Electric suns, solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

[Michael]

Do Wild and the Russians require a dielectric breakdown in what they call an electrical discharge in plasma RC? Yes or no?

 

[Michael]

1. Tatsuzo Obayashi (1975)
2. S. Ibadov (2012)

False in both cases:

The energy release during the explosive phase is initiated by a sudden collapse in the magnetic field topology and the X-type magnetic neutral point is created in the corona. Subsequent electrical discharge takes place in the form of an intense electro jet current flowing in the base of the chromosphere at the altitude where the Cowling conductivity is a maximum.

The impulse gamma and X-ray radiation together with optical burst from the comet nucleus during solar flares, anticipated due to high-voltage electric discharge, may serve as an indicator of realization of the processes above considered.

Do they require a dielectric breakdown RC?

I'm going to put these 8 authors in your face repeatedly RC. They won't go away by handwaving at them.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected | Watts Up With That?

Yes - that is the claim that slow convection = no convection and that the entire solar model is wrong. Which leads to

• There is no convection zone so we have to throw away the gas laws and gravitation !
• The sun is not internally heated by fusion so we have to throw away nuclear physics !
• The granules that we observe do not have plasma upwelling in then and do not have plasma descending into the Sun
• Solar flares do not exist !
• The Sun has a temperature of about 3 K (the temperature of space) because there is no convection heating the surface !
• The corona does not exist !

And by the way: Earth is a ice ball !

 

[Michael]

RC, Why are you engaging yourself in this thread? You have not read any books on plasma physics. You have not published any papers related to solar physics. You claimed photons have no kinetic energy and electrical discharges are impossible in plasma in spite of the statements of those 8 scientists that I cited. You have not registered any of my answers or my points when I have responded to you repeatedly on those points. You keep repeating the same false claims even *after* I take the time to explain myself. Why are you here?

 

[Michael]

Yes - that is the claim that slow convection = no convection and that the entire solar model is wrong. Which leads to

In your case I'm sure it leads to instant denial, but the real experts have a different perspective:

“Our current theoretical understanding of magnetic field generation in the Sun relies on these motions being of a certain magnitude,” explained Shravan Hanasoge, an associate research scholar in geosciences at Princeton University and a visiting scholar at NYU’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences. “These convective motions are currently believed to prop up large-scale circulations in the outer third of the Sun that generate magnetic fields.”
“However, our results suggest that convective motions in the Sun are nearly 100 times smaller than these current theoretical expectations,” continued Hanasoge, also a postdoctoral fellow at the Max Plank Institute in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany. “If these motions are indeed that slow in the Sun, then the most widely accepted theory concerning the generation of solar magnetic field is broken, leaving us with no compelling theory to explain its generation of magnetic fields and the need to overhaul our understanding of the physics of the Sun’s interior.”

Mainstream theory is broken and it needs an "overhaul" according to the folks that know solar physics. You go ahead and ignore them though if you like, just like you ignored the other 8 authors on electrical discharges in plasma.

 

[Michael]

Why are you here RC?

 

[Michael]

Why are you here?

 

[RealityCheck01]

I'm color coding the Title in Pink, the definition in blue and the *examples* in black:

Wow that is a total back down, Michael!

So a electrical discharge in Peratt's defintion is now according to you:

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation.

It includes the breakdown of a dielectric medium.
It is local and does alot of things.

I agree with this.

You added your own personal requirement for a dielectric breakdown that none of the other 8 authors made,

And we are back to lying .
There is no requirement for dielectric breakdown in the usage of Dungay, etc.
I have never said that there is such a requirement in the usage of Dungay, etc.
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is not a discharge and is obsolete!

As you demanded I will cite the external references evey time I link to the post. If you were not the post starter and had not demanded it I would not do so because it is close to spamming (repeating part of a post when linking to it will do).
Peratt's use of "electrical discharge" (lightning)
Charles Bruce (a crank who thought that there was actual lightning on the Sun: Errors in Micheal's site VIII (Dr. Charles Bruce was wrong)!)


Dungeys usage of "electrical discharge" (large current density)

1. James Dungey 1
2. James Dungey 2
3. Ronald Giovanelli (a book reference)
4. J. P. Wild (1963)
5. T. S. Kozhanov (1973)
6. E. Ya. Vil'koviskii (1974)

Interesting but not directly relevant

1. Tatsuzo Obayashi (1975)
2. S. Ibadov (2012)

 

[RealityCheck01]

No one but you made that claim.

Whoops you are back to not knowing what a definition is when you had just highlighted Peratt's definition!
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is not a discharge and is obsolete!

That's not an external reference that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma,
...usual insults snipped...

Whoops on my behalf, Michael!
Ok: Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is not a discharge and is obsolete!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Dungey required no breakdown of the dialectric for an "electrical discharge' to occur in a flare.

One more time: I know
One more time: Dungey's "electrical discharge" is the large current density caused by MR.
One more time:
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is not a discharge and is obsolete!

And I did "touch" Wilds work:
J. P. Wild (1963)
A conference proceeding so not peer- reviewed. A mention of "Several theories yielding sudden electrical discharges..." and the theories referenced (Sweet;Gold and Hoyle) are MR inducing large currents. IOW Dungey's usage.

That needs a double duh!

 

[RealityCheck01]

1963IAUS...16..115W Page 115

Shall we believe the guy who cannot rread a post :
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is not a discharge and is obsolete!

J. P. Wild (1963)
A conference proceeding so not peer- reviewed. A mention of "Several theories yielding sudden electrical discharges..." and the theories referenced (Sweet;Gold and Hoyle) are MR inducing large currents. IOW Dungey's usage.

 

[RealityCheck01]

1973SvA....16..662V Page 662

Should we believe a guy who cannot read a post ?
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is not a discharge and is obsolete!

T. S. Kozhanov (1973)
The title is "Nonthermal X Rays and Electric Currents in Solar Flares." One "electrical discharge" with a reference back to Giovanelli so this is his and Dungey's usage.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Do Wild and the Russians require a dielectric breakdown in what they call an electrical discharge in plasma RC? Yes or no?

As I state in:
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is not a discharge and is obsolete!
Dungey's usage so the answer is no. There is no dielectric breakdown required (this is a large current density, not an actual electrical discharge like lightning).

 

[RealityCheck01]

False in both cases
...

Wow. It looks like you have never ever read my post after I comented on the papers - the first 3 duh moment !
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is not a discharge and is obsolete!

Interesting but not directly relevant

1. Tatsuzo Obayashi (1975)
   This interesting paper has an abstract with MR then an "electrical discharge". But the paper actually does not mention any electrical discharges :o! This looks like an editing choice for an understandable, short abstract. The "electrical discharge" is the solar flare equivalent of the auroral electrojet which they are introducing.
2. S. Ibadov (2012)
   This is double layers induced at the comet having an "electrical discharge potential". However double layers are "destroyed" rather than "discharged".

But you did find the text "electric discharge" in the comet paper which I missed!
What you missed is where this high-voltage electric discharge happens.
Here is the full abstract:

Problems connected with mechanisms for comet brightness outbursts as well as for gamma-ray bursts remain open. Meantime, calculations show that irradiation of a certain class of comet nuclei, having high specific electric resistance, by intense fluxes of energetic protons and positively charged ions with kinetic energies more than 1 MeV/nucleon, ejected from the Sun during strong solar flares, can produce a macroscopic high-voltage electric double layer with positive charge in the subsurface zone of the nucleus, during irradiation times of the order of 10–100 h at heliocentric distances around 1–10 AU. The maximum electric energy accumulated in such layer will be restricted by the electric discharge potential of the layer material. For comet nuclei with typical radii of the order of 1–10 km the accumulated energy of such natural electric capacitor is comparable to the energy of large comet outbursts that are estimated on the basis of ground based optical observations. The impulse gamma and X-ray radiation together with optical burst from the comet nucleus during solar flares, anticipated due to high-voltage electric discharge, may serve as an indicator of realization of the processes above considered. Multi-wavelength observations of comets and pseudo-asteroids of cometary origin, having brightness correlation with solar activity, using ground based optical telescopes as well as space gamma and X-ray observatories, during strong solar flares, are very interesting for the physics of comets as well as for high energy astrophysics.

So we have a layer of comet nuclei material.
That layer is a natural electric capacitor in asubsurface zone of the nucleus.
Then stuff happens from the comet nucleus.

Michael, what does your great knowledge of physics tell you about this paper ?

I say that this paper is interesting but not relevant - what do you say?

 

[RealityCheck01]

In your case I'm sure it leads to instant denial, but the real experts have a different perspective:

Whoops, Michael, you quoted someone who is saying basically what I claim and says that your claim is wrong!
Your claim: the entire solar model is broken.
My claim: the theory of solar convection needs updating or replacing.
The quote: “If these motions are indeed that slow in the Sun, then the most widely accepted theory concerning the generation of solar magnetic field is broken, leaving us with no compelling theory to explain its generation of magnetic fields and the need to overhaul our understanding of the physics of the Sun’s interior.”

What is broken: the most widely accepted theory concerning the generation of solar magnetic field.
What is not broken: the entire solar model.

 

[Michael]

Shall we believe the guy who cannot rread a post :
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is not a discharge and is obsolete!

Not a single author, and certainly not Wild, imposed your *personal* requirement of a dielectric breakdown. You're knowledge is *obsolete* because you have never lifted a finger to read a book on the topic of plasma physics.

You've essentially taken on the role of the creationist, handwaving away at every published paper that refutes your claims, while refusing to provide any external authors that claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You're obsolete by choice.

 

[Michael]

Dungey's usage so the answer is no. There is no dielectric breakdown required (this is a large current density, not an actual electrical discharge like lightning).

This is pure bigotry RC. There is no requirement for a dielectric breakdown. That is *your personal* pet peeve apparently. No other author lists such a requirement, nor does Peratt. You simply stick words in everyone's mouth apparently. All electrical discharges in plasma are "like lightning". They all involve a fast release of stored EM energy as Peratt explained. No electrical discharge in plasma requires a dielectric breakdown.

Do you understand the difference between a Title, a definition and an example?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Why are you here?

Why not?

But seriously, I am trying to educate people about physics.
I know that educating you is a lost cause since you have been in denial of some basic physics for years. But there may be other interested parties.

An example of the denial of the physics is the thermodynamics that states that an iron surface is impossible within the Sun.
The explanation can be as simple as noting that the temperature of the photosphere is ~5700 K, it is calculated to be ~9400 K at a depth of 100 km. So an increasing temperature with depth = no iron surface.

But let me try again:
The second law of thermodynamics states that if two bodies at different temperatures are touching in a closed system then the hotter body will cool and the warmer body will heat. The bodies end up at the same temperature. So if we look at the Sun as a closed system, we know that the temperature is ~5700 K everywhere within it. No iron surface in a closed system.

But the Sun is not a closed system: It has an internal heat source and energy escapes from the photosphere. The core of the Sun is at ~13,000,000 K so once again - no iron surface.

If you try to tweak the physics of the Sun to make it <~ 1811 K (the melting point of Fe) at whatever your latest depth (4800 km?) of the iron surface is then the photosphere cannot be hotter than 1811 K!
I suspect that the Sun will also go out as fusion stops.

 

[Michael]

One more time: I know
One more time: Dungey's "electrical discharge" is the....

It's *the* thing that blows your claim away. Dungey imposed no 'dielectric breakdown" requirement on discharges in plasma. Only an ignorant IT guy would make such a ridiculous requirement. The Russians didn't do it. The Japanese didn't do it. Wild didn't do it. Peratt didn't do it. Birkeland didn't do it. Bruce didn't do it. Nobody on Earth does it but one IT guy that has never read a book on plasma physics.

large current density caused by MR.

That's just you "rewording" Dungey's "electrical discharge" to suit yourself.

One more time:

One more time RC handwaves at 8 real scientists while in pure denial of their claims. They all claimed electrical discharges occur in plasma. You're the only one that claims otherwise.

And I did "touch" Wilds work:
J. P. Wild (1963)
A conference proceeding so not peer- reviewed. A mention of "Several theories yielding sudden electrical discharges..." and the theories referenced (Sweet;Gold and Hoyle) are MR inducing large currents. IOW Dungey's usage.

That's not "touching" it. That's called "going into pure denial" yet again. When you can't find a real flaw, you apparently simply insert "big current" and away you go claiming the exact opposite of what they claimed! I've never met a more irrational debate method in my life, and that's saying something.

That needs a double duh!

The only thing that needs a "double duh" is your handwaves at real scientific literature. All the literature 'debunks' your absurd claims and proves how obsolete you've become due to you unwillingness to pick up a real textbook on plasma physics!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Not a single author, and certainly not Wild, imposed your *personal* requirement of a dielectric breakdown.
...usual insults and ranting snipped...

I do not have a *personal* requirement of a dielectric breakdown in the case of Dungey's usage that these authors share.
Read Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma (unless you do a ridiculous quote mining of Peratt's definition)! The 'electrical discharge' term used in MR (various papers) is not a discharge and is obsolete!