Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Bzzt.&nbsp; Actually I own both books DrRocket, and I have at least read many parts of the earlier book.&nbsp; I tend to reference Cosmic Plasma however because it represents his work in EU theory and that is mostly what I diecuss online.&nbsp; It also represents an *evolution* in his understanding of plasma physics over the years, and he addresses many of the same issues we've been discussing online, including those "circuits" that you tried to claim were not associated with plasma physics.&nbsp; Gah!FYI Cosmic Plasma is every bit as "scientific" and informative as his earlier work.&nbsp; The fact you won't bother to read it, yet attempt to play devils advocate against EU theory only makes you look absurd.&nbsp; You shouldn't be claiming that plasma doesn't have "wires" or "circuits".&nbsp; You should already understand these principles of plasma physics.&nbsp; I should not have to babysit you on these issues DrRocket.&nbsp;&nbsp; Circuits are *absolutely* a part of plasma physics.&nbsp; You shouldn't have the slightest doubt about this point and I should not have been required to correect you. The fact I always have to correct you makes you angry and it leads to a viscious cycle of hurt feelings.&nbsp;&nbsp; Go get a real education on EU theory if you expect to continue to debate me on the merits of EU theory.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If you refuse to do that, you're forever going to be angry at me for having to correct your basic mistakes.&nbsp; It's irrational for you to do that and we're both paying a price for your stubborness.&nbsp; Our conversations should go a lot smoother, but when you claim circuits aren't a part of plasma physics, I want to scream.&nbsp; You don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to plasma in space because you've never read the book that actually explained it.&nbsp;&nbsp; You think you know something about plasma physics based on what you've read, but then you say outrageously false things all the time.There are "wires" and "circuits" in plasma that are composed of twister-like moving filaments in the plasma.&nbsp;&nbsp; The z-pinch process is a direct result of the E field.&nbsp; The helix shape is a classic Birkeland current, something Birkeland himself wrote about over 100 years ago.&nbsp; I should not have to explain this to you, you should already know it based on the *free* PDF files I have provided you with.&nbsp; If you don't read them, I then have to continue to state the obvious, over and over and over again.&nbsp; It makes our conversations tedious and annoying for both of us.At least read *all* his work if you're going to critique it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Otherwise you sound ridiculous. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have corrected absolutely nothing and have done no more than make substantiated statements.&nbsp; You have yet to discuss any physics in terms of physics, because that would also require mathematics.&nbsp; Circuit theory is a lumped paramater low frequency approximation to Maxwell's equations, and you can see that approximation developed in any good book on electromagnetism.&nbsp; Since you keep referencing electrical engineering I suggest that you look at Hayt's book <em>Engineering Electromagnetics</em> to see the derivation.&nbsp; There are still no circuits and wires in a plasma and any reference to such is an approximatioin to circuit theory, which makes it an approximation within an approximation and therefore requires justification and careful attention to the underlying assumptions.&nbsp; Sometimes analagies like that are useful.&nbsp; And sometimes they are quite misleading. &nbsp;It is often quite a bit easier to just go back to the fundamentals in such a situation.&nbsp;</p><p>You don't have to explain anything to me.&nbsp; You in fact have not explained anything at all in this thread, preferring instead to focus on semantics and avoid physics and mathematics entirely.&nbsp; Go right ahead and scream.&nbsp; Then pick up a physics text and throw in a little math.&nbsp; Or if you wish you can use Alfven's later book to try to frame your own arguments in terms of real physics, but you have not done that so far.&nbsp; But be careful with "evolved" thoughts, and be able to distinguish appropriate evolution from mistaken mutation.&nbsp; </p><p>Since the fundamental topic was magnetic reconnection and not EU nonsense per se, one would think that Alfven's work on plasma physics and electrodynamics in his original book (which you may own but which you did not seem to recognize when the title originally came up) ought to do nicely.&nbsp; It discusses real physics and not EU theory.&nbsp; In fact it discusses the work for which Alfven actually received the Nobel Prize that you seem to want to bring up at every turn, relevant or not.</p><p>I have a real education.&nbsp; I am not the one who dropped out of the electrical engineering curriculum.&nbsp; I am conversant with both circuit theory and field theory, so feel free to frame your points in terms of either, correctly applied, or any other serious physical theories, if you can.&nbsp; The subject was the relationship between modern theories of magnetic reconnection and Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; You have failed to address either of those topics in terms of basic physics and its implications.</p><p>If you have a serious argument for your case based in real physics then let's see it.&nbsp; But quoting a title of a chapter from a relatively obscure book is not a scientific argument.&nbsp; You are again relying on semantics&nbsp; when instead you ought to be discussing physics.&nbsp; So let's see the physics.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've had a little bit to drink(give me a break, it's Florida football gameday), ..Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>In case you get bored and want to see some real football:<br /><br />http://www.lsusports.net/SportSelect.dbml?&SPID=2164</p><p>and a top-notch mascot</p><p>http://www.mikethetiger.com/index.php?display=tigercam</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>But at least you are in the right conference.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In case you get bored and want to see some real football:http://www.lsusports.net/SportSelect.dbml?&SPID=2164and a top-notch mascothttp://www.mikethetiger.com/index.php?display=tigercamBut at least you are in the right conference. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Haha, I'll concede the fact that our mascot is pretty lame, but come on.&nbsp; Sorry, I hate LSU more than any other SEC team...I think our performance against who Hawaii, who, except for their loss of Brennan, wasn't that bad of a team, speaks for itself.&nbsp; 56-10, when 10 of Hawaiis points were scored in the last few minutes of the game when Florida had its backups in.&nbsp; I'm not sure if LSU comes to the swamp this season, but if they do they better watch out </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Haha, I'll concede the fact that our mascot is pretty lame, but come on.&nbsp; Sorry, I hate LSU more than any other SEC team...I think our performance against who Hawaii, who, except for their loss of Brennan, wasn't that bad of a team, speaks for itself.&nbsp; 56-10, when 10 of Hawaiis points were scored in the last few minutes of the game when Florida had its backups in.&nbsp; I'm not sure if LSU comes to the swamp this season, but if they do they better watch out <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Your humiliation on your home field is scheduled for 11 October.</p><p>Glad you beat Hawaii.&nbsp; I don't they are SEC material though.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[trumptor]

Ok, now I've been trying to follow some of this thread, but have forgot a lot from the days when I took electrical engineering courses, which I regret. Can someone tell me in which universe will my TV keep working? That's the one I vote for. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font color="#0000ff">______________</font></em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about.</font></em></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp; The z-pinch process is a direct result of the E field.&nbsp; The helix shape is a classic Birkeland current, something Birkeland himself wrote about over 100 years ago.&nbsp; I should not have to explain this to you, you should already know it based on the *free* PDF files I have provided you with.&nbsp; If you don't read them, I then have to continue to state the obvious, over and over and over again.&nbsp; It makes our conversations tedious and annoying for both of us.At least read *all* his work if you're going to critique it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Otherwise you sound ridiculous. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Maybe you ought to explain it to yourself.&nbsp; The z-pinch, like all Bennet pinches is primarily an interaction between the moving charged particles and the MAGNETIC field.&nbsp; The E-field is rather secondary and&nbsp;serves to drive the current.&nbsp; The confinement is provided by the magnetic field that is created.&nbsp; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch</p><p>You might try reading section 10.5 in Jackson's <em>Classical Electrodynamics.</em> </p><p>Or you might try reading something&nbsp;by Hannes Alfven.&nbsp; Here is Alfven's view from <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics,</em> which is fully consistent with mainstream physics.</p><p>"Another simple example is proveded by the 'pinch' configuration, that is, a plasma column with an axial current and an associated azimuthal magnetic field.&nbsp; The magnetic force, which is directed radially inwards, is balanced by a pressure gradient.&nbsp; We assum for simplicity that the fluid is incompressible and has infinite conductivity.&nbsp; If a local constriction occurs, the current density and the azimuthal magnetic field are locally increased.&nbsp; The 'pinching force&nbsp; (<strong>i</strong>/c) X <strong>B</strong> is therefore larger at the constriction.&nbsp; As a consequence the the constriction defelops further (the fluid being pushed aside axially to build expansions on either side)."</p><p>Or,</p><p>"Consider a cylindrical fully ionized plasma column in an axial electric field <strong>E </strong>whic produces an axial current. Fig. 5.11.&nbsp; Thie axial current i s associated with an azimuthal magnetic field.&nbsp; The current flowing across its own magnetic field exerts a force (<strong>i</strong>/c) X <strong>B</strong>, which is directed radially inward, and causes the plasma to be compressed towards the axis (hence the name 'pinch effect').&nbsp; In equilibrium between the compressing electromagnetic force and the pressure of the plasma ..."</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>One would expect the magnetic field to dominate in this situation since many if not most plasmas are electrically neutral on all but the smallest scales.&nbsp; Hence the electric field is generally relatively small.&nbsp; Any large charge separations are quickly neutralized as the mobile charges move under the enormous electric forces that would develop. &nbsp;</p><p>The role of the electric field is simply to provide a potential to create the current that creates the magnetic field which is what&nbsp;dominates the Lorentz force to create&nbsp;pinch effect itself (that is the&nbsp; (<strong>i</strong>/c) X <strong>B</strong> term in Alfven's narrative)&nbsp;<strong>.</strong>&nbsp; Your statement as to the nature of the pinch effect is a rather gross distortion of the real physics involved, apparently intended to bolster your continual emphasis on the E field.&nbsp; In this case both fields are required, but the bulk of the effect is due to the magnetic component.&nbsp; If anyone looks ridiculous it is most certainly you.&nbsp; Maybe you ought to read some of Alven's mathematics instead of just looking at the pictures. </p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is pitiful that they prattle on about inflation, dark energy, etc, and yet one cannot discuss the full content of Birkeland's emrpical experiments beyond 30 days.&nbsp; Pitiful. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>This is an overdramatized, oversimplified statement.&nbsp; Birkeland's experiments and Birkeland current are well within mainstream science and I have no doubt they can be discussed.&nbsp; You are well aware of the rules.&nbsp; I won't discuss this further. </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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080828172835.htm <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>From the link and line you bolded:</p><p>"<font color="#0000ff"><em><strong>The results show polarization with an electric vector aligned with the spin axis of the neutron star,</strong> demonstrating that a significant fraction of the high energy electrons responsible for the polarized photons are produced in a highly ordered structure close to the pulsar.</em></font>" </p><p>Do you understand what they are saying or are you simply relating the word "electric" to everything Electric Universe?</p><p><strong><u>NewScientist article</u></strong></p><p>"<font color="#0000ff"><em>Some of these particles &ndash; mainly electrons &ndash; emit high-energy radiation, in the form of X-rays and gamma rays, when they are <strong>accelerated by magnetic fields in the region</strong>. But it has been unclear where this acceleration is taking place.</em></font>" </p><p>"<em><font color="#0000ff">The new study's <strong>insights about the magnetic field "engine" that accelerates particles</strong> will help researchers infer what powers more distant, dimmer objects, he says: "Pulsars and their surrounding regions are examples of physics under extreme conditions. Anything you can do to learn about how they work helps us understand the basic physics of particle acceleration and magnetic field generation."</font></em>"</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I guess I don't understand the point you are trying to make considering you didn't make one.&nbsp; I can highlight sentences in articles, too.&nbsp;</p><p>&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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is an overdramatized, oversimplified statement. </DIV></p><p>Er, no, it's not.&nbsp; IF you read the rules, you will see that *every* topic related to EU theory is treated to the "30 day" rule, and Birkeland's empircal work is at the heart of that theory.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The moment you discuss the charge separation between the photosphere and heliopshere and the electrical activity in the solar atmosphere, it gets dumped into the ATM forum and has a "30 day" time limit.&nbsp; EVeryone who could actually explain Birikeland's experiments in full detail, including his coronal loop simulations, his planetary rings, and his "circuit reonnection" model has already been banned from there for being a "heretic". &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkeland's experiments and Birkeland current are well within mainstream science</DIV></p><p>Not exactly.&nbsp; Some aspects of his work is considered "mainstream" scince, but not all of it.&nbsp; In other words, the "circuit reconnection" model he produced is never discussed in "mainstream" publications, unless you consider Schindler, Birn et all's presentation to be a representation of "circuit reconnection" by a different name.&nbsp; The problem is that anything that directly relates the eletrical field side of his work, and the *external currents* that are required to make it function are simply shunned and ignored by the mainstream.&nbsp; Birkland's work necessitated an *external* power source to drive the solar atmospheric events that he simulated, including coronal loops and aurora.&nbsp; The polarity of the surface of the sphere was critical as it related to the electral interactions observed in the atmosphere, but both of them required external "current flow" to work properly.&nbsp; The mainstream doesn't want to embrace an external power source, so those parts of his theories are ignored and treated as heresy in some circles, including important publishing channels.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> and I have no doubt they can be discussed.<br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Prove it.&nbsp; Go start a thread over there related to Birkeland's use of *external energy sources* and how that external energy source affected his experiments and let's see how long they let stay open.&nbsp; That's assuming of course that it isn't already like one of previous conversations on this topic, in which case they'll close it immediately.&nbsp;</p><p>When you're done, explain to me why EU threads are treated to the "witch hunt" mentality, whereas "dark energy" discussions get a free ride?&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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe you ought to explain it to yourself.&nbsp; The z-pinch, like all Bennet pinches is primarily an interaction between the moving charged particles and the MAGNETIC field. </DIV></p><p>The magnetic fields serve to "pinch" the "current flow" into tightly wound spirals of tornado force kinetic energy at the particle physics level.&nbsp; Yes, you are correct that the mangnetic field "pinches" the "current flow", but the "current flow" is the force that generates the "magnetic field" in the first place.&nbsp; Turn off the circuit and the magnetic field will disippate and the current flow scatters itself into the plasma around it.&nbsp; The magnetic field is a function of the current flow.&nbsp; The E and B fields are "parallell", but they don't follow a straight line. They form a classic Birkeland current shape inside the plasma of "flowing moving particles" containing vast amounts of kinetic energy.&nbsp; When the voltage is high enough and the pinch is strong enough, the particles start to collide and neutrons can get "pinched" right out of the plasma ions. &nbsp; Coincidently Rhsssi observes both neutron capture signatures *and* it observes gamma rays from the solar atmosphere, both of which has been linked directly back to "current flow" and "z-pinch" process in laboratory plasma, or in discharges in Earth's atmosphere.&nbsp; </p><p>All of these events, including the magnetic field, require *current flow* and those flowing particles contain the "stored energy" of the magnetic field.&nbsp;&nbsp; The magnetic field "stores" this energy by "pinching" it into tightly wound, high kinetic energy filaments that travers the plasma creating "circuits" inside the plasma.&nbsp; These "circuits" can indeed "reconnect", but it's an electrical and particle reconnection process, not a "magnetic reconnection" process. </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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I guess I don't understand the point you are trying to make considering you didn't make one.&nbsp; I can highlight sentences in articles, too.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the importance of the electric field is only now being understood by the mainstream.&nbsp; Even though Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven and Peratt all required external currents in their understanding of the plasma physicsal interactions in space, the mainstream is still way behind the times in terms of understand what's going on in space. &nbsp;</p><p>In some ways this is a very encouraging sign from my perspective. The mainstream *is* beginning to understand the importance of the E field, not just the B field in how these energy exchanges in plasma occur.&nbsp; Calling these particle interactions "magnetic reconnection" however is confusing and unnecessary.&nbsp; These are kinetic energy transfers at a particle physical level.&nbsp; The full circuit must be understood to understand the interaction process, and the only "reconnection" happening is kinetic and electrical in nature.</p><p>I'm encouraged to see the mainstream articles actually mentioning the importance of the E field.&nbsp; I"m simply dismayed they refer to these energy exchanges between particles as "magnetic reconnection". That's just bound to create confusion between electrical engineers and astronomers and any else who's trying to understand these "circuit reconnection' events. </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'>Ok, now I've been trying to follow some of this thread, but have forgot a lot from the days when I took electrical engineering courses, which I regret. Can someone tell me in which universe will my TV keep working? That's the one I vote for. <br /> Posted by trumptor</DIV></p><p>The would be the one that uses "circuit reconnection"&nbsp; and "current flow" to power your television. </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'>The magnetic fields serve to "pinch" the "current flow" into tightly wound spirals of tornado force kinetic energy at the particle physics level.&nbsp; Yes, you are correct that the mangnetic field "pinches" the "current flow", but the "current flow" is the force that generates the "magnetic field" in the first place.&nbsp; Turn off the circuit and the magnetic field will disippate and the current flow scatters itself into the plasma around it.&nbsp; The magnetic field is a function of the current flow.&nbsp; The E and B fields are "parallell", but they don't follow a straight line. They form a classic Birkeland current shape inside the plasma of "flowing moving particles" containing vast amounts of kinetic energy.&nbsp; When the voltage is high enough and the pinch is strong enough, the particles start to collide and neutrons can get "pinched" right out of the plasma ions. &nbsp; Coincidently Rhsssi observes both neutron capture signatures *and* it observes gamma rays from the solar atmosphere, both of which has been linked directly back to "current flow" and "z-pinch" process in laboratory plasma, or in discharges in Earth's atmosphere.&nbsp; All of these events, including the magnetic field, require *current flow* and those flowing particles contain the "stored energy" of the magnetic field.&nbsp;&nbsp; The magnetic field "stores" this energy by "pinching" it into tightly wound, high kinetic energy filaments that travers the plasma creating "circuits" inside the plasma.&nbsp; These "circuits" can indeed "reconnect", but it's an electrical and particle reconnection process, not a "magnetic reconnection" process. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The E and B fields are generally not parallel.&nbsp; The current flow is typically parallel at a large scale to the E field, although there can be gyration (the helical current flow that you associate with Birkeland and which is due to the Lorentz force).&nbsp; However, the major factor in confinement is the component of the B field that is perpendicular to that flow and to the E field.&nbsp; While there can be non-zero components that are parallel to one another, the net fields will not be. In fact if the current flow were parallel to the B-field then the (<strong>i</strong>/c) X <strong>B</strong> force would be zero, since the vector cross-product between parallel vectors is zero.</p><p>You attempt to resolve physics through the use of semantics, as usual, falls short of the mark.&nbsp; And one again I must caution you that the stored energy is demonstrably in the field and not in the particles themselves.&nbsp; In fact you can show that the energy in flowing current is carried in the electromagnetic field and not&nbsp;by the electrons in the wires.&nbsp; To see the analysis I refer you to <em>The Feynman Lectures on Physics. </em></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have corrected absolutely nothing</DIV></p><p>You mean besides your *lame* comment about plasma not containinng "circuits", your claim that plasma can't be modelled as having "wires"? &nbsp; You mean besides the fact I had to point out to you that chapter three of Comic Plasma is entitled "Circuits"?&nbsp; The fact you don't comprehend the importance of circuits in plasma physics is absolutely appauling. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and have done no more than make substantiated statements.&nbsp; You have yet to discuss any physics in terms of physics, because that would also require mathematics.</DIV></p><p>The problem is that mathematical and conceptual understanding at the particle physicsl level do not necessarily go hand in hand.&nbsp; You seem to have a great grasp of the basic equations, yet no concept at all at what is occrung at the level of particle physics.&nbsp; You don't seem to understand the mechanics of how it works. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Circuit theory is a lumped paramater low frequency approximation to Maxwell's equations, and you can see that approximation developed in any good book on electromagnetism.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Indeed, which is what makes that eariler circuit comment of yours so ridiculous.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since you keep referencing electrical engineering I suggest that you look at Hayt's book Engineering Electromagnetics to see the derivation.&nbsp; There are still no circuits and wires in a plasma and any reference to such is an approximatioin to circuit theory, which makes it an approximation within an approximation and therefore requires justification and careful attention to the underlying assumptions.</DIV></p><p>Yes, and Alfven was very clear when you needed to use a circuit analogy, specifcally in relationship to current carrying plasma.&nbsp; The fact you have some problem with the concept is irrational.&nbsp; The guy that wrote the theory specifically and intentonally applied these tersm to MHD theory and specifically in reference to current carrying plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Sometimes analagies like that are useful.&nbsp; And sometimes they are quite misleading.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Talk about rationalizations.&nbsp; Somehow it's "ok"" in your mind to use "monopoles" to convey useful information about plasma, but it's not ok to use the term "circuit" or "wire", even though Alfven explictily used the term "circuit" in many papers and in Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp; What's "misleading" is calling "particle and electrical reconnection", "magnetic reconnection" and then trying to use "monopoles" to just that theory.&nbsp; Gah!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is often quite a bit easier to just go back to the fundamentals in such a situation.</DIV></p><p>Indeed.&nbsp; It is fundamental that we consider the particle physical processes that occur at the point of "reconnection' in plasma.&nbsp; Only particles and electricity can 'reconnect" at the level. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You don't have to explain anything to me.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Yes, evidently I do because you seem to reject basic tenets of MHD theory, including the use of "circuits" when describing current carrying plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You in fact have not explained anything at all in this thread, preferring instead to focus on semantics and avoid physics and mathematics entirely. </DIV></p><p>Actually, that's not true.&nbsp; I specifically did look at the "physics" of what each of these papers proposed.&nbsp; One proposed "monopoles" which was absolutely absurd IMO, and one actually explained the real physical processes and never ignored the role of the E field as did Priest's explanation.&nbsp; I have specifically paid close attention to the physical model being described because I do understand how it works at the physical level.&nbsp; An ordinary plasma ball and a few nighs of reading can explain that much.&nbsp; I can assure you that the Birkeland currents in my plasma ball don't use monopole sources. &nbsp;&nbsp; They do require "current flow" and magnetic containment.&nbsp; Anytime one of these current carrying threads "reconnects" with any other current carrying thread, it is an example of "circuit reconnection" inside plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Go right ahead and scream.&nbsp; Then pick up a physics text and throw in a little math.</DIV></p><p>I handed you an entire book written by the Nobel Prize winning author of this theory and you simply refuse to read it.&nbsp; I offered you another book from Peratt, Alfven's first generation student and you refused to even discuss it.&nbsp; I offered you all sorts of material on this topic and you utterly and completely refuse to study it.&nbsp; I"m not your math mommy DrRocket.&nbsp; The math is there, and so is the physical description.&nbsp; You'll find it on page 22 and 23 of Comsic Plasma, entitled "Pinch Effect.&nbsp; The Bennett Relation".&nbsp; When you read it, let me know.</p><p>All the rest of this stuff is just pointless ego posturing. &nbsp; You clearly do not seem to appreciate tha kinetic energy contained in the thread that is "stored" in the thread via "magnetic containment" of the current flow.&nbsp; The "stored magnetic energy" you're percieving is simply particle kinetic energy in particles and/or photons.&nbsp; There is no form of "magnetic reconnection" occuring at the partilce physical level, just "particle reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" at the point of the "short circuit" between the two circuits. </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'>The E and B fields are generally not parallel.&nbsp; The current flow is typically parallel at a large scale to the E field, although there can be gyration (the helical current flow that you associate with Birkeland and which is due to the Lorentz force).&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>The kinetic energy of the particles moving in the direction of the current flow are directly related to the total circuit energy.&nbsp; The magnetic field is acting to "store" the kinetic energy into a confined, and tightly wound tornado inside the plasma.&nbsp; When the two "tornados" interact, the circuit energy will have a giantic effect on the outcome of this short circuit event.&nbsp; The magnetic field "stores" the kinetic energy in terms of moving particles that resemble a tornado.&nbsp; The kinetic energy would still need to diseppate somewhere once the circuit is cut, just as an atmospheric tornado would have to dissipate once we cut off the outside air pressure. &nbsp; The "storage" of energy is kinetic in nature, in this case it's inside the spricallying plasma particles.&nbsp; The whole process is a kinetic transfer of energy that involves two "circuits" that "reconnect".&nbsp; The only thing that can reconnect in plasma is plasma.&nbsp; It's a kinetic energy transfier between "physical particles", not a "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; The circuits provide the energy and they do "reconnect", but the magnetic lines never disconect or reconnect to anything during this process.&nbsp; It's particle physics process involving tornado filaments in plasma.&nbsp; Period.</p><p>The other thing you mentioned here that is noteworthy is the point about "being careful" in our approach to MHD theory. &nbsp; Alfven "carefully" set boundaries related to the logical properties of plasma.&nbsp; He treated dense, non current carrying plasma in terms of the B field, becausee often that field played a more important role in the ideas he was trying to convey.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>On the other hand, when he discussed "current carrrying" plasma, he explicity and specifically switched to a "particle" (particle physisc) perspetive and used the term "circuits" to describe in current sheet energy exchanges.&nbsp; This was intentional on his part so as to avoid any confusion between eletrical engineering ideas, and standard MHD theory.</p><p>By using the term "magnetic reconnection", the astronomy industry is unleashing a Pandora's box of misconceptions and translations problems that seem to be directly affecting this conversation as well as any conversation about the physical interactions inside of plasma.&nbsp; MHD theory as Alfven taught it, intentially used a "particle" theory when describing events in current carrying plasma so that everyone explicityly understood the role of kinetic energy in this process.&nbsp; I think it would very wise to go back to the use of terms that Alfven used to describe these events.&nbsp; It would avoid the very confusion that you and I are now experiencing in trying to convey our ideas.&nbsp; We both know that "magnetic lines" are not "reconnecting" in these tornado-like filaments, just the particles and the "circuts" that make them form inside the plasma.&nbsp; It therefore makes a lot more sense to use the terminology that Alfen used, specifically "circuit" and avoid all this unnecessary confusion. </p><p>The B field is only acting to "confine" the thread.&nbsp; The force of energy through the thread is related to the "circuit energy", not just the B field.&nbsp; The B field is only part of the total equation.&nbsp; The circuit energy and E must be explicly deal with which is why Birn's approach is so much better.&nbsp; Even still I suspect he's going to agree with me that this process could rightfully be called "circuit reconnection", just as easily as "magnetic reconnection". The fact you don't agree only demonstrates that fact that use of scientific terms is highly important and confusion reigns supreme when we don't pay attentilon to labeling details.&nbsp; The fact that other names that the astronomy uses are equally confusing only demonstrates the need for change within that industry as it relates to it's use of scientific terms and labels. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></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'>The kinetic energy of the particles moving in the direction of the current flow are directly related to the total circuit energy.&nbsp; The magnetic field is acting to "store" the kinetic energy into a confined, and tightly wound tornado inside the plasma.&nbsp; When the two "tornados" interact, the circuit energy will have a giantic effect on the outcome of this short circuit event.&nbsp; The magnetic field "stores" the kinetic energy in terms of moving particles that resemble a tornado.&nbsp; The kinetic energy would still need to diseppate somewhere once the circuit is cut, just as an atmospheric tornado would have to dissipate once we cut off the outside air pressure. &nbsp; The "storage" of energy is kinetic in nature, in this case it's inside the spricallying plasma particles.&nbsp; The whole process is a kinetic transfer of energy that involves two "circuits" that "reconnect".&nbsp; The only thing that can reconnect in plasma is plasma.&nbsp; It's a kinetic energy transfier between "physical particles", not a "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; The circuits provide the energy and they do "reconnect", but the magnetic lines never disconect or reconnect to anything during this process.&nbsp; It's particle physics process involving tornado filaments in plasma.&nbsp; Period.The other thing you mentioned here that is noteworthy is the point about "being careful" in our approach to MHD theory. &nbsp; Alfven "carefully" set boundaries related to the logical properties of plasma.&nbsp; He treated dense, non current carrying plasma in terms of the B field, becausee often that field played a more important role in the ideas he was trying to convey.&nbsp;&nbsp;On the other hand, when he discussed "current carrrying" plasma, he explicity and specifically switched to a "particle" (particle physisc) perspetive and used the term "circuits" to describe in current sheet energy exchanges.&nbsp; This was intentional on his part so as to avoid any confusion between eletrical engineering ideas, and standard MHD theory.By using the term "magnetic reconnection", the astronomy industry is unleashing a Pandora's box of misconceptions and translations problems that seem to be directly affecting this conversation as well as any conversation about the physical interactions inside of plasma.&nbsp; MHD theory as Alfven taught it, intentially used a "particle" theory when describing events in current carrying plasma so that everyone explicityly understood the role of kinetic energy in this process.&nbsp; I think it would very wise to go back to the use of terms that Alfven used to describe these events.&nbsp; It would avoid the very confusion that you and I are now experiencing in trying to convey our ideas.&nbsp; We both know that "magnetic lines" are not "reconnecting" in these tornado-like filaments, just the particles and the "circuts" that make them form inside the plasma.&nbsp; It therefore makes a lot more sense to use the terminology that Alfen used, specifically "circuit" and avoid all this unnecessary confusion. The B field is only acting to "confine" the thread.&nbsp; The force of energy through the thread is related to the "circuit energy", not just the B field.&nbsp; The B field is only part of the total equation.&nbsp; The circuit energy and E must be explicly deal with which is why Birn's approach is so much better.&nbsp; Even still I suspect he's going to agree with me that this process could rightfully be called "circuit reconnection", just as easily as "magnetic reconnection". The fact you don't agree only demonstrates that fact that use of scientific terms is highly important and confusion reigns supreme when we don't pay attentilon to labeling details.&nbsp; The fact that other names that the astronomy uses are equally confusing only demonstrates the need for change within that industry as it relates to it's use of scientific terms and labels. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Prove it with real physics and real mathematics, not just a torrent of words.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... The force of energy through the thread is related to the "circuit energy", not just the B field.&nbsp; The B field is only part of the total equation.&nbsp; The circuit energy and E must be explicly deal with which is why Birn's approach is so much better.&nbsp;...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>What are you talking about?&nbsp; There is no such thin as the "force of energy".&nbsp; Energy and force are not the same thing, and require the notion of length to even evidence a relationship.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the importance of the electric field is only now being understood by the mainstream.&nbsp; Even though Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven and Peratt all required external currents in their understanding of the plasma physicsal interactions in space, the mainstream is still way behind the times in terms of understand what's going on in space. &nbsp;In some ways this is a very encouraging sign from my perspective. The mainstream *is* beginning to understand the importance of the E field, not just the B field in how these energy exchanges in plasma occur.&nbsp; Calling these particle interactions "magnetic reconnection" however is confusing and unnecessary.&nbsp; These are kinetic energy transfers at a particle physical level.&nbsp; The full circuit must be understood to understand the interaction process, and the only "reconnection" happening is kinetic and electrical in nature.I'm encouraged to see the mainstream articles actually mentioning the importance of the E field.&nbsp; I"m simply dismayed they refer to these energy exchanges between particles as "magnetic reconnection". That's just bound to create confusion between electrical engineers and astronomers and any else who's trying to understand these "circuit reconnection' events. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">I believe that Yveaud and the rest of us had it wrong in thinking that our discussion of magnetic reconnection had boiled down to an issue of terminology.<span>&nbsp; </span>I believe that I now see what you are trying to do in relating magnetic phenomena to circuit and &ldquo;electrical&rdquo; phenomena.<span>&nbsp; </span>The issue here is not semantics, but rather fundamental physics.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">Circuit theory is an approximation to Maxwell&rsquo;s equations that is extremely useful when applied correctly, but it is not universally applicable.<span>&nbsp; </span>Circuit theory is based on a few simple lumped circuit elements &ndash;the resisistor, inductor, and capacitor with voltage and current sources in the case of passive circuits &ndash; and Kirkoff&rsquo;s laws.<span>&nbsp; </span>Kirkoff&rsquo;s voltage law states that the voltage drop around any closed loop is zero and the current entering a node is equal to the current leaving the node.<span>&nbsp; </span>The voltage law is an approximation to Maxwell&rsquo;s equation that </span><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><dl><dd></dd><dd>&nbsp;<img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/c/a/9cab6787646062d6e658cd1e83ad468f.png" alt="
abla imes mathbf{E} = - frac{partialmathbf{B}} {partial t}" /> </dd></dl></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">which assumes that magnetic coupling to the circuit can be neglected so that<span>&nbsp; </span>the magnetic field term can be assumed to be 0 and then E, being curl free is the gradient of a potential (the voltage) and<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>hence the line integral around a closed loop is zero.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">This is a good approximation for most circuit problems since usually the physical dimensions of a circuit are small with respect to the wavelengths of any electromagnetic waves that are generated by the circuit (the low frequency approximation). </span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">But circuit theory does not reflect the real physics of phenomena that occur on a large scale.<span>&nbsp; </span>Circuit theory does not even attempt to model any effects of physical scale.<span>&nbsp; </span>A schematic diagram of a circuit, which is what is used in circuit analysis as the model, is the same regardless of physical scale or geometric layout.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is two-dimensional.<span>&nbsp; </span>Circuit theory is simply not applicable except under controlled circumstances.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">Circuit theory does not reflect the effects of a changing magnetic field, except through the lumped model of an inductor, which is not intended to reflect magnetic effects on the circuit as a whole.<span>&nbsp; </span>Basically circuit theory ignores the B-field, and that is appropriate in the small scale low frequency approximation in which circuit theory is applied.<span>&nbsp; </span>But on a large scale and when magnetic fields are important phenomena one simply cannot apply circuit theory as an appropriate model.<span>&nbsp; </span>I am quite sure that Alfven was aware of this and applied circuit theory only under appropriate assumptions.<span>&nbsp; </span>Those assumptions are not and cannot be universal.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">It is therefore quite simply inappropriate and impossible to use circuit theory to describe large scale phenomena that involve magnetic fields in a significant way.<span>&nbsp; </span>You cannot hope to explain magnetic reconnection using circuit theory.<span>&nbsp; </span>You cannot even derive the simple equation for an inductor<span>&nbsp; </span>e=L di/dt from circuit theory, but must in fact use field theory to derive the lumped parameter model that is then used in circuit models.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">To model large-scale phenomena you need all of electrodynamics &ndash; the electrical field, the magnetic field, Maxwell&rsquo;s equations and the Lorentz force equation.<span>&nbsp; </span>To model plasmas you also need the equations of fluid mechanics &ndash; ultimately the Navier-Stokes equation.<span>&nbsp; </span>Circuit theory is a poor cousin to Maxwell&rsquo;s equations and can only be used in very limited circumstances.<span>&nbsp; </span>Any attempt to reduce the issue to circuit theory is doomed.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>This is not a question of terminology or semantics.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is a serious issue related to the fundamental physics, and you have misconstrued those fundamentals rather badly.</span> <p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p>It is NOT permitted to&nbsp;bash other forums here. Please stop immediately.</p><p>If you want to bash BAUT, do it somewhere else. Except all other fora have the same rules.</p><p>Linking to a thread there is certainly OK. Discussing another forum's merits is not really good form.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Edited to properly reflect cross forum ettiquette.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What are you talking about?&nbsp; There is no such thin as the "force of energy".&nbsp; Energy and force are not the same thing, and require the notion of length to even evidence a relationship. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Leave it to you to pick one line of slightly improper verbiage and ignore the key issues entirely. &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>

 

[michaelmozina]

Of course it's perfectly "Ok" by you when Priest inserts the term monopole into the discussion, but God forbid I should use a single bit of sloppy verbiage in a single sentence...... <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'>&nbsp;I believe that Yveaud and the rest of us had it wrong in thinking that our discussion of magnetic reconnection had boiled down to an issue of terminology. </DIV></p><p>I think we'll have to wait and see what Birn et all have to say about it.&nbsp; I've pretty clearly explained this event from the particle physics perspective and the way Alfven used terms. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I believe that I now see what you are trying to do in relating magnetic phenomena to circuit and &ldquo;electrical&rdquo; phenomena.&nbsp; The issue here is not semantics, but rather fundamental physics.&nbsp;Circuit theory is an approximation to Maxwell&rsquo;s equations that is extremely useful when applied correctly, but it is not universally applicable. </DIV></p><p>It wouldn't be universally applicable in dense cold plasma that wasn't moving.&nbsp; It is however applicable in the plasma ball scenario where current carrying filemants are present. Plasma cosmolog, Chapter 2: </p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>II .7 . Field-Aligned Currents as `Cables'<br />The discovery of `inverted V events' by L . A . Frank has shown that electric currents in<br />space often flow in ` cables ' . See Figure II . 22.<br />From the observed inverted V events, we know that cable formation is frequent<br />in the lower magnetosphere (up to at least one R&reg . They are not so often observed<br />higher up, but this decrease may be observational . Direct measurements of strong electric<br />fields have been made by Mozer et al. (1977) . Besides electric fields parallel to the magnetic<br />field, they fmd very strong fields perpendicular to the magnetic field . The shape of<br />the equipotential surfaces is depicted in Figure II .22 . Other measurements of strong<br />electric fields have been made both with satellite (Maynard, 1978 ; Smiddy et al., 1977)<br />and rocket (Marklund et al., 1979).<br />Accelerating regions of the type that we have described have been observed with<br />barium cloud experiments at altitudes of about one Earth-radius (Haerendel et al., 1978;<br />Wescott et al ., 1976 ; Shawhan et al., 1978).<br />If the current-carrying field tube has the same voltage as the environment below the<br />double layer, there must be a lateral voltage gradient above the layer . This produces a<br />rotational motion of the plasma (but should not be depicted as a motion of magnetic<br />field lines!) around the current-carrying flux tube . In this way, the filamentary current<br />is electrically insulated from the surroundings in a way similar to a current in an electric<br />cable located in the ocean and carrying current through a low resistance metal wire . The<br />wire is insulated from the conducting water surrounding it by a plastic cylinder in which<br />the electric field is similar to the radial electric field surrounding the field aligned current<br />in the magnetosphere.<br />In the same way as two high power transmission cables connect a generator and a<br />`consumer', a pair of plasma cables may connect a generator and a `consumer '. The<br />generator often consists of a plasma moving with a velocity component perpendicular<br />to the magnetic field B and hence generating an e .m.f.<br />where the integral is taken between the ends of the two cables. The consumer may be<br />a double layer accelerating charged particles which later produce light or synchrotron<br />radiation . The consumer may also be a `motor' which sets plasma in motion in a distant<br />region . As an example, in the auroral circuit, the generator is located in the solar wind<br />and the `consumers' are double layers accelerating high energy particles which later<br />illuminate the night sky in the auroral zone and/or a `motor' which produce the sun-ward<br />drift in the magnetosphere (see Figure II .17 and Alfven, 1979).<br />The observed existence of cable-like plasma configurations motivates us to draw<br />electric circuit diagrams for electromagnetic phenomena in space, and to discuss them<br />with the help of electrotechnical terminology . This method will be extensively used,<br />especially in Chapter III . It is obvious that it should be regarded as a fast approximation<br />CHAPTER II<br />37<br />to a more complicated situation . Great care is necessary in order to determine to what<br />extent it may be misleading .</DIV><p>He of course goes on to expain this whole circuit analogy in great detail, but you wouldn't know anything about it.&nbsp; Evidently you're more of an expert on this topic than the Nobel Prize winning scientist that developed MHD theory.&nbsp; All this expertize and you've never even bothered to read his book!&nbsp;&nbsp; You really should read the book and save us a lot of grief.&nbsp; It's painful to talk with you about this topic because you're in complete conflict with the guy that developed the theory and you won't be bothered to read his work. Hoy Vey.</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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Do you even read you're own reference sources by the way?&nbsp; Here's a quote from that page:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. The Z-pinch uses this effect: <strong>the entire plasma can be thought of as many current-carrying wires, all carrying current in the same direction, and they are all pulled toward each other by the Lorentz force, thus the plasma contracts</strong>.</DIV></p><p>Emphasis mine.&nbsp;&nbsp; We cannot possibly understand the full inpact of 'circuit reconnection" without understanding and accounting for the energy in the entire circuit, not just the magnetic field that constricts the filament.</p><p>The problem here DrRocket is that you won't be bothered to read, not Alfven's work, not even your own references on plasma physics.&nbsp; What am I to do with you? </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 guess the point I'm trying to make is that the importance of the electric field is only now being understood by the mainstream.</DIV></p><p>The polarization of light, due to the vector in which the electric field propogates, seems rather well known.&nbsp; If they can make sunglasses that can filter out polarized light (they're cheap and work wonderfully... i own a couple), someone must have a good understanding of what's going on.&nbsp; This isn't something new. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Even though Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven and Peratt all required external currents in their understanding of the plasma physicsal interactions in space, the mainstream is still way behind the times in terms of understand what's going on in space.</DIV></p><p>This has absolutely nothing to do with the article that YOU cited.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In some ways this is a very encouraging sign from my perspective. The mainstream *is* beginning to understand the importance of the E field, not just the B field in how these energy exchanges in plasma occur.</DIV></p><p>This has nothing to due with <em><strong>how</strong></em> the particles are accelerated.&nbsp; They are trying to figure out <strong><em>where</em></strong> they are starting to accelerate.&nbsp; That they have determined the electromagnetic radiation shows significant polarization leads them to believe the acceleration is quite close to the neutron star.&nbsp; Polarization isn't a haphazard, random thing.&nbsp; Polarization requires specific phenomena to occur.&nbsp; Apparently the best place for this amount of polarization to occur is close to the surface where the magnetic field appears to be more ordered and less chaotic than further away from the surface.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Calling these particle interactions "magnetic reconnection" however is confusing and unnecessary.&nbsp; These are kinetic energy transfers at a particle physical level.&nbsp; The full circuit must be understood to understand the interaction process, and the only "reconnection" happening is kinetic and electrical in nature.</DIV></p><p>You've repeated that about 500 times... still has nothing to do with the article you posted.&nbsp; In fact, they are still relying on the magnetic field to acceelerate the particles.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm encouraged to see the mainstream articles actually mentioning the importance of the E field.</DIV></p><p>It would be hard to discuss the polarization of electromagnetic radiation without discussing the electric field.&nbsp; I'm glad you are encouraged.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I"m simply dismayed they refer to these energy exchanges between particles as "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; That's just bound to create confusion between electrical engineers and astronomers and any else who's trying to understand these "circuit reconnection' events. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I'm dismayed at what you gleaned from that rather straighforward article.&nbsp; How you twisted their interpretation up is beyond me.&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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you even read you're own reference sources by the way?&nbsp; Here's a quote from that page:Emphasis mine.&nbsp;&nbsp; We cannot possibly understand the full inpact of 'circuit reconnection" without understanding and accounting for the energy in the entire circuit, not just the magnetic field that constricts the filament.The problem here DrRocket is that you won't be bothered to read, not Alfven's work, not even your own references on plasma physics.&nbsp; What am I to do with you? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You are again overemphasizing analogies and over-simplified terminology and revealing a lack of knowledge of the underlying physics.</p><p>You can of course view, on a microscopic level, a current flow as a bundle of "fibers" or "wires" of curren, and you can also look a materials as a structure composed of fibers with essemtially constant stress in contimuum mechanics, but those are just useful analogies.&nbsp; Those analogies do not imply that such structures are meaningful on large scales, or that circuit theory is an adequate approximation except in special circumstances.&nbsp; They can provide useful visualizations on a small scale. I&nbsp;use them myself, but recognize the limitations. &nbsp;&nbsp;I have explained to you in some detail why circuit theory may not be an appropriate model for phenomena that occur on large scales and that are governed by coupled partial differential equations.&nbsp; This is not a matter of terminology or of semantics, no matter how much you wish it were so.</p><p>The problem is not that I have not read the references or Alfven's work, which I have, but that you have failed to become conversant in the basics physics in general and of electrodynamics in particular.&nbsp; This is not a matter of the total energy of a circuit, whatever you think that might mean, but in fact of energy carried by and forces imposed by distributed fields.&nbsp; The relevant physics is primarily due to Maxwell and Lorentz and not Kirkoff.&nbsp; </p><p>Over-simplifications and cartoons are not good substitutes for an understanding of the fundamental physics.&nbsp; And sophism and a focus on words at the expense of concepts is not a substitute for rigorous physics and logic.</p><p>Maybe what you ought to do is shut up, listen a bit, and learn something.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>