|
|
Post by france on Apr 24, 2012 21:46:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 24, 2012 23:35:33 GMT
no, this is way over-hyped and not even correct in many places. |
|
N9AAT
Level 3 Rank
DON'T PANIC
Posts: 153
|
Post by N9AAT on May 11, 2012 22:50:03 GMT
Dr. I, are you saying the sun never flips, or that it's probably not going to split into 4 poles?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 13, 2012 6:13:45 GMT
Dr. I, are you saying the sun never flips, or that it's probably not going to split into 4 poles? The Sun is a messy place. The polar fields reverse somewhat erratically over a period of a couple of years, from one dipole to another one. |
|
|
|
Post by vukcevic on May 13, 2012 18:56:04 GMT
Anything in the print from the Bern workshop ?
|
|
timb
New Member
Posts: 45 
|
Post by timb on May 17, 2012 0:05:47 GMT
The Sun is a messy place. The polar fields reverse somewhat erratically over a period of a couple of years, from one dipole to another one. Has anyone ever quantified if there is a net charge loss/gain of the sun as solar cycles progress? Obviously the long term solution is equal charge but it seems with such a complex magnetic field generated by rotating charges within the plasma that net loss of energy might be unequal between electrons and protons as they are accelerated in the magnetic field and might lead to the solar wind having different net charge (or different proportion of energy between protons/electrons) over the solar cycle. It probably wouldn't be observable at the surface but if there was a space/charge gap in boundary layers to counter the charging, it would be interesting. I guess that could also cause things like sunspots to move at different rates during the cycle for the same latitude (like a 30 degree spot near minimum moving faster or slower than a 30 degree spot at near maximum) as a subsurface space charge region in the plasma causes more drag between the surface and sublayers. It seems intuitive that mass difference between electrons and protons but hte equivalent charge would favor one radiating differently as they accelerated in the mag field. It's just a thought experiment on the sun charging and discharging as part of it's cycle but I wonder if anyone has ever measured net charge leaving the sun and if it changes over time (and cycles)? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 18, 2012 15:10:39 GMT
The Sun is a messy place. The polar fields reverse somewhat erratically over a period of a couple of years, from one dipole to another one. Has anyone ever quantified if there is a net charge loss/gain of the sun as solar cycles progress? Obviously the long term solution is equal charge but it seems with such a complex magnetic field generated by rotating charges within the plasma that net loss of energy might be unequal between electrons and protons as they are accelerated in the magnetic field and might lead to the solar wind having different net charge (or different proportion of energy between protons/electrons) over the solar cycle. It probably wouldn't be observable at the surface but if there was a space/charge gap in boundary layers to counter the charging, it would be interesting. I guess that could also cause things like sunspots to move at different rates during the cycle for the same latitude (like a 30 degree spot near minimum moving faster or slower than a 30 degree spot at near maximum) as a subsurface space charge region in the plasma causes more drag between the surface and sublayers. It seems intuitive that mass difference between electrons and protons but hte equivalent charge would favor one radiating differently as they accelerated in the mag field. It's just a thought experiment on the sun charging and discharging as part of it's cycle but I wonder if anyone has ever measured net charge leaving the sun and if it changes over time (and cycles)? As far as we know the net charge is ZERO. The reason is quite simple: suppose more electrons were leaving at a certain time, then the Sun would build up a positive charge which will attract the electrons trying to leave and preventing them from doing so. |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on May 20, 2012 10:28:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 22, 2012 4:59:49 GMT
just following the trend down, I think. |
|
timb
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by timb on May 22, 2012 14:09:41 GMT
As far as we know the net charge is ZERO. The reason is quite simple: suppose more electrons were leaving at a certain time, then the Sun would build up a positive charge which will attract the electrons trying to leave and preventing them from doing so. Yes, this is the standard diffusive drift and field statics in dissimilar metals and p/n semiconductors. I was thinking more about dynamic changes affecting this static equilibrium. For example, if I create an Argon plasma in a partial vacuum and insert a probe into the plasma, a space-charge region will form because the mass difference between electrons and charged argon atoms is different. They have equal and opposite charges but the mass difference means the electrons move much faster in the plasma than the argon atoms. More electrons hit the probe and charge it up creating a new equilibrium and corresponding space-charge region. It seems that the same type of action is possible within the sun where the two main charged components have different masses but equal charges, that any boundary layer that has a different rotation would create a space-charge region. It seems possible that for a portion of the cycle, the sun might lose more electrons than protons and then reverse so long as teh net static equation returns to zero. Even if the net charge lost at any given time is zero, it seems the electrons would have a much higher velocity for the same kinetic energy. That in itself would seem to have an electron wave ahead of a proton wave with an electric field between them. This in turn would affect the sun surface and subsurface as they react to the ejecta. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 23, 2012 18:07:41 GMT
As far as we know the net charge is ZERO. The reason is quite simple: suppose more electrons were leaving at a certain time, then the Sun would build up a positive charge which will attract the electrons trying to leave and preventing them from doing so. Yes, this is the standard diffusive drift and field statics in dissimilar metals and p/n semiconductors. I was thinking more about dynamic changes affecting this static equilibrium. For example, if I create an Argon plasma in a partial vacuum and insert a probe into the plasma, a space-charge region will form because the mass difference between electrons and charged argon atoms is different. They have equal and opposite charges but the mass difference means the electrons move much faster in the plasma than the argon atoms. More electrons hit the probe and charge it up creating a new equilibrium and corresponding space-charge region. It seems that the same type of action is possible within the sun where the two main charged components have different masses but equal charges, that any boundary layer that has a different rotation would create a space-charge region. It seems possible that for a portion of the cycle, the sun might lose more electrons than protons and then reverse so long as teh net static equation returns to zero. Even if the net charge lost at any given time is zero, it seems the electrons would have a much higher velocity for the same kinetic energy. That in itself would seem to have an electron wave ahead of a proton wave with an electric field between them. This in turn would affect the sun surface and subsurface as they react to the ejecta. This is an old idea. A good explanation why it doesn't work is given by Parker: articles.cbk.waw.pl/0printed/p/parker_10a.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by france on May 27, 2012 14:26:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 27, 2012 17:03:11 GMT
Generally, the area and the sunspot number track each other quite well. In individual cases they can differ somewhat, but those differences average out over longer terms. |
|
|
|
Post by france on May 27, 2012 20:43:21 GMT
Generally, the area and the sunspot number track each other quite well. In individual cases they can differ somewhat, but those differences average out over longer terms. so South is more active than North ! I though it was North where activity is the highest  |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on May 28, 2012 19:16:18 GMT
Generally, the area and the sunspot number track each other quite well. In individual cases they can differ somewhat, but those differences average out over longer terms. so South is more active than North ! I though it was North where activity is the highest The South is now beginning to be more active: sdowww.lmsal.com/suntoday/ |
|
a lot to read
