|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 07/28/2006 : 11:36:24 [Permalink]
|
Michael an increase in the number of sunspots indicates MORE energy out put from the sun:
From wikipedia.
quote:
Sunspots are relatively dark areas on the surface of the Sun and are thus cooler than its average surface. The number of sunspots correlates with the intensity of solar radiation. The variation is small (of the order of 1 W/m² or 0.1% of the total) and was only established once satellite measurements of solar variation became available in the 1980s. Based on work by Abbot, Foukal et al. (1977) realised that higher values of radiation are associated with more sunspots. Nimbus 7 (launched October 25, 1978) and the Solar Maximum Mission (launched February 14, 1980) detected that because the areas surrounding sunspots are brighter, the overall effect is that more sunspots means a brighter sun
.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 11:45:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This is probably the best question I've been asked in months, and it warrants a long response. Based on my workload today, I probably won't have a chance to do it this morning, but I will give you a complete answer later today or tomorrow. For the time being, you might look at the link I provided as well as concepts about double layers in plasma. The sheath is what forms between the surface and the plasma.
The link did not really address a mass separation aspect of plasma. The article was about a layer of plasma relative to surface and how the electrons are separated from the positively charged ions. The double layer you noted discusses a layer of positively charged ions and electrons, so this is not about mass seperation either - it is about charge separation. I am looking forward to your discussion to clarify your points.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 12:08:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Fine Dave. You've seen the evidence I've presented you. Give me one good reason to believe I'm wrong about the loops being hotter than the surrounding materials.
The "evidence" you've presented still rests on your method of "adding" images together, and determining relative temperature from that. You have presented nothing which demonstrates that your method is a reliable tool for determining relative temperatures. Your own standard - laboratory experiments - have not been done to verify your method, or if they have been done, you haven't shown them to us.
I am asking you to do what you think should be done regarding neutrinos with mass and regarding blackbody calculations: verify that the measurement methods work. I've given you the reasons why we know the measurements of neutrinos and black bodies are as correct as they can be. You haven't done so regarding your method for determining relative temperatures.
It's not that I know that your conclusions are incorrect, Michael, it's that I have no idea if they are correct. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 13:28:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Michael an increase in the number of sunspots indicates MORE energy out put from the sun:
Yes, and I can tell you exactly where that extra energy is coming from, specifically the loops from the surface. The sunspots are *not* related to cooler temperatures inside the umbra, although there are cooler areas inside the umbra where cooler plasma has been caught up inside the rising column. There areas that are hotter as well. The temperature is not directly related to the lack of light in this region. The lack of light in this region is due an overall decrease of neon in this region.
The reason the ocean temperatures go up here on earth is because the sun is much more electrically active during it's active phases. The sunspots, as well as the excess heat, are directly related to the temperatures generated by the electrical discharging going on at the surface. Just as we can see an "eye" in the center of a hurricane from space, so too, we can see through the "cloud-like" neon layer in the eye of the tornado that is moving excess heat up and away from the surface. The tornado like structures go though many levels of plasma, not just one. They get smaller at their base due to the density change at the surface.
There is a direct relationship between the existence of sunspots and the existence of hot materials below. There is "usually" a direct relationship between any given sunspot and electrical activity seen in 171 and 195A images. There are times when the surface is active in 171A, but no hole appears in the photophere because no tornado has formed in the solar atmosphere, the heat is just rising through the plasma rather chaotically. When the heat is great enough below however, the sunspots tend to form above. There is a direct correlation between these two events, and also between a *rise* in termperature in the solar atmosphere. From space we can see into the eye of the hurricane, not because the center is necessarily cooler, but because the clouds are moved out of the way in this region. So too, the neon is pushed out of the way by the electromagnetic fields, adn we see down into the silicon. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/28/2006 14:29:01 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 13:33:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
The link did not really address a mass separation aspect of plasma. The article was about a layer of plasma relative to surface and how the electrons are separated from the positively charged ions. The double layer you noted discusses a layer of positively charged ions and electrons, so this is not about mass seperation either - it is about charge separation. I am looking forward to your discussion to clarify your points.
The process begins with charge separation at the surface and the forces of gravity. The solid surface is charged negative by the plasma, and a series of double layers form in the mass separated plasma layers. The plasmas are separated by a combination of factors, including gravity based on their weight (very important), very strong magnetic fields (also very important) and the flow of current through the system. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 14:00:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The "evidence" you've presented still rests on your method of "adding" images together, and determining relative temperature from that. You have presented nothing which demonstrates that your method is a reliable tool for determining relative temperatures. Your own standard - laboratory experiments - have not been done to verify your method, or if they have been done, you haven't shown them to us.
First of all, Lockheed set the sensitity range on these filters, not you, and not me. *They* claim these filters see plasma starting at about 160,000K, Fe IX/X ions to a million degress, Calcium ions at about 4 million degrees and FEXX ions up to 20 million degrees Kelvin. I'm simply using their figures as it relates to *mininum and maximum* sensitivity.
The photosphere is less than 6000K. The chromosphere is measured to be in the 20,000 Kelvin range, and while *some* parts of the corona must be warmer than these two figures, I can only tell which parts are *really* hot based on what I see in 171A and 195A, and Yohkoh images as well by the way. These images all show a direct correlation between high temperature plasma and coronal loops. They do not show anywhere near as much light from areas completely away from coronal loops as they do from the loops themselves. All the iron filters, and all the Yohkoh filters peak at over 1 million degrees Kelvin. They Yokhoh minimums tend to be 3 million plus. All of these images show clearly that the intensity of light is concentrated inside, and directly around the coronal loops. These loops are therefore *much* hotter than the darker areas of Trace (iron filter), Yohkoh, Rhessi, Geos and other such high energy satellite images. There is therefore *every* reason to believe the loops are a much greater temperature than the surrounding materials.
Furthermore, Dr. Charles Bruce documented many phenomenon that are directly related to electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. More recently, the University of Maryland demonstrated and documented just how much electricity if flowing and just how high these temperatures can get.
quote:
It's not that I know that your conclusions are incorrect, Michael, it's that I have no idea if they are correct.
If we can't agree that coronal loops are brighter because they are hotter than the surrounding materials of the solar atmosphere, I see little hope that we will *ever* find agreement on anything else. I thought at first we had some hope of getting on with the satellite image analysis, but without agreement on the light source and the heat signatures, there really isn't anyplace we might begin. If we can't agree to something as simple and straight forward as this issue, what hope is there we will ever agree about neutrinos and sunspots and heliosiesmology data?
Anyone can foot drag Dave. With all these different satellite systems all showing us that high energy photons originate in and around coronal loops, I can't possibly imagine why you would not agree with me on this point and just move on. Once we can agree to a light source for these images and a heat signature of the atmosphere, the rest will work itself out. Without such agreement however, we're just spinning our wheels. I've learned a lot from these conversations over the past many months, but in all that time, you've not budged one inch on this subject or for that matter *any* subject.
At least give me some reasonable arguement here as to why you're foot dragging, especially since Geos, Rhessi, Yohkoh, SOHO and Trace all show a *very strong* correlation between high energy photons and coronal loops. I really can't understand your position here, and I know you to be an intelligent human being. The only thing that I can guess is that you're just being stubborn. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/28/2006 14:02:20 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 14:19:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You have presented nothing which demonstrates that your method is a reliable tool for determining relative temperatures.
Here you go Dave. This image positively demonstrates that my method works reliably. I would expect from my model that the coronal loops would be the most brightly lit items in the atmosphere, and that they would glow more brightly than anything else in the solar atmosphere. Furthermore, by logical extension, every high energy satellite should see a direct correlation between loops and light. I can verify this is true, by overlaying Yohkoh's view of the same areas of the atmosphere as I see with Trace. The areas that glow most brightly in Yohkoh images are from the tops of the coronal loops. The reason we don't see as much yellow further down the loops is because x-rays are more easily absorbed and/or scattered by the photosphere and chromosphere than they are by the corona. Once the coronal loops reach the corona, these same loops become much more visible to Yohkoh, just as I would predict. This image is a direct confirmation that high energy photons are associated with coronal loops in both high energy images. I've also posted some Trace/Rhessi overlay images that show exactly the same correlation between coronal loops seen by Trace, and high energy emissions seen by Rhessi. All three of these satellites show a strong correlation between light and the coronal loops, just as I would predict. Exactly what kind of evidence will you accept? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/28/2006 14:20:10 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 14:30:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
These images all show a direct correlation between high temperature plasma and coronal loops. They do not show anywhere near as much light from areas completely away from coronal loops as they do from the loops themselves. All the iron filters, and all the Yohkoh filters peak at over 1 million degrees Kelvin. They Yokhoh minimums tend to be 3 million plus. All of these images show clearly that the intensity of light is concentrated inside, and directly around the coronal loops. These loops are therefore *much* hotter than the darker areas of Trace (iron filter), Yohkoh, Rhessi, Geos and other such high energy satellite images.
Knowledge of the temperature response of the filters on all the telescopes shows that your conclusion doesn't follow. For example, to TRACE's 171A filter, a million-degree iron plasma will appear much brighter than a 20-million-degree iron plasma, if they're both emitting the same number of photons. In fact, to offer the same level of brightness, the 20-million-degree plasma must emit somewhere between 100 and 1,000 times as many photons as the cooler plasma to be as bright to the camera and filter.quote:
More recently, the University of Maryland demonstrated and documented just how much electricity if flowing and just how high these temperatures can get.
No, the University of Maryland paper did no such thing, as we've already discussed, Michael. The paper identifies electron densities and "radio temperatures" (since the emissions described were non-thermal, they weren't actual temperatures, but instead the temperature that a black body would be if it were emitting such radiation), but utterly failed to describe anything related to current flow (like voltage or amperage).quote:
If we can't agree that coronal loops are brighter because they are hotter than the surrounding materials of the solar atmosphere, I see little hope that we will *ever* find agreement on anything else.
I don't see that "brighter equals hotter," Michael. I never have. At least one expert agrees that brighter doesn't necessarily mean hotter. I am waiting for you to demonstrate that it must be so.quote:
I thought at first we had some hope of getting on with the satellite image analysis, but without agreement on the light source and the heat signatures, there really isn't anyplace we might begin.
As I said, I don't care much about them anymore. If you could present a plausible temperature, and offer some estimates for the electrical characteristics of the arcs, then we could check your theory for basic plausibility. You're demanding agreement on an issue which appears to me to be nothing more than a part of the observations you made which led you to your theory, and as such, I don't see the point.
Let me put this another way, Michael: let's say, for the sake of discussion, that I agree (for the sake of discussion) that the arcs are hotter than the corona. What would the next step be? What would you next introduce to the discussion on the basis of that agreement?quote:
I've learned a lot from these conversations over the past many months, but in all that time, you've not budged one inch on this subject or for that matter *any* subject.
Yeah, misrepresenting the truth like that, Michael, is going to move this discussion forward.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 15:10:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Knowledge of the temperature response of the filters on all the telescopes shows that your conclusion doesn't follow. For example, to TRACE's 171A filter, a million-degree iron plasma will appear much brighter than a 20-million-degree iron plasma, if they're both emitting the same number of photons.
But I can test all of these possibilities by using other satellite systems Dave. Yohkoh has a much higher sensitivity to higher energy emissions. So does Rhessi, and for that matter Geos as well. I'm not limited to a single satellite system and I can check for such conditions using other satellite systems. If Yohkoh has seen yellow *everywhere but* the coronal loops, I'd be the first to jump on board the skeptic train with you. As it is, Yohkoh, Geos and Rhessi allow us to test for and eliminate these options.
quote:
No, the University of Maryland paper did no such thing, as we've already discussed, Michael. The paper identifies electron densities and "radio temperatures" (since the emissions described were non-thermal, they weren't actual temperatures, but instead the temperature that a black body would be if it were emitting such radiation), but utterly failed to describe anything related to current flow (like voltage or amperage).
Rhessi shows both thermal and non thermal emissions Dave. The electron densities were described. What do you figure created these electron densities if not electrons?
quote:
I don't see that "brighter equals hotter," Michael. I never have. At least one expert agrees that brighter doesn't necessarily mean hotter.
That same expert expert you cited put the hottest temperature plasma inside the loops as I did Dave. It may not be true in *every* case, but in most cases, and in this case, its the rule. We can verify that with Yohkoh, Rhessi and Geos.
quote:
I am waiting for you to demonstrate that it must be so.
In this case, I already have demonstrated it must be so. I as you are worried about, the corona was somehow hotter than the loops, then once we looked these images with Yohkoh, we should have seen a bright background and dark loops. That isn't what we saw. We saw bright loops, against a much darker background. Are you now telling me that the corona peaks out of the range of Yohkoh too? How about Rhessi? Why does it also show a direct correlation between loops and light?
quote:
As I said, I don't care much about them anymore.
That fact you don't care says volumes IMO. This is one of the key issues, and key objective in satellite image analysis. The fact you don't care about this issue unless I present you with additional math isn't very logical, expecially since we can crosscheck the heat signatures with 5 different satellites including SOHO.
quote:
If you could present a plausible temperature, and offer some estimates for the electrical characteristics of the arcs, then we could check your theory for basic plausibility.
The characteristics are determined by the requirements of the Yohkoh, Trace and Rhessi systems. You can figure it out as easily as I can. These loops *must* reach at least 1 million degrees, with the tops of them reaching a minimum of three million degrees. Lockheed has suggested that some plasma reaches 20 million degrees. These are the temperature ranges that apply, expecially to that Yohkoh/Trace overlay image.
quote:
You're demanding agreement on an issue which appears to me to be nothing more than a part of the observations you made which led you to your theory, and as such, I don't see the point.
Actually, I have always known that coronal loops were the hottest thing in the solar environment long before I thought the sun had a surface. As I said, I was stunned at Lockheed's position mainly because it never even occured to me that anyone could misinterpret so many different satellite images. It's not as though we don't have a number of ways to cross check these ideas.
quote:
Let me put this another way, Michael: let's say, for the sake of discussion, that I agree (for the sake of discussion) that the arcs are hotter than the corona. What would the next step be? What would you next introduce to the discussion on the basis of that agreement?
The next step would be to determine the source of the heat, namely electrical current.
quote:
Yeah, misrepresenting the truth like that, Michael, is going to move this discussion forward.
Well Dave, as it relates to the important issues surrounding satellite images, you've been very consistently unwilling to make any agreements on anything, not the light source, not the heat signatures, not running difference images, not Doppler images, nothing.
If we really can't find some agreement here related to heat signatures and light sources, there isn't any real way to proceed to analyse any high energy satellite images at all. If we can't find agreement here, then I just can't see the point of bashing heads with you on a bunch of different unresolved fronts all at the same time. This issue IMO is the single most relevant issue as it relates to satellite image interpretation since it tells us exactly where the high energy emissions originate and it shows us some of the important processes going on in the solar atmosphere. Without agreement here Dave, we're not going to agree to anything else. This is too key, and too important an issue to leave unresolved between us. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 15:32:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The process begins with charge separation at the surface and the forces of gravity. The solid surface is charged negative by the plasma, and a series of double layers form in the mass separated plasma layers. The plasmas are separated by a combination of factors, including gravity based on their weight (very important), very strong magnetic fields (also very important) and the flow of current through the system.
Michael you are going to have to go into it deeper than that. Get as technical as you want if I get lost I will let you know.
My understanding of a double layer based on your link is a layer of charged charged ions and a layer of electrons. Are you saying the sun is composed of layers like this
C11
electrons
C12
electrons
C13
electrons
.
.
.
As far as a magnetic field and current flow, since the charge carriers in the current flow would be the electrons and the ions of the plasma are you saying that the current is flowing parallel to the surface of the sun, so that there is no mixing of the layers?
Have there been any experiments showing mass separation down to the isotope?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 19:09:24 [Permalink]
|
Michael only a portion of that paper discussed mass separation. Manuel states:
quote:
The Sun is a plasma diffuser that selectively moves light elements like H and He and the lighter isotopes of each element to its surface.
This certainly sounds like he does not think that the sun is layered with different elemental layers and these layers are divided by isotope.
The paper further states:
quote:
Further discussion of these startling images will be postponed until the experimental basis has been presented for concluding that the Sun acts as a magnetic plasma diffuser, hiding its iron-rich interior beneath a surface veneer of lightweight elements.
So it seems there is no experimental evidence for your view on mass separation.
Michael I was hoping for a dialog about mass separation I don't want to read papers to try a gleen some information about your position. If you want to site a paper to back up a point that is fine but I am not going to have you just say read this paper or that paper.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 20:02:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
But I can test all of these possibilities by using other satellite systems Dave. Yohkoh has a much higher sensitivity to higher energy emissions. So does Rhessi, and for that matter Geos as well. I'm not limited to a single satellite system and I can check for such conditions using other satellite systems. If Yohkoh has seen yellow *everywhere but* the coronal loops, I'd be the first to jump on board the skeptic train with you. As it is, Yohkoh, Geos and Rhessi allow us to test for and eliminate these options.
Actually, I'm concerned that many of the emissions in these other bands aren't thermal at all. Even TRACE sees some non-thermal radiation.quote:
Rhessi shows both thermal and non thermal emissions Dave.
From the paper:The launch of the Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI), with its ability to image flares in hard X–rays (HXR) and g–rays at arcsecond resolution, offers us the opportunity to compare the emissions from electrons in the same energy range at two very different wavelength regimes: hard X–rays (bremsstrahlung) and radio (gyrosynchrotron). Both of these emissions are produced by nonthermal electrons with energies in excess of 100 keV, yet the emission mechanisms have very different properties and offer information on different aspects of conditions in the solar atmosphere. (bolding added)
- Radio and Hard X–ray Images of High–Energy Electrons in an X-class Solar Flare The paper doesn't mention thermal electron emissions other than to say that the observations they made couldn't be explained by thermal electrons.quote:
The electron densities were described. What do you figure created these electron densities if not electrons?
What can I say, Michael? A plasma is a mix of ions and electrons, all subject to magnetic fields. The paper suggests electron densities as high as 1010 electrons per cm3. At such densities, for an ampere of current to pass through some cubic centimeter of the corona, the electrons all have to be moving at 6.24150948×108 cm/second. Put in different terms, even if all the electrons were moving at the speed of light (which is, of course, impossible), at that density there will be only 48.032 amps of current passing through any particular cubic centimeter of corona.
According to sources like this, passing 200 amps through a copper conductor with a one-square-centimeter cross section will be just within IEE safety regulations (the conductor won't go above 250°C). So if 48 amps is less than 25% of the safety limit for copper in regards to the heat, imagine how much less of a signature it'll leave on something with a dramatically lower resistance, like the coronal plasmas.quote:
That same expert expert you cited put the hottest temperature plasma inside the loops as I did Dave.
Yes, and I understood his reasoning on the matter just fine. I don't understand yours.quote:
It may not be true in *every* case, but in most cases, and in this case, its the rule.
How many "cases" have you tested, and how do you know what the temperature of the loops really is? Did you stick a big thermometer in them to check your work?quote:
We can verify that with Yohkoh, Rhessi and Geos.
Are you sure that those satellites are necessarily showing physical temperatures, Michael?quote:
I as you are worried about, the corona was somehow hotter than the loops, then once we looked these images with Yohkoh, we should have seen a bright background and dark loops.
Not if Yohkoh is picking up non-thermal radiation.quote:
That isn't what we saw. We saw bright loops, against a much darker background. Are you now telling me that the corona peaks out of the range of Yohkoh too? How about Rhessi? Why does it also show a direct correlation between loops and light?
Because regardless of what the temperatures are, it's indisputable that the loops are where the "action" is.quote:
That fact you don't care says volumes IMO.
It should say that I'm tired of hearing the same things from you, over and over again, without you offering up what you think is necessary for all other theories: laboratory experiments.quote:
This is one of the key issues, and key objective in satellite image analysis.
I'm not interested in satellite image analysis, I'm interested in your theory.quote:
The fact you don't care about this issue unless I present you with additional math isn't very logical...
It's absolutely logical, since you haven't been able to present acceptable science on the issue for 9 threads now.quote:
The characteristics are determined by the requirements of the Yohkoh, Trace and Rhessi systems. You can figure it out as easily as I can. These loops *must* reach at least 1 million degrees, with the tops of them reaching a minimum of three million degrees. Lockheed has suggested that some plasma reaches 20 million degrees. These are the temperature ranges that apply, expecially to that Yohkoh/Trace overlay image.
The temperatures tell me exactly nothing about the electrical characteristics of the "arcs" in your model, Michael.quote:
The next step would be to determine the source of the |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 20:42:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
Ok. Start here:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/PlasmaDiffuserFinal.pdf
Ah, that's the stuff! A paper with your name on it, Michael, which references a 1989 work by Anders and Grevesse on measuring the elemental abundances in the photosphere. So either we really do know (as well as can be expected from 92 million miles away) what the photosphere "is made of," or your name appears on a paper which blatantly makes use of a fallacious citation.
Hey, was that article of yours ever accepted for publication anywhere but ArXiv?
Oh, by the way, Grevesse's data from September of 2005 is markedly different from the data published in 1989. Has Dr. Manuel considered updating his "corrections" with data less than 17 years old? Since the differences between photosphere and meteorites are much different now than they were back then, it seems only natural that Dr. Manuel's analysis would have to change to accomodate the new data. For example, in 1989, Anders and Grevesse didn't even try to estimate photospheric Xenon, one of the mainstay elements of Dr. Manuel's analysis. Now Grevesse has published numbers for it. The difference in iron content between photosphere and meteorites has also dropped by what, 81%? That's rather a lot, don't you think? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2006 : 12:37:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, I'm concerned that many of the emissions in these other bands aren't thermal at all.
There are essentially two options here as it relates to these emissions, heat and electricity. Take your pick. Each of the options is going to generate heat, including the possibility that the loops are electrified and filled with current. They are in fact electrified IMO. It is the presense of current flow that heats the loops, and generates these various emissions. Your use of the term "non thermal" is a bit of a misnomer IMO. The fact that plasma is *not* a perfect conductor, means that any flow of current will generate heat.
quote:
Even TRACE sees some non-thermal radiation.
Sure, but it's also been known to observe million degree plasmas too. I think you're being way to fixated on the notion of non-thermal and thermal emissions, since electrical emissions are also typically quite hot. Have you ever used an arc welder before? There are likely to be what you would insist we label "non thermal" emissions going on in that process, but there are a lot of thermal emissions as well. The flow of elecricity drives the heating process.
quote:
quote:
Rhessi shows both thermal and non thermal emissions Dave.
From the paper:[bq]The launch of the Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI), with its ability to image flares in hard X–rays (HXR) and g–rays at arcsecond resolution, offers us the opportunity to compare the emissions from electrons in the same energy range at two very different wavelength regimes: hard X–rays (bremsstrahlung) and radio (gyrosynchrotron). Both of these emissions are produced by nonthermal electrons with energies in excess of 100 keV, yet the emission mechanisms have very different properties and offer information on different aspects of conditions in the solar atmosphere. (bolding added)
You are evidently confusing the authors description of two new types of non thermal emmissions that Rhessi can *also* image, with some notion about a limition about the satellite's overall capabilities. Rhessi is able to observe both types of emissions, *including* those two types of nonthermal emissions mechanisms the author mentions. That does not mean that Rhessi is limited to seeing *only* non thermal emissions.
http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/rhessidatacenter/instrument/RHESSISeniorRev5-6
http://solar.physics.montana.edu/cgi-bin/eprint/index.pl?entry=1707
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~cepheid/rhsigi_2004.pdf
http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/~dennis/Presentations/Thermal%20and%20Nonthermal%20Contributions%20Poster.ppt
Because of it's unique sensitivity to non thermal emissions, if we really want to get to get some handle on the amount of current flowing in the solar atmosphere, the Rhessi satellite is our best bet.
quote:
The paper doesn't mention thermal electron emissions other than to say that the observations they made couldn't be explained by thermal electrons.
I think you have an unrealistic view of what "non thermal" emissions might represent as it relates to coronal loops and CME's and electrical discharges in general. Just as we might observe both thermal and nonthermal emissions from an electrical discharge on earth, so too, an electrical discharge in the solar atmosphere may release all sorts of photons, including gamma rays. It's still a very energetic process, and this discharge involves a lot of heat.
quote:
What can I say, Michael? A plasma is a mix of ions and electrons, all subject to magnetic fields.
But even plasma seeks an equilibrium state Dave. Something however is creating and causing a huge *flow* of current to flow *through* the plasma.
quote:
The paper suggests electron densities as high as 1010 electrons per cm3.
That's an *increadible* number of electrons to be flowing though what is supposed to be *extremely* thinly dispersed atoms of the corona don't you think? How many electrons per atom per second does that represent considering the corona is filled with such thin material?
quote:
At such densities, for an ampere of current to pass through some cubic centimeter of the corona, the electrons all have to be moving at 6.24150948×108 cm/second. Put in different terms, even if all the electrons were moving at the speed of light (which is, of course, impossible), at that density there will be only 48.032 amps of current passing through any particular cubic centimeter of corona.
That sure sounds like a lot of amperage through extremely thinly dispersed plasma to me.
quote:
sources like this, passing 200 amps through a copper conductor with a one-square-centimeter cross section will be just within IEE safety regulations (the conductor won't go above 250°C). So if 48 amps is less than 25% of the safety limit for copper in regards to the heat, imagine how much less of a signature it'll leave on something with a dramatically lower resistance, like the coronal plasmas.
I think you're overlooking a significant density issue here Dave. Copper is a great conductor because the atoms are tightly packed and close together. *Thick* plasma might be a better conductor than copper, but the amount of electrons passing through the thinly dispersed corona would be orders of magnitude higher than the number of electrons flowing through every atom each second in the experiment you outlined.
quote:
Yes, and I understood his reasoning on the matter just fine. I don't understand yours.
This has all the earmarkings of an irrational statement. Both your expert and I put the hottest temperature plasma *inside* the loops, and I saw no great difference in our predictions. You claim to agree with him, but not with me, but we both said the same thi |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 07/29/2006 12:42:12 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
