Peratt - Plasma Models

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Bojan, you make some good points, i'm glad we are satisfied with to general model of basic relaxation oscillators.

"loong time ago, at the dawn of electronics, similar historic design was used, but not any more.."

We are not inserting 555s into a plasmaspheres, it is this basic design that, to me, is closest to a capacitive plasmasphere discharging to a binary partner.

A theoriesd compressed sun-mass spinning at 60,000 rpm, with 'star quakes' does not sit well with my intutition and is only implied, a spark gap seems far more plausible to me....

at this point... ok... agree to disagree... all good.

I wonder if we can pull some differentiating features from both models and explore these?...

I'll look into frequency stability problems... i must say i don't seem to share this issue... but a technical explanation is required.... of course.

best & thanks for great questions.
Alex

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

I wonder if we can pull some differentiating features from both models and explore these?

Alex;

Circuit design is an intricate and exacting process.

To get the desired effect or behaviour of a circuit requires 'fine tuning' of the various physical parameters of the interacting components which then cause the effects we observe. There is deliberate intent behind this process.

To create a circuit model and fine tune it so that it works, and then attempt to use it to explain the behaviour of an object in space, represents just a curiosity.

By suggesting that we compare mainstream and EU/PC models you are suggesting the two models have the same fundamental basis of commonality. This is not so, as mainstream models have been built from the ground up. The quantitative parameters in the mainstream models have been measured and then maintained throughout subsequent iterations of it/them. The parameter values were not deliberately set to make the mainstream models work.

That is to say, the mainstream models have been built from strong quantitative evidence, (eg: "G " constants, etc), and hundreds of years of accumulated observational evidence leading to quantitative fact.

I do not feel that a comparison would be valid, as it overlooks/negates a fundamental differentiator.

Indirectly linked with Pulsars (although separate), as an example, take a look at posts 32 to 34 on this thread. Peratt's assumed field strengths differ from measurements by four orders of magnitude. The plasma span (distance) scales are also inconsistent with the measured intergalactic field strengths. There are no observations of the indicators of such fields evident. These indicators are asserted by Peratt himself in the paper. The electromagnetic force to gravitational force ratio is not 10^7, as the electromagnetic field strength differs from measured values by four orders of magnitude. This represents a major internal inconsistency within Peratt's paper/model.

The fundamental PC assertion is that cosmic plasma can behave akin to electronic components is under question and appears flawed. The fine tuning of components in a concatenated circuit designed to Oscillate, would seem insignificant when compared with this aspect.

Perhaps we can add all this as the first item on the "Alex's Differentiating Features List (ADFL)".



Cheers

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

I'll look into frequency stability problems... i must say i don't seem to share this issue... but a technical explanation is required.... of course.

best & thanks for great questions.
Alex

That is because you didn't build one ... try it and you will see what I mean.

BTW, 555 is far from being stable enough either (1% over very tight voltage power supply range as best result). Hardly a time keeping circuit.


The only simple oscillator frequency controlled element that comes closer to pulsar (in terms of frequency stability) is quartz crystal resonator.... and it is essentially a MECHANICAL device

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_oscillator
It can be used to build oscillators with =<0.01ppm accuracy/stability... still far away from pulsar's (10^-8, compared to pulsar's observed stability being better than 6 x 10^-14))

The next best thing is rubidium standard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubidium_standard

And so on.

However, the relaxation oscillator model we are discussing here, albeit being interesting as an alternative speculation as a first preliminary candidate, if considered in more details from astrophysical aspect, can't explain the observed behaviour of pulsars.

The first problems (not only issues..) encountered are as follows:
- power (how? from where? how the current is channelled (there are no isolated wires in space)? mind you, this is NOT a simple schematic of neon tube oscillator - it is an object the size of Earth-Moon system maximum).
- Capacitor (again.. where is it? formed from what? it must be very solid in terms of mechanical structure because the frequency of proposed circuit is linearly proportional to capacitor's value. The same applies for resistor (or current value.. it must be VERY stable over long time periods to explain fr. stability)
- discharge element ( discharge is very chaotic and hardly repeatable process... ) what is the mechanics (or physics) of it? Where is it located?
- subjectiveness to noise - any small disturbance (outside and/or inside) will be VERY detectable in frequency change or pulse phase shift.
Too many problems to account for only one single property of pulsars with this model..

Rotating compact object model, on the contrary, does fit the bill consistently, including majority of other things - but this is up to Carl and others to point out to you. I'm only RF electronics engineer and I am saying the relaxation oscillator model is totally inadequate to explain this aspect of pulsar's physics (frequency stability - 6 x 10^-14 at least over couple of months)..

[sjastro]

By suggesting that we compare mainstream and EU/PC models you are suggesting the two models have the same fundamental basis of commonality. This is not so, as mainstream models have been built from the ground up. The quantitative parameters in the mainstream models have been measured and then maintained throughout subsequent iterations of it/them. The parameter values were not deliberately set to make the mainstream models work.

That is to say, the mainstream models have been built from strong quantitative evidence, (eg: "G " constants, etc), and hundreds of years of accumulated observational evidence leading to quantitative fact.

Craig,

In addition you cannot compare mainstream science to something that masquerades itself as a science. EU and PC are nothing more than variants of creationism. In creationism science is explained by divine intervention, with EU and PC divine intervention is substituted by the sphere of human experience. If something is outside our sphere of experience we dismiss it as unrealistic or "hypothetical" and try to foolishly rationalize it in terms of familiar experiences. Needless to say the process is an excercise in faith rather than science.

We have the benefit of hindsight of how stupid we look when we go down this road. For example the human body cannot sustain the rigours of travelling at velocities greater than 30 mph so the prophets of doom claimed with the advent of locomotive travel.

Now we have ultradense bodies not being able to rotate or survive at 60,000 RPM, because human experience demands such events cannot occur.
So what do we do, we invent the Universe "in our own image" composed of relaxation oscillators, unipolar generators, gigantic currents and a host of other goodies so as to make some of us feel less intimidated about the Universe.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Craig,

In addition you cannot compare mainstream science to something that masquerades itself as a science. EU and PC are nothing more than variants of creationism. In creationism science is explained by divine intervention, with EU and PC divine intervention is substituted by the sphere of human experience. If something is outside our sphere of experience we dismiss it as unrealistic or "hypothetical" and try to foolishly rationalize it in terms of familiar experiences. Needless to say the process is an excercise in faith rather than science.

We have the benefit of hindsight of how stupid we look when we go down this road. For example the human body cannot sustain the rigours of travelling at velocities greater than 30 mph so the prophets of doom claimed with the advent of locomotive travel.

Now we have ultradense bodies not being able to rotate or survive at 60,000 RPM, because human experience demands such events cannot occur.
So what do we do, we invent the Universe in our own image composed of relaxation oscillators, unipolar generators, gigantic currents and a host of other goodies so as to make some of us feel less intimidated about the Universe.

Regards

Steven

Yep. It's becoming very much clearer that many of the motivations behind these models, are just as you say - faith based. I guess I'm coming to the same/similar conclusions, which both yourself & Carl have months ago.

Isn't that great !!
Its a bit like Alex said .. "don't believe me .. see for yourself" !

I hinted at this in my previous response, but I was trying to be polite about it …

Originally Posted by CraigS

There is deliberate intent behind this process.

Cheers

[avandonk]

No Steven it was the 'Magical' sixty miles per hour. The heart would stop as God did not allow such exuberance!

This was from medical men of science!

Could they not see it was an arbitrary unit defined by science?

Now people complain if their airline meal tastes like cardboard at 800km/hr and the temperature outside is -50C at 35,000 ft or FL 35.

I still have all my hair but sometimes I feel like pulling it all out with this sort of ignorance!

Bert

[CraigS]

Its interesting though … Scott mentions in the YouTube, which Alex forwarded to us, that he preferred to not believe in the rotation of an object in space at 60K rpm … the implication being that the undefined "Relaxation Oscillator" was preferable to him.

Scott has a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Worcester University.

You'd think he'd have a little more science behind him than the average 'joe' and yet his motivation on this topic still seems to be faith-based.

I guess we're all just humans of three different types .. faith based, not faith based and those in the middle.

Cheers

[avandonk]

Craigs since when was an electrical engineer capable of a dissertation on Cosmology.

I await your answer.

Bert

[CraigS]

Errr … when he retrains and pops out of the education sausage as an AstroPhysicist ??

Y'know .. similar to a Geologist retraining and popping out as an AstroPhysicist …



Cheers
PS: What we need is an AstroPhysicist retraining and popping out as an Electrical Engineer ! .. Now that would be one interesting puppy !!

[bojan]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Scott has a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Worcester University.

Electronics or electrical?
Design/practical or just theory?

Two very different kinds of beasts..

Some of my colleagues from uni openly admitted they cant even solder.. and they became PhD eventually (I don't know how).. me, I am just Bsc (with unfinished Masters - couple of exams missing. I am talking about European education system - it is not necessarily applicable here in Oz).


My point is, those details (formal qualifications) are not that relevant ( I know what awaits me from Carl now.. but I know what I know about those things )
But the experience in the particular field is.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by CraigS

PS: What we need is an AstroPhysicist retraining and popping out as an Electrical Engineer ! .. Now that would be one interesting puppy !!

And VERY rare.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bojan

Electronics or electrical?
Design/practical or just theory?

Two very different kinds of beasts..

Some of my collegues for uni admitted they cant even solder.. an they are PhD eventually.. me, I am just Bsc

The guy worked for General Electric following his Bachelor's, worked on turbines and lightning arrestors. He then did his PHD and seems to have become a full time academic (on the teaching staff at various universities). Then he published a 730 page circuit analysis textbook in 1987. He took up Astronomy as hobby in his youth and began working/writing on it, following retirement in 1998, (I believe, from the Youtube).

Cheers

[bojan]

Originally Posted by CraigS

The guy worked for General Electric following his Bachelor's, worked on turbines and lightning arrestors. He then did his PHD and seems to have become a full time academic (on the teaching staff at various universities). Then he published a 730 page circuit analysis textbook in 1987. He took up Astronomy as hobby in his youth and began working/writing on it, following retirement in 1998, (I believe, from the Youtube).

Cheers

That's what I thought: he is not an electronics engineer.
He probably knows a lot about power generators, power distribution and such things, but not much about electronics.

Totally different field of expertise.

I will check on him in more detail later.

[CraigS]

Circuit analysis textbook ??

He must know something about electronics ?

[CraigS]

Amazon.com reader review says:

You will find in this book what you usually find in similar titles: basic circuit analysis, first and second order circuits, phasor analysis, Fourier series and transforms, Laplace transforms, and the like. What makes this book different is the treatment the author gives to operational amplifiers. In particular chapters 8 and 9 are going to be very useful if you are into sintetizing transfer functions you can easyly implement.

I can't find the index page to see what''s actually in the book, yet.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Circuit analysis textbook ??

He must know something about electronics ?

Not necessarily..
And, what kind of circuits?

Also, theory is one thing, practice is sometimes totally different.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Amazon.com reader review says...

Again, that review says the book is highly theoretical.

However, this does not mean it is really useful and that I would use it in my work...

[CraigS]

The real thing to notice is that he didn't start getting more seriously into Astronomy until 1998. That's only 12 years ago. And he's started giving lectures & writing books in an AstroPhysics area, after having only been a 'full-time' Amateur in the field for 12 years !

Carl was right.

Cheers
PS: We're talking about Don Scott here … Peratt's a different beast ..

[CraigS]

I have a little more to add to this post about the assertion that electromagnetic force dominates over gravity in neutral hydrogen regions ..

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

See conclusions section

It appears plasma is defined by the "dominant" force, in this case electro-magnetic, over the gravitational force. These seems very logical no? We do not need to look for the percentage of ionisation, rather what is the dominant force that governs the behavior of the matter in study.

This gem of a historical reference paper is also where the "99.999% of matter by volume is in plasma state." is described
Hope this may help.

Best,
A

The "dominant force point" made by Alex based on the Peratt et al paper, depends very much on the mass density and temperature of the region in question.

We cannot leave this point assuming that the generalised statement made in the paper, applies everywhere.

The "dominant force" will vary, depending on the region in question, due to recombination-of-charge-effects in the cloud/region.

Once again .. shades of grey.

Cheers

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Well Peratt here was saying if there is 10^-4 ionization, EM is 10^7 times more dominant than gravity.

Even if there are neutral particles (in this case 99%+ neutral with only 10^-4 ionized) in the plasma they get dragged along with.

Not shades of grey, this is developed empirically from Langmuir, Bostick, Alfven and the many other pioneering contributors.

Ofcourse, you are quite correct, different densities (dusty plasmas) and differing ionization levels will affect the result. Peratt in this instance has quoted one of the lowest ionization regions, being what we call "Neutral ionization region".

As ionization moves up, all the interesting morphology begins, spirals, double helix, etc.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index...und_convection

In a partially ionized plasma, electromagnetic forces act on the non-ionized material indirectly through the viscosity between the ionized and non-ionized material.

A good place to explore these scaling and ionization details is:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma_scaling