Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby BeAChooser » Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:51 pm

Let's see ...

One group of scientists predicted that filaments were ubiquitous.

Another group of the scientists said that there were no filaments or that they were VERY rare.

Let's see who was right ...

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.06376v1.pdf
BeAChooser
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:24 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Tue May 03, 2016 12:51 am

upriver wrote:You would think that even in dark mode the should be some sort of detectable signal from a Birkeland current. Most of them emit some sort of IR.

How about radio wavelengths? Magnetic fields have been detected without any optical counterpart. For mainstream astronomy this is somewhat of a puzzle as the general order is: galaxies or stars first, magnetic fields later. The reality would be Birkeland currents first, galaxies and stars later.

upriver wrote:But I did find these papers today.
CORRECTING THE RECORD ON THE ANALYSIS OF IBEX AND STEREO DATA REGARDING VARIATIONS IN THE NEUTRAL INTERSTELLAR WIND
http://astro.uchicago.edu/~frisch/2015F ... record.pdf

EVIDENCE FOR AN INTERSTELLAR DUST FILAMENT IN THE OUTER HELIOSHEATH
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.00353v1.pdf

The second of the two papers is interesting. New data from the Ulysses mission has recently been released.
http://sci.esa.int/ulysses/56677-kruger-et-al-2015/
http://sci.esa.int/ulysses/56678-strub-et-al-2015/
http://sci.esa.int/ulysses/56679-sterken-et-al-2015/

Ulysses initially found that the level of Interstellar Dust (ISD) in the heliosphere was depleted during solar minimum, dust levels increased during solar maximum. An increase in dust levels was recorded from mid-1996 onwards as Ulysses crossed from the FSW to the SSW. It would appear that ISD is reaching the inner regions of the solar system and perhaps the Sun along the same path taken by incoming currents. Moreover, the latest paper suggests a link to the Hale magnetic cycle.

Juergens suggested that the presence of ISD was hindering the flow of electrons towards the Sun, resulting in the development of an arc mode of discharge- typical of Population I stars.

Likewise Population II stars are found in regions largely absent of dust- this is what we find, elliptical galaxies are always found embedded in ‘hot gas’ i.e. plasma with a plentiful supply of electrons.

Observations by Ulysses suggest that ISD is playing an active role in determining the mode of the solar discharge as Juergens suggested.
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue May 03, 2016 10:52 am

Robertus Maximus wrote:As for the ‘exact’ power source, if you accept the electric sun/star model as a viable hypothesis then the answer is simple- charge separation in a plasma. As I have previously stated the Sun is highly negatively charged but its environment carries an even greater charge in the negative sense. We now have an electrical potential difference and an electric current will flow and attempt to equalise the charges.


The problem is that simple temporary charge separation in plasma cannot explain the solar output over a 5 billion year time span. Unless suns also act as "generators", the local interstellar medium (LISM) doesn't have a power source to continuously replenish itself. Sooner or later the charge separation in plasma will equalize itself, and that's that. *If* however, each sun acts as it's own internal power generator as Alfven suggested, then we can easily explain a continuous 5 billion year energy supply. Furthermore, with billions of solar generators per galaxy, we can understand how various generators can be wired together to produce Birkeland currents in the process. Without a identified and sustained electrical generation process however, simple charge separation in plasma will equalize itself relative quickly and no star in the galaxy could possibly burn for "years on end", let alone burn continuously for *billions* of years.

IMO the lack of an identified power source in Juergen's model is the biggest weakness of Juergen's solar model. Admittedly his ideas made a lot of sense when we believed that there was a "neutrino deficit", but not so much anymore.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby upriver » Thu May 05, 2016 6:41 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
Robertus Maximus wrote:As for the ‘exact’ power source, if you accept the electric sun/star model as a viable hypothesis then the answer is simple- charge separation in a plasma. As I have previously stated the Sun is highly negatively charged but its environment carries an even greater charge in the negative sense. We now have an electrical potential difference and an electric current will flow and attempt to equalise the charges.


The problem is that simple temporary charge separation in plasma cannot explain the solar output over a 5 billion year time span. Unless suns also act as "generators",


Hence the idea of the sun being an antenna that receives long wave energy from the galactic center...
Especially in a universe thats trillions of years old....
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Sat May 07, 2016 3:49 am

Michael Mozina wrote:IMO the lack of an identified power source in Juergen's model is the biggest weakness of Juergen's solar model. Admittedly his ideas made a lot of sense when we believed that there was a "neutrino deficit", but not so much anymore.

In Juergens’ Electric Sun hypothesis he postulated that galactic charge was separated into two charged nestled spheres. The inner sphere or nucleus carried a negative space charge the outer sphere or halo carried a positive space charge.

In order to sustain the solar discharge for 10 billion years Juergens calculated the charge densities for each sphere.

The halo would require the presence of 19 excess protons per cubic metre.

The nucleus required an excess of 3 electrons per cubic metre.

This miniscule change in charge density over regions spanning light-years in extent could power the Sun for the timescale stipulated by the Standard Solar Model (SSM) despite the fact that Juergens was attempting to disprove the SSM.

Not too sure about the solved neutrino deficit: http://electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm and http://www.holoscience.com/wp/solar-neutrino-puzzle-is-solved/
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby upriver » Sat May 07, 2016 12:42 pm

Robertus Maximus wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:IMO the lack of an identified power source in Juergen's model is the biggest weakness of Juergen's solar model. Admittedly his ideas made a lot of sense when we believed that there was a "neutrino deficit", but not so much anymore.

In Juergens’ Electric Sun hypothesis he postulated that galactic charge was separated into two charged nestled spheres. The inner sphere or nucleus carried a negative space charge the outer sphere or halo carried a positive space charge.


We still have the problem of where the energy came from to cause the separation... Charge separation is injecting motion into the system...... Electricity is the result or the effect of the separation.

How could you have a system of 2 nested spheres without an imbalance(of energy) on one side(inside) or the other...
Juergen's system might be correct but you have to go further...
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Mon May 09, 2016 12:10 pm

upriver wrote:We still have the problem of where the energy came from to cause the separation... Charge separation is injecting motion into the system...... Electricity is the result or the effect of the separation.

How could you have a system of 2 nested spheres without an imbalance(of energy) on one side(inside) or the other...
Juergen's system might be correct but you have to go further...

From the guide on this very website (https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/10/25/essential-guide-to-the-eu-chapter-3/) we read:

‘Over a large enough volume, plasma tends to have the same number of positive and negative charges because any charge imbalance is readily neutralized by the movement of the high-energy electrons. So the question arises, how can differently charged regions exist, if plasma is such a good conductor and tends to neutralize itself quickly?

‘On a small scale, of the order of tens of meters in a space plasma, natural variations will occur as a result of random variations in electron movements, and these will produce small adjacent regions where neutrality is temporarily violated.

‘On a larger scale, positive and negative charges moving in a magnetic field will automatically be separated to some degree by the field because the field forces positive and negative charges in opposite directions. This causes differently charged regions to appear and to be maintained as long as the particles continue to move in the magnetic field.

Separated charge results in an electric field, and this causes more acceleration of ions and electrons, again in opposite directions. In other words, as soon as some small inhomogeneities are created, this rapidly leads to the start of more complex plasma behavior.’

This behaviour can be initiated by amongst other factors, ionisation:

‘Electron temperatures in space plasmas can be in the range of hundreds to millions of kelvins. Plasmas can therefore be effective at maintaining their ionized state. A charge-separated state is normal in space plasmas.’

From the descriptions above we can see that charge separation is a ‘bootstrapping’ process ‘injecting motion into the system’ is not required, relative motions between charged particles can lead to complex plasma behaviour.
In a space plasma charge separation and filamentation must occur.
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby jacmac » Mon May 09, 2016 4:09 pm

On page 114 of his book, THE ELECTRIC SKY, Dr. Scott says: "What is the exact circuit diagram? Precisely what paths do the currents take in the vicinity of the sun?" All the discussion of the general attributes of plasma do not EXPLAIN HOW THE SUN WORKS in my opinion.

If the BODY of the sun is to be the anode in a circuit that discharges(the photosphere) to the solar environment external to the photosphere, then how do the currents get in there in the first place? AND, where are they?

My approach is twofold:
1. Dr. Scott is correct in his general description of the increasing current density in the solar system as one moves toward the sun. Thus, there is a "drift current" toward the sun.
2. The sun is NOT an ANODE IN A GALACTIC CIRCUIT per se, but more like a giant GROUND that might ACT AS AN ANODE locally to the photosphere.

I think the solar system exists in a sea of galactic plasma. The sun acts as an antennae to gravitationally and electrically collect everything within its sphere of influence. ALL MATTER upon entering the corona, at a million plus degrees, becomes completely ionized and is "consumed" in a FIRE of ELECTRICITY!

The photosphere is similar to the glowing coals at the base of a regular fire, where there is more calm and structure, compared to the Corona. The photosphere is a high voltage area for the positive ions, but a low voltage area for the electrons where they are TRAPPED.(see Dr. Scott page 91) I suggest a lot of recycling in the photosphere, especially of the electrons.

The sun is a very giant BALL LIGHTENING/PLASMOID event, anchored in space by the largest solid body around, and fed by the galaxy we all call home.
jacmac
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon May 09, 2016 7:45 pm

Robertus Maximus wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:IMO the lack of an identified power source in Juergen's model is the biggest weakness of Juergen's solar model. Admittedly his ideas made a lot of sense when we believed that there was a "neutrino deficit", but not so much anymore.

In Juergens’ Electric Sun hypothesis he postulated that galactic charge was separated into two charged nestled spheres. The inner sphere or nucleus carried a negative space charge the outer sphere or halo carried a positive space charge.

In order to sustain the solar discharge for 10 billion years Juergens calculated the charge densities for each sphere.

The halo would require the presence of 19 excess protons per cubic metre.

The nucleus required an excess of 3 electrons per cubic metre.

This miniscule change in charge density over regions spanning light-years in extent could power the Sun for the timescale stipulated by the Standard Solar Model (SSM) despite the fact that Juergens was attempting to disprove the SSM.

Not too sure about the solved neutrino deficit: http://electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm and http://www.holoscience.com/wp/solar-neutrino-puzzle-is-solved/


Thanks for the overview of Jeurgen's ideas. I'm not sure if it helps explain anything related to energy sources, but Alfven also proposed a type of "ambiplasma" composed of of a thinly dispersed amount of both matter and antimatter (electrons/positrons), and he entertained the concept of matter as well as antimatter suns, etc.

Intriguingly, we also find evidence of an excess of positrons from outside of the solar system:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... ron-excess

Last April, the AMS-02 experiment, which is mounted upon the International Space Station, reported a spike in the fraction of positrons – the antimatter counterpart of electrons – coming from beyond the solar system. Conventional wisdom says that the dominant process for creating positrons in the Milky Way is high-energy protons scattering off the galactic disc. Such a scenario would see the number of positrons drop off at higher energies. However, the AMS-02 result seemed to show a rise in the number of positrons as the energy increased above 10 GeV. This backed up a similar high-energy positron excess uncovered by the PAMELA and Fermi satellites in 2008 and 2011, respectively.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby upriver » Tue May 10, 2016 10:00 pm

Robertus Maximus wrote:
upriver wrote:We still have the problem of where the energy came from to cause the separation... Charge separation is injecting motion into the system...... Electricity is the result or the effect of the separation.

How could you have a system of 2 nested spheres without an imbalance(of energy) on one side(inside) or the other...
Juergen's system might be correct but you have to go further...

From the guide on this very website (https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/10/25/essential-guide-to-the-eu-chapter-3/) we read:

‘Over a large enough volume, plasma tends to have the same number of positive and negative charges because any charge imbalance is readily neutralized by the movement of the high-energy electrons. So the question arises, how can differently charged regions exist, if plasma is such a good conductor and tends to neutralize itself quickly?

‘On a small scale, of the order of tens of meters in a space plasma, natural variations will occur as a result of random variations in electron movements, and these will produce small adjacent regions where neutrality is temporarily violated.

‘On a larger scale, positive and negative charges moving in a magnetic field will automatically be separated to some degree by the field because the field forces positive and negative charges in opposite directions. This causes differently charged regions to appear and to be maintained as long as the particles continue to move in the magnetic field.

Separated charge results in an electric field, and this causes more acceleration of ions and electrons, again in opposite directions. In other words, as soon as some small inhomogeneities are created, this rapidly leads to the start of more complex plasma behavior.’

This behaviour can be initiated by amongst other factors, ionisation:

‘Electron temperatures in space plasmas can be in the range of hundreds to millions of kelvins. Plasmas can therefore be effective at maintaining their ionized state. A charge-separated state is normal in space plasmas.’

From the descriptions above we can see that charge separation is a ‘bootstrapping’ process ‘injecting motion into the system’ is not required, relative motions between charged particles can lead to complex plasma behaviour.
In a space plasma charge separation and filamentation must occur.


Filamentation occurs because there is a ground or sink at the other end of a source...

Plasma globe experiment.
https://youtu.be/ZQPoL_BfD9Q

Take the word motion, moving or acceleration out of the description. With what you have left is any work being done?
I.e is any energy being transferred?
How does electricity do work? What does electricity transfer to do work?

The low energy state of plasma is to recombine. To get charge separation from recombination, do you have to add motion?
If you left a plasma system alone say in a chamber, you would expect the plasma to go to its lowest energy. What would make it plasma again??

In the case of a generator the magnetic field transfers kinetic energy across the gap from the turning rotor to the electrons in the wire..
If an electric field causes particles to move, what is the electric field adding to the particle system to cause them to move in the magnetic field??

Bonus question. What does a gravity field vs an electric field, do to charge neutral systems??
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Wed May 11, 2016 7:17 am

As long as we're talking about the transfer of circuit energy, we really need to consider and discuss the "wireless" transfer options:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 084922.htm

"Enveloping the two circuits with metamaterial shells has the same effect as bringing them close together; it's as if the space between them literally disappears," states Jordi Prat, lead author of the paper.

Moreover, the materials needed to construct these crowns such as copper and ferrite are easily available. The first experiments conducted with the aim of concentrating static magnetic fields required the use of superconductor metamaterials, unfeasible for everyday uses with mobile devices. "In contrast, low frequency electromagnetic waves -- the ones used to transfer energy from one circuit to the other -- only need conventional conductors and ferromagnets," Carles Navau explains.


I just so happen to believe that the sun is enveloped with a metamaterial shell composed of iron, nickel, copper and the other heavy elements we observe in spectral data of the sun.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby upriver » Wed May 11, 2016 4:41 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:As long as we're talking about the transfer of circuit energy, we really need to consider and discuss the "wireless" transfer options:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 084922.htm

"Enveloping the two circuits with metamaterial shells has the same effect as bringing them close together; it's as if the space between them literally disappears," states Jordi Prat, lead author of the paper.

Moreover, the materials needed to construct these crowns such as copper and ferrite are easily available. The first experiments conducted with the aim of concentrating static magnetic fields required the use of superconductor metamaterials, unfeasible for everyday uses with mobile devices. "In contrast, low frequency electromagnetic waves -- the ones used to transfer energy from one circuit to the other -- only need conventional conductors and ferromagnets," Carles Navau explains.


I just so happen to believe that the sun is enveloped with a metamaterial shell composed of iron, nickel, copper and the other heavy elements we observe in spectral data of the sun.



Wireless energy transfer....
"Prof. Meyl’s field theory is non speculative and enables new interpretations of several principles of electrical engineering and quantum physics. This leads to feasible interpretations of experimental observations which to this day have not been possible to explain via existing theories. For example, quantum particle characteristics can be calculated when interpreted as a vortex. The dielectric loss of a capacitor emerges as vortex loss. Likewise a number of neutrino experimental results can be explained when the neutrinos are regarded as a vortex. Neutrino power is available as an inexhaustible form of energy due to a remarkable overunity effect. In consideration of environmental sustainability, significant advances result by means of this revised theory regarding today’s electromagnetic pollution."

http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=50_ ... sublevel=0

http://www.k-meyl.de/go/Primaerliteratu ... ansfer.pdf

He says Neutrino but I say kinetic energy from the aether...
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby upriver » Thu May 12, 2016 1:09 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:As long as we're talking about the transfer of circuit energy, we really need to consider and discuss the "wireless" transfer options:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 084922.htm

"Enveloping the two circuits with metamaterial shells has the same effect as bringing them close together; it's as if the space between them literally disappears," states Jordi Prat, lead author of the paper.

Moreover, the materials needed to construct these crowns such as copper and ferrite are easily available. The first experiments conducted with the aim of concentrating static magnetic fields required the use of superconductor metamaterials, unfeasible for everyday uses with mobile devices. "In contrast, low frequency electromagnetic waves -- the ones used to transfer energy from one circuit to the other -- only need conventional conductors and ferromagnets," Carles Navau explains.


I just so happen to believe that the sun is enveloped with a metamaterial shell composed of iron, nickel, copper and the other heavy elements we observe in spectral data of the sun.


I found the article online....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3887385/

Tesla invented it..
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/ ... ro-magnets
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Mon May 23, 2016 8:49 am

In his presentation Bob Johnson asked us to ‘consider the evidence’ which I have done in the updated post suggesting that the JMST Electric Sun hypothesis is essentially the correct description of how the Sun shines, with one modification explaining the origin of the solar cycle, to summarise I will address each point in turn by quoting Bob Johnson:

a. Balancing charge delivered via coronal torus:

‘But there is a problem. The torus forms at solar minimum when there are no sunspots, and disappears at solar maximum when sunspots are most numerous. [Newton 1958] Another problem is that the source of the balancing positive charge isn’t explained.

‘Presumably, protons must come from intergalactic space along with the electrons otherwise the heliosphere would become negatively charged. But that seems to contradict the anode model.’


The timing of the development and evolution of the torus and appearance and disappearance of sunspots are resolved in my proposal. The sunspot cycle had previously assumed to provide a ‘balancing charge’ the origin of which was not explained but is this really necessary? As Juergens explained a potential difference exists between a highly negatively charged Sun and its environment which carries a greater negative charge, Juergens writes: ‘But if the sun finds itself, as I suggest, in an environment whose electric potential is strongly negative (below absolute zero of potential), it will be induced to take on negative charge to reduce its intrinsic potential. And thus its surface gases will become negatively charged; there will be no need for excess or even compensating positive charges to be found anywhere on or in the solar body.’ Therefore, through the discharge mechanism the Sun is compelled to accept more negative charge not a balancing positive charge. Indeed, it appears that most of the discharge current is carried by protons leaving the Sun as the ‘solar wind’, amounting to approximately 10-14 solar masses per year. If the Sun has radiated energy at the present level for the past 4 billion years then this mass loss amounts to about 0.001 per cent of the Sun's mass. Clearly, the Sun has yet to reach the potential of its environment.

b. The drift current should be measurable, not unobservable:

‘If all electrons present at 1AU radius are drifting towards the Sun, they must have an average drift velocity of ~350 km/s. This (is) almost the speed of the slow Solar Wind away from the Sun. This velocity should be obvious, but it’s very difficult to find in the published data.’

The FSW has a velocity of approximately 750km/s, the FSW ‘disappears’ at solar maximum. The SSW has a velocity of approximately 350km/s and is present throughout the whole solar cycle. At solar minimum the SSW is confined to the Sun’s equatorial regions at solar maximum it reaches high latitudes as I have described. The SSW exhibits the properties it does because it is the region of the heliosphere occupied by the drift current impeding the outflow of a globally distributed FSW. The drift current is in the published data it is just how that data is interpreted.

c. Proton & Electron temperatures:

‘The measured data seems to indicate that both the protons and the electrons in the solar wind receive additional energy as they get further from the Sun.’

The SWOOPS instrument data from the Ulysses mission shows a complex electron temperature profile one that is more related to the solar cycle than distance from the Sun. The data shows a spike in electron temperature at the solar equator during solar minimum, during maximum this spike is less focussed, again this would be in line with what I have suggested.

(SWOOPS data can be found here: http://ufa.esac.esa.int/ufa/ Select 'Plots' then select SWOOPS-ELECTRONS from the 'Instrument' menu)

‘This plot from Cranmer (2009) shows proton & electron temperatures in the fast SW plotted against radial distance, from the Helios & Ulysses missions.

‘Strangely, the electron temperature branches beyond 2AU. The lower values near the black curve occurred at solar minimum; the uptick of blue points occurs at solar maxima.

‘This should not occur if the electrons are being accelerated by an anode Sun. Nor should the effect be dependent on the solar cycle.’


What I have suggested explicitly demands that such an effect is dependent on the solar cycle. The uptick in temperature of the FSW at solar maximum occurs because the drift current is now arriving at high solar latitudes it is during this time that the FSW ‘disappears’.

d. The three Electron populations:

‘Let’s look at the electrons in more detail. Stervak (2009) tells us: “The electron velocity distribution functions observed in the solar wind typically exhibit three different components: a core, a halo and a strahl population..” .. the strahl appears as a beam-like population moving .. away from the Sun .. along the .. magnetic
field.” In the figure, the strahl population is the white zone under the starred curve to the right of the thermal core and non-thermal halo populations. Note that there is no corresponding strahl population moving towards the Sun on the left of the diagram.

This is clear evidence that electrons are moving away from the Sun faster than the protons. Taken together, these various strands of evidence seem to argue against an anode Sun.’


The electron strahl appears only in the FSW. Observations by NASA’s Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft reveal that the strahl do not behave as expected: ‘“Wherever we look, the electron strahl is much wider than we would have expected," says Eric Christian, the NASA's deputy project scientist for ACE at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "So there must be some process that helps scatter the electrons into a wider beam."… On the open field lines, the most common width by far is about ten times the size of the thin beam of electrons expected if there had been no extra scattering. The closed field lines, however, showed a nearly equal number of strahls at that width and at a width some four times even larger…"We don't yet know how the electrons get scattered into these different widths," says Skoug.’

On the issue of electrons in the heliosphere, according to the Electric Sun hypothesis, Juergens writes: ‘it could be anticipated that these electrons would exhibit "two temperatures", as it were, or two "superimposed Maxwellian distributions, one of relatively high mean energy . . . consisting of primary electrons from the cathode which have been scattered and the other of much lower energy comprising secondary electrons which have been produced by ionisation of the gas" (I. Langmuir and K.T. Compton Review of Modern Physics, April 1930).’

At solar minimum, when the FSW is present, an ordered global dipole magnetic structure exists in the heliosphere; it would appear that the strahl are scattered electrons following ordered magnetic ‘field lines’ that are dominant at solar minimum.

Now over forty years old Juergens’ Electric Sun hypothesis has stood the test of time- and new discoveries.

References:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/ace-electron-strahl.html
Pensée IVR-III Volume 3, No. 1 (Winter, 1973)
SIS Review Vol 2, No. 2 (Dec, 1977)
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon May 23, 2016 12:01 pm

Robertus Maximus wrote:In his presentation Bob Johnson asked us to ‘consider the evidence’ which I have done in the updated post suggesting that the JMST Electric Sun hypothesis is essentially the correct description of how the Sun shines, with one modification explaining the origin of the solar cycle, to summarise I will address each point in turn by quoting Bob Johnson:

a. Balancing charge delivered via coronal torus:

‘But there is a problem. The torus forms at solar minimum when there are no sunspots, and disappears at solar maximum when sunspots are most numerous. [Newton 1958] Another problem is that the source of the balancing positive charge isn’t explained.

‘Presumably, protons must come from intergalactic space along with the electrons otherwise the heliosphere would become negatively charged. But that seems to contradict the anode model.’


The timing of the development and evolution of the torus and appearance and disappearance of sunspots are resolved in my proposal. The sunspot cycle had previously assumed to provide a ‘balancing charge’ the origin of which was not explained but is this really necessary? As Juergens explained a potential difference exists between a highly negatively charged Sun and its environment which carries a greater negative charge, Juergens writes: ‘But if the sun finds itself, as I suggest, in an environment whose electric potential is strongly negative (below absolute zero of potential), it will be induced to take on negative charge to reduce its intrinsic potential. And thus its surface gases will become negatively charged; there will be no need for excess or even compensating positive charges to be found anywhere on or in the solar body.’ Therefore, through the discharge mechanism the Sun is compelled to accept more negative charge not a balancing positive charge. Indeed, it appears that most of the discharge current is carried by protons leaving the Sun as the ‘solar wind’, amounting to approximately 10-14 solar masses per year. If the Sun has radiated energy at the present level for the past 4 billion years then this mass loss amounts to about 0.001 per cent of the Sun's mass. Clearly, the Sun has yet to reach the potential of its environment.

b. The drift current should be measurable, not unobservable:

‘If all electrons present at 1AU radius are drifting towards the Sun, they must have an average drift velocity of ~350 km/s. This (is) almost the speed of the slow Solar Wind away from the Sun. This velocity should be obvious, but it’s very difficult to find in the published data.’

The FSW has a velocity of approximately 750km/s, the FSW ‘disappears’ at solar maximum. The SSW has a velocity of approximately 350km/s and is present throughout the whole solar cycle. At solar minimum the SSW is confined to the Sun’s equatorial regions at solar maximum it reaches high latitudes as I have described. The SSW exhibits the properties it does because it is the region of the heliosphere occupied by the drift current impeding the outflow of a globally distributed FSW. The drift current is in the published data it is just how that data is interpreted.

c. Proton & Electron temperatures:

‘The measured data seems to indicate that both the protons and the electrons in the solar wind receive additional energy as they get further from the Sun.’

The SWOOPS instrument data from the Ulysses mission shows a complex electron temperature profile one that is more related to the solar cycle than distance from the Sun. The data shows a spike in electron temperature at the solar equator during solar minimum, during maximum this spike is less focussed, again this would be in line with what I have suggested.

(SWOOPS data can be found here: http://ufa.esac.esa.int/ufa/ Select 'Plots' then select SWOOPS-ELECTRONS from the 'Instrument' menu)

‘This plot from Cranmer (2009) shows proton & electron temperatures in the fast SW plotted against radial distance, from the Helios & Ulysses missions.

‘Strangely, the electron temperature branches beyond 2AU. The lower values near the black curve occurred at solar minimum; the uptick of blue points occurs at solar maxima.

‘This should not occur if the electrons are being accelerated by an anode Sun. Nor should the effect be dependent on the solar cycle.’


What I have suggested explicitly demands that such an effect is dependent on the solar cycle. The uptick in temperature of the FSW at solar maximum occurs because the drift current is now arriving at high solar latitudes it is during this time that the FSW ‘disappears’.

d. The three Electron populations:

‘Let’s look at the electrons in more detail. Stervak (2009) tells us: “The electron velocity distribution functions observed in the solar wind typically exhibit three different components: a core, a halo and a strahl population..” .. the strahl appears as a beam-like population moving .. away from the Sun .. along the .. magnetic
field.” In the figure, the strahl population is the white zone under the starred curve to the right of the thermal core and non-thermal halo populations. Note that there is no corresponding strahl population moving towards the Sun on the left of the diagram.

This is clear evidence that electrons are moving away from the Sun faster than the protons. Taken together, these various strands of evidence seem to argue against an anode Sun.’


I would tend to agree by the way.

The electron strahl appears only in the FSW. Observations by NASA’s Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft reveal that the strahl do not behave as expected: ‘“Wherever we look, the electron strahl is much wider than we would have expected," says Eric Christian, the NASA's deputy project scientist for ACE at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "So there must be some process that helps scatter the electrons into a wider beam."… On the open field lines, the most common width by far is about ten times the size of the thin beam of electrons expected if there had been no extra scattering. The closed field lines, however, showed a nearly equal number of strahls at that width and at a width some four times even larger…"We don't yet know how the electrons get scattered into these different widths," says Skoug.’


FYI, NASA is under the erroneous impression that "magnetic reconnection" is responsible for high energy particle transaction that they don't understand, and that process shouldn't typically emit 'wide beams" of electrons, it should emit narrow beams from individual "magnetic lines".

Birkeland had a whole cathode surface to work with, so the width of the beam could virtually be any diameter.

Not sure how that should work in an anode sun model. I would "expect" that the high energy electron "strahl" in that wiring scenario should flow *into* an anode sun, while positively charged particles would flow into space. I'm not sure why Juergen's model would generate electron beams from the sun of any width.

On the issue of electrons in the heliosphere, according to the Electric Sun hypothesis, Juergens writes: ‘it could be anticipated that these electrons would exhibit "two temperatures", as it were, or two "superimposed Maxwellian distributions, one of relatively high mean energy . . . consisting of primary electrons from the cathode which have been scattered and the other of much lower energy comprising secondary electrons which have been produced by ionisation of the gas" (I. Langmuir and K.T. Compton Review of Modern Physics, April 1930).’


FYI, based on that paragraph, I'm confused as to where you're citing Langmuir and when you're citing Juergens.

In a "cathode source" scenario, the "beam" is a direct consequence of the high voltage and the direction of current flow. Birkeland predicted that the sun would emit *huge beams* of electrons that sometimes struck the Earth and created aurora. He also predicted positive ions would also flow away from the sun based on a process we know today as "sputtering", but he didn't have a real word for during his day. The electrons in the high energy beam strike protons as they travel toward the heliosphere. They push against the ions and released electrons and create a slower moving solar wind composed of both types of particles. The kinetic energy essentially comes from the "strahl" feature of Birkeland's model, and it also passes the "test of time".

Any inward bound positive ion flow in Birkeland's cathode model would necessarily take place near the heliosphere, and it would tend to get "blown backwards" by the particle movements coming from the sun.

IMO the anti-sunward flow direction of the "strahl" strongly favors a cathode solar model, not an anode one. It's perfectly congruent with Birkeland cathode solar model, but I don't see why electrons would flow away from an anode sun at high speed. Most of the electron flow in an anode sun model would tend to point *toward* the sun, not away from it.

The halo and lower energy electrons would simply be the kinetic energy remnants of collisions from the high speed electrons and high energy photons coming off the sun. Keep in mind that by "collision" I'm mostly referring the the EM fields of the high speed electrons "slamming into" the EM fields of a relatively stationary proton. I doubt they'd be "direct" collisions for the most part.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1696
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest