Electron Space Probe Data

[michael.suede]

http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/DATA ... index.html

Suprathermal Electron Pitch Angle Data and Plots from ACE/SWEPAM

In addition, some artifacts are seen in the higher energy channels. In particular, a signal due to sunlight contamination is frequently present at the highest energies. This signal is aligned with the Sun direction, and so moves through a pitch angle plot as the magnetic field direction changes. An example of this can be seen on Dec 14, 2000, as the non-field aligned signal seen from 0-12 UT in the 712, 987 and 1370 eV panels.

Proof of Jurgens model?

Perhaps it is not "sunlight contamination" but the inflowing relativistic electrons Jurgens postulated.

I can't tell if "aligned with the Sun" means inflowing our outflowing electrons.

But if they are inflowing, it would match Jurgens postulates of low density relativistic electrons powering the Sun.

Something a professional astronomer should look into.

[MGmirkin]

Save the fact that Wal's EU model doesn't utilize relativistic electrons in interplanetary space. Wal's model has the interplanetary space equating to the positive column of a glow discharge. Quasi-neutral with a SLOW electron DRIFT inward (on the order of cm. per hr.; far from relativistic) superimposed on the chaotic random thermal motions of the plasma thereabouts. The only place relativistic electrons MIGHT exist would be very near or in the atmosphere of the sun where a DL is postulated to exist (approximately in and around the chromosphere; between the photosphere and the corona). Possibly some at the heliospheric boundary, where another DL may exist. Again, that's in Wal Thornhill's model (I think Don Scott is possibly on the same page, though with a few caveats or minor disagreements as to the portion of a glow discharge that equates to the interplanetary space, among other quibbles). But don't take any of that as definitive in any way. I may be mis-recollecting some conversations from a while back. AKA, "don't quote me."

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[michael.suede]

Juergens model postulates relativistic electrons at low density.

On the average, measurements show that most of these detected electrons are moving neither inward nor outward. Parker's model requires that a like number of electrons and ions drift outward, constituting the electrically neutral solar wind. Here, we require that an inward flux of 3000 relativistic electrons per cubic meter pervades the background of 9 to 11 million electrons per cubic meter which occupy, but do not flow through, the space between the planets of the solar system.

On this basis, we are at least partially justified in supposing that the negative glow of the solar discharge cannot be located outside the Sun's atmosphere. Since the negative glow is the first true plasma region to be encountered as we proceed from the cathode of a glow discharge toward the anode, the interplanetary plasma may be tentatively assigned this role without straining the self-consistency in the model.(23)

Thus it would appear that, if but one in about every 3,000 electrons near the Earth turned out to be a current carrier moving at almost the speed of light toward the Sun, the power delivered would be enough to keep the Sun "burning" at its present rate. This seems a rather subtle stream but it would suffice to power the Sun.

To me, such a detection of low density high energy electrons aligned with the Sun would bolster Juergens theory.

[MGmirkin]

Well, just pointing out that Wal (whether rightly or wrongly) disagrees with a few things Juergens said about the Electric Sun (while in large part agreeing), likewise with not accepting everything Sansbury said about subtrons, gravity, light, etc. (while, again, in large part finding it useful as a physical / conceptual model).

(Comets Impact Cosmology)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=uf4ty065

The 'negative glow' region can be seen to have a strong electric field. People objected to Juergens'' model because we don''t find relativistic electrons, accelerated by a strong radial field in interplanetary space, rushing toward the Sun. But plasma phenomena in a glow discharge are complex, so appeals to simplistic models based on electrostatics are irrelevant. Instead, I propose that Juergens' model be modified and that interplanetary space is the extensive 'positive column' region of a glow discharge. Cobine writes, "The positive column is a region of almost equal concentrations of positive ions and electrons and is characterized by a very low voltage gradient."

The most important feature of the positive column region of a glow discharge is that the plasma is quasi-neutral. That is, sampling will reveal equal numbers of positive ions and electrons. And that is what we find in the solar 'wind.' It merely forms the conducting plasma medium between the cathode region at the heliospheric boundary and the anode region near the Sun. So looking for excess relativistic electrons rushing toward the Sun is no more sensible than looking at a current-carrying wire and asking where are all the excess electrons rushing from one end of the wire to the other.

The next most important feature of the positive column region of a spherical glow discharge is that throughout most of its volume the plasma maintains a weak but constant radial electric field. That field is what accelerates protons from the Sun to produce the solar 'wind' and it assists the drift of electrons to the Sun.

Wal's opinion seems to be that we won't find and shouldn't really even be looking for relativistic electrons rushing toward the sun within interplanetary space. If it turns out Juergens was right, so be it. We'll see what happens with further observation.

That's all I'm getting at.
~Michael Gmirkin