I felt that we were limited in our outlook by being inside the solar system ourselves. Perhaps we were looking at the nucleus of a larger system, like for example looking at the nucleus of a living cell without seeing the whole cell. Worst, everyone seems so fascinated by these black holes and noisy turbulence on the surface of the Sun, totally missing the big picture. So where exactly is our Solar System located on the High Seas of this Electric Universe? I could not find any data or which describes our environment except that we are in or near some sort of cloud. On another thread folks were discussing "our local chimney" which leaves me equally clueless. I would love to get more info on this if anyone has some to share. They say that our Sun is a very ordinary standard star. So I figured that we can learn about our own Sun by the big picture offered when observing other stars. Unfortunately I was not very successful in finding much data. I bet Hoz would know where I can find such data. I would like to see data and close-ups of a stellar system and its environment. I believe there are already instruments that can map magnetic fields in space (magnetic fields would polarize light), there must be data out there somewhere. All I could find is that other stars are now known to have a hydrogen wall, a sort of membrane (ie double layer) which was also observed on our Sun. Perhaps not having access to paid scientific papers has limited my visibility, really not sure why data on other star's environments is so hard to gather.
Back to the topic of solar power output, I am not a physicist either, so hopefully someone can correct me on this. It seems that Bob is counting particles going in and out of the Sun. But the Sun is surrounded by an electric field extending out to the heliopause. Can energy be introduced via the electric field without an accompanying flowing in and out of particles? Some of the mainstream refer to cyclotron radiation (fancy word for spinning electrons/particles) being detected/observed in the corona. Don Scott mentions that they may be simply measuring the helical spinning around the Birkeland currents. This makes a lot of sense to me, and I wonder whether it would explain the extra radiation not accounted for with incoming/outgoing particles. I was just wondering if Bob may have oversimplified the power input/output calculations which appear to be the major obstacle supporting an externally powered Sun.
Hopefully some of the more experienced and knowledgeable members can add some insight.
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
justcurious wrote: My intuition tells me that we may learn from more familiar physical phenomena, to possibly explain how a toroidal plasma can be self-sustaining. There usually mechanical analogues to electrical phenomena, current flowing through a wire vs liquid flowing through a pipe, wave propagations, etc....
On a sidenote, at 3 minutes into the above video a black hole is formed, or dark matter, not sure which, since I don;t see anything there LOL.
As a layperson, I find it plausible that the sun could be a plasmoid not necessarily dependent on a specific/geometrically confined external electric circuit, but rather feeding off the ambient plasma (which is denser and more abundant in the galactic filamants).
It shows a similar plasma ring like those we find in nature. Possibly giving some support to the plasmoid sun. But I still don't see how such a model would account for magnetic pole reversals. Stars being points of resonance created by instabilities seems more intuitive. Nevertheless, I felt it was worth sharing.
Note: I figured out what the plasmoid created in the space station actually is (linked further up). They were doing safety tests and lit methanol and other things on fire. What we're seeing is a flame in zero gravity, it's interesting how it has an outer sheath which slowly becomes visible. It also burns very slowly, as opposed to on Earth where the flame goes up and oxygen can get in underneath to feed it.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
PersianPaladin wrote: Remember - regarding the z-pinch process of what you're seeing in Supernova 1987A and other bipolar nebulae. These are dynamic and ongoing processes happening at very large-scales. Basically, explosive events. I'd be cautious about using the word "steady". What you're seeing is essentially a focus of energy and exploding double-layers - reflecting experiments done by Perratt et al.
OK, now I'm totally confused. What kind of "ongoing processes" are "explosive events"?
And is this an "explosion"? Or is it an "ongoing process"?
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Question:
One of the main argument against an externally powered sun is that the observed currents would not add up sufficiently to power the Sun, who's power output is assumed to be reasonably well approximated. However, there is very good reason to believe that the Sun is bathed in an electric field (observed acceleration of ions and electrons, solar wind). Assuming this is so, can the electric field impart energy to the Sun? Is the E-Field missing from the equation?
For example, I could see how a combination of electric and magnetic fields could cause particles to spin about and crash back into the Sun (as we see in all the images), and not necessarily be accounted for in the solar wind, yet contribute to the heat and light (and x-rays, "cyclotron" waves etc) radiated from the surface of the Sun.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Charles, its an on-going z-pinch as described in the IEE 1987a paper - and thus we can see exploding double-layers among other morphologies familiar to those found by Perratt et al. Ongoing and explosive? You're saying we can't have both? Says who?
The lab example of the DPF is the closest parallel to this phenomena, as both people such as Wal Thornhill and Eric Lerner have concluded. I'll take laboratory comparisons over pure theoretical ones any day.
nick c
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
One of the main argument against an externally powered sun is that the observed currents would not add up sufficiently to power the Sun,
This is certainly a criticism, but is that criticism justified? Just because someone on an internet forum makes a blanket statement that there is not enough incoming power observed, does not mean that the power is not there. Especially when the instrumentation is not there to test the externally powered Sun hypothesis. Juergens' model requires incoming electrons. It does not require that these incoming electrons should be detectable with the presently available instrumentation, which are not designed to test the externally powered model. Taking a sample of the solar wind we seem to have an overall neutral plasma, ie composed of similar quantities of electrons and protons. The anode model requires that the net drift be of negative charge moving inward and positive outward. This net drift hypothesis has to my knowledge never been tested. Juergens model requires that the enormous surface area of the heliospheric boundary acts as a virtual cathode gathering galactic electrons in to the Sun. Cathodeless discharges are a well known plasma phenomenon. There is no requirement that these currents be visible to us. It is possible that an observer outside of the galaxy looking at the area containing the Sun, may be able to visually detect the current powering the Sun, as filaments are readily visible in numerous examples within galaxies, including our own. We are inside an electric discharge and are not even aware of it because it so large. (Ironically a cathodeless discharge, as pointed out by Thornhill, is known as a "corona discharge.") Juergens hypothesized that there are relativistic electrons coming in to the Sun. Critics have pointed out that they have not been detected, but Juergens had an answer for this (see the quote below). The above is my own layman's understanding; here is Wal Thornhill summary of the Juergens model: http://contrarybooks.com/thoth/thoiii06.txt With regard to incoming relativistic electrons:
So, what might we expect to find in space near the Earth if we occupy the negative glow region? James Cobine writes in his textbook "Gaseous Conductors" in section 8.5 Cathode Phenomena and Negative Glow: " an appreciable fraction if not nearly all of the electrons entering the negative glow from the Crookes dark space have a range [of energies] corresponding to the entire cathode drop." In other words, if we accept the estimate from Juergens, electrons will be accelerated toward the Sun with a range of energies up to almost the full potential difference between the Sun and the surrounding plasma, 10 billion volts. As Dr Earl Milton pointed out in his editorial of Juergens' KRONOS article, such relativistic electrons cause "effects not seen in more mundane discharges". It tends to cause the discharge current to become self-limiting allowing the observed range of stellar luminosities.
But back to the question: it is a simple matter to equate the observed energy output of the Sun with the energy of incoming relativistic electrons (they must be responsible for the solar energy in this model since ions are emitted with low energies from the Sun). It requires 3,000 relativistic electrons per cubic metre at the Earth's orbital distance, streaming toward the Sun. Measurements in the Earth's vicinity give a range of 9 to 11 million electrons per cubic metre (mostly thermal secondaries generated by ionization of solar gases). Juergens writes: "Thus it would appear that, if but one in every 3,000 electrons near the Earth turned out to be a current carrier moving at almost the speed of light toward the Sun, the power delivered would be enough to keep the Sun 'burning' at its present rate. This seems a rather subtle stream but it would suffice to power the Sun." Why haven't we seen these relativistic electrons? Juergens says: "Detection may be made difficult ... by the fact that such fast electrons quickly charge up the detecting instruments to the point where they repel electron currents. Probes of presently feasible proportions may be unable to carry apparatus sufficient to maintain suitable potentials on electron detecting devices ...".
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
That was interesting Nick C. Thanks for digging that up from the ol' archives.
I suppose more needs to be looked at in terms of how the mainstream INFER conclusions from the data that they gather; and thus the presentation of data is actually not really pure. The data is inferred within the context of the lens in which they observed their surroundings. They are certainly not going around with Langmuir Probes or plasma-frequency detection devices in-mind. Thus, a reasonable amount of skepticism of much of the "data" out there is healthy, IMO. I recently spoke to Monty Childs of the SAFIRE project, and his thoughts were in-line with mine:-
Monty Childs wrote: The evidence of an EU is compelling, the challenge to recreate as close as possible the current process is the objective. There are few means by which objective measurements can be taken like spectroscopy for both stellar and the SAFIRE experiment. Spectroscopy is the primary source for most of the information gathered today by NASA, ESA, SOHO, Stereo, etc. From these measurements temperature both electron and thermal are derived (the gravitational model) and in the case of thermal it is "inferred" based on a gravitational model – not actually been measured.
The Core SAFIRE team has been working over the months to segregate actual and inferred to narrow down a means by which SAFIRE will use specific techniques, instrumentation, and data acquisition to eliminate the potential for "inferred" interpolation.
Regarding electron-specie data and the pitfalls of inferred vs raw data, I can show you one example (from potentially many) which requires care and caution:-
The study done in this paper is hardly bereft of prior assumptions regarding the behaviour of magnetic fields in the vicinity of the Sun. Regardless it found counter-flowing (i.e. sunward) electrons in certain regions where the fast and slow solar wind become more proximate to each other and produce co-rotating vorticity. They resort to magnetic "compression" rather than plasma DL interactions via differing plasma properties. Nevertheless, they do find apparent evidence of sunward flowing electrons that are suprathermal (very high energy). This doesn't really tell us much about the solar electric circuit as a whole though. And I'd vouch that this study was most likely a measurement of electrons via local DL field interactions from two different plasma densities and temp characteristics. It's good that the work is done within the environ of the "quiet sun" though - as that does help to reduce noise, as it were.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
justcurious wrote: Is the E-Field missing from the equation?
Follow that line of reasoning! IMO, it leads to revelations that are quite necessary if we are to understand the Sun. We can easily see that the ballistics of CMEs are non-Newtonian. Some of the particles are accelerated away from the Sun, and some of them are accelerated forcefully back into the Sun, sometimes at relativistic velocities. In both cases, this can only be due to an electric field, where positive charges go one way, and negative charges go the other. Out at 1 AU, this field is still present, and there is a current of 109 amps. But at the Sun, the current has to be 1015 amps, to get the 1026 watts of power. So what kind of field could cause a more robust current at the Sun, and then allow it to relax with distance from the Sun? Note that I'm not talking about current density or field density, which we might expect to relax by the inverse square law. I'm talking about total Coulombs moved.
IMO, this prescribes a charge separation at the Sun, and a "catch-up" current. Analogously, imagine a train sitting at the station, but with cars that are attached to the engine with a huge bungee cord (instead of with the standard mechanical coupling). Now accelerate the engine away from the station. Due to their inertial forces, the cars want to just sit there, but now the bungee cord is pulling on them, so they slowly accelerate. Eventually, all of the forces equalize, and the cars are going as fast as the engine. Now, if we think of the bungee cord as an electric field, and differential speeds as electric currents, where the engine pulling away from the cars is a charge separation, and cars coming together with the engine is a charge recombination, we have a configuration in which there is a strong initial field, and a powerful current, but "strangely" the field and the current relax with distance. So that's the right configuration.
But note that in the heliosphere, the prime mover cannot be a field between the heliopause & the Sun. If it was, positive charges would go one way, and negative charges would go the other, and the total current would be the same throughout (while the current density would relax by the inverse square law). The only way to get that "catch-up" current, which relaxes with distance from the Sun, is to have the electromotive force (i.e., the charge separation in this case) at the Sun itself, and for charge recombination to slowly occur with distance from the Sun. So the prime mover is whatever separates charges at the Sun.
IMO, the prime mover can only be solar flares, which accelerate +ions away from the Sun in CMEs, causing a charge imbalance, and which motivates a drift of electrons away from the Sun. Ohmic heating from that electron drift is responsible for the bulk of the heat & light that we get from the Sun. How episodic CMEs result in a steady current is a question that can be answered, but it takes a good deal more detail.
PersianPaladin wrote: It's an on-going z-pinch as described in the IEEE 1987a paper...
OK, can you tell me how the E-field and/or resistance is dramatically altered at the pinch point, to get the dramatic difference in current density? Do you understand the question?
nick c wrote:
One of the main argument against an externally powered sun is that the observed currents would not add up sufficiently to power the Sun,
This is certainly a criticism, but is that criticism justified?
Where are the x-rays and gamma rays from the collisions of the necessary near-light-speed electrons in the Juergens model? We'd know all about these by now, if they existed. Especially since near-light-speed electrons would be pinched into an extremely well-defined channel.
PersianPaladin wrote: Thus, a reasonable amount of skepticism of much of the "data" out there is healthy, IMO.
I definitely agree with this, and it gives us some wiggle room. But before we're satisfied that we have better models, we have to ask what our models predict, and whether or not the evidence would be detectable by existing instrumentation, even if they're not looking for it. This is the analysis that the EU doesn't appear to be doing. They're saying that the instruments were not designed to test the EU hypothesis; therefore, anything can happen. But if you trace the EU hypothesis all of the way through, it makes predictions that would still be verifiable. If the magnetic pinch effect is real, and if near-light-speed electrons are streaming in from the heliopause, they would get pinched into discrete channels, and their footpoints on the surface of the Sun would be quite obvious, if not the brightest aspects of the surface. I think that nobody in the EU is directly acknowledging this question because awkwardly, it just doesn't have an answer. IMO, this is the experimentum crucis that eliminates the Juergens model. The Sun is provably electric, but it is provably not how Juergens had it. If SAFIRE properly establishes similitude between the experiment and the real thing, it will demonstrate that the properties expected by the Juergens model do not match the real thing.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Wal Thornill wrote: The term "z-pinch" comes from the usual representation of a current flowing along the z-axis, parallel to the magnetic field. With a strong enough current, the plasma formed by the discharge electromagnetically "pinches" into a string of sausages, donuts and plasma instabilities, along the z-axis.
When we have lab examples of this in the DPF (which btw, Lerner said does not require relativistic electron behaviour in galactic plasmoids) - with filamentary currents literally merging together to focus the EM energy - the electric and magnetic field obviously increases greatly. I can get into the technicalities of this if you want if you want to talk about varying resistances, but I'm not sure I really need to. This is plasma and the morphologies observed in the lab and in space give us a lot of clues.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
For now, I'll leave you with a little-known NPA lecture by Dr. Scott where he goes into bipolar nebulae, z-pinches, double plasma focus devices etc.....
PersianPaladin wrote: When we have lab examples of this in the DPF...
I don't see the similitude. DPF requires a contrived configuration, and the instantaneous discharge of enormous potentials. Typical numbers are 15 kV producing 180 kA across a gap of 10 mm. And then there's the slew rate, with the current rising from nothing to peak in just 3 μs. Without such an extreme current density and slew rate, DPF doesn't happen (otherwise, they probably wouldn't have bothered). Now, scale those numbers up to the size of a star, and tell me what you get. And if Lerner says that the current density and/or slew rate don't have to be scaled up to astronomical numbers, I need to know why he thinks this.
PersianPaladin wrote: For now, I'll leave you with a little-known NPA lecture by Dr. Scott where he goes into bipolar nebulae, z-pinches, double plasma focus devices etc...
That's interesting — he presents a mixed metaphor as an explanation of planetary nebulae. He calls them z-pinches in Birkeland currents, without explaining what could so dramatically alter the volts and/or resistance to get the dramatic increase in current density. And then he likened the PN forms to DPF, without explaining what could create DPF in space, and without explaining how two radically different configurations (i.e., linear Birkeland currents and opposing focus fusion discharges) occur in the same space at the same time. So he's got an animal with the head of a unicorn and the legs of a dragon — the animals aren't even real, and even if they were, an individual specimen wouldn't have the body parts of two of them. This isn't what I call science.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
I don't think you understand what you're talking about, Charles. Here's the work from somebody who has actually worked with DPF's in the lab:-
He takes into account lab plasma conditions and those of intergalactic and interstellar space.
Now, I'd rather take this work seriously (backed-up by lab experiments in the real-world) than something that Charles Chandler wrote down simply on paper.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
PersianPaladin wrote: Now, I'd rather take this work seriously (backed-up by lab experiments in the real-world) than something that Charles Chandler wrote down simply on paper.
Argumentum ad verecundiam. The laboratory work is real, but the similitude with quasars was not established, nor is it realistic in any respect, and the usage of the reference in this case was a simple attempt to transfer credibility from one issue to another, hence the charge. (I could have also called it an undistributed middle, or just plain sophistry.)
Covering for an inability to answer questions with fallacious reasoning is two mistakes. If you're deliberately trying to make the EU look like bad science, this is precisely how you would go about it. Then again, if you actually think that you are defending the honor of the EU, you should reconsider your approach. This simply isn't how science is done. Sure, the mainstream does it all the time. But that doesn't make it real science, and that's why progress in the mainstream has come to a stand-still.
I'd like to add that using mainstream tactics will win you nothing. If you were arguing the consensus view, and agreeing with the recognized authorities, you'd at least have fallacious reasoning. But trying to use the fallacy of authority, when the "authority" disagrees with the mainstream, is no reasoning at all.
So please — I have raised what I consider to be legitimate questions, and all that I have gotten in response is floods of circumstantial evidence that don't answer the questions, and various forms of fallacious reasoning. We can do better.
One of these days, you should actually consider the possibility that you're actually right. And when asked a pointed question, you should come to understand the question, and then search for the real answer. You might actually find one, and prove yourself right. But if you respond argumentatively, it suggests that you're wrong.
celeste
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: Is the E-Field missing from the equation?
Follow that line of reasoning! IMO, it leads to revelations that are quite necessary if we are to understand the Sun. We can easily see that the ballistics of CMEs are non-Newtonian. Some of the particles are accelerated away from the Sun, and some of them are accelerated forcefully back into the Sun, sometimes at relativistic velocities. In both cases, this can only be due to an electric field, where positive charges go one way, and negative charges go the other. Out at 1 AU, this field is still present, and there is a current of 109 amps. But at the Sun, the current has to be 1015 amps, to get the 1026 watts of power. So what kind of field could cause a more robust current at the Sun, and then allow it to relax with distance from the Sun? Note that I'm not talking about current density or field density, which we might expect to relax by the inverse square law. I'm talking about total Coulombs moved.
Analogously, imagine a train sitting at the station, but with cars that are attached to the engine with a huge bungee cord (instead of with the standard mechanical coupling). Now accelerate the engine away from the station. Due to their inertial forces, the cars want to just sit there, but now the bungee cord is pulling on them, so they slowly accelerate. Eventually, all of the forces equalize, and the cars are going as fast as the engine. Now, if we think of the bungee cord as an electric field, and differential speeds as electric currents, where the engine pulling away from the cars is a charge separation, and cars coming together with the engine is a charge recombination, we have a configuration in which there is a strong initial field, and a powerful current, but "strangely" the field and the current relax with distance. So that's the right configuration.
But note that in the heliosphere, the prime mover cannot be a field between the heliopause & the Sun. If it was, positive charges would go one way, and negative charges would go the other, and the total current would be the same throughout (while the current density would relax by the inverse square law). The only way to get that "catch-up" current, which relaxes with distance from the Sun, is to have the electromotive force (i.e., the charge separation in this case) at the Sun itself, and for charge recombination to slowly occur with distance from the Sun.
, which accelerate +ions away from the Sun in CMEs, causing a charge imbalance, and which motivates a drift of electrons away from the Sun. Ohmic heating from that electron drift is responsible for the bulk of the heat & light that we get from the Sun. How episodic CMEs result in a steady current is a question that can be answered, but it takes a good deal more detail.
PersianPaladin wrote: It's an on-going z-pinch as described in the IEEE 1987a paper...
OK, can you tell me how the E-field and/or resistance is dramatically altered at the pinch point, to get the dramatic difference in current density? Do you understand the question?
nick c wrote:
One of the main argument against an externally powered sun is that the observed currents would not add up sufficiently to power the Sun,
This is certainly a criticism, but is that criticism justified?
Where are the x-rays and gamma rays from the collisions of the necessary near-light-speed electrons in the Juergens model? We'd know all about these by now, if they existed. Especially since near-light-speed electrons would be pinched into an extremely well-defined channel.
PersianPaladin wrote: Thus, a reasonable amount of skepticism of much of the "data" out there is healthy, IMO.
I definitely agree with this, and it gives us some wiggle room. But before we're satisfied that we have better models, we have to ask what our models predict, and whether or not the evidence would be detectable by existing instrumentation, even if they're not looking for it. This is the analysis that the EU doesn't appear to be doing. They're saying that the instruments were not designed to test the EU hypothesis; therefore, anything can happen. But if you trace the EU hypothesis all of the way through, it makes predictions that would still be verifiable. If the magnetic pinch effect is real, and if near-light-speed electrons are streaming in from the heliopause, they would get pinched into discrete channels, and their footpoints on the surface of the Sun would be quite obvious, if not the brightest aspects of the surface. I think that nobody in the EU is directly acknowledging this question because awkwardly, it just doesn't have an answer. IMO, this is the experimentum crucis that eliminates the Juergens model. The Sun is provably electric, but it is provably not how Juergens had it. If SAFIRE properly establishes similitude between the experiment and the real thing, it will demonstrate that the properties expected by the Juergens model do not match the real thing.
Charles, There is both quite a bit right here(I hope others are getting?),and quite a bit wrong (I hope you may reconsider?) 1. "IMO, this prescribes a charge separation at the Sun, and a "catch-up" current." Correct 2. "So the prime mover is whatever separates charges at the Sun.", actually, pretty much true (at least in our solar system reference frame) . 3. IMO, the prime mover can only be solar flares". Wrong. Charles, Have you still not read, "On the Global Electrostatic Charge of Stars"? The logic there is simple: Even if the sun was electrically neutral overall, since we have a strong gravitational field at the surface of the sun,the more massive ions in that plasma should "sink" a bit more deeply in to the sun, compared to the electrons. Even the mainstream, with their nuclear powered stars, sees that we should have an electric field at the sun's surface. As you describe, the effect of that field is to eject ions outward, and the field itself exists only at the sun's surface(pardon the gross oversimplification here, but the electric field at the sun's surface is between the layer of ions, and the layer of electrons "floating above")
By the way, this link:http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/465/1/L69 is related. What I am getting at, is that while the field at the sun's surface may be spherically symmetric, the field between the sun and heliopause is clearly not.
