Message from the Dawn of time...

[Michael]

Bzzt! A new bit of ignorance from you Michael!.
The wires in Somov's example

There are no "wires" in Somov's example RC, just two currents composed of *plasma*! You invented those mythical wires in your wild imagination when you took his example *completely out of context*!

move because he says they do.

No wires move in his example because there are no "wires' in his example! You made up those wires in your head just like you make up everything you say.

He says that some unspecific driver displaces the current.

It's the magnetic attraction between of the magnetic fields around each current that moves the current.

If a charged plasma (not a general plasma which is quasi-neutral and does not generate outside magnetic fields) moving in a tube were to replace each of the currents then the tubes would have to be displaced by an external force.

The "force" is the magnetic fields around the currents. The *displacement* is the part that constitutes "magnetic reconnection" since it A) involves plasma, and B) involves plasma movement.

If a wire were to replace each of the currents then the wires would have to be displaced by an external force.

If they were "wires", the magnetic field wouldn't move them, and they wouldn't "reconnect'.

But magnetic reconnection in a plasma is different.

Bzzt! Somov's example of reconnection takes place *in* plasma, specifically the plasma of the *current* which *moves* during reconnection! You keep leaving out the need for A) plasma and B) plasma movement. There's an *energy transfer* process that you simply keep *ignoring*. Whereas poor Clinger's *rate of reconnection* is always *zero*, Somov's rate of reconnection is greater than zero because there is *plasma movement* associated with his "reconnection".

There is no plasma in Clingers pitiful vacuum, and no energy transfer from any magnetic field into any particle acceleration. Epic fail!

Which only leaves:

Which only leaves you one option, namely *ignore* his *actual* example, and *pretend* he used 'wires'. Your denial process is utterly pathetic. When are you going to read a textbook on this topic and stop arguing the topic from ignorance?

Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magnetic reconnection is a physical process in highly conducting plasmas in which the magnetic topology is rearranged and magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy, thermal energy, and particle acceleration.

Reconnection requires A) plasmas, B) magnetic field changes which result in C) movement of plasma. You're trying to dumb it all down to B) and pretend that parts A) and C) don't exist. Both A) and C) are requirements and they are *both* included in Somov's example of *moving* currents!

 

[RealityCheck01]

..snipped repeat of the plasma in Somov's example delusion...

The currents (or wires or moving charged plasmas in tubes) Somov's example move because he says they do .

ETA: Changed a couple of "wires" to "currents" so that you need not display your ignorance of basic electromagnetism again (the current in a wire produces the same magnetic field as a current ) or plasma physics. Generally plasmas produce no magnetic field outside of the plasma. You need a charged moving plasma to produce a magnetic field outside of the plasma and this needs to be in a tube for Somov's example (plasmas do not magically restrict themselves to lines in a vacuum - they are an ionized gas ).
4 December 2014 Michael: The currents in Somov's example move because he says they do

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? without any display of ignorance about the wires not producing the same magnetic fields?

 

[Michael]

The currents

The currents in his example are composed of moving *charged particles*, AKA *plasma*.

(or wires

There are no "wires" in his example. You made them up in your head. You created a *strawman* from his diagram on *plasma*, and took his entire statement out of context (of plasma physics).

or moving charged plasmas in tubes) Somov's example move because he says they do .

The point is that two currents composed of plasmas *move* in Somov's example, whereas Clinger doesn't have a plasma particle to his sorry name.

ETA: Changed a couple of "wires"

Yep, you *changed* his diagram to suit yourself and took it completely out of context (of plasma), just like you did to Peratt's *definition* of an electrical discharge in plasma. You *change* whatever you don't like to suit yourself. You cheat.

to "currents" so that you need not display your ignorance of basic electromagnetism again

Coming from a guy that doesn't know the proper term for very ordinary "magnetic flux" in a vacuum, that's a riot.

(the current in a wire produces the same magnetic field as a current ) or plasma physics.

The key and important difference is that the attraction from the magnetic fields of the currents wouldn't *move the solid wire*, so the currents don't move, and no "reconnection" takes place in your 'wire'. You can't even come up with a published paper on solid state "magnetic reconnection". You're making this stuff up as you go.

There are no "wires" in Somov's example. You made them up, just like you made up some irrational need for a breakdown of a dielectric to occur even though Dungey says nothing of the sort. You make up stuff on a whim and stick wires and words in peoples mouths to suit yourself.

 

[Michael]

Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magnetic reconnection is a physical process A) in highly conducting plasmas in which B) the magnetic topology is rearranged and C) magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy, thermal energy, and particle acceleration.
​

Letter insertion mine. Reconnection is a process that occurs A) *in plasma* when B) magnetic field changes occur, which C) result in plasma movement.

Your oversimplification fallacy won't fly RC. You're trying to ignore the necessary transfer of energy required in 'magnetic reconnection'. Clinger's pathetic example has a rate of reconnection that is *zero* regardless of how much *flux* he might introduce into the "vacuum". No *transfer* can take place between field energy and particles, therefore it's just *flux* in a vacuum, not "magnetic reconnection"!

Oy Vey. I really should just debate QM with my cat. At least my cat is furry and it purrs. You're just ridiculous.

Are you ever going to read a textbook on MHD theory RC?

 

[RealityCheck01]

..snipped usual plasma rant....

The currents (or wires or moving charged plasmas in tubes) Somov's example move because he says they do .

4 December 2014 Michael: The currents in Somov's example move because he says they do

There are no "plasma" in Somov's example of magnetic reconnection in vacuum. You made them up, just like you display ignorance of plasma every time that you repeat this fantasy - plasmas are not currents

 

[RealityCheck01]

...snipped insanely highlighted article on magnetic reconnection in plasma ...

The repeated ignorance of citing a Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection in plasma to refute a textbook section on magnetic reconnection in vacuum !
and
The ignorance of citing a Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection in plasma to refute papers mentioning magnetic reconnection in vacuum (6 November 2014)

 

[Viren]

Cool, more evidence for the big bang. Let's not forget quantum mechanics at the other end of the spectrum.

 

[Michael]

The currents (or wires

There are no 'wires' in Somov's example RC. You *made that up* in your head because you don't wish to acknowledge his inclusion of A) plasma, and B) plasma particle acceleration. You're in total denial of his work and you took it *completely out of context* of plasma as it's written and made up things in your head that have nothing to do with his work.

or moving charged plasmas in tubes)

Pssssst. You can see how "currents" form inside of an ordinary plasma ball RC. They form nice little twisted filaments that look like mini twisters. While they do conduct current, they aren't "solid wires" however, they *move around* like plasma moves.

Somov's example move because he says they do .

He assumes you understand something about plasma physics, but in your particular case that doesn't apply. If you did know something about plasma, you'd know that the threads *magnetically attract*.

There are no "plasma" in Somov's example of magnetic reconnection in vacuum.

That's an outright lie. He's got two moving currents composed of plasma moving around in his "vacuum". Current in a vacuum is composed of moving charged particles, AKA plasma. There are no "wires" in his example because it's a book on *plasma physics*!

You made them up, just like you display ignorance of plasma every time that you repeat this fantasy - plasmas are not currents

No, I didn't make them up. He inserted those two currents in his vacuum all by himself and he drew you a nice diagram and everything. You're in pure denial of those currents even with a diagram!

TThe "final state" of the currents is not the same as the initial state, demonstrating conclusively that the *currents moved* and demonstrate that he A) included plasma, and B) included plasma particle movement.

Clinger and you are both clueless by choice because both of you are too lazy to pickup a real textbook on MHD theory.

 

[Michael]

The repeated ignorance of citing a Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection in plasma to refute a textbook section on magnetic reconnection in vacuum !

The ignorance is your own. The WIKI article doesn't even "refute" Somov's work as you claim, it's totally congruent with Somov's work/diagram, and it *explains* his work if you had actually *listened*. WIKI explained that Somov's "current" (AKA plasma) is not optional in the process called "magnetic reconnection", and the plasma displacement is not optional either. You just can't handle that reality. Both the WIKI article and his diagram A) include plasmas, and B) include plasma displacement.

and
The ignorance of citing a Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection in plasma to refute papers mentioning magnetic reconnection in vacuum (6 November 2014)

Translation: You still can't tell a "toy" from a "real" process, even when Priest clearly explained the differences to you. He clearly and carefully explain that the difference between your *toy* understanding and the real deal is the *inclusion of plasma* and plasma acceleration. All of the examples you cited blow your own claims away. Priest even clearly differentiated between your *toy* understanding and the *real* thing for you and you simply pretend that a 'toy' is 'real' anyway!

 

[Michael]

Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magnetic reconnection is a physical process A) in highly conducting plasmas in which B) the magnetic topology is rearranged and C) magnetic energy is converted to kinetic energy, thermal energy, and particle acceleration.

Parts A) and C) are also required, not just step B)! Your entire argument is based on an oversimplification fallacy run amok. Your 'toy' understanding of plasma physics isn't "real" RC. Priest explained the difference between Clingers "toy" and real physics. Too bad neither of you listened.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...snipped usual current=plasma delusion and insults...

Which only leaves the years long inability to understand where magnetic reconnection happens in that diagram and in Somov's section - in vacuum, Michael!

4 December 2014 Michael: The currents in Somov's example move because he says they do due to a driven displacement. This is simple enough - you have to apply a force to drive the currents together!

I will try one more time before concluding that you are incapable of answering:
5 November 2014 Michael: Where does magnetic reconnection happen in Somov's example?
Hopefully I will get an actual answer rather than an irrelevant rant.
If I remember correctly, your last (but wrong ) answer was the gray area . Do you want to stick with that answer is that magnetic reconnection happens in the gray area that is in vacuum (outside of the currents)?

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? Unfortunately you have reverted to the ignorance about the wires not producing the same magnetic fields. And the arrogance of you can replace the currents with plasma but I am not allowed to replace the currents with wires !

 

[Michael]

The dead give away about how wrong you are is directly related to the *rate* of reconnection! Regardless of how much *magnetic flux* you and Clinger introduce into your pitiful empty vacuum, no particle movement is induced in a vacuum. Therefore the "rate" of reconnection is always zero in Clinger's pitiful "toy", regardless of the amount of flux you two introduce.

If we add *plasma* however, something amazing happens as a result of magnetic flux in a *conductor*. The changing magnetic fields induce *movement* in the plasma and we get parts A) and C) again, and "real" magnetic reconnection takes place. Without a conductor however, magnetic flux in a vacuum is just magnetic flux in a vacuum, and a rate of *zero* amount of reconnection takes place in a vacuum.

 

[Michael]

Which only leaves the years long inability to understand where magnetic reconnection happens in that diagram and in Somov's section - in vacuum, Michael!

Your inability to understand where it occurs is directly related to the fact you refuse to educate yourself to this topic and read a real textbook on this topic. The "reconnection" takes place *in the particles* as they *move* as a result of a *transfer of energy*! You're incapable of understanding the need for plasma in his example in spite of the fact that A) he includes it, B) Priest explains the need for it, and C) Wiki explains the need for plasma too! I might as well be debating QM with my cat.

4 December 2014 Michael: The currents in Somov's example move...

...which is what makes his example "real" and your example a "toy". You and clinger left out currents and current displacement entirely, making your version nothing more than a "toy" according to your own reference (Priest).

I will try one more time before concluding that you are incapable of answering:

I've answered that question several times, you simply refuse to embrace the answer. The reconnection affects the *particles* in his example and occurs at the *particles* in his example. They *move* as a result of reconnection and there is a *transfer of energy* into particle movement taking place in his example. You simply won't hear the answer because you don't like it.

Michael (30 October 2013): If we have electrical wires producing the current in the vacuum of Somov's example......

The magnetic attraction won't make the wires move, so no "reconnection' occurs in that example either! You can't tell the difference between solid state physics and plasma physics because you've never even read a book on plasma physics, and you don't even understand *basic* EM field theory or you would know the proper term for magnetic flux in a vacuum!

There are no "wires" in his book on *plasma physics* RC. You made that up in your head and *changed* his diagram to suit yourself.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Your inability to understand where it occurs is directly ..snipped gibberish...

That is a lie, Michael: I can read where Somov states the reconnection happens. I can read the diagram where he marks where it happens. I know about electromagnetism and so I know where MR happens (at null points in the magnetic field).

X marks the spot !
Michael: No X point = no magnetic reconnection. "Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents."

 

[RealityCheck01]

The dead give away about how wrong you are...snipped gibberish....

The dead give away about how you still do not understand Somov is that we are talking about Somov's section on magnetic reconnection in vacuum - he states that MR actually happens, Michael !

This is despite any resurrected from JREF gibberish about a "rate of reconnection". MR in plasma does have a parameter called reconnection rate

The dimensionless reconnection rate can then be written as (the ration of 2 plasma velocities)

MR in vacuum obviously does not have this parameter because there is no plasma !
OTOH we have: 20th March 2012, Michael Mozina's delusion that a reconnection rate exists without plasma

 

[Michael]

That is a lie, Michael: I can read where Somov states the reconnection happens.

Funny how you also read "wires" into his example where none actually exist.

I can read the diagram where he marks where it happens.

Psst. I hate to point out your silly oversimplifications again, but magnetic fields form as a complete continuum, not in tiny little lines as you imagine them. The *change* in the fields occurs *everywhere* in both fields, not just at some arbitrary point between them. The *transfer* of energy is clearly visible in his example too as particles *move* as a result of those field changes. You can read, but your ability to comprehend seems quite limited, probably due to fact that you've never read a textbook on this topic.

I know about electromagnetism

No you don't. If you did, you'd know the proper name for "magnetic flux" in a vacuum, and you'd know that magnetic lines form without beginning and without ending.

and so I know where MR happens (at null points in the magnetic field).

You don't know where it happens or you wouldn't bet claiming it only happens at some arbitrary midpoint between the currents. The fields a both actually a *full continuum*, they aren't tiny little imaginary lines as you imagine them to be. Even your basic understanding of magnetic field is primitive and "toyish", not to mention the fact you can't tell a "toy" from the real thing as it relates to "plasma physics".

X marks the spot !

X marks *one* spot where both fields are "different", but both fields are different *everywhere*, not just at the X. Somov's vacuum includes A) plasma, B) magnetic flux, and C) plasma movement. Clinger excluded A) plasma, included B) magnetic flux, and excluded C) plasma movement.

Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma is identical to "magnetic reconnection". Both processes take place A) in plasma, involve B) transfer of energy, and C) particle acceleration.

Clinger can't get a 'discharge' from his empty vacuum, nor can he get plasma particle acceleration, AKA "reconnection" to occur at a rate above *zero*. The fact you can't tell by the *rate* of reconnection that Clinger's nonsense is wrong simply demonstrates your ignorance of plasma physics. The rate of reconnection is related to the movement of *plasma*!

No *plasma* equals no reconnection RC. You and Clinger don't have a plasma particle to your name, but Somov exmple includes two columns of plasma shown in his diagram which *move* during the reconnection process.

When are you going to read a textbook on MHD theory RC? Running around arguing science topics from pure ignorance is just absurd and irrational behavior on your part. Then again, in spite of Dungey's *published* papers, you're still convinced that electrical discharges in plasma are "impossible".

Get a grip RC. Go visit a decent library already.

 

[Michael]

The dead give away about how you still do not understand Somov is that we are talking about Somov's section on magnetic reconnection in vacuum - he states that MR actually happens, Michael !

Somov's vacuum *includes* A) plasma, and B) plasma particle movement. Clinger could never get a reconnection rate that is greater than zero because there is no way to transfer magnetic field energy into particle acceleration.

This is despite any resurrected from JREF gibberish about a "rate of reconnection". MR in plasma does have a parameter called reconnection rate

Yes, and that rate is based on the *movement of plasma*! You're clueless.

MR in vacuum obviously does not have this parameter because there is no plasma !

That's why your version and your understanding of the process is only a *toy* and not "real" as Priest carefully explained to you. No parameter means it's not possible to get 'reconnection' without particle acceleration.

Only you have the delusion that it's possible to get reconnection without particle acceleration, not me.

 

[Michael]

FYI, I find it *hysterical* that you linked to the reconnection rate provided by Sweet-Parker which specifically talks about V(in) and V(out), both of which *require* plasma and describe the *movement of plasma*.

The reconnection rate of Clinger's pathetic contraption is always necessarily *zero*, regardless of how much flux he produces, because there is no plasma to produce either a V(in) or a V(out)! Epic fail!

 

[RealityCheck01]

FYI, I find it *hysterical* that you linked to the reconnection rate provided by Sweet-Parker ...!

FYI, I find it *hysterical* that you could not understand my link to the reconnection rate provided by Sweet-Parker is about plasma !

 

[RealityCheck01]

..usual ranting and delusions about Somov... .

X is at a point half way between the currents, Michael.
If you know basic electromagnetism then you would know that the magnetic field is identical in magnitude at X, not different. The fields point in a opposite directions (right hand rule) so the field is zero at X.

X marks *the one* spot where both fields are "the same and opposite", Michael!


X marks the spot !

Michael: No X point = no magnetic reconnection. "Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents."

Dungey used "neutral" point for X and marked it with an N:
The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism
Figure 3 is basically Somov's figure but of course for magnetic reconnection in plasma.