SAFIRE

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: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
BecomingTesla
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by BecomingTesla » Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:37 am

b. Electric field inside the perfect conductor is zero (otherwise it would cause infinite current). In plasma in particular the formation of double layers is exactly about that: they are produced to nullify the electric fields which arise for some other reasons (e.g. gravitation, thermal/density fluctuations etc.).
I'm not an expert, but this is actually not correct from my understanding. See Liang and Liang, "On the Significance of Polarization Charge and Isomagnetic Surface in the Interaction Between Conducting Fluid and Magnetic Field." To quote at length:
There is an opinion in some textbooks: 'When an ideal conducting fluid traverses magnetic field lines, it must induce an electric field. However, because the conductivity is infinite and an infinite current is impossible,
so the induced electric field and the perpendicular velocity component must be infinitesimally small and the field-line crossing motion is therefore prohibited.' In fact, this opinion is wrong. From electrical engineering we know that in a nonsteady circuit system, beside resistance, inductive and capacitive reactance can also restrain the current growth. In other words, it is the complex impedance (not only the resistance) that controls the current growth. This law is also valid in MHD field because the electric field, current, and magnetic field are generally time-variant. It is similar that in the DC circuit, only resistance is considered, but for the AC circuit, the reactance also needs to be considered. Below, we show how the inductive reactance and capacitive reactance restrain the current growth and why the fluid can traverse magnetic field lines.
This is actually a huge part of the discussion/debate on why the 'frozen-in' model of MHD is very often not valid. Just my $0.02 for the conversation.

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by paladin17 » Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:11 am

BecomingTesla wrote:
b. Electric field inside the perfect conductor is zero (otherwise it would cause infinite current). In plasma in particular the formation of double layers is exactly about that: they are produced to nullify the electric fields which arise for some other reasons (e.g. gravitation, thermal/density fluctuations etc.).
I'm not an expert, but this is actually not correct from my understanding. See Liang and Liang, "On the Significance of Polarization Charge and Isomagnetic Surface in the Interaction Between Conducting Fluid and Magnetic Field." To quote at length:
There is an opinion in some textbooks: 'When an ideal conducting fluid traverses magnetic field lines, it must induce an electric field. However, because the conductivity is infinite and an infinite current is impossible,
so the induced electric field and the perpendicular velocity component must be infinitesimally small and the field-line crossing motion is therefore prohibited.' In fact, this opinion is wrong. From electrical engineering we know that in a nonsteady circuit system, beside resistance, inductive and capacitive reactance can also restrain the current growth. In other words, it is the complex impedance (not only the resistance) that controls the current growth. This law is also valid in MHD field because the electric field, current, and magnetic field are generally time-variant. It is similar that in the DC circuit, only resistance is considered, but for the AC circuit, the reactance also needs to be considered. Below, we show how the inductive reactance and capacitive reactance restrain the current growth and why the fluid can traverse magnetic field lines.
This is actually a huge part of the discussion/debate on why the 'frozen-in' model of MHD is very often not valid. Just my $0.02 for the conversation.
Note that they talk about the non-steady state - transient phenomena, basically.
And in this case they're absolutely right: in plasma the inductance (more or less, the inertia of the current carriers) is extremely important. Only at large time scales (e.g. if we're talking about steady state) the resistance starts to play a comparable role. You might have 10s of MV of voltage in solar plasma (with some nOhm of resistance), and only a current of ~ kA - because the inductance is enormously big.

jacmac
Posts: 596
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by jacmac » Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:02 pm

paladin 17:
The problem is, the Sun isn't an anode.
Yes I agree.
Not an anode therefore, no externally driven current needed.
But there is an externally COLLECTED current.
Dr. Scott says the chromosphere contains a double layer (DL).
Can we say the chromosphere IS a double layer ?

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by paladin17 » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:01 am

jacmac wrote:paladin 17:
The problem is, the Sun isn't an anode.
Yes I agree.
Not an anode therefore, no externally driven current needed.
But there is an externally COLLECTED current.
Dr. Scott says the chromosphere contains a double layer (DL).
Can we say the chromosphere IS a double layer ?
What does "collected current" mean? You mean the Sun gathers e.g. cosmic ray protons?
There is a double layer (somewhere in the chromosphere or the corona), associated with the ambipolar electric field. It is quite likely that this is the reason of solar wind acceleration. But it cannot be responsible for the solar light nor the solar activity - there's just no [known] way to gather energy from it.

jacmac
Posts: 596
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by jacmac » Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:02 am

paladin 17
What does "collected current" mean? You mean the Sun gathers e.g. cosmic ray protons?
Yes.
For 10 years I have followed the EU.
Electricity in space and plasma cosmology all make sense to me.
But, how does the sun work ?
The EU community has tried to find the electric circuit model that explains the sun.
A lot of the parts seem to work, but the big externally driving power circuit remains an enigma.

I am suggesting to change the viewing angle.
Perhaps the sun is the nucleus of a massive cell we call the Heliosphere ?
That is, a cell structure of plasma similar to a cell in biology.

Eric Dollard called the sun an antennae, and a collector.
That is a different view than a load, or discharge, in a circuit.

Plasma might be condensing and "self organizing" about a massive inner solar body,
building up a high voltage on and around that body,
and isolating the result via it's double layer ability.

A second double layer out at the heliopause would complete the cell structure to isolate the cell from the interstellar medium.

This seems to fit what we observe. IMO
When looking for an externally driven current are we forgetting the self organizing abilities of Plasma ?

User avatar
nick c
Moderator
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by nick c » Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:04 am

Ralph Juergens died before he could elaborate on his theory. Some of this was carried on by Earl Milton. It is speculative on my part, but maybe Ralph would have revised the theory radically or not, or totally abandoned it. We can never know.

But still, I don't see how anyone who has actually read his work could say that there was a struggle to find the current source that powers the Sun. Juergens explains it in his articles with calculations and descriptions of the mechanism. He describes a situation where most electrons within the heliosphere are not powering the Sun, but superimposed upon that milieu is small percentage of electrons moving toward the Sun. Galactic electrons are gathered by the heliopause which encompasses a mind boggling large surface area.

Now, attacking the validity of the calculations or the descriptions is fair enough, and maybe they do not stand up to scrutiny, but the criticism that he had postulated no mechanism or that the "The EU community has tried to find the electric circuit model that explains the sun." is untrue.

Wal Thornhill and Don Scott think they have the model and would love to have it tested. Instruments on spacecraft are not designed to test an Electric Sun. There is no point to that since the people who determine the instrumentation on spacecraft already "know" how the Sun is powered.

Here is Wal Thornhill's summary of the Juergen's model. Note it is the last article in this particular issue of the Thoth Newsletter:
https://contrarybooks.com/thoth/thoiii06.txt

Articles by Juergens (and Milton):
Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy I

Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Concluded)

Stellar Thermonuclear Energy: A False Trail?

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by paladin17 » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:10 pm

jacmac wrote: Perhaps the sun is the nucleus of a massive cell we call the Heliosphere ?
That is, a cell structure of plasma similar to a cell in biology.
...
When looking for an externally driven current are we forgetting the self organizing abilities of Plasma ?
This seems more or less in line with the Sun = plasmoid idea. I think it's a decent avenue for further research.
nick c wrote: Juergens explains it in his articles with calculations and descriptions of the mechanism. He describes a situation where most electrons within the heliosphere are not powering the Sun, but superimposed upon that milieu is small percentage of electrons moving toward the Sun.
So ultimately he says that the absolute majority of the charged particles are not noticing the field at all, right? And somehow only the chosen few are affected by it. That sounds like magic to me.

Still, if we for a second assume that this is possible and take the figure given by Thornhill (10^10 V), the required current (to produce the solar luminosity) would still be 10^16 A (or 10^(-7) A*m^(-2) at Earth's orbit). That is, we'd need a net flux of 10^12 electrons per m^2 per second towards the Sun (at Earth's orbit). It's very far (billions of times far) from 3000 that Juergens and Thornhill report (I guess the problem is caused by them using volumetric density instead of flux per unit of area). It is actually comparable to the total solar wind flux of ~ 10^13 particles per m^2 per second (at Earth's orbit).
So Juergens' model would work if about 1/10 of the solar wind electrons were going inwards instead of outwards (which is not observed), and there would be an external electric field of 10^10 V. In practice, however, this field would have been immediately neutralized by polarization of interplanetary plasma itself - e.g. in the form of yet another double layer.
nick c wrote: the criticism that he had postulated no mechanism or that the "The EU community has tried to find the electric circuit model that explains the sun." is untrue
Perhaps it's a matter of taste, but to me the constant decrease of galactic potential in order to keep the shining of the Sun, postulated by Juergens', seems like a completely ad hoc invention. It's a dark matter type of scientific artefact:
Ralph Juergens wrote: To explain why the sun does not quickly achieve balance with its galactic surroundings, I have to postulate continually increasing electrification in the galactic atmosphere, so that we have a steady-state situation in which the sun draws enough current to hold its own, but not enough to close the gap between its potential and that of galactic space.
So yes. So far Juergens' idea doesn't seem so bright from any angle to me.
(High energy cosmic rays - most of which are protons - are also unexplained in this model; but it has so many other problems already, that it indeed seems almost cruel to even mention that).

jacmac
Posts: 596
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by jacmac » Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:00 pm

Nick:
that "The EU community has tried to find the electric circuit model that explains the sun." is untrue.
I say that from within the electric sun paradigm.
I have never seen an explanation that goes beyond the following:
Dr Scott, page 114, The Electric Sky.
Although we have seen that the Electric Sun model explains many of the puzzles that standard solar models cannot, there are many questions still to be investigated.
* What is the exact circuit diagram?-Precisely what paths do the galactic currents take in the vicinity of the sun?
* Will the solar charge be replenished over time by cosmic ions ("rays")?
Do incoming cosmic rays help power the sun?
ETC
On page 103 Dr Scott describes
a spherically shaped plasma with the anode Sun at its center.....current density very low....dark mode
As we get closer to the sun....current density continues to increase... glow mode...corona...
still closer to the sun...we enter the arc region of the plasma.
This is the photosphere...the region of anode tufts.

So far so good...but
that is as far as his circuit description goes.

Does the photosphere, via the anode tufts then DISCHARGE the current back to where it just came from?
How does that fit with the requirement of a separate voltage source and load, to have a basic "circuit"?
This has always troubled me and leads toward the idea of a self organizing plasma cell structure.
I need to read more about plasmoids. Thanks paladin 17.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by JP Michael » Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:06 pm

I had a theory that, like terrestrial updraft-downdraft currents in landspouts and waterspouts, SAFIRE anode tufts represent the high energy 'grounded' portion of an updraft or downdraft current. They seem to represent a surface-pinched region of a grounded Birkeland/Marklund convection current.

Figure 1: Landspout. 'Tufts' at both ends.
Image

Figure 2: Landspout. Notice central particulate ring caught in a toroidal magnetic field. You can also clearly discern the inner updraft and outer downdraft currents of the funnel.
Image

Figure 3: Waterspout. Notice the plasmoid-shaped negative-positive charged regions in the surface water with resulting colour difference. Also discernable is the inner downdraft and outer updraft currents of the funnel. (According to Andrew Hall, land-based currents are updraft-downdraft but water-based currents are downdraft-updraft).
Image

Figure 4: Twin waterspouts with grounded 'tufts'.
Image

Obviously this analogy breaks down in that the majority of the particulate in landspouts/waterspouts is not plasma, but rather electrically charged dust or water being carried in Marklund convection lines. I bring them into the discussion simply for the sake of visibility. The dust/water allows us to see the structure of the electrical updraft-downdraft currents that are creating the phenomena.

In terms of SAFIRE or novelty plasmaballs, perhaps applicable also to the sun, the issue becomes one of more plasma and less of visible particulate, be it dark, glow or arc mode plasma. I posit that the tuft region of plasmaball filaments (both ends, anode and glass shell), as also the tuft end in SAFIRE, represent high energy-density pinches of the plasma filaments, with resulting increase in localised magnetic field strength at those specific locations. This is similar to how an arc welder will pinch at the surface layer and cause scalloped edges as the rotating, pinched plasma column cuts through the material (as per the documentary on the Electrically Scarred planet Mars). In the case of SAFIRE, those tufts jostle one another for equidistant positioning because of their localised, pinched magnetic field strengths.

Figure 5: Plasmaball closeup of tufts
Image

The question remains in the case of SAFIRE and the sun: what are its updraft-downdraft filaments connected to on the other end (the non-photosphere end). In a plasmaball, it connects to the glass of the ball. In SAFIRE and the sun, I have no idea what it is connecting to. Dark mode double layers? The corona? The planets? I do not have an answer to this yet.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by JP Michael » Tue Nov 19, 2019 6:42 pm

Poking around a bit futher, I did find this article about solar tornadoes. Do we have a possible mechanism for constant in-out current, at least between various layers of the sun's atmosphere?

I would also posit that sunspots represent mostly dark-mode tufts, but the Marklund current goes the other way (that is, sunspots are the 'glass ball end' of the tuft, not the 'anode' end), connecting to regions deeper down into the sun and hidden from our view.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by JP Michael » Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:07 pm

Earth's oceans are also littered with updraft-downdraft currents:

Figure 1: Oceanic currents, off the East Coast USA. This is but a sample of 'eddy' currents which exist over the entirety of the ocean's surface.
Image

Whatever this 'tornado' phenomenon is, it affects the liquid water on earth just as much as it effects the gaseous atmosphere of earth and plasma of the sun.

celeste
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by celeste » Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:47 pm

JP Michael,
I appreciate your comments on surface pinching. This goes back to the question posted by Solar back in the first page of this thread (Nov 20,2017). The “surface” is what is missing in images such as this:
http://www.everythingselectric.com/wp-c ... inch-1.jpg
Yet as pointed out elsewhere (interview with Jim Weninger and Eugene Bagashov in “The Electric View” YouTube video?), The Local Chimney, Flame nebula, etc, all pinch exactly where current flows THROUGH a surface (galactic plane in the case of Local Chimney, cloud surface for flame nebula).
Add to this, (as Solar and I discussed in threads on the g-cloud), the evidence points to the sun being NOT embedded in the Local Cloud, but (depending on which astrophysical article you read), “skimming the surface”, or “about to exit” the cloud.
Here, I’m not going to argue that the sun IS at the focus of some z-pinch, but suggesting that IF we want to make the sun the focus of some pinch, then the position of the sun on or near this cloud surface (rather than centered in some filamentary gas cloud), is the detail I would not ignore.

JP Michael,
I’m interested in anything else you may have to add on this topic of “surface pinching”, since it has not been addressed properly. Obviously, this is a detail lacking in SAFIRE. And in most EU images or descriptions of z pinches.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by JP Michael » Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:43 pm

Thanks for the interest, Celeste.

Being limited mostly to observations of various systems (terrestrial, solar, and artificial SAFIRE), and not being a physicist by any means, I cannot build up the details very much. That said, I, like anyone else, have access to the core observations coming out of plasma physics, solar observatories and SAFIRE specifically:
  • 1. Plasma naturally self-organises into double layers around (spherical) charged bodies.
    2. Double layers around spherical charged bodies are spherical 'walls' of plasma trapped within defined boundaries.
    3. 'Spherical' double layers may get bent out of shape in the highly energised environment of the solar system (thinking planetary/cometary tails here). This aspect is not present in SAFIRE.
    4. 'Tornado'-like electrical currents can cross the defined double-layer boundaries, taking current in both directions.
    5. 'Tornado'-like electrical currents seem to spawn from the highest (central) energy-density point of a plasmoid formed within the layer boundary.
    6. Boundaries are not necessarily static, but will morph and change based on a variety of localised conditions such as pressure, load, voltage, elemental plasma composition, among other variables.
    7. SAFIRE represents the most 'idealised' system with apparently very stable double-layer boundaries.
    8. The Sun, in addition to planets, represents a far from 'idealised' system, with many localised instabilities in the plasma double-layer boundaries (solar tornadoes, sun spots, ring currents, CMEs, etc).
    9. Both double layers and their inter-layer 'tornadoes' can exist in dark mode.
    10. Double layers and inter-layer 'tornadoes' exist (in the multitudes) in terrestrial environments such as planet Earth, mostly invisibly (atmospheric updrafts loved by eagles/vultures/condors; multitudes of 'eddy' currents in the ocean)
    11. Localised environmental conditions can cause visible manifestation of inter-layer 'tornado' currents, eg. landspouts, waterspouts, hurricanes/typhoon/cyclone on earth; Jupiter's Great Red Spot; sunspots, solar tornadoes.
    12. Layers exhibit movement in four cardinal directions: equatorial ring-movement around the atmosphere (think Jupiter's bands - both east and west) and up-down columns between atmospheric layers (think Jupiter's Great Red Spot or a terrestrial hurricane - downdraft-updraft between layers of atmosphere - or perhaps a slice of tiramisu, travelling up-down between layers of cake-cream-cake).
Now these observations spawn a vast array of associated questions:
  • How does one define the specific double layers in any given system? We know they are there but how do we define where they are? By example, what are the 'boundaries' extant in the sun's atmosphere? The Earth's atmosphere? Another celestial body's atmosphere?

    What is the relationship between a body's plasmasheath (eg. heliosphere extending to the heliopause) and its system of extant double layers? What is the relationship between SAFIRE's overall plasmasheath and its self-sorting double layers?

    How do local variables morph, change or relocate extant double layers in a system? By example, a local thunderstorm 3-4km high on earth will create a localised 'double layer' which can discharge violent, high-density electrical arcs (lightning), or lower density but sustained votice currents (tornadoes) in that cloud location only and dependent on local conditions only. The rotating downdraft current in the eye of a hurricane, on the other hand, extends from the surface of the ocean up into the 12-14km region of earth's atmosphere. Why?

    Do double-layer boundaries form plasmoids within the plasma structure of the boundary itself? Plasmoid formation seems to be prolific at 'band' boundaries within the equatorial counter-rotating bands of Jupiter, for example (I regard cyclonic storms as a form of weak planetary plasmoid).

    Do formed boundary plasmoids 'jet' current up and down between layers in both directions simultaneously? That is, do plasmoids spinning upon the surface of a double-layer represent not just the location of a disturbance of contra-rotating equatorial bands, but also inter-layer up-down current flow? I refer specifically to Figure 3. in my previous post which clearly shows a plasmoid in the water body from which the waterspout has sprung up from its energetic core.

    What is the relationship between east-west rotating equatorial bands and the spherical double layer(s) of the whole atmosphere of the body?

    What happens when a 'tornado'-like plasma column reaches, crosses or penetrates a double-layer boundary? That is, what is the fundamental nature of SAFIRE's tufts and how, exactly, are they operating as a helical vortex conduit of up-down charge between double layers? Are they even operating in this manner at all?

    Do tufts exhibit increased, localised magnetic fields that might indicate a plasma Z-pinch as the helical current comes into contact with the boundary of the double layer? Do tufts even represent a 'contact location' of inter-boundary currents?

    Why does the sun's corona not exhibit 'tornado'-like currents extending out towards planets, or towards the heliopause? Is there another mechanism of inter-layer current transfer that takes the form of corona-like thin steams rather than dense, helical vortices? Is there another phenomenon, other than 'tornado'-like updraft-downdraft current originating from surface plasmoids, permitting the exchange of plasma between SAFIRE's double layers? SAFIRE's double layers do not display obvious surface plasmoid formation at all.

    What is the relationship between plasma double layers and equatorial magnetic fields induced by dynamic electrical current in a spherical body?
These are my current thoughts at the moment.

Open Mind
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:47 am

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by Open Mind » Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:05 pm

latest Safire info from Monty:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vde4GMJ ... jreload=10

Of personal interest: At 2:53 he touches on interesting stuff about potentially the beginnings of some kind of non thermal non kinetic melting, hinting to the ancient technology of stone softening.

BecomingTesla
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:27 am

Re: SAFIRE

Unread post by BecomingTesla » Mon Nov 25, 2019 12:32 pm

Damn, that interview was terrible...Monty got caught off by the hosts literally every time he tried to speak. Can anyone summarize what was actually said, because that wasn't really watchable for me.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests