Electric Sun: A Quantitative Calculation

[Tina]

See next post

[Tina]

Nereid....Huh. The thread was closed by you? I guess that's how science is actually done.

In all fairness earls it seems Michael had contravened bautforum rules. See Nereid's closing comments.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php ... 546e5327c3

[Lloyd]

I think Earl was suggesting that the BAUT forum's rules are anti-science, favoring establishment views over others, regardless of logic.

[Aardwolf]

I think Earl was suggesting that the BAUT forum's rules are anti-science, favoring establishment views over others, regardless of logic.

Indeed. Anything that the moderators disagree with is relegated to an ATM post. You then have 30 days to make your case and after that you can never mention it again.

The owners/moderators are only interested in censorship not discussion.

[Nereid]

As the hypothetical electric discharge must then have a power input of 4 x 1026 Juergens simply estimated an 1010 V cathode drop to be neccesary and calculated over the area of the heliosphere (only till Pluto! 6 x 1012 m, with an external area of -- very conservative -- 4 x 1026 m2) and the surface(?) of our sun some current of 4 x 1016 Amps. Furtheron he took the empirical data of electrons measured near-Earth at 10 x 106/m3 -- mostly thermicals and assumed that if only 1 out of 3000 of those electrons would be relativistic - the energy would be enough for fueling our sun.

You can reread all of Juergen's calculations here.

As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, these calculations are similar to Scott's.

However, in the OP of this thread, I explained why the current needs to be at least 2 x 10^20 A (details of the calculations are in a later post of mine, on the first page); basically, the electrons cannot deliver more than ~ 1 MeV each, otherwise the Sun would be exceedingly bright in 511 keV annihilation gammas.

Do you have any comments on that constraint?

As I've stated your assumption about the arbitrary "speed-limit" of our electrons isn't necessarily valid!

I need to understand what you wrote better, before I can fully appreciate this; also, the source of the image - taken by what telescope/instrument, in what waveband(s), when, etc - is important here: do you know what it is (or, alternatively, where did you yourself get it from)?

There are more interesting thoughts that I'd like to discuss with you (especially the 10 x 1010 V barrier -- that seems to be a real kind of natural limit, when we deal with electrons and protons),

Thanks for the link.

Both Scott and Thornhill seem to have the Sun as a 'hotel California' for electrons, in their electric Sun hypothesis (or model), as published, just as Juergens does (NOTE: David Talbott disagrees on this point). However, in this thread I am examining the electric Sun hypothesis (or model) as published by Scott (see the OP).

As I haven't seen any 511 keV spikes as well I think we can skip this -- for more, see above.

I'm not sure it can be so easily skipped; per the calculations in the OP, the electrons cannot each deliver an amount of energy, to the Sun, that corresponds to them being accelerated over a 10^10 V drop.

As I haven't seen any "exploding Sun" as well I think we can skip this -- for more, see above.

Likewise, I don't think it's easily skipped.

As I just pointed out, the Sun is a place where electrons go, never to leave, according to Juergens (per the link); both Scott and Thornhill seem to posit the same thing, pace David Talbott.

Can you say more please, on why you think differently?

let's continue later...

I'm looking forward to it.

* Here's something I found via http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=6&t=4329 that looks potentially useful for the Electric Sun debate. It's an article that says some interesting things about how double layers explode at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection.

Could you please explain how this is relevant to the calculations in the OP, Lloyd? Thanks.

Nereid's calculation seems to be treating the electrons like little ping-pong balls, considering only the kinetic energy available in them.

How else does a current comprised of a flow of electrons in a plasma transport (and deliver) energy?

Forgive me if I'm wrong but, if we're going to analyze the problem in terms of an electric star, shouldn't we be thinking in terms of ... electricity?

A description from the macro perspective - current, resistance, etc - should be fully consistent with a description from the micro perspective, shouldn't it?

If anything, the micro perspective is the more valid, if you accept that a current in an astrophysical plasma is the motion of electrons and ions.

So to start with, the relevant equation would seem to be [...]

Tom Bridgman, to take just one example, did a series of calculations of this kind (see Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. III and the links therein). His conclusion? Well, I'll let you read it for yourself (I don't think it is inconsistent with the calculations I presented in the OP of this thread).

I don't have the calculations handy at the moment,

Can you dig them up, or reconstruct them? I think those calculations would be highly relevant to the discussion in this thread.

Basically, I assumed the electrons were entering through the poles (rather than isotropically over the surface), and were then confined to follow a more or less spiraling pattern through the photosphere before eventually exiting around the equator.

As I have pointed out, many times in this thread, this is inconsistent with how Scott presents the electric Sun hypothesis (or model), and also Thornhill's published version of this hypothesis (or model).

Can you cite any publication, by either Scott or Thornhill, in which the electric Sun hypothesis (or model) is presented with the currents flowing as you assumed them to?

The latter point is where I think that perhaps Juergens may have gotten a part of his hypothesis wrong, basing my remark on the lack (or low count) of relativistic, inbound electrons observed so far in the vicinity of the Sun. [reference needed]. That we have so far only sent a single satellite to measure things in the vicinity of the solar poles speaks to the difficulty of drawing too many conclusions, too early in the research, particularly if the model needs evidence for a realistically adequate current flow via the poles.

If the Sun is powered by "the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy" (per Scott's electric Sun hypothesis - see the OP), what comments do you have on the calcuations in the OP, Jim? Specifically, have you found any significant errors?

Nereid's suggestion to defend the Sun's "circuitry" or method of operation from the EU perspective is useful, but I know that it is not advanced enough to be taken up seriously in a refereed journal in the sort of debate Nereid has in mind. IMHO it is too early for anyone to be trying to dismiss the EU set of conceptual ideas from a scientific perspective because they have not been prepared for that yet.

I'm not sure if you intended this comment to refer to what I've posted in this thread, but if so I'd like to point out - nay, stress - that I'm focussed on the electric Sun hypothesis (or model), as presented by Scott (and Thornhill), in the publications I've cited.

Specifically, I did some simple calculations - based on the electric Sun hypothesis (or model), as presented - which seem to show that it "is between a rock (energy output of the Sun) and a hard place (unobserved side effects of that energy being supplied by an electric current - electrons entering the Sun)", and I've invited all forum members to point out any significant errors, in either the numbers or calculations (or both).

* It seems to me that EU Theory is on a much firmer basis than conventional theory

May I ask for a clarification, Lloyd?

Do you include Scott's (and Thornhill's) electric Sun hypothesis (or model), as presented in the publications I cited, as part of EU Theory?

Nereid,

Please refer to the fourth post in this thread for a description of the solar torus image.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php ... nto-Arctic!)?s=2d03570381c37ff6c35469546e5327c3

It's a composite image of two images taken by SOHO.

Thanks earls.

It seems that mgmirkin did not cite the source of the image, merely stating "shot in a UV wavelength, if memory serves". Further, the web address of the image looks like mgmirkin's own collection of images.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That completes my catch-up on the 'calculation content' part of this thread. If any reader thinks I have missed a post - on the calculations presented in the OP - since the end of February, would you please point to it (them)?

Next: posts on the proposed debate.

[psychegram]

Nereid wrote: Can you dig them up, or reconstruct them? I think those calculations would be highly relevant to the discussion in this thread.

As soon as I have the time ... it's also possible I'll have to reconstruct them, as it was a while ago. As it's end-of-semester crunch time right now, and in addition to that I'm scrambling to get my research in shape to present at a series of conferences my supervisor is having me attend over the next couple of months, some patience may be in order (I also want to run all of this by a colleague of mine who is far more well-versed in space plasmas than I am ... it could well be I'm using completely the wrong equations.)

As to the rather ad hoc geometry I adopted, that reflects my own (imperfect) understanding of this model. It's an approximation that's meant to simplify a rather complex process, important when you're trying to calculate the resistance of the photospheric circuit elements: the dimensions of the circuit element, and the physical parameters of the plasma (temperature, density, magnetic field, etc) will have a great effect. A certain amount of speculation inheres in all of those parameters unfortunately, but one thing that does seem obvious - at least conceptually - is that, all else being equal, the dimensions of the circuit elements will have a very significant effect. But what dimensions to use? Plasmas in general display self-similarity at many scales, and this is certainly true in the photosphere. So we might expect the current to be flowing in all sorts of highly complex ways.

So one valid question to ask, I think, is what scale should be used for the calculations? The macroscale - an electron enters the photosphere, whirls about for a bit, and then departs - or the microscale? The river or the tributary? Or both and everything in between, since any given electron might be expected to follow all varieties of path in its travels?

I must say, it really would be nice if Scott or Thornhill were to weigh in with something quantitative on this thread....

[David Talbott]

One thing this thread has emphasized is the value we can gain from proceeding with the proposed debate.

Nereid: neither Don Scott nor Wal Thornhill has suggested that a mere drift of electrons toward the Sun completes the picture. Both understand perfectly well that circuitry is needed to maintain the self-evident equilibrium. I trust you've not forgotten that Don is a retired professor of electrical engineering!

To get to first base, the electric circuit is the essential principle. Whatever the circuitry may look like, it will not involve the "billiard ball" role of charged particles you suggest, Nereid. Holding onto that fallacy will only prevent you from seeing the breadth and strength of the qualitative argument for the electric sun.

All of this can be valuable subject matter for the debate. So now is indeed a good time to advance the discussion of ground rules.

[Nereid]

A hint for all this gives us the "hot" torus around our Sun, that can befound as well as at the big gas planets -- Jupiter and Saturn -- in our solar system. They seem to function as some kind of energy-"puffer".

I don't follow this, partly because I do not know what this image is.

Can you give a source for it please? Also, what waveband(s) is it taken in?

Nereid,

Please refer to the fourth post in this thread for a description of the solar torus image.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php ... nto-Arctic!)?s=2d03570381c37ff6c35469546e5327c3

It's a composite image of two images taken by SOHO.

Thanks earls.

It seems that mgmirkin did not cite the source of the image, merely stating "shot in a UV wavelength, if memory serves". Further, the web address of the image looks like mgmirkin's own collection of images.

I do have one more source for this image, David Talbott:

For starters, see the diagrams on pages 33, 41, 42, 48, and 51 of our ebook on the Electric Sun hypothesis. If you've not seen these diagrams, I'll ask one of the moderators to post them.

David kindly sent me a copy of this ebook, and an image that looks very similar appears on p79. The picture credits, on p116, say "plasma torus circling sun, Credit ESA/NASA, SOHO".

As I do not know if this ebook has yet been published, I do not feel free to quote from it (indeed, for all I know, the ebook - when it is published - may not include this image!). So this may be of no use at all in determining the source of the image.

However, <<moderator action - copyright infringing link removed>>here is a (large!) PDF which has the same title (The Electric Universe Sun), the same image, and the same credit (does anyone know about this website? The /research page is "Leif Svalgaard's Research Page [...] Preprints and reprints", and this PDF is linked from the "(list of files)" link at the bottom).

[Nereid]

However, <<moderator action - copyright infringing link removed>>here is a (large!) PDF which has the same title (The Electric Universe Sun) [as the ebook],

Assuming that this is at least a preprint of the ebook - if it's not, then what follows is probably a waste of time and bandwidth - and assuming it's the most recent, most definitive exposition of the electric Sun hypothesis (or model) ...

The authors are listed as Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott (p5). Page 6 is:

collaborators
(the thunderbolts project)

Stephen J. Crothers
David Drew
Michael Goodspeed
Michael Gmirkin
Kevin Merrell
C. J. Ransom
Donald E. Scott
Dave Smith
Steve Smith
Ian Tresman

On page 7 we read that David Talbott is the editor-in-chief, and that Wallace Thornhill is the technical, scientific consultant.

Consistent with the webpage I quoted from in the OP (by Scott), on p50 there's this: "The energy to heat the electric Sun comes externally from the galaxy."

On p40 some details:

In its relationship to the galactic environment the Sun is the anode or positively charged body.

The cathode in this electric exchange is not a specific object but rather a ‘virtual cathode’ found at the heliosphere—outer limit of the Sun’s influence.

And on p53 a diagram with the Sun labelled "Anode", and and arrow pointing off the to top left labelled "Virtual Cathode (at the boundary of the heliosphere)". Pages 50, 52, and 55 explain the relationship between various glow discharges and regions of the Sun; pages 64 to 66 repeat this model, in some detail.

Nowhere is an estimate of the current that would be needed to power the Sun in such a model given, nor of the voltage drop from the boundary of the heliosphere to the top of the corona/chromosphere/photosphere.

Consistent with what seems to be a diagram in "Don Scott's book, The Electric Sky" is the diagram on p42; the explanation (on p43) is: "The electric model proposes that the Sun's 'circuit' would look something like the diagram on the left." (a somewhat similar diagram is on p87).

On p99 is a diagram labelled "Alfvén’s Heliospheric Circuit"; the accompanying text (on p98) is not 100% clear, but at least strongly implies that "the Sun’s polar circuit, as defined by Hannes Alfvén" is part of the electric Sun model (throughout this document the term used is 'electric model'; 'hypothesis' is nowhere to be found). The caption on p99 reads, in part:

The Sun acts as a homopolar inductor (A) producing an electron current (I) which goes outward along the axis (B2) and inward in the equatorial plane along the magnetic field lines B1.

Nowhere in the document is it explained how the two descriptions - Sun as anode, Sun as homopolar inductor - are consistent with each other.

One further point: obviously, everyone here is aware of the heliospheric current sheet, which does flow away from the Sun. It carries a total current of 3x10^9 A. One would expect the polar currents (as yet undetected, although Ulysses, I believe, may have come across something) to be equal to this. The assumption we want to make of course is that current flows out equatorially and in through the poles ...

This seems consistent with the electric Sun model presented in the PDF; specifically, consistent with what's on pages 98 and 99.

If so, and if psychegram's number is even approximately correct, then the Sun cannot be powered by the current described!

Why?

Because it's ~11 orders of magnitude too small (per the calculations I presented in the OP).

What is your source for the current carried in the heliospheric current sheet, psychegram?

[David Talbott]

Nereid, your OP calculations are based on a false assumption, which is why I directed you to the Geissler tube analogy. When the power is turned on, electrons don't rush at relativistic speeds to slam into the anode. In other words, your entire frame of reference is incorrect.

1 The anode in a Geissler tube is not a "Hotel California," collecting electrons until it explodes. (I invite everyone to return to Nereid's opening post and see if I'm misrepresenting her assumptions.)

2) As we've stated many times, the electric model, the model that must be the subject of the debate, sees the entire heliosphere as the positive column of the Sun's glow discharge. That is where Wal Thornhill's adjustment of Juergens' model comes in. The region from the Sun to the "heliopause" is not the cathode drop envisioned by Juergens. That drop occurs at the boundary of the heliosphere, a claim that makes perfect sense in terms of what we now know about the Sun's domain.

3) As I've also stated more than once, no circuit diagram integrating implied heliospheric currents with implied galactic currents has yet been produced. That is, in fact, the next logical step, and I've personally taken initiative with Bob Johnson of England, to see if progress in that direction can be made in coming weeks and then be summarized in a paper at the upcoming NPA conference.

4) The solar wind (or more specifically the "heliospheric current sheet") cannot be the indicator of the strength of electrical input to the Sun. By comparison with the speed of the claimed, imperceptibly slow drift current at Earth's distance from the Sun, the solar wind moves at lightning speed. But it varies, even stops at times. That's why I referred to it as the (variable) "smoke from the electric fire."

5) And lastly, the one fundamental requirement in discussion of the electric sun hypothesis is that reliable evidence lead the way. You can't just skip over the qualitative argument and demand numbers. Isn't this the fatal flaw in the theoretical sciences today: specialists thinking they are proving a point with equations and computer simulations, ignoring a larger field of view that is shouting pointers as to what is actually happening? You can't start arguing about quantities until you have realistically determined what you are observing and measuring. In the case of the Sun the most critical measurements have not even been taken yet, since we've not yet put solar versions of the Cluster satellites into place around the Sun. By comparison with what we are now learning about electric currents driving Earth's auroras, the pre-Cluster years belong to the dark ages of magnetospheric study. Asking Kristian Birkeland for a circuit diagram and for numbers to justify his CORRECT conclusions (i.e., charged particles from the Sun driving the auroras) would have been quite ridiculous. The auroral, Earth-Sun circuitry is incredibly complex and even now much more obviously remains to be discovered. And one thing is certain. The Sun's circuitry is far more complex--which doesn't mean its existence can be denied.

[Lloyd]

Scientists map unexplored part of sun's interior
Solar Oscillations
* Discussion of solar oscillations should be relevant to the debate. This is from 1996. The first image below shows plumes under the photosphere, supposedly to a depth of 4,000 miles, less than 1% of the sun's radius. It's based on analysis of surface oscillations, assuming the oscillations are like seismic waves in the Earth. The second pie-slice image is just a theoretical model, I think.
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/96/960611solarmap.html

The first map of the the sun's convection layer that shows internal structure. It is a vertical cut through the outer 1 percent of the sun showing flows and temperature variations. The small arrows represent the direction and strength of gas flows. The vertical blue streaks represent downward flows of cooler material. They may be the first direct evidence for narrow plumes predicted by computer modeling that extend down to the bottom of the convection layer and cause the magnetic loops that create sunspots and flares.

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/relimage/96 ... rmapc2.GIF

* This next image seems to show about 14 standing waves around the sun longitudinally, which suggests that the Birkeland current filaments may cause them. But I don't know if 14 is actually observed in any way, or if it's just a random example. http://www.noao.edu/education/ighelio/solar_music.html
* This site http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/ ... nspot.html says below the following image, which is a frame from a movie:
This movie reveals motions of the Sun's interior as measured with helioseismology on data from GONG and SOHO/MDI.

[MrAmsterdam]

Talking about assumptions, do we really know all the properties of light?

The following article is not only a great discovery about the magnetic and electric properties of light, it is also a warning about being blinded by quantative and mathematical side of science.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-sol ... netic.html

The researchers found a way to make an “optical battery,” said Stephen Rand, a professor in the departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Physics and Applied Physics.

In the process, they overturned a century-old tenet of physics.

“You could stare at the equations of motion all day and you will not see this possibility. We’ve all been taught that this doesn’t happen,” said Rand, an author of a paper on the work published in the Journal of Applied Physics. “It’s a very odd interaction. That’s why it’s been overlooked for more than 100 years.”
Light has electric and magnetic components. Until now, scientists thought the effects of the magnetic field were so weak that they could be ignored. What Rand and his colleagues found is that at the right intensity, when light is traveling through a material that does not conduct electricity, the light field can generate magnetic effects that are 100 million times stronger than previously expected. Under these circumstances, the magnetic effects develop strength equivalent to a strong electric effect.

So again I ask, isn't it a bit too early for quantative calculations since we do not know all properties of the sun and light? What assumptions are we using for this 'Electric sun' calculation?

[mharratsc]

Envision how tenuous the motion of charge particles coming in must be, if the size of the heliosphere is the actual collector for this capacitive relationship? We measure the power output from our Sun (which we think is rather large), but when you consider the size of the heliosphere... the charge motion inwards towards the Sun must be so diffuse as to be almost undetectable, I would think. :\

[Lloyd]

* The heliosphere is over 200 AU in diameter.
- The Sun is 0.0093 AU in diameter.
- So the heliosphere has at least 21,000 times the surface area of the photosphere.
- The thickness of the photosphere is said to be about 400 km, or 250 miles.
- The volume of the photosphere then is 250 SSA-mi (Sun's surface area x miles).
- The volume of the heliosphere is 200 AU x 93e+6 mi/AU x 21,000 SSA = 3.9e+14 SSA-mi.
- So the heliosphere has 3.9e+14 SSA-mi / 250 SSA-mi = 1.5624e+12 times the volume of the photosphere.
- That's over 1.5 trillion times the volume.
* The photosphere is likely in arc-mode discharge, the corona in glow-mode, and the remaining heliosphere in dark-mode.

[botoxic]

However, in the OP of this thread, I explained why the current needs to be at least 2 x 10^20 A (details of the calculations are in a later post of mine, on the first page); basically, the electrons cannot deliver more than ~ 1 MeV each, otherwise the Sun would be exceedingly bright in 511 keV annihilation gammas.

Electrons do not transport the energy. This can be "seen" in A/C current, the electrons vibrate backwards and forwards and go nowhere! In D.C. current, a capacitor can prevent electrons travelling from a battery to a light bulb, but when the circuit is switched on, the light bulb is powered.

Electromagnetic fields transfer the energy in an electric circuit. See:

• "Electric Energy is Carried by Individual Electrons? Wrong" at Bill Beaty's web site
• "Understanding Electricity and Circuits: What the Text Books Don’t Tell You" (PDF) by Ian M. Sefton
• "Electric currents in cosmic plasmas", Hannes Alfvén, Rev. Geophys., 15(3), 271-284.