It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Hidden History of Plasma Cosmology

page: 3
38
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 10:45 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Look at the letter "Z" in this term. It implies a cylindrical symmetry with respect to the Z-axis. All the Z-pinch apparatus are built around this idea and feature fibers, wires, etc. Sun, on the other hand, is predominantly spherical.

You misunderstand, the transmission lines or if you prefer the unfortunate term magnetic reconnection are the fibers and wires you speak of. The Sun being spherical has nothing to do with it.

If you propose a new model of the Sun, you better back it up with a concrete map of the field you think exists there, because otherwise there is too much talk and little substance.

The nuclear fusion model is full of just talk and assumption, to ask for concrete facts and claim lack of substance is a little amusing considering the amount of difficulties the current model presents, without resorting to ad hoc hypothesis.

calculations can be made based on the known cross sections and I don't think you'll get any output form the densities and temperatures that exist outside of the core. To get a decent reaction rate, you need BOTH density and temperature. No amount of "Z-majik" will help you generate energy unless you have these two components.

I'm not exactly sure what your trying to say here, of course there is temperature. Density? Well the density is created by the Z-pinch effect, hence the term "pinch"

There is a viable body of data regarding the solar neutrinos:
en.wikipedia.org...
and that is explained by the Standard Model of elementary particles.

Actually no it isn't, this is more assumption. Either way it doesn't contradict the electric model.

Some solar neutrinos have indeed been observed - but only one-third the number required if the fusion reaction really is the main source of the Sun's energy production. These negative results from the neutrino experiments have resulted not in any re-examination of solar models. Rather, an intense theoretical effort to discover new properties that solar neutrinos 'must have' has occurred. As a result of this effort, it was announced (June 2001) by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada that neutrinos have mass and can change 'flavor'. This supposedly accounts for why they have not been fully observed previously. However, several important questions remain to be answered about the methodology that was used by the SNO researchers in arriving at their conclusions. Of course, whether neutrinos actually do change type or not has no bearing whatever on the validity of the Electric Sun model. The neutrino problem is a hurdle only for the standard fusion model. In the Electric Sun model there is no energy produced in the core - radiant energy is released at the surface by electric arc discharge. So, there is no 'missing neutrino' problem for the electric Sun model. The electron-neutrinos that are observed are probably produced by fusion taking place at the solar surface that produces heavy elements (other than hydrogen and helium).

For decades the measured deficiency of electron-neutrinos has been a continuing embarrassment for those who want to believe that the accepted H-He fusion model of how the Sun produces its energy is correct. Because this failure to observe the predicted neutrino flux clearly constitutes falsification of this fusion model, there has been a great effort to explain away the observed deficit.

source

The assumption lies in the fact that neutrinos can change flavour. It's impossible to verify this by studying the effect at one end of the neutrinos journey.

The bottom line is the electric model is far less problematic than the standard model and every problem associated with it is a natural consequence of the electric model. To attempt to poke holes in the theory from a standard solar view is laughable when it clearly cannot answer some very fundamental problems.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by squiz]

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:28 AM

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
There is currently no complete model of the suns electrics.

And thus, no grounds at all to favor this model over what you call standard solar model. The standard model gives predictions that are consistent with many (not all) observables and can be further advanced with detail. The "electric model" is vaporware. It doesn't do jack for you.

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:39 AM

Originally posted by squiz
You misunderstand, the transmission lines or if you prefer the unfortunate term magnetic reconnection are the fibers and wires you speak of.

"Transmittion lines"? Do you mean "field lines"? Either way, the Z-pinch refers to a very specific arrangement where the current flows in a particular direction, and the magnetic field is effectively imploding around it, compressing the plasma. There are at least two problems in making this work in the Sun -- (a) it's not stationary or even dynamic, you need to pulse the system to make it work (b) my point about sylindrycal vs spherical symmetry

The nuclear fusion model is full of just talk and assumption, to ask for concrete facts and claim lack of substance is a little amusing considering the amount of difficulties the current model presents.

I never said science was easy. If you want it this way, your expectations will be betrayed. However, I maintain that there are plenty of observables that one can calculate from the model of the Sun and they will match the data. Not all of it; the giant plasma ball is a hard thing to model. But it's a model nevertheless, whereas the "electrical Sun" is talk, talk, talk.

calculations can be made based on the known cross sections and I don't think you'll get any output form the densities and temperatures that exist outside of the core. To get a decent reaction rate, you need BOTH density and temperature. No amount of "Z-majik" will help you generate energy unless you have these two components.

I'm not exactly sure what your trying to say here, of course there is temperature. Density? Well the density is created by the Z-pinch effect, hence the term "pinch"

You really didn't get it. Z-pinch means a highly localized volume in space, outside of which the density is quite low. The effective rate of the reaction will be low; and Z-pinch implies a pulsed operation.

The neutrino problem is a hurdle only for the standard fusion model.

This is a patently false statement. The number of neutrino is derived from the energy output. The enerrgy comes from fusion (hece you are insisting on Z-pinch anyway). No matter how you distribute the fusion in the Sun, it's the same

In the Electric Sun model there is no energy produced in the core - radiant energy is released at the surface by electric arc discharge.

And that energy is coming from..........

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 08:57 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And thus, no grounds at all to favor this model over what you call standard solar model.

I would say a theory that fits observed reality much better than the current one without even being a complete theory yet, is quite impressive. Plasma cosmology is still in its infancy, and does not feel the need to make a definitive choice over which particular theory is correct yet. That would be making the same mistake that was made with the assumptions in the standard model we are stuck with. They are leaving their options open until more is known, funding for alternative theories like this is hard to come by, so they can't do it overnight.

However the basics of electric stars are always the same;

*the sun is powered remotely from the galaxy
*the sun has a capacitance and behaves similarly to an anode
*the sun attracts certain particles and repels others
*the sun is not powered exclusively from its core

The standard model gives predictions that are consistent with many (not all) observables and can be further advanced with detail. The "electric model" is vaporware. It doesn't do jack for you.

OK then, lets put some of our cards on the table. You can list some of the major reasons to believe the standard model by sucessful predictions it has made, and i'll list some of the reasons to belive the electrical model and show how the electric model can account for many things that the standard model can not.

Let’s look at a few of these observations.

(Note- This list does not presume that every unanswered question in space is due to dark matter, dark energy, magnetic reconnection or other ideas that bear no relation to reality and can never be tested. I would not be surprised to learn some astronomers have explained the heating of the corona with dark matter in some way, and the fact that we have never seen or detected any dark matter is in fact evidence that it has to exist
)

1. Acceleration of the solar wind: The positive ions in the solar wind have been shown to move faster from the sun the further they get. The positively charged ions accelerate outwards through the corona and beyond, and the electrons seem to mill around with no preferred direction. Nothing in the fusion model predicts or explains this observed phenomenon, streams of neutral gas do not behave in this manner, and winds do not usually accelerate all by themselves.

However the ES model predicts this as the particles traverse the voltage gradient just above the photosphere they will obviously accelerate and gain a lot of energy.

2. Cosmic rays: The ES model also explains the controversial very high energy particles observed in space. Hannes Alfven (Nobel prize laureate) said about these particles: “No known nuclear reaction could account for the firing of particles at such high energy”, and he’s right. If the ES proponents are correct and the sun is at this high voltage, lets say a driving potential of a few million volts, that would mean that protons energetic enough to react the suns surface would be expelled with billions of electron volts of energy to spare. Such cosmic ions could produce the high energy mu neutrino’s that have been detected. (see the wikipedia page; Unsolved problems in physics

3. The sun rotates faster at the equator than at the poles. This has no explanation in the standard model, in fact the standard model does not even answer what should be a very basic question: why does the sun continue spinnig at all? Over time its angular momentum, and that of other plants, should decrease to stationary.

The only decent answer has been given by Wallace Thornhill and Hannes Alfven in which they use a homopolar motor mechanism which uses an electric current and magnetic fields to produce direct rotational motion.

4. Filamentary structure of the corona and other bodies in space. Filamentary structures are often observed in the cosmos, in the corona, in prominences, sunspot penumbrae and photospheric tufts, as well as in interstellar clouds, comet tails and strings of galaxies. This inherent tendency to produce filaments (strings) is a well known and fundamental property of electric currents in plasmas. The 'stringy' texture of the corona can not be explained with gravity alone, as it is no where near strong enough to effect individual particles to that extent.

5. Traditional Nuclear fusion Vs Z-pinch fusion: Nuclear fusion has not been sustained on earth in tests without the reaction very rapidly running out of energy. However the the Z-pinch effect of current filaments in ‘arc mode’ plasmas has been tested and is very strong, and the effect of these forces on the suns surface would be strong enough to fuse atoms. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place is likely taking place in the double layer above the top of the photosphere and through out the rest of the sun, not deep within its core. The products of this fusion process are the ‘metals’ that give rise to the absorption line in the solar spectrum and the other particles that we can detect.

6. Heavy elements (metals). The current fusion model does not account for where the large amount of heavy elements emanating from the sun comes from, as they can not be made by traditional hydrogen helium fusion. The usual explanation offered by physicists is that all these elements are generated in distant supernovae and this dust was sprinkled throughout the universe. According to this the sun should have run out of these metals long ago. Either that or it is recieving the metals remotely in the first place and emmitting them out in its solar wind; exactly what the ES proponents have been claiming

And thats not even mentioning the main proof of the ES model, the coronal heating problem, where the temparature of the corona is shown to be much, much hotter than the surface of the sun. which is explained best by remote electric currents.

If one model easily explains a set of data and properties, and the other is at a total loss to explain it, what does that say?

Also, Buddha, i feel you need to learn exactly what Z-pinch is. It is quite different to normal fusion in many respects. This talk by Eric Lerner is a good place to start (starts about 10 minutes in)

 Google Video Link

[edit on 3-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 03:06 AM
Correspondence is not evidence. Coincidences are not proof

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
A kernel of heretofore unknown truth may turn up in the most unexpected of places. Referenced with some seemingly unrelated data, that kernel may just rock your world.

I'm waiting. Velikovsky's ideas were hokum. His recruitment by Electric Universe enthusiasts suggests a desperate need to find support for their theories anywhere. 'A lot of Velikovsky's ideas were wrong, but see, these claims of his fit in perfectly with our claims, so he must have been right about them - and therefore our claims must, of course, be right!'

Fallacious, circular reasoning.

Also known as begging the question.

Confused hydrocarbons and billiard ball planets are not Velikovsky's legacy.

Oh, but they are.

Exhibit A:

"Has any testimony been preserved that during the many years of gloom, carbohydrates precipitated?"
- Worlds in collision, p. 134

'Wait one. Back around page 55 this stuff was hydrocarbons...'

Exhibit B: the title of this book, advertised today on Amazon. If you still want it that badly, they have sixteen copies, used and new; at least they did when I looked.

There are countless ancient petroglyphs scattered all around the world. For some unexplained reason, around ten thousand years, ago man’s art changed from that of an agrarian hunter gather, depicting animals and fertility goddesses, to seemingly abstract cosmic depictions that bare a strange similarity to plasmas.

You are generalizing recklessly; nevertheless, is it not more likely that human art changed in that way ten thousand years ago because that was the time when humanity stopped hunting and gathering and started raising crops and living in settled communities? Never overlook the obvious in favour of the exotic, George; it's a mug's game.

By the way, I must say you were a much tougher-minded person when you were alive. What happened? Are ghosts more credulous than the living?

Never mind. On we go...

There are ancient stories and religious tales that adhere to the known parameters of plasma physics. Are these archaic stories of battles in the heavens really just myth with no basis in reality?

This is a what-if question. I can just imagine the reverb on your voice as you ask it. However, leading question are proof of nothing.

I admit the similarity of vajras, thunderbolts and stick-figure petroglyphs to plasma discharges is quite remarkable. Quite possibly there was more atmospheric activity of this kind at certain times in history - a time when, for whatever reason, auroras and all kinds of funny glowing shapes appeared in the sky even at fairly low latitudes. That doesn't prove any theories of plasma cosmology or the ideas of electric-universe boosters; it just raises an interesting question. If your standards of evidence are so low you'll take a concurrence of that sort for proof, go ahead; I'll wait for something a bit more solid.

Depictions of dragons in ancient mythology are eerily similar to plasma instabilities observed in laboratories.

More wild generalizations followed by more circumstantial guesswork. Only Chinese dragons, as far as I can tell, fit your theory anything like well enough. Other dragons, including the ones best known to Westerners, differ enormously. And I think you mean mediaeval mythology; I don't recall seeing any ancient Greek or Roman dragons, or any Hebrew or Egyptian ones either. Got any Mesopotamian plasma dragons for us, then? Hittite? Assyrian? Does this image of Tiamat look like a plasma discharge to you?

Venus is often depicted... Ancient names for Venus... Jovian Birkeland currents... i

Still more circumstantial correspondences. More what-ifs. No shred of proof anywhere.

Is it so difficult to believe that Velikovsky's research actually supports the premise that the planets in the solar system and indeed the entire universe are not electrically neutral?

Yes, when it flies in the face of so much solid science, beginning with Newton's theory of gravity and his laws of motion. Explain all of that with your Sparkplugs in Space theory and you may be sure that scientifically literate people will flock to your ensign. Till then... forget it.

I encourage you to always keep an open mind about different theories, no matter how outlandish they seem given your personal world view.

I appreciate your concern for my mind, but I think it is your own you should be looking to, and as a matter of some urgency.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by Astyanax]

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 07:35 AM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
"Transmittion lines"? Do you mean "field lines"? Either way, the Z-pinch refers to a very specific arrangement where the current flows in a particular direction, and the magnetic field is effectively imploding around it, compressing the plasma. There are at least two problems in making this quote]calculations can be made based on the known cross sections and work in the Sun -- (a) it's not stationary or even dynamic, you need to pulse the system to make it work (b) my point about sylindrycal vs spherical symmetry

I call them transmission lines, birkeland currents whatever you wish, and this is my point when I was referring to with magnetic connection, because this process that your insisting does not exist, does in fact exist in the form of what is called "magnetic reconnection." The argument here from the plasma physicists, is that magnetic field lines are not physical objects so they cannot break and they cannot reconnect. The argument is not one of evidence or whether this process exists, it' a point of view. One is based on physically real experiments the other hypothesis.

The magnetic field doesn't implode, As for why you insist on talking about the suns spherical shape, makes me think that you believe that you interpret the theory like the entire sun is acting as some sort of enormous singular plasma focus.

I never said science was easy. If you want it this way, your expectations will be betrayed. However, I maintain that there are plenty of observables that one can calculate from the model of the Sun and they will match the data. Not all of it; the giant plasma ball is a hard thing to model. But it's a model nevertheless, whereas the "electrical Sun" is talk, talk, talk.

Indeed some aspects of science are complex, what plasma cosmology offers is a more simplified view that is no less astounding than the highly improbable big bang the gravitational theories that demand a invisible form of matter and impossible black holes for their highly tweaked theories to work.

I have known many highly educated people who lack common sense.
The argument that your too dumb to understand all this highly complex science stuff, so don't question it!, is the classic emperors new clothes approach and usually comes from one of the kings entourage and or the general populace.

I would love to hear what these observables are your thinking about? Yep that big ball of plasma would indeed be a hard thing to model, best we listen to the plasma physicists.

No not just talk, talk, talk (btw ones enough) I refer you back to page 1 of this thread and page 1 of my own thread on this subject, which you also took part in. That comment is pure denial.

You really didn't get it. Z-pinch means a highly localized volume in space, outside of which the density is quite low. The effective rate of the reaction will be low; and Z-pinch implies a pulsed operation.

See above.....

The neutrino problem is a hurdle only for the standard fusion model.

This is a patently false statement. The number of neutrino is derived from the energy output. The enerrgy comes from fusion (hece you are insisting on Z-pinch anyway). No matter how you distribute the fusion in the Sun, it's the same

No I suggest you go back and read the entire page I linked, since that is where that comment came from. The difference is fusion at the core and fusion at the surface. It's a significant difference.
Actually here it is again, and another on the same issue.
www.electric-cosmos.org...
www.holoscience.com...

In the Electric Sun model there is no energy produced in the core - radiant energy is released at the surface by electric arc discharge.

And that energy is coming from..........

If you need to ask that, I think you may have a false impression(s) about what the model is about, and how it works.
But ultimately that is a good question. The stance from Plasma Cosmology is lets study what we can observe and test see what develops and leave out the wild speculations that have infested standard cosmology.

Thanks for your contribution, a debate is a great way to learn. And corrections are welcome. I hope it stays scientific.
Oops.... may have spoken to soon.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by squiz]

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 08:15 AM
Just found some evidence of fusion and electric discharge at the surface of the sun. The sun serves also as a particle accelerator.

Gamma rays from a solar flare in Active Region 10039 on 23 July 2002 with the RHESSI spacecraft spectrometer indicate that the CNO cycle occurs at the solar surface, in electrical discharges along closed magnetic loops. At the two feet of the loop, H ions are accelerated to energy levels that surpass Coulomb barriers for the C-12[H-1, gamma]N-13 and N-14[H-1, gamma]O-15 reactions. First x-rays appear along the discharge path. Next annihilation of positrons from N-13 and O-15 [half-life = 10 m and 2 m] produce bright spots of 0.511 MeV gammas at the loop feet. As C-13 increases from positron decay of N-13, the C-13[He-4, n]O-16 reaction produces neutrons and then the 2.2 MeV emission line appears from n-capture on H-1. These results suggest that the CNO cycle changed the N-15/N-14 ratio in the solar wind and at the solar surface over geologic time, and this ratio may contain an important historical record of climate changes related to sunspot activity.

source

A description of the CNO cycle en.wikipedia.org...

Deny ignorance, or something like that.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by squiz]

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:01 AM

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
I would say a theory that fits observed reality much better than the current one without even being a complete theory yet, is quite impressive.

You grossly exaggerate when you say it's not complete. Without the mathematical model, I would say oot doesn't exist -- one of the reason for that is that you can't understand the constraints inherent in it, or whether it's even possible to create a viable model of the sun that is entirely based on a complex magnertic filed configuration, at all. One example I can give you right away is your insistence that energy is generated in the upper layer of the Sun. I told you before, and you didn't seem to understand, that there is a constraint on the reaction rate in order to produce the observed power output. You can have a localized reaction going (or at least I can pretend that you can) in the outer layers of the sun, but the cimulative mass of hydrogen undergoing fusion, even in this fantastical scenario, will not be sufficient to produce the power needed. There is just not enough material -- the density is low. By contrast, the standard model of the Sun has the density, in the fusion zone, which is quite high, allowing for the adequate power generation.

Plasma cosmology is still in its infancy, and does not feel the need to make a definitive choice over which particular theory is correct yet.

Or, you don't feel the need to substantiate it because it leaves you in a position of an armchair scientist, which you seem to appreciate.

That would be making the same mistake that was made with the assumptions in the standard model we are stuck with.

We are not "stuck" with the standard model. It does a crack job of explaining this Universe, and if it doesn't work too well on a certain energy scale, it will be expanded when the data becomes available.

They are leaving their options open until more is known, funding for alternative theories like this is hard to come by, so they can't do it overnight.

You really don't know how the science works, do you? There are plenty of theories being worked, and this work is funded. As opposed to the blah you prefer to pompously call "plasma cosomology", there is hard math in these alternative theories.

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:14 AM

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
1. Acceleration of the solar wind: The positive ions in the solar wind have been shown to move faster from the sun the further they get. The positively charged ions accelerate outwards through the corona and beyond, and the electrons seem to mill around with no preferred direction. Nothing in the fusion model predicts or explains this observed phenomenon, streams of neutral gas do not behave in this manner, and winds do not usually accelerate all by themselves.

However the ES model predicts this as the particles traverse the voltage gradient just above the photosphere they will obviously accelerate and gain a lot of energy.

Voltage gradient that moves ions but does not affect electrons? Puh-leeze.
It's true that there are characteristics of the solar wind that aren't explained right now, and some of the factors must be electromagnetic in nature, but it's a little silly for you to say "hey, I have this theory that is called EU which explains it". No it doesn't because you don't have a model. Saying that there is gradient is just a bunch of words. It's not a model.

2. Cosmic rays: The ES model also explains the controversial very high energy particles observed in space. Hannes Alfven (Nobel prize laureate) said about these particles: “No known nuclear reaction could account for the firing of particles at such high energy”, and he’s right. If the ES proponents are correct and the sun is at this high voltage, lets say a driving potential of a few million volts, that would mean that protons energetic enough to react the suns surface would be expelled with billions of electron volts of energy to spare.

What Alfven said is true, and yet in no way it points to the Sun having a huge potential (with respect to what, might I ask? potential is relative by definition). Now, you are saying that "a few million volts" of potential are producing "billions of electron volts of energy". How's that?

3. The sun rotates faster at the equator than at the poles. This has no explanation in the standard model

Heck, nobody ever said the standard model of the sun is truth in itself! It's always an approximation, for gossake.

in fact the standard model does not even answer what should be a very basic question: why does the sun continue spinnig at all? Over time its angular momentum, and that of other plants, should decrease to stationary.

Now, please answer: why?

4. Filamentary structure of the corona and other bodies in space. Filamentary structures are often observed in the cosmos, in the corona, in prominences, sunspot penumbrae and photospheric tufts, as well as in interstellar clouds, comet tails and strings of galaxies. This inherent tendency to produce filaments (strings) is a well known and fundamental property of electric currents in plasmas. The 'stringy' texture of the corona can not be explained with gravity alone, as it is no where near strong enough to effect individual particles to that extent.

Sheesh. The magnetic field influencing the corona configuration has been known forever. Old news. Nobody ever, ever said that gravity is the only force at work in our Sun. Such notion is your fabrication.

5. Traditional Nuclear fusion Vs Z-pinch fusion: Nuclear fusion has not been sustained on earth in tests without the reaction very rapidly running out of energy. However the the Z-pinch effect of current filaments in ‘arc mode’ plasmas has been tested and is very strong, and the effect of these forces on the suns surface would be strong enough to fuse atoms.

You don't fuse atoms. You fuse nuclei. Besides, Z-pinch is not sustainable on the Sun any more than it is on Earth. It's a transient thing.

Also, Buddha, i feel you need to learn exactly what Z-pinch is. It is quite different to normal fusion in many respects.

Oh, finally I find another cavalier on this forum who sends me to a physics class. Great. So, you keep insisting that the fusion in the Z-pinch field configuration is not nuclear fusion? Do we have to keep going in circles on that subject?

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 12:05 PM
reply to post by buddhasystem

skeptisism is one thing, pseudoskepticism is another thing entirely, and your recent posts seem to be converging on the latter. You have asked some valid questions, but (for the second time) i am really busy at the moment, and that is why I have not had the time to post all of the relevant ideas concerning the electric sun for you to get a complete idea of the main concepts involved. I do have an answer to each of your above queries, this really has to be my last post before i disappear for a week. I will post some of the various theories on the mechanics of electric stars in a week or so when i have more time.

So, you keep insisting that the fusion in the Z-pinch field configuration is not nuclear fusion? Do we have to keep going in circles on that subject?

To briefly clear up my point about Z-pinch;

A pinch effect is something that happens when you run a current through a plasma. This generates a circumfential magnetic field like any wire, but since the charges in plasmas are free to move, they will be pressed - "pinched" if you like - together as a result of the magnetic force.

The Tokamak design (the large donut) of a fusion reaktor, for instance, would not work was it not for a clever use of Z-pinch. It turns out that a toroidal magnetic field alone cannot confine a plasma, let alone compress it to achieve fusion. So you run a current through the plasma in the donut, that both serves to keep the plasma hot and create a Z-pinch that forces the plasma towards the center of the donut-tube, compressing it to fusion.

So all you really need to create this effect is sufficient electric current input, applied in a certain way. Its the current and the resulting magnetic field that produces the pinch effect, and makes the plasma dense enough for the energy to be released.

Z-pinch machines like the Sandia Z machine emit copious x-rays, and these x-rays can be used to drive inertial confinement fusion implosions(en.wikipedia.org...). The x-rays from the pinch could be used directly to drive the implosion, or they could be used to induce secondary x-ray production in an exterior "can" to drive the implosion - the latter geometry has the advantage of reducing the very high-energy x-ray irradiation of the capsule (causing pre-heating and reduce compression), and the disadvantage of efficiency losses in the exterior can.

The overall process is similar to laser-driven inertial confinement fusion (en.wikipedia.org...) - big Z-pinch machines deliver a lot more x-rays, but over much longer timescales and with less precision. The fusion reactions contemplated in any near-term fusion machine are deuterium-tritium fusion; in contrast, stars like the sun generate energy through different reactions like the proton-proton chain, a quite different process. (en.wikipedia.org...).

So the morale is: Z-pinch is not a specific type of fusion proces, rather is is a way of plasma confinement and compression (and not so very new either - it actually dates back to the 70's).

[edit on 4-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 06:51 PM
i just found this brilliant paper, by a completely mainstream astronomer, who is saying exactly the same thing that plasma cosmologists have been saying for years. Its by Professor of Astrophysics at The University of Alabama, Richard Lieu.

arxiv.org...

Astronomy can never be a hard core physics discipline, because the Universe offers no control experiment, i.e. with no independent checks it is bound to be highly ambiguous and degenerate. Thus e.g. while superluminal motion can be explained by Special Relativity. data on the former can never on their own be used to establish the latter. This is why traditionally astrophysicists have been content with (and proud of) their ability to use known physical laws and processes established in the laboratory to explain celestial phenomena.

Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory, and researchers are quite comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown. How then could, after fifty years of failed attempt in finding dark matter, the fields of dark matter [\it and now] dark energy have become such lofty priorities in astronomy funding, to the detriment of all other branches of astronomy?

I demonstrate in this article that while some of is based upon truth, at least just as much of $\Lambda$CDM cosmology has been propped by a paralyzing amount of propaganda which suppress counter evidence and subdue competing models. The recent WMAP3 paper of Spergel et al (2007) will be used as case in point on selective citation. I also show that when all evidence are taken into account, two of the competing models that abolish dark energy and/or dark matter do not trail behind $\Lambda$CDM by much. Given all of the above, I believe astronomy is no longer heading towards a healthy future, unless funding agencies re-think their master plans by backing away from such high a emphasis on groping in the dark.

Thats pretty strong words coming from a mainstream astronomer, and a perfect summary of what is wrong with modern cosmology.

All he needs to do now is say that plasma cosmology is a better alternative, and that would make my day. If he was aware of all of the plasma cosmology material i'm sure he would say just that.

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 10:15 PM
For a change here is stuff against the Electric model:

www.tim-thompson.com...

It do be great if someone more educated took a look of that.

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 10:38 PM
I find it interesting how they use the term "Z-Pinch"

I would understand this more like an s-curve and the zero point.
-the vortex effect.
there are no hard angles in nature.
and natures curve is an S-curve

Am I in the wrong ball park here?

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 12:56 AM

Originally posted by Abovetopstupid
For a change here is stuff against the Electric model:

www.tim-thompson.com...

It do be great if someone more educated took a look of that.

Well I think I must post the same link in this thread as well. Yes someone more educated has taken a look.
Reply to Tim Thompson

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:24 PM
Personally the EU makes a lot more sense to me.......and tesla^^

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:14 PM
Reply Title: After Xmas Interstellar Gas - Discovered to be Magnetic

The news item is at science.nasa.gov...
I came across a news item I thought I'd share. It seems the voyager spacecraft have both entered the sheath between the solar magnetic field and the local interstellar magnetic field. Measurements are reported to indicate the local interstellar magnetic field is much more significant than anticipated. The word plasma did not arise in the article though I believe that is what they described with respect to the local extra-solar 6000 degrees Centigrade gas cloud with strong magnetic field.

Likely there will be some follow-up press from the "Plasma Universe" advocates and also from the " dark missing matter - missing energy" advocates as the numbers are digested. It should provide for some interesting reading in 2010. Some "told you so" and "pretending not to eat crow" articles as well as "confirms the big bang" flavours.

new topics

top topics

38