Solving the mystery of Jupiter Great Red Spot

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:06:44 -0800 (PST), Craig Markwardt
wrote:

On Feb 11, 12:41*am, wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 12:06:25 -0800 (PST), Craig Markwardt



wrote:
On Feb 3, 1:49*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 11:45:14 -0800 (PST), Craig
wrote:

On Jan 30, 3:10*am, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:13:28 -0800 (PST), Craig

wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:20*pm, wrote:
...
This article is based on a former article that shows that the solar
cycle is applied to the sun from the galactic disc and not created
internally by a solar dynamo. The solar cycle is what heats the sun by
inducing electric currents and not fusion reaction.

http://www.philica.com/display_artic...?article_id=65

http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/sun.pdf

Strangely, the former article appears to rely on unsubstantiated
assumptions. *The author relies crucially on a claim about the
electrical resistivity of the sun, as a means to develop large
electrical currents, which appears to be incorrect.

In particular, the claimed electrical resistivity is based solely on a
conference proceedings paper published in 1987. *The conference paper
itself is a theoretical paper, not an experimental one, and the
electrical properties discussed in the text refer to a theoretical
'toy model' and are not linked to measurements in any way.
Furthermore, the Zohar author incorrectly assumes that the conference
paper's units are expressed in "SI" metric units, when they quite
clearly are not. *It's actually not clear what the units are, but they
are not SI, and thus, the Zohar author has made a tragic error.

Ultimately, the Zohar author relies on this conference paper to
conclude that the Sun is effectively a superconducting substrate.
This is purely ludicrous. *There's hardly a way that a 1000-1000000 K
thermal plasma can be a superconductor.

CM

The sun is not a perfect superconductor and it has some resistance.
Still this resistance is very low as the sun is made of hot plasma.
The low resistance of the sun converts low magnetic fields that cross
the sun to very strong current that heat the sun. *The model of a
magnet and a superconductor for stars and galaxies is very useful. It
can explain the rigidity of the galactic disk that creates the galaxy
rotation curve and it can explain the repulsion between galaxies and
the expanding universe.

A formula for the conductivity of hot plasma made of ionized hydrogen
can be found in the book: Cosmic Ray Interactions, Propagation and
Acceleration in Space Plasmas - L. Dorman Springer, 2006 - Page 1.

Conductivity = 2*10^7*T^3/2

Where T is the temperature.

The first question one might ask is why you cited a theoretical "toy
model" conference proceedings paper in your manuscript, and now are
switching to a new citation. *Another question might be, why would a
formula for conductivity in a *space plasma* -- i.e. the solar wind --
be applicable to the solar *interior* as you seem to be using it.

Finally, as I noted previously, but you ignored, you *assumed* the
units were SI (MKS) units. *However, astronomers typically work in
c.g.s. units. * In fact, the units of (s^-1) in the conference
proceedings you cited are the equivalent c.g.s. units for
conductivity. *But since your manuscript uses the cited value as if it
were an MKS quantity, your results are incorrect and irrelevant.
More authoritative references for the conductivity in the solar body,
in MKS units, shows that the conductivity quantities are much smaller
than you claim (e.g. Stix 1989, sec 8.1). *Thus, any "magnetic
dissipation" would be many orders of magnitude much less than you
originally claimed.

CM

References
Stix, M. 1989, *The Sun: An Introduction*, Springer.

Hi,

You are right there is confusion between cgs units and mks units.
To convert the resistivity from cgs to mks the following ratio is
used: *1 s = 8.988*10^9 Ohm*m
Using this ratio it is possible to convert the formulas from Durney
and Dorman.

In Durney 9*10^6*T^3/2 is in cgs and when converted to mks will give
0.001*T^3/2 in Dorman the convertion will give 0.002*T^3/2. This is
close to the value in Stix that gives 0.003*T^3/2.http://books.google.com/books?id=wxH...n,+Michael+Sti...

I did the calculation again using the Stix formula and using 4000000K
as the temperature.http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/energy_calc2.pdf

This also gives an energy that is larger than what is lost from the
sun luminosity.

Why are you using the values of plasma conductivity for the
chromosphere in your calculation, when the calculation refers to the
deeper interior?

Why, in your calculations, do you refer to "upper radiative zone" when
such descriptions only refer to the standard model of the sun where
the energy is produced by fusion?

Finally, as noted previously, your supposition of the sun as "almost"
a superconductor is not tenable. *You supposed that time variation in
the intergalactic magnetic field would somehow induce a back-e.m.f. in
the sun -- *and thus a current -- that resistive heating alone would
account for all solar energy production. *You "derived" emfs of 3 MV
and resistances of 9e-16 Ohm (which I don't necessarily concur with).
A simple calculation shows that the induced currents would produce
magnetic fields about 10 billion times as much field as the sun
actually has. *I.e. your supposition leads to ridiculously incorrect
magnetic fields. *That is because a back-emf can *never* induce a
magnetic field larger than the external field that caused it in the
first place.

The same issue would occur with a superconducting loop experiencing a
changing external magnetic field. *By your same analogy, the
resistance of the loop is nearly zero, so the dissipated power would
be nearly infinite. *However, in reality, the variations of magnetic
field will induce *only* enough current to cancel out the external
variations, and the resulting dissipated power would be negligible.
Beyond that, the e.m.f. would be short circuited. *Thus, in reality,
even if the other premises of this "theory" were correct (which I do
not admit), the amount of power that could be dissipated in the sun by
this process is negligble (1e-9 of solar luminosity).

CM

Why are you using the values of plasma conductivity for the
chromosphere in your calculation, when the calculation refers to the
deeper interior?

At the top part of page 308 of stix 1989 it say that the the formula
0.003*T^3/2 is estimated for the sun convection zone.http://books.google.com/books?id=wxH...n,+Michael+Sti...

The term "upper radiative zone" is used to denote the depth that its
temperature is used to find the conductivity. It is roughly 0.6*Rsun.http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/im...nsity_vs_r.jpg

But that still begs the question.... why are you using the terminology
and estimates of the standard solar model, when clearly you do not
believe the standard solar model is correct?


The conductivity according to the calculatiob abouve is very high a
bout three times that of copper. The large size of the sun decreases
the resistance and gives 9.38*10^-16 ohm. This low resistance cannot
be achevied on earth without superconductor.

As already mentioned, but you conveniently ignored, the
"superconductor" interpretation has several implications. First, a
superconductor will resist all changes in externally applied magnetic
field, because the changing field will induce an opposing e.m.f. (and
current) which perfectly cancels out the applied change. Second, the
induced opposing current cannot generate a magnetic field larger than
the original applied change.

The currents inside the sun that are created by the solar cycle cannot
produce magnetic field that oppose the solar cycle. ...

Your claim is odd. Your original "theory" claimed that the solar
cycle is induced by changing interstellar magnetic fields at the sun's
position, and that somehow these external fields induce a large
resistive electrical dissipation within the sun. Your "currents ...
created by the solar cycle" phrasing appears to be a diversion to hide
the original claim.

*Any* currents induced within the sun by a changing external magnetic
field will *oppose* the external change... that is the nature of
Lenz's law which you yourself invoked! It doesn't matter whether
"electrons flow forward" or "ions flow backward," the only important
factor is the net charge flow. And in fact, in such a flow where
electrons/ions flow forward/backward, the magnetic field does *not*
cancel out, as you erroneously claimed.

If you had bothered to take your claimed e.m.f. and resistance, and
calculate the amount of induced current implied by those values, you
would find an amount of current which would produce a completely
unphysical magnetic field, a magnetic field many billions of times
more than the sun actually has. Thus, your "theory" cannot be
correct. The reason it fails is because you did not consider the
limitations of Lenz's law before you applied it.

CM

It is possible to use an analogy with a transformer. In a transformer,
there is a primary winding, a secondary winding and an iron core that
carry the magnetic flux. The magnetic flux is created by the primary
winding. This magnetic flux when flowing in the secondary winding will
create current in the secondary winding. This current will produce its
own magnetic flux that resist the flux created by the primary winding.
The result is that the magnitude of the magnetic flux in the core is
the flux of the primary winding minus the flux of the secondary
winding. This total flux is not zero and has the direction of the
primary winding flux. All the electricity in the world is conveyed by
transformers and all homes are connected somewhere to a secondary
winding of a transformer so clearly it is possible to supply energy
this way.

The sun is like the secondary winding and the solar cycle is like the
core of the transformer. The magnitude of the magnetic flux in the
solar cycle is the original flux from the galactic disk minus the
opposite magnetic flux created by the sun. This does not invalidate
the calculations of the sun energy from faraday's law in the above
file.
http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/energy_calc2.pdf

The solar maximum at which the sun is most active is happening when
the sun is flipping the polarity of its magnetic dipole (the sine
graph of its magnetic field cross the x axis and has the largest
slope). This is exactly according to Faraday's law. If the solar
maximum was not exactly at the point of the polarity change it was
because the induced currents create a strong opposing magnetic flux.
This is similar to a solenoid. If you connect a solenoid or inductor
with high induction to alternating emf, the current in the solenoid
will appear behind the emf and create a phase shift. This phase shift
is very small in the sun so we can assume it creates small backward
magnetic flux and the sun has small induction.

The idea that the sun create backward magnetic flux can also be
applied to the dynamo effect and refute it. The magnetic field created
by the dynamo effect will create electric current in the sun plasma,
those currents will cancel the original magnetic field, and the sun
will not show a solar cycle.

Dan Bar-Zohar