Message from the Dawn of time...

[Michael]

Wrong Michael: Current is not a plasma filament as in your assertion.

False

Electric current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An electric current is a flow of electric charge

Somov *includes* moving charged particles (AKA moving plasma) in his so called "vacuum". The vacuum isn't devoid of charged particles nor devoid of charged particle acceleration. You're in pure denial of fact.

The current in the diagram is an idealized current - any net flow of charge.

True, and any net flow of charge is a movement of a *charge particle*. Too bad you and Clinger don't have a charged particle to your name!

Physically it could be a flow of electrons in a wire, etc.

Bzzzt. In a *solid*, all that would occur is *magnetic attraction* between two stationary wires since no movement could or would take place, and no field lines would change. Another epic fail. You don't even understand *basic* EM field theory! For Pete sake!

It cannot be a plasma filament which is quasi-neutral (no net flow of charge).

Bzzt. You really don't know the first thing about MHD theory or plasma. Are you ever going to actually read a textbook on this topic RC, or did you intend to argue from pure ignorance for the rest of your life?

If the later is true, find someone *else* to pester/stalk in cyberspace.

 

[Michael]

That is a an actual lie, Michael. That is Anthony Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge.
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.

Where did Peratt use the term "impossible", or did you just tell *another* huge lie?

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

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. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microωανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.
The discharge region, or load, encompαsses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiatιοη (Figure 1 .2) .On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electr-o-static energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.
The aurora is a discharge caused by the bombardment of atoms in the upper atmosphere by 1–20 keV electrons and 200 keV ions spirιlling down the earth's magnetic field lines at high latitudes . Here, the electric field accelerating the charged particles derιves from plasma moving across the earth's dipole magnetic field lines many earth radii into the magnetosphere.

By *definition*, electrical discharge *are possible*! You're in pure and complete denial of the facts (yet again).

 

[RealityCheck01]

Nobody is that dumb other than you.

Wrong, Michael - the point is that you are acting as if you are dumb enough to think that a Wikipedia article on MR in plasma should be about MR in vacuum !
Seriously though it is more that the Wikipedia article is incomplete. It would be better if it started with the simplicity of MR in a vacuum and then went to MR in plasma as in Somov's textbook.

 

[Michael]

Remarks on the Discharge Theory of Flares

Where did Dungey use the term "impossible" RC?

 

[Michael]

Wrong, Michael - the point is that you are acting as if you are dumb enough to think that a Wikipedia article on MR in plasma should be about MR in vacuum !

Magnetic reconnection cannot and does not occur in a "vacuum" that *excludes* charge particles and charged particle movement. Period. You and Clinger don't have charged particle to your name, therefore you didn't describe anything other than ordinary flux in a vacuum!

Seriously though it is more that the Wikipedia article is incomplete. It would be better if it started with the simplicity of MR in a vacuum and then went to MR in plasma as in Somov's textbook.

Translation: You have no example of a published paper that claims that MR is a plasma optional process.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Where did Peratt use the term "impossible", or did you just tell *another* huge lie?

Sorry, Michael, but that "*another* huge lie" is you stating that I stated Peratt stated that electrical discharge is impossible in a plasma. All he does is define an normal electrical discharge such as lightning.

11th January 2011: Michael still has no idea what a title is or difference between a title and a definition!

5th February 2011: Why does Peratt's page talk about aurora and lightning?

7th December 2010: Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges?

And why the obsession with Peratt'?
26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any textbook?[/

 

[Michael]

Wrong, Michael - the point is that you are acting as if you are dumb enough

You're the only one acting "dumb enough" to believe you know anything at all about plasma physics without ever picking up a single textbook on the topic of MHD theory.

to think that a Wikipedia article on MR in plasma should be about MR in vacuum !

There is no such thing.

Seriously though it is more that the Wikipedia article is incomplete. It would be better if it started with the simplicity of MR in a vacuum and then went to MR in plasma as in Somov's textbook.

Both Somov and WIKI included charged particles (AKA plasma) and charged particle movement (conversion of energy). You forgot to include either plasma *or* any conversion of energy into particle movement. Epic fail!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Remarks on the Discharge Theory of Flares

Where did Dungey use the term "impossible" RC?

Oh dear the lack of reading comprehension continues - I have never said that Dungey used the term "impossible" - and you cannot grasp some basic reality:
18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
13th January 2011: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different!
8th November 2011: Citing Dungey means that cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection!

James Dungey 1
"Discharges are shown to be a possible source of high energy particles, if the current density is very large. The growth of the current density is discussed using the fact that the magnetic lines of force are approximately frozen into the ionized gas. It is shown that discharges are unlikely to occur anywhere except at neutral points of the magnetic field. Neutral points are found to be unstable in such a way that a small perturbation will start a discharge in a time of the order of the characteristic time of the system. Such discharges may account for aurorae, and may also occur in solar flares and the interstellar gas"
His 'discharge' is an existing current density that grows, i.e. not a discharge!
James Dungey 2
"The suggestion that an solar flare resuts from an electrical discharge situated in the neighbourhood of a neutral point of the magnetic field was made by Giovanelli [2].
...
The defining feature of a discharge in this context is the existence of a large current density."

 

[RealityCheck01]

..the irrational MHD book demand again...

I wrote

Wrong, Michael - the point is that you are acting as if you are dumb enough to think that a Wikipedia article on MR in plasma should be about MR in vacuum !
Seriously though it is more that the Wikipedia article is incomplete. It would be better if it started with the simplicity of MR in a vacuum and then went to MR in plasma as in Somov's textbook.

Then you lie about "There is no such thing" when Somov has a section on MR in a vacuum !

 

[Michael]

Sorry, Michael, but that "*another* huge lie" is you stating that I stated Peratt stated that electrical discharge is impossible in a plasma.

I didn't say that *Peratt* made the claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You and only you and no other published author on the planet made that false claim.

All he does is define an normal electrical discharge such as lightning.

Ya, a "normal electrical discharge *in plasma*"'

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

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. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microωανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.
The discharge region, or load, encompαsses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiatιοη (Figure 1 .2) .On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electr-o-static energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.
The aurora is a discharge caused by the bombardment of atoms in the upper atmosphere by 1–20 keV electrons and 200 keV ions spirιlling down the earth's magnetic field lines at high latitudes . Here, the electric field accelerating the charged particles derιves from plasma moving across the earth's dipole magnetic field lines many earth radii into the magnetosphere.

His *definition* is also 100 percent consistent with Dungey's use of that same term.

You're the guy that's never read any textbook on this topic and keeps making claims about discharges being "impossible" in plasma and refusing to support your false claim with published references.

Peratt defines it as a *release of stored energy*, not a breakdown of a dielelectric. It doesn't matter either way anyway because all plasmas are 'dusty' and they therefore experience ionization during such events, just like any other discharge in any other medium.

When are you going to read a textbook on MHD theory RC?

 

[Michael]

Oh dear the lack of reading comprehension continues

No, your BS continues. You said:

Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.

Remarks on the Discharge Theory of Flares

Dungey proved you wrong.

When are you going to come clean and admit that electrical discharge occur in plasma as Dungey stated?

 

[Michael]

I wrote

You write a lot of stupid stuff.

Then you lie about "There is no such thing" when Somov has a section on MR in a vacuum !

Somov's example *includes* charged particles and charge particle movement. You lied.

 

[RealityCheck01]

No, your BS continues.

Read what I actually wrote, Michael
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.

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.

(my super emphasis added)

Dungey explicitly states that his version of an electrical discharge is possible - which is not my "actual electrical discharge".

It is BS to pretend that you cannot understand the difference between an actual electrical discharge like lightning that requires the breakdown of a dielectric material and the different usage of "electrical discharge" by Dungey.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Somov's example *includes* charged particles and charge particle movement. You lied.

That remains wrong, Michael: Somov's example is:

Let us illustrate such a process by the simplest example of 2 parallel electric currents of equal magnitude I in vacuum as shown in Figure 4.17.

No charged particles or charge particle movement are mentioned for the example. These are idealized currents in a vacuum. They are definitely not plasma filaments:
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.[/QUOTE]
(emphasis added because you have not answered the question yet)

As I have pointed out several times before - if we replace the idealized currents with physical currents, e.g. electrical wires in a vacuum chamber, the magnetic reconnection stull happens in a vacuum. in fact this demands a question:

Michael: Think about the physical situation of a pair of electrical wires poked through a vacuum chamber. There is no plasma there. Now follow Somov's example and decrease the separation of the wires. The magnetic field still changes. Magnetic reconnection still occurs.
Would you claim that magnetic reconnection happens in the electrical wires?

Or can you understand that the wires are just a source of a changing magnetic field in the vacuum outside of the wires and that MR happens in the vacuum?

 

[Michael]

That remains wrong, Michael: Somov's example is:

No charged particles or charge particle movement are mentioned for the example.

That is pure and complete denial on your part RC. All currents are composed of moving charged particles, and in fact the movement of the charged particle is what *generates* the magnetic field in the first place! What you don't understand about plasma and EM fields could fill *volumes*.

These are idealized currents in a vacuum.

The use of the word "ideal" doesn't change a thing RC. The "current" is *necessarily* composed of moving charged particles, AKA moving plasma. The movement of the charged particles in the stream of current is what *creates* the magnetic field that surrounds the current. Your use of bizarre qualifying words only makes you seem *desparate* beyond belief.

They are definitely not plasma filaments:
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.

Your assertion that currents aren't composed of charged particles is the huge lie RC. Your fixationon the term "filament" is nothing but ruse and a joke at this point. You're *completely* clueless even as to the *origin* of those magnetic fields in Somov's diagram.

As I have pointed out several times before - if we replace the idealized currents with physical currents, e.g. electrical wires in a vacuum chamber,

Bzzzt! You're intentially *changing* the conditions of Somov's chamber, and therefore the *effect* it will have too. The only thing that would happen with two *solid* conductors is "magnetic attraction". Since the current channels can't get closer together, the magnetic field isn't going to "reconnect" in the first place. It's only via *charged particle movement* that Somov's example achieves "reconnection". Even changing the magnetic fields of one current channel would only *induce current* in the other wire, and you *still* won't get "magnetic reconnection". The term "magnetic reconnection" applies only to charged plasma particles and transfer of motion to those plasma particles RC. Somov's example is *inclusive* of charged particles, and charged particle movement/acceleration. Clinger and you are completely clueless as to the meaning of the term because neither of you have ever read a textbook on MHD theory. Are you *ever* going to stop arguing from ignorance and actually *study* this topic?

Michael: Think about the physical situation of a pair of electrical wires poked through a vacuum chamber.

I think you just *cheated* by changing Somov's example to suit yourself for starters. Secondly, you're simply demonstrating your complete and total ignorance of *basic* EM field theory. Apparently you can't tell the difference between "magnetic flux", "attraction", "induction" and "magnetic reconnection". Pssst. Here's a hint. The last one can *only* happen in the presense of plasma particles and plasma particle acceleration. The other terms *might/could* apply to your *solid wires*.

There is no plasma there.

Of course not because you *changed* the terms all on your own, only to demonstrate your ignorance of basic EM field theory! Sheesh.

Now follow Somov's example

Bzzzt. That isn't Somov's example. That's your own *kludged* example, and it's an example of nothing more than magnetic attraction and devoid of "magnetic reconnection" because the wires can't move.

Would you claim that magnetic reconnection happens in the electrical wires?

No, in that case *induction* occurs in the wire. You're so clueless about even basic EM field theory, it's not even funny.

Or can you understand that the wires are just a source of a changing magnetic field in the vacuum outside of the wires and that MR happens in the vacuum?

Nothing happens in a "vacuum" other than perhaps magnetic flux. You're so clueless......

When are you going to read a textbook on MHD theory?

 

[Michael]

Read what I actually wrote, Michael
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.

I read what you wrote and Dungey proved you wrong. Period. All the ridiculous qualifiers and word manipulation of term "actual" doesn't change a thing. You're *personal need* for a breakdown of a dielectric is irrelevent to Dungey's paper which demonstrates that "actual electrical discharges are *possible* in plasmas!

(my super emphasis added)

You mean super stupid qualifiers added to attempt to excuse your *complete ignorance* of plasma physics.

Dungey explicitly states that his version of an electrical discharge is possible - which is not my "actual electrical discharge".

Your version of an "actual" electrical discharge is irrelevent because Dungey knows what he's talking about, and you don't because you refuse to read a textbook on MHD theory. Since you refuse to educate yourself, you're reduced to petty word manipulation where you try to worm yourself out of reality altogether! The humorous part is that you've already admitted that all plasmas in space are "dusty", and therefore some ionization of dust *does actually occur*, making them "actual" electrical discharges either way! Your rationalizations for your ignorance are just ridiculous. Are you ever going to pick up a textbook on MHD theory, yes or no?

Dungey demonstrated conclusively that your sig line is complete rubbish. Your "actual" understanding of plasma physics is *zero*.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Magnetic reconnection is a farce to ignore those electric currents causing the magnetic field. Apparently none of you understand what Gauss's Law is. Magnetic fields form closed loops, and never in any experiment whatsoever have you ever detected a magnetic field unconnecting (not ending on another pole) and reconnecting.

THERE ARE NO MAGNETIC MONOPOLES.

You can't even block a magnetic field. We know of no way to cause a magnetic field to not form closed loops. No material will block a field line from leaving one pole and re-entering another - NOTHING.

Is there any material that can block a magnetic force? Specifically does lead block magnetic fields?

Learn some science and stop postulating Fairie Dust for magnetic fields because you wont accept the physical science that all magnetic fields are caused by electric currents.

Origin of Permanent Magnetism
"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)."

Gauss' Law for Magnetic Fields
"The magnetic flux though any closed surface is zero.

This is just another way of saying that magnetic monopoles do not exist, and that all magnetic fields are actually generated by circulating currents.

An immediate corollary of the above law is that the number of magnetic field-lines which enter a closed surface is always equal to the number of field-lines which leave the surface. In other words:

Magnetic field-lines form closed loops which never begin or end."


We have never observed anything else.

 

[mzungu]

Magnetic reconnection is a farce to ignore those electric currents causing the magnetic field. Apparently none of you understand what Gauss's Law is. Magnetic fields form closed loops, and never in any experiment whatsoever have you ever detected a magnetic field unconnecting (not ending on another pole) and reconnecting.

THERE ARE NO MAGNETIC MONOPOLES.

You can't even block a magnetic field. We know of no way to cause a magnetic field to not form closed loops. No material will block a field line from leaving one pole and re-entering another - NOTHING.

Is there any material that can block a magnetic force? Specifically does lead block magnetic fields?

Learn some science and stop postulating Fairie Dust for magnetic fields because you wont accept the physical science that all magnetic fields are caused by electric currents.

Origin of Permanent Magnetism
"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)."

Gauss' Law for Magnetic Fields
"The magnetic flux though any closed surface is zero.

This is just another way of saying that magnetic monopoles do not exist, and that all magnetic fields are actually generated by circulating currents.

An immediate corollary of the above law is that the number of magnetic field-lines which enter a closed surface is always equal to the number of field-lines which leave the surface. In other words:

Magnetic field-lines form closed loops which never begin or end."


We have never observed anything else.

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

1: What causes magnetism in permanent magnets?
2: Are you claiming that permanent magnets have endless electric current flowing through them? This would mean that permanent magnets are superconductors at even high temperatures.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

1: What causes magnetism in permanent magnets?
2: Are you claiming that permanent magnets have endless electric current flowing through them? This would mean that permanent magnets are superconductors at even high temperatures.

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

 

[Michael]

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

Those were actually great questions and equally great answers.