Message from the Dawn of time...

[mzungu]

1. Electricity.

Electricity from where? Are you saying that magnetic fields from permanent magnets are electric current? If this is so then we should be able to not only tap this inexhaustible source of electricity but we should also be able to block it with non conducting materials.When I was a kid I used to make permanent magnets by hammering razor blades pointing north. No electricity required.
Unless I missed something in your link below; electricity is not magnetic force.
Origin of Permanent Magnetism

2. Except at high temperatures, permanent magnets are not permanent magnets. Relying on that external electric current (versus internal) to form any field at all.

K&J Magnetics Blog

 

[Michael]

Electricity from where? Are you saying that magnetic fields from permanent magnets are electric current? If this is so then we should be able to not only tap this inexhaustible source of electricity but we should also be able to block it with non conducting materials.When I was a kid I used to make permanent magnets by hammering razor blades pointing north. No electricity required.
Unless I missed something in your link below; electricity is not magnetic force.
Origin of Permanent Magnetism

You missed something. Let me quote the author of that link for you again:

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit). [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

The "magic" of solid magnets is that they have "synchronized swimming electrons" within the atomic lattice that are producing the magnetic fields. As the electrons circulate within the magnet, they produce the magnetic field and "keep it stable". The moment the particles are released from their atoms (plasma), the movement and direction of the electrons dictate the orientation of the magnetic field, and it's no longer simply a function of synchronized arrangement within atoms, it's a function of electron (and ion) flow through the plasma filaments. At all times, the movement of electrons and charged particles in general are what *create/sustain* the magnetic field. The magnetic field is *caused by* the movement of charged particles.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...snipped rant about electric current...
...snipped insults...

You have written the ignorant statement that an electric current is moving plasma, Michael:
An electrical wire does not contain any plasma .
Plasmas in general contain equal amounts of negative and positive charges. A moving plasma is moving negative and positive charges. This is not an electric current (one type of charge flowing)

I asked you:
Michael: Please quote the "plasma filaments" in section 4.4.2 or retract your "plasma filaments" assertion before I have to conclude that that assertion is a lie.
and you did neither so this is now a lie about the contents of section 4.4.2 which does not have any mention of plasma filaments.

Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum (24 fantasies mostly about the contents of Somov's textbook section on MR in vacuum).


Bzzzt!: I am replacing idealized currents with real currents through real wires. That does not change the physical facts:
* the shapes of the magnetic felids are the same,
* there is the same change when the currents get closer
* MR happens .
Michael (30 October 2013): If we have electrical wires producing the current in the vacuum of Somov's example then would you claim that magnetic reconnection happens in the electrical wires?

 

[RealityCheck01]

...snipped insults...

And there is nothing to do except show the lurkers how wrong you are yet , Michael:
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
See the bit in bold red? This is explained in the post:

The meanings that we are arguing over are

• Peratt: release of energy + generally dielectric breakdown.
  Thus my emphasis on an actual electrical discharge.
• Dungey: Magnetic reconnection causes solar flares and induces changes in electrical fields. The changes in electrical fields cause large current densities. He calls these 'electrical discharges'
• There may be other meanings hidden away in the literature on solar flares.

 

[Michael]

The rationalization in red is irrelevant to everyone other than you, and you refuse to provide a reference that insists that 'actual' (or otherwise) electrical discharges in plasma are 'impossible" as you claim". The whole "impossible" claim starts and ends in your personal head, just like the ridiculous rationalization in red.

 

[Michael]

You have written the ignorant statement that an electric current is moving plasma, Michael:

No, I said a moving current in a *vacuum* is a moving plasma. You simply misrepresent what I say because that's what you do.

An electrical wire does not contain any plasma .

There are no *wires* shown or present or described or discussed in Somov's example. You made up that term like you made up the term "actual".

Plasmas in general contain equal amounts of negative and positive charges.

In general maybe, but even a cathode ray inside a vacuum tube is a plasma and it's not necessarily made up of equal amounts of charges.

The only reason the magnetic field can "change" is because the 'current' isn't flowing through a solid. The *plasma* particles move. You and Clinger forgot to include plasma and plasma particle movement. Major fail.

Ignorance isn't bliss for either of you two. Are either of you *ever* going to read a real textbook on MHD theory?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Magnetic reconnection is a farce to ignore those electric currents causing the magnetic field.
...snipped some ignorance...
...snipped Fairie Dust rant...

No one ignores any electric currents causing magnetic fields, Justatruthseeker. This does not mean that in a plasma, if you take away any generating electric current then the magnetic field vanishes. The magnetic field can generate its own electric currents and be self-sustaining. This is how magnetic flux tubes are formed in the Sun, float up to pass through the photosphere and appear as coronal loops.

THERE ARE NO MAGNETIC MONOPOLES in magnetic reconnection.

Magnetic reconnection in a vacuum is actually extremely easy to understand, Justatruthseeker.
Magnetic field lines do not exist where there is no magnetic field.
If you have two parallel currents as in Somov's textbook then there is a point where there is no magnetic field (the neutral point). Any magnetic field line drawn though the point will break. This is not a violation of Gauss's Law since any volume containing that point will have equal numbers of field lines entering end exiting (zero magnetic flux).
Now change the magnetic field, e.g. by moving the currents closer together. The magnetic fields lines will sweep across that neutral point. They will break and reconnect on the other side. Thus "magnetic reconnection"

This is a trivial and boring process in vacuum. The interesting stuff happens when you add a plasma.

There is a "lie to children" that is told to undergraduate science students - that magnetic field lines are always closed, continuous loops. As a bit of thought about the definition of a magnetic field line shows, this is not correct (see above). They have to break when they pass through a region with no magnetic field.

 

[RealityCheck01]

If all magnetism is caused by electric current then I have the following questions:

Unfortunately Origin of Permanent Magnetism is one of those "lies to children" I have mentioned. To keep things simple the author has mislead everyone (or has a bad understanding of magnetism).

The origin of magnetism in permanent magnets is the alignment of electron spins which are not currents. This is an intrinsic property of an electron. See ferromagnetism.

 

[RealityCheck01]

1. Electricity.

Origin of Permanent Magnetism

2. Except at high temperatures, permanent magnets are not permanent magnets. Relying on that external electric current (versus internal) to form any field at all.

K&J Magnetics Blog

These two citations contradict each other Justatruthseeker.
If the Origin of Permanent Magnetism is electrons orbiting in atoms (which is not effected by heating so long as there is still a solid) then heating a magnetic will not remove the magnetism. Luckily the author is oversimplifying.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You missed something.

Sorry, Michael, but you missed that the author of this web page oversimplified: Ferromagnetism - Origin of magnetism has no electric currents (electrons are not tiny spinning spheres as you know!).

 

[RealityCheck01]

The rationalization in red .....

There is no "rationalization" in red, Michael.
There is your inability to understand English which I am emphasizing in red.
Actual electrical discharges such as lightning are impossible on plasma by definition (no dielectric medium like air to break down).

 

[RealityCheck01]

No, I said a moving current in a *vacuum* is a moving plasma.
...usual insults snipped...

No, you do not have to empathize this ignorance, Michael.
Michael's evasion admits a lie about "plasma filaments" in section 4.4.2

You have written the ignorant statement that an electric current is moving plasma, Michael:
An electrical wire does not contain any plasma .
Plasmas in general contain equal amounts of negative and positive charges. A moving plasma is moving negative and positive charges. This is not an electric current (one type of charge flowing)

A moving current in vacuum can be electrons in a wire thus:
Michael (30 October 2013): If we have electrical wires producing the current in the vacuum of Somov's example then would you claim that magnetic reconnection happens in the electrical wires?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

An electrical wire does not contain any plasma.

Nope, just electric charges interacting, just as in plasma. Think of that plasma as many little wires.

Z-pinch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In a Z-pinch machine the wires are replaced by a plasma, which can be thought of as many current-carrying wires."

Plasmas in general contain equal amounts of negative and positive charges. A moving plasma is moving negative and positive charges. This is not an electric current (one type of charge flowing)

False statement.

Electric current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"An electric current is a flow of electric charge. In electric circuits this charge is often carried by moving electrons in a wire. It can also be carried by ions in an electrolyte, or by both ions and electrons such as in a plasma."


Which is why they also told you: "Since current can be the flow of either positive or negative charges, or both, a convention for the direction of current which is independent of the type of charge carriers is needed."

Nothing else really needs to be said since your own linked source disagrees with you.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Think of that plasma as many little wires.

Nope, Justatruthseeker. A plasma is a partially ionized gas with every ion and electron going in a random direction. But a magnetic field or current can be applied to move these ions and electrons about in specific situations such as:
Z-pinch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Z-pinch is an application of the Lorentz force, in which a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field experiences a force. One example of the Lorentz force is that, if two parallel wires are carrying current in the same direction, the wires will be pulled toward each other. In a Z-pinch machine the wires are replaced by a plasma, which can be thought of as many current-carrying wires. When a current is run through the plasma, the particles in plasma are pulled toward each other by the Lorentz force, thus the plasma contracts. The contraction is counteracted by the increasing gas pressure of the plasma.

Of course it is quite dumb to think that a Z-pinch plasma apparatus is a couple of wires in a vacuum as in my question to Michael:
Michael (30 October 2013): If we have electrical wires producing the current in the vacuum of Somov's example then would you claim that magnetic reconnection happens in the electrical wires?

What I wrote was

An electrical wire does not contain any plasma .
Plasmas in general contain equal amounts of negative and positive charges. A moving plasma is moving negative and positive charges. This is not an electric current (one type of charge flowing)

What that means is that there is a net flow of charge. For example a wire has electrons going in one end and coming out the other (the atoms do not move).
The randomly moving charges in a general plasma are not an electric current. That is similar to claiming that a rock moving in space is an electric current - you would not believe it but I have actually seen someone claim that !
If you apply an external magnetic field to a plasma then there is a current that is carried by both the electrons and positive ions.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Nope, just electric charges interacting, just as in plasma.

Nope again, Justatruthseeker .
The electric charges in a wire interact very differently from the electric charges in a plasma.
The properties of a solid are massively different from a solid - just read any of the solid state textbooks or dozens of solid state physics papers I have read!
The obvious difference is that the positive charges in a wire are basically fixed while the positive charges in a plasma move around almost as much as the electrons.

Wow - just looked up the paper that resulted from my thesis and saw just how long ago it was!
Effect of localized spin fluctuations on transport properties in the one-band Wolff model

 

[Michael]

Unfortunately Origin of Permanent Magnetism is one of those "lies to children" I have mentioned. To keep things simple the author has mislead everyone (or has a bad understanding of magnetism).

The origin of magnetism in permanent magnets is the alignment of electron spins which are not currents. This is an intrinsic property of an electron. See ferromagnetism.

There are no 'lies to children' being told RC, other than the one's you're telling. It's the *spin/movement* of the electron that *creates* magnetic fields, even inside solids. Your attempt to ignore that 'cause/effect' relationship is irrational, pretty much like all your behaviors in this thread.

You resort to personal attacks more than any person I've met in cyberspace, and that's saying something. I've met a lot of characters in cyberspace, but none are less ethical in debate than you are.

 

[Michael]

Sorry, Michael, but you missed that the author of this web page oversimplified: Ferromagnetism - Origin of magnetism has no electric currents (electrons are not tiny spinning spheres as you know!).

Nothing on that page actually contradicts the link that Justa provided. Your own ignorance is the only thing that's common throughout all these conversations. Are you *ever* going to read a real textbook on MHD theory RC, or did you just intend to argue from pure ignorance for the rest of your life?

 

[Michael]

There is no "rationalization" in red, Michael.
There is your inability to understand English which I am emphasizing in red.
Actual electrical discharges such as lightning are impossible on plasma by definition (no dielectric medium like air to break down).

Horse manure. Even in solar flares there are non ionized particles being ionized, and slightly ionized atoms becoming *more ionized* during the discharge flare. Peratt defines the discharge process as a *fast release of stored EM energy*. Your personal assertion that an 'actual' discharge must involve a dielectric breakdown is blown out of the water by Dungey, who uses the term just as Peratt did. Over the course of *years* you have refused to provide a single published link outside of yourself that claims that 'actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma". You've got no published reference to support that claim, and you never will. By *definition* electrical discharges occur in plasma according to both Peratt and Dungey.

You've painted yourself right into the corner of pure denial, therefore you quote *yourself* endlessly, and never support it with a *published* reference to support it.

 

[Michael]

No, you do not have to empathize this ignorance, Michael.

The ignorance is all yours RC, and it's *caused* by your *unwillingness* to pick up a textbook on MHD theory. Somov's example has no wires. You made them up in your head. Somov's example *has* A) plasma (current), and B) plasma movement, just as the WIKI reference would insist. The *transfer* of EM field energy *into* particle acceleration is *the key* issue as it relates to "magnetic reconnection". You and Clinger really need to sit down and read a real textbook on this topic. You're both clueless about plasma physics because you're both without a plasma particle to your name.

Michael's evasion admits a lie about "plasma filaments" in section 4.4.2

I never admitted any such thing. You engage in a lot of unethical debate practices, but the *lies* you tell and the words you put in my mouth are unbelievable. Your entire debate style is based on A) ignorance of the topic, therefore B) personal attacks, and C) strawmen or outright misstatements of fact with respect to what I have actually said. How pathetic. When are you going to read a real textbook on MHD theory RC?

A moving current in vacuum can be electrons in a wire thus:

Thus RC demonstrates that he can't tell the difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum, and ordinary magnetic attraction in a vacuum, and charged particle acceleration of plasma particles in a vacuum.

There are no *wires* in Somov's vacuum. You *personally* cheated and changed *his* example. Apparently you put words in *everyone's* mouth, like it or not.

You erroneously characterized both my statements and Somov's statements in is book in this one post. How many personal misstatements of fact are you willing to insert into one argument anyway? Holy Cow. You have *zero* ethics in debate. You stuff words in my mouth that never came out of my mouth, and you stuff wires in Somov's mouth when none are shown in his example.

The pathetic part is that you can't tell the difference between charged particle acceleration in plasmas and ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum, because you simply won't study MHD theory. Apparently it's against your religion to educate yourself, but it's not against your religion to bear false witness. You do that all the time, and you do it everyone consistently, from Peratt, to Somov, to Dungey, and to me.

 

[mzungu]

Reality check I think it's best to leave Michael and Justa aloe to pat each others backs. There is really nothing you can say to them and convince them. Hint: They consider all the mainstream to be wrong! This should ring a few alarm bells.

I am as of now un-subscribing from this thread.