The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model

[CharlesChandler]

The electric field at the sun's surface is between the layer of ions, and the layer of electrons "floating above")

You're talking about the Pannekoek-Rosseland field, which (theoretically) results from the gravitational settling of +ions compared to electrons. I consider this to be far too weak of a field to be significant, so I'm looking at other factors (such as compressive ionization).

As concerns the polarity, there are a variety of proofs that the topmost layer of the Sun is positively charged, regardless of what Pannekoek and Rosseland predicted. The simplest is the Sun's distinct edge (at what most people call the photosphere). By the ideal gas laws, the density of the Sun should taper off gradually. Throw in the the Pannekoek-Rosseland field and it should still taper off gradually. Yet the density quite obviously stops suddenly. The granules are tightly packed enough to display hydrodynamic behaviors, while the chromosphere behaves as a very thin plasma. This is clearly a non-Newtonian density gradient, and the only EM configuration that I found capable of a distinct edge was with a positive layer clinging tightly to an underlying negative layer.

[celeste]

The global stellar electrostatic field is 918 times stronger than the corresponding stellar gravity and compensates for a half of the gravity, when it acts on an electron or proton, respectively.
From the abstract. Still to weak?

[justcurious]

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,

I believe this may be a somewhat incorrect statement or misleading statement. Plasma is made up of neutrals, and a small percentage of both ions and electrons. As far as I understand, only a small percentage of the plasma need be ionized for the plasma to collectively react to electric fields. Someone with more knowledge can correct me, but I think what happens is that the charged particles moved by an E-field "drag" the rest along with them, and that the proportion of negative/positive charge and other factors will determine how the plasma behaves and moves. You can have blobs of plasma flying out from the sun, but a small difference in speed between electrons and ions (drift) should be enough to call it a current. It's a lot to learn. Once you finish with the MIT lectures on electromagnetism, you should get Peratt's book or other good books on the physics of plasma. From what I can see it's a pretty large field.

[CharlesChandler]

Still to weak?

I think so. I'm still trying to figure out how strong the electric field actually is. But 918 times, which is only 3 orders of magnitude, just doesn't seem like a lot to me, when the electric force is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.

[upriver]

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.

I think there is the same problem with pulsars if you say that it is a LC type circuit or between some orbiting body and the pulsar... If you have a 1.4 millisecond pulsar standard electricity travels @ 1 nano second per foot @ c. It can only go slower... So that means that the area that emits the pulse must be around 1400 feet long... The spark gap if you will... Thats mighty small in astronomical terms....

[CharlesChandler]

Excellent point!

[upriver]

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.

What causes the solar flares?

[CharlesChandler]

What causes the solar flares?

That's complex. In the model I'm using, sunspots are formed by the same solar-heliospheric current that creates granules, except that the current density is greater. They also form where the Sun's overall magnetic field is perpendicular to the surface. So the upward electron drift is subject to a Lorentz force that sends the electrons into a spiral. This spiral generates its own solenoidal magnetic field, which ultimately is a lot more powerful. Now, as the current density in the sunspot shaft increases, the plasma is heated, and it thins out. The result is a greater negative charge density. This attracts +ions. But +ions moving laterally are moving perpendicular to the sunspot's solenoidal field. The Lorentz force then impedes the flow of +ions in that direction. In the following image, "I" is the upward spiral of electrons; "B" is the solenoidal magnetic field; and "E" is the electric field that builds up between the electrons in the sunspot shaft and the +ions outside of it, impeded by the magnetic field.

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/C ... ut_wbg.png

Due to this "magnetic resistance" to the inward flow of +ions, we can expect a greater positive charge density surrounding the sunspot shaft (shown as darker green in the drawing). The potential between the negative charges in the sunspot shaft, and the positive charges impeded by the magnetic field, is what is getting discharged in a solar flare.

This model is arguably quite a contrivance, but the constraints I think are unambiguous:

• A flare is an arc discharge.
• An arc discharge requires a charge separation.
• The only thing that can maintain a charge separation in the excellent conductivity of 6000 K plasma is magnetic fields.
• The strongest magnetic fields are around sunspots, and this is where flares occur.
• From this it follows that the solenoidal magnetic fields generated by sunspots are responsible for the charge separation that causes flares.
• How? Within those constraints, the model described above is the simplest explanation I've found.

This is consistent with the fact that flares often occur shortly after a distinct weakening in the magnetic field. This is typically interpreted as evidence that the magnetic lines "reconnected" below the surface, and thus released all of their stored energy. (?) But I don't think that weakening magnetic fields are releasing magnetic energy. Rather, they release electric energy, because the weakening fields can't maintain the charge separation.

This also answers for why there is an inordinate amount of iron in CMEs. Given that there is a high negative charge density in the sunspot shaft, +ions will be attracted to it. But not all +ions are born equal. Iron is capable of much higher degrees of ionization than hydrogen, so it will respond more forcefully to the electric field, pushing hydrogen atoms out of the way to get nearer to the sunspot shaft. Thus there might be a large concentration of iron surrounding the sunspot shaft. If a flare occurs, the CME will have that same high iron content.

So despite its complexity, this model accounts for all of the observations, to a degree of specificity not present in other models.

[PersianPaladin]

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.

You didn't read Lerner's paper or his quantitative analysis.

Is such work "proof"? No.

Should it be thrown out and dismissed? No.

[PersianPaladin]

In low electron density space plasmas - the Debye length of discharges or current-sheets is typically 10 to the power of 2 up to 10 to the power of 5 (in comparison to 10(-4) in lab discharges).
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Debye_length

So, we can scale up discharges considerably in space.

Regarding, the Z-pinch there is still quite a bit that scientists are learning about this phenomena:-

The Z-pinch is a classic, and arguably the first, plasma configuration but it still defies scientists' ability to fully predict and understand its behavior. In a Z-pinch, a pulsed high current arc discharge between two electrodes causes a plasma column to implode under its immense self-generated magnetic pressure. Yet more than 50 years after researchers at the British experiment ZETA mistakenly reported controlled thermonuclear fusion in a Z-pinch device, scientists still do not fully understand how these devices emit such high energy (multi-MeV) charged particle beams.

The new simulations have reproduced key features of these plasmas, including the ion beam and neutron outputs. In addition, the team observed signatures of a type of instability that has always been postulated to fundamentally drive the dynamics in these plasmas.

"The work advances our understanding of this area of high energy density physics," Tang said.

The team's results show initial kinetic simulations, which reproduce experimental neutron yields (~107) and high-energy (MeV) beams for the first time. This simulation tool will be used to further unravel the unknowns of this age-old plasma configuration, according to Schmidt.

https://www.llnl.gov/news/aroundthelab/ ... evice.html


Perratt not only states that Z-pinches may have occurred in prehistoric aurora, but also they may be referred to as "dense-plasma-focus aurora"
http://www.alqpottery.com/pdfs/Peratt,e ... uroraB.pdf

He looks at the morphology and behaviour of Io's "volcanoes" as essentially a scaled-up form of plasma focus or "plasma gun":-
http://web.archive.org/web/200512230736 ... essler.pdf

He found similar formation on the planet Mercury:-
http://www.plasmauniverse.info/download ... S2008b.pdf

This paper finds empirical comparisons between galactic morphologies of their experiment with that of Bostick's galactic-morphology plasmoids in his own DPF "plasma gun" experiment:-
http://www.sid.ir/en/VEWSSID/J_pdf/134220090404.pdf

A little summary of DPF physics:-

In the DPF type discharges, the initial breakdown occurs across the insulator in the form of filaments.
These filaments are blown off the insulator by the
magnetic pressure, and ≈ 1 µs after breakdown merge
to form a uniform thin parabolic current sheath between the electrodes. The plasma sheet carrying the
current is formed between the anode and cathode. The
J ×B force causes this current to move along the
anode to its terminus, generating pairs of radial filaments in the process. At the anode terminus the filamentary plasma sheet balloons outwards and contracts
towards the center and the energy is transferred from
the outer region to the central region where’ kink’
plasma instability causes the filaments twists upon
itself to form a tiny donut shaped ‘plasmoid’ of extremely high energy density. Eventually, the plasmoid
breaks down and electrons and ions are accelerated
from the plasmoid in opposite directions along the
axis in intense, narrow beams (see figure 3.)[13]. The
current flow convergence is largely due to the selfconsisting nature of the current filament, whereas the
heating and compression from the r,z implosion on the
axis are due to both the magnetic forces of the currentcarrying plasma filament and the inertial forces. Partial conversion of the kinetic energy of the imploding
axisymmetric current to internal heat energy may be
occur during the implosive phase owing to selfcollision[14].

The intense magnetic fields and high-energy bi-polar gamma-ray ejections from galaxies suggest the periodic build-up, confinement and break-down of EM energy in quite a small location:-

We know now that more than 10% of the Galaxy's magnetic energy is concentrated in less than 0.1% of its volume, right at its centre

[/quote]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 193219.htm

When Birkeland Currents with a wide Debye length in intergalactic regions (with low current-density but with total currents of potential mega-amperes of current) intersect in certain regions - the EM forces cause the currents to twist around each other (provided of course they are both travelling in the same direction) and if they enter a region with closer proximate currents then there is no reason why the plasma won't experience pinch compression. Again, I see no reason why the lab examples cannot be scaleable and I see plenty of evidence (in the morphologies from different angles) within bipolar nebulae and galaxies that the "plasma focus" is the closest empirical process we can account for this. Remember - it's more scientific to back up your theories with actual empirical evidence. If it's just something hypothetical on paper - even if it sounds logical - it doesn't mean that it's going to have more weight than actual experiments.

[nick c]

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.

Wal Thornhill's response via private communication:

The objection is simplistic. It stems from a lack of understanding of real plasma behavior. The notion of relativistic electrons streaming toward the Sun is not the electric discharge model that Juergens proposed. In Juergens' model, interplanetary space plays the role of the positive column which is quasi-neutral plasma with a very small electric field sufficient only to cause a net drift of electrons toward the Sun against the flow of the solar (wind) plasma. The electric field near the Sun required to produce the solar wind acceleration has been calculated to be less than 1 microvolt/km, unmeasurable by any instrument in space. The electric field in interplanetary space will be less than this. Relativistic electrons will be found only in relatively thin plasma double layers near the two discharge electrodes, in this case the Sun (anode) and the heliosphere (virtual cathode).

[CharlesChandler]

You didn't read Lerner's paper or his quantitative analysis.

Yes I did. The whole thing is predicated on an Alfven circuit, in at the equator and out at the poles of the quasar. But the electromotive force is not identified. That's what's going to do the work, and we have no idea where the energy comes from. Then, to get energy conversions in DPF form, he needs the radially inflowing charge stream to stay organized by the magnetic pinch effect. No worries there, if the mystery e.m.f. can generate sufficient charge velocities. But most crucially, he needs for those currents to form a corner kink in the center, to set up the instability for the episodic DPF snap-backs. In a contrived laboratory apparatus, you can force this kind of regime, but without applied forces, those radially converging magnetic fields at the center all repel each other, and you don't get a kink. Rather, the Alfven circuit would tend toward a perfectly toroidal form, because the magnetic pressure on the inside smooths out the kinks. (There is a reason why toroidal plasmoids like being toroidal plasmoids. Follow the forces, and you'll find the forms.) Hence the conditions necessary to get DPF in a quasar were not established, and the "quantitative analysis" was just a matter of plugging quasar energy density statistics into his laboratory model. He could have just as easily said that quasars are like candles, releasing the chemical energy stored in hydrocarbons. With laboratory measurements of the extreme energy density in a candle flame compared to its surroundings, he could have done a "quantitative analysis" of how many hydrocarbons are getting burned up in a quasar, and at least somebody would have been impressed. But the issue of similitude is non-trivial. To reliably map numbers from one system to the other, you have to know that the systems behave the same way, and for all of the same reasons. Otherwise, it might just be apples-n-oranges. And that's precisely what I'm calling it.

The intense magnetic fields and high-energy bi-polar gamma-ray ejections from galaxies suggest the periodic build-up, confinement and break-down of EM energy in quite a small location.

Yes! But where did it "suggest" that you lock down on DPF, argue in its defense ad infinitum, not consider the problems with it, and not consider alternatives? My "natural tokamak" model for quasars uses an accretion disc (which we know to be there), has extremely powerful magnetic fields (which we know to be there), is capable of steady and fluctuating output (ditto), and produces bipolar jets (ditto). So I'll consider what you're saying, if you can answer the crucial questions. But will you consider what I'm saying?

When Birkeland Currents with a wide Debye length in intergalactic regions (with low current-density but with total currents of potential mega-amperes of current) intersect in certain regions...

Ummm... "mega-amperes" isn't going to get it. Try scaling "180 kA across a gap of 10 mm" in lab DPF up to the size of a quasar. And then tell me that evidence of such a current might not be detectable.

...the EM forces cause the currents to twist around each other (provided of course they are both traveling in the same direction)...

Twisted pairs of currents are opposite charges traveling in the same direction, attracted to each other by the electric force, but buffered from each other by the magnetic pressure. Like charges traveling in the same direction get pinched into the same charge stream. So what's the significance of that? It isn't a magical form of pent-up energy.

...and if they enter a region with closer proximate currents then there is no reason why the plasma won't experience pinch compression...

You're thinking that electric currents can be routed past each other, like one extension cord laid on top of another, and where they cross, the current density is higher, and thus the pinch would be greater. The second part would be true, but the first part is false, so this doesn't happen. If you wouldn't mind, you could work through the following exercise:

• Take out a piece of paper.
• Somewhere near the top, draw a symbol for a positive charge.
• Somewhere near the bottom, draw a symbol for a negative charge.
• Draw in the lines of electric force going from the positive to the negative charge. Electric currents will follow these lines.
• Somewhere near the left, draw a symbol for a positive charge.
• Somewhere near the right, draw a symbol for a negative charge.
• Draw the lines of force connecting those charges. Electric currents will follow these lines.
• Now realize that if you have intersecting lines of electric force, you've made a mistake, because this doesn't happen in nature, and no, you don't get intersecting currents. Rather, the positive charge at the top combines with the positive charge at the left to form one electrode, while the negative charges at the right & bottom form the other. The combined lines of force will be diagonal (& splayed) from the upper left to the lower right, without intersections. Nowhere in there do you get intersecting currents.

And don't bother flooding me with known instances of intersecting filaments, and with stars forming at the intersections. I know about that, and my model handles it without violating basic principles of EM. To make the Birkeland Extension Cord model work, you need to establish the forces that will overpower the repulsion of electric lines of force.

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.

The objection is simplistic. It stems from a lack of understanding of real plasma behavior. The notion of relativistic electrons streaming toward the Sun is not the electric discharge model that Juergens proposed. In Juergens' model, interplanetary space plays the role of the positive column which is quasi-neutral plasma with a very small electric field sufficient only to cause a net drift of electrons toward the Sun against the flow of the solar (wind) plasma. The electric field near the Sun required to produce the solar wind acceleration has been calculated to be less than 1 microvolt/km, unmeasurable by any instrument in space. The electric field in interplanetary space will be less than this. Relativistic electrons will be found only in relatively thin plasma double layers near the two discharge electrodes, in this case the Sun (anode) and the heliosphere (virtual cathode).

1 microvolt/km??? That kind of near-infinitesimal potential is going to pull 1015 amps against a 450 km/s solar wind? I don't think so. I think that in collisions, electrons will pick up the direction & speed of the +ions. And since 1 μV/km is way-way-way below the ionization potentials of the elements present, electron uptake will occur, and that will be the end of the story. I think that the "1 μV/km" quote is just conveniently below the instrumental range, which answers for why we're not detecting it, but then the microphysics won't work.

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.

As concerns "the notion of relativistic electrons streaming toward the Sun is not the electric discharge model that Juergens proposed", I must have misunderstood this quote, attributed to you in Thoth, Vol. III, No. 6, March 31, 1999.

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".

You're welcome to take a different position, but each position raises questions that need to be answered.

[PersianPaladin]

I don't buy into the "accretion disk" model which depends on the black-hole paradigm.

However, I do like Anthony Perratt's work particularly with high-energy Z-pinch aurora (which also created plasmoids - albeit not as dense as typical DPF's) that can strongly account for the petroglyphs and other observations. His analysis of the volcanoes on Io is also compelling, IMO. No need to bring up the "Tokomak" model - which can't even do the job that it's meant to do anyway. How much is being wasted now in Europe on the ITER project? And what powers the strong magnetic fields of these devices? Electric currents. I do hope you're not saying that these currents are produced only locally via gravity or some other unmeasured un-tested phenomena. The filamentary and inter-connected nature of galaxies suggests to me that currents play a role in powering them.

Give this a look:-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/ngc-2b.jpg
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/thund ... img_24.jpg

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/c ... el_opt.jpg
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/imag ... ge_web.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/pp0/plasma ... mbra_s.jpg

Like I said. You can ignore the quacking duck if you like...and yes, admittedly none of this is proof but it's an indication.

You say that the lab examples of the DPF are "contrived". Well you can think that. I don't have time now for a full response to your claims. In my view, papers' such as Wal's supernova 1987A tally well with Perratt's work with regard to the fairly complex morphology of z-pinch discharges (even down to the numbering of filament pairs). And you can't just dismiss this if you really look into it. You have to read the literature.

There are still things we don't understand as to the nature of z-pinches. Often the plasma doesn't always quite behave in accordance with our mathematical expectations - as Alfven said.

I think perhaps you're a bit preoccupied with the idea of what nature MUST do, rather than looking at what nature appears to be doing.

And just to rack your brain a bit more - can you explain to me why twin field-aligned space vortices which have a cross-section almost the size of the Earth and have a current-density of 2.8 nA/m2 directly co-incide with ionospheric twin vortices responsible for sub-storm aurora at a much smaller radius?
http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/public/THEMIS/ ... ay_09.html

Clearly, there is pinching going on - among other things.

[justcurious]

My "natural tokamak" model for quasars uses an accretion disc (which we know to be there), has extremely powerful magnetic fields (which we know to be there)

So what is the cause of these powerful magnetic fields in your model?

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.

There appear to be more ions than electrons in the solar wind, in addition these ions may have multiple charges (as opposed to single electrons).I believe the questions about the solar wind data have already been addressed several times on this thread.

But the best explanation of the solar wind data IMO is presented in Don Scott's paper A Note on the Acceleration of the Solar Wind, I recommend you read it, as it will probably clarify a lot of things for you.

[CharlesChandler]

I don't buy into the "accretion disk" model which depends on the black-hole paradigm.

AFAIK, the standard black hole model depends on accretion discs, but I didn't know that all accretion disc models depend on black hole theory. Mine certainly doesn't. Nor is gravity the reason for the accretion in my model.

No need to bring up the "Tokamak" model - which can't even do the job that it's meant to do anyway. How much is being wasted now in Europe on the ITER project? And what powers the strong magnetic fields of these devices? Electric currents. I do hope you're not saying that these currents are produced only locally via gravity or some other unmeasured un-tested phenomena.

IMO, laboratory tokamaks will never release more energy than they consume, because it's such a lossy configuration. Nevertheless, my model of what I call "exotic stars" (including the so-called black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, quasars, blazars, BL Lacs, planetary nebulae, and white dwarfs) has a ring of plasma rotating around the center at relativistic speeds. "Tokamak" unambiguously conjures up the correct notion of this configuration. But unlike laboratory tokamaks, which accomplish magnetic confinement with the help of externally applied magnetic fields, my "natural tokamak" model gets all of its confinement just from the relativistic velocities of the plasma itself. In other words, it's a z-pinch, in circular form.

The filamentary and inter-connected nature of galaxies suggests to me that currents play a role in powering them.

And it rules out all other EM possibilities?

And you can't just dismiss this if you really look into it.

I'm not dismissing anything. I'm questioning. (And I'm not getting answers -- just more circumstantial evidence, while the questions are ignored.)

And just to rack your brain a bit more - can you explain to me why twin field-aligned space vortices which have a cross-section almost the size of the Earth and have a current-density of 2.8 nA/m2 directly co-incide with ionospheric twin vortices responsible for sub-storm aurora at a much smaller radius? Clearly, there is pinching going on - among other things.

I don't understand why you would ask this. I acknowledge the magnetic pinch effect. It figures quite centrally in my model of exotic stars. I just don't think that it does some of the things that you think it does. Can you just read some of the questions that I've raised, and instead of just reacting defensively, actually come to understand the nature of the questions? I believe that the Universe is very definitely electric. But the properties of EM support many configurations. You have picked one and locked down on it. I'd like to respectfully submit that you should consider the possibility that other configurations might more accurately describe the phenomena.

There appear to be more ions than electrons in the solar wind...

Can you supply a reference for this?

But the best explanation of the solar wind data IMO is presented in Don Scott's paper A Note on the Acceleration of the Solar Wind, I recommend you read it, as it will probably clarify a lot of things for you.

Here was my response on 2013-04-09 when that paper was referenced earlier in this thread:

8. Stability of the ‘Excess’ Positive Charge Density
A question that might be asked by critics of this proposed mechanism for producing the required electric field strength is, “What maintains the positive charge density in the shape that it must maintain (shown in figure 6)?” To maintain a distribution of matter that is more concentrated than it would normally be in quiescent conditions, there must be a power input to it. A case-in-point is the steady state large standing-wave that can form at the bottom of certain water slides. In figure 7, the wave would collapse if the strong flow coming in from the left were to stop. The height of the water wave is higher than what would be expected in a more slowly moving river. A continuous flow of ions maintains the ‘excess’ charge density in figure 6.

There must be power into it, and there must be a voltage regulator. Can those be explained?

If my question was answered, I missed it.