Electric Sun: A Quantitative Calculation

[kiwi]

Nereid said:The physics theory which describes this underlying reality is Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) (caution - Wikipedia), the most accurate, precisely tested theory in physics, to date.

In short, the only physical processes for 'transfer of energy' other than the 'kinetic energy of electrons' (quote marks indicate I'm using shorthand), in currents (where electrons are the charge carriers) are those involving other aspects of QED (e.g. interactions with the medium). In the case of currents in wires, there are, of course, well-known and well-understood processes. In the case of the Electric Sun hypothesis, there is none (at least none have been stated, that I am aware of).

so if QED is the missing "factor/process" ... do you see EU theory viable with this addition?, .. or do you see the observations proof that QED shows that all the suns activity can be explained under the status quo? that its just a progression of GR? ( I have read that the EU proponents have NOT denied thermo-nuclear processes as part of the sun's mechanism)

and you note QED observations are in this case "interactions with the medium" ..... does that mean you think the behaviour of plasma in general should be classed as falling under QED conditions? and that the whole subject should not be considered seperate from GR? ... its just an aspect of it thats not understood fully yet?

and Nereid, slightly off-topic here, but ... for the upcoming debate will it be required that you lose your anonimity and reveal your position in the science community (and credentials) as is the case with the other participants?

cheers

[kiwi]

and @Lloyd ... is it possible to have the debate accompanied with explanatory graphics? .... It would help greatly for people like myself to get a better picture of whats being said .... making the whole thing accessible to a broarder range of interested types ... could only be good for the topic as a whole im(h)o

[Lloyd]

* Kiwi, the graphics idea sounds good to me. Maybe they already intend to do that, but I'll pass on the idea any way. Charles Chandler has agreed to a practice debate at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 387#p47352, so I can suggest it to him too.

[kiwi]

cheers Lloyd

has this been posted yet today? ... if not can it be moved to where it belongs .. thanks

http://www.spaceweather.com/

The eruption produced a loud blast of radio waves heard in shortwave receivers around the dayside of our planet. In New Mexico, amateur radio astronomer Thomas Ashcraft recorded these sounds at 19 to 21 MHz. "This was some of the strongest radio bursting of the new solar cycle," he says. "What a great solar day."

Preliminary coronagraph data from STEREO-A and SOHO agree that the explosion produced a fast but not particularly bright coronal mass ejection (CME). The cloud will likely hit Earth's magnetic field on or about Feb. 15th. High-latitude sky watchers should be alert for auroras.

The source of this activity, sunspot 1158 is growing rapidly. Click on the image to launch a 2-day movie:

[kiwi]

http://www.spaceweather.com/images2011/ ... _blank.jpg

[Nereid]

In the equation E = QV E is energy, Q is charge and V is voltage. The last quantity was not mentioned in your analysis.

Thanks.

The relationship I'm using is very similar; my calculations involve energy per second (which is power), and so, since V doesn't change (in the Electric Sun hypothesis) E (per second) = IV, where I is the current (i.e. charge per second)*.

Here's how to get V into the calculation.

E (per second, remember) remains the same; 3.85 x 10^26 J/sec.

I, per my calculation, is 3.84 x 10^20 A (amps) - recall that I made a mistake in my first post.

So V must be 1.00 million volts.

Now that surely isn't a surprise, is it? I mean, I assumed that the electrons deliver 1 MeV, per electron (on average), to the Sun's photosphere, and what is an MeV?

But Scott's webpage, which I quoted from in my first post in this thread, says "The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of 10 billion volts" (he expands considerably on this, in a private email to Dave Smith, made public by Dave here).

We need to be very careful in using your equation, however, as several others have already pointed out.

In my calculation, I am considering only the electrons which arrive at the photosphere, and only physical processes (unspecified so far) which convert the electrons' kinetic energy into EMR. In this case, the electrons cannot have kinetic energies much greater than ~1 MeV (or else the Sun would be an intense source of 511 keV gamma-rays); and they certainly cannot have energies as high as ~10 GeV (from such energetic electrons, there'd be copious annihilation radiation from muon leptons, as well as electrons, and many mesons - e.g. pions - and baryons - e.g. protons).

Oh, and in glow discharges - which Thornhill uses in this paper, to explain the basics of the electrical theory of stars (the Electric Sun hypothesis is a specific instance of this) - electron speeds (and voltages) vary considerably through the column.

Tayga is correct, Nereid. That's why I've urged you to look up electrical circuitry. There's no problem in tutoring newcomers to the EU on the conversation of energy. But for folks who've been around the block a few times it can become a bit grating when you imply that EU proponents don't understand the principle.

You and Scott (and Thornhill) seem to disagree on one, rather fundamental, thing David; namely, that electrons leave the Sun (acting as anode) once they arrive.

In a glow discharge, which is, at least in part, the model Thornhill uses in his paper (and Scott, on that webpage I quoted from), the electrons leave the anode via a wire; in the Electric Sun hypothesis, there is no 'wire'; in Scott's words "The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of 10 billion volts".

Can you clear this up please?

And it's not even rational to suggest that, in an electrical understanding of the Sun, electrons simply arrive at the surface of the Sun and the story is over. A light bulb is not a collector of electrons, but you can calculate the electrical power that will "turn it on."

Yes, that's true.

However, one of the great things about 'black box' calculations is that you don't have to make any assumptions about the physical processes inside the box!

Assume conservation of energy and electric charge, and you have a very effective - and quick - test of the Electric Sun hypothesis. Indeed, my calculation is similar to Scott's; the key difference is consideration of limits on the energy of the electrons when they arrive at the photosphere.

Whatever the circuitry of an electric Sun looks like when the investigation of an electrical interpretation is fully developed, it will be circuitry. In other words your conclusions cannot be valid.

I don't follow this; can you clarify please?

As I have mentioned, several times, in neither Thornhill's nor Scott's verions of the Electric Sun hypothesis (electric star theory, in the former case), there is no circuit; electrons do not leave the Sun.

In any case, where are the errors in my calculations?

Of course this fact does not eliminate the two overriding questions.

1) How strong is the evidence that the Sun is being strongly affected, or even powered, by electrical input?

2) What factors are most suggestive of the way a circuit diagram might look?

One of the reasons why I've suggested a debate is that it could clarify the solid ground of the electric Sun hypothesis, while making more clear the issues calling for priority attention. Presently, I simply do not ask any of the Thunderbolts Project principals (apart from the moderators) to become active in the Forum. But I will be selectively drawing on their time if the debate can be agreed upon. That could bring a lot more understanding to the subject.

Both Scott's and Thornhill's published material, on the Electric Sun hypothesis (or model, or electric star theory), make it pretty clear that the Sun (and stars in general) are powered largely (if not almost entirely) by a current comprised of incoming electrons (and outgoing protons, or ions), with the Sun acting as anode.

If either principal has - since the publication of the materials I have cited - tweaked the Electric Sun hypothesis, would you please point to where they published such a new hypothesis (model, theory)? I searched, but could not find any such publication/material.

Nereid, I think it will be obvious to many folks by now that both the language of the electric wire and the glow discharge must apply to the electric sun. If the Sun involves electrical phenomena overlooked by mainstream models, both the electric "wiring" across interplanetary space (Birkeland Currents) and the glow discharge (the visible electrical event), along with numerous secondary electrical and magnetic effects, will have to be included in the description of electrical circuitry.

Are you familiar with Alfven's diagram of the larger electrical circuitry of the Sun? It does not look like the incomplete description of the Sun you deduced from Don Scott's brief summary statement of energy input.

Yes.

However, nowhere - that I have found yet - does Scott (or Thornhill) state (or even imply) that the Sun (and stars in general) are not powered by currents, with the Sun (and stars in general) acting as anodes.

I do not know of any published material by either (though I have not looked particularly hard) which explicitly ties the published Electric Sun hypothesis (model)/electric star theory to Alfvén's digram.

No electrical engineer that I know of would say that the two incomplete slices of the electric sun hypothesis are incompatible. (For starters, see the diagrams on pages 33, 41, 42, 48, and 51 of our ebook on the Electric Sun hypothesis. If you've not seen these diagrams, I'll ask one of the moderators to post them.)

I think that would be a great help to all readers of this thread.

Primary currents (galactic) and secondary currents (heliospheric) have to be resolved in terms of the "bleeding" from the one to the other, a perfectly reasonable challenge. The challenge requires: 1) accurate raw data bearing directly on the figures to be used, and 2) a model reliably interpreting the data. This is, in fact, the necessary way forward. It's also (to repeat myself) a primary reason I'm eager to proceed with the proposed debate and to see just how far we might take these things, within a framework that will justify the invested time. This debate could be the best vehicle for developing essential communication across a huge chasm. If we do it right, everyone on all sides will agree it's been useful.

From this post of yours, I think a key precondition is to get all relevant materials - on the Electric Sun hypothesis (etc) - published in a form that all can freely access.

And finally, yes I've looked at the posts from Siggy_G and webolife. I can see that a couple of things do need to be made clear--including why a wire is an appropriate analogy for a Birkeland Current, both in terms of the primary current(s) along the galactic arm and the heliospheric current(s) intercepted by the Sun, as well as the basis for considering the solar wind to be the "smoke" from the electric "fire."

Well, one more thing. I haven't run this by anyone in our circle. I'm not the expert on this subject. Therefore, I reserve the right to correct myself—without embarrassment— if correction is needed.

Sure. And please bear in mind that I am even less of an expert on this subject.

Did any space satellite ever measure all the physical properties of the suns plasma?
If not, isn't it a bit to early to start with calculations? Isnt your calculation going to end up with assumptions and very rough estimates

Yes.

However, if a back of the envelope calculation, involving 'can't be greater thans' and 'can't be less thans', shows that the Electric Sun hypothesis - as published - is wildly inconsistent with what we see (no huge flood of 511 keV gamma rays, for example), then those assumptions and very rough estimates will point to some - potentially - rather difficult-to-fix aspects of the hypothesis, won't they?

So my question is, isn't it to soon to talk about a 'quantitative calculation' if the complete set of quantitative data is missing?

No, it's not too soon.

The Sun's energy output, in the form of electromagnetic radiation, is well-established.

The 'pair-production' consequence of colliding MeV electrons with a low ionisation plasma like the Sun's photosphere is well-established.

And so on.

As response to the following statement of Nereid;

Scott uses different values (click on the link earlier in my post), and Lloyd has mentioned another limitation to these assumptions.

These are certainly worth exploring further (stay tuned!).

* I'm not certain, but I think QED has the same problem as QM, treating particles as points rather than 3D objects. So I believe Santilli's Hadronic Mechanics is far more accurate and better tested than QED.

For the purposes of my calcuations, this is - as far as I can see - irrelevant.

However, for understanding how energy is transferred, by an electrical current, in a metallic wire (or a semiconductor, or a superconductor), you do need quantum mechanics (tayga, and others, introduced this consideration).

so if QED is the missing "factor/process" ... do you see EU theory viable with this addition? [...]

No.

* simplified considerably of course; current is a vector, not a scalar, for example

[David Talbott]

Nereid, if you can just accept that Alfvén, Thornhill, Scott, plus all of the electrical theorists in our circle, consider the Sun to be part of a circuit, I think we can move ahead much more smoothly.

[kiwi]

However, for understanding how energy is transferred, by an electrical current, in a metallic wire (or a semiconductor, or a superconductor), you do need quantum mechanics (tayga, and others, introduced this consideration).

why is QED needed to explain that?

[kiwi]

However, one of the great things about 'black box' calculations is that you don't have to make any assumptions about the physical processes inside the box!

well thats handy ..... what happened when there were found in-sufficient neutrino rates to account for a nuc-powered sun?

[sol88]

Question;

If a garden variety plasma globe can cause a Fluorescent lamp to emit light with no physical contact, how is the energy transfered?

What device could we put between the plasma globe and the fluoro tube to measure the "energy" transfered to the lamp to "excite" it enough to emmit light?

just thinking

Seems mainstream are looking for lots of incoming electrons to "light" the Sol and they can't find them, why not?

[Nereid]

Nereid, if you can just accept that Alfvén, Thornhill, Scott, plus all of the electrical theorists in our circle, consider the Sun to be part of a circuit, I think we can move ahead much more smoothly.

David, I just re-read every one of my posts in this thread.

Carefully.

I did not find any in which I did not "accept that Alfvén, Thornhill, Scott, plus all of the electrical theorists in our circle, consider the Sun to be part of a circuit".

However, it is clear that, for whatever reason, you formed the impression (or opinion) that I did just that (not accept ...).

So, to clear this up, once and for all, please read this, carefully.

I, Nereid, neither accept nor not accept (refuse? decline? deny??) that Alfvén, Thornhill, Scott, plus all of the electrical theorists in the circle, consider the Sun to be part of a circuit.

All I have done, in this thread, is take what seems to me to be a clear exposition of what the author (Scott) calls "The Electric Sun Hypothesis" (he also calls it "the Electric Sun model"), and apply some very simple calculations to test it1. If you, or any other forum member reading this, know of any material by Scott (or Thornhill, or Ransom, or ...) which expands on the Electric Sun hypothesis (per Scott's webpage) and explicitly incorporates the concept of the Sun being part of a circuit into that model, please provide at least a reference to such material.

I took the trouble to find instances of the word "circuit" on the webpage I quoted from in my first post in this thread.

There are four, as follows:

This interrupts the current (like opening a switch in an inductive circuit) and the energy stored in the primary magnetic field is explosively released into space. [the context is "Prominences, Flares, and CME's"]

Hannes Alfven's Solar Prominence Circuit [the title of a figure]

Transistor 'cutoff' is a process that is used in all digital circuits. [the context is "Fluctuations in the Solar "Wind""]

This plot is easily measured for a laboratory plasma contained in a column - a cylindrical glass tube with the anode at one end and the cathode at the other. These two terminals are connected into an electrical circuit whereby the current through the tube can be controlled. [the context is "The volt-ampere characteristic of a typical plasma discharge has the general shape shown below"]

Perhaps you could explain, David, how any of those uses of 'circuit' points to the Sun being part of a circuit?

Perhaps there is other language in that presentation of the Electric Sun hypothesis which points to the Sun being part of a circuit?

David, I cannot read the minds of Thornhill or Scott, nor any other electrical theorists in the circle (and certainly not Alfvén's!); the only thing I can do (and, I submit, anyone not in the circle) is read what they have published.

why is QED needed to explain that?

It is explained in any good university level physics textbook on condensed matter physics. Physics Forums is a very good internet discussion forum where you will likely get explanations that are suited to your level of knowledge (and comfort) on anything in physics. I recommend these to you.

well thats handy ..... what happened when there were found in-sufficient neutrino rates to account for a nuc-powered sun?

May I ask what this has to do with the calculations I did, and presented, on the Electric Sun hypothesis?

If a garden variety plasma globe can cause a Fluorescent lamp to emit light with no physical contact, how is the energy transfered?

I don't know ... because I don't know what 'a garden variety plasma globe' is (and in any case, wouldn't you need to have that device turned on?). Can you clarify please?

Also, what does this question have to do with the Electric Sun hypothesis?

Seems mainstream are looking for lots of incoming electrons to "light" the Sol and they can't find them, why not?

I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion (could you elaborate please?), but Scott's webpage - where he presents the Electric Sun hypothesis - proposes that the Sun is powered by incoming electrons (and outgoing protons/ions, but I'm ignoring those), as does Thornhill, in his 2007 IEEE paper.

1 Thornhill, in his 2007 paper, presents a very similar idea to Scott's Electric Sun hypothesis.

[Lloyd]

* I said before: I'm not certain, but I think QED has the same problem as QM, treating particles as points rather than 3D objects. So I believe Santilli's Hadronic Mechanics is far more accurate and better tested than QED.

Nereid replied: For the purposes of my calcuations, this is - as far as I can see - irrelevant. However, for understanding how energy is transferred, by an electrical current, in a metallic wire (or a semiconductor, or a superconductor), you do need quantum mechanics (tayga, and others, introduced this consideration).

* QM & QED, according to Hadronic Mechanics, are inaccurate. So you need to use HM calculations to get accurate results.

[kiwi]

kiwi wrote:
why is QED needed to explain that?

Nereid said: It is explained in any good university level physics textbook on condensed matter physics. Physics Forums is a very good internet discussion forum where you will likely get explanations that are suited to your level of knowledge (and comfort) on anything in physics. I recommend these to you.

Condensed matter Physics?.... Is that another name for QED? which differs from QM? ..... Perhaps starting with “standard“ space termimology your pals that write the books on cosmology could refrain from attributing atmospheric earth-bound descriptions (the solar-“wind”comes first to mind),....to the function of describing the properties of “material” behaviour in a vacuum,(which is a totally unique environment and all operations observed therein should be given their own specific labelling that reflects that fact) ...let alone successfully define the Quantum enigma in a clearcut way, so half-wits like me might not end up so confused ?? ... your reference to my very limited ability to discuss this topic at all, let alone swap bizarre math formula with the likes of you has been noted, thanks , but not really necessary , its pretty obvious to everyone here, and in spite of that fact, those around here that are your equal in the “Big-Brain” (BB) steeplechase, also happen to be extremely patient and helpful in dealing with people like me, an investment of their precious time they will never get a “return” on, and without that help I be destined to spend my time here sitting on the side-line with a note from matron ( please excuse this boy from todays lesson as he is to stupid to participate)... frustrated for not being able to formulate my base-level query’s in acceptable coherrant fashion ...... standby Nereid and I will post what I consider to be relevant to why I ask the questions I do, .... and you can quote whatever you like, in whatever high-brow condescending fashion you choose, but the FACT remains the jury is still out , ... you seem to use your knowledge in the same way a drunk uses a lamp-post,... for support rather than illumination

[Lloyd]

* Kiwi, don't you think the drunk and lamppost analogy is condescending?

[David Talbott]

Nereid, if you can just accept that Alfvén, Thornhill, Scott, plus all of the electrical theorists in our circle, consider the Sun to be part of a circuit, I think we can move ahead much more smoothly.

David, I just re-read every one of my posts in this thread.

Carefully.

I did not find any in which I did not "accept that Alfvén, Thornhill, Scott, plus all of the electrical theorists in our circle, consider the Sun to be part of a circuit".

However, it is clear that, for whatever reason, you formed the impression (or opinion) that I did just that (not accept ...).

The analysis you gave, with the Sun collecting electrons until it exploded, sure seemed to me to be missing a circuit! But the fourth reference from Don's work that you've now given explicitly refers to a circuit. And here, the glass tube (neon light, for example) is not a collector of electrons fated to explode.

But sincerely, Nereid, I'd really like to proceed with formulating a debate for everyone's benefit. If it would help, I'll send you the whole ebook on the electric sun, which outlines numerous reasons for considering the Sun to be part of galactic and heliospheric circuit. It's not a technical work, just a simple exposition with diagrams. It does not purport to offer a complete diagram of circuitry, just a good start. Wal himself was very much involved in the diagramming. And of course it was Wal who originally inspired Don Scott, a professor of electrical engineering, to begin investigating the electric hypothesis.