Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
Thanks for the info, VanderL.
I note that "weak [radial] electric field" occurs just once in the first document ("It is easy to see that we have within the solar plasma sheath a weak but constant electric field that accelerates solar protons away from the Sun in the form of the solar wind and causes electrons to drift toward the Sun (and causes negatively charged spacecraft, like Pioneer 10, to accelerate anomalously backwards toward the Sun). The overall result of the charge drifts in opposite directions is the current that lights the Sun."), and that the theory of this field is (apparently) attributed to Alfvén ("IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. PS-14, No. 6, Dec 1986").
|
You are mistaken if you think the quote is from Alfvén's 1986 paper.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
If any BAUT reader were to check that Alfvén reference, would they find any (OOM) estimates of the field (e.g. volts per au)? If not, where might such estimates be found (in EU literature or otherwise)? If there are no such estimates, what is the meaning of the term 'weak'?
|
I suspect you already knew the answer to your own questions, the paper can be downloaded from
Peratt's website. To my knowledge no such estimate is published yet; we have been discussing and trying to get some answer earlier in this thread, I could only guess at the magnitude.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
The phrase "weak [radial] electric field" also occurs just once in the second article ("The next most important feature of the positive column region of a spherical glow discharge is that throughout most of its volume the plasma maintains a weak but constant radial electric field."). This second article does not attribute the underlying theory to Alfvén, but to "Ralph Juergens". Specifically, to a modified version of Juergens' idea ("I propose that Juergens' model be modified and that interplanetary space is the extensive 'positive column' region of a glow discharge"). Where might one read the (quantitative) details of this 'modified Juergens' model'? Specifically, where can one read the (quantitative) reasoning for the term 'weak'?
|
The reasoning is very simple, the EU attributes solar activity to a glow discharge, which has as a direct consequence a weak radial electric field (see Cobine's illustration). The magnitude depends on the size of the heliosphere and the magnitude of the voltage drop over the heliospheric boundary. Fwiw, I think the field would be "very small but not zero"; since the "breakdown field" in space is estimated to be 1V/m, my guess would be in the order of microVolts/m.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
Incidentally, the second article also contains the following phrase: "Astronomers in the 20th century were never taught the physics of gas discharges, and the idea of electricity in space was anathema to them." For avoidance of doubt, would you please state unambiguously if you are (or are not) prepared to defend this?
|
Do you mean I need to defend this claim? Do you think I should adhere to every word written by EU proponents? I think the claim is based on Alfvén's 1986 paper, but I can't tell you how accurate this statement is (or was), but maybe you can check for yourself? Anyway, I think such generalisations are not very important and only made to get the message across that electricity in space is more important than once believed.
Cheers.