Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

[jacmac]

RM,
Just to clarify what I am seeing in your diagram as it relates to your text:
1. The upper half of the X is on the solar equator to the right, and on the 55 degree north latitude to the left ?
2. The lower half of the X is on the solar equator to the left, and on the 55 degree south latitude to the right ?

And

It was also found that polar coronal holes appeared ‘bounded’ above latitude +/- 55 degrees

So, the "Heliotube" then would contain the "bounded" coronal holes all the time(both north and south), as the sun rotates; while the 55* to the equator area would move alternately from the heliotube area into the more open(my term) area,your dotted lines, as the sun rotates.
Have I followed your statements and diagram correctly ?

[Robertus Maximus]

RM,
Just to clarify what I am seeing in your diagram as it relates to your text:
1. The upper half of the X is on the solar equator to the right, and on the 55 degree north latitude to the left ?
2. The lower half of the X is on the solar equator to the left, and on the 55 degree south latitude to the right ?

And

It was also found that polar coronal holes appeared ‘bounded’ above latitude +/- 55 degrees

So, the "Heliotube" then would contain the "bounded" coronal holes all the time(both north and south), as the sun rotates; while the 55* to the equator area would move alternately from the heliotube area into the more open(my term) area,your dotted lines, as the sun rotates.
Have I followed your statements and diagram correctly ?

Yes, essentially that is correct but keep in mind we are dealing with a dynamic environment and such values may not be ‘fixed’. I gave a slightly more detailed view earlier in the thread, see the section titled ‘The Heliosphere and the Solar Cycle’ on page 9. I know my illustrations are not great but if you try to think of them in 3D terms along with this ‘movie’ of M2-9 (https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0706/m ... orradi.gif) it may help, again just keep in mind the orientation of the 'heliotube'.

[jacmac]

keep in mind we are dealing with a dynamic environment and such values may not be ‘fixed’

Yes, i agree.

I was thinking that above 55* the coronal holes are in the same environment, within the heliotube, as the sun turns. While below 55* the environment alternates from within the heliotube to not within the heliotube. This could be a reason for the sun spots being mostly below 55*: changing environment contributing to making sun spots.

Also, with one half of the heliotube X surface area generally aligned with the solar equator, the planets come in to play as they too are close to the solar equator.

jack

[Robertus Maximus]

Is the IBEX Ribbon a Double Layer?

It was Hannes Alfven’s view that: ‘Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object…’ He went further by suggesting that a ‘…heliographic current system leads to the prediction of two double layers on the Sun's axis which may give radiations detectable from Earth.’

Alfven proposed how such double layers (DL) may be identified: ‘There is one property of a double layer which often is neglected: a double layer very often (perhaps always) produces noise.’ Such noise production was ‘…often associated with strong currents through plasmas.’

‘The Sun acts as a unipolar inductor producing a current which during odd solar cycles goes outward along the axes in both directions and inward in the equatorial plane. The current closes at large distances, but we do not know where. The equatorial current layer is often very inhomogeneous. Further, it moves up and down like the skirt of a ballerina. In even solar cycles the direction of the current is reversed.

‘By analogy with the magnetospheric circuit we may expect the heliospheric circuit to have double layers. They should be located at the axis of symmetry, but only in those solar cycles when the axial current is directed away from the Sun.

‘No one has yet tried to predict how far from the Sun they should be located. They should produce high energy electrons directed toward the Sun, and synchrotron radiation from these should make them observable as radio sources. Further, they should produce noise. They may be observable from the ground, but so far no one has cared to look for such objects.’

Following Alfven, double layers should be found located at some distance over the polar regions of the Sun, if Alfven’s unipolar inductor model is correct.

In this thread I have suggested that the heliospheric circuit is more complex than that proposed by Alfven, rather a more complete electrical model of the Sun is a fusion of both Juergens’ and Alfven’s ideas; in this proposal the Alfven unipolar inductor model is represented by a ‘pseudo-Alfven’ circuit visible as the sunspot cycle.

In the Alfven model double layers would be: ‘located at the axis of symmetry, but only in those solar cycles when the axial current is directed away from the Sun.’ Alfven went on: ‘No one has yet tried to predict how far from the Sun they should be located. They should produce high energy electrons directed toward the Sun, and synchrotron radiation from these should make them observable as radio sources. Further, they should produce noise. They may be observable from the ground, but so far no one has cared to look for such objects.’

Heliospheric radio emissions

Heliospheric radio emissions were first observed by the Voyager 1 spacecraft in 1983 and for some time the location of the source was unknown one proposal was the emissions originated from the planet Jupiter.

Further studies suggested that the emissions originated at the edge of the heliosphere, at an estimated distance of 116-170 AU. The emissions went undetected due to the density of the plasma in the inner heliosphere the Voyager spacecraft were only able to detect the radiation from beyond 10 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun.

Later it was found that the emissions were not randomly distributed across the sky, instead they were found to lie in a line or ribbon in the direction of the heliospheric ‘nose’, it was also suggested that this was the narrowest part of the heliosphere.

The cause of the heliospheric emissions is still controversial but it is thought that they are a product of a ‘shock’, the radiation then propagating back into the inner heliosheath and heliosphere.

The shocks are thought to arise due to the interaction of Global Merged Interaction Regions (GMIRs) and the heliopause.

Heliospheric radio emissions and the IBEX Ribbon

In 2009 the first all-sky map of the heliosphere was produced from data returned by the IBEX spacecraft- the map revealed a sinuous feature which soon became known as the IBEX Ribbon (I have previously covered the nature of the IBEX Ribbon on this thread).

Remarkably, both the IBEX Ribbon and the linear radio emissions discovered by the Voyager spacecraft originate from the same region of the heliosphere! Furthermore, the estimated distance to the IBEX Ribbon, 140 AU, lies within the range of earlier estimates of the distance to the source of the heliospheric radio emissions.

Perhaps, the double layers suggested by Alfven do not lie over the Sun’s poles but in the region of the IBEX Ribbon. In the modified JMST Electric Sun model proposed here this would certainly make more sense in light of the geometric relationship between the Sun and current in the ‘heliotube’.

The radio emissions were thought to arise due to ‘shocks’ (but as we can see in this example from closer to home NASA has discovered a double layer but does not know what it is https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... -electrons), conventionally the only method open to consensus science to accelerate particles are ‘shocks’. However, if ‘shocks’ have failed in the above example, why should they be applicable elsewhere in the solar system, more specifically at the heliospheric boundary?

In my opinion the emissions at the edge of the heliosphere are not due to ‘shocks’ but due to the existence of a double layer.

The possible association with GMIRs is interesting. GMIRs are outer heliospheric extensions of the Co-rotating Interaction Regions (CIRs) these are regions of the heliospheric plasma that supposedly co-rotate with the Sun, some evidence exists that CIRs actually ‘drift’ across the solar surface from one rotation to the next; coherent CIRs are found out to distance of about 8 AU from the Sun beyond this distance they become increasingly more diffuse. If the connection is real could GMIRs and CIRs be more closely related to incoming current- accelerated at the postulated double layer- than the Sun?

In his later work Juergens speculated that part of the current arriving at the Sun consisted of relativistic electrons, the existence of a double layer in the vicinity of the IBEX Ribbon could well provide the means to accelerate electrons to such velocities.

Radio emissions from the heliospheric ‘nose’ offer the possibility of an association with the IBEX Ribbon and the presence of double layers suggested by Hannes Alfven that, to date, have gone unidentified.

References:

1. Alfven. Hannes, ‘Keynote Address’, Double Layers in Astrophysics, NASA Conference Publication 2469, 1987
2. Fuselier. Stephen A. and Cairns. Iver H., ‘The 2–3 kHz Heliospheric Radiation, the IBEX Ribbon, and the Three-Dimensional Shape of the Heliopause’, The Astrophysical Journal, 771:83, 2013 July 10 (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... X/771/2/83)
3. Juergens. Ralph E., ‘Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy’, Kronos, Volume 8, Number 2, Winter 1983

[Solar]

Is the IBEX Ribbon a Double Layer?

‘No one has yet tried to predict how far from the Sun they should be located. They should produce high energy electrons directed toward the Sun, and synchrotron radiation from these should make them observable as radio sources. Further, they should produce noise. They may be observable from the ground, but so far no one has cared to look for such objects.’

Following Alfven, double layers should be found located at some distance over the polar regions of the Sun, if Alfven’s unipolar inductor model is correct.

In this thread I have suggested that the heliospheric circuit is more complex than that proposed by Alfven, rather a more complete electrical model of the Sun is a fusion of both Juergens’ and Alfven’s ideas; in this proposal the Alfven unipolar inductor model is represented by a ‘pseudo-Alfven’ circuit visible as the sunspot cycle.

In the Alfven model double layers would be: ‘located at the axis of symmetry, but only in those solar cycles when the axial current is directed away from the Sun.’ Alfven went on: ‘No one has yet tried to predict how far from the Sun they should be located. They should produce high energy electrons directed toward the Sun, and synchrotron radiation from these should make them observable as radio sources. Further, they should produce noise. They may be observable from the ground, but so far no one has cared to look for such objects.’

Like Planetary Nebula M-29 mentioned earlier and BETELGEUSE.

But:

Whether this is viewed as the evolution of one structure from the ribbon shape into the belt shape as a function of energy or as two separate structure that overlap in energy (and could in fact originate at different radial distances along the LOS) remains a matter for further inquiry.
(...)
In terms of the brighter features, the belt roughly overlaps the ribbon in the “nose” hemisphere, but the belt is clearly present in the “tail” hemisphere where the ribbon is absent.” – A THREE-COORDINATE SYSTEM (ECLIPTIC, GALACTIC, ISMF) SPECTRAL ANALYSIS OF HELIOSPHERIC ENA EMISSIONS USING CASSINI/INCA MEASUREMENTS - K. Dialynas et al

Its whether or not there are "different radial distances along the LOS" component that is sorely needed.

[comingfrom]

Robertus asked,

Is the IBEX Ribbon a Double Layer?

I believe double layers form around regions of like charge.
The double layers are what keep the charge separation.

By this definition there would be a double layer around the IBEX Ribbon, which is what keeps it together as a ribbon.

If you think I have got that wrong, please do correct me
~Paul

[Robertus Maximus]

The Heliotail does not exist!

In this post ‘The Heliosphere and the Solar Cycle’, see link below:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16299&start=120

I questioned the accepted interpretation of the shape of the heliosphere. Now it appears that the long accepted view of the heliosphere is, after all, incorrect- it is actually more like that originally modelled by Parker based on a: ‘Large scale interstellar field in the absence of significant interstellar gas pressure and interstellar wind’.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 141250.htm
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... ith-galaxy
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-017-0115

The shape of the heliosphere is determined by the electrical relationship between the Sun and the LISM- I now await the announcement of the discovery of the ‘Heliotube’.

[Solar]

I now await the announcement of the discovery of the ‘Heliotube’.

Taurus Molecular Cloud

Considering the current technology: Were you on a planet orbiting one of the stars in yonder filament; what relevant observational feature(s) might serve as evidence leading you to conclude that your star were inside that tubular filament?

[Robertus Maximus]

I now await the announcement of the discovery of the ‘Heliotube’.

Taurus Molecular Cloud

Considering the current technology: Were you on a planet orbiting one of the stars in yonder filament; what relevant observational feature(s) might serve as evidence leading you to conclude that your star were inside that tubular filament?

Conditions in the TMC-1 are quite obviously different than the environment surrounding the Sun. Hypothetical observers in such systems as this and planetary nebulae, for example, may benefit from a glow mode discharge illuminating the cylindrical structure.

The Sun’s environment may already have provided clues to a wider structure but astrophysicists are so wedded to the comet-like model of the heliosphere that a change in their world-view would once have been considered unthinkable; the Dialynas team have gone a long way to correct this.

I would predict that future papers will mention that despite being spherical the heliosphere will be found to be ‘connected’ somehow to the LISM this ‘connection’ will appear ‘open’. It will be found that such an extended ‘connection’ will exhibit a ‘preferred direction’ or ‘preferred heliospheric latitude’.

For example the ‘croissant’ structure of the heliosphere as modelled in this paper: (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 115636.htm) will be a less appetising but more accurate hourglass.

From my calculations the Fast Solar Wind (FSW) is largely confined to the long axis of the heliotube it is known that the north and south solar wind hemispheres are asymmetric, such an asymmetry may exist because we are essentially looking ‘up’ and ‘down’ the heliotube. Future studies may realise this.

Some studies unconnected with solar research may unexpectedly reveal features associated with the heliotube.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 111504.htm

In the article above one of the authors, Zaritsky states: "Indeed, in one direction, we see the gas coming toward us, and the opposite direction, we see it moving away from us," the authors conclude the ‘gas’ exists in a galactic halo.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02005

From the actual paper above we find, from figure 2, that the ‘gas’ is aligned on galactic coordinates as is the heliotube, coincidence?

Research that could point to the existence of the heliotube may already exist in print- it’s just the small matter of putting the pieces together.

[Robertus Maximus]

Robertus asked,

Is the IBEX Ribbon a Double Layer?

I believe double layers form around regions of like charge.
The double layers are what keep the charge separation.

By this definition there would be a double layer around the IBEX Ribbon, which is what keeps it together as a ribbon.

If you think I have got that wrong, please do correct me
~Paul

Paul,

This is not quite what I have in mind here. I see the IBEX Ribbon arising in the region of the pinched Heliotube as; ‘Experimental results and theoretical work indicate that the streaming of the plasma against the B-field generates vortex filaments. These are force-free, self-pinched structures with J parallel to B, helical current flow, and helical mass plasma flow.

‘The filaments are formed in contrarotating pairs, with B-fields and mass flows alternatively parallel and anti-parallel.’ (1)

Presently it…’ is not known if the polar currents spread out to form current sheets or if they concentrate into filaments. It is likely that they break up into cylindrical filaments and pinch down in a Bennett-type pinch effect. But whereas the Bennett pinch represents a balance between the plasma pressure and a compressing electromagnetic force, a low density plasma like that in the heliosheath cannot generate an internal plasma pressure. The result is a force-free magnetic field in a reference frame which moves with the current because the electric and magnetic fields are aligned in this frame.

‘To an outside observer the magnetic field would appear as a twisted magnetic “rope” [Alfven and Falthammar 1963]. Force-free fields represent the lowest state of magnetic energy that a closed system may attain [Peratt 1992]. Hence an initial current sheet should break into Birkeland (magnetic field aligned) vortex tubes having a characteristic distribution function. Recent Voyager data suggest the presence of magnetic rope structures in the heliosheath [Burlaga et al 2006].

‘Relativistic electrons in the heliosheath could be produced in a system of double layers distributed along the field-aligned current systems. The double layer is an electrostatic structure a few Debye lengths wide which may appear in a current carrying plasma. It can sustain a high net potential difference which could accelerate electrons traversing it. It may then provide a mechanism for transforming stored magnetic energy into the directed kinetic energy of the accelerated particles [Peratt 1992]. Alfven [1986] discusses the production of relativistic electrons in double layers associated with a heliospheric current system.’ (2)

At the pinched region of the Heliotube is where we find double layers the IBEX Ribbon is an indication of the presence of the hypothesised double layers. I have suggested that due to the geometric relationship between the Sun’s rotational axis and the local interstellar Birkeland current we do not find double layers over the Sun’s poles as proposed by Alfven but rather the double layers are smeared out in to a 'ribbon'. The electrons they accelerate toward the Sun are predominately to be found in the Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) but we have already seen that the ‘initial current sheet should break into Birkeland (magnetic field aligned) vortex tubes having a characteristic distribution function. Recent Voyager data suggest the presence of magnetic rope structures in the heliosheath.’(3)

Birkeland currents in the HCS manifest as multifractral structures in the Voyager magnetic field data. Interestingly, ‘the degree of multifractality decreases with the heliocentric distance and is still modulated by the phases of the solar cycle in the entire heliosphere including the heliosheath.’ Moreover, it was observed that ‘the change of scaling toward a nonintermittent (nonmultifractal) behaviour’ occurred ‘in the nearby interstellar medium, just beyond the heliopause’.

So, even at the distance of Voyager 1 the signature of the solar cycle was still present researchers suggested this phenomenon extends all the way to the heliopause and into the ‘nearby interstellar medium’ where it takes on a ‘uniform nonintermittent behaviour’.

The researchers have just described the model I have proposed in this thread. A rotating Birkeland current in the nearby interstellar medium (nonintermittent) generates ‘vortex filaments’ i.e. Birkeland currents focussed toward the Sun, these currents are filamentary, and their number gives the impression of a sheet (multifractal) which evolves (solar cycle).

From our perspective in the inner heliosphere such rotation of current in the Heliotube may have gone previously unnoticed, could non-radial flows in the solar wind be actually due to the motion of plasma coiling around the Heliotube?

Researchers have found that a ‘…clear correlation is present between the sunspot number and the standard deviation of the east-west angle. The standard is large at solar maximum and small at solar minimum.’

Voyager 1 found that although the radial component of the solar wind had slowed to zero an azimuthal component was still present.

Earlier in this thread I suggested that the phenomenon of the Gnevyshev Gap is due to the main influence of the local Birkeland current crossing the galactic equator. From Figure 3 in this paper (4) we read in the associated text: ‘We have plotted 100-day running averages of the Voyager 2 east-west angle. The data show a systematic bias towards positive angles, except in 1982 and 1993, just after solar maximum. In each case the east-west angles becomes more positive before turning negative. While only two examples of this phenomenon are available, so far this looks like it may be a solar cycle variation, but its origin is not understood.’

At solar maximum the HCS is highly inclined to the solar equator, we can picture this now highly filamentary ‘sheet’ as rotating over the Sun’s polar regions, the negative bias in the east-west angle approximately corresponds with the Gnevyshev Gap, the non-radial solar wind flow is now ‘against’ the rotational direction of the Sun, as the solar cycle progresses to minimum and the HCS becomes less inclined the non-radial flow becomes positive.

From the afore mentioned paper the researchers concluded: ‘We have studied the non-radial solar wind flows. Consistent with predictions and angular momentum conservation, the east-west flow is slightly in the direction of solar rotation. The north-south angles, especially in the outer heliosphere, are suggestive of net flow away from the equatorial plane. The standard deviations of both east-west and north-south angles vary with the solar cycle, with smaller values near solar minimum. A possible explanation is that the smaller dipole tilt results in fewer stream interactions and thus less deflection at solar minimum. The standard deviations of east-west angles observed by Voyager decrease with distance to 20 AU, then flatten out. This behavior mimics that of the radial velocity standard deviations, again suggesting that radial velocity gradients drive the azimuthal flow. The standard deviations of north-south angles observed by Voyager decrease with distance in a manner decoupled from the east-west angle and radial velocity standard deviation profiles, suggesting a different driving mechanism for this velocity component.’

Is it possible that what we are seeing here is an azimuthal component of the radial solar wind flow that is directly related to the circumferential flow in the Heliotube?

References:

1. Lerner, Eric J. (1986). Magnetic self-compression in laboratory plasmas, quasars and radio galaxies. Part 1. Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 4, Part 2.

2. Sharpe, Howard N. (2009). Heliosheath Synchrotron Radiation as a Possible Source for the Arcade 2 CMB Distortions. Cornell University Library. https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0181

3. Macek, W M. et al (2014). Multifractal Structures Detected by Voyager1 at the Heliospheric Boundaries. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 793: L30 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 2/L30/meta

4. Richardson, J D. et al (1996). Non-Radial Flows in the Solar Wind. MIT. ftp://space.mit.edu/pub/plasma/publicat ... thumbs.pdf

[Solar]

‘Relativistic electrons in the heliosheath could be produced in a system of double layers distributed along the field-aligned current systems. The double layer is an electrostatic structure a few Debye lengths wide which may appear in a current carrying plasma. It can sustain a high net potential difference which could accelerate electrons traversing it. It may then provide a mechanism for transforming stored magnetic energy into the directed kinetic energy of the accelerated particles [Peratt 1992]. Alfven [1986] discusses the production of relativistic electrons in double layers associated with a heliospheric current system.’ (2)

At the pinched region of the Heliotube is where we find double layers the IBEX Ribbon is an indication of the presence of the hypothesised double layers. I have suggested that due to the geometric relationship between the Sun’s rotational axis and the local interstellar Birkeland current we do not find double layers over the Sun’s poles as proposed by Alfven but rather the double layers are smeared out in to a 'ribbon'. The electrons they accelerate toward the Sun are predominately to be found in the Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) but we have already seen that the ‘initial current sheet should break into Birkeland (magnetic field aligned) vortex tubes having a characteristic distribution function. Recent Voyager data suggest the presence of magnetic rope structures in the heliosheath.’(3)

Birkeland currents in the HCS manifest as multifractral structures in the Voyager magnetic field data. Interestingly, ‘the degree of multifractality decreases with the heliocentric distance and is still modulated by the phases of the solar cycle in the entire heliosphere including the heliosheath.’ Moreover, it was observed that ‘the change of scaling toward a nonintermittent (nonmultifractal) behaviour’ occurred ‘in the nearby interstellar medium, just beyond the heliopause’.

So, even at the distance of Voyager 1 the signature of the solar cycle was still present researchers suggested this phenomenon extends all the way to the heliopause and into the ‘nearby interstellar medium’ where it takes on a ‘uniform nonintermittent behaviour’.

Some thoughts:

Were I on a star in the Taurus Filament of stars the last thing I would expect to observe is a glowing tube. Its far too cold. Instead, detections of the bulk flow of magnetized "clouds and cloudlets" (sub-filamentation) which all share the same velocity and direction and/or polarized light, absorption characteristics, orientation of dust grains etc:

The Velocity Distribution of the Nearest Interstellar Gas: Priscilla C. Frisch Lauren Grodnicki Daniel E. Welty

Multifractal Theory applied through the lens of Turbulence Theory is par for the course. Of course the heliosphere and interstellar medium are interacting so there should be evidence of correlations between solar cycle activity in the “’nearby interstellar medium’” just as species from the ISM can be found within the confines of the heliosphere. Multifractal Theory rings like the heliospheric Plasma Electrodynamic equivalent of examining Complex Systems in Nature:

We remind that a fractal is a rough or fragmented geometrical object that can be subdivided into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole. Strange attractors are often fractal sets that exhibit a hidden order within (irregular but deterministic) chaotic behaviour. We know that fractals are generally self-similar and independent of scale (with a particular fractal dimension). A generalization of this geometrical concept is a multifractal set. In fact, this object demonstrates various self-similarities, described by a multifractal spectrum of dimensions. One can say that self-similarity of multifractals is scale dependent, resulting in the singularity spectrum. A multifractal is therefore in a certain sense like a set of intertwined fractals. – Voyager 2 observation of the multifractal spectrum in the heliosphere and the heliosheath: W. M. Macek and A. Wawrzaszek

Its reminiscent of the thread “Z Pinch Examined in Detail” wherein all factors regarding the metamorphosis of electrical phenomena during a Z-Pinch must be considered as inducing differentiated “phase states” of the system as a whole. It is however a mathematically systemic ‘connect the dots’ approach which I think will run into problems with formulaic-ally trying to link all aspects into one cohesive whole. Of course such interactive correlations will be observed so, I guess, the timing of the various correlations would be useful as you've pointed out.
_____

On another note, a couple of the papers you’ve pointed to have references to another of my favorite Astrophysicist – M. Opher. Were either M. Opher or P. Firsch to jot down a meager To-Do List I’d read them. The work of either is rather fantastic. It is M. Opher’s MHD work with the Voyager data that brought about the ‘crescent-shaped’ heliosphere previously referenced:

Here we show, based on magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations, that the tension (hoop) force of the twisted magnetic field of the sun confines the solar wind plasma beyond the termination shock and drives jets to the North and South very much like astrophysical jets. These jets are detected into the tail region by the motion of the Sun through the ISM similar to bent galactic jets moving through the intergalactic medium. The interstellar wind blows the two jets into the tail but is not strong enough to force the lobes into a single comet-like tail, as happens to some astrophysical jets.(Morsony et al. 2013). Magnetized jets driven by the sun: the structure of the heliosphere revisited – M. Opher et al

Perhaps you've covered this earlier (?) but working from the suggestion that "we do not find double layers over the Sun’s poles as proposed by Alfven but rather the double layers are smeared out in to a 'ribbon' M. Opher’s Voyager data based MHD work is offering that the solar system’s polar emissions take the form of: “Bent Stellar Jets”



The suggestion begs the question: Were the magnetic field intensity currently characterized as “draping” over the heliosphere lessened, would (or could) the heliosphere’s polar emissions then more readily adopt a “butterfly” configuration? Like this:



Below is M. Ophere et al (Fig 4 & Fig 5) presenting just such a scenario:

An analytic model of the heliosheath (HS) between the termination shock (TS) and the heliopause (HP) is developed in the limit in which the interstellar flow and magnetic field are neglected. – A Model of the Heliosphere with Jets: J. F. Drake, M. Swisdak, M. Opher

The problem is that somehow the double layers caused by the Sun’s polar emissions would need to be ‘induced’ to migrate towards the nose of the heliosphere. With all of these “draping” and ISM “blowing winds” characterizations it initially seems counterintuitive that the double layers would migrate towards the nose. Instead, they would migrate tail ward and ‘smear’. Perhaps forming in a laminar flow-type ‘streak’ of emissions. Not a circular emission. And yet, these images are prone to making one consider double layers (and everything else) as ‘static’. However, they actually move around. Here again is M29 emission maxima 'circularly' impinging on the walls of its butterfly sheath:

M29 Rotating emissioins

Several papers have commented on the surprising circular nature of the ENA Ribbon. With the suggestion you've offered ,and further observations, it will be interesting to see whether or not ENA intensities rotate (in circular fashion) from south of the nose arcing towards north of the nose. Still, how would those double-layer maxima get 'smeared' in a southern yet forward direction? It’s an interesting suggestion but it seems as much of a long shot as my “Stellar Ring Current” proposal - to which I have returned.

[jacmac]

Is it correct that, with the exception of the Ulysses probe, all current and past space probes have been within the general area of the solar equatorial plane ?
Also, is it the case that the solar wind is mostly concentrated near the general area of the solar equatorial plane(especially after several(many?) solar radii out from the sun) ? ?
If both are true are we not getting a limited view, so to speak, of the plasma environment within the solar system ?
Also, do we have much publicly available data from the Ulysses probe,
especially regarding the highest polar positions ?

This current discussion is the most important topic IMO.
How does the sun work ?
Jack

[Solar]

Here is ESA: Ulysses Publication Archive: The blue titles are linked to a sub-page with a brief description. Below the brief description on the sub-pages there is another "Link to Publication" that should open some of the literature - *if* is not behind paywall.

Some of the links are broken now. If the publication doesn't pop up when you hit "Link to Publication", copy the title and paste it into Google.

This one has a broken "Link to Publication": "Ulysses Observations from Pole to Pole: an introduction"

But: Its the second one listed in this Google Search using the title.

[jacmac]

Thank you Solar.

[seasmith]

Robertus wrote:
Is it possible that what we are seeing here is an azimuthal component of the radial solar wind flow that is directly related to the circumferential flow in the Heliotube?

How could it Not be ?
Take the rough Mechanical analogy of a spinning water sprinkler: The expanding width of the spray pattern would be your 'radial solar wind flow', the diverging circlets of spray your 'azimuthal component'
and of course the water itself represents the plasma.

Remember, the euphemism "force-free magnetic field" merely means that any Lorentzian forces are negligable, either because E and B fields are nearly parallel, or the E field is relatively vanishingly small and/or diffuse.
That is a condition met in the poloidal field region (water is also ejected from the top of the garden sprinkler), or at increasing radii where confluent radial and azimuthal vectors reverse their dominance.

Now take that active sprinkler in hand and, as you run along the garden path (local galaxy arm) roll the sprinkler body around in a helical motion. The spray pattern will conform to your statement above.

As a solely mechanical model, the electro-static (or more precisely the aetherolectric-magnetic characteristics) of a plasma are not accounted for. As this ionic medium becomes more diffuse at greater distance from the sun, the interplay of ISM and SS fields will naturally 'self-organize' the plasma flows into the typical electric configurations of filaments/ropes and sheets/layers, depending on boundary conditions.

Re the " Alfven and Juergens" dichotomy, it is not quite that simple because there are circuits within circuits;
and as they say, 'wheels within wheels'.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4693