Sparky,

P.Asmah used that same quote last year (post 275 and post 405 and again post 448 in this thread), and I can find references to it on other pro Plasma - EU - sites (plasmacosmology.net), but no source or other references. I would like to know the context (when was it said, did there come a 'but', etcetera).

And I think that Tim thompson gave his post exactly like an example of pot and kettle, so using this to dismiss him is a bit strange...

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Except that they are inferred from the observations.

Which does not make the idea of Electric Universe any more correct.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

It certainly is an interesting observation!

Reading the PR, the following caught my eye: "However, a theoretical treatment published in 2000 by Drs. Jason Fiege and Ralph Pudritz of McMaster University suggested that when treated properly, filamentary molecular clouds should exhibit a helical magnetic field around the long axis of the cloud. This is the first observational confirmation of this theory."

Curious, I fired up Google Scholar (I'm sure ADS will do as good, if not better, a job), and found the two theoretical papers: Helical fields and filamentary molecular clouds - I and Helical fields and filamentary molecular clouds - II (caution: the links take you straight to the ArXiV PDF files).

Having skimmed through these theoretical papers, I'm curious to hear what regular BAUT EU proponents have to say about them. To me, the papers would seem to be compelling evidence against some of the more extreme EU-er's claims (and concrete evidence to support what Tim Thompson wrote recently in this thread).I know that you'll be answering papageno's questions to you, re the necessity of currents in (the solar wind) plasma, iantresman (I have the same questions of EU proponents, applied to filamentary molecular clouds), so for now I'll simply ask this: in what ways are the two Fiege and Pudritz papers deficient, wrt the application of plasma physics?

Oh, and one last question: you say "This is the strongest evidence I've seen for a cosmic Birkeland current" - what criteria did you use to make your determination ('strongest evidence')?

I'm not claiming that any phenomenon in plasma are solely electrical, nor am I claiming that magnetic fields are not important. All I'm suggesting is that there is an electrical component which under some circumstances, may be significant.

I'm saying that (a) there is an electric component, and (b) that the Sun's magnetic field is important. But by looking at the heliospheric current sheet from an electrical point of view, provides another level of understanding. Sure, the electrical component can be ignored in many instances, I'm just saying that it can't always be ignored.

So I would be wrong to call the heliospheric current sheet a completely electrical phenomenon, and equally wrong to suggest that it does not have an electrical component.

I'm not trying to suggest that electric currents in plasmas, such as those in the heliospheric current sheet, are primarily driven by electric fields and charge build-ups. As I've suggested previously, electric currents and magnetic fields go together.


Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

The papers look very promising, which appear to have been subsequently published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 311, Issue 1, (Jan 2000) pp. 85-104 [Part I [Part II]. I note in particular mention of the Pinch Effect (last paragraph page 87), and in the following paragraph, or currents flowing through the filament.

If this "counts" as mainstream, then great, we can all go home. But if I put on my cynical hat, (a) there has been much discussion in these threads on electric currents in space, not all of it positive, (b) I wonder what the reaction would have been if these paper had been by Alfvén or Calqvist.

Certainly Alfvén, Carlqvist, and Falthämmar appear to have pre-dated Fiege and Pudritz predictions by at least a couple of decades, and Peratt's paper "The evidence for electrical currents in cosmic plasma" [Abs | Full PDF] provides observational evidence that pre-dates the papers by a decade.

I made an unscientific over-generalization that showed similarities in certain characterisitics: (a) helical (spiral or twisted) magnetic field (b) plasma medium (c) filamentation (d) Polarized EM signal.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

So, Ian, when you opened your post in response to korjik with "I think it depends on whether you know where to look. A typical plasma ball contains electrically neutral plasma, yet electric current filaments readily flow", you were not trying to dispute his statement that the Solar Wind is overall electrically neutral.
Infact, none of the references you provided shows in any way that the Solar Wind is not overall neutral: the heliospheric current sheet does not disprove korjik's statement.

What electrical component and which circumstances?

Again, what electrical point of view and what electrical component?

You still lack in specifics: what electrical component?

So, what was your point in replying to korjik's post?
You provided four references: only two of them were relevant to the Solar Wind, and you still have not explained what you were trying to say.

And finally: Do you mind addressing my questions?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Thanks papageno, I had fogotten that I had posted here. You have made the points I was trying to make much better than I could have.

iantresman,
Yes, calling the any current sheet an electrical effect would be wrong. In this case, the heliosphereic sheet is caused by the motion of charged particles through a dipole magnetic field. since the field changes polarity along the sheet, the ions all tend to go in the same direction at that point in the field, since the ions are spinning along the field lines in opposite directions on either side of the polarity reversal.

Also, here is the terminology I have been taught and use.
Electric effect= coulomb interaction between still charges.
Magnetic effect=interactions beween 'fixed' currents (the paths dont change)
electrodynamics=the actions of generally free charges in background and self made magnetic and electric fields.

magnetodynamics would be part of electrodynamics

Therefore, calling any effect in space electric is generally considered a bit off. not nesacaraly (I am going to learn how to spell that word someday) wrong, but a bit off.

There are alot of currents generated when charged particles travel through magnetic fields. Ring current, sheet current, birkeland currents, and the electrojet are 4 that I can think of off the top of my head. These are all electrodynamic effects dependent on the magnetic field involved, not electric effects.

Re. "It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical!" Jim Peebles

Well, I tried a Google, and I found no lack of confirmations. But in case that isn't good enough for you, I emailed Jim Peebles and he was good enough to provide a prompt response ... in the affirmative.

I am happy to forward the email to a moderator upon request.

Regards
Sparky

That clears it up, then. A spade is not a spade!

[ Picture a bang-head-on-wall icon here ]

I would like to see the email, if possible.
I don't get the Google confirmations though: with your exact quote, I get 7 results, which are (with doubles) BAUT, Bad Astronomy, Plasmacosmology.net, and searchingsecure.
With the better spelling of embarassment, I get only the Badastronomy forum.

Taking a shorter quote, I find a bit more references, showing that the exact quote is rather insecure. Added sites that use it are electric-cosmos.org, outlanders.fsnet.co.uk, synchronizeduniverse.com, creationsafaris.com, saturniancosmology.org, and so on.
So can you give me any serious reference with Google please, because I can't find any.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Did you ask him if he felt the EU hypothesis as put forth on "plasmacosmology.net" or "thunderbolts" was a viable alterntive to current cosmological models and theories of gravity? I'd be willing to bet a bottle of wine that the prompt response to that question would be in the negative.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

Ditto (though I also got a hit from Tom VanFlandern's MetaResearch website, with a fragment).

What members exchange via PMs to each other is not within the mods' remit (gross abuse aside); the posting into a BAUT thread of private correspondence, without the sender's explicit consent, is very much a violation of the BAUT rules.

I'll add a bottle of New Zealand sauvignon blanc to EtaC's bet

My original response to korjik was to a paragraph full of statements [Ref]. The points I was not questioning include (a) Calling the solar wind a current is wrong, (b) it is overall electrically neutral. (c) We would see the effect of a charge buildup if it wasn't.

I suspect this is where the confusion lies.

However, I was questioning "No one has ever seen the sun electrically interact with the rest of the galaxy." The heliospheric current sheet may not be caused electrically, but as a current, I was suggesting that it electrical itself. And as Alfvén suggests in Cosmic Plasma, this makes it part of a circuit, with the Sun providing the e.m.f. as a unipolar inductor.

Likewise Alfvén has the galaxy acting as a unipolar inductor, and corresponding intergalactic circuit.

The recently discovered "Slinky in space" (see references in my earlier post here) with corresponding filamentary current, does suggest intergalactic electric currents, to which Alfvén impies the heliospheric current circuit is coupled.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

How about asking him if it was published, and where.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Well, now, with all the discussions about the EU & Plasma Cosmology in the ATM section that would be a safe bet. Would you bet that he has even heard of these ideas?

Cheers.

Hmm, I missed the 'with corresponding filamentary current' in the press release (both the UT one and original) - could you point it out to us please?

And wrt the two theoretical papers, well, I only skimmed them, so would you (or any other EU proponent) be so kind as to walk us through the relevant part(s) of them, pointing out to us the size and nature of 'the correspoding filamentary current', and how the papers 'suggest intergalactic electric currents'?

Finally, I'm afraid you completely lost me with the very last phrase ("to which Alfvén impies the heliospheric current circuit is coupled") - what is the basis for you claiming such a coupling (please be specific, and do not simply point to some paper of Alfvén)?

So, you were questioning the other points: The confusion lies in the fact that you gave references without even a hint of an explanation about how they relate to the point you were responding to.

How exactly does the heliospheric current sheet, or Peratt's electric currents in cosmic plasma, or the heating of the solar chromosphere dispute any of korjik's points?



Remember what I asked you (more than once):
See above.
How does the closed circuit make the Sun interact electrically with the rest of the Universe?

Is it an electric interaction, or is it an inductive, like two current-carrying circuits (to which physicist do not apply the term "electric interaction")?


Now, explain specifically how the references you cited dispute the statement in korjik's post you question.
And it would be appropriate to address the rest of the my post.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

I don't think I described the heliospheric current sheets as an electric effect, but perhaps loosily as electrical. And looking at your definitions, I suppose that electrodynamics is the best description in this case.

And hence electrodynamics implies both magnetic and electric components (I would have written electrical components).

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Remember?
You started saying which became, after many posts And so far you failed to explain (in spite of my insistence to clarify), what you mean with "electrical" with respect to the heliopsheric current sheet.

With all the references you have posted in this thread, one would have thought that you were familiar at least with the terminology used by physicists.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Nope, it's not there. And I apologise for being lax in pinpointing the information. If you recall my previous reply to yours (above), you had found in the press release, mention of previous theoretical work by Fiege and Pudritz, and found their pre-print. There I mentioned that Fiege and Pudritz had noted a current flowing through the filament. I provided a link to the pages concerned, but am sure I am allowed a short quote, they wrote:

All magnetic fields, whether poloidal, toroidal, or of a more complex geometry, are associated with currents that flow within molecular clouds and the surrounding ISM. For a filamentary cloud wrapped by a helical field, the toroidal field component implies the existence of a poloidal current that flows along the filament. (p.88 from "Helical fields and filamentary molecular clouds", Fiege, J. D. & Pudritz, R. E., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 311, Issue 1, pp. 85-104.)

I read "a poloidal current that flows along the filament" as a filamentary current, and called on corresponding since magnetic fields may generate currents, and currents magnetic fields.

Additionally, my references just mentioned included a reference to Peratt's paper "The Evidence For Electrical Currents in Cosmic Plasma, (Abs, PDF, 1990) A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 18, p.26", in which he also mentions "Filamentary Currents in the Plasma Universe" (Section II).

Alfvén also described such a current filament, with a toroidal (rather than helical) magnetic field, and associated Bennett pinch (z-pinch). See the diagram in his paper "Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars" (1978) by Alfven, H. & Carlqvist, P. [Abstract] [Diagram on p.497]

Fiege and Pudritz don't provide a size and nature the filamentary current. Peratt does, and I refer you to his paper above (Section II again), and so does Alfvén in his paper above (p.500)

Let me answer this bit tomorrow (it's nearly midnight here), and I'm not sure I can summary several pages into several paragraphs.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

I look forward to you providing us with some substantiation of this claim. In particular:
- establish that whatever currents are discussed in Fiege and Pudritz are "Birkeland currents" (I note that you played a large part in the writing of the Wiki article, and are an editor of the thunderbolts page (two of the four references you made in your initial post) and that the Wiki discussion page reflects a certain dissatisfaction with some apparent laxness in the use of terminology)
- show that Peratt's (and thunderbolt's) 'galactic dimensional Birkeland currents' are relevant to Fiege and Pudritz' 'filamentary molecular clouds' (at first glance, the two parameter spaces seem quite remote from each other)
- at the 50k' level, show that what Alfvén, Carlqvist, and Falthämmar analysed is similar to what Fiege and Pudritz analysed (I appreciate that this may be quite challenging).Thanks for the clarification.

Would it be reasonable to conclude that this is an example of what Tim Thompson mentioned a short while ago in this thread ("One must remember that the fans of the "Electric Universe" suffer from a consistent bias. They believe that astrophysicists & cosmologists ignore the effect of electric currents, and wrongly assume that magnetic fields dominate in situations where, in reality the electric field dominates. In this view, "electric currents" are not charge-neutral, but charge specific, streams purely made of electrons or protons. They also make the extreme assertion that astrophysicists & cosmologists do not study plasma physics, and are therefore unaware of its true role in astrophysics & cosmology")?

I would take that view point. Why? Because of a gravity dominated cosmology.
Charge current is different than drift current...
They are just now catching on to the fact that "reconnections"(x and z pinches) Space probes detect enormous magnetic reconnection event are important. If pinches are happening then there is a dynamic variation in the magnetic field which means there is a variation in charge flow, or an electric current.
When pinches are scaled and applied to the cosmos, things like blackholes, pulsars, neutron stars, supernova etc. will become electrically/plasma dominated.
Look at that article carefully. I'm confident that pinches(reconnection) are(is) going to be the next big field of study along with the (Birkeland)power source.

Also from the article.
"The solar wind is a stream of electrically charged or ionized gas that blows continually from the sun and carries magnetic fields in different directions."

I would have written that as "The solar plasma flow is a stream of electrically accelerated ionized gas from the sun that produces magnetic fields with local variations."

I know I have expressed some pretty radical ideas,(electric, iron sun. That everything, GRB, nova, stars, cosmic ray generation, are all pinches) but at this point I'm confident that these ideas will be shown to be correct, even with my "ignorance of basic physics" as it was put to me by Nereid.

I dont think its about trying to convince anybody anymore so much as knowing that it only a matter of time before the EU model is the standard model.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

for instance.......


Fossil galaxy reveals clues to early universe
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n...8fossilgalaxy/
"The more ionized a gas becomes, the less efficiently it can cool. The cooling rate in turn controls the ability of the gas to form denser structures, such as stars and galaxies," Andersson said. The hotter the gas, the less likely it is for structures to form, he said.


This mainstream viewpoint is counter to the EU model.

I would say there were electric currents before the first stars formed.

As a matter of fact electric pinches formed the first stars.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

Let me start by saying that I am sure that my understanding of the subject is far from perfect (as I am sure is evident), and that the best source of information are the original books and papers.

As a very general oversimplification, since 99.9% of the universe by volume is plasma, certain phenomenon occuring in one plasma region, may effect another. An example is the coupling of the Sun to the Earth via the interplanetary medium, in which a strong solar flare may subsequently cause power station failure on Earth.

Alfvén suggests that a treatment of cosmic plasma with an electric current description, in addition to the magnetic field description, provides a deeper understanding of certain phenomenon. For example:

"We shall also make a similar translation of the magnetic field description of the magnetosphere into an electric current description (III.6) which makes it possible to understand the transfer of energy from the solar wind to the magnetosphere.

"By a similar method, we can account for the transfer of energy from photospheric activity to the solar wind (III.9) . This will make it possible to understand the whole sequence of processes which transfer energy from the Sun to the magnetosphere and ionosphere (III.10)." (Cosmic Plasma, 1981, p.42)

Alfvén goes on to suggest several ways in which a plasma can couple, or transfer energy between different regions, such as (CE=Cosmical Electrodynamics, (1962), 2nd Ed., co-authored with Carl-Gunne Fälthammar; CP= Cosmic Plasma (1981)):

• A coupling between electromagnetic fields and motion of electrically conducting matter is produced very generally under cosmical conditions (CE p.3) [..] If a magnetized medium moves, an electric field is produced. If the medium is electrically conducting and different parts of it move at different velocity, the electric field will produce currents [..]. These currents interact with the magnetic field and produce forces which, [..] are strong enough to change the state of motion of the medium appreciably. In this way hydrodynamic motion and electromagnetic phenomena are coupled. (CE, p.74)
• Inertia drift (producing an intertial drift current) [..] which transfers kinetic energy into electromagnetic energy, and vice versa. (CP, p.4)
• The electric current description shows that it is possible to transfer energy in an 'invisible' way. As an example we can take the transfer of energy in the auroral circuit which transfers energy from a moving plasma cloud to the region of release through electric currents; [..] Hence, we have a mechanism of 'invisible' transfer of energy over a large distance . A possible example of this is the energy release in double radio sources (CP, 28).
• Plasma cables [filaments] seem to be reasonably stable formations which can be considered as structures important for the understanding of plasma phenomena . [..] The plasma cables are either filaments or 'flattened filaments' (sheets with limited extent). [..] The cables are often very efficient in transferring electromagnetic power from one region to another. (CP, 37)

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Maybe "mainstream" cosmology has a reason to consider gravity as the dominating interaction over cosmic scales.
Or do you have actual evidence to disprove this?

Maybe they are "catching on now", because now these events have been observed.
Or would you like them to jump to unsupported conclusions?


What makes you think that such an extrapolation is justified?
And once you scaled the theory, do the current observations agree with your expectations?


How come we do not measure this accelerating electric field?
If it can accelerate the charged particles in the Solar Wind, what keeps it from accelerating charges in the sensors of probes (after all, space probes detected magnetic reconnection events)?


What makes you so confident?


And if the observations were to disprove the EU model, would you accept it?

By the way, since you are back, I would like you to address this post and this one.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Unfortunately for you, the solar wind is NOT accelerated electrically.
AFAIK there are various models for the solar wind acceleration, including radiation pressurre, all kinds of waves, etc. But no model uses electric acceleration of ions, because that would leave the electrons, and we have already concluded that the solar wind is neutral.

__________________

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)

Sorry Papageno for the delay in getting back to you, not enough minutes in the day.

Yes, I stand guilty of providing insufficient information regarding the my references.

So just confirm, I was replying to korjik's point that "No one has ever seen the sun electrically interact with the rest of the galaxy". Of course my inaccurate use of the term "electrical" hasn't helped.

Anyway, I was trying show that although the solar wind is neutral overall, electric currents do flow within it (hence some of my references), and that such currents are ubiquitous in cosmic plasmas.

korjik mentioned the Sun-Earth interaction, and that there was no electrical intereaction; but if my understanding of electrical is different to korjik, then I apologise. So my references were to show that there are indeed electric currents both in the Sun's chromosphere, in the solar wind, and we know about terrestrial Birkeland currents; so I was trying to show that there is an electric current between the Sun-Earth.

Peratt's paper suggests that electrical currents in plasmas are quite extensive, and my recent post (above) on how Alfvén sees plasmas interacting with one another (using an electric current description), provides a theoretical explanation (based on laboratory studies of plasma, Earth's magnetosphere).

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Then you should explain what you mean with "electrical".

Considering that the Solar Wind is composed of charged particles, this is not a surprise.
As I pointed out, a neutral conductor can carry a current, and so does a plasma.


It looks like the Earth's magnetic field interacts with the Sun's magnetic field: how can this be interpreted as "electrical"?


Which is not observed, is it?

Extensive as the plasma itself, maybe?

And how exactly does it refute that "No one has ever seen the sun electrically interact with the rest of the galaxy"?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

You're kidding, my volt meter is broken. I suspect that there is little substantiation I can provide myself, and even if I did, you'd want references; so that's where I think I might be able to help.

Good point about the terminology. There are some people for whom a Birkeland current is a field-aligned current that's found only in the Earth's magnetosphere. After all, that's where they were predicted and first detected, and so-named in 1969 And consquently this appears to be the most common usage, named after Kristian Birkeland.

So just as you don't find Typhoons in America, or Hurricanes in South-East Asia, and tornados, cyclones and anticyclones elsewhere, they are all basically the same phenomenon: cyclones. And they're even found on Mars.


That could be difficult as they seen to approach the theories from different directions. Fiege and Pudritz seem to base theirs using Virial theorem (gravitational), whereas Peratt's is entirely plasma physics based.

It wouldn't surprise me if there are common elements in both papers, and observational data is consistent with both. At least from my untrained eye, they appear to be discussing the same phenomenon: electric currents in filaments. Peratt describes what he means by Birkeland currents, and the range of scales to which he applies them.

But ultimately, you would be the best judge of each paper.


Sorry, not sure what you mean by the 50k' level.

Guilty as charged (no pun intended). But that's a bit like saying that Einstein was biased toward General Relativity.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Carlqvist and Alfvén's model electromagnetically powered, and results in the acceleration of electrons and ions, in the same direction, because it is based on a dense plasma focus device (AKA plasma gun). It appears to be based on an expanding solar current loop (which of course has a magnetic component).

• Energy source of the solar wind (1980) Carlqvist, P. & Alfven, H.
  See Section 2. Model of Solar Wind Acceleration [Abstract | In full | Diagram]
• See also J.Chen, in "Effects of toroidal forces in current loops embedded in a background plasma" (1989), comment on Carlqvist, P. & Alfven's model (p.455).

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com