Ah well, stupid assumption on my part. I assumed that because a hydrogen atom without an electron (i.e., just a proton) is considered a positive ion, then a hydrogen atom without a proton (i.e., just an electron) would be considered a negative ion. I now realize that for it to be a negative ion, it would have to be a proton with, say, two electrons. So I guess it has to have a nucleus to be considered an ion. I'm sure I learned that in high school, many years ago. ops:

__________________
As above, so below

There is such a thing as the heliospheric current sheet in the solar system, which can be compared to the current sheet in the Earth's magnetotail, which takes care of the field reversal from Earthward in the northern hemispher to tailward in the southern hemisphere of the tai.
The latest paper on this topic is by Roberts, Keiter and Goldstein, Melvyn L., titled "Origin and dynamics of the heliospheric streamer belt and current sheet" (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 110, Issue A6, CiteID A06102, 2005).
However, this is not a radially outstreaming current, as envisioned in the OP.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

A solar wind is like e,p,e,p,e,p,e,p where e-electron, p-proton. As whole is it neutral, of course.

But there are distances between electron and proton till 1 mm. If a speed of solar wind is 1000 km/s , the charge oscillation is then 10^9 Hz. It may cause an alternating current in the conductor due to magnetic field.

Today 9.Aug.2005 the solar wind is carrying a magnetic field total B=6,1 nT according to NASA values.
There isn’t a direct current like in a battery from one point to another, but there is an alternating current carrying a magnetic field and energy we can use. It is not possible for a wind on the Earth.

The Earth’s wind has its pressure and solar wind has its pressure (today –0,5 nPa). The solar wind is carrying a magnetic field B=6,1 nT, but Earth’s wind is almost B=0.

You have to decide, what about a current you want to write, a direct current or an alternating current.

sure if you want to look at it in that way.

The density near earth of the solar wind plasma is say 10 per cc, so interparticle separation on the order of mm. But HOW do you turn a density and a velocity into a freuquency???? I guess you just say that if L is the interparticle separation, say L = 1 mm and the velocity of the plasma is v = 1000 km/s you can just say: f = v / L. TRY AGAIN!!! although dimensionally is SEEMS okay, physically it is rubbish.

I'll just snip the last part, because that does not make sense either.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Today’s density of the solar wind plasma is 14 particles/cm^3 - Dials are updated every 5 minutes with data averaged over last 15 minutes. http://www.sel.noaa.gov/SWN/sw_dials.html .

I wrote an example if the plasma is in equilibrium , the particles (+) and (-) move in distance (it might be more then 1 mm). If electron will be close to nucleus (proton) they created a neutral atom and such a wind can not carry a magnetic field. The plasma do not carry a net charge then but it can carry an electric energy and do a work like the electric current does although it is not a direct electric current.

czeslaw: READ A BOOK ON PLASMA PHYSICS!!!!!!
Have you cared to look at the energy of the plasma components? Do you think that the (for simplicity) the protons and electrons can recombine? Do you think that a neutral plasma cannot have a magnetic field? What do you understand under a neutral plasma? What about a frozen in field? What is your electric energy? Can a neutral plasma not carry a current? What work does a current do, and how can your electric energy do the same work as a current would?
Just some questions for tuesday afternoon.
YEAH! the space shuttle landed safely in California!

edited to add one more question.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Does the solar wind, charge the upper atmosphere POS+...

yes it does, so relative to us, humans on earth, at ground.. the solar wind is positive.. because it surtainly isnt negative.

of course photons play a big part in the ionization of the upper atmosphere.. but they also play a major role in the solar wind.

-MT

Mosheh, do you have a source for the claim that the upper atmosphere is positively charged from the solar wind? And one that gives details? I have never heard this before.

I wonder whether the Earth's fair weather electric field is evidence of this, measured at about 100 volts per metre with the Earth defined as "ground". More at:

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...d15jun99_1.htm

Regards,
Ian Tresman

We write about different currents, I think, and there is a misunderstanding.
A neutral plasma do not carry a charge and you write, there is no electric current, Yes, there is no direct current. Why is there a magnetic field then? Does the air on the Earth carry a magnetic field ? No. Plasma can? Yes, because there are charge micro oscilations, something like in alternating current. A direct current and alternating current are different phenomenons.

A perfect plasma of the school is neutral and each proton has its electron around, but it is theoreticaly only. Normal plasma are the proton and electrons moving very fast, interacting with photons of the Background radiation, thermal radiation, magnetic fields, gravity fields etc. The electrons permamently tends to equilibrium with protons. There could be no net charge but there is charge oscillation and plasma move along magnetic field. If plasma would be neutral like air it would not interact with magnetic field, as the air do. The electrons are not bound to protons as in an atom. They move freely very fast seeking an equilibrium. That way plasma do carry a magnetic field.

Assuming that each plasma is frozen to its own magnetic field, and that cross-field diffusion is absent, we conclude that the two plasmas will not mix, but, instead, that a thin boundary layer will form between them, separating the two plasmas and their respective magnetic fields. In equilibrium, the location of the boundary layer will be determined by pressure balance. Since, in general, the frozen fields on either side of the boundary will have differing strengths, and orientations tangential to the boundary, the layer must also constitute a current sheet. Thus, flux freezing leads inevitably to the prediction that in plasma systems space becomes divided into separate cells, wholly containing the plasma and magnetic field from individual sources, and separated from each other by thin current sheets.

If the plasma dynamics becomes too fast , then resonances occur with the motions of individual particles , which invalidate the MHD equations. Furthermore, effects, such as electron inertia and the Hall effect, which are not taken into account in the MHD equations, become important.
The plasma is tied to magnetic field-lines, it follows that magnetic field-lines embedded in an MHD plasma act rather like mutually repulsive elastic bands.

If we remove a magnetic field , the plasma work like a charged cloud, although is it neutral. Similar work does an alternating current. There is no charge movement but work is done like by direct current.

The solar wind do not carry a direct electric current but it acts like a kind of the alternating electric current.

well besides.. TESLA..

i quickly found this source.. and while it may not be the best, it does discuss the matter in question.
http://www.auf.asn.au/meteorology/section11.html

quote...
"During fair weather there is an electric potential difference of 250 000 to 500 000 volts between the ionosphere and the Earth’s surface, the surface being negative relative to the ionosphere. This gives rise to the fair weather current which is a steady flow of electrons from the surface at about one microwatt per square metre. "

-MT

That's interesting, and I accept there is a charge separation, with the upper atmosphere being positive. But there is no source for the separation mentioned in that article. I found web pages that say that thunderstorms are the reason for the charge separation, not the solar wind. This makes a lot more sense to me, and also jobes with the solar wind being neutral overall.

well.. the wind itself.. maybe made up of nuetral amounts of electrons and protons... thus neutral..
but when its blasted off the sun... its ionized.. and as it travels to the earth its ionized.. and its the radiation, ie.. light, uv, xrays.. that maintains it that way.
and when all this hits our atmosphere.. it ionizes it.. i.e ripps off electrons from it.. and literally carries them away, on the whole.. planet scale i mean...

this bath of uv and xray light does hit the atmosphere, and is not deflected by the magnetic field.

then its a simple question of whether these electrons fly down, or off into space.....?? i tend to think space.
-MT

Theoretically a plasma is neutral but it would be too simple in our reality, I think.

The real solar wind is mixed with a dust, Cosmic Rays, different radiation, magnetic and gravity fields, it is changing with a time according to solar activity.
I do not believe the solar wind is smooth and perfect neutral. There are double layer accelerating heavy protons and light electrons. It is to complicate.
There have to be the parts of space with a different charges.

A current is a current, be it direct or alternating, it still is differential motion between the positive and the negative charges.

A neutral plasma means that there are EQUAL amounts of positive and negative charge. Like in a Tokamak, where we have a neutral plasma, there can be a direct current, or how do you think they heat the plasma to get it to fusion?
A neutral plasma blob can have its own magnetic field, just by having currents flowing in the plasma. A (not perfect) example would be a CME (Coronal Mass Ejection) which has a doughnut like shape.

No, a perfect plasma (of the school??) is neutral, but all the charged particles are on their own little trip. There is no grouping of (to keep it simple) protons and electrons sticking together as a nice married couple. You have to put energy in the first gas, turn it into a plasma, and the kinetic energy of the particles greatly exceeds the electrostatic energy, so there is no recombination.
From your text above, and I quote If plasma would be neutral like air it would not interact with magnetic field, as the air do. it is clear you do not understand what is meant by a neutral plasma.

Do you think that a "frozen in field" only has to do with two plasmas bordering eachother? Is a "frozen in field" not just a logical consequence of the MHD equations?


I stop here, because if you don't get the basics, there is no use discussing anything more complicate like you want to do in the rest of your message. I give you the following literature list of books I find useful and have in my own little science library:

In increasing complexity
1. Kivelson and Russell, Introduction to Space Physics
2. Marcel Goossens, An Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and MHD
3. Goedbloed and Poedts, Priniples of Magnetohydrodynamics
4. Baumjohann and Treumann, Basic Space Plasma Physics

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Because both the electrons and ions are free to move in a plasma, a wide variety of waves can exist in the solar wind. These waves are called plasma waves. Because collisions are extremely rare in the tenuous solar wind, plasma waves play a role similar to collisions in an ordinary gas by scattering particles and providing the dissipation necessary to achieve thermal equilibrium.

Three principal types of plasma waves were detected : (1) the free space electromagnetic mode, (2) the electron plasma oscillation mode, and (3) the ion acoustic mode.

The electron plasma oscillation is an almost purely oscillatory mode in which the electrons vibrate around their equilibrium position while the ions remain at rest. The resulting charge oscillation produces an electric field but no magnetic field. For this reason these waves are sometimes called electrostatic waves.

Because of the large inertia of the ions, the propagation speed of the ion acoustic mode is quite slow, normally much less than the solar wind speed, which is typically about 400 km/sec. As in the case of electron plasma oscillations the ion-acoustic mode is electrostatic, with no magnetic field.

The electron plasma frequency, which is the characteristic frequency of electron plasma oscillations and the low frequency limit of the free space electromagnetic mode, increases from about 20 kHz at the Earth's orbit to several hundred MHz at the solar surface. The ion plasma frequency, which is the upper frequency limit of the ion acoustic mode, varies from about 500 Hz at the Earth's orbit to a few MHz at the solar surface.

It is plasma.

And this answers which of my questions???

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

You asked what is the neutral plasma . So, it is as above with its consequences of the oscillating charges.

Sure, I know all that what you so nicely copied from somewhere, I asked you a lot of questions, this does not answer any of them, definitely not if you understand what a neutral plasma is.
What do these plasma modes have to do with your nonsense calculation of a frequency f = v / L? etc. You can copy as much as you like, but the important part is if you understand it.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

If a conductor moves relative to the oscillating charges, there is an alternating current induced.

You're just playing games czeslaw and I am not going to play along anymore. Whenever I say something you just sidestep or come up with something else. You have yet to show that you have any real understanding of plasma physics.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

I am not a professional physicist like you. I like to hear a klezmer music and discuss about a physics. This ATM Forum is the best for people like me. A sharp discuss with you forces me to study a physics problems better.

A plasma is usually mixed with an equal amount of the protons and electrons and seems to be electrically neutral.
Because of the free electrons and ions and relatively long distances between them we observe the charge oscillations. That is right , I think.

If there is charge oscillation , there is an alternating electric current, which may be induced in a conductor moving through plasma, isn’t it? If you move a conductor in the air there is no electric current at all.

I think the problem is that you need to study the subject first, and this is not the place for basic plasma education. (though I'm sure learning a lot.) it is not tusenfem's job to educate you, heaven knows. you must start that process yourself. while you may appreciate the help you're given at it, you've been told, repeatedly, to read a book first, and you're still telling people that the picture of the universe they have is wrong.

let me say this again, in case you've missed it.

I am not a scientist. I have not studied these fields, certainly not in any detail. ergo, I will assume that those who have studied the field know more than I do and not try to overthrow the current worldview.

maybe it's language problems, but you come across like you're trying to teach us about a subject about which you don't know much.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Do you think , I am not right ? There are not charge oscillations in a plasma? Doesn't this oscillation induce an alternating current in a moving conductor through this plasma ?

The conductor does not need to be moving, since the electrons are in motion. I think what you are trying to describe is what is called thermal plasma noise, which is related to the plasma frequency.

Of course, it is obvious, I think. I do not understand why
tusenfem quarrels with me.
There is a link about plasma, very good and simple:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Plasma_physics

Based on what? There is no evidence of this, and lots of evidence against it.

I'm not sure I'd call it 'quarrelling', rather (seems to me) giving you some sound advice (learn plasma physics, so that, at the very least, you can ask more meaningful questions).

A particularly good piece of advice (IMHO) was to NOT use questions and answers here in the BA forum as a method for learning (plasma) physics.

If I may add to this excellent advice? posting in the ATM section will likely make your learning even more difficult (if, indeed, you do decide you wish to learn). Why? Because, as the BA says about this section "If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. [...] People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science. [...]" This kind of environment is not particularly conducive to learning first principles, if - as seems to be the case with your ideas - you are presenting "some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory"

Some of you wrote, there is no electric curent in the solar wind. It is like a wind on the Earth or like a water in a river.

I say - there is no direct electric current but there is an ALTERNATING ELECTRIC CURRENT.

According to our discussion it it clear noe, I think.

I have to disagree. I think we are all learning, novices and astronmers alike. I think we have all learnt that plasma is deceptively complicated subject, and I'd be very surprised if both sides haven't learnt something (to do with the subject, rather than the perceived ignorance on each side).

I think this subject "whether the Solar Wind is an electric" is a good example. It doesn't seem to have a definitive yes/no answer.

Regards,
Ian Tresman