| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
 |
|
Dan wrote:
| In general, that is not true: plasma is a gas of charged particles, of whatever density. If one of the findings is that plasma can not exist at such-n-such densities, temperatures and wotnot, because the ions recombine into atoms: fine. But what you mean by "plasma has big spaces" is that interplanetary/stellar/galactic space appears to filled with plasma with big spaces, like a metre. |
Look, Dan, you really need to stop getting your information from Wiki or the OED. These are the orthodox interpretations of plasma. If you want to find out about plasma and it properties then find out from the people who gave it its name and experiment with it every day.
Yes, plasma can be a gas that has not suffered charge separation but is separated in the presence of electric currents, but it can also be diffuse matter that has already suffered charge separation. Inter galactic space is an area where the predominant state of matter is charged particles -- negative and positive ions. There is no appears to be it is filled with diffuse charged particles.
Plasma in space is quasi-neutral, that is most of it has a neutral charge, but localised regions of charge can occur. Object coming in contact with the negatively charged plasma will accumulate a negative charge -- dust, space craft, and the surface of the Moon etc. Intergalactic plasma is predominantly neutral. Current flows only where the 'power lines' are (Birkeland currents) the rest of space is electrically neutral.
Massive negatively charged bodies can also cause intense reactions in the presence of highly electrically charged objects. This was seen during the NASA Stardust mission when a copper projectile was crashed into an 'ICY' Wild 2 comet. The projectile suffered a massive electric arc flash generated from the comet BEFORE it impacted and another electric flash when it actually hit the rocky surface. That's right comets are not dirty ice there look exactly like asteroids because that is exactly what they are; rocky bodies on a highly elliptical orbit. Asteroids are negatively charged bodies that are in equilibrium with the surrounding solar environment they remain neutral because their orbit is stable. Comets on the other hand are not, their highly elliptical orbits create a charge imbalance with the positively charged Sun which must be equalised and therefore they glow and then arc.
Plasma is a better conductor than copper. Its conductive response to EM fields distinguishes it from gas.
The movement of plasma can self generate magnetic fields, which is what happens in Birkeland Currents. The magnetic field created by the flow can also store and release energy. The energy release can be explosive. These explosive outbursts are witnessed in mercury rectifiers in high power DC transmission lines and on a much grander scale in the jetted matter ejected from galaxy cores.
| How does an EM field or wave, light say, cross that 1 metre "inner" space? |
Light is a wave and it travels in space the same way all waves travels in other mediums. The wave creates an oscillation in the medium. Waves travel and transfer energy from one point to another, often with little or no permanent displacement of the particles of the medium. Instead there are oscillations around an almost fixed positions. Particles don't have to be close or touching to propergate electromagnetic waves. They do have to be close together to transfer mechanical waves (sound).
Light has always been a wave travelling in a medium. It was Einstein who wrongly assumed light could only travel as a wave in a vacuum, because he again incorrectly assumed that space was COMPLETELY empty of particles (an absolute vacuum) and travelled as a particle within a medium. Thus the theory of light as a wave in space and a photom in a medium. This is the prime reason why Quantum Theory and Relativity will forever remain incompatible. Quantum Theory is posited on a false premise.
| If they are discreet then there are spaces between them. That is the space we're talking about where the aether is concerned. |
Look, Dan, if you want to know how plasma relates to aether see my post in A Universe Without Albert on the other site.
| What does that mean? And how can there be two or more charged particles that are not in an electric field? Where do electric fields come from if not from charged particles? |
Space is full of negative, positive and neutral ions and molecules of diffuse gas. They are carrying a charge. Particles (ions) don't need to be in an electric field to be charged. ALL Ions whether they are part of an atom or have suffered charge separation retain their intrinsic charge. When an electron or proton is stripped away from its atom it still retains it original negative or positive charge, they don't suddenly loose their charge and become neutral. As electrons are on the exterior of atoms they suffer more charge separation (stripped from the atom). In a simple hydrogen atom (1 electron + 1 proton) both charges become separate. In more complex molecules it's harder for the nucleus to separate because of the Atomic Forces that bind them together. That is why plasma in space is predominantly composed of electrons.
| Does "in equilibrium with their surrounding environment" mean the charges neutralise each other? For current to flow, you need un-neutralised charges. Where do they come from? At rest, isn't a fluorescent tube full of atoms, rather than ions? |
Yes the vast majority of space is in neutral. For current to flow you need something to transmit it. We use copper wire the universe uses invisible Birkeland currents. They are just another form of power cables. The flow of electrons that power your electricity is produced in a power station. As long as you have the switch on electrons flow and wherever there is a load (motor, light etc) the electrons produce an effect (light, motion etc). When you turn the switch off the electrons don't mysteriously disappear they are just in a neutral state (not flowing).
The flow is created by the magnetic field generated around the copper wire or Birkeland current. We can actually see this magnetic field surrounding high voltage power cables. In certain atmospheric conditions a dull glow can be seen surrounding the cable. Electrons can only be accelerated in the presence of a magnetic field. The really cool part about electricity is that it creates the means of it own transport. That why electricity and magnetism are intrinsically linked. You can't have one without the other. Yes you can have permanent magnets made with rare earth metals but they are all man made and only have extremely localised fields and can't ( as far as I know) generate electric currents.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| Light is a wave and it travels in space the same way all waves travels in other mediums. The wave creates an oscillation in the medium. Waves travel and transfer energy from one point to another, often with little or no permanent displacement of the particles of the medium. Instead there are oscillations around an almost fixed positions. |
You do realise that one of the many implications of this proposal is that, assuming the particles of the medium are 1 metre apart, in deep space we'd be almost blind (ie there's not much chance of one of those particles entering our visual detection system)? And any visual resolution of even local objects would be impossible?
| Particles don't have to be close or touching to propergate electromagnetic waves. |
But in such an elastic medium, the propogation time for the energy (eg light) must be huge - every metre of light travelled introduces a significant, and cumulative, delay because each particle, which has a mass, has to be accelerated from zero and the velocity it attains (and therefore the time it takes to hit the next particle) will depend on the amount of energy imparted by the previous particle. This will presumably also mean that brighter light will travel faster than dimmer light.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Will you and Dan stop with the fuckockamamy particles hitting particles already (In my best Don Rickles voice).
1. LIGHT IS NOT A PARTICLE IT'S A WAVE
2. Waves don't create acceleration they create OSCILLATION
Just in case you missed it above I'll repeat it again.
A wave creates an oscillation in the medium. Waves travel and transfer energy from one point to another, often with little or no permanent displacement of the particles of the medium. Instead there are oscillations around an almost fixed position. Particles don't have to be close or touching to propagate electromagnetic waves. They do have to be close together to transfer mechanical waves (sound).
The medium is the carrier of the wave. There are no molecules of Sound. Sound waves don't accelerate the molecules of air they create an oscillation at specific frequencies in the air that our ears receive and the brain interprets as sounds.
Light creates specific frequencies in an oscillating plasma then those oscillations change in air or water. The frequency is altered in a denser medium. Just as sound waves change when they pass through a solid wall. At a specific frequency sound waves passing through a solid oscillate the molecules so energetically the solid can no longer retain its integrity and it breaks apart (the opera singer breaking a glass is the best example that comes to mind). This is the same principle behind ultrasound.
The glass isn't shattered by accelerated molecules, it is broken apart by highly energetic molecular oscillation.
Light travels by the same oscillating principle as sound. Why do you think we refer to light in wavelengths. Long wave, Short Wave, Microwave. The entire electromagnetic spectrum is composed of waves travelling as specific frequencies.
That's how we detect light waves (Gamma, Xrays, UV, IR, Radio wave). We use instruments that detect their FREQUENCY. We don't use Photon Detectors because no one has ever seen a photon let alone devised a means to detect it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| Current flows only where the 'power lines' are (Birkeland currents) the rest of space is electrically neutral. |
Current only flows where the currents are? Glad you cleared that up.
Light is a wave and it travels in space the same way all waves travels in other mediums...
Particles don't have to be close or touching to propagate electromagnetic waves. They do have to be close together to transfer mechanical waves (sound). |
You've swung from tautology back to self-contradiction. All waves that unquestionably have to have a medium are mechanical waves: molecules pulling and pushing one another to make strings, air, water... vibrate.
For light to travel as sound waves do, the movement of one particle must affect the next one. If this movement is the propagation of the EM field then the particles must touch. Mechanically. For that, they have to cross that one metre of empty space, or they must fill that non-empty one metre 'gap' by being a metre long (or a combination of the two). Either one is a radical departure from the normal theory of matter adhered to even by plasma physicists.
In the normal theory, the size of a molecule/atom/particle is rather hazy and what mechanical contact means to an individual is not sharply defined. But it's OK because there are fields that operate... somehow or other. I start to lose track around here coz Mick is right: the fifth fundamental force is things bashing into each other and fields can't account for that. Be that as it may, electric charges are surrounded by electric fields. On the standard understanding, nothing is required to exist between two charges at any distance in order for them to exert the Coulomb force on each other in accordance with the inverse-square law.
If you move one charge closer, say, the force on the other increases and it too moves. Hence a wave can be transmitted from particle to particle even with spaces between them: large compared with whatever 'mechanical contact' means. Even a metre wide. Truly empty spaces.
That is the level addressed by the question of the aether: does there have to be something filling the spaces or crossing the spaces in order for EM waves or forces to reach from one point to another? In saying "particles don't have to be close or touching to propagate electromagnetic waves", you have answered the question clearly in the negative: neither inter-stellar plasma nor any other form of matter does what the luminiferous aether is required to do.
The aether remains either something else or non-existent.
And to say EM travels like everything else, but can cope with gaps while nothing else can, is a self-contradiction.
| The flow is created by the magnetic field generated around the copper wire or Birkeland current. |
I'm worried that you think you know what you're talking about, but this isn't making sense. A current is a flow. A copper wire has a magnetic field around it when current flows.
| Electrons can only be accelerated in the presence of a magnetic field. |
What about an electric field?
| Yes you can have permanent magnets made with rare earth metals but they are all man made and only have extremely localised fields and can't ( as far as I know) generate electric currents. |
You're scaring me now, KomoriDude. Motors and dynamos wouldn't exist if they couldn't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
Praps viewers don't know, by the way, that Quantum Mechanics really got going because Max Planck was working on the efficiency of electric lights... an eminently practical, electrical-engineering-type problem... and came upon the problem of black-body radiation, which is not solved by classical wave mechanics. Planck's proposition that light energy is quantised solves that problem and was later used by Einstein to explain the experimental results on the photo-electric effect.
CCD image sensors are reckoned to be sensitive to individual photons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| Particles don't have to be close or touching to propagate electromagnetic waves. |
KK, slow down to a gentle gallop. I don't think either me or Dan has a difficulty with understanding the concept of wave propogation, so give us a chance to get our heads around what you're saying.
You said the particles of the plasma, which are 1 metre apart, are the method of propogation of the wave. You said that, unlike waves propogated in water and air, the particles do not need to 'touch' because they are electromagnetic waves.
If the particles of the plasma are the medium of electromagnetic wave propogation, and the particles do not need to touch, how does the energy in the wave transfer in space from one particle to the next? Are you claiming that some sort of electric charge is induced from one particle to the next?
If so, you do not have the cumulative time delay problem I mentioned (although I think the resolution problem still exists). But if you are proposing charge transfer (or similar) you have reset the issue to the problem of action-at-a-distance, the question of how does the charge travel without a medium, as you are quite clear there is nothing between the particles and they don't touch.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Dan wrote:
| I'm worried that you think you know what you're talking about, but this isn't making sense. A current is a flow. A copper wire has a magnetic field around it when current flows |
What makes the current flow? Electrons are induced to flow by a magnetic field. The magnetic field created by a spinning DC generator repels negative electrons and cause them to move. When there is a circuit negative electrons move from a - cathode to a + anode. Free electrons are attracted to the positive anode. But this process in copper wire takes time as the free electrons collides with a molecules of copper where the original free electron replaces a new electron that is separated for the next molecule.
This release and capture continues along the copper wire. The initial momentum created by the +/- attraction also creates a magnetic field around the wire which accelerates the electron transfer. This happens instantaneously. The electrons travel in one direction in a DC circuit. Birkeland currents work like electron or ion beams produced by cathode ray tubes. DC current is passed through an evacuated tube where there is virtually no resistance to flow. The problem that DC current suffers in copper wire is it loses energy with distance. Tesla solved this problem by creating alternating current where the electrons travel in both directions.
The universe is crisscrossed with filamentary Birkeland currents where electrons travel in ONE direction -- effectively giant DC current flows. The effect generated within the currents is the same principle used in particle accelerators. An enclosed and evacuated donut shaped tube or torus is encircled by an outer electromagnetic donut. Free electrons are introduced into the tube where they are accelerated in one direction to near light speed.
The accelerator needs the powerful magnet because it is only accelerating single electrons. If the entire tube were filled with electrons the enclosing magnetic field would be self created. This is how Birkeland currents work. They can be reproduced in laboratories and are reproduced by nature given the right electro-atmospheric conditions.
We know them as tornados.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| What makes the current flow? Electrons are induced to flow by a magnetic field. |
Sorry KK, just for a moment I think it best to get pedantic so that we understand the models we're working with. Electrons are induced to flow when a conductor is moved relative to a magnetic field. If there is no movement of the conductor, there is no flow.
| The magnetic field created by a spinning DC generator repels negative electrons and cause them to move. |
The spinning does not 'repel' anything. The spinning is simply a convenient way of moving the conductor within the magnetic field, and it is that which causes current to flow.
| Free electrons are attracted to the positive anode. |
In the circuit you've described, electrons are circulated. If by 'free electrons' you mean excess electrons, that would have created a negative charge on the conductor even before it was moved within the magnetic field. So by 'free electrons' I suppose you mean electrons able to move in the conductor (sorry, but even these models, for that is all they are, need to be clear).
| But this process in copper wire takes time as the free electrons collides with a molecules of copper where the original free electron replaces a new electron that is separated for the next molecule. |
I'm not sure collisions with molecules are the way to see it, but yes, electron movement through the conductor is actually very slow.
| This release and capture continues along the copper wire. The initial momentum created by the +/- attraction also creates a magnetic field around the wire which accelerates the electron transfer. |
What +/- attraction? The current is caused by moving the wire in the magnetic field. There is no +/- attraction, unless by that you mean the resulting potential difference (voltage) created in the conductor by the current. I'm not sure what the momentum is, but yes, the current gives rise to a field around the wire which means the wire tries to move perpendicular to and out of the magnetic lines of force (I have a right-hand-rule round here somewhere...).
| This happens instantaneously. |
That's the fascinating thing about electricity. All those effects occur simultaneously and are interlinked, and are different manifestations of the same phenomena. This is the biggest argument for an unknown underlying mechanism and medium, aka aether.
| The electrons travel in one direction in a DC circuit. Birkeland currents work like electron or ion beams produced by cathode ray tubes. |
In the sense that in a cathode ray tube, electrons are guided by a magnetic field? Yes, but I don't think Birkeland currents are travelling at the sort of speeds a CRT electron beam is, nor does a CRT require a conductor, just an anode and cathode and lots of oomph to fire the electrons from a to b (they don't call it a gun for nothing), whereas a Birkeland current does have a conductor, plasma.
| DC current is passed through an evacuated tube where there is virtually no resistance to flow. |
In a CRT? There's a hell of a resistance to 'flow', that's why you don't go poking round the back of the TV when it's switched on.
| The problem that DC current suffers in copper wire is it loses energy with distance. Tesla solved this problem by creating alternating current where the electrons travel in both directions. |
Nooooo...What Tesla did was make extremely high voltages practical and relatively safe. The high voltage means less current (for an equivalent power transfer), and so less voltage drop in the conductor (v=ir) and so less heat and so less loss. AC and DC loses the same energy at equivalent current flow and conductor resistance (although it gets complicated when you introduce current/voltage phase considerations).
| The universe is crisscrossed with filamentary Birkeland currents where electrons travel in ONE direction -- effectively giant DC current flows. |
Fantastic, ain't it? Given that they obviously do exist, it raises some very interesting questions.
| The effect generated within the currents is the same principle used in particle accelerators. An enclosed and evacuated donut shaped tube or torus is encircled by an outer electromagnetic donut. Free electrons are introduced into the tube where they are accelerated in one direction to near light speed. |
Surely Birkeland currents are not travelling at near light speed?
| The accelerator needs the powerful magnet because it is only accelerating single electrons. If the entire tube were filled with electrons the enclosing magnetic field would be self created. This is how Birkeland currents work. |
If by this you mean that the current produces a magnetic field, as mentioned earlier, then yes. But we cannot have that and then say the current is caused by that magnetic field - the system doesn't ever pull itself up by its own bootstraps in that way. There must either be a cause for the current (to produce the magnetic field), or a cause for a moving magnetic field (to produce the current). Also, an accelerator is an evacuated container, whereas a Birkeland current flows in plasma (that is, an electron, or should I say ion, 'soup').
So what I'd like to clear up is, in the filamentary Birkeland currents you mentioned, are the magnetic fields pre-existing (and moving), and containing the plasma, so that currents are induced in it? Or, do the magnetic fields get produced by the current flow in the plasma, in which case what is the voltage source for the current?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| And any visual resolution of even local objects would be impossible |
I just wanted to explain my comment on this, regarding the suitability of plasma (with a distribution of say one particle per metre) as candidate for the aether.
Take a full size scanned image of the Mona Lisa, say 600 DPI. That's (at a very rough calculation) a total of 30 million dots. Now, place that picture in deep space (with a low particle density), and use a camera to take a picture (there's no ambient light so we use a flash at 1/1000 sec). Let's be generous and say that there are 20 particles in the field of view available to transfer the light into the camera. How much data, out of the 30 million dots, can those 20 particles transfer to the camera? We're talking of a high spec camera capable of resolving every one of those dots, but what will it actually record in this experiment? An image of the Mona Lisa?
No, just a few specks of light representing the information carrying ability of the medium. And, the further away from our target we get, the less resolution we can achieve. Go back 20 metres and even on full zoom you'd be lucky to get one speck as representing the Mona Lisa, go back further and she's invisible. We couldn't see the stars if light is propogated by 1 metre spaced particles.
This illustrates just one of the amazing properties that must be accorded to the aether, if it exists - a very, very fine granularity. Would a microscope fail to work in deep space? Considering that EM microscopes can resolve almost to atomic level, the aether must be at least as fine as that, and probably much finer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| But if you are proposing charge transfer (or similar) you have reset the issue to the problem of action-at-a-distance, the question of how does the charge travel without a medium, as you are quite clear there is nothing between the particles and they don't touch. |
See? Brian gets it.
| What makes the current flow? Electrons are induced to flow by a magnetic field. |
There are your permanent magnets. But batteries, condensers even, make current flow without moving magnetic fields. The rest of your commentary is for the benefit of someone else, I take it.
| The universe is crisscrossed with filamentary Birkeland currents |
Is this an assertion of the Electric Universe model, or is there direct evidence of them on this grand scale?
| If the entire tube were filled with electrons the enclosing magnetic field would be self created. This is how Birkeland currents work. |
You mean they flow in closed loops and sustain themselves pretty well infinitely? Or are they like disembodied lightning strikes, packets of self-propelled charges?
What starts them off?
But I'm a little confused: Birkeland currents, in connection with the auroras, are described as field-aligned currents, whereas the self-sustaining field around a current flow is "field-perpendicular".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
At the risk of alienating the viewer:
| Electrons are induced to flow when a conductor is moved relative to a magnetic field. If there is no movement of the conductor, there is no flow. |
For these purposes, a conductor is a bag of charges: charges moving with respect to a magnetic field are deflected... giving rise to a potential difference... and current if possible.
| The spinning does not 'repel' anything. |
Yes, a poor choice. Propel would do.
| The spinning is simply a convenient way of moving the conductor within the magnetic field |
Yes, always at right-angles.
| yes, electron movement through the conductor is actually very slow. |
On the order of inches per hour. (While the signal, the message "we're moving", goes at almost the speed of light.)
| What [initial] +/- attraction? |
Yes, it's rather important to know how these things get started in the Electric Universe. Even if it's a steady-state universe, it doesn't hold up very well unless we can show that we can get into this state: in order for it to accord with our experience of electrical phenomena, that is, which is presented as being of singular importance as cosmologies go.
Devices such as transformers and motors that use or exhibit the self-propelling nature of magneto-current take a lot of energy to get going and store energy: the self-propelling bit is where the energy is released again. And come to think of it, the start-up currents are very high: once the magnetic field is established, it inhibits the current, rather than accelerating it.
| In the sense that in a cathode ray tube, electrons are guided by a magnetic field? |
No, just in the sense that particles move at high speed across macroscopic distances with little interference, I'd thought. Magnetic fields in CRTs are secondary contrivances.
| nor does a CRT require a conductor, just an anode and cathode and lots of oomph to fire the electrons from a to b |
Yes, electrons are not accelerated all the way across the tube, just out of the gun: they're ballistic after that. But KK {to give him his Phoenician name} says big enough currents are actually self-propelled by their own magnetic fields.
But if so, what speed do they reach? What resistance do they see? Where does the energy come from?
| whereas a Birkeland current does have a conductor, plasma. |
This needs clarification. Is a Birkeland conducted through a plasma or is a Birkeland a movement of plasma?
KK keeps saying neutral particles count as plasma too, just because they are diffuse and their charges can separate. Does a Birkeland create a charge separation downstream so it can keep on flowing -- and maybe let the charges recombine into neutral atoms upstream as it passes? But that's getting tricky now: electrons flowing -- dispersing each other, mind -- is one thing, but separated charges would flow in opposite directions and create resistance...
| In a CRT? There's a hell of a resistance to 'flow' |
I don't getcha. The tube is (near enough?) fully evacuated. You mean it takes a high voltage to make things happen?
The problem that DC current suffers in copper wire is it looses energy with distance. Tesla solved this problem by creating alternating current where the electrons travel in both directions.
| AC and DC loses the same energy at equivalent current flow and conductor resistance |
Yes, it's only AC so it can be transformed up and down, innit.
| Considering that EM microscopes can resolve almost to atomic level, the aether must be at least as fine as that, and probably much finer. |
Gamma rays go down to a few picometres, while atoms are tens or hundreds of picometres.
'Course, electron beams are used like light beams: wave-particle duality is not just a figment of Einstein's imagination.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
At the risk of alienating the viewer more...
| And come to think of it, the start-up currents are very high: once the magnetic field is established, it inhibits the current, rather than accelerating it. |
If I haven't misunderstood the scenario, it's the other way round dude. In a conductor, start-up current is inhibited because the changing magnetic field creates a back-emf, once the magnetic field has been established the current flows freely, when the current stops the collapsing magnetic field creates a reverse current. This effect is of course very noticeable in an inductor.
| This needs clarification. Is a Birkeland conducted through a plasma or is a Birkeland a movement of plasma? |
It's a current within a plasma guided by a magnetic field. I think.
| KK keeps saying neutral particles count as plasma too |
I'm not convinced about this. Certainly there are statements about 'quasi' neutrality, but by this I think they mean groups of + and - which, over the whole plasma, balance to zero. Otherwise, what does plasma mean?
| You mean it takes a high voltage to make things happen? |
Oh yeah! High voltage, very high particle speeds...not sure if this is what plasma current flows are about.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
But I'm a little confused: Birkeland currents, in connection with the auroras, are described as field-aligned currents, whereas the self-sustaining field around a current flow is "field-perpendicular".
The current within the field is always aligned by the field. Birkeland currents are field aligned currents they were discovered and experimented with by Kristian Birkeland; they are named after him. All currents in space are field aligned. The field is always perpendicular to the flow. The thing about Birkeland current in space is they are 'hard wired' into the structure of the universe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
whereas a Birkeland current does have a conductor, plasma.
This needs clarification. Is a Birkeland conducted through a plasma or is a Birkeland a movement of plasma? |
The Birkeland currents snake through the diffuse particle of space, like long distance high voltage power transmission lines are surrounded by air. The permanent power source at this stage appears to be beyond the visible universe. They are permanent circuits linked to all stellar objects.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
You can see from the picture that the currents are binary and spiral. This is natural consequence of twin Birkeland currents. The two 'wires' never touch. They repel each other at close range. The nature of all electrical current is to twist in this fashion that is why copper wire is twisted and light filaments are spiral shape. It's more efficient because electricity prefers to travel this way.
It is possible that DNA strands have the same shape for the same reason.
We see the twisted nature of Birkeland currents in tornados which are electric phenomena. Recent pictures from Storm Chasers have shown that inside the outer pipe there are two distant inner pipes. The name twister is indeed appropriate.
The outer circular 'wall' of a tornado is the magnetic field sheath which collects a cover of charged dust making it visible. The inner twin current swirl around as it moves across the surface. The very nature of the twin current filaments explain one of the mysteries that have baffled tornado 'experts' for as long as they have been observed.
Why some things are destroyed and others are left untouched?
The answer is that the twin 'pipes' never touch there is always a gap maintained between the two filaments due to magnet repulsion. As they swirl across the surface the area between the two is unaffected by its travel and so the mystery is now explained.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
