Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

[jacmac]

I have a few questions:

1. Would not a "Drift" current" moving toward the sun carry with it any and all neutral atoms ?
2. Would not these neutral atoms become completely IONIZED when they engage the corona(at 1-2 million degrees) and become part of the charged particle mixture available to the sun ?

3. The "SUN" as spoken about in the above posts; is it the photosphere, or is the photosphere the "DISCHARGE" ?

Thanks,
Jack

[celeste]

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".

Once again, Donald Scott's filament model is the answer. But we don't need to even address that here yet. If you remember the water bridge experiments as shown here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC8KDYcdiUI ,you know that ions are spiraling around the outside of the water bridge. When the bridge fails, these ions are thrown off tangentially from that filament. That's a lot of "spread" from the radius of that filament. If a filament (like the water bridge), fails while it is in an external electric field, first particles are thrown off radially from the bridge, THEN they are accelerated as they flow out into the external electric field. If Donald Scott is correct, even the electrons inside that bridge (or filament at the sun's surface), spiral anywhere from axially to azimuthally around the filament axis.

[Michael Mozina]

Once again, Donald Scott's filament model is the answer. But we don't need to even address that here yet. If you remember the water bridge experiments as shown here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC8KDYcdiUI ,you know that ions are spiraling around the outside of the water bridge. When the bridge fails, these ions are thrown off tangentially from that filament. That's a lot of "spread" from the radius of that filament. If a filament (like the water bridge), fails while it is in an external electric field, first particles are thrown off radially from the bridge, THEN they are accelerated as they flow out into the external electric field. If Donald Scott is correct, even the electrons inside that bridge (or filament at the sun's surface), spiral anywhere from axially to azimuthally around the filament axis.

I'm not sure how to apply that to a sun sitting in the middle of that water bridge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfV ... e=youtu.be

This IMO is where one test is worth a thousand expert opinions, and maybe a million or so opinions of amateurs like me.

Birkeland's cathode model would *necessarily* send high speed cathode ray electrons flying off toward the Earth, and outward in all directions. That high speed "strahl" represents the actual bulk the "current" that flows between the solar surface and the heliosphere. The rest of the slower speed particle flow is relatively neutral IMO, and it's been carried along for the ride by the high speed electron flow. As those high speed electrons fly outward toward the heliosphere, they 'slam into' (usually the magnetic field) other particles. They can dislodge electrons from ions, and slam into ions in the atmosphere too, pushing them along as well.

This is the kind of information and prediction set that is best "tested" in the lab. I tend to believe that Birkeland personally already did that more extensively than any of us alive today, and he and his team preferred a cathode model to describe the solar surface with respect to "space". I'd be inclined to "tests" both wiring options in a lab however, and use real Langmuir probes to see whether an anode or cathode surface produces particle flow patterns that are most consistent with strahl and other solar wind particle flow patterns in our solar system.

[Robertus Maximus]

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.

The quote is taken from SIS Review Vol 2, No. 2 (Dec, 1977) ‘The Critics and Stellar Energy’. Juergens is replying to one of his ‘critics’, Mr Ragnar Forshufvud of Sweden and quotes Langmuir and Compton in his reply. Here is the paragraph concerned in full:

‘Getting back to stars, let me note Mr Forshufvud's objection that I have greatly overestimated the electric current of the solar discharge "by assuming that only protons follow the solar wind outwards from the Sun . . .". He adds: "As we know today, protons and electrons travel in the same direction, although a difference in velocity may exist, giving rise to a plasma current." I seriously question that we "know" electrons leave the vicinity of the Sun with the solar wind. An early "prediction", if you will, of the solar-discharge hypothesis was that the electrons of the interplanetary medium should simply constitute a kind of negative space-charge matrix to neutralize the charge of the outward-travelling positive ions (protons, mostly). By analogy with the negative glow region of a laboratory glow discharge, 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). In the late 1960's when solar-wind electrons at last came under scrutiny, it at first appeared that, although the electrons were clearly hotter (more energetic) than protons, their bulk velocities, like those of the protons, were directed outward from the Sun. But it soon became apparent that the electrons were not living up expectations, particularly in the matter of the energy flux they were supposed to carry: "the total solar wind energy flux is predicted to be dominated by the electron heat conduction flux, while in fact the electron heat conduction flux is observed to account only for some 3-4%, of the total flux" (J. Hollweg, Journal of Geophysical Research 81, 1649, April 1, 1976). And now Helios A seems to have shown that "solar wind electrons have a bi-Maxwellian distribution function" (EOS. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 58, 44, January 1977), just as the discharge hypothesis would suggest. Therefore, although a lowering of the current estimate of the postulated discharge would ease problems with the galactic space charge model, I do not think such a move is justified on the basis of available evidence.’

It is a common misconception with the Electric Sun hypothesis that the Sun is an anode. From the outset Juergens specifically stated that the Sun was highly negatively charged and only functioned as an anode with respect to its environment. We are dealing with relative not absolute potentials. Juergens postulated that in adjusting its relative potential the Sun would reject a certain number of electrons. If the Sun’s relative potential varies slightly over the course of the solar cycle then electrons may be constantly accepted and rejected.

As for electrons moving away from the Sun during solar minimum I offer this possibility for consideration. Recall, that at solar maximum the global heliospheric magnetic field is in disarray and the FSW has ‘disappeared’. The impinging current(s) is even more filamentary and reaches the Sun’s polar latitudes hindering the FSW proton current globally not just at the heliographic equator as occurs during solar minimum. This would lead to the formation of a temporary slowly expanding shell containing a slight excess of positive charge. This shell would limit the number of cosmic rays that could penetrate the inner heliosphere hence the anti-correlation between sunspot and cosmic ray numbers- more sunspots, less cosmic rays. (See: http://sci.esa.int/education/13555-succ ... ongid=1021)

As the global heliospheric magnetic field regains its dipole structure the ‘positive shell’ dissipates, the FSW reappears but not before rejected electrons have been accelerated away from the Sun, these electrons are compelled to follow the structured magnetic ‘field lines’- the strahl.

Once again, Donald Scott's filament model is the answer. But we don't need to even address that here yet. If you remember the water bridge experiments as shown here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC8KDYcdiUI ,you know that ions are spiraling around the outside of the water bridge. When the bridge fails, these ions are thrown off tangentially from that filament. That's a lot of "spread" from the radius of that filament. If a filament (like the water bridge), fails while it is in an external electric field, first particles are thrown off radially from the bridge, THEN they are accelerated as they flow out into the external electric field. If Donald Scott is correct, even the electrons inside that bridge (or filament at the sun's surface), spiral anywhere from axially to azimuthally around the filament axis.

This would then be the situation at solar minimum, electrons spiralling around the filament(s) axis. That the global heliospheric magnetic field was a product of current filaments was hinted at by Juergens: ‘My suggestion on this point would be to explore the possibility that the interplanetary magnetic field is the proper magnetic field of the electric current that supplies the sun with all its radiant energy. (A possible clue to this phenomenon is perhaps to be found in lightning discharges on earth. In high-quality photographs of lightning, I fancy I see, not a zigzag path, but a tightly twisted channel strongly resembling a raveled strand of rope--as if the lightning channel were being forced into an almost helical shape by the proper magnetic field of the discharge current.)’

I have a few questions:

1. Would not a "Drift" current" moving toward the sun carry with it any and all neutral atoms ?
2. Would not these neutral atoms become completely IONIZED when they engage the corona(at 1-2 million degrees) and become part of the charged particle mixture available to the sun ?

3. The "SUN" as spoken about in the above posts; is it the photosphere, or is the photosphere the "DISCHARGE" ?

Thanks,
Jack

1. No, the drift current involves only charged particles but that does not mean neutral matter in the plasma is idle. ‘Random (thermal) motions will affect all particles: electrons, positive ions (including bare atomic nuclei), and electrically neutral particles (atoms and molecules) all rush around every which way at different speeds. Typically, electrons, the least massive of all these particles, have the highest random velocities.’

2. Any neutrals will be ionised by the time we reach the corona as the corona is completely ionised. As I have mentioned above that the composition of the SSW matches that of the corona but the SSW extends to the edge of the heliosphere. The double layer that exists between the photosphere and corona is effectively holding two plasmas of differing potentials at bay, that of the Sun and that of the corona/SSW which I have suggested is the region where we find the impinging current powering the Sun.

3.The ‘Sun’ is the main body of our local star. The photosphere forms in that part of the solar atmosphere called the chromosphere some distance above the bodily surface. The discharge occurs in the region occupied by the heliosphere i.e. from the bodily surface of the Sun (functioning as an anode) to a cathode at the heliospheric boundary. Remember that the terms anode and cathode used here are relative not the absolute terms we use when talking about earth bound applications.

Hope this helps.

[jacmac]

I think we agree on a few points R. M.

No 1. I think I have read that a gas with as little as 1% charged particles would be called a plasma. Thus I am thinking the drift current could be bringing into the corona a significant amount of neutral particles and molecules, adding to the charged particle mix in the corona once the complete ionization takes place.

Robertus Maximus said:

2. Any neutrals will be ionised by the time we reach the corona as the corona is completely ionised.

In other posts I have given my opinion that the inner part of the sun is a solid body.

R. M. said:

The photosphere forms in that part of the solar atmosphere called the chromosphere some distance above the bodily surface.

We seem to agree that there is a solar body below the photosphere.
But you do not say if the bodily surface is what we would call solid.

However, I am unclear with "the photosphere forms in....... the chromosphere"
Are you saying the photosphere is the bottom of the chromosphere ?
Also, You say:

The discharge occurs in the region occupied by the heliosphere i.e. from the bodily surface of the Sun (functioning as an anode) to a cathode at the heliospheric boundary.

Is not the solar "discharge" usually used (here at EU) to describe the photosphere. If not, where specifically is it located ?

I agree it is between the solar body and the heliospheric boundary.

Also, You say"

The double layer that exists between the photosphere and corona is effectively holding two plasmas of differing potentials at bay, that of the Sun and that of the corona/SSW which I have suggested is the region where we find the impinging current powering the Sun.

Did you mean the "impinging current" is in the corona or in the "double layer" or both ?

It seems to me both.
The corona collects and ionizes; the chromosphere (double layer ?)acts as a funnel layer, organizing the current down from a relatively lower density/high temp at the base of the corona to a higher density/lower temp just above the photosphere.

Any clarifications would be helpful.
Thanks,
Jack

P.s. I am not getting into the anode/cathode dialogue because I don't understand the terms clearly.

[celeste]

Michael, Look at the assumption here http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunea ... trahl.html
"In general, the magnetic fields get weaker further away from the sun. A physical law that applies in those cases in which electrons are not pushed off course, or “scattered,” demands that the electron gyrations get smaller and more stretched out along the field line. If this were the only physics at work, therefore, one would expect the strahl to become a more and more focused, pencil-thin beam when measured near Earth. This measurement is done by NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) mission, but it shows that the expected focusing doesn’t quite happen."

They are partially correct. If you fire a single electron out along the magnetic field direction, that is what should happen. If you fire a large number of electrons along the same magnetic field, you have the additional problem, that the magnetic field of all those other traveling electrons, becomes part of the magnetic field for your electron. That was the basis for Donald Scott's model.

[Robertus Maximus]

I think we agree on a few points R. M.

No 1. I think I have read that a gas with as little as 1% charged particles would be called a plasma. Thus I am thinking the drift current could be bringing into the corona a significant amount of neutral particles and molecules, adding to the charged particle mix in the corona once the complete ionization takes place.

In a plasma there are two types of particle motion, random (or thermal) and drift. All particles have random/ thermal motions but only charged particles exhibit drift motions. In any given volume some electrically neutral particles could move in the same direction as charged particles but this would be due to their thermal energies not in response to the electric field.

We seem to agree that there is a solar body below the photosphere.
But you do not say if the bodily surface is what we would call solid.

However, I am unclear with "the photosphere forms in....... the chromosphere"
Are you saying the photosphere is the bottom of the chromosphere ?

A cut-away diagram of an electrically powered Sun can be found on page 41 of the e-book Universe Electric Sun available from the link on this website. The image shows a central cool solid/liquid body approximately 1 million kilometres in diameter surrounded by an atmosphere 200,000 kilometres thick, it is in the upper regions of the atmosphere that the photosphere forms. The figures used here should be considered as a guide, for example, the central solid body could be larger and the atmosphere thinner.

Unfortunately the solar atmosphere is not neatly demarcated and is in a constant state of flux so where the photosphere is is not as straightforward to answer as it may seem. In the chromosphere we find the plasma of the discharge in the ‘glow’ mode. In a glow mode neutral atoms are being excited by free electrons; minus the photosphere the Sun would be a red star, thus it is assumed (in the electric star model) that all red stars from dwarfs to giants display this particular mode of discharge which in the case of red-giant stars can be quite extensive.

Now, a number of possibilities exist which could lead to the formation of the photosphere Juergens considered the following:
1. With respect to its discharge, the Sun is too small an anode.
2. In the primary plasma of the solar discharge (the solar corona and the solar wind in interplanetary space) the ratio of random - to drift-current densities is too low; the primary plasma is too "cool," the driving potential of the discharge is too great, or both.
3. Neutral gas is plentiful within and readily evolved from the body of the Sun, so that its lower atmosphere is of a density sufficient to permit tufting. (In this connection, let us note that too-ready evolution of gas from an anode would in itself be a threat to discharge stability; a phenomenon akin to tufting would be called upon to ionize excess neutral gas and prevent its quenching the discharge.)

Whatever the reason (or reasons) within the pre-existing glow, which we have assigned to the chromosphere, free electrons, rather than just excite atoms, now ionise them. The area in which this occurs are referred to as ‘tufts’, on the Sun they are the photospheric granules. So, the photosphere would be at a certain point in the chromosphere where it could initially form and later have a plentiful supply of neutral gas to ionise; my guess is that it is probably quite deep in the chromosphere as sunspots have been estimated to be in the region of 1,500 kilometres deep so the tufts are probably sourcing neutral atoms from the upper gaseous regions of the Sun (keep in mind the model described above).

Did you mean the "impinging current" is in the corona or in the "double layer" or both ?

The current is to be found in the region we call the SSW closer to the Sun it manifests as the corona which evolves over the solar cycle as I have suggested in this thread. The double layer between the two plasmas (Sun and corona) limits the current flow into the Sun. It would appear that the current flow is already limited or restricted I suspect by dust in the LISM, charged dust grains would tend to scoop up available free electrons (upriver provided this: EVIDENCE FOR AN INTERSTELLAR DUST FILAMENT IN THE OUTER HELIOSHEATH
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.00353v1.pdf) as a result the Sun is providing additional electrons via the tufting process i.e. photospheric granules.

P.s. I am not getting into the anode/cathode dialogue because I don't understand the terms clearly.

On Earth all voltages are measured with reference to the body of the Earth itself which is usually referred to as ground or earth. Electrical equipment functions because we create a potential difference with respect to the Earth to allow an electrical current to flow. Depending on the circumstance and location the ‘positive’, ‘live’ or ‘phase’ terminal will be at the higher potential whilst the ‘negative’ or ‘neutral’ terminal will be at a lower or ground/earth potential. An anode is simply a positive electrode; a cathode is a negative electrode. But, once we leave the Earth what can we use as a reference? In short, nothing, all potentials are relative that is why, counter-intuitively, the Sun can be highly negatively charged yet behave as if it were positively charged.

Hope this helps.

[Michael Mozina]

‘Getting back to stars, let me note Mr Forshufvud's objection that I have greatly overestimated the electric current of the solar discharge "by assuming that only protons follow the solar wind outwards from the Sun . . .". He adds: "As we know today, protons and electrons travel in the same direction, although a difference in velocity may exist, giving rise to a plasma current."

Forshufvud seems to be complaining that Juergen's overestimated the current flow by "assuming" that only protons came from the sun. That is in fact a false assumption on Juergen's part. It's a false assumption based upon a "wiring problem" in Juergen's model IMO.

I seriously question that we "know" electrons leave the vicinity of the Sun with the solar wind.

Hmmm. Juergen's may have 'questioned' it during his lifetime, but we've actually measured it for decades now.

An early "prediction", if you will, of the solar-discharge hypothesis was that the electrons of the interplanetary medium should simply constitute a kind of negative space-charge matrix to neutralize the charge of the outward-travelling positive ions (protons, mostly). By analogy with the negative glow region of a laboratory glow discharge, 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 this point in the quote, Juergens is essentially describing Birkeland's cathode solar "discharge" model as described by Irving Langmuir. It's based upon the premise that the sun acts as a cathode with respect to it's environment. The electrons in Birkeland's model would necessarily be composed of two types of electrons, high speed 'cathode current' electrons, and what I'll call "kinetically ejected" electrons. Some of the electrons in the ever present cathode ray current will slam into ions in the solar atmosphere, and pass on it's kinetic energy into both protons and ejected electrons alike. These ejected electrons, and kinetically excited protons are pushed away from the surface of the sun by the constant flow of cathode current that moves from the surface of the sun, toward the heliosphere at all times.

In the late 1960's when solar-wind electrons at last came under scrutiny, it at first appeared that, although the electrons were clearly hotter (more energetic) than protons, their bulk velocities, like those of the protons, were directed outward from the Sun.

In other words, Birkeland's predictions related to particle flow pattern and direction have been verified by satellite measurements from space. By all rights, Birkeland's model deserves serious consideration based on that 'verified prediction'.

But it soon became apparent that the electrons were not living up expectations, particularly in the matter of the energy flux they were supposed to carry:

Huh? First of all, the *charged particle flow direction* is far more relevant than "energy flux". We didn't even have (and still don't have) the equipment necessary to measure the total electron energy flux from the sun. We "guesimate" it at best case, even to this day. The mainstream "assumes" that it's zero in fact.

"the total solar wind energy flux is predicted to be dominated by the electron heat conduction flux, while in fact the electron heat conduction flux is observed to account only for some 3-4%, of the total flux" (J. Hollweg, Journal of Geophysical Research 81, 1649, April 1, 1976).

I'm not exactly sure what he meant by the term "heat conduction flux" as opposed to cathode ray current or what I'm called kinetically ejected electrons. However, the cathode ray current would be expected to make up a significant percentage of the electrons that are present in any cubic meter of interplanetary space. Even if there were a roughly equal number of protons and electrons present, the majority of electrons in that cubic meter of space would be high speed electrons.

And now Helios A seems to have shown that "solar wind electrons have a bi-Maxwellian distribution function" (EOS. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 58, 44, January 1977), just as the discharge hypothesis would suggest.

As far as I know, the only bi-Maxwellian flow of "strahl"/cathode current" occurs near the *poles*, just as Alfven's "interwoven circuit" model would predict. What we *do not* observe are large amounts of strahl current moving *toward* the sun uniformly around the sun as an anode solar model would seem to require.

Therefore, although a lowering of the current estimate of the postulated discharge would ease problems with the galactic space charge model, I do not think such a move is justified on the basis of available evidence.’

As far as I can tell, Juergen's is basically responding to Forshufvud's objection to the way Juergen's calculated total current, and the assumption Juergen's made about particle flow direction and content. I'm not sure Juergen's response really even properly addresses Forshufvud's basic argument. Juergen's response is pretty handwavy actually IMO. It's based upon the premise: "We can't be absolutely sure, so I'm not budging".

It is a common misconception with the Electric Sun hypothesis that the Sun is an anode. From the outset Juergens specifically stated that the Sun was highly negatively charged and only functioned as an anode with respect to its environment. We are dealing with relative not absolute potentials.

Actually I think you could make the same argument about relative potentials with respect to Birkeland's model too. The cathode/anode wiring options do however both produce *different* particle flow patterns in and around the terella, and the one Birkeland preferred was a cathode with respect to "space"/environment.

Juergens postulated that in adjusting its relative potential the Sun would reject a certain number of electrons. If the Sun’s relative potential varies slightly over the course of the solar cycle then electrons may be constantly accepted and rejected.

It seems to me that we would still expect two directional electron flow all around the sun in that scenario. We really don't observe anything of the sort. We do observe the particle flow pattern that Birkeland predicted, specifically an outbound flow of charged particles that we composed of both types of charged particles, with a "cathode/strahl' component that was made up of higher speed particles.

As for electrons moving away from the Sun during solar minimum I offer this possibility for consideration.

IMO this is where one test is worth a thousand expert opinions. I think that we need to recreate and measure real particle flow patterns from a anode surface model and also from a cathode surface model, and see how each of those particle flow patterns composed to measured flow patterns around our solar system.

I think the reason that I trust Birkeland on this point more than Juergen's is because Birkeland, unlike me personally, and unlike Juergen's personally, experimented in the lab with *both* options. He already 'tested' both options and selected the one that he felt most likely explained the various particle flow patterns. I see no evidence to suggest that a *real world* experiment with an anode solar model would produce current flow patterns that are consistent with what we observe in nature.

[celeste]

I seriously question that we "know" electrons leave the vicinity of the Sun with the solar wind.

Hmmm. Juergen's may have 'questioned' it during his lifetime, but we've actually measured it for decades now.

How? From space probes? So while planets are shielded from each other by plasma sheaths, our space probes are not? Or are you referring to mainstream estimates? Remember here that the number of charged particles they see in solar arcades, appears to be too low compared to the number of charged particles that they detect when those same arcades erupt into flares? But we are not even to the most ludicrous part yet....

If someone was sitting in a field on Earth, trying to detect the amount of charge that was flowing to the clouds from the surface of the Earth, we would laugh. We would point to one of the of the 1.4 billion flashes of lightning per year ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_lightning ), and say maybe at least some of the charge was slipping by us in those discharges. Obviously, right? In other words, it's not in "terrestrial winds", that most of the discharge occurs, but in these highly focused eruptions of charge, (lightning or solar flares). Yet we think that measurements of the solar wind leave us with any real idea of how charge flows to the sun? Again, ludicrous.

Now,if our sun is in some large scale filament, then most of the charge should flow into or out of that filament. If the Earth (or a space probe) is in fact protected by a charged double layer, all we should be able to detect is the amount of current that arcs across that protective double layer.

Or am I missing something?


By the way here, it does appear that we can match the sunspot rotation curves, to Donald Scott's filament model. That would be if charge flows from/to the sun, through those sunspots, and right into a large scale filament. That filament would have to run through the solar sytem, pretty much exactly up and down through the ecliptic plane. I'm not trying to distract youwith a tangent, merely stating that if our sun is in a current filament, then most of the charge would be expected to flow (in smaller scale Birkeland currents?) into the larger filament, as opposed to any other electrically shielded objects in that filament (Earth,space probes, or otherwise)

[Robertus Maximus]

I seriously question that we "know" electrons leave the vicinity of the Sun with the solar wind.

Hmmm. Juergen's may have 'questioned' it during his lifetime, but we've actually measured it for decades now.

At 9 minutes 27 seconds into Bob Johnsons’ presentation ‘The Nature of the Sun Revisited’ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpPetpI50U) we are shown a diagram from a paper by Stverak et al. and we are told:

‘Stervak (sic) (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.’

This is one of the pieces of evidence from which Bob Johnson concludes that the JMST Electric Sun hypothesis, in its current form, is wrong.

However, reading the Stverak paper (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 13883/full) we find from paragraph 23: ‘Finally for the strahl population we also use a bi-Kappa function modified in such a way that it models only those high-energy electrons of the measured eVDF (electron velocity distribution function) that are streaming away from the Sun and are aligned along the local magnetic field line. Note that some special configurations when the direction of the magnetic field is locally inverted [see, e.g., Crooker et al., 2004] may change the strahl propagation. Such observations of sunward moving or even bidirectional strahl electrons have been reported [see Gosling et al., 1987, 1993, for instance]. In general, the strahl exhibits properties similar to a beam-like population overrunning the core and halo electrons.’

Why did the Stverak team (2009) only choose to model the electron strahl moving away from the Sun if they knew that sunward and bidirectional strahl exist? Counter-streaming electrons are widely detected by spacecraft (e.g. see: http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews67.html and http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews151.html)

From the diagram in the Stverak paper we see that core and halo electron populations have motions both toward and away from the Sun the misleading part is the strahl only appear to be moving away from the Sun- this is not an accurate reflection of what is found.

Earlier in the Stverak paper we read: ‘We confirm that the halo and the strahl relative densities vary in an opposite way. The relative number of strahl electrons is decreasing with radial distance, whereas the relative number of halo electrons is increasing. The fractional density of the core population remains roughly constant. These findings suggest that there are mechanisms in the solar wind that scatter the strahl electrons into the halo.’ And ‘Basically, the bulk of solar wind momentum is carried by protons (because of their large mass with respect to electrons). However, electrons play a major role since they carry the overall heat flux in the solar wind [Feldman et al., 1975; Marsch, 2006].’

Of the solar wind electrons 95% are thermal core electrons, the remaining 5% are derived from scattered strahls which eventually form the halo population, from Stverak we find: ‘the fractional number density of the strahl decreases with the radial distance, starting approximately at 6% at 0.3 AU and being less than 2% beyond 3 AU, the halo relative density increases from less than 1% at 0.3 AU to more than 3% at the end of the observed radial range.’

From Stverak we find the following concluding remark:‘In general, our results are in agreement with those reported by Maksimovic et al. [2005] where only the fast solar wind was examined. Our results also support the scenario proposed by several authors [see Gary et al., 1994; Vocks et al., 2005; Gary and Saito, 2007;Saito and Gary, 2007] of strahl electrons being scattered into the halo. Adopting the scattering mechanisms, the observed radial evolution of nonthermal eVDF components likewise agrees with the numerical modeling of Owens et al. [2008] describing the expansion of nonthermal electrons on a background of spiral oriented magnetic field.’

If Donald Scott is correct, even the electrons inside that bridge (or filament at the sun's surface), spiral anywhere from axially to azimuthally around the filament axis.

That the global heliospheric magnetic field was a product of current filaments was hinted at by Juergens: ‘My suggestion on this point would be to explore the possibility that the interplanetary magnetic field is the proper magnetic field of the electric current that supplies the sun with all its radiant energy. (A possible clue to this phenomenon is perhaps to be found in lightning discharges on earth. In high-quality photographs of lightning, I fancy I see, not a zigzag path, but a tightly twisted channel strongly resembling a raveled strand of rope--as if the lightning channel were being forced into an almost helical shape by the proper magnetic field of the discharge current.)

If we combine Donald Scott’s idea with that of Juergens then it would appear that strahls are field aligned electrons (from the thermal/random/core population) that have been scattered sunward and anti-sunward throughout the heliosphere and are influenced by the IMF which is the proper magnetic field of the current powering the Sun. Furthermore as electrons predominantly display thermal/random motions it would appear that the ‘solar wind momentum’ or should that be discharge current is largely carried by protons flowing away from the Sun as Juergens suggested.

[celeste]

If Donald Scott is correct, even the electrons inside that bridge (or filament at the sun's surface), spiral anywhere from axially to azimuthally around the filament axis.

That the global heliospheric magnetic field was a product of current filaments was hinted at by Juergens: ‘My suggestion on this point would be to explore the possibility that the interplanetary magnetic field is the proper magnetic field of the electric current that supplies the sun with all its radiant energy. (A possible clue to this phenomenon is perhaps to be found in lightning discharges on earth. In high-quality photographs of lightning, I fancy I see, not a zigzag path, but a tightly twisted channel strongly resembling a raveled strand of rope--as if the lightning channel were being forced into an almost helical shape by the proper magnetic field of the discharge current.)

If we combine Donald Scott’s idea with that of Juergens then it would appear that strahls are field aligned electrons (from the thermal/random/core population) that have been scattered sunward and anti-sunward throughout the heliosphere and are influenced by the IMF which is the proper magnetic field of the current powering the Sun. Furthermore as electrons predominantly display thermal/random motions it would appear that the ‘solar wind momentum’ or should that be discharge current is largely carried by protons flowing away from the Sun as Juergens suggested.

And yet all this "solar wind"current, may not have anything to do with the current actually powering the sun.
Look at this image of the flame nebula http://annesastronomynews.com/wp-conten ... Nebula.jpg which seems to show a current flowing up or down across the image. Then look at this image of the same nebula http://www.kopernik.org/images/archive/n2024.jpg In the first image, we see a current filament, in the second, all we see are the "winds" surrounding that current filament, not the filament itself.
This is what I'm suggesting for the sun. If our sun is in a current filament, it is in dark mode, and we don't see the sun as in the first image. We do however, see the solar wind, which compares to what we see in the second image.
Again, no matter what the current is in those winds, you are still missing the main current flow to the sun.

[jacmac]

Speaking in a general fashion, and not specific to the above posts, It seems that most data collection is in the area of the Solar Wind. There is a lot of heliospheric volume not part of the solar wind.

And yet all this "solar wind"current, may not have anything to do with the current actually powering the sun.

I agree with that celeste.

I think, if there were currents powering the sun entering primarily at the poles, they should be of such density that we would "see" them. That puts us back to Dr. Scott's "drift" current(with the exception of the mostly outgoing solar wind) that approaches the sun from all directions. What is it we see in all directions ? The corona glowing, and the photosphere arcing(or is it ?) seperated by the chromosphere where a lot of extreme temperature changes start to take place.

I see the solar wind as the feed back loop to the outer heliosphere. The corona provides the "power" to the photosphere, and the excess is sent back out via the highway between the north and south halves of the magnetic field, the heliospheric current sheet.

The plasmoid idea of Bob Johnson is very attractive. But, his plasmoid is floating in space without a reason to be where it is(I need to watch his talk again). Lets give it an anchor. The interior of the sun is a very large "solid" body not unlike the orbiting planets and their orbiting moons. How about a radius of 70% of the photosphere? Those solar siesmologists might just be correct about the depth of solid body rotation.

I am going with the exterior powered sun. Within the heliosphere small sized matter, charged and neutral, is attracted, collected, ionized, condensed, and organized into the photosphere where self ignition takes place.
And Life Begins.

[Robertus Maximus]

And yet all this "solar wind"current, may not have anything to do with the current actually powering the sun.
Look at this image of the flame nebula http://annesastronomynews.com/wp-conten ... Nebula.jpg which seems to show a current flowing up or down across the image. Then look at this image of the same nebula http://www.kopernik.org/images/archive/n2024.jpg In the first image, we see a current filament, in the second, all we see are the "winds" surrounding that current filament, not the filament itself.
This is what I'm suggesting for the sun. If our sun is in a current filament, it is in dark mode, and we don't see the sun as in the first image. We do however, see the solar wind, which compares to what we see in the second image.
Again, no matter what the current is in those winds, you are still missing the main current flow to the sun.

This is not a million miles away from what I’m suggesting. If we look at this image http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/ ... d_orig.jpg can we see the current flow to the Sun?

From the SOHO images it may not be immediately obvious but when we look at the Ulysses data I’m suggesting the current is to be found where the FSW is compressed and is called the SSW; in the first a third images the current is arriving mainly at the Sun’s equatorial regions, in the second image it is more filamentary and covers a larger latitude spread for reasons I have outlined above. In all images the consensus view misses the main current flow to the Sun focussing instead on ‘winds’.

[upriver]

I believe that everything that we see is flowing away from the sun. Including the polar plumes...
The only thing flowing towards the sun are the impulsive inflow. But I dont think that supply steady enough current...


Space weather... Learn how to use this.
http://iswa.ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/iswa/iSWA.html

This also..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2434rAbImf0

[comingfrom]

I believe that everything we see is flowing, or radiating, towards us. And that's why we can see it.
Those currents not flowing towards us, and not radiating towards us, are naturally going to be hard to detect.

Until we can put a detector near the Sun, we probably won't see the full extent of what is flowing towards the Sun.

I think the Sun has to be taking in at least as much energy as it is radiating.
~Paul