Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

[upriver]

I ran across this article while trying to understand sun spots in the context of anode or cathode.

Understanding and modelling plasma cathode interaction: Roots of gaseous and vacuum arcs, spots on glow cathodes
The spotless mode (abnormal discharge).

https://gd2014.sciencesconf.org/confere ... enilov.pdf

Spot patterns on cathode vs anodes.
https://app.box.com/s/bchia1fpx1negn45f6ohht6mfjoopx4g

https://app.box.com/files/0/f/427281428/1/f_78295620712

[jacmac]

Upriver asked:

Can you have a liquid or plasma barycenter in a system of solid objects????

From Wikipedia:

The barycenter (or barycentre; from the Greek βαρύ-ς heavy + κέντρ-ον centre[1]) is the center of mass of two or more bodies that are orbiting each other, or the point around which they both orbit.

The barycenter is the center of gravity around which a system of orbiting bodies orbit. So, whatever happens to be there is there. That includes empty space.( aether theories notwithstanding)
Jack

[upriver]

Upriver asked:

Can you have a liquid or plasma barycenter in a system of solid objects????

From Wikipedia:

The barycenter (or barycentre; from the Greek βαρύ-ς heavy + κέντρ-ον centre[1]) is the center of mass of two or more bodies that are orbiting each other, or the point around which they both orbit.

The barycenter is the center of gravity around which a system of orbiting bodies orbit. So, whatever happens to be there is there. That includes empty space.( aether theories notwithstanding)
Jack

What I should have said is, How stable is a barycenter system where the objects are made of water or thin plasma?

[upriver]

I ran across this article while trying to understand sun spots in the context of anode or cathode.

Understanding and modelling plasma cathode interaction: Roots of gaseous and vacuum arcs, spots on glow cathodes
The spotless mode (abnormal discharge).

https://gd2014.sciencesconf.org/confere ... enilov.pdf

Spot patterns on cathode vs anodes.
https://app.box.com/s/bchia1fpx1negn45f6ohht6mfjoopx4g


https://app.box.com/files/0/f/427281428/1/f_78295620712

From The Birkeland Terrella Experiments
Here is an image from Birkelands experiments. Look at the difference between the anode spots and their configurations from Benilovs paper above and cathode spots and their configurations... I am still looking for papers with anodes with magnetic fields.

https://app.box.com/s/mdkatdd7y79j34xa0k39h8fhrr704gni

[Robertus Maximus]

The Tidal Hypothesis of the Sunspot Cycle- Causation or Correlation?

A periodic alignment of some or all of the planets of the solar system is alleged to have an influence on or cause the sunspot cycle, the mechanism is uncertain but generally involves some degree of tidal/ gravitational disruption of ‘…solar internal (possibly with dynamo) functioning…’ (1) or ‘…the plasma in the looping magnetic field lines in (the) solar corona could be disturbed by tides, resulting in magnetic field reconnection, solar flares and solar storms.’ (2) In explaining the physical characteristics of the sunspot cycle this is about as far as most examples of the hypothesis go- the remainder of the hypothesis borders on pure mathematics.

Given the number of planets in the solar system, their differing orbital and physical characteristics would it be more or less surprising that a cyclical relationship to the sunspot cycle could not be found?

Indeed, you can select your planets to match the observations (https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/tides.jpg) - if a planet has a tidal effect on the Sun but does not fit the hypothesis- not a problem: ‘Mercury produces significant tides, but is not considered because it does not have an 11-year cycle resonance with non-tidal solar activities, either by itself or by aligning with other planets.’(2) just don’t select it.

Am I suggesting that there is no connection between the Sun and planets? Of course not their clearly is but ask this, is it more or less likely that the solar circuit electrically drives winds on Neptune- or Neptune drives spots on the Sun? As with the ‘science’ of anthropocentric global warming there are just too many variables that can be invoked to produce a ‘fit’, a correlation with observation can be found with seemingly any desired combination of planets but is this causation?

With respect to the solar cycle being influenced by the Sun’s movement relative to the solar system barycentre in plotting the dates of sunspot maximum on this diagram (http://la.climatologie.free.fr/soleil/o ... on-sun.png) no consistent pattern emerges that might be indicative of a relation between the solar cycle and the solar system barycentre. The radius of the solar system barycentre falls within 0.01AU from the centre of the Sun; the radius of the heliosphere- the Sun’s sphere of electrical influence within the LISM- is some 120 AU all of the planets lie comfortably within this radius. Would current arriving at the Sun after traversing this vast distance be affected by what, in comparison, is a tiny slow wobble?

Rather than affecting the Sun, the Sun appears to have an effect on the planets.

(Perhaps it is an error on my part- I have simply attached too greater significance to the role of electromagnetism over gravitation in shaping the solar system.)

To my mind the evidence from Ulysses, ACE, Voyager and other missions is compelling- current arriving from the LISM forms a sheet-like structure in the heliosphere the HCS/ HPS, despite the evolution of the Sun’s photospheric magnetic field over the solar cycle the dipolar structure of the HMF is retained- even beyond the planets. It is the alignment of the Sun’s rotational axis relative to the galactic equator and therefore arriving current that is the cause of the Hale/ sunspot cycle.

A different angular relationship would produce a different cycle, for example (http://www.aip.de/en/news/science/starspots). From observations of two different class of stars (one main sequence, one giant) we find characteristics linking both, namely, ‘spots’- the visible evidence of how Birkeland currents interact and power stars. It is interesting to note that the authors of the paper predicted a magnetic cycle of approximately 26 +/- 6 years for XX Tri, this figure is not too dissimilar to the Sun’s Hale magnetic cycle of approximately 22 years. Would this period be found to be common to all stars (http://www.aip.de/en/news/press/m67) and if so, is this an indication of an underlying periodicity in very local Birkeland currents? (Of course, we have to be cautious here as we are not looking directly at the surfaces of the stars concerned, I am accepting the reports in good faith).

Celeste, in another thread, has provided a link to this article from Astronomy magazine (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/ ... uterer.pdf). Here we read: ‘…patterns in the CMB. Not only are the quadrupole and octopole planar, but their planes are nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic. Moreover, we found that the ecliptic plane lies precisely between the warmest and coolest lobes of the combined quadrupole plus octopole map.’ WMAP completed the first all-sky CMB map in 2002 shortly after solar maximum- when the HCS/ HPS would have been nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic and as I have mentioned before Ulysses found a north-south asymmetry in the heliosphere. Did WMAP find signatures of local Birkeland currents in the so-called CMB at solar maximum? If so it would be interesting to see if traces of the solar cycle can be found in the CMB data but maybe mainstream researchers would filter out any cycles as ‘noise’.

What I have suggested some may consider to be at best highly speculative at worst completely wrong, that I understand and accept. But, when we look at the observational evidence from the photosphere to the heliopause and tentatively from other stars- spots, asymmetry and cycles appear fundamental stellar phenomena one I associate with Birkeland currents- not planets.

References:

(1) Cionco, R.G et al, ‘Dynamical Characterization of the last prolonged Solar Minima’. Advances in Space Research. July 2012
(2) Hung, C-C.’ Apparent Relations between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets’. NASA/TM—2007-214817. July 2007

[celeste]

With respect to the solar cycle being influenced by the Sun’s movement relative to the solar system barycentre in plotting the dates of sunspot maximum on this diagram (http://la.climatologie.free.fr/soleil/o ... on-sun.png) no consistent pattern emerges that might be indicative of a relation between the solar cycle and the solar system barycentre. The radius of the solar system barycentre falls within 0.01AU from the centre of the Sun; the radius of the heliosphere- the Sun’s sphere of electrical influence within the LISM- is some 120 AU all of the planets lie comfortably within this radius. Would current arriving at the Sun after traversing this vast distance be affected by what, in comparison, is a tiny slow wobble?

Note in this diagram, http://la.climatologie.free.fr/soleil/o ... on-sun.png
note that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_21 " in December 1979 (the second-highest peak on record)" the sun was well away from the solar system barycenter. You'll have to interpolate between the 1978 and 1981 positions. On the other hand, http://www.space.com/21937-sun-solar-we ... -weak.html 2013's peak was pretty wimpy. Note that in 2013, the solar system barycenter was well inside the solar radius. So there is indeed a pattern.
Now, you are correct, that it is the sun's orientation compared to the filament, that is important. Just remember, as Donald Scott showed in his filament model, a slight change in radius, leads to a radical change in magnetic field direction.

[celeste]

Robertus, this is worth reading. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5436.pdf
"In this work we looked for a possible causal link in relation with solar barycentric dynamics and
prolonged minima events. We searched for particular changes in the Sun’s acceleration and concentrated on
long-term variations of the solar cycle. We show how the orbital angular momentum of the Sun evolves and how
the inclination of the solar barycentric orbit varies during the epochs of orbital retrogressions. In particular, at
these moments, the radial component of the Sun’s acceleration (i.e., in the barycentre-Sun direction) had an
exceptional magnitude."

This means I missed something important. It is not the actual position that is important, it's the rate of change.

No mention of the sun or planets in any kind of current flow,of course, but the solar motion itself is mapped out rather well. It is the data that you will want to apply to your theory.

[jacmac]

Robert said:

It is the alignment of the Sun’s rotational axis relative to the galactic equator and therefore arriving current that is the cause of the Hale/ sunspot cycle.

Also:

Am I suggesting that there is no connection between the Sun and planets? Of course not their clearly is but ask this, is it more or less likely that the solar circuit electrically drives winds on Neptune- or Neptune drives spots on the Sun?

Rather than affecting the Sun, the Sun appears to have an effect on the planets.

I would agree that the angle of the sun to the incoming current is a good candidate for being the main driver of the reversal of the magnetic field(s) of the sun, and also the number of spots and their latitude changes; BUT there is more.

Why spots at all ? we have a quiet sun; why not a steady quiet solar wind(s) ?

It seems to me that the spots are breakout Birkeland currents between the sun and....?....?....THE PLANETS. IMO.
So their position, especially to each other and whether above or below the changing heliospheric current sheet, would effect what happens at the other end of the sunspot currents.

Any interest I have about the planet involvement in sunspots is not of the tidal or gravity variety. I would agree mostly electromagnetic.

And Celeste,
the moving Barycenter is a result of the changing orbital position of the planets, mostly Jupiter and Saturn.

Jupiter orbit 11.86 years.
A little longer than the sun cycle 11 year average

Saturn synodic cycle with Jupiter 19.859 years.
Saturn: from aligned with Jupiter to opposite just under 10 years
A little shorter than the sun cycle. 11 year average

These orbit periods do not vary as much as the sun cycles vary, and the orbit periods are not quite the same as the sun cycles, but the ball park nature of these orbits and cycles is very compelling to me.

Jack

[celeste]

And Celeste,
the moving Barycenter is a result of the changing orbital position of the planets, mostly Jupiter and Saturn.
Jack

Jack, Yes, I realize this.
A simple summary is this: The mainstream started with the idea that the sun was the center of the solar system. They realized years ago that the sun was not technically the center of the solar system, but orbited the center of mass of the solar system (solar system barycenter). They next noticed there was a correlation between the orbit of the sun around the barycenter, and the solar cycle. That lead them to theories of tidal forces driving the solar cycle,etc, but most importantly, they kept mapping the correlation for us.

Next we get the electric sun ideas, which come in two distinct varieties:
One says the sun is internally powered, and that all the current flow in the solar system comes from, or flows to, the sun at the center. The sun by definition is the center of current flow. In this case, the argument of Robertus is right. A motion of the sun back or forth by a solar radius or two, in eleven years time, really does not matter.
The other theory, is that the sun is actually externally powered. The sun here is in a larger scale filament. Here the sun is not by definition the center of the filament. As Donald Scott showed, you can explain planetary orbits, if you assume a large scale filament is flowing right through the plane of the solar system. Now we have at least a couple of new ideas to explore. We know that if the sun changes radius in a filament even slightly, that leads to a change in background magnetic field direction . Also, since the filament itself has a radial electric field, the acceleration of the sun in that direction may be what is important.

I guess to sum up more succinctly, I'd say we should stop thinking of the sun as being the center of current flow,and realize the sun itself moves within the filament.

[jacmac]

Well, at least someone from 1858 has similar ideas about the planets:

In a thought-provoking article released in 1858, the Scottish magnetician and meteorologist John Allan Broun (1817-1879) developed the idea that the sun exerts a direct magnetic influence on bodies in the solar system, for the first time implicating sunspots in the origination of solar eruptions:

“Does not the sun act as a magnet, perhaps as an electro-magnet, the currents forming it being within its atmosphere? Are not the solar spots disruptions of the current due to the positions of the planets with reference to the plane of its equator?

From TPOD Aug 16,2016

Celeste,
If the sun moves as measured by the Barycenter, from side to side so to speak, within the FILAMENT to the effects you describe then what about the general movement of the entire solar system along the galactic arm? Are you assuming a steady relationship to the filament center in that direction; that the filament and the sun are locked in sync except for the Barycenter movements ?
Jack

[celeste]

Celeste,
If the sun moves as measured by the Barycenter, from side to side so to speak, within the FILAMENT to the effects you describe then what about the general movement of the entire solar system along the galactic arm? Are you assuming a steady relationship to the filament center in that direction; that the filament and the sun are locked in sync except for the Barycenter movements ?
Jack

Jack, there is curving or spiraling on all scales. Since the solar system travels around the local chimney axis, that does take us closer and farther from the galactic arm, if that is what you are asking.

[jacmac]

Celeste,
You said:

The sun here is in a larger scale filament. Here the sun is not by definition the center of the filament. As Donald Scott showed, you can explain planetary orbits, if you assume a large scale filament is flowing right through the plane of the solar system.

If I understand you correctly, our solar system is in a stable position within a larger filament (not necessarily at its center ) and the solar cycle is caused by the local movement of the Barycenter of the solar system relative to it's position in the filament. Yes ?

My thinking is that the solar cycle is somehow more influenced by the planets themselves (which can be represented in any calculations as the Barycenter motion if one wishes). Also, the location within the filament, which is necessary for the general source of external power to the sun, is less directly responsible for the solar cycle and its variations.

Robert said:

Rather than affecting the Sun, the Sun appears to have an effect on the planets.

I have simply attached too greater significance to the role of electromagnetism over gravitation in shaping the solar system.

To my mind the evidence from Ulysses, ACE, Voyager and other missions is compelling- current arriving from the LISM forms a sheet-like structure in the heliosphere the HCS/ HPS, despite the evolution of the Sun’s photospheric magnetic field over the solar cycle the dipolar structure of the HMF is retained- even beyond the planets. It is the alignment of the Sun’s rotational axis relative to the galactic equator and therefore arriving current that is the cause of the Hale/ sunspot cycle.

My planetary influence of the planets on the Hale cycle is electrical, not gravitational.

I think the "alignment of the Sun’s rotational axis relative to the galactic equator" is fairly stable.
But the "arriving current" could more likely be " curving or spiraling on all scales" as Celeste says, having a changing angle with the sun's rotational axis, causing the Hale cycle.

A revisit to Dr. Scott's talk is on my list.

Thanks all,
Jack

[upriver]

Magnetic Rope observed for the first time between Saturn and the Sun
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mathematical-phys ... netic-rope

My thinking is that the solar cycle is somehow more influenced by the planets themselves (which can be represented in any calculations as the Barycenter motion if one wishes). Also, the location within the filament, which is necessary for the general source of external power to the sun, is less directly responsible for the solar cycle and its variations.

Thanks all,
Jack

I guess most of the planets dont orbit the plane exactly especially Jupiter and Saturn.
And what it looks like is that when they cross into the current sheet more sunspots form, and I would guess this is because the flux tubes in the Current Sheet have a place to go(electrical ground). A larger current is transferred to the planets and therefore more activity occurs.

"It is speculated that the increase in solar activity during the cyclical high sunspot period is responsible for increased geothermal output on Earth. The lag from cause to effect the reason for the imbalance in earthquake energy output during lower sunspot activity."
http://www.jupitersdance.com/
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/08 ... onnection/

Intergrated Space Weather
http://iswa.ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/iswa/iSWA.html

Click at the bottom of the home page and go to the Cygnets page.
Click on the Heliosphere Tab.
Click on the number "8". This will select the solar wind density section.

Click on the Cygnet Icon " Nowcast Density"
Once the Cygnet opens up, Go to the lower right and drag it bigger.

At the lower left there is a time and date box.

Click on the left arrow a few times. This sets a date to play back from.

Now go to the lower right and click on the little film icon. This will build your animation. Once its done it will start playing back automatically.

Intergrated Space Weather
http://iswa.ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/iswa/iSWA.html

Also click on the Plantary/Spacecraft Tab and select Newhorizons Movie. Some of these take a while to build..

[upriver]

Do we think this is a correct image of what is happening at the heliopause, this IBEX image of the "torus" around the heliosphere?
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files ... ing2_2.jpg

And how does the filament barycenter model fit?
And if J and S are truly the cause of the sun spots by moving the sun around in a filament protruding through the heliosphere?...

A field aligned filament?

Robertus?

NASA's IBEX Helps Paint Picture of the Magnetic System Beyond the Solar Wind 2014
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/ibe ... solar-wind


Voyager 1 and 2 and the Heliosphere.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~heliosphere/i ... ew0810.png

[Robertus Maximus]

Why spots at all ? we have a quiet sun; why not a steady quiet solar wind(s) ?

The Maunder Minimum and the Juergens Circuit

In this thread I have offered the idea that current arriving from the Local Interstellar Medium (LISM) manifests within the heliosphere as the Corona, Slow Solar Wind (SSW) and Heliospheric Current and Plasma Sheets (HCS/ HPS). The current is cyclical- at solar minimum the current broadly arrives aligned with the Sun’s equatorial regions. Closer to the solar surface- and as electric current arrives perpendicular to a surface- it spreads out forming the distinctive lenticular shaped corona we see at solar minimum.

At solar maximum current now arrives away from the solar equatorial regions- due to an alignment I have previously discussed. As it does so the previously existing structured flow becomes highly filamentary with some twisted filaments appearing as sunspot pairs on the photosphere.

The cycle is a pseudo-Alfven circuit, absent this circuit and if I am correct, we would find a solitary Juergens circuit- do we have evidence of such a scenario?

The Maunder Minimum (MM) lasted from 1645 until 1715, during this period observations revealed a very different Sun- one I equate with an almost ideal Juergens circuit.

‘In his landmark paper, Eddy (1976) reviewed an extensive range of available data associated with this time period, including auroral records, sunspots, carbon-14 records, and eclipse observations. From the (i) prolonged absence of sunspots; (ii) reduction in aurora reports; (iii) decrease in 14C (suggesting a significant increase in cosmic ray flux hitting the Earth); and (iv) absence of any structured corona during eclipses, he inferred that, to manifest such phenomena, the solar corona must have existed in a unique configuration. He suggested that “the solar wind would have blown steadily and isotropically, and possibly at gale force, since high-speed streams of solar wind are associated with the absence of closed structure in the solar corona.” He concluded that, based on eclipse observations, there likely was not any K-corona present, and that, in fact, what was observed could have been from dust scattered light (i.e., the F-corona).’ (1)

The MM was not just about a distinct lack of sunspots- the Sun was very different.

‘Observations of eclipses during the Maunder Minimum are strongly suggestive, but not conclusive, that the structured corona observed in modern times during eclipses disappeared (Eddy 1976).’ (1)

‘When asked about the Maunder Minimum, Parker (1976) suggested “In view of the absence of a white light corona, we may conjecture whether the Sun was entirely shrouded in a coronal hole, yielding a fast steady solar wind, or whether there simply was no solar wind at all. I would guess the former, but I know of no way to prove the answer.”’ (1)

Furthermore, studies of cosmic ray modulation during the MM suggest that the sunspot cycle did not completely disappear but demonstrated a 22 year variation. (2)

From what I have suggested in this thread, what are we to make of these observations?

From the unified version of the Electric Sun model I am attempting to promote; the MM was a time when current from the LISM significantly diminished. With a reduced sunward electron current the electron deficient current from the Sun to the LISM would flow virtually unopposed Parker was correct the heliosphere would have been dominated by ‘a fast steady solar wind’. The vastly different corona was the coronal discharge we find as described in works by Juergens, Scott and Thornhill and not the extended corona we observe when we look at the Sun today.

However, it appears that the 22 year Hale cycle was still in operation only much weaker, unlike the authors of this paper (Ref.2) I suggest that sunspot activity only appeared during either an ascending or descending phase of the Hale cycle giving the impression that it had increased from 11 to 22 years. This also has implications for the anti-correlation of cosmic ray modulation by the sunspot cycle. If what I suggest is correct then cosmic rays were modulated only on one half of the Hale cycle during the MM, possibly related to one or all of the following: (i) the relative motion of the Sun (ii) direction of any weakly incoming current or (iii) an extreme ‘Bashful Ballerina’ event.

The MM is the most recent example we have when the Juergens circuit was almost revealed; I say almost as the existence of a 22 year cycle indicates that some structured current continued to trickle into the heliosphere.
To conclude, ‘Why spots at all’ asks Jack, the MM shows that current from the LISM is not constant hence neither are spots and given the sudden onset of the MM it is entirely possible that the Sun you see at sunset is not the Sun you will see at sunrise.

References:

(1) Riley, P. et al, ‘Inferring the Structure of the Solar Corona and Inner Heliosphere during the Maunder Minimum using Global Thermodynamic Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations ’. The Astrophysical Journal. April 2015.

(2) Usoskin, I.G, Mursula, K, ‘Heliospheric modulation of cosmic rays and solar activity during the Maunder Minimum’. Journal of Geophysical Research. August 2001.