Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby Daniel » Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:32 pm

Hmmmm. Judging by the lack of response it would seem I am either incorrect, or people are unable to keep up with the descriptions.

Perhaps my time here is wasted?
Daniel
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:11 am

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby Daniel » Wed May 01, 2013 4:27 am

CharlesChandler wrote:
Daniel wrote:I am a newbie here, but would like someone to describe the difference btween an Anode and a Cathode please.

The way we're using the terms here, an anode is positively charged, and emits +ions (or more probably, accepts electrons, but that isn't what the "anode model" states), while a cathode is negatively charged, and emits electrons.


Ahh. I see. So basically, the model you are using is one of flow of energy from one point, the anode, emitting + charges, presumably the "holes"? as you are talking electron flow, and these fictitious packets travel through some inverse time region to the cathode, which is negatively charged, and emitting electrons. Ok. So.

Please explain how these two charges do not instantly combine and anihialate one another, to produce no net work through the circuit. As we all know, like forces repel and opposites attract. Why would there be any exchange of energy to the surrounding environment at all, if +ions are a particle with a missing electron? Would not the electrons simply fall onto the +ion to bring balance before any work could be done, or energy could flow? Or is this "quantum magic"??
Daniel
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:11 am

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed May 01, 2013 10:35 am

Daniel wrote:Ahh. I see. So basically, the model you are using is one of flow of energy from one point, the anode, emitting + charges, presumably the "holes"? as you are talking electron flow, and these fictitious packets travel through some inverse time region to the cathode, which is negatively charged, and emitting electrons. Ok. So.

Please explain how these two charges do not instantly combine and anihialate one another, to produce no net work through the circuit. As we all know, like forces repel and opposites attract. Why would there be any exchange of energy to the surrounding environment at all, if +ions are a particle with a missing electron? Would not the electrons simply fall onto the +ion to bring balance before any work could be done, or energy could flow? Or is this "quantum magic"??

First, I'm going with the "cathode" model, but the flavor I'm using is complex, and arguably asserts the existence of both anode & cathode currents. The anodic current is episodic, while the resulting cathodic current (if I'm using those terms correctly?) is sustained, and thus the Sun is "characterized" as a cathode.

Second, my model has the topmost layer of the Sun being positively charged, with a negative layer something like 20 Mm below. Solar flares that eject plasma are near the surface, which is inside the positive layer. Thus the CME represents a net loss of positive charge for the Sun (anodic current?), creating a charge imbalance. In response to this, there is a net drift of electrons (cathodic current?) through the positive layer, attracted by the electric field to the expelled +ions. Ohmic heating from the electrons moving through the positive layer does the work.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby Daniel » Wed May 01, 2013 5:11 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
Daniel wrote:Ahh. I see. So basically, the model you are using is one of flow of energy from one point, the anode, emitting + charges, presumably the "holes"? as you are talking electron flow, and these fictitious packets travel through some inverse time region to the cathode, which is negatively charged, and emitting electrons. Ok. So.

Please explain how these two charges do not instantly combine and anihialate one another, to produce no net work through the circuit. As we all know, like forces repel and opposites attract. Why would there be any exchange of energy to the surrounding environment at all, if +ions are a particle with a missing electron? Would not the electrons simply fall onto the +ion to bring balance before any work could be done, or energy could flow? Or is this "quantum magic"??

First, I'm going with the "cathode" model, but the flavor I'm using is complex, and arguably asserts the existence of both anode & cathode currents. The anodic current is episodic, while the resulting cathodic current (if I'm using those terms correctly?) is sustained, and thus the Sun is "characterized" as a cathode.

Second, my model has the topmost layer of the Sun being positively charged, with a negative layer something like 20 Mm below. Solar flares that eject plasma are near the surface, which is inside the positive layer. Thus the CME represents a net loss of positive charge for the Sun (anodic current?), creating a charge imbalance. In response to this, there is a net drift of electrons (cathodic current?) through the positive layer, attracted by the electric field to the expelled +ions. Ohmic heating from the electrons moving through the positive layer does the work.


Well done Charles.
You have succeeded in completely obfiscating my question with your response.
Honestly, if you don't know the answer, just say so.
I will pose the question within your "model" in the hope that this will provide you with a contextual understanding as you seem to be unable to engage with the basics.
So, why would the "net drift of electrons" not simply latch onto the "charge imballance" within the "positive layer" producing no net work, ie; NO "OHMIC HEATING"????
Why would these "electrons" be drawn to the "expelled +ions" at all? Would not the charge imballanced "positive layer" be the "sink"?
Or, like I said, is there some sort of quantum magic going on to explain this "model"?
Also, would you be kind enough to respond to my other questions or do I have to pose them in a context you understand as well? I really don't mind, you just have to let me know what it actually is you are or are not understanding.
I will pose them again for referance.
"I would like someone to describe the difference between an Anode and a Cathode please?"
Use references if you could, to the original observations, made by Faraday. (I think it was Faraday).
Describe what effect these two currents have on a conductor wound into a coil and the electrical connection configurations".
"I asked, if anyone here actually knew what Anodic current and Cathodic current was, and the distinction between them. Could you expand on the "model" you mentioned please"?? (This being the ORIGINAL, actual, scientific observations and explanations of these two currents and NOT an imaginary theory of the sun's operation).

Then, there is this from you Charles,....."The way we're using the terms here, an anode is positively charged, and emits +ions (or more probably, accepts electrons, but that isn't what the "anode model" states), while a cathode is negatively charged, and emits electrons".
Now. I would like for someone to tell me how an Anode, which is "positive" due to a "lack of electrons" can "emit +ions" while acting as a sink for the Cathode which is "emitting electrons". These "electrons" require a source and sink for there to be a "current flow", yet, mysteriously, the Anode is both a source of +ions (which are missing an electron apparently) AND a sink for electrons??? Or is it just a sink for electrons, while not emitting anything at all?? If the latter, where then is the sink for the electrons? Or are the electrons simply moved in a constant one way passage from source to sink, returning to ground as the conventional model states?? Then, where is the ground circuit for the sun?? Perhaps that is why it said to be "using fuel"??
If this latter is the case, then where, oh where is the observed dual aspect of electric charge as noted by the likes of Faraday, Lord Kelvin and all the others? Or did that science simply get magiced away?
There is something screwy here, or is it some sort of "quantum magic"
Thanks.
Daniel
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:11 am

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed May 01, 2013 6:27 pm

I didn't realize that you're not asking about solar theory, but rather, about alternative EM theories. My bad. I have no idea how to answer your questions. I just use conventional EM theory, as applied to astrophysics.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby seasmith » Wed May 01, 2013 7:32 pm

Daniel wrote:(note quote box,fourth button from left on top)

Also, would you be kind enough to respond to my other questions or do I have to pose them in a context you understand as well? I really don't mind, you just have to let me know what it actually is you are or are not understanding.
I will pose them again for referance.

"I would like someone to describe the difference between an Anode and a Cathode please?"



It's a trick question. Anode can become cathode, and cathode anode, depending on chirality of circuit.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby Daniel » Wed May 01, 2013 10:20 pm

[/quote]It's a trick question. Anode can become cathode, and cathode anode, depending on chirality of circuit.[/quote]

Nope, it's not a trick question. The reasoning behind the terminology has nothing to do with chirality, as explained earlier. Perhaps I used too many words.
Daniel
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:11 am

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby Daniel » Fri May 03, 2013 12:55 am

CharlesChandler wrote:I didn't realize that you're not asking about solar theory, but rather, about alternative EM theories. My bad. I have no idea how to answer your questions. I just use conventional EM theory, as applied to astrophysics.


Ahhh. I see. So, you are happy to continue being wrong, 'cause everyone else is? What does it matter, right? I mean, if this were REAL science, it would matter, but since we are talking about things so far away that they do not effect us, it is of no real consequence anyway.

You are trying to describe an EU model with no concept of the first element od the model in it's true terms from a scientific explanation and refuse to be edumicated to consider alternatives as they are just that, "alternative". What you fail to realise is that it is the CONVENTION which you follow that has been missinterpreted from the facts of observational science. There is nothing "alternative in there, just the facts which have been obscured "by convention".
Daniel
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:11 am

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri May 03, 2013 6:32 pm

Daniel wrote:Ahhh. I see. So, you are happy to continue being wrong, 'cause everyone else is?

Actually, I'm trying to work my way up to that. Usually I'm wrong all by myself. :D

Daniel wrote:What does it matter, right?

Well, can you describe what conclusions I'd draw differently? Nobody is going to adopt a different model, or in this context, go back to an earlier model, just because it seems to make better sense. The proposed model has to make easier work of a larger inventory of conditions. In other words, it has to be simpler, and/or more comprehensive, and/or more accurate. And the benefits need to be demonstrated. If they are not, then it's all just sophistry.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby Daniel » Sat May 04, 2013 6:20 am

[/quote]
Well, can you describe what conclusions I'd draw differently? Nobody is going to adopt a different model, or in this context, go back to an earlier model, just because it seems to make better sense. The proposed model has to make easier work of a larger inventory of conditions. In other words, it has to be simpler, and/or more comprehensive, and/or more accurate. And the benefits need to be demonstrated. If they are not, then it's all just sophistry.[/quote]

Pardon, I thought you just said that the older makes better sense.

To bring order to something that is currently dissordered, by relieving the "conventional" false assumptions, and acheiving simpler more comprehendable solutions, to everything in it's state, which is more relevant than is currently possible by being able to map the path of the "electron" via experiment and measurements to render both position and time, to acheive a linking of that capacitance and inertia in a desired load, to deliver amplification of the energy component inherent in the motion of all matter, which is exactly what I have described, and is demonstrated in the videos I have recently posted on youtube in an effort to convey the solution of the problem for the benifit of others is not enough for you, then sorry.

If these conclusions do mot make sense to you then I am truly, truly sorry.

I have spent enough time here, and if there is no chance of being heard, then I have better things to do.
Daniel
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:11 am

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Oct 27, 2015 2:54 pm

Cathode Sun
I've been studying CC's solar model at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/5237.html. It has 5 electric double layers, PNPNP. And CC calls it a cathode, which confused me, because of the P or positive layer on the outside. I thought that meant it should be an anode, attracting negative charge, but I think I remember CC explaining that the negative layers actually have more charge than the positive layers, so that would explain why it's a cathode, attracting positive charge. Maybe he'll confirm or deny that for us eventually.

Distinct Photosphere Boundary
CC says the sharp, smooth boundary of the Photosphere surface shows that the Photosphere must be held down electrically, since gravity doesn't produce sharp boundaries in "gases" or low density matter. Here's a graph of the solar atmosphere densities and temperatures.
Image
The graph shows not such a sharp change in pressure at the Photosphere surface, but a much sharper change at the top of the Chromosphere in the Transition Region. The Chromosphere is said to be strong in UV light, so maybe it should be considered the top layer of the Photosphere. I think CC suspects that the Photosphere is actually much denser than is normally claimed, because gravity waves, which occur on the surface, should only be possible where there's a big difference in densities. Maybe he'll comment on that eventually too.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:56 pm

Lloyd wrote:Cathode Sun
I think I remember CC explaining that the negative layers actually have more charge than the positive layers, so that would explain why it's a cathode, attracting positive charge.

Yes, the topmost layer is positive, but it's a "screening layer" attracted to an underlying negative charge, and there isn't quite as much positive charge, leaving the Sun with a slight net negative charge. The field between the negative Sun and the positive heliosphere is 1.7 GV (as calculated by Hannes Alfven). This field is sustained by the episodic ejections of +ions in CMEs out into the heliosphere, which then slowly rain back down to the Sun, but in the meantime, there is a slight charge imbalance. The rate at which +ions are expelled from the Sun, if averaged out into a continuous stream, works out to about 1015 amps of positive current. So this will motivate a steady drift of electrons out of the Sun, at a rate of 1015 amps. Ohmic heating from that drift, through the positive layer and out into the heliosphere, is what generates the bulk of the photons that we know as sunlight. Since watts = amps times volts, the watts = 1015 amps times 1.7 GV, which comes out to about 1025 watts, which is within an order of magnitude of the known power output of the Sun (i.e., 1026 watts). More accurate numbers, and a more complete explanation, are here.

Lloyd wrote:Distinct Photosphere Boundary
The graph shows not such a sharp change in pressure at the Photosphere surface, but a much sharper change at the top of the Chromosphere in the Transition Region.

Such graphs have to be taken with a grain of salt -- the density hasn't been directly measured, because NASA can't seem to find anybody brave enough to venture to the surface of the Sun to get direct measurements. :) So everybody is quoting model densities, not measured densities. And they vary considerably, depending on the model.

My point is that the ideal gas laws don't predict this at all -- the density should gradually taper off to nothing at an infinite distance from the Sun. So the dashed line in the figure should be a straight line, from the lower right to the upper left, since it should be a logarithmic fall-off. But a lot of the modeling of the characteristics of the Sun, including the research behind that graph, require a non-ideal density gradient. This is proof that forces other than just gravity pulling in, and hydrostatic pressure pushing back out, have to be present.

What other forces could be present?

There are only 2 other forces operative at the macroscopic level: the magnetic force, and the electric force.

The Sun's average magnetic field is only 1 Gauss, which is just twice the strength of the Earth's magnetic field, and which certainly isn't creating a non-ideal density gradient in the Earth's atmosphere. So it isn't the magnetic force.

That leaves the electric force as the only candidate for the non-ideal density gradient within the Sun.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:00 pm

I didn't expect to see your reply so soon, Charles. Glad to see it though.

Screening Layer
You said: Yes, the topmost layer is positive, but it's a "screening layer" attracted to an underlying negative charge, and there isn't quite as much positive charge, leaving the Sun with a slight net negative charge.

I remember how you initially described that screening layer of the Sun, called the Photosphere. I think you said the electrons from the negative double layer below the photosphere come up in granules and they don't all stick to the protons in the photosphere, because they're too hot, as excess heat ionizes matter. I did read lately that only 3% of the surface of the Sun is ionized, the rest of the matter there being mostly monatomic hydrogen, I think. If that's right, I guess the matter is more ionized just below the surface. As I understand it, you've concluded that CMEs, which are a frequent occurrence of positive matter being expelled from the Sun in large balloon-like globs, are what attract the steady stream of electrons up from the negative layer through the positive photosphere and out into the HCS toward the heliopause, where the CME matter ends up, I guess, which makes it positive charged out there. Why would positive CMEs move out toward a positive heliopause?

I guess it's time for me to reread your CME paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/8292.html. And your Granules paper too at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/6324.html.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:31 pm

Lloyd wrote:I did read lately that only 3% of the surface of the Sun is ionized, the rest of the matter there being mostly monatomic hydrogen, I think.

If you can find the source of that, I'd like to read it, to determine how they arrived at that number. I'm assuming that at least 10% of the matter in the photosphere is +ions.

Lloyd wrote:Why would positive CMEs move out toward a positive heliopause?

The CMEs are motivated just by the explosive power of the solar flares.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:50 pm

Photosphere 3% Ionized
CC: If you can find the source of that, I'd like to read it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
The photosphere is not fully ionized—the extent of ionization is about 3%, leaving almost all of the hydrogen in atomic form.[78]
78. ^Rast, M.; Nordlund, Å.; Stein, R.; Toomre, J. (1993). "Ionization Effects in Three-Dimensional Solar Granulation Simulations". The Astrophysical Journal Letters 408 (1): L53–L56. Bibcode:1993ApJ...408L..53R. doi:10.1086/186829.


CC's CME Paper
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/8292.html
The paper said: The Potentials section identified CMEs as the critical enabler in the sustained electric current between the Sun and the heliosphere, because they deplete the supply of positive ions on top of the negative layer

I then checked out the Potentials paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7909.html, but I didn't find any mention there of CMEs. You must have edited that out, or forgot to add it. Eh?

Anyway, I guess you're saying that solar flares produce CMEs and then the lighter +ions are accelerated outward by the positive charge of the photosphere, while the heavier ones are pulled back down by the underlying negative layer. Do you say then that the +ions eventually fall back into the Sun, or that they somehow join the +ions in the heliopause? Or do just the electrons move on out to the heliopause? Where does the positive charge of the heliopause come from?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests