Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [EVGRAY] buzzer OU

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: [EVGRAY] buzzer OU
Date: 	Thu, 19 Jul 2018 09:27:42 -0500
From: 	Norman Wootan <[email protected]>
To: 	Bert Pool <[email protected]>, Bob Paddock 
<[email protected]>, joel mcclain <[email protected]>, Jon Gentry 
<[email protected]>, Mbking42 <[email protected]>, Toby Grotz 
<[email protected]>, Jeane Manning <[email protected]>, Pre 
mbold <[email protected]>



http://www.physics.ucla.edu/plasma-exp/research/MagFieldAnnihilation/index.html    Of all the reports on the anti-parallel magnetic flux annihilation phenomenon, this is probable the best!    It explains the "conversion of energy".  Remember "Energy cannot be destroyed", only converted into another form "Magneto-Electric" pulse otherwise known as EMP!

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/plasma-exp/device/index.html

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4917248

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303714209_Structure_of_a_Magnetic_Flux_Annihilation_Layer_Formed_by_the_Collision_of_Supersonic_Magnetized_Plasma_Flows


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1975.tb01623.x

Ann. Geophys., 29, 1121–1127, 2011
www.ann-geophys.net/29/1121/2011/
doi:10.5194/angeo-29-1121-2011
© Author(s) 2011. CC Attribution 3.0 License.
Annales
Geophysicae
Flux quanta, magnetic field lines, merging – some sub-microscale
relations of interest in space plasma physics
R. A. Treumann1,2,*, R. Nakamura3, and W. Baumjohann3
1Department of Geophysics and Environmental Sciences, Munich University, Munich, Germany
2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College, Hanover NH 03755, USA
3Space Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Graz, Austria
*visiting: International Space Science Institute, Bern, Switzerland
Received: 25 November 2010 – Revised: 23 May 2011 – Accepted: 20 June 2011 – Published: 25 June 2011
Abstract. We clarify the notion of magnetic field lines in
plasma by referring to sub-microscale (quantum mechanical)
particle dynamics. It is demonstrated that magnetic field
lines in a field of strength B carry single magnetic flux quanta
80 = h/e. The radius of a field line in the given magnetic
field B is calculated. It is shown that such field lines can
merge and annihilate only over the length `k of their strictly
anti-parallel sections, for which case we estimate the power
generated. The length `k becomes a function of the inclination
angle  of the two merging magnetic flux tubes (field
lines). Merging is possible only in the interval 1
2 < .
This provides a sub-microscopic basis for “component reconnection”
in classical macro-scale reconnection. We also
find that the magnetic diffusion coefficient in plasma appears
in quanta Dm
0 = e80/me = h/me. This lets us conclude
that the bulk perpendicular plasma resistivity is limited
and cannot be less than 0? =μ0e80/me =μ0h/me 
10−9 Ohm m. This resistance is an invariant.
Keywords. Space plasma physics (Magnetic reconnection)
1 Introduction
Central among the concepts of space plasma physics is the
concept of magnetic field lines. It had been introduced for
practical reasons by Michael Faraday in the 1830s in his ingenious
attempt to visualise the direction of magnetic forces
in air. In Faraday’s view field lines were purely geometrical
entities, the vector direction of the magnetic field, not having
any physical substance.
Correspondence to: R. A. Treumann
([email protected].
de)
In space physics the field line concept has been used in
a variety of problems, most prominently in the theoretical
treatment of magnetic field transport/convection in plasma.
Here the magnetic field is considered to be tied to a plasma
volume. This convection has been attempted to be described
by Euler potentials (x,t ),(x,t) (cf., e.g., Stern, 1966,
1967) which are just a different representation of the magnetic
vector potential A(x,t) under the Coulomb gauge condition
r ·A=0.
Field lines are also essential in the problem of magnetic
reconnection where in addition to convective transport it is
asserted that field lines can diffuse, be cut, merge, change
topology, and exert stresses on the plasma which cause
plasma acceleration and formation of plasma jets (cf., e.g.,
Paschmann et al., 1979). Though an intuitive picture can be
drawn, it still remains unclear what physically is happening
when field lines move or merge. In order to arrive at a deeper
understanding one should ask for the sub-microscale physics
underlying the field-line concept.
In the following we provide a brief inquiry into the physical
nature of magnetic field lines. For this one has to recall
some simple quantum-mechanical concepts developed long
ago1 by Landau (1930) and Aharonov and Bohm (1959).
This approach, as it turns out, is not entirely academic; it
leads to some interesting physical consequences.
2 Magnetic field lines
In order to arrive at a deeper understanding of a magnetic
field line, one has to acknowledge that the definition of a field
line as a physical entity makes sense only in magnetically
1Landau (1930) treated the quantum-mechanical motion of an
electron in a homogeneous magnetic field. Aharonov and Bohm
(1959) considered electrons moving around magnetic flux tubes.
Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.
1122 R. A. Treumann et al.: Flux quanta and field lines
Φ
θ
electron
orbit
magnetic
flux tube
Fig. 1. Geometry of the Aharonov-Bohm effect. The electron (any
charged particle) moves at some angle  around a magnetic flux
tube containing some magnetic flux 8. Since outside the flux tube
the magnetic flux vanishes, the vector potential in this region reduces
to a scalar potential which can be gauged away. However,
quantum mechanically its effect is remarkable, forcing the flux to
be quantised.
active matter, i.e. for charged particles which are sensitive to
the presence of magnetic flux, for instance.
2.1 Field lines carry just one flux quantum
Under this proposition, a clear definition of a field line can be
derived from a quantum-mechanical treatment of magnetic
fields in active matter containing electric charges which interact
with the magnetic field. Since all charges are attached
to masses, one considers the motion of a particle just carrying
one elementary charge e, e.g. an electron of mass me.
Its motion (which itself is not of interest here) in a magnetic
field is described by a Schr¨odinger equation
H (x,t)= (x,t) (1)
where H is the Hamilton operator of the electron,   the electron
wave function, and  are the energy eigenvalues of the
electron.
There is no need to explicitly solve the Schr¨odinger equation
of motion of an electron (or any other charged particle)
in a magnetic field as this was done more than half a century
ago by Landau (1930) for an electron moving in a homogeneous
magnetic field. The essential result was that the energy
of the electron in a magnetic field is quantised
L(pk,q)=
p2
k
2me
+ ¯h!ce(q+ 12
) q =0,1,2,3... (2)
with quantum number q and parallel momentum pk. Actually,
only the perpendicular energy of the gyro-motion
is quantised. One easily realises that in a magnetic mirror
geometry where the particles oscillate between the mirror
points the parallel energy of the electron bounce motion
p2
k/2me b = ¯h!b(s+ 12
) would also be quantised with
bounce frequency !b !ce and parallel quantum number
s = 0,1,2,3...q thus splitting the Landau energy levels. In
fact, under space conditions the lowest Landau energy level
is very small; in a magnetic field of B =100 nT is amounts
just to L 10−11 eV, which is also the spacing between the
Landau levels. Classically these energies form a continuum.
The decisive step towards an understanding of magnetic
field lines is done when extending Landau’s method and consider
the particle motion around one singled-out magnetic
flux tube of flux 8, following Aharonov and Bohm (1959).
Again choosing an elementary charge (i.e. an electron) one
asks for the electron response to the presence of the flux tube
outside the flux tube. In classical physics there is no sign of
the magnetic flux contained in the flux tube outside it. This,
however, is not true in quantum physics. For outside the flux
tube where there are no sources of the magnetic field in the
tube, the magnetic vector potential in Schr¨odinger’s equation
must be compensated by a gauge field , i.e. the gradient of a
scalar potential field according to A=r. This introduces a
phase factor in the state eigenfunction  (x,t) of the electron,
the solution of the Schr¨odinger equation, in the form
  (x,t,)exp

−i
e
¯h

  (x,t) (3)
Clearly, this phase factor is unimportant in determining probabilities
| |2, which is the essence of the gauging, since only
probabilities connect to the classical world.
The physical importance of the scalar field  becomes
clear, however, when returning to the motion of the free electron
on some orbit near the magnetic flux tube (cf. Fig. 1).
The flux, the electron feels quantum-mechanically is given
by the surface integral of the magnetic field B over the part
of the field-line cross section dF, respectively the line integral
of the vector potential A along the electron orbit ds
8=
Z
cross−sect
B·dF=
Z
orbit
A·ds =
Z
orbit
r ·ds (4)
Since the orbit in the scalar potential field  can be arbitrarily
deformed, one needs to consider only its projection into the
plane perpendicular to the flux tube. The value of the line
integral then depends only on the electron rotation angle 
(see Fig. 1), yielding from Eq. (4) for the potential 2()=
8. This value, after inserting for  into the phase factor,
gives just
exp

−i
e8
2 ¯h

(5)
which is the result derived by Aharonov and Bohm (1959).
In ` gyrations the electron would possibly perform around
the flux tube, the phase factor would increase by 2`, and
Ann. Geophys., 29, 1121–1127, 2011www.ann-geophys.net/29/1121/2011/
R. A. Treumann et al.: Flux quanta and field lines 1123
the wave function   would, artificially, become discontinuous.
Since this is unphysical and not permitted in quantum
physics, the flux 8=`80 in the encircled flux tube is a multiple
of an elementary flux quantum2 (Aharonov and Bohm,
1959)
80 2 ¯h/e4.1×10−15 Wb (6)
(One may notice that this holds for any electric charge e independent
on its sign.)
2.2 Field line radius
As we will show, the above expression precisely defines a
magnetic field line3 in magnetically active matter, where the
charged particle (electron) is “magnetised”, i.e. responds to
the presence of the magnetic flux.
The magnetic flux element (quantum) corresponds to a
magnetic field of magnitude
B =80/2
m (7)
which, for a given magnetic field strength B, defines a
(smallest possible) magnetic flux tube radius (Landau, 1930,
unaware of the flux quantum, formally arrived from different
considerations at a similar “magnetic length”, not identifying
it with field lines), which is the “radius of a magnetic
field line”
m =

80
B
12
=

2¯h
eB
12
(8)
the narrowest possible flux tube in a magnetic field of given
field strength B. It just carries one quantum 80 of magnetic
flux. One may note that m is independent of the mass of the
particle which helped identifying the field line. The particle
just served as a carrier of the elementary charge. It depends,
however, on the charge e because it is the charge that couples
the particle to the field (via the Lorentz force).
This radius is inversely proportional to the square root of
the magnetic field
p
B. Strong magnetic fields correspond to
narrow field lines, weak magnetic fields have broader field
lines. The field line of a weak magnetic field of B = 1 nT
has radius of order m 10−3 m, which is in the detectable
meso-scale domain! The weakest magnetic fields in the Universe
have strengths of B &0.1 nT. Their field lines have radius
m .1 cm.
Here we have singled out just one field-line fluxtube. Of
course, magnetic fluxes may form bundles of such elementary
flux quanta, but the smallest possible magnetic flux in
2This could have been inferred already from simple dimensional
reasoning observing that e8 has dimension of an action with action
quantum h.
3A first unelaborated hint had already been included by one of
us (RT) in a review on reconnection-related problems (Lui et al.,
2005).
N~10 B
13TB
1
1
Fig. 2. A few of the NB =Te/¯h!ce magnetic field lines belonging
to the bundle of field lines (flux elements of diameter 2m) that are
contained in the cross section of an electron gyration (T1 =Te in eV,
B1 =B in nT). Because flux can only annihilate in quanta, implying
that only strictly antiparallel field line segments reconnect, none
of these field lines can reconnect, however, even though they may
get in touch at some inclination angle. Reconnection requires that
at least some genuinely antiparallel external field lines are added
from the outside. This happens in colliding magnetised plasmas
with oppositely directed fields where some field lines will always
find their strictly antiparallel partners.
magnetically active matter is given by the ratio 80  h/e,
the flux carried by a magnetic field line.
This fundamental result of Aharonov and Bohm (1959)
yields the precise physical definition of a magnetic field line.
One may calculate the number NB of magnetic field lines
contained, for instance, in an electron cyclotron orbit by
comparing the area of the electron-gyration circle r2
ce with
the cross section 2
m of a field line. For an electron of temperature
Te = mv2
e /2 in a magnetic field B this yields the
large number
NB =
Te
¯h!ce
1013

Te
1 eV

B
1 nT
−1
(9)
which is the ratio of thermal electron energy to the Landau
energy ¯h!ce of an electron of cyclotron frequency !ce =
eB/me. This number increases with Te and decreases with
magnetic field B. In a field of B =1 nT and for an electron
temperature of just Te =1 eV, this number becomes roughly
of the order NB  1013. One electron gyration circle thus
contains a huge number of magnetic field lines (see Fig. 2).
www.ann-geophys.net/29/1121/2011/  Ann. Geophys., 29, 1121–1127, 2011
1124 R. A. Treumann et al.: Flux quanta and field lines
l ||
2λm
Φ0
Φ0
Fig. 3. Annihilation of the strictly antiparallel sections of two contacting
magnetic field lines of diameter 2m, each carrying just one
flux quantum 80. Annihilation proceeds over the antiparallel length
`k only, thereby creating two new field lines each one, as before,
carrying just one flux quantum 80. The annihilation releases the
magnetic energy stored in the common volume V0 = 22
m`k of
the two contacting strictly antiparallel flux tube sections. The released
energy heats the plasma locally. The strong bending of the
remaining (reconnected) parts of the field lines causes relaxation
and stretching of the newly reconnected field lines but does not exert
any forces on the plasma on the narrow sub-gyroscale of one
single field line, causing them to relax as if in vacuum.
3 “Annihilating” field lines
Asking what, in principle, will be going on when two oppositely
directed field lines, i.e. flux elements containing oppositely
directed magnetic fluxes, encounter each other, one realises
that the outcome of the encounter depends sensitively
on the inclination angle under which the two flux elements,
respectively field lines, contact. In the following we distinguish
between field-line merging and annihilation on the one
hand and macroscopic reconnection on the other. The former
two apply to the microscopic process when two antiparallel
field lines come into contact; the latter is reserved for
the macroscopic reconnection effect which involves macroscopic
flux tubes and very large numbers of field lines.
3.1 Merging of two field lines
Magnetic flux can only be exchanged in quanta 80 = h/e.
Because of this obvious and undeniable property, flux annihilation
takes place only when the field lines are precisely
anti-parallel a certain distance `k along the elementary flux
tubes. This is shown schematically in Fig. 3. One should note
that because of this reason any obliquely touching field lines
(elementary flux tubes) in Fig. 2 cannot annihilate! Moreover,
the Lorentz force density between flux tubes is given
by fLorentz = j ×B. With the current j = 2B/μ0m “surrounding”
one elementary flux tube this force becomes
fLorentz =μ−1
0

2eB4/¯h
1
2 (10)
For parallel flux tubes (field lines) this force is repulsive
keeping the parallel field lines at the largest possible mutual
distance, an effect well-known from the tendency of magnetic
fields to expand into field-free space, while anti-parallel
flux tubes attract each other.
The implication is that, in elementary field-line merging
events in which two anti-parallel sections of field lines attract
and touch each other, the amount of 280 of magnetic
flux will be annihilated. The annihilated amount of flux is
exactly 280 because each field line carries just one flux quantum,
and because flux quanta cannot be divided into half or
any fraction such that there is no half flux quantum available
which could be added to another half in order to annihilate
180. Conversely, since field lines are composed of one flux
quantum only they contribute 180 to annihilation in merging,
not more and not less. This annihilation happens in a
certain time 1t. Thus the elementary flux annihilation corresponds
to the generation of an induced electromotive force
(emf)
|U|=d8/dt 280/1t (11)
Multiplying with the elementary charge, the “equivalent current
density” j surrounding the flux element (which is parallel
to the emf), and the total volume V0 22
m`k of the antiparallel
sections of the two contacting field lines, we obtain
the total power that is generated in such a field-line merging
event
P0 
2Bh
μ0e
`k 10−17(B`k) W (12)
where B is measured in nT, and `k in m. It is assumed this
total power is converted into kinetic energy of the plasma.
Two annihilating field lines of anti-parallel lengths `k 1m
and magnetic field B 1 nT thus provide a power that is just
of the order of 10−17W.
It is of interest to ask how much time the annihilation
of two anti-parallel field lines needs. Previously the corresponding
amount of energy e|U| was stored in the volume
V0 of contacting antiparallel field lines. It thus corresponds
to the magnetic energy V0B2/2μ0 stored in the two field-line
elements such that we find for the annihilation time of two
contacting strictly antiparallel flux elements from Eq. (11)
1t 
h
e|U|

eμ0
B`k
10−17(B`k)−1 s (13)
where again B is in nT and `k in m. This time is extremely
short, i.e. flux elements annihilate instantaneously if and only
if they come into antiparallel contact. Microscopically, from
the point of view of field lines (or contacting elementary
Ann. Geophys., 29, 1121–1127, 2011www.ann-geophys.net/29/1121/2011/
R. A. Treumann et al.: Flux quanta and field lines 1125
flux elements), the question of reconnection thus reduces to
two problems: (a) how many flux quanta in an approaching
plasma volume element can be turned antiparallel over a certain
length `k, and (b) how can they be brought into close
contact? These questions cannot be answered on the basis of
considering the fluid motion of a magnetised plasma volume.
3.2 Maximum available power
Nothing is known about the length `k of the antiparallel sections
of two field lines. Assuming that the field lines would
be antiparallel over the ion inertial length i , the largest possible
length `k ' i in macroscopic collisionless reconnection
(i.e. the total linear extension of the ion-inertial region,
see, e.g., Sonnerup, 1979), this number would become the
order of P0(i )2.5×10−12(B
p
N)W, with density N in
cm−3. If all the magnetic field lines in one electron gyroradius
would reconnect simultaneously over this length we
would multiply by the number of field lines NB, obtaining
(with Te in eV)
P0(i ,NB)10

Te
p
N

W (14)
In the rather extreme case when all the electrons in the ion
inertial volume would indeed annihilate their field lines, one
had to multiply by the number of electrons 4
3 N3i
in the ion
inertial volume, and the total power would amount to
Ptot 109

TeN3

W (15)
During a substorm of duration 1t 103 s this corresponds to
a released energy of
Esubstorm 1012 J (16)
some orders of magnitude higher than measured. Clearly,
this is an extreme upper limit of what can be obtained in
macroscopic reconnection in the magnetospheric tail under
the (rather unreasonable) assumption that it is the total number
of electrons which (inside the “ion diffusion region”
z<i , i.e. in thin current sheets) are responsible for and contribute
to reconnection. The energy increases with electron
number density N and temperature Te. Apparently, it is independent
of the magnetic field B, but this is not so because the
elementary magnetic flux 80 is contained in the fundamental
expression Eq. (12).
3.3 Sub-micro-scale “component reconnection”
Our claim used so far that the field lines can annihilate only
over their antiparallel sections could be challenged on the
observation that macroscopic reconnection has been found
to depend on the mutual inclination angle of the interacting
magnetic fields. In that case one speaks of “component reconnection”
referring to the components of the magnetic field
involved. In principle something similar applies also to the
merging of two field lines with the decisive difference that
field lines are very narrow entities of diameter d =2m.
Nevertheless, assume that two field lines meet under an
angle  = and cos  =−1 over a distance `k then the field
lines are exactly anti-parallel and once contacting will merge
and annihilate their flux elements over the length in question.
When the angle is  = 1
2, however, we have cos  =0
the field lines are exactly perpendicular, and merging will be
inhibited. The field lines in this case touch in a point, and
there is no anti-parallel flux component to annihilate. For
angles between 1
2 < , on the other hand, a small antiparallel
component exists as the antiparallel length shrinks
rapidly. The calculation is a little more complicated in this
case than in the macro-scale component reconnection case
where one assumes that the whole thing happens in an infinitely
extended plane. Here, in our case of sub-microscale
merging, the two field lines have, however, a transverse extension
of only 2m.
During symmetric rotation by an angle  around the centre
of the anti-parallel contact length `k the line of contact
shrinks quite fast according to
`k()=
mcos
[m/`k()] cos +
q
1−2
m/`2
k() sin 
(17)
as can easily be shown. When  = 12
, the length of contact
is zero while for  =  one recovers the full length
`k()  `k of contact. Each time the amount of 280 of
flux annihilates in the merging while the available power
P0()=P0`k() decreases rapidly with angle. So the condition
of anti-parallelity is still satisfied but has been modified
according to the finite rotation angle .
This indeed resembles “component reconnection” but applies
here to two single touching field lines thus providing
the notion of “component reconnection” a sub-microscopic
justification.
3.4 Field line relaxation after merging
Another point of discussion refers to the strongly kinked
magnetic field line produced in the process of merging and
annihilation of flux over the length `k. This kink in the magnetic
field line is of course not stable. It will relax after merging
has ceased and the field line will stretch itself to reach a
new equilibrium with minimum curvature. Surely this will
happen if only the field line is allowed to stretch. It could thus
be claimed that this would be the most important effect on the
plasma of the entire merging process similar to that what is
known from macroscopic reconnection where the relaxation
of the kinked magnetic field lines accelerates the plasma into
the famous reconnection jets (first observed by Paschmann et
al., 1979) which emanate from the reconnection sites.
However, this is not the case in the sub-microscale merging
process. On the sub-microscopic scale the relaxation of
the magnetic field lines has no effect at all on the plasma
www.ann-geophys.net/29/1121/2011/  Ann. Geophys., 29, 1121–1127, 2011
1126 R. A. Treumann et al.: Flux quanta and field lines
as long as the curvature radius, whose initial value is of the
order of m, remains much smaller than the electron gyroradius
rce. The plasma is affected only when the field has
stretched so much that the curvature radius exceeds the electron
gyro-radius. Until this happens the electrons remain
non-magnetic and the relaxation of the kinked field proceeds
in the same way as any magnetic field relaxes in vacuum, i.e.
it proceeds at the velocity of light, c.
When, after a while, the time-scale of relaxation becomes
comparable to the time-scale of plasma oscillations 1t!e 1
and the curvature radius becomes comparable to the Debyelength,
the relaxing fields start feeling the dielectric properties
of the plasma; the relaxation then takes place in a
medium of dielectric function (!)=1−!2
e/!2 with the effect
that in this phase the curvature radius of the relaxing field
rapidly increases to reach the electron gyro-radius, while the
expansion velocity slows drastically down.
These consequences can be concluded from inspection of
the relevant dispersion relation
k2c2 =!2−!2
e (18)
For kc c−1
m one has ! 1t−1!e, and the plasma frequency
plays no role; the relaxing field is a high-frequency
electromagnetic mode which relaxes with velocity c. With
increasing curvature one has k!0 and !!!e from above,
i.e. the relaxation time 1t  !−1 increases. Ultimately for
k rce the electrons become magnetised in the field and start
feeling its relaxation. Then the above dispersion relation
ceases to hold. This has two drastic consequences: firstly,
the electron inertia causes a rapid mass loading of the field
which retards the further relaxation while, secondly, the relaxing
field accelerates the local fraction of electrons up to
the electron-Alfv´en velocity. Further slow relaxation of the
field proceeds until the curvature radius meets the ion gyroradius.
Then the expansion of the field is slowed down even
further and the ions become accelerated up to the ion-Alfv´en
velocity generating the famous reconnection jets.
In these last steps, however, many field lines have already
become involved and the merging has made the transition
from sub-microscopic field-line merging and flux annihilation
to reconnection at macroscopic scales. The remaining
problem is thus reduced to the understanding of how many a
very large number of antiparallel or inclined magnetic field
lines, i.e. elementary flux tubes, can be brought into close
contact because once they contact each other flux annihilation,
magnetic merging, topological change and re-ordering
of the magnetic field is inevitable. This is, however, a major
problem central to reconnection which lies far outside the
scope of this communication.
4 Magnetic diffusivity
Before proceeding to the conclusions we briefly note that the
existence of a magnetic flux quantum implies as well a smallest
quantum Dm
0 of the magnetic diffusivity such that the diffusion
coefficient in a magnetic field of flux 8=`80 can be
written as
Dm
`
`Dm
0 , ` 2N (19)
This can be realised when multiplying 80 by the ratio e/me
of elementary charge to electron mass yielding
Dm
0 
e
me
80 =
h
me
10−4 m2 s−1 (20)
which has the correct dimension of a diffusion coefficient:
[Dm]=m2 s−1. Thus, diffusion in a magnetic field proceeds
in steps or elementary jumps from field line to field line.,
which is quite an intuitive picture of the diffusion process.
Correspondingly, the diffusion time m
D over a certain
length L (measured in meters) is then given by
m
D
=104(L2/`) s `=1,2,3... (21)
The expression4 Eq. (20) can be derived in two ways. First
assuming with Bohm that the maximum perpendicular displacement
within one electron-gyration time during the elementary
diffusion process is just of the order of one field-line
diameter
Dm 42
m!ce/2 (22)
This yields immediately for
Dm '
4¯h
me
(23)
Otherwise one may use the definition of the diffusion coefficient
through energy
Dm 40?/me!ce (24)
where 0? = 12
¯h!ce is the perpendicular Landau zero point
electron energy (quantum number q =0). This yields
Dm '
2 ¯h
me
(25)
Both expressions agree with Dm
0 up to a numerical factor of
order O(1).
Since otherwise the magnetic diffusivity is defined through
resistivity , one also has
Dm
0 =
?
μ0
(26)
an equation which immediately shows that the perpendicular
ordinary resistivity in a magnetised plasma is itself quantised,
`? =`0?, and cannot be less than its quantum
0? 
μ0e
me
80 =
μ0h
me
10−9 Ohm m (27)
4Its independence on charge e and magnetic field B identifies it
as a general quantum of diffusivity valid for stream lines in a fluid.
Ann. Geophys., 29, 1121–1127, 2011www.ann-geophys.net/29/1121/2011/
R. A. Treumann et al.: Flux quanta and field lines 1127
This fact restricts the ordinary perpendicular conductivity
? =0?/` in a plasma to values
0? <109 S m−1 (28)
Though this upper bound on the plasma conductivity is still
high it shows that magnetised plasmas retain a small resistance
which is an invariant the origin of which is to be found
in the quantum nature of the magnetic flux.
5 Conclusions
Summarising, we have clarified the notion of magnetic field
lines in plasmas. It turns out that the existence of a magnetic
flux quantum also implies the existence in any magnetic field
of strength B of a physically narrowest magnetic flux tube,
which is a magnetic field line.
Magnetic field lines carry just one flux quantum 80, while
their radius depends on the local field strength B and shrinks
with increasing B.
There have been two debatable points in our argument on
field-line merging and flux annihilation. The first concerns
the question of what strictly antiparallel means. We have
clarified this by permitting the flux tubes to be mutually inclined
by an angle . Two field lines, that is elementary
flux tubes carrying one flux quantum 80 can merge only
when they are strictly anti-parallel over a section of length
`k along the flux tubes as shown for the ideal case in Fig. 3.
This is required because flux quanta cannot be divided but
have to be exchanged in integer numbers. If two bent field
lines are mutually inclined while getting into contact at some
point in space the projections of one field line onto the other
yields a certain length `k which, depending on the direction
of the field line can be parallel or anti-parallel. This is the
length `k() in question. It involves the angle of inclination
. Merging and annihilation of flux in integer numbers of
quanta becomes possible only when the angle of contact is
 > 1
2, implying cos <0. This simple condition yields a
precise boundary for the mutually necessary inclination of
field lines in order to allow for efficient merging.
Carrying out the calculation of the contact length `k()
confirms that, as required, maximum merging power is obtained
at inclination angle  = , while merging ceases at
 = 1
2. The decrease in power with increasing obliquity is
drastical because of the narrow width of the contacting field
lines. However, though the energy release depends on , in
each case the constant amount of 280 in flux will still be
annihilated.
The second point concerned the strong kink in the magnetic
field which evolved after merging. This kink might lead
to suspect that it would be the main ingredient in the merging
process in close similarity to reconnection. However, on
the sub-microscale the merging takes place in vacuum. This
has been discussed at length leading to the insight that the relaxing
field lines become mass-loaded and start affecting the
plasma when their radius of curvature exceeds the electron
gyro-radius.
This takes place in the late evolution of the stretching and
relaxation of the field line when many field lines become involved.
In this way the sub-microscale physics makes the
transition into classical physics at the macro-physical scales.
We have also shown that the existence of flux quanta implies
that the diffusivity in a plasma is quantised. The diffusion
process can be understood as the particle jumping from
field line to field line. This fact implies, in addition, an upper
(quantum) bound on the conductivity in a plasma which
itself is a constant of nature.
Acknowledgements. This research was part of an occasional Visiting
Scientist Programme in 2006/2007 at ISSI, Bern. RT thankfully
recognises the assistance of the ISSI librarians, Andrea Fischer and
Irmela Schweizer. He highly appreciates the continuous encouragement
and support by Andr´e Balogh, Director at ISSI, and the
discussions with Andr´e Balogh and Silvia Perri, all at ISSI, on the
present subject. Finally, because of its unconventional approach to
the subject of field lines and field line merging, this paper encountered
severe problems in passing the referee process. Since it had
to be modified several times to satisfy the referees’ wishes and to
make the presentation clear enough for understanding, the referees
(who unfortunately remained anonymous such that they cannot be
acknowledged personally) have had substantial participation in the
final form of this paper which is unrestrictedly acknowledged at this
place.
Topical Editor I. A. Daglis thanks G. Belmont and two other
anonymous referees for their help in evaluating this paper.
References
Aharonov, Y. and Bohm, D.: Significance of electromagnetic potentials
in the quantum theory, Phys. Rev., 115, 485–491, 1959.
Landau, L. D.: Diamagnetismus der Metalle, Z. Physik, 64, 629–
637, doi:10.1007/BF01397213, 1930.
Lui, A. T. Y., Jacquey, C., Lakhina, G. S., Lundin, R., Nagai, T.,
Phan, T.-D., Pu, Z. Y., Roth, M., Song, Y., Treumann, R. A.,
Yamauchi, M., and Zelenyi, L. M.: Critical issues on magnetic
reconnection in space plasmas, Space Sci. Rev., 116, 497–521,
doi:10.1007/s11214-005-1987-6, 2005.
Paschmann, G., Papamastorakis, I., Sckopke, N., Haerendel, G.,
Sonnerup, B. U. O¨ ., Bame, S. J., Asbridge, J. R., Gosling, J.
T., Russell, C. T., and Elphic, R. C.: Plasma acceleration at the
Earth’s magnetopause – Evidence for reconnection, Nature, 282,
243–246, doi:10.1038/282243a0, 1979.
Sonnerup, B. U. O¨ .: Magnetic field reconnection, in: Solar System
Plasma Physics, Vol III, pp. 45–108, edited by: Lanzerotti, L.
T., Kennel, C. F., and Parker, E. N., North-Holland, New York,
1979.
Stern, D. P.: The motion of magnetic field lines, Space Sci. Rev., 6,
147–173, doi:10.1007/BF00222592, 1966.
Stern, D. P.: Geomagnetic Euler potentials, J. Geophys. Res., 72,
3995–4005, doi:10.1029/JZ072i015p03995, 1967.
www.ann-geophys.net/29/1121/2011/  Ann. Geophys., 29, 1121–1127, 2011

On 7/18/2018 12:00 PM, Norman Wootan wrote:
>
> https://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb3.htm To understand the EMP 
> effect (Magneto-Electric Pulse) you have to think out what happens 
> when you have an "isolated" "saturated" inductor via discharging large 
> capacitors and silultaniously short inductor which drives it's 
> inductive value to zero!  We know that the stored energy in the 
> magnetic flux cannot be destroyed, it reason that there is a 
> transformation of energy into Magneto-Electric phenomenon!
>
> https://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb3.htm The explosive driven 
> shorting armature drives the inductive value of the large copper coil 
> (magnetically saturated ( to zero) Thus emitting the EMP pulse.  The 
> "trick" is in the "isolation" of charge!  Bench proven!  Norm
>
>
> On 7/18/2018 11:47 AM, Norman Wootan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: 	Re: Fwd: Re: [EVGRAY] buzzer OU
>> Date: 	Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:52:34 -0500
>> From: 	Norman Wootan <[email protected]>
>> To: 	[email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank You all! for the discussion regarding the creation of Neutral 
>> Spike & ferroresonance phenomenon!  If you will go all the way back 
>> to Tesla Telagraphy 101, explained on page 25 of the Colorado Springs 
>> Notes, you will understand how Tesla was able to use approximately 
>> 200VDC (batteries in series) to provide a unidirectional (DC pulse) 
>> of 20 miliamps into the ground system. He used a permanent magnet 
>> core coil and a gas filled pulse tube which gave a break-over 
>> conduction from a relay provided de-magnification pulse at tube 
>> allowing conduction.  This was learned when Tesla built the magnetic 
>> rectifier for the New Your street light which were run on DC prior to 
>> his AC electrification of New York.  I the Wardencliff tower, 
>> magnifying transmitter, there was an expansive radial conductor 
>> ground system which provided the necessary bonding to the earth.  All 
>> of this followed Tesla sending control signals to his little 
>> submarine boat on the Hudson River. First ever remote radio control 
>> using earth and water as a signal carrier.   Rogers got the concept 
>> of his Underground Antennae from Tesla experiments.     My (easily 
>> replicated) experiments with locked rotor 5 HP compressor motors 
>> producing Negative Spikes is an example of relative low voltage 
>> production of the phenomenon. 230VAC @ 82 amps is low power to me. 
>> Yes! The earth response is very high voltage blast at super high 
>> currents which cannot be me4asured or quantified. Our challenge is to 
>> capture and utilize this strange power just as we had proposed for 
>> the controlable production of the ferroresonane phenomenon. The trick 
>> is to be able to create a sustained chain of events so we an possibly 
>> transfor the high voltages and current into a useable power output.  
>> See the numerous articles I put up on ELF that is all driven by 
>> underground and under water signal flow.  Roger's original antennae 
>> used a lead pipe buried under ground.
>>
>> On 4/12/2018 10:11 AM, Mick [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
>>>
>>> Correction --"current flow" only appears between differentials 
>>> otherwise current is a scalar and we are back to the bird on the wire.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/12/2018 6:05 AM, Warren Keillor [email protected] 
>>> [EVGRAY] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Mick
>>>>
>>>> You are right!
>>>> The ground makes a huge difference.
>>>> The Smith device concept is correct on this point, according to 
>>>> Kurt's latest experimental results.
>>>> I need to figure out how to make a good ground here, where I am 
>>>> located.
>>>> I had just put down a nice 10' long steel rebar at my 
>>>> home/workshop, before we moved here, where there is sedimentary 
>>>> rock only a few inches under the sod.
>>>> If you were to see a cross section, it looks like layers apon 
>>>> layers of limestone blocks, along with even harder sandstone layers.
>>>> Can this be a ground?
>>>> I do have a pair of water wells, one that is over120 feet deep. Can 
>>>> I ground to the well casing?
>>>> I used to communicate with a ham operator located somewhere near 
>>>> this area who had a beam antenna giving him an extraordinary signal 
>>>> even to me to my boat in Venezuela.
>>>> Sadly, he has since passed away.
>>>> He had purchased his property based on the radio propagation 
>>>> capability. He used to connect telephone patches to my parents, so 
>>>> we could chat before cell phones came in.
>>>> I have hopes, I too, can get a ground connections, for Smith 
>>>> experiments.
>>>> Another ground source might be the result of our fence contractor 
>>>> who will be putting in page wire perimeter fences, using steel t 
>>>> bar posts driven into the rock, using pnuematic jack hammer post 
>>>> drivers.
>>>> I should be able to get a ground off this fence, as well, I hope.
>>>> Zilano manages to run her farm on 160 kw of 250 volt 50 hz table 
>>>> top unit.
>>>> Man! I can certainly use that around here, after this last winter's 
>>>> heating bills came home.
>>>> Toronto is in Ontario's banana belt, by comparison to here, in 
>>>> Eastern Ontario.
>>>> Cheers Warren
>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
>>>> <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
>>>>
>>>>     On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:43 AM, Mick [email protected] [EVGRAY]
>>>>     <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Warren,
>>>>
>>>>     If one takes what Norm says to heart, which I don't know why
>>>>     one wouldn't as he has a hand up on most of us, the issue on
>>>>     your Smith device needs to be tuned to make a neutral spike and
>>>>     receive the ping back. Look up "lightening return strike" 
>>>>     Start with getting the spike then tune for the proper phase to
>>>>     suck it back in.
>>>>
>>>>     First you have to be able to send the proper width and
>>>>     amplitude pulse and then receive the echo from a well grounded
>>>>     rod.  Part one use a battery to undertake this experiment as
>>>>     many bench supplies and such I think cause problems with their
>>>>     grounding scheme interfering with this.  Part Zero- don't
>>>>     forget the ground, even Don Smith said it would not operate
>>>>     without a ground.  You can't get something for nothing plain
>>>>     resonating is just that until it is taken to the point of such
>>>>     high Q that it pumps a core like a laser then there are some
>>>>     nuclear resonant points one can derive energy from.  On the
>>>>     other hand the neutral spike sounds like a much easier way to
>>>>     source extra power.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     On 4/11/2018 12:26 PM, Warren Keillor
>>>>     [email protected]
>>>>     <mailto:[email protected]> [EVGRAY] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     James
>>>>>
>>>>>     You are correct about the high voltage pulses.
>>>>>     I'm not sure what the mechanism is, but I have read it is better.
>>>>>     Zilano seems to have written that it is possible to do a lower
>>>>>     voltage version, that is less efficient.
>>>>>     Of course, the real magic was done with a kv.system.
>>>>>     I have yet to replicate Zilano's devices, with success.
>>>>>     They seem to be easy to make, but a little short on hands on,
>>>>>     idiot proof instructions, with ample feedback.
>>>>>     We have to keeo trying
>>>>>     Cheers Warren
>>>>>     Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>>>>>     <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
>>>>>
>>>>>         On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:42 PM, James Glinski
>>>>>         [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [EVGRAY]
>>>>>         <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>         wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         Warren don't leave out the hi voltage power needle pluses.
>>>>>         That's important .
>>>>>
>>>>>         On Apr 11, 2018 11:22 AM, "Warren Keillor
>>>>>         [email protected]
>>>>>         <mailto:[email protected]> [EVGRAY]"
>>>>>         <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>>>         wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>             Sven
>>>>>
>>>>>             You are going too fast for me.
>>>>>             Give some context to what you are referring to
>>>>>             transformers.
>>>>>             You mentioned the Earth.
>>>>>             Transformers as I understand them, are able to capture
>>>>>             hertzian waves that can circulate through them as current.
>>>>>             I have been led to believe that two coils can resonate
>>>>>             in magnetic proximaty to each other avoiding Lenz's
>>>>>             law, providing the frequency is compatible to the wire
>>>>>             length of each other.
>>>>>             The coil length is very important, but can be very low
>>>>>             impedence fat wire, or even copper tubing making the
>>>>>             helix, as long as it is a harmonic of the other
>>>>>             coil(s) sharing that magnetic field so they resonate
>>>>>             together.
>>>>>             Capacitors can be used to adjust the tuning, as can
>>>>>             changing the helix lengths so resonance can be achieved.
>>>>>             Losing lenz's law, yet transfering energy, is
>>>>>             difficult, as we all know, and each workable method is
>>>>>             a treasure of a tool to work with.
>>>>>             The trick, if it is a trick, is to have a nice big
>>>>>             tool kit, to design with.
>>>>>             Cheers Warren
>>>>>             Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>>>>>             <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:00 AM,
>>>>>                 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>                 [EVGRAY]
>>>>>                 <[email protected]
>>>>>                 <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Hello Ole,
>>>>>
>>>>>                 ok the capacity of the transformer is the keyword
>>>>>                 it flows in over the earth?!? That would be free
>>>>>                 energy over ground potential ????
>>>>>
>>>>>                 That would have to work with every other
>>>>>                 transformer, too, or is the extreme high impedance
>>>>>                 important, since the number of windings appears to
>>>>>                 add capacitively.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 What and how should we proceed to get positive
>>>>>                 results. For me, everything speaks for the
>>>>>                 electric field that should be strengthened or
>>>>>                 based on it.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 A ferroresonant transformer could also be used
>>>>>                 with low impedance winding and larger capacitors,
>>>>>                 but it is not made. The windings all have a very
>>>>>                 high inductance.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 The Genesis Project is also based on sucking
>>>>>                 energy from the electric field with a negative
>>>>>                 inductor.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 I did not really understand Ivor Catt. Only so
>>>>>                 much that we do not move electrons when current is
>>>>>                 flowing, as evidence that a capacitor discharges
>>>>>                 so fast almost at the speed of light and so-called
>>>>>                 free electrons can not move so fast in an
>>>>>                 electrical conductor. I've read a few links from
>>>>>                 Ivor Catt and scientists he relies on.
>>>>>                 It's almost as if a capacitor is already a product
>>>>>                 for free energy in the broadest sense.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 regards
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Sven
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>
>