Electric Sun: A Quantitative Calculation

[Osmosis]

----Until the capacitor charges, then the lamp goes dark.

[kiwi]

Tom Bridgman, to take just one example, did a series of calculations of this kind ....

Tom Bridgeman ... the witch-hunter? .. we had a (real) maths physics prof here remember Nereid? ... and he got caught fiddling the books so to speak ... classic

back to the drawing board I guess ,.. oh and nice to see you back

[Nereid]

In order to help maintain focus, I've created a separate thread in which I comment on, and give my suggestions etc on, the debate proposed by David Talbott: Electric Sun debate: Discussion.

There've been several new 'content' posts - on the quantitative calculations I presented in the OP of this thread - since I last posted here in this forum. In my next post or two I will try to catch up.

There've also been a few new posts that seem - to me - to be not relevant to either the proposed debate or the calculations; I do not intend to comment on any of these. However, if anyone does think any are relevant, would you mind saying so (and explaining why)?

[Nereid]

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

To the best of my knowledge, Thornhill has never published anything quantitative on this topic; can anyone point to anything to the contrary?

I am not aware that Scott has published anything quantitative, on this topic, other than this (source):

Solar Electron Flux

The solar constant, defined as the total radiant energy at all wavelengths reaching an area of one square centimeter at the Earth's distance from the Sun, is about 0.137 watts per square centimeter . It works out, then, that the Sun must be emitting about 6.5x10^7 watts per square meter of solar “surface,” and the total power output of the Sun is approximately 4x10^26 watts.

The hypothetical electric discharge must then have a power input of 4x10^26 watts. Suppose that the Sun's cathode drop is of the order of 10^10 volts. Then the total power input divided by the cathode drop is 4x10^16 amperes. The velocity of the stellar winds is estimated at 200 – 1000 km/s . This is in the range 2x10^5 and 10^6 m/s. Therefore, let us suppose that the effective velocity of a typical interstellar electron is at least 10^5 m/s. From current estimates of the state of ionization of the interstellar gas, we might conclude that there should be at least 100,000 free electrons per cubic m. The random electric current of these electrons then would be Ir = Nev where N is the electron density per cubic meter, e is the electron charge in coulombs, and v is the average velocity of the electrons (in m/s). Using these values, we find that the random electric current density should be about 1.6x10^-9 Amp per square meter through a surface oriented at any angle.

The total electron current that can be drawn by the solar discharge is the product of the random current density and the surface area of the sphere occupied by the cathode drop. There is little to indicate how large this sphere might be, but in view of the enormity of the cathode drop it seems likely that the radius of the sphere would be large in terms of solar system dimensions. The mean distance of Pluto's orbit is 39.5 AU, or about 6x10^12 meters. We know that the cathode drop reaches to at least that distance from the Sun. It seems reasonable to estimate the distance of the heliopause is at least twice that radius so that its spherical boundary would have a collecting surface area of something greater than 4x10^26 square meters.

Such a surface could then collect a current of interstellar electrons amounting to approximately 1.6x10^-9 Amp per square meter x 4x10^26 square meters = 4x10^17 A. (Exactly 10 times the number needed) – and of course a larger heliosphere could collect an even greater current.) Of course this calculation involves many estimated quantities, but the point is that it is not reasonable to conclude that there are not enough electrons to power the Sun. From the rough estimates of these important quantities that are presently the best available, we have determined that there most certainly are more than enough electrons available to power the Sun if, indeed, that is what is occurring.

[...]

Whether or not Juergens was completely correct in his assertion that the Sun is totally powered by external electrical excitation is really not the most important point of the ES hypothesis. What is important is that all of the phenomena we observe on and above the surface of the Sun are clearly well-known effects in electric plasma. This is true no matter how the Sun gets its power.

[...]

1. R.C. Wilson, Journal of Geophysical Research, 83,4003-4007 1978.
2. Peratt, A. Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer-Verlag, 1992.
3. Astronomers now estimate that the region of “termination shock” (the heliopause) surrounds the solar system in a giant sphere at distances ranging between 85 and 120 times Earth's 93 million-mile distance from the sun. This is in the order of 8 billion miles = 1.48 x 10^13 meters. Thus our estimate of 6 x 10^12 meters is on the conservative side.

Whatever the circuitry may look like, it will not involve the "billiard ball" role of charged particles you suggest, Nereid.

David, I just re-read every one of my posts in this thread.

Carefully.

I did not find any in which I suggested a ""billiard ball" role of charged particles".

However, it is clear that, for whatever reason, you formed the impression (or opinion) that I did just that.

So, to clear this up, once and for all, please read this, carefully.

I, Nereid, do not suggest, imply, or infer that charged particles play a "billiard ball" role.

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.

David, I just re-read every one of my posts in this thread.

Carefully.

I did not find any in which I assumed that "[w]hen the power is turned on, electrons rush at relativistic speeds to slam into the anode".

However, it is clear that, for whatever reason, you formed the impression (or opinion) that I did just that.

So, to clear this up, once and for all, please read this, carefully.

I, Nereid, do not assume, imply, or infer that when the power is turned on, electrons rush at relativistic speeds to slam into the anode.

The anode in a Geissler tube is not a "Hotel California," collecting electrons until it explodes.

Of course it isn't!

There's a wire attached to the anode, and a wire attached to the cathode, in such a tube.

However, in the electric Sun hypothesis (or model) - as presented by Scott (per the website in the link given in the OP) - there is no equivalent of a wire leaving the anode. In fact, as these extracts - from the source cited in the OP (Scott) - makes clear, it is very hard to think of where such a wire-equivalent would attach:

The essence of the Electric Sun hypothesis is an analysis of the electrical properties of its photosphere and the chromosphere and the resulting effects on the charged particles that move across them. A radial cross-section taken through a photospheric 'granule' is shown in the three plots shown, below. The horizontal axis of each of the three plots is distance, measured radially outward, starting at a point near the bottom of the photosphere (the true surface of the Sun - which we can only observe in the umbra of sunspots). Almost every observed property of the Sun can be explained through reference to these three plots; for this reason, much of the discussion that follows makes reference to them.

The first plot shows the energy per unit (positive) charge of an ion as a function of its radial distance out from the solar surface. The units of Energy per Unit Charge are Volts, V. The second plot, the E-field, shows the outward radial force (toward the right) experienced by such a positive ion. The third plot shows the locations of the charge densities that will produce the first two plots. The chromosphere is the location of a plasma double layer (DL) of electrical charge. Recall that one of the properties of electric plasma is its excellent (although not perfect) conductivity. Such an excellent conductor will support only a weak electric field. Notice in the second plot that the almost ideal plasmas of the photosphere (region b to c) and the corona (from point e outward) are regions of almost zero electric field strength.

Energy, Electric field strength, and Charge density
as a function of radial distance from the Sun's surface.

When we consider the Sun, however, a spherical geometry exists - with the sun at the center. The cross-section becomes an imaginary sphere. Assume a constant total electron drift moving from all directions toward the Sun and a constant total radial flow of +ions outward. Imagine a spherical surface of large radius through which this total current passes. As we approach the Sun from deep space, this spherical surface has an ever decreasing area. Therefore, for a fixed total current, the current density (A/m^2) increases as we move inward toward the Sun.

Further, in Scott's calculation (reproduced above, contained in a private email to David Smith), a value is given for "the Sun's cathode drop" (an assumption, to be sure - "suppose"). Scott did not propose that at least one part of the Sun (e.g. one region of the photosphere, chromosphere, or corona) acts as a cathode, or the point where the equivalent of a wire is attached.

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.

(bold added)

Indeed, this is consistent with what Scott has published (and Thornhill, in his 2007 IEEE paper).

If so, where's the thing which plays the role of the wire attached to the anode?

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: [...]

Let's remind ourselves of just what the electric Sun hypothesis (or model) is ... at least that part of it which is the subject of my OP.

In the electric Sun hypothesis (or model), the analogy used is that of a plasma discharge (Scott: "This constitutes a plasma discharge analogous in every way (except size) to those that have been observed in electrical plasma laboratories for decades"). Various behaviours are cited - "The granules observed on the surface of the photosphere are anode tufts (plasma in the arc mode)", [the corona] "is a "normal glow" mode plasma discharge", [somewhere between the heliosphere and outer corona] "we are in the dark current region; there are no glowing gases, nothing to tell us we are in a plasma discharge - except possibly some radio frequency emissions", and so on.

So, in a plasma discharge - DC between cathode and anode - how is energy transported? Specifically, where does the energy that is radiated away (in the form of light, in the arc or glow mode; or radio waves, in the dark mode) come from?

As Scott points out, these sorts of discharges are well understood, so there should be easily obtainable answers to questions on the role of electrons (and ions) in plasma discharges (of the kind which produce arc, glow, and dark modes).

So, to clear this up once and for all, why not ask appropriate questions in Physics Forums?

[tayga]

So, to clear this up, once and for all, please read this, carefully.

I, Nereid, do not suggest, imply, or infer that charged particles play a "billiard ball" role.

I suppose I also must have misinterpreted your earlier post then:

"In short, the only physical processes for 'transfer of energy' other than the 'kinetic energy of electrons' (quote marks indicate I'm using shorthand), in currents (where electrons are the charge carriers) are those involving other aspects of QED (e.g. interactions with the medium). In the case of currents in wires, there are, of course, well-known and well-understood processes. In the case of the Electric Sun hypothesis, there is none (at least none have been stated, that I am aware of)."

Is there a distinction between this and a "billiard ball" role?

[Nereid]

I suppose I also must have misinterpreted your earlier post then:

"In short, the only physical processes for 'transfer of energy' other than the 'kinetic energy of electrons' (quote marks indicate I'm using shorthand), in currents (where electrons are the charge carriers) are those involving other aspects of QED (e.g. interactions with the medium). In the case of currents in wires, there are, of course, well-known and well-understood processes. In the case of the Electric Sun hypothesis, there is none (at least none have been stated, that I am aware of)."

Is there a distinction between this and a "billiard ball" role?

Thanks for asking, tayga, and for giving me a chance to clarify (I can see just how easy it is to mis-interpret what I wrote; my mistake for not being sufficiently clear).

I'll tackle two aspects only in this post; for an understanding of how currents transport energy in other circumstances, or more general questions on the transport (or transfer) of energy by electrical, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields, I strongly recommend going to a site like Physics Forums.

First, and foremost, the calculation in the OP relates directly to the electric Sun hypothesis (or model), as presented by Scott; specifically, to the Sun as an anode, the Sun as being powered by a current (with the heliosphere being a virtual cathode), and various observed phenomena being understood as aspects of a cathode-anode plasma discharge.

My comment - I, Nereid, do not suggest, imply, or infer that charged particles play a "billiard ball" role - refers to the calculations in the OP (and in subsequent posts), and the specific 'cathode-anode plasma discharge' (a DC plasma discharge) described by Scott.

Second, what is "a "billiard ball" role" (for charged particles)? It is a very simplified, classical physics model.

It assumes Newtonian mechanics (i.e. relativity does not apply), that collision cross-sections are constant (roughly, the probability of a collision between an 'electron as billiard ball' and another particle (as billiard ball) depends solely on the assumed radii of the two particles), that all collisions are perfectly elastic (so, for example, no energy is lost, in a collision, due to the emission of one or more photons), mutual interactions that are very short range (crudely, two 'electrons as billiard balls' interact only when they contact each other; there is no inverse square force between them), and so on. This highly simplified model is very useful in introductory physics, and you can use it to derive the ideal gas laws, to give just one example.

When spelled out like this, I think it's obvious that my calculations most definitely do not assume that charged particles play a "billiard ball" role! For example, 'electrons as billiard balls' cannot generate electron-positron pairs, nor can 'electrons as billiard balls' produce 511 keV gamma rays (through collision - and annihilation - with positrons).

Now a caveat: it is possible that David Talbott was using "billiard ball" in a non-standard way (he did, after all, put the two words inside double quote marks); if so, then the two of us have been talking past each other.

My fault then; I should not have assumed that this is what he meant, rather I should have asked. My apologies.

David, can you please clarify what you meant by "the "billiard ball" role of charged particles"?

[PlasmaGuy]

Remarkable! One can learn much from such discussions as these. I would like to applaud Nereid on remarkable patience and perseverance. You have an interesting hobby in engaging in discourse here! Perhaps I will pop in on these discussions myself. It's always useful for a scientist to re-examine core principles to ascertain that his or her assumptions are on solid ground. I will introduce myself as a novice plasma physicist, as hinted at by my username.


In perusing this thread, I find myself puzzled by a question brought near the first page which (to my knowledge) has not yet been answered. If the sun acts as an anode, and the heliosphere a cathode with a Birkeland current or something of the sort flowing between them, where is the rest of the circuit which Kirchoff's very important laws demand must exist? I have not been able to glean this from previous discussion of this topic. Perhaps there is another filamentary current which departs from the sun in some manner? (as a side note, I would be interested in knowing what mechanism there is which would propel electrons with sufficient energy to overcome a 10 Gigavolt barrier to propel these electrons back outside the heliosphere!)

I will summarize this as one question: what is the remainder of the completed EU circuit which I assume the proponents have thought of and summarily dealt with?


I absolutely love talking about plasma physics and the like, so you will pardon me for the following random discussion of circuits that might be of interest in this argument!

In a conventional battery, a chemical process sets up a potential between the two ends of the battery. This potential will drive a current through a wire connected to both ends of the battery. This current may be calculated from Ohm's law if you know the resistance of the circuit.

Now, as mentioned previously in this thread, E = QV. For my purposes let us work with a 12V battery. This means, that in the absence of any collisions or other interactions, a charged particle which begins at one end of the battery with no kinetic energy will have 12 eV (electron-volts, equal to the electron charge times a volt) of energy at the other side of the battery. Of course, interactions are quite important in a wire, so electrons collide with each other and much of this energy is converted to thermal energy in the random particle motions. So the net drift in the circuit is actually quite small.


Now let us consider the sun as a part of a circuit, where the sun is at a potential 10^10 volts relative to the heliosphere. If there were no collisions, an electron which starts at the heliosphere would have 10 GeV of energy when it hit the surface of the sun! But of course, as in the example above, it's important to account for interactions and collisions.

The heliosphere is thought to have a radius of order 100 AU (Astronomical Units, based on the distance of the earth from the sun). As an oversimplification, let's assume the potential drops uniformly: 10^10 Volts / 100 AU = 10^8 Volts per AU.

The mean free path (average distance between collisions) in the solar wind is known to be of order 1 AU.

So what this means is that if they are flowing approximately directly towards the sun, electrons would gain 100 MeV of energy between collisions. This would mean electrons would have somewhere around this energy when impacting the sun! This is a highly relativistic energy (100 times the electron rest mass energy) and, as Nereid suggested, would likely produce some observable gamma radiation from positron-electron pair production and the like.

I wonder how this could be reconciled with the EU model. Perhaps the Birkeland currents wrap around the sun several hundred times before entering it, giving the electrons plenty of 'mean free paths' to thermalize? Or perhaps the Birkeland currents have a very high density so that the mean free path is much shorter! After all, since we haven't detected them in the solar system yet, there's no need to constrain their properties unnecessarily (though I do wonder how pressure balance would then be maintained).


I guess I have written a novel here, perhaps some of you will be generous enough to read it.

[David Talbott]

PlasmaGuy, I suspect that the issues you raise arise from the differences between the astronomer's standard treatment of plasma physics and the more "electrical" foundations of plasma cosmology (where the work accomplished by electric currents across cosmic distances is an essential consideration).

In discussions of this sort, the first requirement will be to establish an agreed-upon frame of reference, one that accurately reflects the assumptions of the hypothesis under discussion. In the electric sun hypothesis the Geissler tube analogy, in which a drift current energizes a glow discharge, does not involve electrons approaching the Sun at relativistic velocities.

Relativistic electron velocities will surely be involved in the consequent energetic displays, but these are an effect of the focused energetic activity at the Sun, not the cause. This is why I said earlier that we need to get past the "billiard ball" electron analogy. The drift current of the Geissler tube analogy does not call for the analysis you provided.

Also, everyone please keep in mind that the issue of plasma conductivity reaches far beyond the Sun to the diffuse plasma of interplanetary, interstellar and intergalactic space. It's only when one thinks of the Sun as an isolated island — where everything is done through nuclear fusion, ionization, and dynamo activity — that electric currents will be removed from the equation. This disregard for electric currents will then allow the investigator to ignore a possibility shouting to us from the bigger picture: that a vast region, where the plasma is far from a near-perfect conductor, is contributing directly to the observed display.

But everyone please understand that the TB Forum is a training ground for newcomers to the EU hypothesis. To stutter forward imperfectly is not a problem, so long as we progress toward greater clarity. Folks who've been around for a while are getting the picture, and the quality of their contributions continues to improve month by month. Right now, the most important step will be to distinguish between causes and effects in the Sun's behavior, based on knowledge of drift currents and glow discharges.

Though I'm going to be socked in for the next week to ten days (completing two NPA papers), I hope this discussion, which has shown episodic progress, will continue.

[jjohnson]

Let's get the energy transmission thing right, first, and then perhaps we could discuss cosmic circuits, which is really the harder task in the cosmic arena, being somewhere between difficult to impossible to detect through direct probing or sampling. (IMHO that is something we should be doing in a steady data sampling program with a lot of small, special purpose satellites in a variety of orbitals to sample as large a volume of space as possible in our local star's neighborhood, where we can actually get to different places.)

The "function" of the charged particles moving in a current, i.e., what they do, is to create the electric field (they are charged particles, after all) and the magnetic field (they are moving charged particles hence -> magnetic field) that constitutes the electromagnetic field existing between the initial separation of charge (the "driver" or energy source of the circuit) and all the (connected) elements of the circuit.

What moves the charged particles is a separation of charge or relative motion of charges through a magnetic field, whether that is a generator in a turbine hall or a double layer in a plasma filament.

The moving particles do not transport electrical energy. An electron has no potential energy. Besides, the speed at which charged particles move in a conductor, called the drift velocity, is far slower than the delivery of electrical energy that energizes the circuit. They simply create the electromagnetic field. This field is what transmits the energy. Interrupt or disconnect the motion of particles and the magnetic half of the field collapses and energy ceases to be transmitted as soon as all the en-route energy and any energy storage devices (inductors and capacitors) in the circuit are discharged.

A "dead" battery can no longer create sufficient electrochemical voltage (charge separation, or "potential") to build a strong enough electrical field "push" to overcome the circuit's resistance, so charges don't move with net drift velocity and don't create magnetic field. Note that in AC circuits the charges do move, only mostly back and forth, so their magnetic field is variable with time, although with a little drift velocity it should stay a little above zero voltage, and therefore the energy delivery rate is proportional in time to the voltage, but always positive, even though half of the charges' motion "goes back the other way. The direction of motion is immaterial to the magnetic field; the lack of charges' motion is fatal to it.

I found this out only recently, through Ian Sefton, an honored Reader in the School of Physics at the University of Sydney, AU, but John Poynting wrote it up in 1884 and 1885 in the journal Physical Transactions of the Royal Society, in two papers, "On the transfer of energy in the electromagnetic field, Part II" and "On the connexion between Electric Current and the Electric and Magnetic Inductions in the Surrounding Field".

Poynting was the first to conceive of how to represent vectorially the path or flow of energy that is delivered from a source to the circuit. Poynting vectors do not lie inside the conductors; they start at "points" (locations) in the EM field surrounding the conductors. At any such coordinate, the two vectors representing the electric and magnetic field direction and scalar value (strength) can be calculated or measured. Each of the two vectors starts from that point. Two lines determine a plane. The Poynting vector is a vector, starting from the same starting point, perpendicular to that plane, in the direction denoted by the right-hand-rule as viewed from the first vector to the second vector. That is the direction of the energy "flux" at that point in space. That is the path taken that powers the circuit.

Just as it is not clear to a person in a large city precisely where the source of her electrical power "starts", no one (so far as I know) knows where the specific source(s?) of power is that powers the stars and galaxies. There are theoretical assumptions, as almost always, and inferences, but knowledge is a slippery and relative thing, and not always a sure bet.

An interesting question (that's all I seem to have: questions) is whether the transmission of electrical energy is "light". According to Poynting, the energy is transmitted in the combined electro-magnetic field. To me, that smacks of light. Think of a solar cell. visible and invisible EM energy falls on it, and energize internal circuitry which results in the movement of electrons in the circuitry in the cell. That in turn energizes the EM field of the circuit, allowing it to transmit its energy as electricity to a storage device or to power a lamp, etc. In short, EM radiation is the transmitting state of electrical energy, and the EM field, whatever that really is, is the transmitting medium, for lack of a better word. So: does the medium transmit photons or waves, or waves of photons? Or does that depend on with what, or how, the energy is detected?

[David Talbott]

Yessir Jimbo, you've done it. Sefton is indeed amongst the clearest references on the matter.

Bottom line: the billiard ball model of energy transfer to light the Sun (i.e., the repeated misinterpretation of the electric Sun hypothesis) needs to come to a quiet end. Don't have the time to adequately congratulate you and others who've tried to register the point, but y'all deserve kudos here.

[PlasmaGuy]

Alas, we encounter here one of the incredible difficulties I've witnessed in the past day regarding conversations with proponents of EU. There seems to be no specific consensus with regard to which parts of classical physics are valid.

E = QV I merely pulled from a previous page in this discussion (I thought) as it was actively put forward by one of the forum-goers. Is this is not universally accepted among the proponents of EU. This is a 19th century concept.

My assumptions were: electrons exist as charged particles, and the above equation is valid. The (mainstream, alas) understanding of circuits is as I explained above; the drift velocities of electrons are very small because of thermal collisions inside the material. The energy is indeed transmitted at the speed of light, and it is not a process of electrons traversing the circuit and depositing energy or something silly like that.

This understanding of circuits is encased in and heavily intertwined with mainstream physics. It appears that you cite ideas such as drift velocities, then forget that "our" models were used to come up with that picture leading from whatever experiments "we" performed. The description of a circuit you provided was indeed generally accurate (to my quick perusal) with regard to Poynting vectors, transmission of energy, and so forth.

I am not claiming that the Electric Sun model is one powered by electron collisions with the surface of the sun. I instead point out differences between a circuit like a wire and my understanding of the sparsity of space and infrequency of collisions (do you dispute that this is true? I know I come into this with a number of assumptions and an excellent way to go forward in a discussion is for such differences in initial assumptions to be pointed out). If you believe that there might exist filamentary wire-like objects in space (with abnormally high densities so that a collisional treatment would be valid) then I would love to know, as it could help me sort out the differences.

I simply claim that a 10 Gigavolt potential difference would attract negative charge like moths to a flame, accelerating this 'charge' (which I believe is carried by electrons) to high energies as consistent with energy conservation and E = QV. Given my understanding of the infrequency of collisions, these particles would quickly become very energetic. To my knowledge, what I have described above easily lies under the umbrella of classical physics.

I perceive a piecemeal pick-and-choose approach taken by many of the proponents of EU. I worry that in supporting your theory you reject all too little of mainstream physics, and accept too many results which come interpreted from experiments through our models (such as drift currents, as far as I understand your conception of them). Don't let yourselves be so tarnished!

But perhaps I misunderstand. What is your understanding of 'drift velocities' are? Mine is that charged particles love to move along electric fields, as a ball will roll down a hill, and can only be kept at bay by frequent collisions which keep them from gaining large energies and restrict the net motion of charges to an average 'drift speed'.

[David Talbott]

A few quickies for you, PlasmaGuy:

1. My guess is that, on matters of electricity, the EU folks take classical physics more seriously than you do. E = QV is not at issue here.

2. It will be extremely helpful to this discussion if you will read up on the Electric Sun hypothesis--and that includes both Wal Thornhill's and Don Scott's published material. Your statement with respect to drift velocities misses the mark, ignoring the hypothesized heliospheric environment: quasi-neutrality. The cathode drop is completed across the heliospheric boundary. Of course, assuming a double layer close to the Sun, a portion of the drop would occur quite dramatically across that double layer, and that should be one of the first things to be explored.

3. It is the external power source driving a circuit that maintains the positive charge of the anode in a glow discharge. The Geissler tube analogy was given for a reason. It is the galactic "battery" driving the circuit that maintains the charge differential from the outer edge of the heliosphere to the solar surface.

4. Of course, the particles of a glow discharge become very energetic before returning to their ground state. And the strong electric fields that must be active close to (and on) the surface of the Sun will indeed accelerate charged particles spectacularly, to be guided along magnetic field lines to produce the full electromagnetic spectrum of the Sun.

5. There is no "pick and choose" habit exhibited by the principle EU proponents. The fact that various folks are posting while they are still learning is actually acknowledged by these folks. The learning experience for everyone has been particularly encouraging.

(Incidentally, in a quick read-back over what I've written here, it all seems rather terse, but that's only because I have to leave the office el pronto )

[Nereid]

It may be a good idea to remind ourselves of what the electric Sun model is, with respect to how the Sun in powered, and how the lab analog actually works (sources at the end of this post).

Look at the glowing tube in the photo above.

The tube had been initially filled with air. The air is pumped out reducing the pressure. At low pressures read on a gauge, a glow appears in the tube.

Notice the violet glow near the right hand electrode which is labeled -, negative.

Notice the orange bands near the positive electrode.
The graphics say that there is a 15,000 volt potential difference between the electrodes.

[...]

What's Going On?

Electrons are accelerated by the 15,000 volt difference between the metal electrodes at the ends of the tube.

When the electrons collide with molecules in the tube, mostly nitrogen, those molecules are excited and then when they drop back to lower energy states the molecules emit light. Nitrogen emits a pale orange light.

[...]

So What?

In a particle accelerator the charged particles are accelerated at first by a voltage difference

When the electrons gain higher energies than those in our exhibit, they ionize atoms. At higher energies still they can collide with particles in the nucleus.

In an accelerator, the tube through which the electrons travel is kept at high vacuum to prevent the beam from colliding with stray molecules.

In a DC glow discharge, what is the proximate cause of the electromagnetic radiation emitted in the glow?

Spontaneous emission by excited ions, atoms or molecules.

What is the proximate cause of the excitations?

Collisions, with electrons (or other ions, atoms, or molecules).

In such a DC glow discharge, are ions, atoms or molecules excited by mechanisms other than collisions?

No.

In a DC arc discharge, what is the proximate cause of the electromagnetic radiation emitted in the arc?

Thermal emission by ions, atoms (or molecules).

What is the proximate cause of the heating?

Collisions, with other ions, atoms (or molecules, sometimes electrons).

In such a DC arc discharge, are ions, atoms or molecules heated by mechanisms other than collisions?

No.

In the page on Electric Plasma the three characteristic static modes in which a plasma can operate are discussed. Here is a more detailed description. The volt-ampere characteristic of a typical plasma discharge has the general shape shown below.


The volt-ampere plot of a plasma discharge.

This plot is easily measured for a laboratory plasma contained in a column - a cylindrical glass tube with the anode at one end and the cathode at the other. These two terminals are connected into an electrical circuit whereby the current through the tube can be controlled. In such an experiment, the plasma has a constant cross-sectional area from one end of the tube to the other. The vertical axis of the volt-ampere plot is the voltage rise from the cathode up to the anode (across the entire plasma) as a function of the current passing through the plasma. The horizontal axis shows the Current Density. Current density is the measurement of how many Amps per square meter are flowing through a cross-section of the tube. In a cylindrical tube the cross-section is the same size at all points along the tube and so, the current density at every cross-section is just proportional to the total current passing through the plasma.

When we consider the Sun, however, a spherical geometry exists - with the sun at the center. The cross-section becomes an imaginary sphere. Assume a constant total electron drift moving from all directions toward the Sun and a constant total radial flow of +ions outward. Imagine a spherical surface of large radius through which this total current passes. As we approach the Sun from deep space, this spherical surface has an ever decreasing area. Therefore, for a fixed total current, the current density (A/m^2) increases as we move inward toward the Sun.

* In deep space the current density there is extremely low even though the total current may be huge; we are in the dark current region; there are no glowing gases, nothing to tell us we are in a plasma discharge - except possibly some radio frequency emissions.
* As we get closer to the Sun, the spherical boundary has a smaller surface area; the current density increases; we enter the normal glow region; this is what we call the Sun's "corona". The intensity of the radiated light is much like a neon sign.
* As we approach still closer to the Sun, the spherical boundary gets to be only slightly larger than the Sun itself; the current density becomes extremely large; we enter the arc region of the discharge. This is the anode tuft. This is the photosphere. The intensity of the radiated light is much like an arc welding machine or continuous lightning. A high intensity ultraviolet light is emitted.

(source)

The energy to heat the electric Sun comes externally from the galaxy.

The weak electric field in interplanetary space is concentrated most strongly above the surface of the Sun. Protons (positively charged particles) are accelerated away from the photosphere to collide with the thin atmosphere of the corona, heating it to a million degrees or more.

Seen in these terms, the super-heated corona is a familiar glow discharge phenomenon recognized by high-voltage engineers.

[Diagram with this text: "Region of glow discharge" (chromosphere to corona, inclusive) "The region of glow discharge ends above the photosphere"]

In the laboratory the glow discharge tube (near right) demonstrates how distinct plasma regions form between the anode and the cathode.
['near right' is an image from Paul Doherty]

(source: 2008 e-book)

Paul Doherty source: Science Explorations, Glow Discharge (an image from this webpage appears in the 2008 Thornhill and Talbott e-book).

[PlasmaGuy]

A circuit must be complete. That means, where current flows in, it must also flow out. Now what you have proposed is a giant capacitor surrounding the heliosphere. Is there any hole in this capacitor, to allow current to flow into the heliosphere to fulfill Kirchoff's laws?

That is, clearly current will flow from one end of the capacitor to the other (if the inside is at a positive potential, it will flow outward with a current corresponding with Ohm's). Current must also then flow in, but where? A cartoon drawing will suffice.

This is a fundamental topological (look it up) issue; it has nothing to do with the cosmic battery. I simply want to know what the proposed conduit for inward flow of current is, and if there is then a proposed 'hole' in the hypothesized double layer.

I will only post here again if this very simple request is answered.

Addendum, in view of Nereid's post:
As I thought, the above clearly states that current flows only inward toward the sun. As I thought, this is not a circuit (current flows everywhere into the sun, there's no avenue for it to flow out to fulfill Kirchoff's laws).

Do you posit a wormhole inside the sun which connects it with a continuation of the circuit elsewhere in the cosmos? This would, perhaps, account for the anomalous missing outward current.

[PlasmaGuy]

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 being what is in fact observed for charged spheres embedded in a low-density plasma. But, I believe one may still expect that the full surface area of the heliopause is used to collect electrons from the local interstellar medium, with the electrons then being directed towards the poles.

Correction, the radial component of the heliospheric current sheet is inward not outward.

(Apparently my factual-accuracy tic is enough to overcome vows to put off posting.)