Recovered: Debunking "magnetic reconnection"

[bboyer]

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 11:32 pm Post subject: Re: who is lead dancer, electric or magnetic Reply with quote
OP "upriver"

I'm looking down a microscope, in both size and time; focusing on an event just before it starts. As the event progreses, rings of magnetic field encircle the electric current flow. As the current flow moves, the magnetics surround it, and a plasma is gathered into an ordered thread, along which the current flow's best, and the magnetics continue to surround.

Yes. Actually the magnetic field is a helix that is physically rotating at the rate of 10 to 40hz depending on its size, following the right hand rule.

The question is; do the magnetics form the primary lead event, or does the current flow form the primary lead event. We need to look very closely in the size/shape aspect and in the time aspect, to determine which preceeded which.

If you were to look at the leading edge of energy flow in a wire, this is what you would see:

electric field
voltage(y)^__________________________
.............../
............./
.........../
____ /
Time (x)->

With the leading edge traveling 1 foot per nanosecond. The magnetic field profile is indistinguishable from the travel of the leading edge of the electric field. The difference is that electric fields may exist without magnetic fields but not vice versa.
Now the electron themselves may move slower than the speed of light so you have to think of it as a bucket brigade carrying energy at the maximum velocity of the local medium(speed-o-light).

And this is what the magnetic field looks like.
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.ph ... c-rope.gif

What is electricity.
http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis2.html#2

Charge.
http://amasci.com/elect/charge1.html

Unfortunately, both current flow and magnetic field appearance, are very rapid in propagation. Current flow is the slower, as it is a material effect in as much as electrons are the prime component, and electrons, as fast as they are, exhibit a small resistance to instantaneous light speed velocity, whereas magnetic fields are strictly an EM spectrum non-material event and proceed at the speed of light immediately.

Mainstream is using the instant speed of light property of magnetics as reason to qualify them for primary position in the event.

You are correct. That is one of the finer points of the problems with current electrical theory.

Are we talking about electrons transferring kinetic energy or EM waves transferring kinetic energy. At the end of the electrode, if the EM wave is moving at the speed of light and carrying the energy, why are electrons thought of as coming off of the electrode and imparting kinetic energy to the plasma in emission theory? At lower energies you have antenna theory, which is EM waves and radio reception, and RF heating of plasma....

Even though I talk sort of mainstream(Maxwell) so that people dont think I'm a wacko, I'm thinking Aetherometry..

That is part of the reason that I like Aetherometry is that they resolve issues like that. Using longitudinal waves to carry kinetic energy with a local emission photon being result of the deceleration of a longitudinal wave by an electron.

The photon.
http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/bin ... try/Photon
_________________
Ron Paul Forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

SOS Save Our Science.

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:55 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "junglelord"

Well my original cause for concern was valid. I guess I do understand this EU model and the multiple problems in the other model. I do thank the member Michael Mozina for the primer on magnetic reconnection in this thread.


This members blog helped me a lot and I hope it helps others too.

In an effort to begin to understand the movement and the flow patterns of the sun's coronal loops, I have been spending most of my free time studying the work of Dr. Hannes Alfvén. Dr. Alfvén was the creator of the field of science of plasma flow now called magnetohydrodynamics, and was awarded the Nobel prize for his work in 1970. Throughout his published career, Alfvén wrote many papers commenting on the practical use of MHD theory in astronomy, as well as it's inappropriate misuse by many in the astronomical community during his tenure and even to this day. Alfvén demonstrated that when the density of plasma is decreased, the importance of electrical current flow, the kinetic energy, and the resistance of the plasma is often more relevant and meaningful than the orientation of the magnetic fields. That is never more true than inside coronal loops where the flow of electricity and the kinetic energy within the moving plasma filament is far more relevant than the magnetic fields. The current flow and kinetic energy of the coronal loop sustains the loop. These loops are not “frozen” magnetic fields in solid plasma, rather these loops are moving columns of flowing plasma that are driven by DC currents that are running through the coronal loop filaments. The coronal loops discharge current from a negatively charged area of the surface discharge toward a positively charged surface area. The coronal loops are simply large scale plasma filaments driven by electrical currents, much like we find in a common plasma ball. The plasmas in the filaments are moving and flowing through the solar plasma atmosphere in tight filamentary structures in much the same way as we see filaments forming in any electrified plasma environment.

According to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, new images from the Hinode satellite program are already revealing solar atmospheric plasma behaviors that are "impossible" to explain using the current solar model. Evidently the mainstream community is still having a hard time accepting the role of electrical currents in solar activity. They are also having a very difficult time accepting the fact that Hannes Alfv'en actually did know what he was talking about when he described the electromagnetic interactions that take place in *light* (non dense) plasmas. Hannes Alfv'en was the Nobel Prize winning author of magneto hydrodynamic theory. He explained in his book "Cosmic Plasma":

"Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of 'magnetic merging' or of 'magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration. In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field)."

Handing Hannes Alfv'en the Nobel Prize for MDH theory didn't stop the mainstream community from ignoring his work. According to Alfv'en, the energy release of these atmospheric solar events comes from the flow of electrical current, not from "magnetic reconnection" as LMSAL and NASA have been trying to suggest. Standard theorists try to claim that magnetic fields drive these high energy solar events, but according to the author of the principles of MHD theory, that is simply impossible. If you read the article, Leon Golub from Cambridge explains one of these presumably "impossible" observations:

Crashing loops: Another surprise sighting is that of giant magnetic field loops crashing down onto the Sun's surface as if they were collapsing from exhaustion, a finding that Golub describes as "impossible". Previously, scientists thought they should emerge from the Sun and continue blowing out into space.

Golub may believe that this sort of plasma behavior is "impossible" to explain, but Hannes Alfv'en explained this behavior 25 years ago. The atmosphere of the sun is electrically active and it interacts with the electromagnetic fields of space. Currents ebb and flow, particularly in the corona. As soon as the electric currents that are flowing through a coronal loops stop flowing, say for instance the electric current seeks a shorter path of lesser resistance through the plasma, the suspended loop will deteriorate rapidly, and it will come crashing back to the surface. As long as we accept Alfven's view that the coronal loops are electrically active and electrically driven, it's not such a mystery. The same electrical current that is running through these massive loops, and heating them to millions of degrees, can instantly terminate. In that scenario. these kinds of "crashing loop" observations become quite easy to explain using the principles of plasma cosmology theory and MHD theory. It seems that even though the the astrophysical community presented Hannes Alfven with the Nobel Prize in the early 1970's for inventing MHD theory, they only heard and understood part of his plasma physics theories. They immediately turned right around after giving him the Nobel Prize for MHD theory, and they completely ignored the other half of Alfven's statements related to MHD theory related to *light* plasma. The mainstream community only "latched on" to the very early part of Alfven's work that was related to the flow of magnetic fields in very *dense* plasma. They quite literally ignored all the rest of Alfv'en's life's work on light plasma. Now that problem has come back to haunt the mainstream community in the Hinode images in a big way.

As Alfven explained from his work in plasma physics, certain types of plasma behaviors simply cannot be be properly modeled or properly understood without considering the electrical flow patterns that are traveling through the plasma. Alfv'en warned the mainstream community during his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize about trying to mathematically oversimplify every plasma behavior, and trying to model every plasma transaction as a purely "magnetic" event. Some plasma events, like atmospheric discharges, are in fact electrically driven events, and in such scenarios, the electrical current in the plasma must also be considered. While lightening strikes on earth generate magnetic fields as a result of the current flowing through the plasma of the bolt, the electrical discharge is not "caused" by changes to the magnetic fields. The discharges in atmosphere are due to charge differences in the atmosphere, and charge equalization laws, not by magnetic fields. In other words, the magnetic fields are the effect of the electrical discharge event, they are not the cause of the discharge event. In this case, as Alfven warned, the mainstream community has the cart before the horse. They find these observations to be "impossible", because they are not magnetic events, they are electrical events. Clearly the observations are not impossible, it is the standard theory of magnetic reconnection that is "impossible". Alfven already explained that to them more than 2 decades ago. They just refused to listen. Maybe they listen to Alfv'en again now that their current theories have failed to explain the solar atmospheric activity

I think the motto of the mainstream solar community must be "Anything but electricity" since they seem to be looking for any possible way to avoid accepting the obvious solution to the coronal heating problem, and the high temperature coronal loops. As electrical solar theory suggests the sun's corona is heated by the electrical current running through it. These current flows create electrical discharge events in the suns atmosphere, just like they do here on earth. In fact the RHESSI satellite program has already provided strong evidence of electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. When RHESSI was pointed at the earth, they made a rather surprising discovery. They observed gamma ray discharges coming from the earth atmosphere. Such gamma ray bursts are related to electrical discharges that occur regularly in the earth atmosphere. Not surprisingly the RHESSI satellite also observes gamma ray bursts in the solar atmosphere as well. These gamma ray bursts are also related to electrical discharges, this time to electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. Such gamma ray bursts occur in and around the footprints of the coronal loops, or the areas of electrical energy concentration. This is tangible evidence that electrical discharges play a significant role in atmospheric activity, just as Alfven suggested over 25 years ago.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm

The ability to think outside the box is important and I believe that nature is giving us sublte clues in Shape and Sacred Geometry as far as understanding matter, energy and the universe.

The sun and all the stars and planets hum. Sound and Shape are dynamicly connected. I have a honest belief in the E8 TOE model in as much as it is so elegant and it'd relationship to the elemental particles and the field strengths in its structural beauty and 8 fold symmetry.

I really liked the information on the Aetherometry web page provided by a member. Their understanding of Shape and Function cannot be understated. They also keep their heads in the fifth dimension which is very Klauza/Klein and Maxwell of them
http://www.aetherometry.com/

A new concept of energy and a new integral function for its forms
The fundamental aetherometric concept is the expanded function of energy. Energy is a five-dimensional event, capable of phase superimposition in multiples of five-dimensional events ('raising energy to the nth power'). With this new functional approach, the energy-event becomes a micromachine, a wave-synthesizer capable of fine-structure definition. Energy is not simply the potentiality of work, but work seen or unseen, useful or useless, converted or not. The continuous creation of Space across sequential instants of Time is the ontological work of energy, the evidence that a flux of energy has a power and performs sensible work. Space is, in this sense, the work of the perpetual flux of massfree energy, just as universal Time is at once its synchronous beat and its eternal duration. Energy flows in packets, in quantized units, whether Planckian or not. Energy flux is "molecularized" or particulate. Every energy unit (see Leibniz's monad), irrespective of physical nature, is a synthesis of a spatial volume flowing or 'beating' with a resonant simultaneity, the production of a difference being found at the core of the new concept of energy: energy is a synthesis of the different - particle and waves, Space and Time manifolds, conjugate series of physical objects, different constituents, different properties or qualia.

Morphology is no more separate from energy, from its processes and transformations, than topology may be mapped out while being divorced from geometry and metrics - that is, if science and mathematical language are to actually follow the internal dynamics of systems, instead of simply replacing them with static appearances and convoluted approximations.

Aetherometry has provided novel wave-synchronous and resonance-coherent, solidary particle-and- wave solutions for virtually all energy structures and interactions. Every energy flux is a flux of energy units, massbound or massfree. Each unit has the dimensions of energy, and coheres a particle function with a phase or external wave. It also establishes a synchronizing resonance between the group wave intrinsic to the particle and the external guide wave. The coupling of these two wave functions - that is intrinsic to every energy coupling between a particle and a field wave - is referred to as primary superimposition. Synchronism of energy flow is a property of the primary superimposition of waves, of the internal consistency of every energy unit. Basic endoreference systems are created by primary superimposition.

Wherever energy flows, particles, whether massbound or massfree, move in relative and absolute senses (molecular or quantum view of energy). And wherever particles move, resonant waves transmit them, propel them (subquantic view of energy). A particle is nothing but the undulatory transmission of a unit of linear momentum intrinsic to an energy flux.

Aetherometric theory has generated entirely new, algebraic expressions that provide exact formulations for a wide variety of fundamental constants, laws and processes of physics, such as: the fine-structure constant; Ohm's Law; the Duane-Hunt Law; Planck's Law; the Ideal Gas Law; Aspden's Law of Electrodynamics; the Nernst equation; Gibbs free energy; the impedance of the 'vacuum'; the magnetic permeability of the 'vacuum' (invariant for photons and variable for massfree and massbound charges); the electric energy of [[electrostatic interactions]]; entropy; the internal energy function of a system; the total energy of a system.

Aetherometry has also discovered and identified precise physico-mathematical functions for other fundamental physical and biophysical laws and processes, amongst which: the electric fine-structure of the electron and proton mass-energies; the fine-structure of massbound and massfree charges in vacuo and in material media; the invariant electric permittivity of the vacuum to ambipolar and photon radiations; the variable permittivity of the vacuum to massbound charges; the antigravitational work of electrostatic charge lattices; the energy, momentum and wave structure of gravitons, massfree charges and latent energy units; the blackbody photon radiation law; primary and secondary gravitational interactions; the functional equivalence and nonidentity of inertial mass and gravitational wavelength; a new algorithm for linear-log integration of acid-base and redox reactions; a new model of electronic orbitals with original volumetric and dynamic structures for covalent and noncovalent (van der Waals) bonds; spectral identification of massfree inductive, receiver, transformer and transmitter functions of genomic DNA and genomic RNA.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Powerpedia:Aetherometry

When attempting to understand energy and matter one needs to consider the work of Victor Schauberger. The use of water vortices had been pioneered by Austrian - Viktor Schauberger, who realized that implosion has a way of creating energy. When these vortex systems are co-ordinated and phased together, huge forces are released. Viktor Schauberger's basic thesis contains a universal, twofold movement principle. He meant that life sustains by a gathering, implosive type of movement and reversed, a spreading, explosive movement that leads to the extinguishing of life. With the implosive movement coolness, suction growth and healthiness follows. The explosive movement generates heat, pressure, fragmentation, illness, and death. His opinion was that man had only succeeded in mastering the movement of death in order to release energy. All known engines are based on explosion, heat and pressure. To only use the explosive movement, definitely leads to the destruction of nature. These thoughts did not get any sympathy in his time, decades before the environmental problems showed up.

Therefore, one of Schaubergers aims was to investigate and artificially copy this movement that he could see that the nature was using in order to gather energy for different uses. Basically the movement could be described as an inward moving and twisting vortex. The appearance of the vortex is wide. A spiral galaxy is an expression for a disc-shaped vortex whose opponent could be a DNA molecule, which describes a nearly infinite long thread-shaped vortex. The grade of complexity becomes obvious if You realize that large vortices are composed of smaller vortices and so on.
_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

Last edited by junglelord on Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:36 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "kovil"

junglelord,

How like a Birkeland Current, DNA is !

the electric energy of Life !

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "junglelord"

This forum is so cool. I picked up some essential pieces of the puzzle in the form of the above mentioned items. Another Member turned me on to Zoam. 2, 3, 5, infinity.

The Zoam model, the Aether information are new to me. They make a lot of sense to me as does the EU model and the E8 model and Vortex Math of Rodin and Victor Schauberger.

This paper did little for me at all except to show me their limited thinking.
_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

Last edited by junglelord on Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:19 pm; edited 2 times in total

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Solar"

I started reading this and promptly fell asleep on the floor at page seven. As far as I'm concerned Fletcher and Hudson owe me sixteen sheets of fine white paper and an ink cartridge.

I didn't see anything novel in their approach, in fact it appears par for the course and standard fair. It seems thus far to be based on more kinetic and thermal particle turbulence “collision” and “shocks” “wave” models using high speed Alfven waves “cascading” through regions of high electron density as a kinetic 'driver' transporting energy to the corona to account for electron acceleration. And this stemming from the hypothesis of “magnetic reconnection” which, as has been mentioned, is in violation of conservation law. It's the same antiquated non-electric model of energy transport via turbulent collisions. Even reading up to page seven you can see the conceptual flaws resulting from the exclusion of electrical forces as 'drivers' even though they mention current sheets, and magnetic fields. I could be wrong on some of this but by all means feel free to correct where necessary.

The title itself characterizes the non-linear dynamics of electro-plasma interactions as “impulsive”. This idea stems from being relatively stuck in a psychological inertial frame wherein the Universe was seen as relatively quiet place with benign objects 'floating' in the vacuum of space and the only interpretation for interactions was via 'collision' either directly or with 'wave fronts' etc. From such an antiquated point of view plasma, energized into action by electricity and electromagnetic fields, is like an unruly child in the shopping mall of “gravity” and kinetic based options; impetuous and “impulsive”.

The introduction cites the production of “hard X-Ray emission and strong UV and white-light emission” but lightning, aka electrical discharge, also produces these effects if I'm not mistaken? - as does the arc welding. Then why not look to electrical discharge to account for the same principle? The paper also says:

“Since flare energy release implies large-scale restructuring of the coronal magnetic field (e.g. Via reconnection) it is natural to expect excitation of such waves...”

Capacitors store electrons/electrical energy and when their upper limits are exceeded they discharge. With double layers in solar plasma acting as “conductive plates” what would be more “natural” is an exploding electric double layer with an increase in voltage causing the “stressed” state. Then “relaxation”. This also causes me to take issue with the term “magnetic energy”.

It was interesting to note that on page three a citation is made with reference to results from RHESSI and TRACE “exacerbating” the “outstanding theoretical issues with coronal electron acceleration.”. And well it should. It reminded me of something Fred Hoyle said in the video “Cosmology Quest”. Paraphrasing:

'They already know whats up there so they just put it in there'.

The remark speaks to 'expecting' to find results to confirm what one already assumes they know; as opposed to letting the results inform you of what's actually there. This is probably what is causing the “exacerbated” condition with regard to thermal heated-wave based collisional kinematic models. Results from RHESSI and TRACE are more than likely falsifying them but as opposed to throwing such models out they are probably still looking for the expected results.

“Section 2 The Proposed Mechanism” sums up the the lack of recognition of “magnetic reconnection” as a sort of backwards interpretation of an exploding double layer, and the lack of acceptance of magnetic field structure as a continuum. There are no stray field lines flapping around like the tattered ends of a worn flag in the breeze of the solar wind to be vicariously slammed together downwind behind a planet in a “reconnection” event releasing stored “magnetic energy” and neither are magnetic field lines sent crashing into the solar surface by some sort of 'back drafting' cascade of Alfven wave pulses through regions of high electron density to initiate their acceleration. Which is what the following sentences appear to be saying:

“We investigate a scenario in which products of reconfiguration – large-scale Alfven wave pulses – transport the energy and magnetic-field changes rapidly through the corona to the lower atmosphere.”

And.

“Under appropriate conditions the Alfvenic perturbation will propagate rapidly through the coronal field to the chromosphere...”

I don't know if I'm understanding this sentence correctly but when coupled with the diagram on page seven it looks like they are viewing the Alfven waves as violently 'pushing' the “Shrinking loop” downward (due to “reconnection” event in the corona) towards collision with the lower Chromosphere which not only produces a parallel electric field (E||) for fast acceleration but also an accompanying reverberative 'back splash' of electron acceleration from the force of the impact?

IF true, again, this is another kinematic-turbulence oriented-differences in particle velocity-based-thermal induced X-Ray/UV-'crashing' of waves and interactive shock-front interpretation to account for the energy of what is apparently anomalous electron acceleration in traditional venues and its mathmagically justified to boot. Apologies for any errors in translation and corrections greatly appreciated but the simple elegance of proven capacitive discharge of exploding electric double layers will suffice just fine.

Last edited by Solar on Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:02 am; edited 1 time in total

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "junglelord"

From my understanding and the help of Solar and others the question is really a chicken and egg question in some respects. The actual magnetic reconnection is misnamed and although a physical event it is not the driver of the accelerated electron or a capable theory on its own but rather the result of the entire system in relation to plasma discharge between layers and with the galactic current. Looks like a giant Z Pinch
Wink

This report leds credence to that view. They are surprised to see it as large scale quasi steadystate and interconnected with deep space.

Magnetic reconnection region larger than 2.5 million km found in the solar wind
11 Jan 2006

Using the ESA Cluster spacecraft and the NASA Wind and ACE satellites, a team of American and European scientists have discovered the largest jets of particles created between the Earth and the Sun by magnetic reconnection. This result makes the cover of this week's issue of Nature.

Magnetic reconnection is a magnetic to particle energy conversion process believed to be important in astrophysics (intergalactic medium, neutron stars), solar and space physics (solar flares, coronal mass ejections, geomagnetic storms), and laboratory devices (tokamaks*). Other than in the laboratory, planetary magnetospheres and the solar wind are the only places we can study this process directly. The paper by T. D. Phan et al. addresses an aspect of reconnection that has been hotly debated. Namely, can reconnection occur over an extended region in space or is it intrinsically patchy and random?

The reported observations in the solar wind provide direct evidence that the process is fundamentally large scale and quasi-steady in nature. The 2.5 million kilometre reconnection region is a world record, 2 orders of magnitude longer than the previous record.

http://clusterlaunch.esa.int/science-e/ ... ctid=38574

Looks like a giant Z Pinch

Largest reconnection X-line found in the solar wind between the Sun and the Earth (white line). The plasma jets directions associated with the magnetic reconnection process are symbolised by red arrows embedded in the jets (colour coded in orange). Courtesy of Matt Davis and Tai Phan, SSL, UC Berkeley, USA.
_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:10 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

Hello All

Hello Michael

You said

Magnetic fields do not make and break connections like electrical circuits. All the mathematical equations that relate to magnetic fields treat them as a full continuum. Electrical circuits can release all sorts of high energy particles and we can demonstrate this in a lab. Magnetic fields in these filaments are the *effect* of the current flow, they are not the *cause*. The mainstream has the cart before the horse.

What is the cause???????? or should I say the horse.

The driving force is the electric current flow horse. The magnetic (spinning) cart is just along for the ride. Good to see you here by the way. I think you'll learn a lot more about plasma physics around here than you'll ever learn on mainstream sites.

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 11:59 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Pluto"

Hello Michael

I have learnt so much from you and the information directed by you and others on this site.

What causes the electric flow?

What drives it?

What matter comes out and how is it reformed?

Thank you Michael


,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,even a dead fish can swim down mainstream.

My arms are tied of swimming upsteam. I'm offf on holidays soon.
_________________
Smile and live another day

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:49 am Post subject: A surprising busy holiday.... Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

Sorry for the delay in getting started with the critique. It's been a busier holiday than I thought. The "Honey Do" list has been substantial this week.

The impulsive phase of a solar flare marks the epoch of rapid conversion of energy stored in the pre-flare coronal magnetic field.

This "stored" energy is stored in what way exactly? The magnetic field forms a full continuum, so magnetic energy is not 'stored" in any particular spot along the continuum, certainly not at a "zero" point in the continuum.

Hard X-ray observations imply that a substantial fraction of flare energy released during the impulsive phase is converted to the kinetic energy of mildly relativistic electrons (10-100 keV).

There is no evidence that stored magnetic fields were "converted" to relativistic electrons. For all we know those electrons are coming in from the outside. In fact I know that they are. This notion of "conversion" of energy is not demonstrated, it is "assumed".

The liberation of the magnetic free energy

Electrons are not "magnetic free", so what is he talking about when he says "magnetic free energy"? What is that?

can occur as the coronal magnetic field reconfigures and relaxes following reconnection.

This is an "extraordinary" claim. As such it requires extraordinary evidence in support of such a claim. The first step in that support would be to demonstrate that magnetic fields can "reconnect" in controlled tests and that it can release energy this way. That was never done. This is no better than pointing to the sky and claiming magic magnet faeries did it. All the mathematical formulas treat magnetic fields as a continuum. There is no evidence that magnetic fields can make and break connections like an electrical circuit. This particular statement is extraordinary and it was never supported with actual scientific evidence.

Everything that comes later is much easier to explain with standard electrical interactions in plasma. The whole idea that any energy can be gained by "magnetic reconnection" is absurd. The father of MHD theory said it was a false and misled concept by individuals that did not understand basic plasma physics and the role of electricity in plasmas. As Alfven explained, high energy events like this cannot be explained by magnetic reconnection. That makes this claim all that more extraordinary since it goes against that direct statements of the guy that wrote the book on MHD theory. Unless they demonstrate this one statement, everything else is purely a guess on their part. We don't even get past the first line of the abstract without being expected to have "faith" in an idea they failed to ever fully demonstrate, and they failed to even test in a controlled scientific test here on Earth. That is completely unacceptable in science. Imagine if Birkeland had claimed the Aurora were caused by "magnetic red herrings" and never bothered to experiment with magnetic red herrings to demonstrate they actually exist or can produce energy? That's exactly the same feeling I get from this paper. It is one giant assumption, from beginning to end, and it gets worse as it goes. I'll explain as I go. I just wanted to point out that the premise of this paper (magnetic reconnection as an energy release event) could and should be put to a scientific test in a controlled way. That never occurred, and no attempt to verify that magnetic reconnection can be an energy source was ever confirmed. That's only the half of it too. Wait till we get to the actual paper.

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:58 am Post subject: Ok, let start from the top.... Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

Strong chromospheric hard X-ray emission and strong UV and white-light emission mark the impulsive phase of a solar flare. These signatures are usually interpreted in terms of the well-known “thick-target model” (Brown 1971; Hudson 1972) in which fast electrons lose energy in Coulomb collisions and ionizing collisions in the chromosphere, heating and producing bremsstrahlung en route. The inefficiency of the bremsstrahlung process in a cold thick target implies that a large fraction of flare energy resides in these electrons (Kane & Donnelly 1971; Lin & Hudson 1976; Holman et al. 2003), and calculations under the assumptions of the thick-target model yield numbers on the order of 1034 − 1037 electrons accelerated per second (e.g. Miller 1997; Holman et al. 2003). Various strands of evidence have led to the commonly-accepted idea that the particle acceleration takes place in the solar corona, following which the electrons propagate into the lower atmosphere where they heat, and generate the observed hard X-ray radiation.

Ok let's start at the beginning. The "best" theory they have at the start of this paper is that the "impulse phase" of a CME involves the flow of high energy electrons, that come down into the lower atmosphere at very high speed from somewhere up in the upper atmosphere. Now of course an ordinary thunderbolt fits that particular description too. The "stored" energy would be charge separation, and the "impluse" would be electrical in nature. Whatever theory they come up with has to show high energy electrons raining down from above. Now at this point, the "best explanations" to date have been entirely consistent with an electrical solar model. Those excess energy electrons simply come into the solar atmosphere from the universe. There is nothing unusual about these observations from the standpoint of typical plasma physics.

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: Now it turn ugly.... Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

Various strands of evidence have led to the commonly-accepted idea that the particle acceleration takes place in the solar corona, following which the electrons propagate into the lower atmosphere where they heat, and generate the observed hard X-ray radiation.

So the whole basis of this theory is "common-acceptance"? In other words, their whole basis for proposing "magnetic reconnection" as an energy source was not based on real lab tests, but rather they skipped the lab altogether and just "assumed" that magnetic reconnection occurs despite Alfven's personal chastisement of that idea. So we can assume that Alfven wasn't part of this group that "commonly accepts" is idea?

Extensive theoretical work over four decades (which we will not attempt to summarize here) has elucidated the basics and the specifics of numerous different coronal acceleration mechanisms,

Notice how they skipped over Charles Bruce and electrical discharge theory?

in the electric fields present in current-sheets

Current sheets? Now there are current sheets? Are there current sheets *before* this "reconnection' process? If so, how do they eliminate "current flows" as the reconnection process?

and X-lines/points generated by reconnection,

The "x-points" they talk about are purely theoretical by the way. In other words they simply "assumed" that two magnetic fields "cross". This "cross" of a magnetic line doesn't explain a single million degree coronal loop, it "assumes" two of the meet without explaining anything about how they get to be a million degrees *before* they cross. The "x" point is assumed. The energy release process is "assumed". None of this was documented in a lab *first* and *then* applied to this problem. It was all *assumed*. The whole idea that reconnection *generated* anything is purely assumed.

in large- and small-scale plasma waves and turbulence, and at shocks. Recent reviews can be found in Aschwanden (2002) or Litvinenko (2003), for example. However, a coronal acceleration site still presents some problems for theory.

Ya, particularly the problem of explaining a whole sheet of million degree coronal loops in the atmosphere based an "x" point in two magnetic fields. Note here that this 'x' concept related to magnetic reconnection is about the only physical model presented. In no way can it be used to explain a single coronal "loop" that contains plasma in the millions of degrees, nor can it explain a sheet of million degree plasma. It could only explain a "point" or a "X" release of "higher energy" plasma. What exactly drives a single million degree coronal loop then?

The obvious weakness of this whole article centers on the fact that they *assumed* a physical process that they never demonstrated in a controlled test. They "assumed" an X point in two magnetic lines can somehow release energy without demonstrating how or what particle physics process actually takes place. It's nothing but a vague concept that was never actually "lab tested" by anyone.

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:23 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

The primary difficulty, especially in the context of the high intensity of the energy deposition implied not only by hard X-rays but also by UV and white-light continuum observations (e.g. Fletcher et al. 2007), is the so-called “number problem” - the high total number of electrons required compared to that available in the corona - and the associated (and in fact more problematical) supply and re-supply problems.

In other words, they have a big time electron volume problem. They need lots of extra electrons and everyone in the industry is stumped as to where these excess electrons come from and what "resupplies" these currents over time. Now of course the easy way to explain that excess number of electrons would be to acknowledge that the sun is part of a circuit and receives electrons from the universe itself. Of course that would blow their whole show, so we can't have any of that.

The "big problem' here is obvious. They need a sustained current flow to flow down from above and strike the lower atmosphere, without admitting that the sun electrically interacts with the heliosphere. That's their dilemma. Let's see how they try to resolve it now.

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:23 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

The thick-target model as normally understood requires intense electron beams to transport the flare energy.

Now of course a discharge from above is evidently out of the question for anyone with a hyperactive imagination. Electrical discharges are all too mundane after all. We can find them almost everywhere in the universe. Nah, we need something really "unique" here to work with.

We propose instead that flare energy is transported by the Poynting flux of Alfv´en waves.

Huh? Which side are they on now? This is a theory that relates directly to the current density and the electric fields in the plasma. They seemed to have missed something important, or perhaps I did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting%27s_theorem

Since the magnetic field does no work, the right hand side gives the negative of the total work done by the electromagnetic field per second·meter3.

Did they miss that part about the magnetic field doing no work? I'm mystified now. As I understand this theory it relates directly to current flow and electron density in the plasma. This theory presupposed that the magnetic field is a continuum and does none of the work. They're trying to ignore the tenets of the theory.

The only thing that is producing any work in this theory is the electron flow itself. Now if they're going to admit right now that these are current carrying filaments in plasma, well great. If they're trying to claim that the magnetic fields do work, where's the evidence this is true? Astronomers seem to have a feeble grasp of *electromagnetic* waves. They seem to only understand the magnetism aspect and they seem to wish to turn their head to the obvious electrical component. This particular theory is completely related to the current flow in the plasma and the resistance of the medium itself. Magnetic fields are assumed to do none of the actual work. There is a significant problem with trying to use such a theory to claim that the magnetic fields do work. That goes against the premise of the theory.

I really can't tell at this point if they are for or against EU theory because they seem to imply that Alfven waves carry current, but they aren't really talking much about the currents themselves, like where they are going from and where they are going to, etc. They seem to be implying that a magnetic field exists without a cause. The cause of the magnetic fields is the current that flows through the plasma. The magnetic and electrical fields form an intertwined spiraling filament. One does not exist without the other. The magnetic field strength is directly related to the amount of current running through the plasma filament.

It is as though none of these guys have ever sat and watched a plasma ball, or a sat an watched an electrical storm. This discharge from above is easily explained as an atmospheric discharge just as Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven and others always "predicted". This notion that their beliefs are "well accepted" has nothing to do with whether or not they have any relationship to what actually happens in nature. So far this whole thing seems "weird". It seems to be cobbled together in piecemeal fashion from fragmented understandings of various aspects of mathematical relationships, but no understanding whatsoever about electricity. I'm a bit confused at this point. I guess I'll keep reading and commenting as I go.

Since flare energy release implies large-scale restructuring of the coronal magnetic field

It should be noted here that not only does it "imply" a large scale restructuring of the magnetic fields, such a large restructuring of the magnetic (and electrical) fields *are* observed. In other words, there is no doubt that there is a "restructuring" process that is related to something that connects and disconnects, but that something is current flow, not magnetic fields. Magnetic fields for a continuum, they don't make and break connections like electrical circuits. Remember that this was never demonstrated in a lab. Their whole basis for this claim is "popularity of belief", not empirical scientific evidence.

(e.g. via reconnection)

Unproven assertion repeated ad nausium.

it is natural to expect the excitation of such waves
(Emslie & Sturrock 1982). The electron acceleration can then take place where the waves dissipate, in the legs of the coronal loops or in the chromosphere itself.

*ELECTROmagnetic waves can "dissipate" locally if the connection from point a to point b is lost and there is some residual electrical charge inside the remaining core. It would dissipate almost instantly however, and it would not form any sort of stable configuration of any duration without more current flow between A and B.

Evidently they've never played with plasma in a lab. The magnetic field around the loops inside a plasma ball are generated by the current flow through the light plasma. Keep in mind that the plasma ball is more dense than the corona. There is no explicit "work" being done by the magnetic field. It simply is wound around the electron flows in the plasma. That magnetic field will disappear in less than a second once you turn off the switch, and remove the current flow. The is no sustained amount of residual electrical current flowing around in the ball for another several minutes or several hours. This whole premise is without merit IMO because it shows a completely lack of understanding of the *ELECTRO* part of ELECTROmagnetic theory.

I've still seen no evidence presented that shows that Alfven was wrong in his assessment about magnetic reconnection theory, or any empirical data to back up any of these claims. The whole argument seems to be based upon endless unproven assertion, appeal to popularity fallacies and a complete lack of understanding of plasma physics.

I'm already pretty sure where this paper is headed. Where is that file 13 anyway?

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:48 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

I think I'll have to take up my critique of this paper a bit later and wait for some feedback from you guys to see If I'm missing something. Every time they talk about "stored magnetic energy", I want to hurl. There is no stored magnetic energy that would sustain a CME sort of event. If we turn off the plasma ball, the magnetic fields certainly do dissipate, but that dissipation energy release is small potatoes compared to the emissions from the electrified plasma thread that was there before the power was turned off. The magnetic field in our light plasma ball is thicker than what we find in the corona. In no way could that residual magnetic field result in huge releases of energy. Whatever energy is "stored" in the magnetic field before the power it cut is "stored" as kinetic energy in the flow of ions and electrons. The primary energy event happens when the power is turned on, not when the electron flow is turned off, and the *electro-magnetic* field begins to dissipate.

In some ways I'm encouraged to see these authors talk about Alfven waves and electron densities. At the same time, I'm pretty dismayed at how cavalier they seem to be as it relates to magnetic fields and what they can really do in real labs. The "stored energy" that is contained in these Alfven waves is energy that is "stored" in the kinetic movement of plasma ions and electrons. That kinetic movement is created by and sustained by the current flowing through the plasma. The moment we turn off our plasma ball, the filaments dissolve and dissipate in a whimper. The real "force" here is current flow. The only thing "stored" in these filament channels is the kinetic energy of the moving particles in the filament channel. The driving force is the electron stream which we can demonstrate by turning off the power. The moment we do that, the show is over, the power drops and the whole thing stops emitting light. The photons we observe from these high energy ions are a direct result of the the current flow in the filament. The moment the flow stops, the light stops as well.

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:59 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Solar"

Ok, the first question I immediately have to ask myself is how this energy is being "stored" exactly? Every lab experiment involving "magnetic reconnection" theory seems to 'store" the energy that is released inside electrons that are stored in giant capacitors. The current is then run through an electromagnetic coil to generate a short but powerful electromagnetic burst into the plasma. That burst tends to separate the plasma and creates kinetic movements of particles inside the plasma. Once the "stored" energy is gone, the "magnetic reconnection" (which is actually electrical interaction from induction forces) process is over, and it's over in seconds. In other words, the real storage mechanisms are *electrical* in nature, and the energy release is due to a release of strong electrical currents into the apparatus.

That, to me, it sounds as if they are mimicking an exploding electric double layer but not taking into account how they did it via storage of electrons in giant capacitors. That sounds like the function of capacitive discharge and double layers can render this effect with a catastrophic increase in voltage. What is causing them to overlook that particular ingredient? Definition: Double Layer

Solar Flares and Current Interruption- Alfven and Carlqvist

On the Physics of Relativistic Double Layers - P. Carlqvist

Energy Release in Double Layers - Michael A. Raadu

Dynamical Aspects of Double Layers - Michaels A. Raadu

Double Layer - Plasma-Universe

Google image search for graphical representations of

[url=http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071115rayguns.htm]Cosmic Ray Gun:

"Although the mention of magnetic fields and ionized gas has entered into the discussion of cosmic rays and their associated EMR, the connection between the theories and the data is tenuous. The theory does not identify the strong electric fields in sheaths around stars as the cause of cosmic ray acceleration.Rather the cause is said to be the compressive effect of "shock waves" bouncing particles around like pinballs" until they are sped up to their incredible velocities.

In the Electric Universe, there is another mechanism for cosmic ray production and that is the "exploding double layer". Irving Langmuir first described a double layer in 1929. It forms when electric current flows through plasma and is treated as a circuit element that dissipates energy. The flowing current multiplied by the voltage across the double layer determines the rate of dissipation.

Hannes Alfvén described a double layer as, "... a plasma formation by which a plasma - in the physical meaning of this word - protects itself from the environment. It is analogous to a cell wall by which a plasma - in the biological meaning of this word - protects itself from the environment."

At times, a double layer may actually cutoff the current flow in the circuit causing a catastrophic rise in voltage across the double layer. The powerful energy release of the "exploding double layer" is sometimes observed in power transmission switchyards when a circuit breaker is opened incorrectly."

As well as "Seeing More Electricity in Space"

Energy Release in Double Layers - Michael A. Raadu:

"A Double layer (DL) in a current carrying plasma sustains a localized net potential difference and acts as an impedance converting electrical energy to directed particle energy determined by the DL potential. DL's accelerated equal numbers of ions and electrons for relativistic energies...

...Particles crossing a DL gain an energy given by the total potential as a result of direct acceleration by the electric field." - Raadu

The below photo is demonstrative of the "powerful energy release..." due to "catastrophic rise in voltage across the double layer" as well as revealing filaments of Birkeland currents.

Birkelandcurrentsun.gif (20.04 KiB) Viewed 13993 times

Photo curteousy of Plamsa-Universe.com

So with an electric/electrostatic double layer you have two layers parallel to each other of opposite charge. With plasma the DL region seperates or maintains the potential difference between plasmas of different properties and/or characteristics. Qualities such as consistency, temperature, density, kinetic disposition, chemical makeup etc all can contribute to the formation of the DL in a myriad ways and combinations of ways. It is analogous to the line of separation between that forms when filling a glass with oil and water and it sustains the potential drop or potential difference between two states conditions. The edges or 'skin' of molecular, or "dark clouds", that Birkeland currents interact with are defined by DL's which, imho, is what is seen with galaxies. That a magnetic field naturally accompanies an electric current and displays the motive characteristics of that current, does not seem reason to attribute the energy release of that symbiotic relationship to the magnetic field alone. Whether in the magneto tail of earth nor with regard to solar flares.

In the fluid dynamics approach that seems to govern the paper, page 14- section 3 "Electron acceleration in the context of energy transport by Alfven wave pulses" - three acceleration mechanisms are given consideration.

1) dispersive Alfven wave pulses cause direct coronal acceleration via parallel electric field.
2) Electrons accelerated ahead of the wave front and "mirror in the converging solar magnetic field and return for repeated interaction with the wave" - as if to say the electrons are progressively 'bounced' or 'reflected' via 'shocks' towards acceleration speeds beyond thermal (Sec 3.3), the "magnetic mirror" effect results in a tendency for charged particles to bounce back from the high field region"
3) "dissipation in or near the chromosphere" via a 'stochastic turbulent cascade' which means by some random undetermined process (aka 'We don't know').

Overall the paper still seems to be a fluid dynamics series of 'assumptions' of waves and shocks though and in electric and magnetic fields using the 'velocity' of high speed Alfven waves as the primary kinetic 'driver'. It seems to be no more than speculation and is trying to add validity to the "magnetic reconnection" fiasco when invoked through traditional means; and this to the exclusion of electromotive forces i.e. electricity via exploding electric double layers. In relation to those Alvfen waves, the supposed 'cascading turbulence causing velocity' the Alfven waves supposedly induce through a theoretical proton density in the lower corona where the supposed "bulk of magnetic energy resides" - the authors relay that:

"...the displacement current may still be neglected, allowing an MHD description."

This is a traditional assumptive effort with the same traditional negation of electricity which necessarily results in the 'creation' of such mechanisms with supposed "magnetic energy" induced kinetic 'pushing' and 'bouncing' of electrons wherein the strength of the fields alone is responsible for electron acceleration through the flawed mechanism of "magnetic reconnection".