That statement is true, Birkeland actually predicted it too.Lukraak_Sisser wrote:
The solar wind contains both positive and negative ions.
That' statement is only half true. *All* of the electrons and *some* of the protons flow away from the sun, but not all positive charged particles flow away from the sun, and the various particles don't move at the same speed. The speed variation issue and the incoming cosmic ray particles that he ignored however were important details when determining the total current.These move with the same acceleration in the same direction, as an observed fact.
First of all, there are two different kinds of electron flows coming from the sun, the slower moving solar wind particles, and the faster solar 'strahl" (beam electrons) coming from the sun which move at a considerably faster speed than the solar wind itself. Birkeland actually predicted from his experiments that both types of charged particles would flow from the sun for some distance. He based that belief based on his experiments when he noticed that a "soot" formed on the inside of his glass during his cathode solar model experiments. The soot turned out to be small bits of the surface of the terella that were ripped off the terella in a process known today as 'sputtering". He surmised that the the high speed (strahl) electrons would slam into and drag along positively charged particles and therefore the sun would tend to generate a slower speed solar 'wind' that was composed of both types of particles. He also however assumed that *more faster speed (strahl/beam) electrons* flowed away from the sun, and more high speed positively charged ions flowed into the sun. Both of those predictions have since been measured in "strahl"/beams of electrons coming from the sun, and high speed cosmic rays which travel close to the speed of light and are approximately 99 percent positively charged particles.
So it's essentially true that the "slow speed" (it's all relative) solar wind is composed of both types of charged particles, but the faster (and more important to net current flow) particles flow in *opposite* directions. The negatively charged "strahl" electrons move away from the sun at high speed, and the positively charged fast moving cosmic rays move toward the sun. The net current isn't related to the solar wind, it's related to the *fastest particle flows* we observe, which do *not* move in the same direction, they move in *opposite* directions.
Kinda true, but it depends on the field and the location of the particles in the field. If we were to look at the edge of the heliosphere we probably would see a net number of electrons moving outward across that double layer, and a net number of positively charged cosmic rays moving into that double layer.We also know that in an electric field positive and negative ions are accelerated in the opposite directions.
Up close to the sun however the electron beams coming off the sun slam into particles in the solar atmosphere and they impart some of their kinetic energy into the hydrogen and helium atoms as they collide with, and attract the protons as they move outward toward space. The net charge of the *slow* moving solar wind particles may in fact be net neutral, but the faster *strahl* electrons have no outbound fast moving proton counterpart, and the high speed cosmic rays are all inbound positively charged particles moving at considerably faster speeds than solar wind particles as well.
That is false. All the slower speed solar wind demonstrates is that Birkeland was correct when he predicted that both types of particles would flow from the sun. It's the *higher speed* particles however that carry the net current and they do in fact move in opposite directions. The "strahl" electrons move outward from the sun, and the positively charged cosmic rays flow into the sun.So the solar wind disproves the theory of a large standing electrical field in the solar system by its very presence.
This is also false. Apparently he knows a "little' about the solar wind, and nothing at all about cosmic rays and faster speed solar "strahl" electron beams, demonstrating that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing in the wrong hands.Regardless of whether we know everything about it, we know more than enough to disprove the basis for the EC theory.
I also thought this conversation was relevant as it relates to distinguishing between Juergen's anode solar model and Birkeland's cathode solar model. I would argue that the strahl electrons and the cosmic rays observed from space tend to confirm Birkeland's cathode model, whereas I have no idea how to explain those fast moving particle features based on Juergen's anode model.
I would essentially argue that from the base of the corona to the edge of the heliosphere acts a bit like a double layer, allowing a net positive cosmic rays charge to flow in, and allowing a net negative charged solar strahl to flow out. The slower moving solar wind is essentially net neutral, and it's a function of the kinetic energy processes that occur as the faster moving electron beams slam into the particles in the corona and impart some of their kinetic energy into the protons in the corona and heat up the corona.. The solar wind is essentially driven by it's high temperature, just as Parker's model predicts, but the actual heat source of the corona in terms of kinetic energy comes from the *current* associated with solar strahl/electron beams.
I'd be very interested to hear how Juergen's anode solar model fans would deal with these same issues.
