http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================

<http://www.thunderbolts.info/>

Thunderbolts Forum -- Scott's response to W.T. Bridgman 

Re: Question about the current powering the sun <#p2735>

Don Scott's reply... <#p2740>

New post 
*davesmith_au
on Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:31 pm

....

Don Scott in a private email response wrote:
Solar Electron Flux

The solar constant, defined as the total radiant energy at all
wavelengths reaching an area of one square centimeter at the Earth's
distance from the Sun, is about 0.137 watts per square centimeter .
It works out, then, that the Sun must be emitting about 6.5x10^7
watts per square meter of solar “surface,” and the total power
output of the Sun is approximately 4x10^26 watts.

The hypothetical electric discharge must then have a power input of
4x10^26 watts. Suppose that the Sun's cathode drop is of the order
of 10^10 volts. Then the total power input divided by the cathode
drop is 4x10^16 amperes. The velocity of the stellar winds is
estimated at 200 – 1000 km/s . This is in the range 2x10^5 and 10^6
m/s. Therefore, let us suppose that the effective velocity of a
typical interstellar electron is at least 10^5 m/s. From current
estimates of the state of ionization of the interstellar gas, we
might conclude that there should be at least 100,000 free electrons
per cubic m. The random electric current of these electrons then
would be Ir = Nev where N is the electron density per cubic meter, e
is the electron charge in coulombs, and v is the average velocity of
the electrons (in m/s). Using these values, we find that the random
electric current density should be about 1.6x10^-9 Amp per square
meter through a surface oriented at any angle.

The total electron current that can be drawn by the solar discharge
is the product of the random current density and the surface area of
the sphere occupied by the cathode drop. There is little to indicate
how large this sphere might be, but in view of the enormity of the
cathode drop it seems likely that the radius of the sphere would be
large in terms of solar system dimensions. The mean distance of
Pluto's orbit is 39.5 AU, or about 6x10^12 meters. We know that the
cathode drop reaches to at least that distance from the Sun. It
seems reasonable to estimate the distance of the heliopause is at
least twice that radius so that its spherical boundary would have a
collecting surface area of something greater than 4x10^26 square meters.

Such a surface could then collect a current of interstellar
electrons amounting to approximately 1.6x10^-9 Amp per square meter
x 4x10^26 square meters = 4x10^17 A. (Exactly 10 times the number
needed) – and of course a larger heliosphere could collect an even
greater current.) Of course this calculation involves many estimated
quantities, but the point is that it is not reasonable to conclude
that there are not enough electrons to power the Sun. From the rough
estimates of these important quantities that are presently the best
available, we have determined that there most certainly are more
than enough electrons available to power the Sun if, indeed, that is
what is occurring.

Establishment astronomers appear certain about how the Sun generates
its power and what is occurring deep down within it. They claim that
the core of the Sun is a continuous nuclear fusion reactor. This
core occupies 20% of the Sun’s radius. Surrounding the core is a
radiative zone wherein heat energy is transported away from the core
by photons. This zone occupies some 50% of the Sun’s radius. Sitting
on top of this structure (and occupying the remaining 30% of the
radius) is another zone in which heat is carried to the surface by
convection columns – very much like hot air rising from the top of a
hot stove. The entire journey from the core to the surface takes
between 100,000 and 200,000 years. The granulations we see on the
surface of the photosphere are supposedly the tops of
150,000-mile-long “convection columns” – stable tubes of rising
matter that transport heat energy up from the Sun’s core toward the
surface. Presumably that matter sinks back down toward the bottom of
the convection zone along the edges of the tubes.

But if this complete process actually takes many years, then why do
the “granules” change shape and even disappear in a period of hours?

This ‘accepted’ description sneaks in a subtle assumption – that the
“surface” of the Sun is the top of the convection zone and is the
final stage of the mechanism that makes the Sun shine. But this is
not true. The top of this assumed convection zone is only the
‘photosphere’, the surface that we see in visible light.

A more complete description would include the Sun’s physical form
beyond the photosphere. Next comes the chromosphere, a relatively
thin layer approximately 2000-3000 km in height. In comparison to
the much brighter photosphere, it glows faintly in red. The standard
model does not predict its existence.

Above the chromosphere lies an extended glowing plasma structure
that we can see during solar eclipses – the corona. Beyond the
corona, an invisible plasmasphere extends many times the distance of
the planet Pluto. The corona and the plasmasphere carry streams of
ions and electrons that have been named the “solar wind.” The
standard model provides no reason for the existence of the
chromosphere, the corona, the plasmasphere, or the solar wind.
If the standard model were correct, heat and light would simply
radiate away from the photosphere as from a hot stove. But many
processes, other than simple radiation of heat, are occurring above
the photosphere.

A temperature minimum occurs just above the photosphere. The lower
regions of the Sun’s corona, quite high above the visible surface,
are millions of degrees hotter than the surface of the Sun itself.
How can this be? The standard model has no satisfactory explanation
for it.
The flux of ions that the Sun emits in the solar wind varies in
intensity. The ion stream sometimes stops completely. How? Why? And
the ions in the solar wind accelerate – their velocity increases the
farther away from the Sun they get. How? Why? Again the standard
model has only ad hoc explanations for these observations.

The Sun rotates more rapidly at its equator than near its poles. The
magnetic fields near sunspots reverse polarity from one eleven-year
sunspot cycle to the next. These and many other observed phenomena
associated with the Sun give strong indication that a high level of
electrical activity is at work on and above the surface of our local
star.

It should be clear that the standard model is at least incomplete if
not totally wrong in its description of the Sun’s structure.
Astronomers defend this standard model by saying that all the
processes they describe have been performed in the laboratory and
are well known. But nothing could be further from the truth. Mankind
has been doggedly struggling for over half a century to create a
sustained nuclear fusion reaction in the laboratory. We have not
even come close to doing it. It may not even be possible. The only
experiment that has been performed that fuses hydrogen into helium
and liberates tremendous amounts of energy is the hydrogen bomb.
That reaction is almost instantaneous. Recently discovered inherent
instabilities in the plasma that is generated by the process may
make it impossible to control it and make it occur continuously.
Just to assume that such a sustained process is alive and well in
the Sun’s core is a stretch.

Whether or not Juergens was completely correct in his assertion that
the Sun is totally powered by external electrical excitation is
really not the most important point of the ES hypothesis. What is
important is that all of the phenomena we observe on and above the
surface of the Sun are clearly well-known effects in electric
plasma. This is true no matter how the Sun gets its power.

The ES model predicts and explains all these phenomena in quite
logical ways. In contrast, the standard model does not predict their
existence and offers no natural explanations for why they occur.
Mainstream astronomers dismiss these phenomena as being of secondary
importance – temporary glitches for which ad hoc explanations will
eventually be developed sometime in the future. In reality they are
loose threads, which, when pulled, unravel the entire flimsy fabric
of the standard model.

1. R.C. Wilson, Journal of Geophysical Research, 83,4003-4007 1978.
2. Peratt, A. Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer-Verlag, 1992.
3. Astronomers now estimate that the region of “termination shock”
(the heliopause) surrounds the solar system in a giant sphere at
distances ranging between 85 and 120 times Earth's 93 million-mile
distance from the sun. This is in the order of 8 billion miles =
1.48 x 10^13 meters. Thus our estimate of 6 x 10^12 meters is on the
conservative side.

Re: W.T. Bridgman's Critique of The Electric Sky <#p2826>

New post *MGmirkin
on Sun Apr 06, 2008 4:32 pm

M5k wrote:He basically calculates how strong a current would be
required to power the sun in accordance with the Electric Sun model. 

He does a few "back of the envelope" calculations, yes. Does he take
into account that plasma / electrical processes can be non-linear
processes? Don't know if this has been asked yet. If not, it may also
require addressing, as the actual situation may be more complicated than
Bridgman's paper alleges.

I seem to recall it being mentioned previously either on the forums or
elsewhere, that while a high initial current may be required to
transition from dark mode to glow mode, or otherwise, once the
transition is made, a much lower input may be required in order to
sustain the higher level of activity. Was he calculating the initial
current required, or the sustaining current (potentially a smaller number)?

Of course, I'm not an expert, so if I've mis-remembered please feel free
to correct me.

Also, it might be helpful to revisit some of Juergens' work, as some of
his published materials may have had additional calculations of various
aspects of his conception of the Electric Sun. Though, he was certainly
before my time, so I'm not sure how prolific his writing was. Might take
some effort to track it all down.

~Michael Gmirkin
------------------------------------------------------------------------