Flux Ropes in the Solar Wind

[CharlesChandler]

What are we looking at here (on the right)?

I'm not sure why you keep invoking a "thermodynamic model", when this thread has been constantly emphasizing the dominance electric and electro-gravitic forces in solar atmospheric displays.

Right -- I was just saying that the solar moss isn't in the Transition Zone, it's in the photosphere, and I just elaborated on why scientists got it wrong.

The situation is curiously reminiscent of our electrically positive ball of gravitationally compressed hydrogen, sitting in a sea of electron-rich plasma formed from the same galactic currents that created it. The Sun, in other words, takes on the role of the anode in a local, cosmic-scale, cathodeless discharge....

The data indicate that the heliosphere has a slight positive charge. So that's electron poor, not electron rich.

[seasmith]

What are we looking at here (on the right)?

Image- CC

The circled inset on the left

Left – Solar photosphere showing bright structures between granules associated with magnetic fields bubbling up from below. Right – Computer model of a magnetic flux tube rising from the convective
zone into the photosphere. Flux tubes are believed to be an important
conduit for energy flowing from the solar interior to the hot outer
atmosphere but are below the limit of resolution
in current telescopes. Credit: Paxman, Seldin, Keller / O. Steiner

http://www.universetoday.com/111721/mos ... n-volcano/


btw, the comment above was meant to read :
["material" = matter/ ionized plasma]

Right -- I was just saying that the solar moss isn't in the Transition Zone, it's in the photosphere, and I just elaborated on why scientists got it wrong. -CC

Not sure which "scientist" is wrong, but the electric transition zone (solar 'atmospheric surface') clearly includes :

photosphere, chromospheric double-layer, and corona.

Let's not get lost again in the weeds, or the moss ):>

The data indicate that the heliosphere has a slight positive charge. So that's electron poor, not electron rich. -CC

Some pretty sparse data there, far as i've seen.( Hogan was writing that a decade ago remember)
Do you have some convincing evidence one way or the other,
or is it some form of striated gumbo, with "helmet streamers" and "skirts" and all that stuff ?


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


[Any conclusions concerning the external electrode/heliosheath composition, is at this juncture, pure spec and guess based on gadget detectors from the '60s ]
!

[CharlesChandler]

The data indicate that the heliosphere has a slight positive charge. So that's electron poor, not electron rich. -CC

Some pretty sparse data there, far as i've seen.( Hogan was writing that a decade ago remember)
Do you have some convincing evidence one way or the other,
or is it some form of striated gumbo, with "helmet streamers" and "skirts" and all that stuff ?

I agree that the data are sparse. I think that I can find more than this, but here's one:

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

It is a widely held belief that a large-scale electric field of any significant magnitude cannot be present in the heliosphere because of electric currents through the highly conductive plasma, present throughout the heliosphere, which would immediately neutralize any nascent electric fields. This paper questions that longstanding belief and describes a mechanism to account for such a field. Some of the galactic cosmic ray (GCR) ions lose almost all of their kinetic energy from solar modulation and, due to their short radii of gyration, are effectively deposited continuously throughout the heliosphere inside the solar wind termination shock. It is pointed out here that the deposition of these ions occurs at a greater rate than that for GCR electrons, and that a large-scale static electric field is sustained by the ions because of the time delay in the arrival of neutralizing electron currents.

[celeste]

Suns are not linear crt electrodes, as depicted in the image below; and are much more complex than would be a simple transformer, capacitor or homopolar device.
A sun seems to transform/convert ~charge~ among & through electro-gravitic, electro -optic, electro-magnetic and electro-aetheric (states), at multiple layers and scales.

seasmith, I was thinking that this was the way to address Charles' observation, " Scientists can't understand how the iron in the photosphere could be 2 MK, when the hydrogen is supposedly only 6000 K. So they just assume that there is a 1:1 correspondence between temperature and altitude, and thus temperature is an index of altitude, and the hotter iron has to be up above the surface, where the chromosphere transitions into the corona. But when we overlay imagery taken in different wavelengths, we find that the solar moss lines up with the photosphere itself."

The mainstream does know that it is easier to ionize the iron than the hydrogen. They also have worked out independently, the differential gravitational forces at the sun's surface pulling on a more massive proton, compared to a less massive electron. But I have not seen where they put those ideas together. If we have strong gravitational forces already tending to pull atoms apart, then it takes less temperature to "finish the blow". This would work in the right direction here:
The differential gravitational forces pulling on protons vs electrons, are the same for hydrogen or iron. It's the same 2000 times tug on a proton,compared to an electron. So if iron was already easier to ionize than hydrogen,but gravity gives the same boost in ionizing both, now iron takes WAY less energy to ionize the hydrogen.
If we don't allow for the gravitational forces already tearing our atoms apart, we think the temperature of the iron is much higher than the hydrogen, but it could even be the same.

[CharlesChandler]

@celeste: don't forget that the 2 MK for the iron, and the 6000 K for the hydrogen, are temperatures that were measured using two different methods, the first being spectral lines, and the second being black-body center frequency. As I mentioned in a previous post, that's an apples-and-oranges comparison. So I think that the reality is probably more complex. But yes, gravity acts more vigorously on the iron, though it takes more than gravity to get Fe XV.

[seasmith]

Celeste wrote:
The differential gravitational forces pulling on protons vs electrons, are the same for hydrogen or iron. It's the same 2000 times tug on a proton,compared to an electron. So if iron was already easier to ionize than hydrogen,but gravity gives the same boost in ionizing both, now iron takes WAY less energy to ionize the hydrogen.
If we don't allow for the gravitational forces already tearing our atoms apart, we think the temperature of the iron is much higher than the hydrogen, but it could even be the same.

Yes, a lot of the standard model mish-mash ignores the all-important electro-gravitic factor in their solar spectral analyses, probably a hangover from the 1960's nuclear bomb pardygm.
Also mis-guided, imo, are the popular models of atomic numbers/elements/ions detected~ based on the art of spectral "line" (they are really spectral bands) and "blackbody emission" projections. All the methods are highly frequency dependent.

A sun is Not a blackbody, it's a highly radiant body; and as for the near 100 emmission 'lines' (and thousands of absorption lines) attributed to Sol, are all derivations from artificial filters, gratings, or inherently selective CCD devices.
Not to mention the anomalous (and often specious) lab model-to-sun assumptions, and energy/frequency discrepancies...
ie: E x Wavelength is not equivalent to E x Frequency. {and how many measurement bands are their prognosis based on?. 4 or 5 max ? ]

Also, as you haver been pointing out in your Dr. Scott threads, energy quotients are dependent upon where in the EM cycle that the measurements are made; with Zeeman, Lorentz, Lenz, 'particle' velocity and etc. all to be factored in.

The recent "revelation" that Lunar water came predominately from Solar wind should be a heads up to the low-information data bangers that elements, and their ionic counterparts, can be produced electronically on-the-fly.



http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/10/ ... olar-wind/

[Lloyd]

SS said: A sun is Not a blackbody.

Brant said it is. And CC said Robitaille found that BB radiation is a property of a supercritical fluid and that the Sun's hydrogen atmosphere is a supercritical fluid.

[Sparky]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/10/ ... olar-wind/

Atoms of hydrogen in the solar wind can react with oxygen trapped in moon rocks to form water.

Is there a specific chemical reaction diagram that shows this?

Thanks

[Maol]

Oxygen ions are a component part of the solar wind.

Hydrogen ions (protons) are a component part of the solar wind.

Electrons are a component part of the solar wind.

What can prevent them from joining to form water when the conditions are right?

All they need to do is cool below their ionization energy to begin forming molecular bonds.

[seasmith]

by Maol » Tue Oct 14, 2014 10:28 pm

Oxygen ions are a component part of the solar wind.

Hydrogen ions (protons) are a component part of the solar wind.

Electrons are a component part of the solar wind.

What can prevent them from joining to form water when the conditions are right?

All they need to do is cool below their ionization energy to begin forming molecular bonds.

yeah, what he said


just to add a footnote, judging by the the complete zoo of emission/absorption ionic "lines" observed from space,
and the preponderance of elements found at the planets, it wouldn't take a plasma chemist to ask:

is it a preponderance of gravity (or electro-gravitic over electro-plasmic phase/states) that establishes the
seed condition for coalescence and nucleation of elements and compounds ?

~

[Maol]

The relative abundances of elements in the solar wind can raise “chicken or the egg” questions in regard to the atmosphere of the solar system and its bodies, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, planetesimals, Oort Cloud, etc.

For example, it is known CO2 increases in Earth’s atmosphere occur following warming periods, not preceding.

Here’s a “what if”: Perhaps for some reason, such as an energy variation in the galactic circuit in which the Sun is a component, solar activity or energy output changes such that greater or lesser amounts of the various elements are expelled in the SW and CME’s, or energy conditions favorable for them to form molecules move further from or closer to the Sun …. for example, if heat increases, more volatile (lower boiling point) molecules will move further from the sun.

In other words, the “Goldilocks Zone” will move when solar activity changes and such change affects everything, not just water.

If it “rained for forty days and forty nights” here on Earth, might it be wet at Mars?

Some data from SOHO. Search for the word oxygen in this. There are several mentions of oxygen in the SW and CME's.

http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bull ... ming87.htm

The CELIAS solar-wind mass spectrometer (MTOF = Mass Time-of- Flight sensor) possesses unprecedented mass resolution for solar- wind composition

[Sparky]

by Maol » Tue Oct 14, 2014 10:28 pm

Oxygen ions are a component part of the solar wind.

Hydrogen ions (protons) are a component part of the solar wind.

Electrons are a component part of the solar wind.

What can prevent them from joining to form water when the conditions are right?

All they need to do is cool below their ionization energy to begin forming molecular bonds.

None chemist here, trying to get a grip on chemical reactions.
Molecular bonds under what conditions? The most reactive will bond first? Right?
And then whatever molecule is formed will react with energetic particles?

What are the different reactions that lead to H2O?

thanks

[Maol]

O + H = OH + H = H2O

I don’t know if this will help you visualize, but, combustion in an internal combustion engine results in the creation of H2O from the combination of H and O, Hydrogen from the Hydro-Carbon fuel molecule and Oxygen from the O2 in the air. Every 1 lb. of fuel makes over 1.25 lbs. of H2O. The heat of the combustion reaction of CxHx and O2 causes molecular disassociation and ionization of the atoms in the working fluid (combustion gasses), and in that state they are free to form new molecules with whichever other atom they find, resulting in H2O, CO, CO2, HOOC, etc, etc, the proportions of products depending on conditions, fuel/ air ratio, temperature, etc. The reaction is started with the ignition’s plasma arc or the heat of compression in the case of Diesel. Once initiated, the combustion reactions are exothermic and self-perpetuating, although the “water-gas reaction” which is CO + H2O CO2 + H2 has both exothermic and endothermic phases. The endothermic phase results in establishing the maximum temperature of the combustion process.

The point is, during the maximum temperature phase of combustion the atoms are in a plasma state and exist as individuals or molecularly combined with others. The plasma state exists because the temperature is high enough the electrons go wandering, as a result the E/M forces which bond atoms together in molecules are unbalanced and the atoms can then also be free to wander. Initially, the Hydrogen is connected to Carbon, after the reaction the Hydrogen is connected to Oxygen, but in between connections the individual atoms existed as individuals, like square-dancers changing partners in the do-si-do.

You might peruse the entries for “Valence” and “Chemical Reaction” in Wikipedia.

[Sparky]

maol:

Hydrogen from the Hydro-Carbon fuel molecule and Oxygen from the O2 in the air.-------------Hydrogen is connected to Carbon, after the reaction the Hydrogen is connected to Oxygen, but in between connections the individual atoms existed as individuals

Thank you.....I have found one reaction that produces the ions needed for bonding.

A single-electron transfer which converts molecular oxygen to the superoxide anion, creating an unstable molecule. The decomposition of hydrogen peroxide can be a source of the hydroxyl radical; this reaction requires both superoxide and hydrogen peroxide as precursors. These steps reduce oxygen to water by the addition of four electrons, yielding three reactive oxygen species: superoxide anion, hydrogen peroxide, and hydroxyl radical

Are there other reactions that will produce H2O without combustion?

Thanks

[Maol]

Don’t be distracted by combustion, it was merely a reference to an earthbound and very common chemical reaction which reaches a temperature high enough that atoms exist in a plasma state.

Here is an example of low temperature ionization occurring in reactions of Oxygen and Hydrogen in water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ionization_of_water