Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[yevaud]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...but surely you can understand some of my frustration.&nbsp; From now on I will not respond to any of Mozina's posts that deal entirely with semantics(basically the like of what has been posted the past 2-3 pages).&nbsp; <br /> </p><p>Posted by <em>UFmbutler</em></DIV></p><p>Having an academic background somewhat similar to yours, I do indeed.&nbsp; And trust me, I do understand you have been trying to be reasonable about this.&nbsp; Not to worry. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The "proper term" doesn't matter.</DIV></p><p>It absolutely does matter.&nbsp;&nbsp; Imagine if I told my electrical theory professor that it didn't matter that I called my "circuit board' my "magnetic board".&nbsp; Imagine if I tried to tell him that it was ok to call "induction", "magnetic reconnection"? "Don't worry professor, I'll have my magnetic board soldered up in no time and I'll show you how my coil causes "magnetic reconnection" to create a spark"&nbsp; Do you think he'd have just let that slide?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> All I've been trying to do(I swear I've said this at least 10 times) is get mozina to stop addressing his own definition of reconnection(the cutting and splicing of field lines), because none of us are saying that or supporting that definition.</DIV></p><p>Your choice of terms implies (actually states rather blunty) that "magnetic" fields are undergoing some kind of "reconnection". &nbsp; If you aren't cutting and splcing magnetic field lines and just cutting and splice circuits why not just say so?&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[yevaud]

<p>Okee Doke.</p><p>Michael, end of discussion.&nbsp; If there is a single further continuation of complaining about the use of the term, I WILL lock this thread.&nbsp; Please accept the fact that this "fingernails grating on a chalkboard" term is widely used, as inappropriate as you believe it to be.&nbsp; As long as all of you fully understand the <em>mechanism</em> it describes, and you all are in agreement with what that mechanism is, the semantics are not relevant.</p><p><font size="4">THIS IS MY FINAL WARNING.</font> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Having an academic background somewhat similar to yours, I do indeed.&nbsp; And trust me, I do understand you have been trying to be reasonable about this.&nbsp; Not to worry. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Believe it or not, I really am trying to be reasonable.&nbsp; It does seem however that this issue comes back to one specific thing.&nbsp; Circuits can and do reconnect.&nbsp; Induction happens.&nbsp; Combine the two and we can account for the equations that have been presented.&nbsp; It is illogical IMO however to refer to this "circuit reconnection" as "magnetic reconnection" because magnetic field lines never "reconnect".&nbsp; It would be logical to refer to the process as "circuit reconnection" and that would be consistent with the equations and also consistent with Maxwell's theories.&nbsp; It's consistent with Alfven's MHD theories too.&nbsp; Changing the word "circuit' to "magnetic" however causes no end of confusion.&nbsp; Magnetic lines are not "reconnecting".&nbsp; The name give the reader a false impression from the very start.&nbsp;&nbsp; IMO that isn't reasonable.&nbsp; There is certainly no logical reason to do that, and certainly no math formula that supports the idea that magnetic fields 'reconnect". &nbsp; IMO it would accurate to call this process "circuit reconnection", but it is scientific inaccurate to call it "magnetic reconnection" because it is impossible for magnetic field to "reconnect" in the first place.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>I even went to all the trouble to read through all the papers that were put to me in an effort to isolate the error or to find the "reason" why they chose to call it 'magnetic reconnection". &nbsp; I still don't see a logical reason for the mainstream to call this 'magnetic reconnection" when clearly it is "circuit reconnection" they are describing in the math.&nbsp; I don't get it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Okee Doke.Michael, end of discussion.&nbsp; If there is a single further continuation of complaining about the use of the term, I WILL lock this thread.&nbsp; Please accept the fact that this "fingernails grating on a chalkboard" term is widely used, as inappropriate as you believe it to be.&nbsp; As long as all of you fully understand the mechanism it describes, and you all are in agreement with what that mechanism is, the semantics are not relevant.THIS IS MY FINAL WARNING. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Fine, I understand.&nbsp; Just know that my previous post was posted before I read this one.&nbsp; I've said about all I can say on the topic of magnetic, er "circuit reconnection" at this point. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I just did that for you DrRocket.&nbsp; Where were you?&nbsp; I just demonstrated that not one single line of the math that you provided to support "magnetic reconnection" actually requires or describes any form of "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>As is your habit, you have demonstrated absolutely nothing.&nbsp; To demonstrate your point you would have to use mathematics, and that&nbsp;requires a literacy in the subject that you have proven yourself to not have.</p><p>I have been here all along.&nbsp; I am still waiting for you to actually demonstrate anything in the language of physics,&nbsp; which is mathematics.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Fine, I understand.&nbsp; Just know that my previous post was posted before I read this one.</p><p>Posted by <em>michaelmozina</em></DIV></p><p>I factor in lag time when I am (on occasion) forced to set lines in the sand like that post.&nbsp; No worries. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I factor in lag time when I am (on occasion) forced to set lines in the sand like that post.&nbsp; No worries. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>That's fine.&nbsp; I just want you to know that I wasn't trying to play any games with you.&nbsp; I hear you and I fully understand where you're coming from.&nbsp; This topic is certainly generating a lot of "heat". &nbsp; I very much appreciate the freedom that I enjoy here and I have no desire to "rock the boat" over this dead magnetic horse. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As is your habit, you have demonstrated absolutely nothing.&nbsp; To demonstrate your point you would have to use mathematics, and that&nbsp;requires a literacy in the subject that you have proven yourself to not have.I have been here all along.&nbsp; I am still waiting for you to actually demonstrate anything in the language of physics,&nbsp; which is mathematics.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>My dear friend DrRocket,</p><p> Believe it or not DrRocket, I am not your enemy nor am I ignorant of math or physics.&nbsp; I am obviously correct that magnetic reconnection is not a unique form of energy release.&nbsp; I even used your own mathematical models to illustrate my point.&nbsp; I pointed out to you that "induction" was introduced in equation 1.4 and that induction doesn't need another name.&nbsp;&nbsp; I noted that this mathematical process you presented also describes a "circuit reconnection" in standard MHD theory and standard electrical theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't really know what else I might offer you since we've already looked at the math and your math doesn't jive with your claim.&nbsp; There is no form of "magnetic reconnection" to be found in your mathematical models and equations.&nbsp; They work perfectly without any form of magnetic reconnection because they are not based on reconnecting magnetic fields, rather they are based upon the electrical and MHD principles of circuit reconnection and induction.&nbsp; These are very well understood processes of electrical theory and MHD theory and they don't need another name.&nbsp; This conversation is now getting riduculously redundant and we're just repeating ourselves at this point.&nbsp; Yevaud is getting tired of this conversation, and I am too, so let's just agree to disagree on this point.&nbsp; I'll let you think about it for awhile and let's allow things cool off a bit. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My dear friend DrRocket, Believe it or not DrRocket, I am not your enemy nor am I ignorant of math or physics.&nbsp; I am obviously correct that magnetic reconnection is not a unique form of energy release.&nbsp; I even used your own mathematical models to illustrate my point.&nbsp; I pointed out to you that "induction" was introduced in equation 1.4 and that induction doesn't need another name.&nbsp;&nbsp; I noted that this mathematical process you presented also describes a "circuit reconnection" in standard MHD theory and standard electrical theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't really know what else I might offer you since we've already looked at the math and your math doesn't jive with your claim.&nbsp; There is no form of "magnetic reconnection" to be found in your mathematical models and equations.&nbsp; They work perfectly without any form of magnetic reconnection because they are not based on reconnecting magnetic fields, rather they are based upon the electrical and MHD principles of circuit reconnection and induction.&nbsp; These are very well understood processes of electrical theory and MHD theory and they don't need another name.&nbsp; This conversation is now getting riduculously redundant and we're just repeating ourselves at this point.&nbsp; Yevaud is getting tired of this conversation, and I am too, so let's just agree to disagree on this point.&nbsp; I'll let you think about it for awhile and let's allow things cool off a bit. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I pointed out to you back on page 40 that your characterization of the assumption made between equations 15 and 16 (it was not equation 14 or 1.4 that was the subject) was flawed and asked you to justify your assertion.&nbsp; You have ignored that request.&nbsp; Your assertion was that a constant E field resulted from the simplifying assumption made.&nbsp; Now somehow you have related that to induction.&nbsp; Please demonstrate the connection using Maxwell's equations.</p><p>My math justifies each and every statement that I have made.&nbsp; You have yet to present any sound mathematical argument whatever.</p><p>You seem to be getting tired of requests for justification of your assertions.&nbsp; I am tired of those requests being ignored.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I pointed out to you back on page 40 that your characterization of the assumption made between equations 15 and 16 (it was not equation 14 or 1.4 that was the subject) was flawed and asked you to justify your assertion.&nbsp; You have ignored that request.&nbsp; Your assertion was that a constant E field resulted from the simplifying assumption made.&nbsp; Now somehow you have related that to induction.&nbsp; Please demonstrate the connection using Maxwell's equations.My math justifies each and every statement that I have made.&nbsp; You have yet to present any sound mathematical argument whatever.You seem to be getting tired of requests for justification of your assertions.&nbsp; I am tired of those requests being ignored.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I just wanted to clerify DrRocket that there are two different papers that I have been refering to.&nbsp; The PPPL paper assumed that the electric field remained constant between equations 15 and 16.&nbsp; That's the first issue.</p><p>Priests definition of magnetic reconnection is a separate issue with a different "problem".&nbsp; In that paper he inserts an equations at 1.4 that is related to "induction".&nbsp;</p><p> I'm not going to restart this discussion, but I did want to clerify that there are two different papers that I have referred to, not just one. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I just wanted to clerify DrRocket that there are two different papers that I have been refering to.&nbsp; The PPPL paper assumed that the electric field remained constant between equations 15 and 16.&nbsp; That's the first issue.Priests definition of magnetic reconnection is a separate issue with a different "problem".&nbsp; In that paper he inserts an equations at 1.4 that is related to "induction".&nbsp; I'm not going to restart this discussion, but I did want to clerify that there are two different papers that I have referred to, not just one. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I'm not sure why you are so stuck on the induction equation.&nbsp; It would seem the induction equation is used as a starting point.&nbsp; What is important is how the equation is solved and which terms are dominate.&nbsp; How you solve the equation tells you what direction you can proceed further.&nbsp; You see this same process with the Einstein Field Equations.&nbsp; There's more than one solution and more than one direction you can proceed.</p><p>Maybe you could enlighten me to what the importance is and why you feel that using this equation doesn't allow for magnetic reconnection.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

I also can't seem to locate any papers on circuit reconnection as they would apply to MHD and space plasmas.&nbsp; Maybe you could point me in the right direction...<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I just wanted to clerify DrRocket that there are two different papers that I have been refering to.&nbsp; The PPPL paper assumed that the electric field remained constant between equations 15 and 16.&nbsp; That's the first issue.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I'm sure just an oversight on your part, but it is the current density (not electric field) they are assuming remains constant (unless I'm looking at a different paper).&nbsp; </p><p>We all see approximations and assumption consistently in scientific papers.&nbsp; I would assume they have good reasons to make these assumptions and approximations.&nbsp; I would only imagine that their definition of assumption and approximation is quite a bit different that the rest of us average folks.</p><p>In your professional opinion, what do you believe the reason is for that assumption?&nbsp; I'm no professional, but from what I can discern is that the current density is such that over the time scales they are using when working with a magnetic reconnection events, it is an unnecessary complication that would essentially have little to no effect.&nbsp; They make approximations and assumptions to avoid unneccesarily complicating an already complicated process.&nbsp;</p><p>I doubt they are assumming because they don't know, trying to hide, or are simply guessing at what changes in the current density might be.&nbsp; I could only imagine the referees of the article would instantly question the reasons for such an absurd assumption.&nbsp;</p><p>The reason I ask is because you seemed to, in quite a few previous posts, focus on the word "assumption". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not sure why you are so stuck on the induction equation.&nbsp; It would seem the induction equation is used as a starting point.&nbsp; What is important is how the equation is solved and which terms are dominate.&nbsp; How you solve the equation tells you what direction you can proceed further.&nbsp; You see this same process with the Einstein Field Equations.&nbsp; There's more than one solution and more than one direction you can proceed.Maybe you could enlighten me to what the importance is and why you feel that using this equation doesn't allow for magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>It demonstrates that the motive force behind the acceleration process is simple induction, not "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp;&nbsp; The induction process kicks in as the topology of the "circuits" change during the reconnection process.&nbsp; </p><p>Rather than whip this dead horse on this forum any further, I am actually going to put together a real paper on this topic and I will submit it to either the APJ or the Science Magazine.&nbsp; I have no illusions about them actually publishing it, but at least I will have gotten all this off my chest.&nbsp; You're welcome to add your two cents and join me if you like. </p><p>IMO, It's critically important that all branches of science speak the same language when it comes to specific use of scientific terms, expecially terms that are directly related to Maxwell's equations and to MHD theory.&nbsp; An electrical engineer (and Alfven qualifies as such) would look at Priests diagrams and his mathematical equations and describe them in terms of "circuits" and "induction". &nbsp; That is how Alfven explained them in MHD theory as well.&nbsp; If astronomers intend to start using their own unique "lingo" to describe what amounts to "circuit reconnection" and "induction", it makes communication between the various fields of sciences very difficult.&nbsp; Magnetic field lines never "reconnect", only "circuits" reconnect according to Maxwell's equations and all electrical engineering principles.&nbsp; Induction is a likely outcome of a topology change in the circuits, and these are used in the definition of magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; To call this whole process of circuit reconnection and induction "magnetic reconnection" is to necessarily confuse "cicuit reconnection" and "induction" as defined in electrical theory with "magnetic reconnection" theory in astronomy.&nbsp; Communication then between electrical engineering, MHD theory and astronomers becomes unnecessarily tedious and frustring as a result.&nbsp; The very term itself is highly misleading because everyone here agrees that magnetic lines don't ever actually reconnect, so it's not actually a "magnetic reconnection" process even according to you folks.&nbsp; We can see that in the equations that were selected by Priest to describe this theory. They are based on circuit reconnection and induction.&nbsp; It would have been scientifically correct to label this "circuit" reconnection, but it is scientifically incorrect to describe this process as "magnetic" reconnection.&nbsp; Magnetic field lines are not reconnecting, just circuits.&nbsp; Induction is just the outcome of the circuit reconnection process. </p><p>Like I said, rather than go through this process on Space.com for another couple of weeks, I rather just write a paper.&nbsp; If you're really interested in reading it, email me and I'll send you a copy when I'm finished.&nbsp; I started on the paper yesterday and I probably have a couple more days of writing before I'm ready to send it to anyone.&nbsp; I will use the diagrams and equations used in Priest's paper to make my point along with everything else I've learned in this discussion.&nbsp; I will also include Alfven's comments on this topic and show how they are consistent with electrical engineering principles, MHD theory, and Maxwell's basic equations, whereas the term "magnetic reconnection" is not compatible with any of them. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I rather just write a paper.&nbsp; If you're really interested in reading it, email me and I'll send you a copy when I'm finished.&nbsp; I started on the paper yesterday and I probably have a couple more days of writing before I'm ready to send it to anyone.&nbsp; I will use the diagrams and equations used in Priest's paper to make my point along with everything else I've learned in this discussion.&nbsp; I will also include Alfven's comments on this topic and show how they are consistent with electrical engineering principles, MHD theory, and Maxwell's basic equations, whereas the term "magnetic reconnection" is not compatible with any of them. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Although I'd be interested to see the paper, I have a feeling the referee(s) won't publish it because all of that doesn't address the concept known as magnetic reconnection, it only deals with the name.&nbsp; If you can create a coherent alternative theory, whether by performing a derivation from fundamental equations like Priest and Schindler/Hesse did, and/or by putting these equations into a simulation that can reproduce the observed results, then maybe you have a shot.&nbsp; I'm not saying that because it is based on EU theory it is unlikely to published, I am only saying that the outline you've provided does not really provide anything new to the community in terms of science.&nbsp; Scientists supporting magnetic reconnection have shown how the process(not the term) are compatible with EE principles, MHD theory and Maxwell's equations, so if(I say if because I haven't read the paper yet, but I'm assuming your arguments will be similar to the ones you have made in this thread) all you are doing is arguing about the name, they will reject it as a rehash of old work.&nbsp; That said, good luck with the submission.</p><p>Also, depending on the length and depth level, you might have better luck submitting it to APJ Letters, but people often submit it to both from what I hear. </p><p>edit:&nbsp; Regarding your question about people adding their opinion/joining you...although getting another publication would be great, I don't think being involved in a paper whose main purpose is to discredit the mainstream and magnetic reconnection would be a good idea. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm sure just an oversight on your part, but it is the current density (not electric field) they are assuming remains constant (unless I'm looking at a different paper).&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Point noted. It was sloppy verbiage on my part.&nbsp; That's two valid nitpicks you come up with in just one week. Stop that! </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We all see approximations and assumption consistently in scientific papers.&nbsp; I would assume they have good reasons to make these assumptions and approximations. </DIV></p><p>Well, that depends entirely upon the validity of the assumptions being made and whether or not they are true.&nbsp; It's pretty clear that the "current flow density" (a better overall term to be sure) is being pinched in this process, and the diameter of the filament is expanding and contracting during this process.&nbsp; It therefore seems highly unlikely that the current density remained constant during the expansion and contraction process.&nbsp; By "assuming" that we can ignore the current density flowing through the z-pinched filament, they eliminated one viable possible way to "explain" these observations, and left only one possible explanation for the sawtooth discharge.&nbsp; That was a very critical assumption on their part.&nbsp; If they were wrong about the current density remaining constant, then the rest of their mathematical presentation is invalid.&nbsp;&nbsp; I saw no explanation of how they justified this "assumption" and the observations they report don't support that assumption IMO.&nbsp; The diameter of the filament was definitely changing during that process, so how exactly did the current density remain constant when the size of the thread increased and decreased during the discharge process?&nbsp; </p><p>Keep in mind that all of this is a "current driven" process from start to finish.&nbsp; Turn off the flow of electrons to the PPPL equipment and nothing is going to occur in the plasma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would only imagine that their definition of assumption and approximation is quite a bit different that the rest of us average folks.</DIV></p><p>I've learned over the years that scientists are not supermen and superwomen.&nbsp; Their assumptions are often wrong and scientists often disagree on any given topic.&nbsp; There are average folks in science too.&nbsp;&nbsp; There's no point in putting anyone on any special pedestals.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In your professional opinion, what do you believe the reason is for that assumption? </DIV></p><p>I don't know.&nbsp; I'd love to hear them come over here and justify that particular assumption.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't see any valid justfication for that particular assumption in these speciific conditions.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm no professional, but from what I can discern is that the current density is such that over the time scales they are using when working with a magnetic reconnection events, </DIV></p><p>You don't have to be a "professional" to understand that there are other ways to explain these events and to understand what assumptions they made in their paper, and to see how these assumptions affected their findings.</p><p>Z-pinch processes in plasma require electrical current to function.&nbsp; The kinetic energy in that filament and the induction processes between different parts of that moving filament may indeed generate heat.&nbsp;&nbsp; "Magnetic reconnect" never happens, at least not in Priest's definition, and no mathematical model supports the idea that magnetic field lines "reconnect".&nbsp; Magnetic reconnection can therefore not be the cause of the heat being generated in the z-pinch filament and the changes in the filaments shape and size affected the current density over time, creating that sawtooth effect in plasma.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>it is an unnecessary complication that would essentially have little to no effect.</DIV></p><p>How do you know that?&nbsp; How do you know that you aren't "oversimplifying" the process?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> They make approximations and assumptions to avoid unneccesarily complicating an already complicated process.</DIV></p><p>Then it is important that any "assumption' the make be justified in some way.&nbsp; Since this is the single most important assumption they made, what was their justfication for making this particular assumption?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I doubt they are assumming because they don't know, trying to hide, or are simply guessing at what changes in the current density might be. </DIV></p><p>On this point, you and I disagree.&nbsp; I don't know how they justified this "assumption"" and I don't believe it is valid.&nbsp; I have never seen any mathematical justification for "magnetic reconnection", just induction and circuit reconnection.&nbsp; I have seen Alfven's presentation of a z-pinch process too, and it almost never involves fully consistent current flow. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I could only imagine the referees of the article would instantly question the reasons for such an absurd assumption.&nbsp;The reason I ask is because you seemed to, in quite a few previous posts, focus on the word "assumption". <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>If the referees questioned this point, why doesn't the paper address this point?&nbsp; It is the single most important "assumption" they made in the paper.&nbsp; Why isn't there any sort of explanation or justification provided to explain how they eliminated current density changes from consideration? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_PostQuote">I'm sure just an oversight on your part, but it is the current density (not electric field) they are assuming remains constant (unless I'm looking at a different paper).&nbsp; </div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Point noted. It was sloppy verbiage on my part.&nbsp; That's two valid nitpicks you come up with in just one week. Stop that! </p><p>&nbsp; Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>This is precisely the point that I asked you to address,&nbsp;and that you subsequently ignored.&nbsp; Your so-called debunking of the&nbsp;paper was based on your assertion that they assumed a constant E field.&nbsp; This is more than just sloppy verbage.&nbsp; You claimed that they ignored the electric field.&nbsp; So your claim to have provided mathematical proof that the paper is in error seems to itself be in error.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Although I'd be interested to see the paper, I have a feeling the referee(s) won't publish it because all of that doesn't address the concept known as magnetic reconnection, it only deals with the name. </DIV></p><p>No, I intend to explain "magnetic reconnection" theory as outlined by Priest and then compare it to an ordinary circuit explaination from the perspective electrical engineering.&nbsp; I will then show Alfven's MHD explanations were based on circuit reconnection theories and then explain why it's critically important to do that based on Maxwell's equations. If you guys can convince Yevaud that it's ok, I will post a link to the paper when it';s done and I will invite criticisms to my paper on this thread.&nbsp; I don't want to do that however is Yevaud and the other moderators are not in agreement, and I'll be happy to email you a link and you can critique it by emial if you like.&nbsp; I am highly interested in your feedback and I would like to 'clean it up" before I submit it. &nbsp; I'd like them to at least consider publishing it and I'm not taking any uncessary "shots" at the mainstream in the presentation.&nbsp; It's just a simple presentation about the need for the consistent use of terms accross all fields of acience, including electrical engineer, MHD theoy and astronomy.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>FYI It is precisely because I have no objections to Preists mathematical models or his diagrams that allows me to focus on the importance of consistency of suse of scientific terms.&nbsp; I have no need to pick apart his math.&nbsp; I just need to show how it relates to ordinary "circuit" reconnection and induction.&nbsp; I will be fair in my presentation and I intend to show that "magnetic reconnection" is an improper use of scientific terms and it would be more appropriate to label this process "circuit reconnection" as Alfven did. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is precisely the point that I asked you to address,&nbsp;and that you subsequently ignored.&nbsp; Your so-called debunking of the&nbsp;paper was based on your assertion that they assumed a constant E field.&nbsp; This is more than just sloppy verbage.&nbsp; You claimed that they ignored the electric field.&nbsp; So your claim to have provided mathematical proof that the paper is in error seems to itself be in error.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Oh, for goodness sake DrRocket. This is why it's pointless to argue this point any further on this forum.&nbsp; I just admitted that this particular post could have been phrased better and I fully explained the rationale behind my concerns&nbsp; You then rationalize that on sloppy use of terms as some excuse to ignore the whole issue entirely.&nbsp;&nbsp; Typical.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, I intend to explain "magnetic reconnection" theory as outlined by Priest and then compare it to an ordinary circuit explaination from the perspective electrical engineering.&nbsp; I will then show Alfven's MHD explanations were based on circuit reconnection theories and then explain why it's critically important to do that based on Maxwell's equations. If you guys can convince Yevaud that ok, I will post a link to the paper when it';s done and I will invite criticisms to my paper on this thread.&nbsp; I don't want to do that however is Yevaud and the other moderators are not in agreement, and I'll be happy to email you a link and you can critique it by emial if you like.&nbsp; I am highly interested in your feedback and I would like to 'clean it up" before I submit it. &nbsp; I'd like them to at least consider publishing it and I'm not taking any uncessary "shots" at the mainstream in the presentation.&nbsp; It's just a simple presentation about the need for the consistent use of terms accross all fields of acience, including electrical engineer, MHD theoy and astronomy.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; FYI It is precisely because I have no objections to Preists mathematical models or his diagrams that allows me to focus on the importance of consistency of suse of scientific terms.&nbsp; I have no need to pick apart his math.&nbsp; I just need to show how it relates to ordinary "circuit" reconnection and induction.&nbsp; I will be fair in my presentation and I intend to show that "magnetic reconnection" is an improper use of scientific terms and it would be more appropriate to label this process "circuit reconnection" as Alfven did. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;I don't see how anyone could object to your posting a link to a draft of a paper that is to be submitted for publication.&nbsp; I would love to see it.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh, for goodness sake DrRocket. This is why it's pointless to argue this point any further on this forum.&nbsp; I just admitted that this particular post could have been phrased better and I fully explained the rationale behind my concerns&nbsp; You then rationalize that on sloppy use of terms as some excuse to ignore the whole issue entirely.&nbsp;&nbsp; Typical.&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No, I asked you earlier and again here to take the words in the paper as they are written and present your objection.&nbsp; I am simply asking that you present&nbsp; your case against what they actually said.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, I asked you earlier and again here to take the words in the paper as they are written and present your objection.&nbsp; I am simply asking that you present&nbsp; your case against what they actually said. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Yes, and in my post to Derek I just did that, and you didn't respond to the points I made or the logical scientific concerns that I raised?&nbsp; Why not? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>Thus far eveything I've written relates to Priest's work, his diagrams, his mathematical models and his use of terms and how that compares and contrasts to the use of term in electrical theory and Alfven's views on plasma physics.&nbsp;</p><p> I'm debating on whether or not I should even mention the PPPL experiment and wheither I should mention the criticisms I have specfied of that experiment because it is the only true "experiment" done on this topic and it reports to support the idea of magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; I am concerned that adding this issue to the paper will only distract from the primary argument about the consistent use of terms in science, but I am equally concerned that if I do not include any mention of this experiment that the paper will be seen as incomplete.&nbsp; Suggestions?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thus far eveything I've written relates to Priest's work, his diagrams, his mathematical models and his use of terms and how that compares and contrasts to the use of term in electrical theory and Alfven's views on plasma physics.&nbsp; I'm debating on whether or not I should even mention the PPPL experiment and wheither I should mention the criticisms I have specfied of that experiment because it is the only true "experiment" done on this topic and it reports to support the idea of magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; I am concerned that adding this issue to the paper will only distract from the primary argument about the consistent use of terms in science, but I am equally concerned that if I do not include any mention of this experiment that the paper will be seen as incomplete.&nbsp; Suggestions? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Well, there are quite a few experiments done on reconnection in tokamak reactors.&nbsp; If you were going to include the experiments in the paper, it would be better to comment on the process they all use in these reactors in general, rather than a specific experiment.&nbsp; That is, explain why what they observe in Tokamaks could be supposedly explained using circuit theory.&nbsp; For example, in the Hesse/Schindler derivation they say that they don't believe reconnection can occur(basically) in toroidal magnetic field configurations due to certain instabilities, but from what I've read, the Tokamak experiments deal with toroidal magnetic fields.&nbsp; Now, I would say that Hesse/Schindler, having written the paper in 1988, may disagree with their earlier statement now given the advent of more sophisticated modeling, but it might be something you would want to look into.&nbsp; And it would give you more credibility in the eyes of the referees by including more than one mathematical derivation.&nbsp; I would say a way to certainly get some attention is show that Euler potentials can be used to describe circuit theory, but I've been trying for a couple days to understand the physics behind that derivation and I'm stumped.&nbsp; Derivations are simply not my area of expertise. &nbsp;</p><p>That said, I'm not sure if the experiment should be included in your argument or not.&nbsp; On one hand, it is necessary to provide a complete argument against reconnection, but on the other hand, it is not entirely relevant to your argument.&nbsp; Perhaps just a short comment on the idea of reconnection experiments in tokamak reactors would be appropriate. &nbsp;</p><p>Regardless of how I feel about all this, I do hope to see it published, if only to generate conversations with people who would normally not give this argument any time of day. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>