Discovering a hidden source of solar surges

Jun 03, 2014 by Santiago Vargas Domínguez
High-definition images of the Sun´s surface (left) and lower chromosphere (right) observed with the New Solar Telescope. This region of the Sun displays a some dark structures (solar pores) and the convective pattern (granulation) in which they are immersed. The region in the white circle is zoomed-out to show the action of the magnetic flux rope that interacts with the plasma and deforms the shape of the granules. At the lower part in the right image the scientists detected the ejection of a plasma surge extending thousands of miles.

Cutting-edge observations with the 1.6-meter telescope at Big Bear Solar Observatory (BBSO) in California have taken research into the structure and activity of the Sun to new levels of understanding. Operated by New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), the telescope at Big Bear is the most powerful ground-based instrument dedicated to studying the Sun.

A group of astronomers led by Dr. Santiago Vargas Dominguez has analyzed the highest- resolution solar observations ever made. A summary of their work at BBSO was presented on June 2 at the 224th meeting of the American Astronomical Society, held in Boston, Massachusetts.

The NJIT researchers reported on the emergence of buoyant "small-scale" magnetic-flux ropes on the and the initiation of powerful plasma eruptions in the . The observations were performed as part of a program conducted jointly with NASA's Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS) mission, Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) and Hinode satellite. These observations provided a unique view of a magnetic-flux rope in the Sun's surface-granulation pattern that was 6,000 miles long, and the interaction between newly emergent and overlying ambient magnetic fields.

Solar activity entails numerous processes occurring in the star nearest to Earth. These processes have far-reaching effects, generating "space weather" that brings bursts of charged particles and high-energy radiation in the direction of Earth at nearly the speed of light.

Cartoon illustrating the action of a six-thousand miles long magnetic flux rope rising up from the solar interior and  stretching the granules.  The interaction between the emerged and the ambient magnetic fields produces impulsive heating and an ejection of a plasma surge.

The generated in the solar interior and brought to the surface creates a wide variety of structures, with sunspots being the most well-known. Sunspots can cover large areas of the surface of the Sun—up to several times the size of Earth. They can persist for weeks or even months before vanishing. Associated with the evolution of sunspots, solar flares and coronal mass ejections are especially intense during the solar maximum, the period of greatest activity in the 11-year solar cycle.

Multiple phenomena can also occur on "smaller" spatial scales of several thousand miles, and in a matter of minutes. Believed to be driven by the interaction of magnetic fields, these events occur with greater frequency and appear to be directly responsible for continuous heating of the solar atmosphere.

The combination of ground- and space-based observations has facilitated investigation of how the layers of the solar atmosphere are linked, from the surface to the outermost layer, the corona. This has yielded important new understanding of and the mechanisms that drive it. In particular, the NJIT team led by Vargas Dominguez discovered previously unknown factors responsible for the generation of plasma surges and heating of the solar atmosphere.

A series of images acquired in the course of this work recorded the evolution of the solar surface and atmosphere at 15-second intervals with a spatial resolution of approximately 40 miles per pixel. The researchers discovered that the solar surges can be triggered by buoyant magnetic-flux ropes that emerge briefly on the surface and interact with ambient magnetic fields. The 6,000-mile magnetic-flux rope observed rose up from the solar interior, stretched the granulation patterns, and traversed the surface of the Sun, which is dominated by convective motion. The pattern of convective cells seen, known as granulation, consists of granules analogous to bubbles in boiling water.

In the Sun, convection takes place in plasma at a temperature of 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit. At any given time, the Sun´s surface is covered by about four million granules. The area covered by just a few of these granules is as large as the continental United States. When a magnetic rope interacts with the granulation, it deforms the cells and they increase to some five times their original size. And as they rise, newly emergent magnetic fields hit pre-existing ambient fields. The NJIT researchers discovered that an effect of this interaction, known as reconnection, is localized heating on the order of hundreds of thousands of degrees and the production of a surge in which plasma is rapidly accelerated to a speed of 70,000 miles per hour within 10 minutes.

This research has shown that the complex action of small-scale and "hidden" fields on the Sun is important for understanding how energy is transported to the solar atmosphere. The process investigated can play a significant role in mass and energy flow from the Sun's interior to the corona, the solar wind and Earth's near-space environment.

Explore further: Investigating unusual three-ribbon solar flares with extreme high resolution

More information: "Multi-wavelength high-resolution observations of a small-scale emerging magnetic flux event and the chromospheric and coronal response." Santiago Vargas Dominguez, Alexander Kosovichev, Vasyl Yurchyshyn. arXiv:1405.3550 [astro-ph.SR]. arxiv.org/abs/1405.3550

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

NASA's SDO sees giant January sunspots

Jan 07, 2014

An enormous sunspot, labeled AR1944, slipped into view over the sun's left horizon late on Jan. 1, 2014. The sunspot steadily moved toward the right, along with the rotation of the sun, and now sits almost ...

Large coronal hole near the sun's north pole

Jul 20, 2013

The European Space Agency/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO, captured this image of a gigantic coronal hole hovering over the sun's north pole on July 18, 2013, at 9:06 a.m. EDT. Coronal holes ...

Recommended for you

Hinode satellite captures X-ray footage of solar eclipse

2 hours ago

The moon passed between the Earth and the sun on Thursday, Oct. 23. While avid stargazers in North America looked up to watch the spectacle, the best vantage point was several hundred miles above the North ...

Asteroid 2014 SC324 zips by Earth Friday afternoon

11 hours ago

What a roller coaster week it's been. If partial eclipses and giant sunspots aren't your thing, how about a close flyby of an Earth-approaching asteroid?  2014 SC324 was discovered on September 30 this ...

User comments : 44

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

no fate
1 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2014
"the NJIT team led by Vargas Dominguez discovered previously unknown factors responsible for the generation of plasma surges and heating of the solar atmosphere."

Previously unknown to whom exactly? The mainstream? Apparently this information was only available to us crackpots prior to this study. Of course one would need to work off of a model that predicted it in the first place in order to have this information prior to the observation. Also, magnetic fields don't "bubble up" and buoyancy is not one of their qualities so you can say goodbye to the 15 million degree core and convection as the mechanism for their appearance on the surface.

But these guys are closer than anything else the mainstream has ever published...it's nice to see.

Writela
Jun 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2014
Cartoon illustrating the action of a six-thousand miles long magnetic flux rope


Cartoon is a perfect description of this fictional illustration.

The magnetic field generated in the solar interior and brought to the surface

Pseudoscience, just as no fate says about buoyancy as well.

All we need is a reference to magnetic reconnection for the trifecta...wait, there it is...

known as reconnection
IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) Jun 04, 2014
Pseudoscience, just as no fate says about buoyancy as well.


Deep in the Sun gas pressure dominates, this is the regime of MHD where the magnetic field acts like a pressure and has buoyancy. Now you are just bastardising what Alfven said. He said MHD was not universally applicable, it is definitely applicable inside the Sun.

You basically know absolutely nothing about plasma physics of any kind.

You don't understand flux tubes and laboratory observed reconnection either.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2014
Deep in the Sun gas pressure dominates, this is the regime of MHD where the magnetic field acts like a pressure and has buoyancy.


That's what your hypothesis requires, yet since Eddington the "standard" solar model has failed miserably in every aspect that has been observed and tested. Gas pressure like gravity is still but a pittance of the forces applied to charged particles by electric fields. Speaking of electric fields, there is not a single blurb about electric fields in the entire paper linked above.

"In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents." Hannes Alfven
IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2014
yet since Eddington the "standard" solar model has failed miserably in every aspect that has been observed and tested.


Failed miserably? Nope. I think you mean to say that heliosieismology confirms the density model of the solar standard model to within half a percent. MHD dominates. You make up nonsense claims like this to suit your argument. Where's the EU description of the solar oscillations? Ah, it doesn't exist. Electric fields are screened out on much smaller scales than this, they will not continue strongly. Fact. Instead of harping on that this isn't there you need to argue why it should be included rather than cheap appeals to authority with endless quotes from Alfven. Talk physics.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2014
Electric fields are screened out on much smaller scales than this, they will not continue strongly.

Please explain an experimentally based mechanism that accounts for the acceleration of the charged particles of the solar wind that does not include an electric field. Leave untestable theories out of the discussion, use only real processes such as that which has been reproduced in labs. Explain the difference between a "flux tube" and a field aligned current. Explain how electric fields are "screened out" in solar plasma and why those fields are not "screened out" inside the dense plasmas produced in tokamaks. You do understand your claims about electric fields in plasma is completely hypothetical. How do you explain the dynamic moving magnetic fields without the presence of an electric field? I think it was back in grade school I learned a changing magnetic field creates an electric field and vice versa, are you suggesting the sun is a static magnetic field?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2014
Talk physics.

Let's do. Why don't we discuss 'Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos'.
http://electric-c...2007.pdf

Why not discuss the Sun's electric field.
http://electric-c...2013.pdf

How do you explain the temperature gradient along with a number of other anomalies that are major problems for the SM? Don Scott has no such difficulties.
http://electric-c...0Sun.pdf

Avoid blanket statements please, be specific with your arguments inre to the papers. Most just apply hand waving, claims of questionable sources, and other such fallacious arguments to disregard these claims.

When comments like this,
Where's the EU description of the solar oscillations?

...are made, I could easily rebut with "where's the dark matter and energy?", you know the "other" 95+% the SM has misplaced. Where does that get us though but in an endless circle of nonsense.
BTW, EU does have an explanation of solar oscillations as well as the solar cycle, but I'm running low on available characters.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2014
Talk physics
Let's do
@cd
when he said talk physics, I think he meant real physics, not pseudoscience links
if you are going to "talk physics" (and be credible) then I suggest you find links to reputable sites supporting your conclusions, and leave out the "Electric Cosmos" links... IF there is LEGITIMATE SCIENCE being done, find the links that go to LEGITIMATE SCIENCE SITES
NOT KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE SITES
EU does have an explanation of solar oscillations as well as the solar cycle, but I'm running low on available characters
1- EU is pseudoscience; 2- thats not ALL you are running low on
claims of questionable sources, and other such fallacious arguments to disregard these claims
like I said... IF YOU CAN'T FIND A REPUTABLE SOURCE, IT AINT REAL SCIENCE
that is NOT a fallacious argument, it is basic logic and a real good way to weed out the troll/pseudoscience posters
this is a SCIENCE site, NOT A PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2014
Avoid blanket statements please, be specific with your arguments inre to the papers. Most just apply hand waving, claims of questionable sources, and other such fallacious arguments to disregard these claims.


There is the blanket fallacious argument from the short bus rider. Stalk much Stumped?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2014
@cd
cont'd
Let's do. Why don't we discuss 'Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos'.
http://electric-c...2007.pdf
this post only shows you are too lazy (or stupid) to find the post on line in a journal (of which it is spelled out on the paper)
anomalies that are major problems for the SM? Don Scott has no such difficulties
yeah... delusions usually dont have difficulties, especially when they ignore physics
see scott's debunking here: http://www.tim-th...sun.html
and with all the holes most find it easy to refute http://neutrinodr...ked.html

so... talk physics, but talk REAL PHYSICS with REAL PAPERS
NOT EU
NOT linked from your PSEUDOSCIENCE site

it is not a blanket statement if proven true... see the links above, cd-tard
your EU is not even a hypothesis. it is a delusion
and a failed one at that

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2014
this post only shows you are too lazy (or stupid) to find the post on line in a journal (of which it is spelled out on the paper)

So do you want the paywalled link, or one you can actually read? As you state, it is clearly identified in the paper, rube. BTW, is IEEE Transactions "reputable" now that it has been referenced in an astrophysical journal? Strangely the IAEA has accepted the journal as being reputable for years, but who are they but nuclear physicists and such who actually produce results from their science unlike astrophysicists.

Ol' Timmy T has been debunked more times than the barracks at Ft. Bragg. One only needs a peanut sized brain (which ya do not have) to see Timmy is the one ignoring real physics. Even if the neutrino problem has been "solved", it in no way invalidates the Electric Star (ES) model. The ES produces fusion too, although in a different method than the model decreed by Eddington 90 years ago.

I see from your repetitive use of the CAPS LOCK button you are really getting angry
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2014
So do you want the paywalled link, or one you can actually read?
@cd
and you think that just because your idiot site posts it it is accurate?
like the moon craters being formed by plasma discharge? or the grand canyon? I wouldn't trust your site to accurately post a valid study in its entirety unless I can do a page by page comparison and validate it... which is WHY YOUR SITE IS CONSIDERED PSEUDOSCIENCE and not valid science
misrepresentation of valid physics
claims of impossible physics
EEE Transactions "reputable"
for astrophysics? NOPE
Timmy T has been debunked
only in your delusional mind... that's why yall will not consent to a PUBLIC debate
p.s. I use CAPS to POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS. I seldom get angry

if I was mad, I would be at your place

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2014
Even if the neutrino problem has been "solved", it in no way invalidates the Electric Star (ES) model
@cd
not all of it
BUT it sure does not help the credibility of your "scientists" when they are so blinded by stupidity that they cannot find years old published data about the subject that they are referring to, which Tim Thompson pointed out... and the dates don't lie.

produce this paper showing how EU electric sun also produces fusion (a legit site) and let us review the method and manner of it's mechanisms

IOW - EU is KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE

support of KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE in nothing but blatant stupidity
and TROLLING
and with the overwhelming repetition of your posts... it is SPAM too
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2014
IEEE Transactions "reputable"

for astrophysics? NOPE


So you're suggesting that the physics of plasma is different for astrophysicists than it is for nuclear scientists and experimental plasma physicists? Funny, Alfven made the same claim decades ago and ol' Timmy T still holds tightly to this claim. At least you acknowledge the fact that astrophysicists prefer their theoretical mumbo jumbo to real experimentally based plasma physics like that which is found in IEEE Transactions.

if I was mad, I would be at your place


Look at me, I'm shaking in my little space boots.

http://www.metaca...e_truth/

IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2014
I'm sorry is this article about the acceleration of the solar wind? No, you're deflecting. In any case pressure accelerates the slow wind not electric fields as there is no static solution for the corona. The fast wind can be accelerated by many processes including laboratory observed reconnection.

A flux tube is just a bundle of magnetic flux. It is a tube because magnetic flux is conserved over the tube. It doesn't require current. You can have a current in it but you don't need it. It is not generated by that current.

Electric fields in tokamaks are screened out by the same process that occurs in all plasma, Debye shielding. The scale length of shielding is much smaller than in the solar wind. This is not hypothetical, Debye shielding is observed in any plasma lab or otherwise and was experimentally discovered. Your ignorance of plasma is incredible. Notice I did not say that electric fields do not exist in plasma, they do...
IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2014
They just don't penetrate far, like the electric field though a good conductor, they decay. It's just one of the reasons the electric sun doesn't work.

I asked you to talk physics, not quote someone else. If you have something to add to the article make your own case, quoting someone else isn't thinking. The papers are irrelevant.

I want to see the quantitative model of solar osculations which explains the power spectrum. I have no doubt it doesn't exist.

The standard model may have dark matter and dark energy but to even explain the rotation of a galaxy scotts models require enormous currents and magnetic fields which simply are not observed. You can say "this looks like a current", that's speculation. Why is the galactic magnetic field measured to be much smaller than scott requires? It's a fudge like any other, it just cannot explain a small fraction of what the standard model can.

It's funny you quote IEEE because there are many papers on reconnection.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2014
Electric fields in tokamaks are screened out by the same process that occurs in all plasma, Debye shielding.


Yep, a Debye shield is another way of saying double layer. And the those DL's produce electric currents in the plasma. Therein lies the problem with MHD, Alfven describes the shortcoming of MHD in this quote;
"a DL must be treated as a part of a circuit which delivers the current I. As neither a DL nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of plasma, such models are USELESS for treating energy transfer by means of DL's. They must be replaced by particle model and circuit theory."
http://www.diva-p...XT01.pdf

So you acknowledge Debye shielding is ubiquitous in plasma, yet ignore the actual physics which takes place.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2014
So you're suggesting that the physics of plasma is different for astrophysicists
@cd
I should have expected this level of stupid considering that you continually post lies. you asked
BTW, is IEEE Transactions "reputable"
towhich I replied
for astrophysics? NOPE
because, as you SHOULD know, IEEE caters to engineers and has a very low impact for astrophysics, and they have been known to publish BS in regard to astrophysics (see IEEE publications for EU regarding astrophysics)
no where in there do I say that
the physics of plasma is different for astrophysicists than it is for nuclear scientists
what I AM saying, is that EE's DO NOT consider all relevant factors when publishing astrophysical papers, because they have NOT been trained in astrophysics... it's like asking a firefighter to redo the plumbing in your house just because they know a lot about water.

any more prevarication? You are not even good at that!
it's so redundant we can copy/paste from old arguments
IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2014
Yep, a Debye shield is another way of saying double layer. And the those DL's produce electric currents in the plasma. And the those DL's produce electric currents in the plasma.


A Debye sheath is not a double layer since it is not two layers but just one region of charge depletion. These to not produce electric currents, they are static solutions. It does not cause currents.

It is not included in MHD because mdD specifically treats the plasma on scales much large than the Debye length. This isn't ignoring it, it's like saying hydrodynamics doesn't include atoms, of course it doesn't. You don't use MHD to do these things. Double layers are a related small scale feature of plasma, yes MHD is USELESS at describing them but that doesn't mean MHD is useless. You again try to misuse quotes from Alfven.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2014
From Wiki;
"The Debye sheath (also electrostatic sheath) is a layer in a plasma..." it continues...
"The Debye sheath is the transition from a plasma to a SOLID SURFACE. Similar physics is involved between two plasma regions that have different characteristics; the transition between these regions is known as a double layer, and features one positive, and one negative layer."
So I ask, what solid surface are you proposing in this solar plasma?

And what about electric fields of plasma sheaths? The Physics StackExchange has provided an answer...
http://physics.st...-sheaths

"In all other cases, the sheath is necessarily accompanied by an electric field of its own, because the electric field is what allows the sheath to exist"..." then the current across the sheath will increase to allow the potential drop across the sheath to increase."

Doesn't sound like what you blathered, is it ignorance or are you willing to lie to be
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2014
And so there isn't any question to the validity of these definitions, you can look it up on a more "reputable" site all by yourself...
http://plasmadict...mp;ABC=D

It's helpful they both begin with "D".

BTW, what was that surface you were referring to?

You don't use MHD to do these things.

So you are suggesting the solar plasma is completely homogeneous from the core to the corona, otherwise you would recognized the use of MHD to describe the sun is completely meaningless as you already admitted.

Double layers are a related small scale feature of plasma

Small scale? Then this must be more pseudoscience I guess...

http://journals.a...1.235002

Obviously you do not understand the scalability of plasma processes. It can also be noted these scientists cited Alfven and Peratt in their description of these non DL's. That's what happens when in situ measurements are taken and it not just theoretical mind games.

IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2014
So I ask, what solid surface are you proposing in this solar plasma?


This is what happens when you have no education in the subject. A debye sphere applies to any charge in a plasma or an electrolyte, not just a surface. In a Debye length an applied electric field is screened out. A Debye sheath is the structure which forms next to a surface screening out the electric field. No surface needed, you are the one who stared talking about sheaths.

the sheath is necessarily accompanied by an electric field of its own, because the electric field is what allows the sheath to exist


You can't eve read what I wrote. I never said there were no electric fields in plasmas, what I said was that above the scale of the Debye length electric fields are screened out. Is a Debye sheath in that category? No.

IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2014
So you are suggesting the solar plasma is completely homogeneous from the core to the corona


No, not even I can follow your mad substitute logic here why you think that means that. Not being able to describe small structures does not mean it cannot do inhomogeneity, it explicitly can. It's like saying hydrodynamics can't handle a density gradient. It's stupid.

Small scale? Then this must be more pseudoscience I guess...


Post something you haven't read and claim it supports your argument. They observed 7000 DLs in 1 minute of data. They quote the scale of these as 1.8 km. In the magnetosphere the Debye length is about 100 meters so we're talking 10's of Debye lengths. So yes, small scale. Not for MHD.

It is you who clearly doesn't understand how plasmas scale, one of the largest problems with EU. Your ignorance of even the most basic terms like the Debye spheres is astounding but probably typical of EUers.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2014
pSo you are suggesting the solar plasma is completely homogeneous from the core to the corona


No, not even I can follow your mad substitute logic here why you think that means that. Not being able to describe small structures does not mean it cannot do inhomogeneity, it explicitly can. It's like saying hydrodynamics can't handle a density gradient. It's stupid.


Inhomogeneity in plasmas requires DL's, it is an undeniable fact confirmed by decades of laboratory and in situ research. If you don't account for the energy transfer between different regions of plasmas (which there are countless in solar plasma) via these DL's, what exactly does MHD tell us? Absolutely nothing in relation to reality! Claims such as "MHD dominates" is meaningless if it doesn't explain the energy transfer problems such as the multi-million degree corona adjacent to the 6000 degree photosphere. Without the particle/circuit approach, there is no valid explanation.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2014
It is you who clearly doesn't understand how plasmas scale, one of the largest problems with EU.

Let's see, scalability of the Debye sphere...

http://www.plasma...e_sphere

And before you claim pseudoscience there Captain Stumpy Stalker, note the chart was sourced from Caltech. That scalability is exactly why the Electric Sun is possible, and likely.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2014
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Debye_sphere

And before you claim pseudoscience there Captain Stumpy Stalker, note the chart was sourced from Caltech. That scalability is exactly why the Electric Sun is possible, and likely.


There is a lie in there Skippy. And you know what the lie is too. Someone tells you about that lie before and you thinking enough time has passed for everybody to forget it. That is not a good thing Cher. Forgetting that your lie was already pointed out for you or if you didn't do that, then trying to recycle your lie.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2014
Inhomogeneity in plasmas requires DL's


Prove it. You're just making a huge claim with no evidence. The coronal heating problem is not an MHD problem. You can work it out thermodynamically, you need an energy source and no that is not DLs because they need an energy source themselves.

Let's see, scalability of the Debye sphere.


Yes, it's not constant, you've learned the first basic fact about plasma today. That does not prove or give support to the electric sun, I don't know why you would even think that, it's quite the opposite.

Electric fields are screened out above this scale so how does a voltage drop create a current which exists larger than the solar system? A voltage drop creates a field and the plasma cancels the field, so why would there be a huge current?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2014
Prove it. You're just making a huge claim with no evidence.

Ummm, you already acknowledged this...You said;

This is not hypothetical, Debye shielding is observed in any plasma lab or otherwise and was experimentally discovered.

Yep, and the Debye sheath (material in plasma) or DL (two adjacent plasmas) is part and parcel to the Debye shielding process.

BTW, could you a least read the first few paragraphs of Alfven's paper linked above? First sentence...
"SINCE THE TIME OF LANGMUIR(!?!?!?), we know a DL is a plasma formation by with a plasma- in the physical meaning of the word- protects itself from the environment. It is analogous to a cell wall by which a plasma- in the biological meaning of the word- protects itself from the environment..."

Do I really need to "prove it" again, and again, and again...

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2014
Clearly, in the image above, there are defined structures in the plasma. There is the granulation, the "pores", the BC's (flux tubes), laminar flows, among others, they can/are affected and warped by adjacent action, yet remain as coherent structures. As we have known since the time of Langmuir, these adjacent areas of plasma will "protect themselves from the environment" and form DL's. We also know these DL's must be part of a circuit, that circuit which is powered by the Sun, which in turn must be powered by a larger circuit which would be the Local Interstellar Cloud, which is likely connected to the Gould Belt, then the Orion Arm, then Perseus Arm, and then on to the Galactic Bar, then to the Central Plasmoid, on to the polar jets which then flow back to the equatorial current sheet represented by the arms of the galaxy. All of this is powered by the two interacting Birkeland Currents powering the MW galaxy as described by Peratt. Scalable plasma, scalable circuits.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2014
A voltage drop creates a field and the plasma cancels the field, so why would there be a huge current?


You're thinking as a mathematician, on a piece of paper the equation cancels out. In reality there is a process to "cancel out" the charge separation, the currents are to the mechanism required to carry out this process. When you receive a shock from the door knob, the "canceling out" involves a physical process, not an equation.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2014
Ummm, you already acknowledged this.


No, stating shielding occurs in all plasmas does not mean you need that in a description of a plasma. You are claiming plasmas cannot be described at all without double layers. I'm asking you to prove that. MHD doesn't describe shielding, it describes things much larger than those scales. Similarly hydrodynamics does not describe molecular forces. Yes you need to prove this. The Alfven quote isn't even relevant. Try again.

You're thinking as a mathematician, on a piece of paper the equation cancels out. In reality there is a process to "cancel out" the charge separation, the currents are to the mechanism required to carry out this process.


No, I'm thinking with a century of experimental work. Explain how this works, all you've done is say "there is a way" and wave your hands.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2014
No, stating shielding occurs in all plasmas does not mean you need that in a description of a plasma. You are claiming plasmas cannot be described at all without double layers.


You can describe them however you want, and many already do with MHD and such. But what does that tell you if anything? Applying MHD to solar plasma does not produce any predictions about the observed granular structures, sunspots, BC's, spicules, lack of turbulence, laminar flows, coronal heating, solar wind, etc, etc, etc... It's obvious these phenomena are important to the complexity of the system and yet the "models" don't predict them, basically they're useless.
MHD doesn't describe shielding, it describes things much larger than those scales

It's rather obvious it doesn't describe anything.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2014
No, I'm thinking with a century of experimental work. Explain how this works, all you've done is say "there is a way" and wave your hands


Talk about handwaving! I gave a simple analogy of the process, receiving a shock while grabbing a door knob. I gave you a process that includes currents and should be simple enough to visualize. You're thinking like a door knob, all you said was;
"A voltage drop creates a field and the plasma cancels the field, so why would there be a huge current?"

BY WHAT MECHANISM DOES THE PLASMA CANCEL THE FIELD?

What is the "century of experimental work" which confirms that "plasma cancels the field"? What happens in the plasma to enable this function. Once again a mathematician thinking on too large a scale to acknowledge there must be a physical process that takes places to enable those charges to cancel out. Also, if those charges "cancel out" how can there be the distinct granulation in the photoshere?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2014
You are claiming plasmas cannot be described at all without double layers. I'm asking you to prove that.


That's what I am claiming, real plasma processes, such as those on the sun, cannot be described without DL's. This was proven as far back as Langmuir in the 1920's, it is not something I must prove again and again and again.
You and others can and do model theoretical plasmas using idealized MHD models, yet as previously stated, they do not predict most aspects of observed phenomena and as such are useless nonsensical hypothetical mumbo jumbo. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm asking why it is done. Sure you can model the sun using MHD just as you can model orbital motion with epicycles, but that's not what progress is about is it. It may be exceedingly difficult to model the solar plasma as it need be, but these are scientists and they need to use all known physics or all they are producing is GIGO!
IMP-9
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2014
BY WHAT MECHANISM DOES THE PLASMA CANCEL THE FIELD?


What have we been talking about for days? Debye Sheilding. If you have an electric field it will accelerate charges, that acceleration causes charge separation, charge separation causes an opposing electric field. A potential will cause charge separation until the steady state condition is satisfied, at that point the field is cancelled. Debye discovered this experimentally. I really don't believe it when the white knight of the electric universe doesn't know the first think about plasma physics other than what he can regurgitate. Granulation is caused by convection cells, you see it in boiling water, it has nothing to do with this.

This was proven as far back as Langmuir in the 1920's


I have had enough of your pathetic attempts to ovoid real debate. You point to "evidence" but when asked to produce it you shrivel and hide. No, not good enough.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2014
these are scientists and they need to use all known physics or all they are producing is GIGO


The voice of blind ignorance. Does a laboratory plasma physicist account for the tidal forces from the Moon? Does an undergrad physicists need to account for the magnetic field of Jupiter when rolling balls down hills? No. Experimental and theoretical science and engineering would grind to a halt if you took such a hard line approach. Adding more physics when you know it isn't relevant is counter productive, it will just increase the chance of something going wrong in the simulation and make it harder to fix it.

Did D. Scott include general relativistic corrections, full orbit simulations or radiative transfer in his simulations? No. I guess it's garbage then and that would make Scott a con-artist.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2014
A potential will cause charge separation until the steady state condition is satisfied, at that point the field is cancelled.


My question pertains to this statement, what takes the plasma from "charge separation" to "steady state" condition. There must be a physical process involved, Alfven's theory and research suggested electric currents flowing in the plasma is a necessity to this charge equalization. What is your proposal to enable this process? Magic?

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2014
A potential will cause charge separation until the steady state condition is satisfied, at that point the field is cancelled.


My question pertains to this statement, what takes the plasma from "charge separation" to "steady state" condition. There must be a physical process involved, Alfven's theory and research suggested electric currents flowing in the plasma is a necessity to this charge equalization. What is your proposal to enable this process? Magic?


I might also ask, if there is energy continually being introduced to the system is the steady state condition ever met?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2014
The voice of blind ignorance.

What, you mean those such as yourself who profess great knowledge but as of yet cannot explain a physical process in simple terms other than, "it cancels out".

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla

Equations "cancel out", nature must find a mechanism.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2014
Debye Sheilding. If you have an electric field it will accelerate charges, that acceleration causes charge separation, charge separation causes an opposing electric field. A potential will cause charge separation until the steady state condition is satisfied, at that point the field is cancelled.

It's really remarkable how this description of DL's and the required currents it creates is used as proof that DL's and the currents it creates need not be considered in the description of plasma.
I have had enough of your pathetic attempts to ovoid real debate. You point to "evidence" but when asked to produce it you shrivel and hide. No, not good enough.
You're right, all I provide is a peer reviewed paper to supports my claims, while you 'Dance with the Stars' with vigorous hand waving followed by the acknowledgement that I am exactly correct but claim victory and the "higher ground". I'm sure we won't hear from you for awhile after this embarrassment, just like ol' Q-star.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2014
My question pertains to this statement, what takes the plasma from "charge separation" to "steady state" condition.


An electric field will accelerate change if it exists in the plasma. That causes change separation which creates an opposing field. Until the original field is cancelled it will continue to drive charge separation.So it drives that opposing field until it is equal. But you have already ignored all this pronounced it the evidence you didn't have. No. Debye shielding is not proof of you titanic claim that DLs are needed, you haven't shown that and I have no doubt you will never stop deflecting.

Peer reviewed papers don't mean shit if they don't support your argument. You posed it, I showed you didn't understand it.

I'm not going to argue with you about this any longer, you've ducked and dodged again and again. Anything to worm out of having to piece together an argument.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2014
My question pertains to this statement, what takes the plasma from "charge separation" to "steady state" condition.


An electric field will accelerate change if it exists in the plasma. That causes change separation which creates an opposing field. Until the original field is cancelled it will continue to drive charge separation.So it drives that opposing field until it is equal. But you have already ignored all this pronounced it the evidence you didn't have. No. It shows you can't describe charge separation in MHD, this is not new information to anyone. It does not support your argument.

Peer reviewed papers don't mean shit if they don't support your argument. You posed it, I showed you didn't understand it.

I'm not going to argue with you about this any longer, you've ducked and dodged again and again. Anything to worm out of having to piece together an argument.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2014
An electric field will accelerate change if it exists in the plasma.

By definition, an electric current.
That causes change separation which creates an opposing field.

Two electric fields with with charge separation between them, by definition a DL.
Until the original field is cancelled it will continue to drive charge separation. So it drives that opposing field until it is equal.

Right, but this particular discussion is in regards to solar/astrophysical plasma and there is a continuous influx of energy. I ask, is that condition ever met?
It shows you can't describe charge separation in MHD,

Actually, it shows that you begin to describe a circuit between the electric fields, yet refuse to understand that the circuit does not stop there but is part of a larger circuit. This underscores the fallibility of MHD, there is no description of these circuits nor is there any description of how a particular region on larger scales is connected to adjacent plasmas.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2014
Two electric fields with with charge separation between them, by definition a DL.

No. The change separation causes the second field, it is internal not between. A debye shield is not a double layer, they are distinct.

I ask, is that condition ever met?

It's not energy, purely how fast the electric field changes. So why does the electric sun work. A huge electric field would be cancelled almost immediately.

the circuit does not stop there but is part of a larger circuit

But the fields do not propagate far so clearly they don't.

there is no description of these circuits

Nobody said otherwise but what you are claiming is that this exclusion invalidates MHD, you have not proven that and I don't think you will. As I have stated something that is not included does not necessary invalidate it, e.g. there are no atoms in hydrodynamics. I'm giving up asking, you refuse to give a straight argument. I reject your claim entirely, you've had your chance.