Siggy_G wrote:Neutrals are collisionally dragged with the currents that attempt to reach through. This could also contribute to the explanation of the solar wind (mostly?) being a bulk outward drift of both ions and electrons, despite the direction of the proposed E-field.
I agree. BTW, in the context of the Sun, this is (perhaps surprisingly) polarity-specific. First, consider that the electron drag was toward the Sun. Neutrals would be dragged into the Sun along with the electrons. But when you think about it, you realize that in a relatively short period of time, all of the available matter will have been packed into the Sun, leaving a perfect vacuum outside of it, and electrons zipping in at near-light-speed. As this is obviously not the case, let's look at it the other way. If the electrons are streaming out, as long as there is still a lot of matter in the Sun, neutrals will keep getting drug out of the Sun, to populate the interplanetary medium. So the model that best matches the observations has electrons streaming out due to an electric field, and neutrals getting drug along at a much lower speed. This is what Birkeland found in his terrella experiments -- he could only get electrons, neutrals, and +ions streaming outward if the terrella was negatively charged. Now that we have solar wind data, Birkeland's results are more relevant than they were to him at the time.
Siggy_G wrote:Now, if the Sun has a net positive charge (or numerous spots of it) and if electrons are collisionally forced to leave it, despite the E-field direction, that would just contribute to the electrostatic potential.
This is similar to the Pannekoek-Rosseland field, wherein atomic nuclei are gravitationally separated from electrons because of their greater mass. You're identifying the collision pressure, while the Pannekoek-Rosseland field explicitly cites gravity. But either way, you're both talking about a system that has both inward gravity and outward hydrostatic pressure, or neither of you get what you want.
I agree that this is a factor, but I don't think that it's a big factor. Also, if the temperature is consistent, this gravitational/hydrostatic charge separation achieves an equilibrium, and therefore, cannot be responsible for currents.
Siggy_G wrote:I think the interplanetary medium will stay largely ionized throughout most of the heliosphere due to the ionizing radiation (UV+) from the Sun as well as ambient cosmic rays, both factors interfering with particle recombination.
You're right, and UV radiation certainly assists currents in plasmas, as it creates unbound electrons that can respond to an external electric field. But remember that it's always a balance. When that electron gets liberated from that atom, which way does it go: 1) back to the atom, or 2) in the direction of the external field? It all depends on which field is stronger. The valence electrons in heavy elements are loosely bound (because of electrostatic repulsion from electrons in lower shells), so they are easily liberated, making heavy elements excellent conductors. Lighter elements (especially hydrogen), or highly ionized heavy elements, exert more powerful forces on electrons, and are poor conductors. So I'd expect to see rapid electron uptake in ionized hydrogen and highly ionized iron, and the effects of 1 μV/m to be non-existent. (NB: in an
earlier post, I quoted Thornhill who misquotes Scott's estimate of the field. It's microvolts per meter, or millivolts per kilometer, not microvolts per kilometer. But even at 3 orders of magnitude higher, I still think that it's a very weak external field. In the Earth's atmosphere, dark discharges require hundreds of volts/meter or more.) I actually think that the field is much stronger, but only within the first 0.5 AU or so. Photo-ionization will, of course, be a big factor. But to get Fe XV (i.e., iron missing 14 electrons), you need more than photo-ionization and collisional ionization -- you need a strong electric field.
CharlesChandler wrote:Furthermore, to maintain this position, Bob's questions (concerning the evidence that the electron drift is away from the Sun, not toward it) have to be answered.
Siggy_G wrote:I'd like to see more of this data, if it can be summed up / reposted...
Bob's presentation is already well-summarized, so I'd just start with that.
Siggy_G wrote:If there is a net circuit between the heliopause and the Sun, it is likely a plenum of thin and branching currents peaking towards the Sun. But one ought to detect incoming electrons within the bulk outward flow.
A few of us totally agree with this, but the rest don't seem to understand the point. With a bulk outflow, the counter-streaming electrons
should tunnel through the solar wind in isolated, obvious channels.
Siggy_G wrote:The measured MFs by Ulysseus are rather spiky/noisy around the Sun.
Right, but in a constant electric field, and with a constant supply of electrons, to generate solar radiation that varies less than 1% from maximum to minimum, we'd expect steady electric currents. So there should be sustained lightning channels, like Lichtenberg figures, rooted on the Sun's surface. Instead, we see helmet streamers, which is not an expectation of the anode model.
PersianPaladin wrote:Do you have laboratory example of this "like-likes-like" principle?
Feynman, R.; Leighton, R.; Sands, M., 1970: The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley
Nagornyak, E.; Pollack, G. H., 2005: Connecting filament mechanics in the relaxed sarcomere. Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility, 26 (6-8): 303-306
Pollack, G. H.; Figueroa, X.; Zhao, Q., 2009: Molecules, Water, and Radiant Energy: New Clues for the Origin of Life. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 10 (4): 1419
PersianPaladin wrote:If not, perhaps we could just go with the plasma focus and field-aligned current explanations for now? After all, the morphologies I showed you in my last post seem to make a compelling case for that being the underlying driver.
"Morphologies" seem to make a compelling case for you, and they did for me too, until I took a closer look. I made a detailed study of tornadoes, starting with the EU model, but found that the EU model was as problematic as the mainstream's. So I did the work to develop a better model. With time, such has pretty much become my opinion of the bulk of EU theory. It isn't better than the mainstream's. It's just different. But I'm not looking for different. I'm looking for better. So, will I go with the existing EU models "for now"? No, that was 5 years ago for me. Now I'm directly addressing issues in the mainstream
and in the EU models. The Universe is definitely electric. But I can prove that there are intractable problems with central tenets in the EU framework. Until those problems get fixed, there won't be any progress. There is a reason why the EU positions on these issues haven't changed. It's because there's nowhere to go. So we have to go back to the drawing board and see where we went wrong. We know that the Newton-Einstein framework is busted, and that EM is the only other possibility. So the EU premise is correct. But just because EM is the missing ingredient doesn't mean that
any EM configuration is going to work.
PersianPaladin wrote:I'm not ruling out Tokamak effects playing a role out there - but frankly I find the plasma focus and z-pinch explanation to be more elegant thus far.
Elegant? Maybe. Accurate? No. And I actually think that the "natural tokamak" idea is a good deal simpler. But I suppose that elegance is in the eyes of the beholder.
PersianPaladin wrote:You also admit there is a plasmoid at the center of galaxies:-
One possible solution is that the electric force helps keep the toroidal plasmoid consolidated. At relativistic speeds, positive and negative charges will get separated and then pinched into distinct charge streams
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6092
Ummm, what I actually
said was that "black holes" are toroidal plasmoids. But scientists haven't found a "black hole" at the center of every galaxy, nor is every "black hole" in the center of a galaxy. (They're now saying that quasars are driven by black holes, and Arp's work demonstrates that quasars aren't always at the center of the host galaxy.) So the mainstream correlation between "black holes" and galactic centers isn't correct IMO.
PersianPaladin wrote:You do realise that plasmoids in plasma focus beams are essentially toroids? More accurately - they are a vortex. Yes, they can also be spherical in some cases too depending on various conditions.
Which of those do I realize (i.e., toroid, vortex, or sphere)? I'm confused.
PersianPaladin wrote:A DPF essentially is a discharge between two electrodes of differing potential with the inner being at higher voltage and with the discharge filaments merging together and then "kinking" to produce considerable EM instabilities.
The question is, "How do you get that much potential built up in plasma, and then instantaenously discharge it?" In DPF, they have to discharge capacitor banks to instantaenously generate the potentials, because they're operating way over the breakdown voltage. When this is offered as the explanation for quasars, it sends us in search of excellent capacitance in plasma, which is an excellent conductor. Sure, plasma has
some resistance, but is it capable of storing charges and then instantaneously discharging potentials way in excess of the breakdown voltage? And then the current just stops, so that the impulse can resolve into a self-contained plasmoid that collapses? Ummm...
PersianPaladin wrote:With all these small voltage differences between certain regions of differing plasma characteristics - it means that despite low current-density in individual filaments, if there is enough convergence then you can potentially get energies that are sufficiently of high magnitude to produce stars - or - at a larger scale, produce galaxies.
If it did, it wouldn't be DPF.
PersianPaladin wrote:Image of currents merging?
You didn't complete the exercise I described, where I asked you to draw out the lines of force that you think would produce intersecting currents.