While these are certainly excellent texts on the fundamentals of plasma physics, they are considerably dated in terms of modern techniques of mathematical analysis, plasma simulations, and plasma diagnostics, especially when it comes to using such processes as spectra of ions and atoms in the plasma to determine physical conditions. Plenty of researchers have improved experimental and theoretical techniques in the approximately 20+ years since these books were published.
Then there is the whole issue of the growth of computing power. Wasn't Peratt's original galaxy model run on a machine around the mid-1980s? In 1986, the Cray X-MP had a speed of about 1 GFLOP. Depending on the benchmarks, modern commercial-grade desktop computers are timed at 30-40 GFLOPs (Wikipedia: Xeon processors). Even desktop class machines are being combined in ways to create even more powerful multiprocessing clusters (Wikipedia: Xgrid, Beowulf). ES supporters cannot claim lack of access to reasonable computing power for their own plasma models (if they actually exist).
There has been significant laboratory and theoretical research on plasmas in nested spherical electrode configurations (similar to some Electric Sun models such as the one I call the Solar Capacitor Model) in the years since Cobine was published. This work was usually related to efforts in developing mechanisms for controlled fusion. Here's just a few of the papers I've found specifically that examine this configuration:
- C. B. Wheeler. Space charge limited current ﬂow between concentric spheres at potentials up to 15 MV. Journal of Physics A Mathematical General, 10:1645–1649, September 1977. doi: 10.1088/0305-4470/10/9/017.
- L. J. Sonmor and J. G. Laframboise. Exact current to a spherical electrode in a collisionless, large-Debye-length magnetoplasma. Physics of Fluids B, 3:2472–2490, September 1991. doi: 10.1063/1.859619.
- A. Ferreira. Fokker-Planck solution for the spherical symmetry of the electron distribution function of a fully ionized plasma. Physical Review E, 48:3876–3892, November 1993. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.48.3876.
- A. Amin, H.-S. Kim, S. Yi, J. L. Cooney, and K. E. Lonngren. Positive ion current to a spherical electrode in a negative ion plasma. Journal of Applied Physics, 75:4427–4431, May 1994. doi: 10.1063/1.355986.
- E. S. Cheb-Terrab and A. G. Elﬁmov. The solution of Vlasov’s equation for complicated plasma geometry. I. Spherical type. Computer Physics Communications, 85:251–266, February 1995. doi: 10.1016/0010-4655(94)00144-Q.
- V. Y. Bychenkov, J. P. Matte, and T. W. Johnston. Nonlocal electron transport in spherical plasmas. Physics of Plasmas, 3:1280–1283, April 1996. doi: 10.1063/1.871752.
- O. A. Nerushev, S. A. Novopashin, V. V. Radchenko, and G. I. Sukhinin. Spherical stratiﬁcation of a glow discharge. Physical Review E, 58:4897–4902, October 1998. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.58.4897.
- F. Cornolti, F. Ceccherini, S. Betti, and F. Pegoraro. Charged state of a spherical plasma in vacuum. Physical Review E, 71(5):056407–+, May 2005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.71.056407.
One of the popular complaints from ES advocates that my analyses are not treating the 'non-linear' aspects of the Electric Sun model. If that is their complaint, you'd think ES advocates would be all over this paper:
- S. Xu and K. N. Ostrikov. Series in vector spherical harmonics: An efficient tool for solution of nonlinear problems in spherical plasmas. Physics of Plasmas, 7:3101–3104, July 2000. doi: 10.1063/1.874166.
Why don't we see any of the results of the works above (and the many others available) in support of Electric Sun models? Perhaps it is because
- The models did not generate any results that would support ES?
- The experiments did not generate any results that would support ES?
- The papers didn't have any good 'quote mines' which EU supporters could spin into alleged support for ES?
- EU doesn't know about them because they aren't doing any actual research, or
- All of the above?
Coming Soon: "Plasma Modeling for Fun AND Profit"!