Slashdot Mirror

It's simply charge. Scientifically 'electricity' is more of a field of study today than a thing because in science electricity has many forms with 'current' and static electricity being only two.

Electricity is not a form of energy.

http://amasci.com/miscon/whatd...

3M figured out how to make a force field.

http://amasci.com/weird/unusua...

And here I thought the key to keeping them sharp was storing them in a pyramid-shaped housing.

Star Wars didn't even remotely do this first... in fact, it wasn't even the first in major media, seeing as how this was the whole point of the "deflector dish" in Star Trek.

Also, they've "proven" or "demonstrated" precisely nothing, as they have tested - and derived results from - precisely nothing.

Finally, the feasibility of this was demonstrated long ago by an "odd" occurrence in a 3M plant making polypropylene film, not to mention the high-strength electro-magnetic fields (or "bottles") currently in use in experimental fusion reactors.

Just because I noticed that birds and other creatures can fly and write about it in a paper, does not mean that constitutes demonstration or proof of an assertion that human-powered flight is feasible, nor does it demonstrate the actual principle in any useful way.

http://amasci.com/amateur/irgoggl.html

This is what hinders progress: http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt [amasci.com]

If the text you've linked is what hinders progress, why are you spreading links to it?

So on what basis do they conclude anything?

Honest investigation should investigate wether the "association" can have:
1) biological explanations (bacteria, viruses) associated with cavities.
2) dental hygiene explanations (dentist operations, toothpaste, mouthwash, wounds)
3) Hereditary explanations
4) Etc. I'm no expert, but I'm constantly irritated by poor reporting and poor scientific journals assuming too much.

This is what hinders progress: http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt

Is this really going to happen...Specially in crowded traffic...These ideas are too far fetched..

Most crowded traffic is the result of impatient drivers with poor reflexes constantly riding up the driver in front of them and then having to slam to a stop when the car in front of them brakes. This propagates backwards and creates traffic waves. Interestingly, all it takes is one driver to put an end to stop-and-go traffic.

Now imagine that 5% of the cars on the road were replaced with driverless cars that not only give the car in front of them plenty of room but also signal ahead to other driverless and safety assisted cars (e.g. ones with predictive braking) what they are about to do. Imagine that these cars didn't rubberneck or get angry and tailgate or cut people off without signaling first, because they don't have emotional humans driving them.

Imagine a world with no traffic jams thanks to driverless cars.

Congratulations! You have invented perpetual energy!

More seriously, read this link if the first link I posted is too hard for you to understand:
http://amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html

'Energy-sucking' Radio Antennas:
http://amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html#dnn

Congratulations! You have invented perpetual energy!

More seriously, read this link if the first link I posted is too hard for you to understand:
http://amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html

'Energy-sucking' Radio Antennas:
http://amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html#dnn

"If a scientist, or a vast majority of scientists, say something is true, it is considered heresy to even dare to question it."

It doesn't matter who says what. There are tons of examples from history from scientists who were ridiculed for proposing ideas that went against the grain, and later turned out to be right. Examples: http://www.amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

Nobody says you can't question the conventional reasoning, but you better have a damn good story to back that up, whether it be an experimental result, contradictory observational facts, or even just a hypothetical, yet logical argument. Science has more to do with answers answers, rather than beliefs.

TRAFFIC "EXPERIMENTS" AND A CURE FOR WAVES & JAMS
1998 William Beaty Electrical Engineer

My first 'experiment': accidentally erasing waves!
Once upon a time, years ago, I was driving through a number of stop/go traffic waves on I-520 at rush hour in Seattle. I decided to try something. On a day when I immediately started hitting the usual "waves" of stopped cars, I decided to drive smoothly. Rather than repeatedly rushing ahead with everyone else, only to come to a halt, I decided to try to move at the average speed of the traffic. I let a huge gap open up ahead of me, and timed things so I was arriving at the next "stop-wave" just as the last red brakelights were turning off ahead of me. It certainly felt weird to have that huge empty space ahead of me, but I knew I was driving no slower than anyone else. Sometimes I hit it just right and never had to touch the brakes at all. Other times I was too fast or slow. There were many "waves" that evening, and this gave me many opportunities to improve my skill as I drove along.

    I kept this up for maybe half an hour while approaching the city. Finally I happened to glance at my rearview mirror. There was an interesting sight.
It was dusk, the headlights were on, and I was going down a long hill to the bridges. I had a view of miles of highway behind me. In the neighboring lane I could see maybe five of the traffic stop-waves. But in the lane behind me, for miles, TOTALLY UNIFORM DISTRIBUTION. I hadn't realized it, but by driving at the average speed of the traffic around me, my car had been "eating" the traffic waves. Everyone ahead of me was caught in the stop/go cycle, while everyone behind me was forced to go at a nice smooth 35MPH or so. My single tiny car had erased miles and miles of stop-and-go traffic. Just one single "lubricant atom" had a profound effect on the turbulent particle flow within the entire miles of "tube."

http://amasci.com/amateur/traffic/trafexp.html

http://www.google.com/search?q=traffic+site:amasci.com

Of course this is ludicrous.

No one can see X-rays (or infrared, or ultraviolet, or microwaves). It doesn't matter how much a person believes he can. Retinas simply don't have the sensory hardware.

I wouldn't be so sure... $10 IR filter goggles. The human senses do have limits, but they're rather soft and fuzzy. First, there's genetic variation in the exact sensitivity range (e.g. some people can perceive further into the "infrared" spectrum than others, it's a common high school & college lab experiment). Plus, pedantically, everyone can detect IR up to 3,000 nm at least, cooking would be highly impractical otherwise, and Beethoven felt for vibrations so he could continue composing/performing despite his deafness (IOW, our senses overlap, very important for concert goers that like to feel the bass).

Second, and more importantly, the raw signals are integrated by the brain in a semi-predictable pattern (obviously it's a self-teaching neural network, so people process things differently, although there are common trends). An insect has a compound eye with dozens or hundreds of photoreceptor units. Individually, they're not terribly sensitive, but when integrated provide a much clearer picture. It's akin to how photographers can merge multiple overlapping images to create gigapixel-level quality.

Given harmonics, pinna distortion and such, it wouldn't surprise me if hair cells do not impose an absolute limit on hearing, as the article states. OTOH, I doubt that 192 kHz offers any real sound improvement, but I don't think you can argue that with just biology, as there are few, if any, definites in that subject.

Ya know, you sure do make a lot of fuss about stuff you haven't got a clue about.

I know you don't have a clue, because most humans don't have a clue. Hell, we can't even agree on what electricity is, nevermind what might be required in a space-faring vessel intended for colonization - with or without human cargo.

People have been doing the same thing for IR.
http://amasci.com/amateur/irgoggl.html

You could make UV goggles to let the UV pass only and go out on a sunny day. You wouldn't expose your eyes to much more UV than regular (well, your pupils will be open wider so it may be about 10x more). Enjoy the new experience.

Bert

yes. quoting opinion of random scholastic academician, at the wake of an actual fbi report SAYING that these extraterrestrials exist and government has procured their remans.

this is precisely the point i have made with my grandparent - so, i should believe someone's own OPINION at the wake of an actual government report of an actual incident. AFTER and DESPITE the admittance of the incident and its nature ?

why.

dont answer. the question is rhetorical. if one looks at science history, there are bigger morons than feynman, ridiculeing and calling impossible to things that we take as granted today. here is an excerpt :

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html#j43

yeah. actually paid researches, university scientists, actually, science on our planet DOES fuck up a lot.

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html#j43

multiverse cannot be science

a lot of the stuff you take as 'science' today, were ridicule of earlier centuries. there were people saying similar things like you.

moreover, among them there were a lot of the science establishment doing that. on top of it, a lot of it was done to the science pioneers you acknowledge as great today. last, but most importantly, its not a phenomenon that was centuries ago - it is happening frequently, like even in the past decade :

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

read excerpt in the link, then scroll down (way down) to see which particular great scientist was ridiculed for what. and even called a charlatan. and, most importantly, by whom.

like

Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)

Invented in 1982, other surface scientists refused to believe that atom-scale resolution was possible, and demonstrations of the STM in 1985 were still met by hostility, shouts, and laughter from the specialists in the microscopy field. Its discoverers won the Nobel prize in 1986, which went far in forcing an unusually rapid change in the attitude of colleagues

the MORONS who ridiculed these people, are still deans, dept. heads around the world in various important universities and corporations .... imagine ...

Coat hangers usually have a high iron content. The iron enhances the magnetic field inherent in any current flow, but if there's too much current flow, the iron saturates.

Related. Fig. 14 gets somewhat close to a coathanger.

You had a DIODE!? Shit, I only had a galena crystal and a catwhisker. Lucky me, I had a cypress tree house about fifty feet off the ground, and ran a wire down to the swamp below. We were less than a mile from a big AM transmitter in Jax, FL, and you could listen to the earphones like speakers! But my science fair project lasted one operation. It was a Van der Graaf tower generator running a huge rubber band off a phonograph motor, on a plastic tube about three feet long with an aluminum pot on top. Went off like a rifle shot when it arced over, freaked out the science teachers. http://amasci.com/emotor/vdg.html

No, it's not inaccurate, unless you're claiming that protons don't have a charge. The ions here are nothing like wires. In a wire, the atoms (nuclei and nonconductive electrons) are fixed in position while the conduction band electrons are free to move from atom to atom. But in this desalinization process, the nuclei themselves actually move -- that's what makes it desalinization. The sodium and chlorine ions are true charge carriers. Ion conduction is not uncommon. Here's some more info on that:

http://amasci.com/amateur/elecdir.html

But even with Tesla aside, this isn't new... it's just not as vastly useful as people re-discovering it seem to think it is. It doesn't work over gigantic distances, only moderate ones, and there's no engineering you can do to get around that.

The misunderstanding a lot of people have is that they think Tesla was chasing *truly* wireless power - when in fact this was probably never his goal. Tesla was always chasing after something he called "longitudinal waves" in an attempt to perform worldwide "wireless" power transmission - he even called one of his companies World Wireless.

Tesla certainly wasn't foolish enough to believe this distance was possible with purely wireless transmission, but instead investigated single-wire transmission systems using the ground as the single wire. His initial success at single-wire transmission was at Colorado Springs in 1900 with three lightbulbs in a closed circuit loop with no power source and a transmission source a hundred feet away. In this experiment, as in his later vacuum tube powering experiment performed at considerably greater distances (eventually miles away), the objects in question were always had a metallic contact with the ground.

Take a look at figures 3, 6, and 7 on this page: http://amasci.com/tesla/tmistk.html. This seems the most likely explanation for the experiments at Colorado Springs and Wardenclyffe. Wardenclyffe in particular is where we find Tesla sinking iron rods 300 feet into the ground, burning out local power station dynamos with his energy demands, and constructing a massive omnidirectional transmission tower.

The reasonable conclusion from all this is that Tesla was always pursuing single-wire transmission schemes in which literally the entire Earth itself was the single wire, and the transmission medium for the wireless component was the entire ionosphere. "World Wireless" seems to have been meant quite literally, which was in keeping with all we know about Tesla's personality. Unfortunately, as we all know, Tesla needed something like an order of magnitude more funding than JP Morgan was willing to provide - particularly after Marconi.

Beyond that, though, Morgan would have probably pulled the project even if Tesla had gotten it working: if single-wire worldwide transmission was in fact his intention, it would've been impossible to meter consumption on a per-user basis.

Pixie radio transceiver (obviously you could trivially modify it to work on different frequency bands, and/or at such low power levels that it would be irrelevant in terms of any band use / licensing restrictions given that you'd be operating on exempted frequencies or power levels or both).
http://www.al7fs.us/AL7FS2.html
http://www.qrparci.org/content/view/40/55/
http://www.qsl.net/we6w/text/pixie.html
http://www.qsl.net/wa4chq/radio.html

Other resources you should look at:
http://www.circuitcellar.com/index.html
http://amasci.com/
http://scienceclub.org/kidproj1.html

I agree - the Mimms books are the place to look for basic, cheap yet informative and interesting projects. I used his "Getting started in Electronics" to teach ages 9-12. To make this learning physics rather than just a craft project, it's crucial to teach the basics before doing projects with complicated circuits or chips. I mean at least voltage, current, serial resistance and parallel conductance using the water-flow analogies, and preferably the divided-pressure tank model of the capacitor as well (see Bill Beatty's "Capacitor Complaints" Also read all his articles about "Electricity" or you will be guaranteed to perpetuate misconceptions. Great teaching ideas there.) This is about as much as you are likely to have time for, but very little interesting happens in circuits without semiconductors, so if you can work in the fluid analogies for diodes (check valves) and transistors the kids will benefit.

My personal choice for an educational medium-basic circuit project would be a high-pass and a low-pass single-pole filter (both just a capacitor and a resistor). Use a computer sound card as a signal generator and spectrum analyzer using a free program such as OscilloMeter.

Other good projects would be an H-bridge motor controller (6 transistors) or for something more ambitious a Tilden "nervous net" / BEAM robotic circuit such as a light-tracking head.

I agree - the Mimms books are the place to look for basic, cheap yet informative and interesting projects. I used his "Getting started in Electronics" to teach ages 9-12. To make this learning physics rather than just a craft project, it's crucial to teach the basics before doing projects with complicated circuits or chips. I mean at least voltage, current, serial resistance and parallel conductance using the water-flow analogies, and preferably the divided-pressure tank model of the capacitor as well (see Bill Beatty's "Capacitor Complaints" Also read all his articles about "Electricity" or you will be guaranteed to perpetuate misconceptions. Great teaching ideas there.) This is about as much as you are likely to have time for, but very little interesting happens in circuits without semiconductors, so if you can work in the fluid analogies for diodes (check valves) and transistors the kids will benefit.

My personal choice for an educational medium-basic circuit project would be a high-pass and a low-pass single-pole filter (both just a capacitor and a resistor). Use a computer sound card as a signal generator and spectrum analyzer using a free program such as OscilloMeter.

Other good projects would be an H-bridge motor controller (6 transistors) or for something more ambitious a Tilden "nervous net" / BEAM robotic circuit such as a light-tracking head.

Oh yay, another great example of providing a technically correct, but thoroughly misleading answer. "To answer these questions, we must learn about light, and the Earth's atmosphere." No, you mustn't. Ok, you need to learn one thing: "the sky is blue because air is blue" (from Recurring Science Misconceptions in K-6 Textbooks). All that crap about Rayleigh scattering and frequencies of light is...well, it's true but it's generally beside the point.

Q. Why is my shirt red?
A1. (bad) To answer these questions, we must learn about light, and how photons are absorbed or reflected by different materials, and how the cones of the eye convert photons into neural impulses....
A2. (good) because it was dyed red.

Granted, all that other stuff can be interesting too, but to claim that you're providing the simple explanation is just ridiculous.

(At least it's not as bad as the standard explanation of an airfoil, which is simply wrong.)

Oh yay, another great example of providing a technically correct, but thoroughly misleading answer. "To answer these questions, we must learn about light, and the Earth's atmosphere." No, you mustn't. Ok, you need to learn one thing: "the sky is blue because air is blue" (from Recurring Science Misconceptions in K-6 Textbooks). All that crap about Rayleigh scattering and frequencies of light is...well, it's true but it's generally beside the point.

Q. Why is my shirt red?
A1. (bad) To answer these questions, we must learn about light, and how photons are absorbed or reflected by different materials, and how the cones of the eye convert photons into neural impulses....
A2. (good) because it was dyed red.

Granted, all that other stuff can be interesting too, but to claim that you're providing the simple explanation is just ridiculous.

(At least it's not as bad as the standard explanation of an airfoil, which is simply wrong.)

At first, I thought he had managed
to make a force field around the car using a tesla coil.

But then I saw that he was just rotating a pole connected to a tesla coil around the car, what a disappointment.

It might actually be possible to make a force field with a Tesla coil if you can find the correct field harmonics.
See http://amasci.com/freenrg/audwall.html

You might also have to know something about
quaternionic electromagnetism to pull it of.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4445/quaternionic-electrodynamics

Also if you think that slashdot stories have been
to low quality lately then maybe you should try http://crowdnews.eu/

Oh, c'mon, pins in the fingers, knives in the bac, that's nothing!! You know what's always sounded entertaining? Toenail removal. :)
Not a bondage thing, but, I'm a little disappointed that this doesn't trepan the skull. *grin* Trepanning has always sounded like an interesting first step towards a wetware port of embedded Linux and/or an Internet implant, no?

-os

John

In the process of explaining why so many textbooks about electronics are full of misconception, William Beaty gives easy to understand layman explanations of electrical theory. Without an understanding of electrical theory, electronics is just voodoo plugging of components to make a 'recipe'. The best part? It's free as in beer http://amasci.com/miscon/elect.html

This might help.

William Beaty covers this in his exploration of traffic waves.

Q: If I slow down and leave a space ahead of me, somebody will immediately change lanes and fill that space!

Right. That's the whole point. We WANT people to merge ahead of us before that other lane comes to an end. If I fear that someone will leap into the space ahead of me, or if this makes me resentful or angry, then I close up ranks and prevent everyone from merging. If I try to become the "vengance police" and punish the cheaters who zoom ahead, then I close up ranks and stop all merges. Closed ranks create traffic jams. "Cheaters" don't trigger traffic jams, it's the people who try to punish the cheaters who do it.

Lane jumpers are not the real problem. Traffic jams are commonly caused by people who attempt to punish the lane jumpers by eliminating all spaces! In the merge-jam animations, the goal isn't to maintain the empty space under any circumstance. The goal is to ALLOW PEOPLE TO MERGE AHEAD OF US! Closing up the ranks is what produces that jam in the animation. But what about the times when we are far from the merging-lanes area... ?

William Beaty covers this in his exploration of traffic waves.

Q: If I slow down and leave a space ahead of me, somebody will immediately change lanes and fill that space!

Right. That's the whole point. We WANT people to merge ahead of us before that other lane comes to an end. If I fear that someone will leap into the space ahead of me, or if this makes me resentful or angry, then I close up ranks and prevent everyone from merging. If I try to become the "vengance police" and punish the cheaters who zoom ahead, then I close up ranks and stop all merges. Closed ranks create traffic jams. "Cheaters" don't trigger traffic jams, it's the people who try to punish the cheaters who do it.

Lane jumpers are not the real problem. Traffic jams are commonly caused by people who attempt to punish the lane jumpers by eliminating all spaces! In the merge-jam animations, the goal isn't to maintain the empty space under any circumstance. The goal is to ALLOW PEOPLE TO MERGE AHEAD OF US! Closing up the ranks is what produces that jam in the animation. But what about the times when we are far from the merging-lanes area... ?

Suggestion: create animated comparisons of your two cases, bright points of light & gulfs of darkness versus more even illumination. Something like this, which compares traffic behaviors (which drivers can actively influence) in the left and right animations: http://amasci.com/amateur/traffic/seatraf.html

Sure why not? People believe in all kinda of crazy things like religion, astrology, string theory, and evolution.

A quick google search shows up this url http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html for those that were ridiculed, but later vindicated.

I think there is a ton of money to be made in astrology. With what we know now, it should be possible to work backward and find out if visible lights in the sky have had effects on a personal/societal level for the past few thousand years. There is a part of me that wonders if the gravity of other planets or the moon/sun has noticeable/predictable effects on us. With all the crazy crap that we fund, that sounds like a fun off the wall one. The only problem is if we discovered that "astrology" was actually real. I have a feeling that we could make astrology work.

What I find funny is that we'd find it impossible to fund NASA to observe all the asteroids that might hit the earth. We'd actually come up with the money to fund that for astrology though. Those asteroids might have a noticeable impact on our collective future if left unaccounted for.

I think astrology actually can match up fairly well under science. The thing is it would be that crazy blue sky science until we really started looking at it. For a means to predict the future though? Nope, I wouldn't buy that, yet. I do think daily horoscopes and the like are great fun. If some one takes one as daily instructions of a high priest/priestess that's their problem. I bet astrology would turn out some what like the weather. With enough data, we could predict it for 4 days or so. (I find funny is its not sky data that we'd need to determine your likely future, its knowledge about the person and what they are likely to do. Actual successful astrologers might be pretty good at reading people and learning to guide people into the directions that they want to go anyway. i wonder if anyone has studied the careers of successful astrologers and their impact on "important" people in business/government.

Here is a very involved article, from 1998, that explains this "traffic wave" phenomenon. The "study" behind it was done by one guy, not by some bunch of "researchers". All they did was to conduct their experiments in a more controlled environment.

As for this being "news", that's BS. Just watch how truckers change their driving pattern when congestion starts to build up. This has been common-sense knowledge for most sensible drivers for decades. Only now there's a peer-reviewed paper about it.

Bill Beaty has had the same thing on his Amateur Science web site for years:

http://www.amasci.com/amateur/traffic/traffic1.html

I expected this story to be a dupe of this decade-old article by a guy who figured out the same idea.

I knew I had seen something like this in an article I read... THIRTY YEARS AGO...

http://amasci.com/amateur/sciamdx.html

Search for "Chemical reactions, oscillating".

Sorry, kiddies. Been there, done that. Still interesting, though.

As previously noted, a cooperative approach, California style driving will put more cars closer together than some east coast (Washintgon DC) locations.

I wonder if they still teach the old "1 car length for each 10 mph" rule.

No, these days they teach the two second rule. There should be two seconds of empty road between you and the car in front of you. The way to gauge this is to watch for a mark on the pavement (an oil stain, or a crack, or something) to emerge from underneath the vehicle in front of you. It should take two seconds before that mark disappears below your hood. This gives you lots of reaction time, and there's no math involved.

There's an interesting website concerning traffic waves and "anti-traffic" that I came across a few years ago. It really works.

The essay on "Traffic Waves" should be required reading for everyone who applies for a driver's license. Here's the link again: http://www.amasci.com/amateur/traffic/traffic1.html

His cure is practiced by truckers and smart motorists it seems. Having driven around the country a lot, I think that it works sometimes, but then there are always jackasses that use that space you've created in front of you. From what I can tell, drivers have been getting more and more aggressive. When I took driver's ed 15 years ago, they told you about keeping 2-4 seconds between you and the person in front of you. That is probably based on driving in the 60s, but today that is nearly impossible. People generally drive about 1/2 second or less behind the person in front of them and better braking and tire traction have allowed this.

Although their proof might be (IANAM). I remember reading this article on slashdot around the time it was written. Although, for what it's worth, I don't think it technically qualifies as a dupe.

Does this mean now there's math to support this?

This has been known for years.

Though I don't have a copy of either in front of me at the moment, I believe this topic is covered in either The Electric Sky by Don Scott or The Electric Universe by Wal Thornhill and Dave Talbott. You might want to pick up a copy. Other interesting reads include Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened, and Arp's Seeing Red. Though they're on slightly different topics.

My understanding is that there is a drift of electrons toward the sun. Yes, a drift. It doesn't take much. Electrical motion is often a very slow process (especially in "dark" currents; IE, currents not in "glow" or "arc" mode) on the order of a few centimeters per hour?

But, in the meanwhile, here are some links to a few abstracts / articles that deal with various bodies as unipolar inductors.

From links found at Plasma-Universe.com:

(Cosmic electric currents and the generalized Bennett relation)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Ap%26SS.144...73C

(Unipolar Induction of a Magnetized Accretion Disk around a Black Hole)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AstL...29..153S

(A force - free field theory of solar flares I. Unipolar sunspots)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ChA%26A...5...77Y

(Electric current in a unipolar sunspot with an untwisted field)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990GeoRL..17.2273O

(Sheath-limited unipolar induction in the solar wind)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975Ap%26SS..36..177S

(Establishment of a Lunar Unipolar Generator and Associated Shock and Wake by the Solar Wind)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967Natur.216..340S

(Unipolar Induction in the Moon and a Lunar Limb Shock Mechanism)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969Moon....1....7S

(The Earth as a unipolar generator)
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3727/11/5/020

(Io, a jovian unipolar inductor)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...156...59G


I might also point out a great repository of peer-reviewed papers on various subjects related to plasma cosmology:

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html

Plasma Physics from Laboratory to Cosmos--The Life and Achievements of Hannes Alfvén
Cosmology in the Plasma Universe: An Introductory Exposition
Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology
Birkeland and the Electromagnetic Cosmology
The Evidence For Electrical Currents in Cosmic Plasma
The Role of Particle Be