Sunward Electrons

[JP Michael]

There is also a second video, languishing at archive.org for some reason, where Mr. Johnson delivers his presentation again, with a few amendments. This second slightly longer video, dated October 25, 2014, is worthwhile for Johnson's further assessments and the Q & A session at the end.

Cheers Solar.

The main issue I have with the second video is he begins with a false dichotomy: The sun is either electric or fusion. Why can't it be electric and fusion? Just because it is electric it does not automatically disqualify fusion, and vice-versa.

Other than that, it's a good, balanced exploration of some EU models of the sun and a decent springboard for future work.

[Solar]

Cheers Solar.

The main issue I have with the second video is he begins with a false dichotomy: The sun is either electric or fusion. Why can't it be electric and fusion? Just because it is electric it does not automatically disqualify fusion, and vice-versa.

Other than that, it's a good, balanced exploration of some EU models of the sun and a decent springboard for future work.

Agreed JP.

In that regard this is one of the reason that I'm studying lighting. The research has detected these phenomena therein. See this brief article:

Article: Lightning can start nuclear reactions in the sky 2017

This is one of the reason lighting dynamics has relevance to celestial phenomena ie the same emissive qualities and dynamics are being observed. One of the two papers linked in this next brief article (Enoto, T., Wada, Y., Furuta, Y. et al. Photonuclear reactions triggered by lightning discharge. Nature 551, 481–484 (2017) has been posted in the 511 keV thread. The relevance is due to the fact that lightning research appears to be getting close to establishing which might come first. Care must be taken with the 'descriptive' langue though. Titles and 'casual descriptions' may say that "reactions triggered by lightning discharge" however, the the details from the detectors show that the in linear relationship 'which comes first' can change in time. The reason for pointing to this is because yes; these dynamics can be coincident with each other as observed.
_______________

TOPIC: There are examples of sunward propagating electrons and protons in the heliosphere. This effect is sometimes observed with:

Co-Rotating Interaction Regions (CIR)

And/or jus Google Sunward Electrons

Along with CIR's sunward propagating electrons have also been observed when a CME passes STEREO-A and STEREO-B. Those probes have onboard "Solar Electron and Proton Telescope (SEPT) pointing sunward and anti-sunward. When a CME passes the anti-sunward SEPT has detected electrons goin in the opposite direction - sunward. The reason is because the magnetic 'footprints' of the CME are still attached to the Sun and some of the electrons in the CME event simply follow the magnetic field back to the sun (Sunward-propagating Solar Energetic Electrons inside Multiple Interplanetary Flux Ropes Raúl Gómez-Herrero1, Nina Dresing et al).

Can CIR's in conjunction with back-streaming electrons from CME's provide the EU and Higgsy with 10^26W of consistent radiant Power? No, probably not (if the sun actually works like an incandescent bulb of course) . But this topic has been debated before. There are no evidences of consistent sunward bound electrons. I'll not say that they don't exist but until discovered there's not much an anode sun model can do but make conjecture that they exist. I'm not sure why this *appears* to rub people the wrong way sometimes. It is literally nothing more than just the current observation.

[nick c]

The sun is either electric or fusion. Why can't it be electric and fusion? Just because it is electric it does not automatically disqualify fusion, and vice-versa.

Scott's model has fusion taking place in the photosphere:
The Electric Sky P105

Fusion on the Solar Surface

The z pinch effect of current filaments in arc mode plasmas is very strong. The effect in the filaments of the Sun's photosphere would be strong enough to fuse atoms. Whatever nuclear fusion taking place on the Sun is likely occurring in the double layer (DL) above the top of the photosphere, not deep within the core.

[JP Michael]

Can CIR's in conjunction with back-streaming electrons from CME's provide the EU and Higgsy with 10^26W of consistent radiant Power? No, probably not (if the sun actually works like an incandescent bulb of course) . But this topic has been debated before. There are no evidences of consistent sunward bound electrons. I'll not say that they don't exist but until discovered there's not much an anode sun model can do but make conjecture that they exist. I'm not sure why this *appears* to rub people the wrong way sometimes. It is literally nothing more than just the current observation.

And I will add that, having now watched all three of Johnson's presentations where he lays out the EU models and data simply and clearly, Higgsy's argument is now much more persuasive to me. I get it. Cheers Higgsy (who'd a thought I'd ever say that? ha!). The sun cannot be an externally powered anode unless there's a detectable inbound electron current resulting in 10^26W of radiant energy output. No such current has been detected, therefore... .

The only possible way the anode sun model might be salvaged is if a sunward electron current adequate enough to result in 10^26W radiant energy is detected in a location that has been poorly explored (like the north or south polar regions of the Sun), rather than entering at the equitorial region where most of the detectors (satellites) are. But I severely doubt such a powerful current will be found in the polar/aurorae regions of the sun's atmosphere (akin to the idea that earth's inducted aurorae currents power the earth - they do not), leaving the anode sun model bankrupt of a verifiable cause.

That Wal & co. instead chose to hype the artificial SAFIRE model as 'proof' that the sun is an externally powered anode sadly does not cut it. SAFIRE has a verifiable inbound electron current resulting in verifiable external radiant output. The sun does not (yet), and until anode sun proponents solve this deficiency in reasoning and evidence, they have no leg to stand on. For SAFIRE to 'prove' an anode sun, they must remove the wire from SAFIRE's anode and achieve the same results as they argue occur for the sun. Good luck with that.

Also, Johnson's third video was interesting in that he demonstrated that the EU is piggybacking an argument that has been around in the mainstream for some time. That there is electric current in the sun is not debated. What is debated is whether magnetism induces current (Parker et al), or current induces magnetism (Parkes et al) in the solar atmosphere. What hasn't been solved is the ultimate source of either the current or the magnetism.

[Brigit]

The heliosphere in the electric sun model is the sun's plasma sheath boundary with the interstellar medium. Its dimensions have been roughly hinted at under Figure 4, pg 1. As the heliosphere moves within the interstellar medium, it constantly encounters a stream of ions, electrons, particles, and dust along most of its entire surface area.

To begin the task of determining the potential supply of electrons being collected at the cathode and directed to the anode sun, we can turn measurements of particle populations and densities of interstellar space given by the Voyagers 1 & 2.

• Figure 5
  https://www.stardomspace.com/wp-content ... 00x202.png

• The Voyager probes, launched in 1977 and impressively operating ever since, have been sending data back to Earth for forty-three years. Voyager 1 passed beyond the heliosphere in 2012 and Voyager 2 did the same in 2018, becoming the first human-made objects to reach interstellar space. Now data from the Voyager probes indicate that the space beyond the heliosphere, but still relatively close to our solar system, may be increasing in density.
  
  This space is known as the very local interstellar medium (VLIM). This region is often presented as a vacuum, but actually contains a very low concentration of matter. The mean electron density in the interstellar regions of the Milky Way has been estimated to be about 0.0037 particles per cubic centimeter. By way of comparison, the solar wind within our solar system averages about 3 to 10 particles per cubic centimeter, depending on distance from the sun. At “sea level” atmospheric pressure on Earth, the electron density is typically 10^13 electrons per square centimeter.

• The Voyager probes can measure the electron density of plasma through their Plasma Wave Science instruments. When Voyager 1 first took measurements of the space beyond the heliosphere with the Plasma Wave Science instrument in October 2013, it detected a plasma density of 0.055 electrons per cubic centimeter. After traveling another 20 astronomical units, it reported a density of 0.13 electrons per cubic centimeter.
  
  Voyager 2 reported a similar increase in electron density. In January 2019, it reported an electron density of 0.039 electrons per square centimeter. By June 2019, that figure had increased to 0.12 electrons per square kilometer [sic]. (Voyager Probes Detect Increasing Density in Interstellar Space by Heidi Hecht October 19, 2020 via stardomspace com)

[The Great Dog]

Birkeland, Langmuir and Bennett are spinning in their graves.

[Michael Mozina]

And I will add that, having now watched all three of Johnson's presentations where he lays out the EU models and data simply and clearly, Higgsy's argument is now much more persuasive to me. I get it. Cheers Higgsy (who'd a thought I'd ever say that? ha!). The sun cannot be an externally powered anode unless there's a detectable inbound electron current resulting in 10^26W of radiant energy output. No such current has been detected, therefore... .

The only possible way the anode sun model might be salvaged is if a sunward electron current adequate enough to result in 10^26W radiant energy is detected in a location that has been poorly explored (like the north or south polar regions of the Sun), rather than entering at the equitorial region where most of the detectors (satellites) are. But I severely doubt such a powerful current will be found in the polar/aurorae regions of the sun's atmosphere (akin to the idea that earth's inducted aurorae currents power the earth - they do not), leaving the anode sun model bankrupt of a verifiable cause.

Let me start by pointing out that I personally prefer Birkeland's internally powered *cathode* solar model, but IMO it's very naive to believe that the mainstream has the necessary equipment or the capacity to actually fully "measure" current in space. Today the mainstream talks about "magnetic switchbacks" in reference to current flow changes in the inner solar atmosphere. They note the magnetic field changes they can "measure", and then fundamentally ignore the current flow changes that cause them. They also irrationally treat the solar wind as 'neutral' in spite of the fact that "strahl" electrons travel *much* faster than basic solar wind and the protons in that solar wind, and they simply ignore that fact as it also contributes to "total net current over time". Sorry, but I simply lack belief that the mainstream even has the capacity to properly measure current flow in interplanetary space.

As Nick pointed out, Scott's model also includes some amount of fusion in the solar atmosphere, so Higgsy's notion that all power generated in the solar atmosphere has to be related to external current is simply wrong, very wrong. Both Alfven's "electric sun" and Birkeland's "electric sun" models were internally powered, but they also interact with currents in space so they too would experience 'current flow" from the surface to the heliosphere, albeit a much smaller current. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with assuming that even an anode solar model would generate some amount of fusion locally. Higgsy's comments about current would only really apply to Juergen's original anode solar model, and wouldn't be applicable to all possible anode solar models.

I personally think that Johnson's points related to electron flow patterns are far stronger evidence that the sun acts like a *cathode* with respect to "space", which makes complete sense considering the fact that cosmic rays are *overwhelmingly* positively charged and travel at nearly the speed of light and bombard our solar system 24/7. The mainstream simply *ignores* that fact.

The other point here is that NASA has only once experimented with a long 'tether" that actually might be able to measure electric fields and current, but contrary to NASA's expectations, it generated so much current that it literally burned through the cable. So much for "neutral" plasma in space.

[Higgsy]

The heliosphere in the electric sun model is the sun's plasma sheath boundary with the interstellar medium...

• The Voyager probes can measure the electron density of plasma through their Plasma Wave Science instruments. When Voyager 1 first took measurements of the space beyond the heliosphere with the Plasma Wave Science instrument in October 2013, it detected a plasma density of 0.055 electrons per cubic centimeter. After traveling another 20 astronomical units, it reported a density of 0.13 electrons per cubic centimeter.
  
  Voyager 2 reported a similar increase in electron density. In January 2019, it reported an electron density of 0.039 electrons per square centimeter. By June 2019, that figure had increased to 0.12 electrons per square kilometer [sic]. (Voyager Probes Detect Increasing Density in Interstellar Space by Heidi Hecht October 19, 2020 via stardomspace com)

So now we have got this far in the hypothesis after a week:
1. A proposition that a double layer at the heliopause is a cathode for the electric Sun
2. The volume of the heliosphere is really big
3. The electron density outside the heliopause seems to double or treble in the first few AU after crossing to the ISM from about 0.05 electrons per cm^3 to about 0.12 electrons per cm^3 at about 23AU.

So far so good, and I am resisting the temptation to comment prematurely, but I am wondering why we care about the electron density in the ISM when ultimately what matters is the net sunward electron flux within the heliosphere, say at, hmm, 1AU. But, hey-ho, I supose all will be revealed in due course.

By the way, the Heidi Hecht report which you cut and pasted misquoted the journal paper. The reference to Voyager 2 should read: "In January 2019, it reported an electron density of 0.039 electrons per cubic centimeter. By June 2019, that figure had increased to 0.12 electrons per cubic centimeter. Electrons per square centimeter is a flux not a density and the reference to kilometers is just wrong. Sloppy work on Ms Hecht's part.

[Michael Mozina]

Can CIR's in conjunction with back-streaming electrons from CME's provide the EU and Higgsy with 10^26W of consistent radiant Power? No, probably not (if the sun actually works like an incandescent bulb of course) . But this topic has been debated before. There are no evidences of consistent sunward bound electrons. I'll not say that they don't exist but until discovered there's not much an anode sun model can do but make conjecture that they exist. I'm not sure why this *appears* to rub people the wrong way sometimes. It is literally nothing more than just the current observation.

And I will add that, having now watched all three of Johnson's presentations where he lays out the EU models and data simply and clearly, Higgsy's argument is now much more persuasive to me. I get it. Cheers Higgsy (who'd a thought I'd ever say that? ha!). The sun cannot be an externally powered anode unless there's a detectable inbound electron current resulting in 10^26W of radiant energy output. No such current has been detected, therefore... .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehgJY06sbwU

If anyone hasn't watched this particular video by Bob Johnson yet, I *highly* recommend it by the way. It does seem to rule out a fully externally powered anode solar model and in fact it includes some very important information related to the composition and directional flow patterns of solar wind.

I haven't taken the time to copy and paste one of the images that Bob shows/uses related to solar wind but I'll try to do that at a later point and post a link to his bell curve image of the solar wind. That bell curve image of solar wind shows a very important feature of solar wind, specifically solar 'strahl" (beam) electrons which travel *significantly faster* than the average solar wind, and like solar wind, it's mostly an *outbound* phenomenon.

That bell curve image of the solar wind speeds that Bob cites demonstrates rather clearly that solar wind *cannot* actually be "net neutral" because there is no corresponding inbound "strahl" electron current to offset to offset the outbound strahl electron current. What it shows IMO is very clear evidence that sun acts as a *cathode* with respect to the surrounding 'space", which is also perfectly scientifically congruent with the fact that cosmic rays are overwhelmingly *positively* charged particles, traveling into, and bombarding our solar system at nearly the speed of light. Again, this inbound positively charged particle flow pattern from cosmic rays is *completely* compatible with Birkeland's *cathode* solar model, as are the "strahl" electrons streaming streaming away from the sun. They also make it *highly unlikely* that interplanetary space is "net neutral". Rather it is a "current carrying" plasma environment.

I think Bob Johnson also does us all a very great service by pointing out some of the errors which were made both by Dr. Charles Bruce and by Ralph Juergen's with respect to the solar photosphere. Contrary to Bruce's assumption, the sun's photosphere is not in arc mode IMO, the photosphere is experiencing an ordinary glow mode discharge that happens to be "lighting up" a mostly neon double layer around the sun. It's simply another double layer (like the mostly helium chromosphere) that is located above the cathode "surface" of the sun, which is located IMO about 4800 KM *under* the surface of the photosphere. The plasma that actually experience "arc mode" discharges that produce the highly ionized plasma in the solar atmosphere is found inside coronal loops. loops which traverse the *entire* solar atmosphere, and which originate *underneath* of the surface of the photosphere, not *only* in the "transition" region as the mainstream "assumes". In fact, Helioviewer overlay images of iron ion images (171A, 193A, 131A, etc) images of the sun with 1600A images of the photoshere show that coronal loops leave both "hot spots" on the surface of the photosphere, as well as magnetic field signatures on the surface of the photosphere who's North/South magnetic alignments are directly related to the direction of the electrical current inside the loops.

I had not seen that last video by Johnson until this evening. I think it's a *wonderful* video, well worth watching IMO.

I would absolutely *love* to hear Bob Johnson's take on the cathode solar model which is listed on my website at some point. I'd say that it clearly and beautifully deals with each and every single one of the observations of solar wind Bob cites, and the criticisms that Mr. Johnson levels at the externally powered anode solar model. I concur with Mr. Johnson with respect to the overall evidence, particularly the solar wind evidence, which is why I personally prefer the internally powered cathode solar model first proposed by Birkeland over Juergen's externally powered anode solar model. I personally came to many of the same conclusions that Mr. Johnson did with respect to the solar wind evidence and the anode solar model.

I do think that Mr. Johnson is a bit naive about one very important point that he makes near the end of the video. He suggests that the EU community isn't aware that there is some debate about the need to go beyond the "MHD box" with respect to solar physics. Meh. It's not as "hot" of a debate within the mainstream solar community as he seems to suggest.

The fact of the matter is that while there are "occasional" papers written by mainstream authors which embrace currents and electric fields, they are the *rare exception* rather than the rule. Almost *never* do we see papers on high energy solar atmospheric activity described in terms of "circuit" theory by mainstream authors. That's a *serious* problem since "magnetic reconnection" has never been shown to even be capable of producing something as simple as a full sphere *sustained* hot corona or a planetary aurora, let alone a *sustained* hot 'magnetic rope", whereas circuit theory has not only explained these things, it's been used to simulate them in the lab for more than a full century.

The mainstream solar physics community is currently still "stuck" in a "pseudoscientific' box. They continue to promote "magnetic reconnection" in each and every instance where Alfven used circuit theory and double layers to explain the very same phenomenon.

[Brigit]

by The Great Dog » Mon Dec 14, 2020 7:07 pm
"Birkeland, Langmuir and Bennett are spinning in their graves."

Yes the least we can do is stop and toast a coming new year, and these great experimentalists whose work we are discussing!

• Figure 6
  https://www.wikitree.com/photo.php/thum ... and-58.jpg
  Kristian Birkeland
  
  Figure 7
  https://qt.azureedge.net/resources/auth ... ngmuir.jpg
  Irving Langmuir
  
  Figure 8
  https://www.invent.org/sites/default/fi ... k=4SQ5OvM_
  Willard H. Bennett

Kristian Birkeland, Irving Langmuir and Willard H. Bennett, together in the heavens:

• Figure 9
  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... a_M2-9.jpg

[Brigit]

As this voluminous heliosphere of the sun moves through this current of charged particles in space, the ions and electrons are actually encountering a Langmuir sheath, or a double layer.

Plasma responds to charged objects by forming a boundary wall around them, so for example the plasma environment of the sun is insulated from the plasma environment of the interstellar plasma environment by a double layer.

The double layer is made up of two sheaths of opposite charge. On either side of the parallel, oppositely charged sheaths, the electric fields can be quite weak. But across the sheath there is a strong electric field.

• Figure 10
  https://www.everythingselectric.com/wp- ... yers-1.jpg

As the sun's immense plasma double layer travels through this respectable, continuous population of electrons, what will the electrons do?

[Brigit]

• Figure 11
  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... en.svg.png
  "An ion thruster or ion drive is a form of electric propulsion used for spacecraft propulsion. It creates thrust by accelerating ions using electricity. An ion thruster ionizes a neutral gas by extracting some electrons out of atoms, creating a cloud of positive ions."

Here is an example of the practical application of the double layer. The double layer in the diagram is made up of two grids, one positive and one negative. This double layer accelerates the charges and creates thrust.

[Brigit]

Double Layers in Laboratory and Cosmic Plasmas

• Figure 12
  https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/wp-con ... layers.jpg
  
  "Scientists from the National University Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering in Canberra discovered double layers in their laboratory plasma systems, finding that they were accelerating ions to supersonic velocities. The double layers are self-generating, so the effect has been incorporated into an efficient spacecraft thrust mechanism.
  
  As mentioned, a double layer is an electric charge separation region that forms in a plasma. It consists of two oppositely charged parallel layers, resulting in a voltage drop and electric field across the layer, which accelerates the plasma’s electrons and positive ions in opposite directions." ~Steven Smith

[Higgsy]

The sun is either electric or fusion. Why can't it be electric and fusion? Just because it is electric it does not automatically disqualify fusion, and vice-versa.

Scott's model has fusion taking place in the photosphere:
The Electric Sky P105

Fusion on the Solar Surface

The z pinch effect of current filaments in arc mode plasmas is very strong. The effect in the filaments of the Sun's photosphere would be strong enough to fuse atoms. Whatever nuclear fusion taking place on the Sun is likely occurring in the double layer (DL) above the top of the photosphere, not deep within the core.

I'd hardly call it a model so far as surface fusion goes. The assertions he makes in that single page are completely evidence-free. What you have quoted above is about the extent of his claim. He doesn't quantify the conditions in the photosphere that would lead to fusion, work out what is being fused from known fusion energies and cross-sections, what the rates of fusion are and how they compare with nuclear theory, what the by-products are, nor what we should expect to observe if this bare assertion were to be right. He doesn't say why fusion is not ocurring in the core and he doesn't explain all the observations that confirm fusion in the core, nor why the detailed theoretical work on fusion in the core is wrong. It's hopelessly lacking in details and evidential support.

Having said that, I am enjoying and finding fascinating the work that 'solar' has been presenting on fusion and electron-positron annihilation in terrestrial lightning, and I wouldn't be surprised if there turns out to be some amount of fusion in the more energetic parts of the solar atmosphere. In terms of the production of solar power this is likely to be a by-product of the atmosphere rather than a cause for it.

[Higgsy]

Double Layers in Laboratory and Cosmic Plasmas...

To summarise
1. A proposition that a double layer at the heliopause is a cathode for the electric Sun
2. The volume of the heliosphere is really big
3. The electron density outside the heliopause seems to double or treble in the first few AU after crossing to the ISM from about 0.05 electrons per cm^3 to about 0.12 electrons per cm^3 at about 23AU.
4. Double layers exist and sometimes carry current and accelerate ions and electrons
5. The heliopause travels through the ISM encountering electrons. What will they do?

Regarding 4., I'll just make the statement and leave it there, that double layers are caused: they don't just appear magically. So wherever there is a claim for a double layer, the claim should be accompanied by a cause.

Regarding 5., Brigit doesn't give us an answer, so I'll wait for the answeer before I comment.