The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model

[Corpuscles]

To all,
No name calling please, it is against forum policy.
It is also forum policy that the 'Electric Universe' and 'Electric Universe - Planetary Science' boards should be reserved for discussion/debate of the published material of EU theorists.

I am going to go through the recent posts on this thread and delete those that do not belong on the Electric Universe forum, contain any forum violations, as well as responses to those posts. If anyone has any posts that they want to save, I would suggest that you copy them soon as they will be deleted in the next 24 hours.

Nick, as far as I can assertain, I am the only poster who could be charged with the claim of name calling!?

Corpuscles (the f-wit and ratbag) Hypothetical (self deprication) I sincerely apologise! Your 24 hours is very generous and appreciated.

Copies loaded and pls stay tuned. Mad ideas is just about to explode ( LOL! maybe even fission)

[Corpuscles]

On topic

The major outcome of Bob Johnson's brilliant presentation. ( Note I mean the actual presentation technique was brilliant)

Was

that the electric universe hypothesis suffers from inadequate controlled experimentation.

.03 cubic cm electron density. Where? What instruments were used? How do they work. How many readings? What was the variance?

The temperature at the Sun's photosphere. Show me the beyond boiling mercury thermometer or are you saying vague spectographic hints?

NASA... please explain .


If I am not mistaken Jim Johnson (highest praise and regards) who is I suspect is a bother of Bob lamented years ago of why such a extraordinary mind (his brother) could not jump on board the general EU position. If, any of that is roughly true then indeed well presented factual , data based (best available/known) stuff can only be WELCOME.


Anode ..Cathode who knows? Science taher than philosophy is dependant on the quality of experimentally observed data.

[CharlesChandler]

The temperature at the Sun's photosphere. Show me the beyond boiling mercury thermometer or are you saying vague spectographic hints?

This is based on the black-body curve, which can be extrapolated from the curves of lesser temperatures measured in the laboratory here on Earth. The interesting thing is that the mainstream doesn't have a physical model of black-body radiation, so they have no idea what causes it. I follow Robitaille on this one, who says that BB radiation is caused by atomic oscillators. In the case of the Sun, the oscillators are supercritical hydrogen atoms. (Non-supercritical fluids, such as plasmas or gases, do not produce BB radiation, but rather just emission/absorption lines, per Kirchhoff's 2nd law.) The requirement that the fluid be supercritical spells trouble for both the anode and the plasmoid model, which have not demonstrated the force necessary for supercritical fluids near enough to the surface for the photons not to be scattered by overlying plasmas.

BTW, temperatures in the corona are measured differently, as it does not emit BB radiation, but only spectral lines. So the temp is based on the degree of ionization. (Note that this does not take possible electric fields into account, which can also ionize atoms.)

[upriver]

COMSOL Validation Progress on Supercritical Hydrogen Heat Transfer

HFIR Cold Source COMSOL validation of the Taylor heat transfer coefficient at 2770 W

J. D. Freels
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA

The only known supercritical hydrogen heat transfer data, at similar conditions to the HFIR CS, was taken by NASA in the 1960s. This rocket-engine test data did not compare well with any computer simulation results.

It was hypothesized that the reason for this discrepancy was due to the large heat fluxes in the NASA rocket engines and unique hydrogen fluid properties. Therefore, a need existed to obtain new data at the representative heat fluxes and fluid conditions expected in the HFIR CS, and compare this data to models of the tested system.

Estimates for the convective heat transfer coefficient between the supercritical cryogenic hydrogen and the moderator vessel walls have been computed by several computer codes, including COMSOL.

A validated model of the heat transfer coefficient could then be utilized in other system models of the entire facility. This paper describes the validation process thus far for this problem and what is anticipated to be necessary to complete the validation.
http://www.comsol.com/papers/3330/

[starbiter]

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

[CharlesChandler]

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.

I "think" that I can speak for both Bob & myself in saying that the circuits are definitely there, but we're challenging how much power is in them. So we agree with Birkeland, Bruce, & Alfven that there are electric currents in space, on stellar & galactic scales. But we disagree with Juergens, Peratt, & Thornhill that all of the Sun's power is coming in through those circuits. So cite all of the evidence you want of intergalactic and interstellar currents. We'll agree. But say that the Sun's 1026 watts are completely attributable to such currents and we'll disagree. The main thrust of Bob's presentation came from his calculations of the actual amount of current in the heliosphere (and its direction). He did find evidence of currents, but not of the required magnitude, and not in the specified direction.

Dr Scott's paper suggests it might not be possible to sense the connection unless a the probe is quite close to the Sun.

Untrue. If the current density falls off by the inverse square law, it's certainly true that it will be much greater nearer the Sun than further away. But Bob took this into account, and still didn't find the (scaled) current density.

I'm actually maintaining that the inverse square law is irrelevant, which essentially invalidates Scott's thesis, Bob's criticism, and Scott's defense. I'm saying that the proposed current would not radiate (or converge) spherically. Rather, by the magnetic pinch effect, it would be consolidated into a finite number of filaments, like in a plasma lamp. With a breakdown voltage of only 1 V/m in the interplanetary medium, such a current will easily step up to arc mode, and the electrons will quickly achieve relativistic velocities. The magnetic fields will be powerful, and the currents will be well confined. Scott is safe from the accusation that the currents haven't been detected, because only if a satellite got inside one of these filaments would any current at all be detected. But then he has an even bigger problem. If 1026 watts were streaming in through a handful of pinched filaments, they would be visible, and their footpoints would be the brightest features on the surface of the Sun, like the footpoints on the inner sphere of a plasma lamp. I think Peratt said once that the Sun glows brightly, but the incoming circuits do not, just like the way a lightbulb glows, but the extension cord does not. But this just isn't correct. Maybe I'll send him a plasma lamp for Christmas this year, and ask him to explain why the discharge channels are visible, when by his reckoning only the inner sphere should light up, and consistently across its entire surface.

I really wish we could have all the cast of EU characters discuss this issue here on the forum.

I totally agree. I can understand why people like Wal & Don generally let these threads go their own way. But we've reached an impasse here, and we need some clarification.

[upriver]

This is what I think I see observationally...

That galaxies, AGN's, super nova etc., have large Birkeland currents coming from them... There also appear to be filaments not connected to anything or coming from some point in space not a solid body......

No filaments in the large sense coming from the poles...

My hypothesis is that astronomical bodies generate currents or charge(they are aether to electricity converters) that leaves the body in the form of a filament.... They are not connected by "power cables" except if two are close to each other or there has been enough time to form a filament over a long distance between the bodies.....

13 years ago when I first started studying EU I thought this was the case, that everything was connected, but now I think otherwise...

[Siggy_G]

I'm actually maintaining that the inverse square law is irrelevant, which essentially invalidates Scott's thesis, Bob's criticism, and Scott's defense. I'm saying that the proposed current would not radiate (or converge) spherically. Rather, by the magnetic pinch effect, it would be consolidated into a finite number of filaments, like in a plasma lamp. With a breakdown voltage of only 1 V/m in the interplanetary medium, such a current will easily step up to arc mode, and the electrons will quickly achieve relativistic velocities. The magnetic fields will be powerful, and the currents will be well confined. Scott is safe from the accusation that the currents haven't been detected, because only if a satellite got inside one of these filaments would any current at all be detected. But then he has an even bigger problem. If 1026 watts were streaming in through a handful of pinched filaments, they would be visible, and their footpoints would be the brightest features on the surface of the Sun, like the footpoints on the inner sphere of a plasma lamp. I think Peratt said once that the Sun glows brightly, but the incoming circuits do not, just like the way a lightbulb glows, but the extension cord does not. But this just isn't correct. Maybe I'll send him a plasma lamp for Christmas this year, and ask him to explain why the discharge channels are visible, when by his reckoning only the inner sphere should light up, and consistently across its entire surface.

Why are you assuming only a handfull of current carrying channels? If 10^26 watts were to be distributed through a few filaments, their visibility should be loud and clear. However, the particle density and pressure in a plasma lamp is way higher than what's surrounding the Sun. In fact, the density is manufactured to be of a certain level in order for the 'streamers' to be visible.

Looking at any high res image from SDO reveals as many thin perpendicular filaments as there are, wild guess; granules. The Sun's "even" light is not so even when looking at the detailed surface level, and in other bandwidths. In fact, it resembles highly numerous footprints. Which filament visibility could one expect from 10^26 watts distributed over a few million filaments, spread out spherically through the low density IPM? When the current channels in addition are disturbed by radiation and local short cirquits (coronal discharge loops) it seems plausible that they are kept sparse and non-contracted through most of the IPM. They would however follow an increasing voltage gradient towards the Sun.

PS: Peratt hasn't described an electric sun, but have described star formation through galactic current contraction and nebular structures that resembles a plasma focus of a finite numbered filaments.

[CharlesChandler]

Why are you assuming only a handful of current carrying channels? If 10^26 watts were to be distributed through a few filaments, their visibility should be loud and clear. However, the particle density and pressure in a plasma lamp is way higher than what's surrounding the Sun. In fact, the density is manufactured to be of a certain level in order for the 'streamers' to be visible.

In a plasma lamp, the density is much lower than the ambient air, and you're right -- this "makes the discharges visible", but perhaps not for the reasons that you think. Lowering the density enables an arc discharge at a much lower voltage, making the appliance practical. At standard atmospheric pressure, the discharge channels would be running at about 2500 degrees C, which would melt the outer shell. Also, the breakdown voltage of STP air is ~3000 kV/m, so they'd need 300 kV to get an arc through the 10 cm or so inside the plasma lamp. That kind of voltage on the shell would kill anybody who touched it, greatly reducing sales. So they reduce the density, enabling arcs at 2~5 kV. (They also use heavier elements, like krypton or even xenon, which have lower ionization energies, and thus lower breakdown voltages.) So lowering the density enables visible filaments in a practical appliance. A safe voltage (i.e., <6 kV) through 10 cm of STP air would produce a whole lot of nothing, and they wouldn't sell many of those either, but for different reasons.

So it isn't the fact that the plasma density is greater than the interplanetary medium that makes the discharges visible, or that it's less than the Earth's atmosphere. It's the fact that the breakdown voltage was exceeded. This enables an arc discharge, in which the electron speeds are relativistic (which are even easier to achieve in the longer mean free path of the interplanetary medium). The relativistic velocities generate powerful magnetic fields, which pinch the currents into discrete channels. And relativistic collisions, inside and at the border of such channels, produce photons.

It is true that the thinner the medium, the fewer the particle collisions. But it's also true that the fewer the collisions, the more violent they are, since the electrons get going faster between the collisions. So you still get photons, though more of them are in the UV, x-ray, or even gamma ray bands. These are still detectable.

[upriver]

I'm actually maintaining that the inverse square law is irrelevant, which essentially invalidates Scott's thesis, Bob's criticism, and Scott's defense. I'm saying that the proposed current would not radiate (or converge) spherically. Rather, by the magnetic pinch effect, it would be consolidated into a finite number of filaments, like in a plasma lamp. With a breakdown voltage of only 1 V/m in the interplanetary medium, such a current will easily step up to arc mode, and the electrons will quickly achieve relativistic velocities. The magnetic fields will be powerful, and the currents will be well confined. Scott is safe from the accusation that the currents haven't been detected, because only if a satellite got inside one of these filaments would any current at all be detected. But then he has an even bigger problem. If 1026 watts were streaming in through a handful of pinched filaments, they would be visible, and their footpoints would be the brightest features on the surface of the Sun, like the footpoints on the inner sphere of a plasma lamp. I think Peratt said once that the Sun glows brightly, but the incoming circuits do not, just like the way a lightbulb glows, but the extension cord does not. But this just isn't correct. Maybe I'll send him a plasma lamp for Christmas this year, and ask him to explain why the discharge channels are visible, when by his reckoning only the inner sphere should light up, and consistently across its entire surface.

Why are you assuming only a handfull of current carrying channels? If 10^26 watts were to be distributed through a few filaments, their visibility should be loud and clear. However, the particle density and pressure in a plasma lamp is way higher than what's surrounding the Sun. In fact, the density is manufactured to be of a certain level in order for the 'streamers' to be visible.

Looking at any high res image from SDO reveals as many thin perpendicular filaments as there are, wild guess; granules. The Sun's "even" light is not so even when looking at the detailed surface level, and in other bandwidths. In fact, it resembles highly numerous footprints. Which filament visibility could one expect from 10^26 watts distributed over a few million filaments, spread out spherically through the low density IPM? When the current channels in addition are disturbed by radiation and local short cirquits (coronal discharge loops) it seems plausible that they are kept sparse and non-contracted through most of the IPM. They would however follow an increasing voltage gradient towards the Sun.

PS: Peratt hasn't described an electric sun, but have described star formation through galactic current contraction and nebular structures that resembles a plasma focus of a finite numbered filaments.

The material in the filaments appears to be exiting the sun....

[justcurious]

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 various 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.

Hoz makes some very pertinent and well articulated points which I personally would like discussed a bit more.
However I cherry picked the above statement from earlier discussions, regarding the polar currents, quiet sun versus active sun. I agree with Hoz's opinion suggesting that we should focus more on the data of the quiet sun.

If we imagine/assume the solar cycle as being driven by a cyclic AC current which drives the solar magnetic field, then wouldn't it be normal to find that the electric current is weakest as it changes direction (or changes between increasing/decreasing current if there is a DC component)? We generally use the term "solar maximum", probably because we feel the effects most intensely on our planet with the solar flares and CMEs. But perhaps what we are calling a solar maximum is really a solar minimum. I suggest following Hoz's advice and focus on steady-state data rather than the transient chaotic data related to magnetic field reversals and sunspot activity.

One major point of contention in the plasmoid vs anode discussions has been the the power output of the Sun vs the currents needed to drive it.
It's my understanding that the Sun's power output is commonly derived based on its luminosity. So far, my understanding of plasma tells me that in a lab many factors can come into play to determine the luminosity or glow of the plasma, such as voltage, frequency (if AC), and gas pressure. So we can turn on/off the lights so-to-speak by only changing the pressure in the vacuum tube (for example). Perhaps the relationship between currents and luminosity should be looked at with greater care. Also, I'm not a physicist, but my gut feeling is that a combination of electric and magnetic fields can cause particles to accelerate in circular motions near the surface of the Sun and lots of collisions and radiation, possibly causing light and infrared to be emitted, without necessarily being matched by an equal flow of electrons or protons in the solar wind. Maybe (probably) I'm totaly lost, but since the power and energy balance is in question, I figured I'd question it some more LOL.

My 2 cents...

Sam

[CharlesChandler]

The material in the filaments appears to be exiting the sun....

Yes! The electron strahl, in the spicules and more generally in the fast wind through the coronal holes, is unmistakable. The slow wind, which contains electrons & +ions, leaves more room for interpretation. I think that you & I agree that it's a net electron drift outwards, and the slow-moving +ions are being carried along by electron drag, is that correct? As Michael points out, Birkeland found that only in the cathode (i.e., electron emitting) configuration are both charges expelled. Is electron drag the only possible explanation for that?

I agree with Hoz's opinion suggesting that we should focus more on the data of the quiet sun.

I agree.

If we imagine/assume the solar cycle as being driven by a cyclic AC current which drives the solar magnetic field...

Hang on a second! Here's the most common configuration in the quiet phase (from Gary's earlier post):

Based on Hinode data: Dipolar Sun.


What kind of current would produce that B-field? It looks to me like a dynamo.

Perhaps the relationship between currents and luminosity should be looked at with greater care.

Indeed. And accept no substitutes for rigorous reasoning. The first question that needs to be answered is, "What causes black-body radiation in plasma, which shouldn't be possible, per Kirchhoff's laws of spectroscopy?" The visible surface of the Sun arguably cannot possibly be the "photosphere" (i.e., the sphere from which the photons emanate), because it demonstrably is responsible for the absorption lines in the solar spectrum. The only thing that can emit a black-body spectrum is that which can absorb it. Likewise, the only thing that can emit spectral lines is that which can absorb them. Clearly the topmost plasma is absorbing specific frequencies, so it is thin plasma, incapable of black-body radiation. Therefore, the "photosphere" has to be deeper down. The only known black-body emitters are solids (e.g., graphite) and supercritical fluids. IMO, the Sun is too hot for solids, so I'm going with supercritical hydrogen.

Tsintsadze, L. N.; Callebaut, D. K.; Tsintsadze, N. L., 1996: Black-body radiation in plasmas. Journal of Plasma Physics, 55: 407-413

That frames the question as, "What causes the atomic oscillations in the supercritical hydrogen deeper in the Sun?" (I'm going with ohmic heating from an electric current.)

[justcurious]

Based on Hinode data: Dipolar Sun.


What kind of current would produce that B-field? It looks to me like a dynamo.

It should be a circular current around the axis of the poles perhaps near the equator (or a bit off-center since one of the poles is apparently stronger than the other). I don;t know how that would happen, but I can speculate that the vortical nature of Birkeland currents would have something to do with it. The more revealing picture is the mysterious quadrupole configuration also posted by Gary earlier. A dynamo (as in the earth's supposed rotating inner molten iron) should also be a form of a current, since currents generate magnetic fields. One might suggest that the rotation causes the current, the prevailing theory regarding the Earth's magnetic field. In the case of the Sun, since it switches polarity regularly, I would be more inclined to look at currents as the driving force, electricity can change swiftly, unburdened by the inertia of massive bodies. The heliospheric current sheet around the Sun also has a strong circular component which I imagine could have something to do with the shape of the magnetic field.
Also, there is still a belief in the astrophyics community (apparently) that there is such a thing as open magnetic field lines. So in my eyes, there are still unanswered questions as to the magnetic field in and around the Sun and it's sheath.

The first question that needs to be answered is, "What causes black-body radiation in plasma, which shouldn't be possible, per Kirchhoff's laws of spectroscopy?"

Why does the Sun have to emit black body radiation? Is it possible that the blackbody theory was traditionaly used as an approximation in astronomy because no other mechanism was imagined which could account for certain radiation types? Or perhaps it was just an exercise in mathematics and modelling? Perhaps ot was aproximated as a black body on the assumption that it just sits there radiating energy? I'm not an expert on black body radiation or spectral analysis, but it seems that the Sun is not a good candidate. If I'm not mistaken, thinking of the Sun as a black body would imply that whatever it radiates, it's because it absorbed it previously. My basic understanding of spectral analysis is from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy). There are many types of spectral analysis, for examle absorption, but also emission. Here's what wikipedia says: "Emission indicates that radiative energy is released by the material. A material's blackbody spectrum is a spontaneous emission spectrum determined by its temperature. Emission can also be induced by other sources of energy such as flames or sparks or electromagnetic radiation in the case of fluorescence.", and here's what Wikipedia says about black body radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation): "Conversely all matter absorbs electromagnetic radiation to some degree. An object that absorbs all radiation falling on it, at all wavelengths, is called a black body." Is the Sun an absorber of energy or an emiter? How can we know? Is it even possible to send EM waves at it and see which frequencies reflect back? Wikipedia also says the following: "In astronomy, objects such as stars are frequently regarded as black bodies, though this is often a poor approximation."

Tsintsadze, L. N.; Callebaut, D. K.; Tsintsadze, N. L., 1996: Black-body radiation in plasmas. Journal of Plasma Physics, 55: 407-413

Costs money, do you have a link to a free fulltext version?

[justcurious]

In Johnson's critique of the Jerguen's model he states the following:

In his 1972 paper, Juergens starts off: “The dipole component of the solar magnetic field can only
be attributed to the rotation of the charged sun as a whole, as Dr. Velikovsky pointed out more than
two decades ago.”

The problem is that the dipole field reverses every cycle but the rotation does not.

I believe the homopolar effect is favored in the leading EU thinking (rotation caused by electricity and not the other way around).
But even the homopolar motor analogy was criticised by some astrophysicists on the net.
The criticism was that the magnetic field reverses polarity regularly, but that the rotation does not change.
I propose a simple explanation, if both the direction of the current and the magnetic field reverse, the Sun would rotate in the same direction. This would imply that the magnetic field reversal is not caused by a mere reduction or increase in the current (ie large DC compnent), but that the AC current would change directions altogether.

[PersianPaladin]

Michael....

Dr. Scott states that the photosphere is in "arc mode":-

http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

Oooops, you're absolutely right about that. My apologies. When he used the term anode 'glow', I read translated that in my head to glow mode discharge. Sorry about that.

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.

True. Then again, an ordinary neon bulb does that too provided that the voltage and current remains relatively constant.

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

It's not altogether clear to me that the large fields which they measure are actually related to the photosphere, or these large fields are related to the powerful coronal loops (Benett Pinch Currents) that come through that surface.

The edges of sunspots and the twisting filaments forming within the granules certainly seem to weigh against a "hydrodynamic" behaviour:-
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/Ima ... 41826.html

Solar flares are just higher-intensity discharges and are thus brighter.

The discharge of the solar flare blows hot material up and through the photosphere, and indeed it "lights up" that surface where the particle and current density of the hot plasma is greatest.

FYI, Charles is not really claiming that magnetic lines are actually "open". We're simply well aware of the fact that these are "current carrying threads" that go from the surface to the heliosphere (or visa versa depending on your orientation).

One other point to keep in mind is that they recently 'discovered' that cosmic rays include an overabundance of positrons with respect to electrons, particularly at higher energy states:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... ron-excess

Now of course we can link electrical discharges to the release of positron, whereas nobody can link them to exotic matter. What is 'interesting' about this study IMO is that it jives with Birkeland's "prediction" that cathode suns are interacting with an anode universe.

I personally think that the only way to fully determine configurations is to "try them out" in the lab. Birkeland spent a lot of time in his lab with all sorts of sphere configurations, and all sorts of internal magnetic field orientations. He was quite convinced that the sun is the cathode, and the heliosphere (space) is the anode. Recent observations of positron abundances in cosmic rays is consistent with that prediction.

Rest assured, Mr Mozina - that the mainstream has barely seen 1% or more of the magnetic field of the Sun (excluding the activity during maxima). This has been admitted, and I posted papers here as an example.

And yes, the paper I referred to was the photosphere - regarding internetwork\intragranular magnetic fields and "flux ropes" among other things.

I myself have conceded here in this thread that the Scott model appears to have problems (at first glance) in accounting for the arc discharge at the surface of the Sun. This is because of the lack of sufficient electron current-density that has thus far been detected above the Sun (minus the erroneous analysis by Bob Johnson in his reference to "fast solar wind" electrons as representations of current inflow).

However, I am not going to throw the baby out with the bath-water and start appealing to other models or concepts (*cough* "electric re-connection" *cough*) just because we don't have proper and full resolution detection of the magnetic fields and currents on the Sun. In fact, I am convinced that the Sun is discharging with respect to the lower potential environment that it is very rapidly moving through. I referred to work by Marklund et al with respect to bi-directional flows of electrons and ions in auroral curtain currents (that power the electro-jets, etc) that are analagous to spicules (and their double-thread field-aligned morphology) on the Sun. The latter being of higher current-density than the former. Charles dismissed this out-of-hand, failing to realise that the model works for the Earth's electric circuit - but via occasional solar storms and a much lower current-density and lower surface conductivity. I pointed to the example of the electric comet as being the cathode discharging to its environment and referred to the Sun as simply a much larger example. I pointed towards evidence of stars being born in "hub" regions where filaments (with magnetic fields parallel to them) appear to intersect. The evidence is closing in. I am of the view that the Sun simply collects charge as it passes through the low-density plasma in the galaxy - with these gathering within the DL in the lower coronal, chromospheric and photospheric zones. There isn't really need for a detectable long-distance "inflow" of current. Just as the same as you're not likely to detect a long-range current flowing from the Sun when you see comets discharge. The discharge happens within a small sheath and "particle accelerator" zone not far from the nucleus. Long-range coloumb forces can account for this, given the nature of plasma. Remember, we have to understand the properties of plasma first.

I don't agree with your view about "positrons" being particularly significant with respect to acting as an "Anode" with respect to the Sun. Like I said, the Sun with respect to its galactic environment is an anomalously large conglomeration of positive ions in itself - and the environment it is passing through is of much lower current-density, lower ion density and with the main mobile charge being that of electrons in the ISM. In plasma physics, the Sun would act as the "anode" electron-attractor.

More importantly, when Charles brought up issues about Marklund Convection - I conceded that it probably doesn't act alone with respect to matter. But I still hold it important as part of the initiating magnetic "pinch" process and sorting of matter - and gravitational and electrostatic forces may also come into play.

So this discussion hasn't simply been a waste of time in respect of people rigidly sticking to their posts completely. I have listened.