I haven't studied those data, but I'll at least mention the interpretation within my model. CMEs expel positive ions, creating a charge imbalance in the Sun, which motivates a catch-up current of electrons out of the Sun. So the solar wind in general, and the electrons in particular, should be a tad hotter during the solar maximum, because this is when the CMEs are active. But I don't see any reason why the electrons would be hotter only beyond 2 AU, if that's what they're saying.Lloyd wrote:Why would the electron temperature beyond 2AU be higher during solar max than during solar min?
The plasmoid part of it doesn't have any heliospheric (much less any galactic) currents. But the other piece does. Here's what he said in a previous post:Lloyd wrote:Does Bob's Plasmoid model require that electrons stream into the Sun during solar min and out during solar max?
So that's the Alfven circuit is as Alfven had it, not entering or exiting the Sun, and just involving the heliosphere.bobinski wrote:I went on to suggest that the Alfven circuit is concerned with rotation, not the Sun's power output; the Alfven circuit may be related to the solar cycle; bulk plasma with high electron velocities in the azimuthal direction (i.e. around the Sun in the equatorial plane) drifts inwards & outwards radially in different halves of the 22-year cycle. This current is seen as the heliospheric current sheet; whatever energy it contains is partly converted to/from coronal rotation and partly stored in the solar equatorial torus which grows to a maximum at solar minimum.
If the current sheet changes direction each cycle, then during one minimum the electrons would be flowing inward, and during the next minimum they would be flowing outward. Does that sound right? I don't think that I agree, but I think that this is what he's saying.Lloyd wrote:If so, did he show any evidence that electrons stream into the Sun during solar min? The electron temperature decrease beyond 2AU during solar min isn't evidence of electrons streaming in, is it?
1. My model has the HCS flowing in the same direction the whole time, but with the intensity varying from minimum to maximum.Lloyd wrote:Do you agree with Bob that:
1. the corona drives the HCS (heliospheric current sheet) during half of the solar cycle and they reverse during the other half?
2. high latitude electrons drive the fast solar wind impinging on the equatorial HCS?
3. that misalignment between a galactic Birkeland current and the heliosphere could produce the solar cycle?
2. Yes, the fast solar wind is high latitude electrons, and these follow the Sun's toroidal magnetic field lines, from the poles toward the equatorial plane. These are long lines, so where they meet is far from the Sun, like at the tips of the helmet streamers.
3. I "think" that the Alfven circuit, which Bob adopts, is supposed to be entirely within the heliosphere, and perhaps mainly just in the corona? Anyway, my model doesn't have a galactic current. The interstellar wind impinges on the heliopause, and positive ions get embedded deeper than electrons. This sets up a double-layer, making the interior of the heliosphere positively charged, with a negative cap. But these are steady-state double-layers (i.e., CFDLs).
The plasmoid model does require a huge magnetic field, since magnetic pressure is what sets up and maintains the CFDLs. I wasn't aware that the anode model had a magnetic field -- I thought that it was just electrostatics. But I think that you're right that the plasmoid model, the anode model, and the compressive ionization model for that matter, all have an electric current in and around the Sun. The difference is that the plasmoid model has a leaky magnetic confinement; the anode model has a net positive charge inside a DL acting as a voltage regulator; and the compressive ionization model has CFDLs that slowly recombine as a consequence of mass loss to CMEs and to the solar wind. So all of them have arc discharges producing the solar power.Lloyd wrote:I get the impression that Bob's model would require about the same huge magnetic field and visible electric current near the Sun that the anode Sun model would require.
I think that this only applies to any model with a galactic current, which necessarily would pass by the space-based instrumentation. In my model, and in Bob's plasmoid model, the charges have already recombined within the first 10 solar radii, and thus show no current by the time they get out to where the instruments are.Lloyd wrote:Wouldn't Bridgman's calculation still apply, which shows that an undetected current would be way to weak to produce the Sun's radiation?
I don't know about the equatorial torus. Is this just the helmet streamers, which are more prevalent near the equator during solar min?Lloyd wrote:Would the torus around the solar equator (I think during solar max) be an electron cloud and would that slow down the solar wind ejected at low latitudes?
Now I'm confused. I thought he was saying that the Alfven current doesn't enter or exit the Sun, and that there isn't any galactic current -- it's all inside the heliosphere. But on page 33 of the Google Doc, he says, "So it seems possible that the solar cycle is due to the galactic current bleeding into the solar system in one cycle and leaking back out again in the next cycle."Lloyd wrote:Do you think there's anything to Bob's theory about the solar cycle?
Anyway, I don't subscribe to a galactic, or even heliospheric, source for the solar cycle. Things like differential rotation and torsional oscillation vary regularly with the cycle, and the inertial forces are enormous. I don't see anything external to the Sun that could control the momentum of such large parcels with such specificity.
I don't have much of an explanation for the Maunder Minimum either. In my model, there are s-waves doing laps around the Sun, centered on the equator, and 120 Mm below the surface. These waves are constrained by both positive and negative feedback. In other words, there are forces that accentuate and attenuate them. Competition between these feedback loops creates the oscillations in the differential rotation, and thus the sunspots, and power output. It's not a slam-dunk answer -- it's just a possibility, but it does tie all of the factors together. Anyway, it has no answer for variations on any longer scale. I'm still wondering if something like the barycenter phases don't play a role. But I haven't made any progress there.Lloyd wrote:It seems that both explanations may have trouble with the Maunder Minimum, when there were no sunspots.
I'll let you know when I've done more work on that part.Lloyd wrote:As Brant indicated, I think your accretion theory is the hardest part of your model to understand or believe.
Two kinds of Stars
Your description of the difference in these two models is accurate. It all comes down to how much spin the stellar system has.
Easy -- just by typing on a keyboard. Then, if there is something that I say that doesn't sound right, you generously point out the error. If you assert something that doesn't ring true to me, I point out the error. At the end of the day, some or all of us have learned something. What part of that do you not understand?justcurious wrote:How can someone who doesn't know anything about electricity or how it works, possibly provide explanations and theories of an electric sun?