New Sun Model / Capacitor

[Sparky]

Jack:

Is not the solar wind a rather narrow band of outgoing charged particles residing in the equatorial plane of the sun?

errrrrrr, are you trying to confuse me?

I don't have data or references, but the sun appears to emit omni-directionally.

Am I in error, again...?

******************************************

Daniel:

Charles Chandler comes in with his own misunderstandings and make things a lot LESS clear then they could be with his quite monotone ramblings that do not say much of anything.

Charles' misunderstandings?? And should he post in all caps.?!

Daniel, play nice.

[Lloyd]

Jack:

Is not the solar wind a rather narrow band of outgoing charged particles residing in the equatorial plane of the sun?

errrrrrr, are you trying to confuse me?

I don't have data or references, but the sun appears to emit omni-directionally.

Am I in error, again...?

The solar wind is emitted from all parts of the Sun, but then it flows from there outward only along the ecliptic in the plane where the planets mostly orbit. The emissions from the northern and southern regions follow curved paths toward the ecliptic.

[Lloyd]

Charles Chandler comes in with his own misunderstandings and make things a lot LESS clear then they could be with his quite monotone ramblings that do not say much of anything.

It's your misunderstanding that causes you not to mis understand CC's statements.

I give 1 example, Charles often starts questions and then goes off on a tangent. Example question:

Why look at scant data from the heliopause to determine if the Sun is electrically powered from outside of the heliosphere?

When viewed from an EU perspective, this is a stupid question. A firm knowledge of the EU model should make such questions obsolete. EU model looks at the bigger picture, and this scant data is at least data that can support (and does support) the EU view.

CC's question was not stupid, because he pointed out that the solar wind does not reach the heliopause, but fades out around Saturn's orbit (or 10 AU, wherever that is). Have you shared your firm knowledge of the EU model? Or where is it shared that we can discuss this topic in detail? CC has asked questions of WT's model that haven't been answered. Like where did Juergens get his info that only anodes have tufting, but cathodes don't? Juergens equated solar granules with anode tufts. Did he not? But CC thinks cathodes can have tufting too.

Best WT Source?
In a previous discussion with CC, I had quoted WT's website at http://www.holoscience.com/wp/twinkle-t ... e=x49g6gsf. Is that WT's best explanation of his anode Sun model?

[D_Archer]

It's your misunderstanding that causes you not to mis understand CC's statements.

?

CC's question was not stupid, because he pointed out that the solar wind does not reach the heliopause, but fades out around Saturn's orbit (or 10 AU, wherever that is).

? It is important what comes from outside the Suns influence and Charles tried to dismiss it with a stupid question and then going off an a tangent >

We have many, many, many more data from nearer the Sun

, oh so many many's. Fact: Charles dismisses the point kiwi made entirely.

Have you shared your firm knowledge of the EU model? Or where is it shared that we can discuss this topic in detail? CC has asked questions of WT's model that haven't been answered. Like where did Juergens get his info that only anodes have tufting, but cathodes don't? Juergens equated solar granules with anode tufts. Did he not? But CC thinks cathodes can have tufting too.

EU sun is an electric discharge sun and is powered by galactic currents. That is where the model starts. Any further EU solar model tries to finetune that basic premise, anything else is not EU.

There is a whole anode/cathode thread and i already added my thoughts about it there.

Best WT Source?
In a previous discussion with CC, I had quoted WT's website at http://www.holoscience.com/wp/twinkle-t ... e=x49g6gsf. Is that WT's best explanation of his anode Sun model?

That is a good article.

Regards,
Daniel

[CharlesChandler]

Why look at scant data from the heliopause to determine if the Sun is electrically powered from outside of the heliosphere?

When viewed from an EU perspective, this is a stupid question. A firm knowledge of the EU model should make such questions obsolete. EU model looks at the bigger picture, and this scant data is at least data that can support (and does support) the EU view.

Let me use an analogy to help clarify the question. If we were inspecting a house, and questioning whether or not it got its electric power from the outside, as opposed to having its own internal generator, one approach would be to look off into the distance, where we might see some smoke on the horizon. We could then hypothesize that the smoke is coming from a power plant, and further hypothesize that the power plant supplies electricity to the house. Let's call that the Big Picture Hypothesis. Or we could just walk around the house, looking for a power cable. If we had excellent reason to believe that any power cable leading into the house would definitely be in plain sight, this would be the more reliable method. So we'll call this the Up Close Hypothesis.

It sounds like you're saying that the EU is like the Big Picture Hypothesis, in that it is looking for the galactic interconnections, and I "think" that you go on to say that it doesn't matter whether or not these interconnections are apparent in near field observations.

You certainly wouldn't be alone in hypothesizing that there are large-scale phenomena that are not cannot be measured with near field instrumentation. For example, some people think that cold dark matter only operates at the galactic scale.

But if that's what you're saying, you don't have an Electric Sun hypothesis -- you have a cosmological model. You can attempt to use your model to explain large scale stuff. But if the evidence of such forces doesn't show up in near field observations, you have to admit that the hypothesis doesn't operate at the Up Close scale.

So I study the Sun, and come to the conclusion that there IS, in fact, a steady electrical discharge, which is responsible for the heat and light that it produces. This discharge is between the Sun and the interplanetary medium, within 10 AU. It's a radial discharge, but moving away from Sun, the charged particles get squashed down into the heliospheric current sheet (HCS), which is more-or-less on the equatorial plane. Since the HCS sweeps past the Earth, we have plenty of measurements of its characteristics. It's what causes the aurora, for one thing. Satellites have collected many more data, mainly on the ecliptic plane, but with some data from a solar pole orbiting satellite (i.e., ULYSSES). And there is no getting around the fact that if the Sun is externally powered, the power cable would be in plain sight. And we can, in fact, observe the current. But the current stops short of the heliopause. So no, the Sun isn't powered from outside of the heliosphere. It's all about the data, right?

[Aristarchus]

Why look at scant data from the heliopause to determine if the Sun is electrically powered from outside of the heliosphere? We have many, many, many more data from nearer the Sun, especially around the Earth.

With all due respect, I'm not sure that this statement from you even qualifies as an aspect of reductionism. Due to data from Voyager 1, it was discovered that the a new layer of the solar system observed encountering the heliosphere did not comport to previous assumptions/models. Your subjective term "scant" has no place in the debate, because a proper scientific method would be to try to understand why the previous assumptions/models were incorrect regarding the heliosphere. This is not done by ignoring the data from Voyager 1, but rather, to investigate it further. Your "many, many more data from nearer the Sun" is a contradiction. If these many more data nearer the Sun are enough, then why did they not predict a more accurate model for observations found in the heliosphere regarding spacecraft?

Needless to say, it is NASA and the consensus science that remain the primary source for gathering data from hugely funded research projects, and they also have access to how the data is interpreted and conveyed through the mainstream media. Now, you can state that you're not part of the consensus science; however, I would surmise that your data nearer the Sun, "especially around the Earth" would probably be studies funded and interpreted from the consensus science. Setting aside for a moment your view on pertinent data, I'm less inclined to follow any scientific positing that begins with the heavy handed use of hyperbole stated in my quote from you in this post.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/a-mystery ... -universe/

After launch, a spacecraft accepts electrons from the surrounding space plasma until the craft’s voltage is sufficient to repel further electrons. Near Earth it is known that a spacecraft may attain a negative potential of several tens of thousands of volts relative to its surroundings. So, in interplanetary space, the spacecraft becomes a charged object moving in the Sun’s weak electric field. Being negatively charged, it will experience an infinitesimal “tug” toward the positively charged Sun. Of most significance is the fact that the voltage gradient, that is the electric field, throughout interplanetary space remains constant. In other words, the retarding force on the spacecraft will not diminish with distance from the Sun. This effect distinguishes the electrical model from all others because all known force laws diminish with distance. The effect is real and it will have a fundamental impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation because…

Reading my bold emphasis, how will data the Sun and "around the Earth" settle the question proposed by the EU?

[seasmith]

And there is no getting around the fact that if the Sun is externally powered, the power cable would be in plain sight. And we can, in fact, observe the current. But the current stops short of the heliopause. So no, the Sun isn't powered from outside of the heliosphere. It's all about the data, right?
-CC

[The "data" is observing 'some current', not the full circuit.]


Charles, i posted this perspective for your consideration here:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... &start=105

in response to your posting, but you blew it off, so will post it again here:

... it should be clear by now that the suggestion here is that what we're seeing when we look at the Sun's photosphere is the anode plasma of a cosmic electrical discharge, with tufting showing itself as the bright granulated structure and providing the protons that supply the solar wind. Eventually the accumulation of excess electrons reduces the tuft potential to a level where de-ionization sets in, and the tuft simply dies away to be replaced by a newly budding one, in keeping with the pattern observed. The radiated energy comes primarily from the tufts. It is delivered by electrons accelerated from interstellar space, which calculation indicate would achieve relativistic velocities in the voltage drop near the solar anode. The system acts, in effect, like a local step-down transformer of the power distribution grid, converting lethal cosmic supply-line energies to forms of radiation more conducive to supporting life.

Just because we can't currently "see", with our limited detection devices, radiative (longitudinal) electric charge flows;
doesn't mean that they are Not there, or will Never be detected !


That is why i made the (seemingly arcane) statement that

A 'sun' seems to transform/convert ~charge~
among & through electro-gravitic, electro -optic, electro-magnetic and electro-aetheric (states), at multiple layers and scales.

If you can plausibly deny any of the above real electric 'states' or 'modes', i would like to know why and how.

[please note, i am not discrediting any of your perspectives, merely suggesting you expand yours to include other's]

[CharlesChandler]

Due to data from Voyager 1, it was discovered that the a new layer of the solar system observed encountering the heliosphere did not comport to previous assumptions/models. Your subjective term "scant" has no place in the debate, because a proper scientific method would be to try to understand why the previous assumptions/models were incorrect regarding the heliosphere. This is not done by ignoring the data from Voyager 1, but rather, to investigate it further. Your "many, many more data from nearer the Sun" is a contradiction. If these many more data nearer the Sun are enough, then why did they not predict a more accurate model for observations found in the heliosphere regarding spacecraft?

These, and other statements in your post, are poorly scoped. If the topic is the Sun, large volumes of data, from lots of satellites (e.g., OSO, Skylab, GOES, P78-1, SMM, Hinotori, Ulysses, CGRO, Yohkoh, CORONAS, SOHO, TRACE, RHESSI, SORCE, Hinode, STEREO, IBEX, and SDO), most of them operating around 1 AU, are very relevant. Four satellites (Pioneers 10 & 11, and Voyagers 1 & 2) operating near 100 AU give us a little bit of information about the heliopause, which happens to be the only in situ data that we have, so these data should be the basis for all statements on the heliopause. But the Pioneer/Voyager data don't tell us more about the Sun than the data we got from all of the other satellites combined, do they?

This isn't hyperbole. You're calling attention to small quantities of data from a different domain. So the relevance needs to be questioned.

IMO, the anomalies in the trajectories of these satellites are definitely evidence of the electric force, at least at those locations. Generalizing from there to galactic fields is quite a leap. There is evidence that particles in the interstellar winds get their electrons stripped off when they start colliding with particles in the heliosphere, since the atomic nuclei have more inertia, and thus will get embedded deeper in the heliosphere than the electrons.

May, H. D., 2008: A Pervasive Electric Field in the Heliosphere. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 36 (5): 2876-2879

From this, we would expect the inside of the heliopause to be positively charged, and the outside to be negatively charged. And we would expect a negatively charged satellite on an outward trajectory to experience a "retarding force", because its negative charge is repelled by the negatively charged outer heliopause, and attracted to the positively charged inner heliopause. So this might be telling us everything about the conditions in the heliopause, and nothing about galactic fields.

Needless to say, it is NASA and the consensus science that remain the primary source for gathering data from hugely funded research projects, and they also have access to how the data is interpreted and conveyed through the mainstream media. Now, you can state that you're not part of the consensus science; however, I would surmise that your data nearer the Sun, "especially around the Earth" would probably be studies funded and interpreted from the consensus science.

And the Pioneer/Voyager data are not? You can't dismiss inner solar system satellite data, because it is being munged by NASA, but accept Pioneer/Voyager data as beyond doubt, when it's being munged by NASA also.

And there is no getting around the fact that if the Sun is externally powered, the power cable would be in plain sight. And we can, in fact, observe the current. But the current stops short of the heliopause. So no, the Sun isn't powered from outside of the heliosphere. It's all about the data, right?

[The "data" is observing 'some current', not the full circuit.]

1) OK, so where is the rest of the current?

2) I can show that the current that we're detecting is up to the task. I can show that CMEs are +ions. And knowing the average mass for each ejection, and the rate at which they occur, I can calculate the average charge that gets ejected (i.e., 1015 amps). Note that this represents a loss of +ions inside the Sun, which creates the potential for an outward drift of electrons. The charge involved in that current will, of course, be 1015 amps. Given the electric field of 1.7 GV, and given that watts = amps * volts, the total power output comes to 1025, which is within an order of magnitude of the known power output of the Sun.

3) To make your current work, you not only have to identify the potential, and the reason why we haven't detected it yet -- you also have to deny that my current exists. Since my model is consistent with all of the available data, you basically have to dismiss all of the data. Is it all about the data, or not?

...it should be clear by now that the suggestion here is that what we're seeing when we look at the Sun's photosphere is the anode plasma of a cosmic electrical discharge, with tufting showing itself as the bright granulated structure and providing the protons that supply the solar wind. Eventually the accumulation of excess electrons reduces the tuft potential to a level where de-ionization sets in, and the tuft simply dies away to be replaced by a newly budding one, in keeping with the pattern observed.

I wasn't able to find any supporting information on anode tufting. Juergens referred to them, but didn't cite any sources, and then Thornhill picked up on it. Now Scott quotes Thornhill, and Hogan quotes Scott, but aside from the original statement by Juergens, I haven't found any info on anode tufting. (Note that I'm not talking about anode glows -- I'm talking about the supposed Benard cells that form, like solar granules.) So this doesn't constitute corroboration -- it's just a bald assertion.

I give a detailed description of why I think that Benard cells are expected if the Sun is a cathode (i.e., electron drag). I supplied detailed prints to Monty Childs in October of 2012 on how this could be tested by SAFIRE. When they release the prints for how they actually built the apparatus, we'll know whether or not this was actually tested, and if so, what results they got.

The radiated energy comes primarily from the tufts. It is delivered by electrons accelerated from interstellar space, which calculation indicate would achieve relativistic velocities in the voltage drop near the solar anode.

At relativistic velocities, the current should develop a powerful z-pinch effect, consolidating the current into a finite number of discrete channels through the heliosphere, like in a plasma lamp. Such channels should be quite impossible to miss, and their footpoints on the surface of the Sun should be the brightest features on the Sun. And yet they're just not there.

[seasmith]

-+

If the composite solar surface is a complex electrode, then so (complex) will be the surrounding electrolyte...

as well as the currents between central and surrounding electrodes.

You do know cathode and anode are polarities of electrode ..?




http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... &start=120

[Aristarchus]

If the topic is the Sun

Charles, the topic is "New Sun Model/Capacitor." I haven't engaged in that discussion. My focus is on what you've been positing on this thread and elsewhere on the Thunderbolt forum. I'm taking you to task. Let's keep our concentration there, shall we? And, as a side note, you're simply being a contrarian. You have a hypothesis, which does not equate to a theory, and then you borrow from the consensus science with their beleaguered inferences to support your hypothesis, ergo, their belabored theories are supplanted in support of your hypothesis, in a smoke and mirror attempt to impress the reader that you bring something new to the table.

If the topic is the Sun, large volumes of data, from lots of satellites (e.g., OSO, Skylab, GOES, P78-1, SMM, Hinotori, Ulysses, CGRO, Yohkoh, CORONAS, SOHO, TRACE, RHESSI, SORCE, Hinode, STEREO, IBEX, and SDO), most of them operating around 1 AU, are very relevant.

You make the same statement as before, and then attempt to bring it gravitas by detailing it, which doesn't pertain to the concatenation of the debate. Again ...

This is not done by ignoring the data from Voyager 1, but rather, to investigate it further. Your "many, many more data from nearer the Sun" is a contradiction. If these many more data nearer the Sun are enough, then why did they not predict a more accurate model for observations found in the heliosphere regarding spacecraft?

I'm not here to do your homework for you, so that your hypothesis has the illusion of rising to the level of a theory. You will not trick me into that game, because I've read your stuff on this forum over the consuming months and come well prepared. I might suggest you drop the facade of a scientific purist, and study some of the well-renown polymaths on the subject.

Staying on topic within our argument, and if this gets so beyond the topic of this thread, I would suggest it gets ordained to the NIMI topic, where we can do battle - I'm a Viking at heart ... and a coward ... lol ...

Anyways ... how much reading on this topic have you expended in the last year. I've been busy studying the Saturn Myth, World in Collisions, Childhood's End, while writing my own Sci-fi books. No theories, as of yet. I leave that to the next generation, but let's focus on your positing ...

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-sun-verified/

In 1984 Alfvén predicted from his circuit model of the Sun there are two double layers, one connected to each pole at some unknown distance from the Sun or heliosphere. He wrote:

“As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory… Application to the heliospheric current systems leads to the prediction of two double layers on the sun’s axis which may give radiations detectable from Earth. Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object.” ~ — H. Alfvén, Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics, IEEE Transactions On Plasma Science, Vol. PS-14, No. 6, December 1986.

Now, what were you saying about negating double layers?

[CharlesChandler]

Now, what were you saying about negating double layers?

I don't understand the question. I could rattle on a bit, but it would make for a more focused discussion if you referenced a specific statement that I made, or that someone else made.

[Sparky]

Daniel:

EU sun is an electric discharge sun and is powered by galactic currents. That is where the model starts. Any further EU solar model tries to finetune that basic premise, anything else is not EU.

Beginning with a highly speculative assumption, to be fine tuned, but any Electrical activity outside of that is dismissed offhand?

[Aristarchus]

I don't understand the question. I could rattle on a bit, but it would make for a more focused discussion if you referenced a specific statement that I made, or that someone else made.

You don't understand the question, but you can rattle on a bit? It would make for a more focused discussion if you didn't respond with a beginning statement that is an oxymoron. I would also appreciate it if you would demonstrate a bit more respect toward me, and refrain from delivering somewhat cheeky little quips that ignored the greater portion of my previous post toward you. However, I'm not interested in you rattling on, but I would prefer to read from you something along the lines of a thesis statement followed by an abstract that would make your hypothesis cohesive. Realizing, as of yet, you do not have a working theory, only a hypothesis that for me, at least, appears convoluted and not comporting to Occam's razor.

Now, let's look at what you stated on this thread that is specific to what I posted in my previous response to you:

The Alfven current, out of the poles and back in at the equator, was just an idea that never got validated by Space Age instrumentation.

That is just a flat out dismissal from you that fails to address the issue. 1. Alfven was a great proponent of empirical evidence, and you had already been told by other posters about scalability of lab experiments. 2. The Voyager 1 data appears to open the door for evidence supporting Alfven's positing.

You deflected from point number 2 when you tried to focus on data inferred from nearer the Sun and Earth. Explaining what happens at 10 AU simply ignores "focusing" on the data gathered from Voyager 1. What was discovered from the Voyager 1 data did not comport with what was expected, thus nullifying your claim that data nearer the Sun and Earth is sufficient for disproving an electrically charged Sun. As stated before, any sound scientific method would require further inquire into the matter. If one keeps loading the paradigms already established, that paradigm becomes laden with theories that will result in the former collapsing. This is why I stated that you should become familiar with polymaths that have written on the history of science and the nature of the latter.

Now, let's read what you stated regarding double layers:

To maintain the galactic current hypothesis, you have to ignore the vast majority of data, and focus in on a few obscure details concerning the double-layer in the heliopause. "Cherry-picking" doesn't do that justice.

Reading my emphasis: Obscure details? Because you state that thus makes it so? Again, you merely use a qualifier without addressing aspects of the EU view on the matter. In addition, if I'm a researcher and someone directs a confrontational line of attack, such as, "cherry-picking doesn't do that justice," I would feel less inclined to respond to such a person since I already know the tone of my interlocutor.


You're not seeking answers, but simply playing an I gotcha game.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you, because labeling something "obscure" is negating and a dismissal. This is not negating:

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-sun-verified/

[CharlesChandler]

I would prefer to read from you something along the lines of a thesis statement followed by an abstract that would make your hypothesis cohesive.

Well, the topic of this thread is the Sun, but you "haven't engaged in that discussion", so I guess that the topic for you is just astrophysical theory in general, is that correct? If it is, you can find my thesis in PDF form here:

http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0067

...or in HTML form here...

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031

It's 166 pages, which might take you a little while to get through, so perhaps you'd like to ask a more specific question?

Also, I'd be happy to answer your questions, but anything more than a quick response wouldn't really be appropriate in the EU forum, which is just for EU for/against discussions. For any extended debate, specifically focusing on my work, we should really take this up in the NIAMI forum, either in one of the existing threads, or in a new thread.

The Alfven current, out of the poles and back in at the equator, was just an idea that never got validated by Space Age instrumentation.

That is just a flat out dismissal from you that fails to address the issue. 1. Alfven was a great proponent of empirical evidence, and you had already been told by other posters about scalability of lab experiments. 2. The Voyager 1 data appears to open the door for evidence supporting Alfven's positing.

Like I said in my response to you, the Voyager 1 data are from a different domain. IMO, there IS an electric field in the heliopause, and this is responsible for the anomalous velocity change of the satellite in the heliopause. But that wasn't detected until the satellite got into the heliopause, which means that there isn't a field inside of the heliopause. Also, there unmistakably is an electric current coming out of the Sun, known as the heliospheric current sheet (HCS). But that falls apart at about 10 AU (i.e., a little past the orbit of Saturn). Neither an electric field nor an electric current has been detected, by EM instrumentation or by anomalous satellite velocities, from there out to the heliopause. Such are the grounds for my conclusion that the heliopause is a different domain. In other words, the conditions there are not representative of the entire heliosphere. This means that the Sun is cut off from such influences.

What was discovered from the Voyager 1 data did not comport with what was expected, thus nullifying your claim that data nearer the Sun and Earth is sufficient for disproving an electrically charged Sun.

No, I'm saying that the Sun IS charged, and the HCS is the proof. (Can't have an electric current without an electric potential, which proves that the Sun has a net charge.) I've been saying for years that the Sun has a net negative charge, the heliosphere has a net positive charge, the outside of the heliopause is net negative, and the interstellar medium is quasi-neutral. But the field that drives the solar current is just within 10 AU. In the heliopause, the field flips polarity. So that's a different domain.

As stated before, any sound scientific method would require further inquire into the matter.

Definitely. But you're attempting to leverage a false dichotomy on top of a straw man attack, if you think that the failure of the mainstream model to predict the Pioneer anomaly proves the EU model (i.e., false dichotomy), AND defeats my model (which is not the mainstream model at all, which means that you're attacking a straw man).

If one keeps loading the paradigms already established, that paradigm becomes laden with theories that will result in the former collapsing. This is why I stated that you should become familiar with polymaths that have written on the history of science and the nature of the latter.

I have no idea what "paradigms already established" you're even talking about, nor which polymaths you think that I should study. Please be more specific.

This is not negating:

I agree that these are manifestations of EM behaviors, but they don't prove that the Sun is externally powered, since there is no evidence of an electric field, or an electric current, between 10 AU and 100 AU. But then again, as concerns the topic of this thread (i.e., the Sun), you "haven't engaged in that discussion", so I have no way of knowing where we're disagreeing, if we're disagreeing at all. We might just be talking past each other, for lack of targeted statements. I "think" that you have me figured for a mainstreamer, just because I don't accept the EU position as put. But such is not the case. I believe that the dominant force in the Universe is the electric force, and it's the foundation for all of my work. But the EU does have a monopoly on physics, and has no right to claim imminent domain on all EM theories in astrophysics, and I'm investigating other configurations of EM forces that resolve problems in the EU constructs.

[kiwi]

Aristarchus

People like you are what attracted me to this place ... Is it a fair comment to say Mainstream Science, and in particular Astrophysic's decided on the answers before anyone even knew what questions need be asked (read: NEED be answered).... Is it just me? ...

The last few days I have been reading everything I can find regards ENA's ... ..... to find here a bloke whose judegemt Ive always respected is encouraging lol ... cheers for that.

Is it because of the fact Magnetic fields are "invisble" to these "neutrals" that they may be viewed as unimportant? .. could/would give some people the idea that there is not much going on out there? .Quite frankly, considering that ENA's are observed pretty much everywhere ( as is shown by the wealth of data gathered by the suite of advanced satellite/probes studying the local system out to 10 or so AU mentioned by Charles ) I would think there prescence at 200 AU would be of the utmost interest, add to this the IBEX data/findings and at even face value this stongly allure's to a "Circuit" situation that extends way beyond what our limited sense's could tell us before the advent of the tech age.....

A couple of observations made, (the paper is assuming the standard model as its starting point obviously,... MHD, Bow-shocks etc)

The Heliosphere is a complicated phenomenom where Solar wind and Interstellar Plasma's, Interstellar Gas, Magneticfields, andCosmic Rays play prominent roles.

The structure of the Heliosphere and its boundary, as well as properties of the LISM , are of fundamental interest and importance and the available experimental data are scarce and indirect. The Heliosphere provides a unique opportunity to study in detail only accessible example of a common-place but fundamental Astrophysical phenomena---- the formation of a "Astrosphere".

A self-consistent model of the stationary Heliosphere has yet to be built, and some aspects of the interaction, for example temporal variations and instabilities, are not satisfactorily understood even on the qualitative level. The Physics of the LISM is also poorly understood-------- Mike Gruntman Dept of Aerospace Engineering Uni SOCAL 1997
http://astronauticsnow.com/mg_pubs/grun ... i_1997.pdf

During solar sub-storms our Ring Current would look something similar to the IBEX ribbon? That is, a region in -collision-charge -exchange flux? There are a few images from a Wiki link showing the ring-current ejection of ENA's in unison with an Auroral storm .. temporay situation in the Ring Current of course ... with the flux subsiding in response to the Storm ending , whereas to see the "ribbon" as a permanent type (loose) structure in constant flux tells us there is constant action at this boundary area ... and I would say in anyone's money .. an absolute "must" to understand if we want to grasp the overall dynamic of the Solar System and the "feed" mechanisms in action

The first glimpse of this view was announced in October, 2009, when the NASA IBEX Mission, returned its first image of the unexpected ENA ribbon at the edge of the heliosphere.[26] Results revealed a previously unpredicted "very narrow ribbon that is two to three times brighter than anything else in the sky" at the edge of the heliosphere that was not detected by Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 in the region. These results are truly exciting as they do not match any existing theoretical models of this region.[26]


Cassini also ENA-imaged the heliosphere and its results complement and extend the IBEX findings, making it possible for scientists to construct the first comprehensive sky map of the heliosphere. Preliminary Cassini data suggest the heliosphere may not have the comet-like shape predicted by existing models but that its shape may be more like a large, round bubble.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energetic_neutral_atom

Cheers


And in a couple of TPOD's ....

With electricity, there are two kinds of stars: anodic and cathodic. The anodic is the most common. It forms in a z-pinch in galactic Birkeland currents. The star acts as an anode within a discharge that is driven by an electron-dominated galactic current. The Sun is the closest example, and space probes enable us to take measurements that can test and articulate the model. Most stars are driven, like the Sun, by current densities in dark mode discharge. It’s called “dark” only because it doesn’t radiate in the visible portion of the spectrum. In radio and x-ray wavelengths, it “shines.”

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/ ... ision1.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... ision2.htm