Ok .. so, remember guys … I'm no 'believer' in PC/EU ...
In the Peratt/Healy paper, the initial 'model' used for simulations is crude and they do pay credence to the fact that it has shortcomings. Consideration is given to the boundary definitions. They consider the effects of adding plasma flowing between current boundaries and then make observations on the simulated waveforms (page 244). So what they are in effect are doing, is creating a strawman model, relating it to outcomes observable via simulations and then coming to a conclusion that further work needs to be done to explain further observations in space.
This is a typical iterative modelling approach. It is an old paper. I'd like to understand where it ended up ... with the 21st Century updates.
For compariative purposes, I pulled out a copy of a random sample of paper (from Carl's arXiV search), called: "The magnetar emission in the IR band: the role of magnetospheric currents" which is dated, April 2010. The Abstract reads:
Quote:
|
There is a general consensus about the fact that the magnetar scenario provides a convincing explanation for several of the observed properties of the Anomalous X-ray Pulsars and the Soft Gamma Repeaters. However, the origin of the emission observed at low energies is still an open issue. We present a quantitative model for the emission in the optical/infrared band produced by curvature radiation from magnetospheric charges, and compare results with current magnetars observations.
|
The conclusions …
Quote:
a number of key issues are still unresolved
…
Our model is based on a number of simplifying assumptions.
…
In order to reach firmer conclusions about the entire multi-wavelength spectrum a more detailed study of the magnetosphere is required, and will be matter of future work (see also Beloborodov, this volume).
|
Whilst I can relate to the more modern paper more closely, the older Peratt/Healy paper follows a similar approach, considers defiencies in the model, and comes to more or less, similar conclusions.
Having said that, I agree that I can't see the relaxation oscillator model, as Bojan points out. I am prepared to look into where it all ended up in modern times.
Carl .. you have always said, you have to read the whole saga of anyone writing scientific papers in order to understand where they're coming from .. and perhaps then … trash 'em !! Sometimes this journey results in an increased understanding …. of something !
Bojan .. I'm not assuming that this paper is necessarily the answer to your original question .. even though it was presented to you in that way. The abstract describes its intention as being an 'exploratory' paper.
I feel the 'usual' frustration experienced in encounters with EU stuff. You are not alone …
Cheers & Rgds.