|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2018 1:11:00 GMT
I'll add the OP later.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2018 1:48:40 GMT
Re: Recovered: Clouds and Gravity by CharlesChandler » Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:39 pm _webolife wrote: I still say it does not serve EU to try to make unmeasured electric fields do things they are simply unnecessary for. [End quote.] _I stand up and applaud this sentiment. I have become convinced that many, many anomalies in mainstream theories, in many disciplines, can be resolved by taking the effects of electromagnetism into account. But to switch from a gravity-only model to an EM-only model isn't going to get us closer to the truth. Rather, it will make us just as wrong as the people that we criticize, and at the end of the day, we will not have furthered the EM initiative -- we will have discredited it. So it really comes down to whether the EU is an "alternative" view, just as flawed in its obsession with one set of principles as the existing framework (though it owes its allegiance to the "other" principles), or is it an opportunity for major advances in many disciplines? I think that we can do better than just come up with a view that is diametrically opposed to the mainstream. _As concerns the debate over the influence of EM in cloud condensation, there is a lot that is not fully understood, but we're past the point of pure conjecture, and we have to look at the data that are available to establish the context of the debate. Then we can entertain conjecture in the areas that are not understood. _The general framework to which I adhere is as follows. I didn't invent any of this -- I just use this because it is sufficiently accurate for my purposes, and it is the simplest framework that answers the most questions. _There's no mistaking that the thermal energy stored in water vapor, which is released in the condensation process, powers the updrafts in thunderstorms. There's also no mistaking that a 50 m/s updraft can keep a golfball-sized hailstone (r = 22 mm) suspended in air, as its terminal velocity is only 15 m/s. Smaller clumps of precipitation have even lower terminal velocities, so getting precipitation to stay more-or-less suspended in the air during the timeframe of a thunderstorm doesn't necessarily require invoking electric or magnetic fields to offset gravity. And forget about magnetic fields (such as the Earth's), as it would take a field roughly 200,000 times stronger than the Earth's to overpower the gravitational force on liquid or solid water, since water is only infinitesimally responsive to the magnetic force. So for the mainstream to contend that water is hoisted to the top of the storm by thermal updrafts, which then only comes down slowly, because of the low terminal velocity of the precipitates, and because they have a long way to fall, is not a bad first answer. In order to see the cracks in the foundation, you have to look closer. _The first major problem in that framework is explaining how golfball-sized hailstones can sometimes form within the first 10 minutes of the storm becoming organized. So the issue is the aggregation rate. _The accretion of water vapor into supercooled aerosols and ice crystals, in such a short period of time, obviously needs help from a force more powerful than just random covalent bonding. The most likely candidate is the dipolar nature of water molecules. In the fair weather field (100 V/m), the electric force will not affect the translational velocity of the (as yet neutrally-charged) molecules, but it will polarize them, and this means that with respect to neighboring molecules, each will show opposite charges to the other, resulting in an electrostatic potential between them. This will greatly increase the chance of molecular aggregation. _Still in the presence of the fair weather field, the aggregates then become dipoles on a larger scale, showing a positive charge at the bottom (facing the negatively-charged Earth), and a negative charge at the top (facing the positively-charged ionosphere). This sets up the conditions necessary for electron transfer in particle collisions. A larger particle falling through the field, showing a positive charge on its bottom, will be attracted to a smaller particle in its path, which is showing a negative charge on its top. When they collide, electrons are transferred to the larger particle, and are absorbed by its electron cloud. This leaves the smaller particle positively-charged, which is then repelled by the positive face of the larger particle. When the larger particle falls past the smaller one, there are two possibilities. Either the smaller particle will fall in with the larger particle, attracted to the negative charge at the top of the larger particle, in which case the two particles will merge, or the smaller particle will have been blown too far out of the path, in which case it will be left behind with a net positive charge, and with the larger particle gaining a net negative charge. Obviously, both of these outcomes occur, and both are easy to understand in this framework. _Then, as larger, negatively-charged aggregates fall because of a higher terminal velocity, the main negative charge region develops below the main positive charge region in the storm. This field has the same orientation as the fair weather field (between the negatively-charged Earth and the positively-charged ionosphere). Hence the emerging charge separation enhances the existing field, and strengthens the molecular/particular dipoles, which increases the chance of collisions, which increases the accretion rate and the charge separation process. _Other charging mechanisms have been proposed, such as cosmic radiation, which knocks electrons loose, leaving positive ions behind. The free electron so created might find its way back to the same atom, or if it happens to hit a larger aggregate (such as a hailstone), it might get lost in the large electron cloud of that aggregate. This model also accounts for the larger precipitation developing a negative charge. I think that I can speak for most researchers in saying that the whole story is "all of the above" -- all of the charge separation mechanisms that have been identified (and perhaps others that haven't) are all partially responsible for the effects. _The next anomaly is the nature of the main negative charge region. Every storm is different, but in a normal cumulonimbus cloud (not a supercell), it seems that a pancake-like structure emerges in the middle of the cloud, 5~7 km above the ground, which is the width of the storm itself (5 km wide or more), but only 1 km or so in height, and this is where the main body of negative charges are to be found in the cloud. The true nature of this region is contentious, but we do know that the electric field between the pancake and the positively-charged anvil of the storm exerts a force more powerful than gravity on the precipitation, so the theory to which I subscribe is that the negatively-charged precipitation is being held in suspension by the electric force. The precipitates are large enough, and with a high enough terminal velocity, that they would never have developed a concentration in the middle of the cloud -- they should have kept falling, perhaps becoming larger on the way, and the reflectivity within the storm shouldn't show a dense middle. The only force that can account for this concentration is the electric force. And we know that the microscopic aerosols and ice crystals in the anvil have an effective terminal velocity of 0 (within the relevant timeframe). So they're stuck in the air at the top of the cloud, and the buoyancy of that air is capable of holding the weight of the negatively-charged precipitation suspended in the middle of the cloud. The charge separation between the positive anvil and the negative pancake generates the E-field responsible for most of the lightning in the storm (which is a topic unto itself). _As the negatively-charged precipitation is heavier, it tends to fall to the ground, while the positively-charged aerosols and ice crystals in the anvil are left to evaporate (eventually) as the storm breaks up. This is considered to be one of the atmospheric charging mechanisms, responsible for the net positive charge in the ionosphere. Note that if you subscribe to all of the above, you get a chicken-and-egg problem. It was stated that the pre-existing E-field between the ionosphere and the Earth polarizes water molecules, and this encourages molecular aggregation as well as electron transfer in particle collisions, which eventually results in negative charges falling to the Earth, leaving positive charges behind. And that's what creates the pre-existing E-field between the ionosphere and the Earth. So what created the E-field that caused the very first thunderstorm? Another atmospheric charging mechanism is cosmic rays, which liberate electrons, some of which fly out into space, leaving the outer atmosphere positively-charged. There are other possibilities, but as with the charge separation process within thunderstorms, the most accurate answer is probably "all of the above". _So there is a lot that isn't fully understood, and there is plenty of room for speculation, but new advances have to take what is already known into account.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2018 1:49:35 GMT
Re: Mammatus Clouds by CharlesChandler » Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:32 pm _mharratsc wrote: Reminds me of what the anode tufts look like on the Sun... o.O [End quote.] _I disagree that granules on the Sun are anode tufts, but I do agree that mammatus clouds are anodes, though I'm not actually sure exactly what "tufting" actually is, so I don't know if this is appropriate. Here is an excerpt from my website (http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes.php) that presents my hypothesis: _To understand what causes mammatus clouds, we should first consider the context in which they occur. In the late stage of a thunderstorm, the updraft has expired, and downdrafts dominate. At this point, the airflow in the anvil switches direction, from its outward expansion driven by the updraft, to inward contraction toward the void left by the downdrafts at the top of the cloud. _In this context, we can understand the linear organization of the mammatus clouds. While the updraft was still forcing air into the anvil, the flow was turbulent, and long, straight cloud features were not possible. But when the airflow reverses direction, and downdrafts are pulling the anvil back toward the center of the storm, the airflow is laminar, and in this condition, linear structures can emerge. _The next question is: what is responsible for getting the laminar flow to resolve into distinct bands? The quick answer is that nobody knows, but the EMHD model suggests a possibility. We know that the anvil is storing an enormous amount of positive charge, and we know that charged gases have a lower viscosity. So while electrostatic repulsion tends to disperse the charges, in motion the more highly-charged parcels flow faster. So we can expect streams of charged particles flowing through neutral surroundings. The two forces together then result in a series of equally-spaced bands. Electrostatic repulsion limits the amount of charge in each band, and distributes the bands evenly, while the reduction in viscosity organizes the flows. _Then the question is: what is causing the water vapor to condense? Here, again, the quick answer is that nobody knows. The reduction in pressure in the anvil also reduces the temperature, and this encourages condensation. But condensation isn't going to cause a falling parcel of air that would become a mammatus lobe — condensation causes updrafts, due to the release of latent heat. And though the lobes look like drops of water on a ceiling that are getting ready to fall, they do not fall, because such is not their nature. Rather, the lobes simply dissolve after 10~15 minutes. _And here again the EMHD model offers a suggestion. In the reduced pressure after the airflow in the anvil switches direction, we would otherwise expect more condensation in the anvil. But we also know that the anvil is positively-charged. So electrostatic repulsion will prevent the aggregation of water molecules. We also know that there is a powerful electric field between the positively-charged anvil and an induced negative charge in the Earth. This could pull the more highly-charged parcels downward, and there could also be a flow of electrons upward in this field. As depicted in Figure 134, the lines of electric force will approach a positively-charged falling parcel from every direction. Electrons entering the parcel will neutralize the positive charge. Without any electrostatic repulsion, if the air is below the dew point, the water vapor will condense. And the form of this condensation will be spherical. In other words, the lobes are the anodes in an electric field between the ground and the cloud, and the visible aspect of the lobes reveals the arrival of electrons. _Figure 134. Positive charges (green) over a conductor with an induced negative charge (red). The white lines represent the highest field density. Applet by Paul Falstad. www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=2284&mode=view_So the possibility is that an electric current flowing upward from the ground enables condensation, especially in the parcels that have the most charge. The condensation process then releases latent heat, and the parcel is sent upward, leaving the hemispherical form at the bottom to simply dissolve. _Now we can look back at the images of this phenomenon, and resolve the remaining anomaly. Intuitively, we would expect the anvil to be opaque with condensation, with the mammatus lobes just being the side of the anvil that is facing us on the ground. But in the images, we can clearly see that there is no condensation above. The condensation is, in fact, a very thin boundary condition. Above the boundary, the air is super-saturated with water vapor that cannot condense because of its charge. At the boundary, electrons from below enable condensation, which falls out of the anvil and evaporates again in the drier air below the anvil. And the parcel that released the condensation is sent back up into the clear air above.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2018 1:50:29 GMT
Re: Electric Clouds by CharlesChandler » Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:30 pm _601L1n9FR09 wrote: I have seen too much assumed and stated as "fact" in my life to take it as read. [End quote.] _I totally agree with you there! And you forgot to mention how much tenacity there is, even when it's not even a fact, but just a convenient construct that has some nice properties, but which masks the anomalies, and blinds us to opportunities for break-throughs. So never stop questioning! And you're not necessarily wrong. When we fully understand all of this stuff, then we'll go back and determine who was right and who was wrong. Until then, we just don't know. For now, the best we can do is explain our reasoning, and when we find errors and correct them, we learn, and that's what it's all about. _601L1n9FR09 wrote: I have no doubt the updrafts in thunderstorms outstrip terminal velocity of hail stones. I am just not sure thermal convection alone is capable of generating the updrafts. [End quote.] _I certainly agree that in some parts of a thunderstorm, such as between the positively charged anvil and the main negative charge region, the electric force is more powerful than gravity, and is responsible for keeping the negatively charged precipitation suspended inside the storm. But those are specific structures that develop as a consequence of the charge separation process. If you're just talking about what causes the updraft in the first place, you can't invoke the electric force, because the particles aren't charged yet. The air starts out neutrally charged. If it gets cooled to the dew point, the water molecules start condensing, wherein the covalent bonds keeping them together are stronger than the molecular motion that would make them bounce off each other. But this is electron sharing, not electron transfer, and the resultant molecular aggregate is still neutrally charged. _Dr. Gerald Pollack's work was mentioned earlier, and I should provide my opinions here while we're on the subject. I think that he's wrong about the clumps of condensation that we call clouds. When condensation first forms, it is neutrally charged, and to think that a clump of it is manifesting the "like likes like" principle is solving a problem that we don't have, with a mechanism that isn't there. It is true that water particles are the primary negative charge carriers in the storm. (Actually, it would be more true to say that "particles" are the primary negative charge carriers, as individual molecules are not good at hosting a net negative charge, while the electron cloud in a particle can easily hide a few extra electrons per million. So it's water and dust particles that are the negative charge carriers -- because they're particles.) But there's an undistributed middle in the conclusion that all water particles are negatively charged, just because the particles that are negatively charged are almost always water. The main reason for clumps of condensation in clouds is actually just that condensation begets more condensation. It releases latent heat, which causes an updraft. The updraft generates a low pressure below it, and the low pressure encourages condensation. So we can expect condensation to occur in clumps. Eventually the clumps will disperse, due to atmospheric mixing (i.e., wind), not because of electrostatic repulsion. _As concerns the "exclusion zone" (EZ) that Pollack observes in liquid water, I think that he's doing important work, but before he's done, he'll have to identify the actual forces involved. My guess is that hydrophilic substances are hydrophilic because of the dipolar structure of their molecules, and that this polarizes the neighboring water molecules, which then polarize molecules further into the water, essentially creating little polymer chains. The "exclusionary" nature of these chains is then due to the fact that once they set up a lattice, their covalent bonds are stronger than those to the particles getting excluded. In fact, if the microspheres were hydrophilic, they wouldn't be excluded at all, but rather, forcefully embedded in the "EZ". So if you put water up against a hydrophilic substance (such as nafion), you get a dipolar organization in the water, and if there are hydrophobic particles in the water, they'll get forced out, because they have no place in that organization. Call it a liquid crystal if you want, but I don't think that this is a property of water per se, but rather, of any dipolar molecule. _Having said all of that, in a thunderstorm, there IS a charge separation mechanism, and I've been studying the possible effects of the electric charges on the behavior of the storm, which I believe to be quite significant. As I said earlier, there are cases where the electric force is more powerful than gravity, and is therefore a force that needs to be included in the calculations. The greater effect of EM in the storm appears to be due to a reduction in viscosity of charged air. But such effects do not appear in the updraft, as it is neutrally charged. _601L1n9FR09 wrote: We call them thermal updrafts and observe them going such and such a speed. Do we know it is due to thermal convection? I mean what kind of experiments can be run? How large would the lab have to be to establish an electrically neutral environment to see precisely how fast a thermal updraft can go? [End quote.] _Some would say that this is a simple question, and easily dismissed, but I won't. First, the simple part. We don't have to create a lab the size of the cloud in order to accurately assess the thermodynamic forces, as we can do small-scale experiments and then scale them up. The other way to go is with math that encapsulates previous experimental results. So we can calculate the thermal buoyancy of the air, and then we can estimate the friction that it will encounter when it rises, and we should be able to predict the speed of the updraft to within a couple of percents. Up to a point, both methods are in full agreement with what nature does in clouds. Immature storms, in the "towering cumulus" stage (where you just have the initial updraft at the very beginning of the storm), are well predicted by thermodynamics. _The reason why it's not a simple question, and cannot be easily dismissed, is that thermodynamic simulations have never successfully resolved into a thunderstorm given the initial conditions. So the speed of the updraft is well predicted just on the basis of the latent heat released by the condensation process. But the organized structure of a thunderstorm (especially the far larger, far better organized structure of a supercell), is fully outside the principles of thermodynamics. This is where I invoke EM effects, such as electric fields overpowering gravity, and altering the viscosity of the air, resulting in the behaviors that thermodynamics cannot predict. _601L1n9FR09 wrote: I have seen [...] filamentary structures in atmospheric clouds on several scales. [End quote.] _Filamentary clouds are an interesting topic, and I'm convinced that EM forces are at work. Since the atmosphere is pretty well mixed, condensation forms in clumps, not filaments. As we see in this image, there is a smooth transition from clear air to opaque condensation, and no filaments: wilk4.com/misc/f18.jpg_But the wall and tail clouds associated with supercell thunderstorms are famous for their filamentary nature, commonly described as a frayed cotton ball. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_cloud_I think that filaments, if present, are evidence of positively charged air that is cool enough for the water vapor to condense, but it won't, because of electrostatic repulsion. Then, electrons flow down from the cloud, neutralizing the positive charges, enabling condensation. The filaments result from the fact that condensation is a better conductor than the gaseous nitrogen, oxygen, and water vapor. So once some of it forms, the current flows through it to the next patch. In other words, the current follows channels just like it does in lightning, but for a very different reason.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2018 1:51:17 GMT
Re: Electric Clouds by CharlesChandler » Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:09 pm _601L1n9FR09 wrote: For the record I am still fairly convinced that EM plays a far greater role in weather at all scales than current convention seems willing to consider. [End quote.] _There are certainly a lot of unanswered questions. I'm currently mulling over some larger-scale weather factors. I found an unexpected correlation between sunspot cycles and tornado fatalities. I thought to look at fatalities because I figured that it was a more absolute statistic (fatalities are always reported, and are never double-quoted the way tornadoes frequently are). And other data are appearing, such as the CERN "CLOUD" study on cosmic rays. My personal feeling is that upper atmospheric charges are a weak force, and that the significance for thunderstorms isn't that there is a current, but rather that this establishes the fair weather field that is responsible for cloud electrification, through the process described in my post on 2011-07-27, 18:30 (-05). But that's really just a guess. _webolife wrote: I want to make sure you don't necessarily attribute to Pollack something that I was responsible for posting. [End quote.] _I was commenting on the YouTube video, but I think your comments were accurate. _webolife wrote: regarding neutrality of condensation... is it possible that the charges are balanced yet still separated, but measured thus as neutral? This is to clarify my own thinking of how the "like likes like" actually works. [End quote.] _It all depends on the charge separation mechanism, and there are different theories, but chemically, charge separation doesn't favor condensation, as it introduces electrostatic repulsion. Too much charge on a particle will break it up into smaller pieces (called the Rayleigh limit). So condensation and charge separation are definitely not coupled, and that's why I questioned Pollack's generic statement about condensation always being charged. _Now we just have to see what CERN is saying about the effect of cosmic rays on the appearance of condensation in clouds. Re: Electric Clouds by CharlesChandler » Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:32 pm _Jim -- well put, and thanks. _beekeeper -- this is a one-of-a-kind photo. My guess is that this is a product of the long exposure time, plus some over-saturation. So it could have been a normal lightning strike, that branched into a tree-like structure entering the cloud, but what we're seeing is all of the branches smeared into a cone. _601L1n9FR09 wrote: Is this an electric cloud or what? [End quote.] _Yup. This is an extreme example, but not unknown. The bell-shaped cloud formation is called a shelf cloud, which surrounds a rain shaft. (The rain shaft is just a concentrated downpour in a relatively small area.) The website said that contrast enhancement was applied to the photo. I want to study it some more -- it looks like there are some artifacts from stitching together panoramic shots, but otherwise, it looks like an authentic image. _First, the shelf cloud. Here's the standard explanation: _Wikipedia wrote: Cool, sinking air from a storm cloud's downdraft spreads out across the surface with the leading edge called a gust front. This outflow undercuts warm air being drawn into the storm's updraft. As the cool air lifts the warm moist air, water condenses creating a cloud which often rolls with the different winds above and below (wind shear). [End quote.] _That sorta makes sense. But shelf clouds are a little too well organized for that to be a complete explanation. When a downdraft hits the ground, the outflow is turbulent, and turbulent flows are very irregular. So we'd expect the downdraft to produce a random assortment of puffy, cotton-ball clumps of condensation in the warm, moist ambient air that the downdraft is undercutting. We wouldn't expect a smooth, consistent wall of condensation wrapping around the rain shaft. Furthermore, shelf clouds often have horizontal striations, such as in this image on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rolling-thunder-cloud.jpg_There's just no way that these horizontal structures are the result of turbulent outflow elevating warm, moist ambient air. _In my opinion, this is an EM phenomenon. Rain is usually electrically charged. A huge mass of it falling out of the cloud will generate a magnetic field (by Ampere's Law). Since water molecules are diamagnetic, they align themselves in a magnetic field. And molecular alignment is one of the prerequisites for condensation. (The alignment means than in molecular collisions, multiple covalent bonds are formed, increasing the chance that the molecules will stick together.) So I agree with the consensus that that there is a body of warm, moist air around the rain shaft, that is getting undercut and elevated by the downdraft. This sets the stage for condensation. But what actually triggers the condensation is the magnetic force generated by the rain shaft, as this is the only force present with the form and the extents that match the actual condensation. _The blue-green color is an interesting issue. Here are a couple other (less dramatic) images of the same color under a thunderstorm. charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Data/2004/10/05/Hagerman,%20NM%20(supercell).jpg charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Data/2004/06/10/Big%20Spring,%20NE%20(tornado).jpg _The color has never been adequately explained. (There are theories, but they are all easily dismissed.) Here's my take: _Studies have shown that while the precipitation that falls to the ground originates from a region in the cloud that is predominantly negative, outside of the cloud the precipitation has a predominantly positive charge. This means that something is stripping the electrons from the precipitation as it falls. What could do that? There's really only one possibility -- the precipitation would have to pass through positively-charged air, losing electrons in particle collisions. And when transferred, an electron is going to emit a photon when it enters into orbit around the destination. By the color of the photon, we can determine the nature of the destination. Of the molecules present, (N2, O2, and H2O), the blue-green color, with a wavelength of 486 nm, is an emission frequency only of water molecules. charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Images/Spectrum%20Water.png_So we know from the color that positively-charged water molecules in the ambient air are picking up electrons from the negatively-charged rain. _The brilliance of the color in the image is very unusual, and perhaps is a result of the contrast enhancement that was applied.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2018 1:51:55 GMT
Re: Electric Clouds by CharlesChandler » Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:51 pm _jjohnson wrote: ...least stress from vertical shear... [End quote.] _This reminded me of an anecdote, which I tracked down and added to my website... _Another case comes from the "Thunderstorm Project" (1946-1949), in which pilots flew WWII fighters (P-61's) fitted with weather instruments into thunderstorms. One pilot reported that the interior of the storm suddenly changed from jet black to bright yellow, accompanied by constant electrical activity. At the same time, personnel on the ground observed a tornado descending from the wall cloud that had formed. When the pilot returned to base and the plane was inspected, it was found that rivet heads had been peeled off of the wings. Interestingly, the pilot did not report experiencing G forces sufficient to cause such damage. _Here's my analysis. _The bright yellow color can only be reasonably explained as a glow discharge in highly-ionized air. Other reports of cavernous voids inside thunderstorms suggest that this was not a fluke, while the colors are more typically blue~green, which would be emissions from ionized nitrogen and/or water molecules. In the EMHD model, positive double-layers build up around recirculating negative charge streams. Being positively-charged, the water content will be entirely gaseous, explaining the emptiness in the middle of a storm. A positive double-layer on the inside of the recirculation could be especially charged, and could support a glow discharge between it and the negative charge stream around it. And flying through air with a strong positive charge could have resulted in rivet heads being weakened. Ionization loosens the covalent bonds that give solids their strength, hence positively-charged rivet heads might pop off even in conditions that were otherwise well within their rated strength. Later that evening at the nearest canteen, the pilot might have gotten toasted for being tough enough to pop rivets on a P-61 without passing out, but perhaps the storm electrification should have gotten the credit. _jjohnson wrote: I don't think, in retrospect, that any research had been done on the source of the color. [End quote.] _Little has been done to this day. _jjohnson wrote: I have seen that light at altitude, but usually when it was near dusk, and the clouds were dark and back-lit. Not sure what's going on that high up (6-8 miles MSL). [End quote.] _That was probably just the sunlight filtering through the water vapor and/or ice crystals. You can see the same color, for the same reasons, in the winter, if you wait for a sunny day and then plunge a broom handle a couple of feet into a snow bank and then look in the hole. The blue-green color is light that fell elsewhere on the snow, and bounced around for a while inside the snow bank until finally illuminating the broom-stick hole. This is simply one of the emission frequencies of water molecules. _Because of this, the various "explanations" of this color under a thunderstorm are all based on absorption/emission of sunlight, but this is hard to believe where the rest of the underside of the cloud is pitch black, as you said. Re: Electric Clouds by CharlesChandler » Tue Aug 09, 2011 3:21 pm _Hey Mike, _mharratsc wrote: Is it possible that perhaps these voids are areas that have had matter scavenged from them by Marklund convection going on in the very center of the cell? [End quote.] _Pending the location of any data concerning where exactly these voids are occurring, my hunch is that they are between the updraft and the forward flank downdraft. In the following radar scan of a tornadic storm, you can clearly see the updraft on the left, and the forward flank downdraft feeding into the hook echo on the right. So _I'm saying that the "void" is between these two. www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=585&start=285#p55108_The hypothesis is that we don't get a radar echo from that area because it's a positive double-layer surrounding the negatively-charged precipitation (which does reflect), and positively-charged water particles break up into smaller pieces because they lack the electrons necessary for strong covalent bonds. Once they do, they don't reflect radar waves as well. This would also explain the rain-free "caverns" inside storms, as water particles broken down to the microscopic level are invisible. _If this is the case, we would just call it a positive double-layer. I "think" that Marklund convective is just another way of saying that in an electric field, particles get sorted on the basis of charge, and the sorting process can be considered to be a form of convection. So perhaps we're talking about the same thing. _mharratsc wrote: Why not just rain all over the damn place in chaotic patterns? [End quote.] _Excellent question! Such storms display a degree of organization that really can't be explained by fluid dynamic principles, and you're right -- all other factors being the same, there's no reason for rain to clump up the way it does. The only other possibility is that it's an EM phenomenon, but many people have told me that at the speeds in question (< 100 m/s), a magnetic field will definitely get generated, and it will be measurable, but it won't be powerful enough to exert any back-pressure on the charged particles (i.e., z-pinch). So what other EM property could cause this? _The only hypothesis that couldn't be disproved one way or another is that the electric charges are lowering the viscosity of the air, which results in a fluid dynamic "channeling" effect. A lower viscosity fluid will tunnel through a higher viscosity fluid, as it experiences less friction, and therefore flows more freely. Charged gases have a lower viscosity, as electrostatic repulsion keeps everything going in the same direction, reducing friction. At the molecular level, if it was pure plasma (i.e., complete charge separation), you'd never get any particle collisions at all, as the electrostatic repulsion would keep the atoms from getting close enough to collide. With no particle collisions, you get zero friction, so pure plasma has no viscosity. At a larger scale, even if not all of the particles are charged, the ones that are charged provide a stabilizing force that helps prevent the conversion to turbulence, which would greatly slow down the flow. So I'm thinking that these structures are evidence of fluid dynamic channeling due to viscosity differences, which themselves are due to the presence of charged particles in the streams. _This could be the key to understanding lots of thunderstorm-related phenomena, such as rain/hail shafts, hook echoes, and downbursts. The significance of the last one is that it might be possible to detect downbursts on the basis of the magnetic fields that they (might) generate. Magnetometers are extremely sensitive and highly directional, so even if the field isn't strong enough to create a z-pinch, it might still be strong enough to lower the viscosity of the air, and to be detectable from a distance with a magnetometer. We know that downbursts can hit the ground (or an airplane) at nearly 80 m/s, when they shouldn't be able to exceed 40 m/s before getting randomized by turbulence. As the fluid dynamic principles in question are robust, there is no question that some other force is present, and the only other force present in the atmosphere is electromagnetism. So downbursts are an EM phenomenon. As such, they should be studied with EM instruments. It's possible that these are downdrafts that begin at the top of the storm, and that pick up speed as they fall, meaning that we might be able to detect these things several minutes in advance. Current technology (nose-cone Doppler radar) only gives pilots about 15 seconds of warning before a downburst hits, which isn't much time, and which also assumes that it's a wet downburst (which reflects radar beams). Dry downbursts are not detectable with any current technology. An airport equipped with an array of magnetometers feeding into a central server to triangulate the position, speed, and direction of moving electric charges in the storm, might be a lot cheaper and a lot more effective than nose-cone Doppler radar in detecting microbursts.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2018 1:52:35 GMT
Re: Electric Clouds by CharlesChandler » Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:48 pm _Osmosis wrote: Would total-field mags be better than vector mags, for this application? [End quote.] _The total field would give a better idea of the overall EM organization of the storm. In my opinion, this might be useful for predicting tornadoes. Once a tornado touches down, verifying that there is, indeed, a tornado on the ground, and pinpointing the location, would take vector mags. So the answer is both! _Dotini wrote: An odd cloud gets stuck in a fence! [End quote.] _This is So Cool -- great scoop, Steve! _There are some keys pieces missing, which prevent a conclusive analysis. For example, we don't know for sure that this "cloud" is water condensation. I'm willing to go on the assumption that it is. If so, this video gives us tons of information about the possible properties of water. _So what do we observe? _This occurred in an arid climate, where the only way to get vegetation to grow is to irrigate. So we can expect the air to be dry, except for whatever moisture is evaporating from the irrigated sand. _A puff of [what I assume to be] water condensation is moving along, about 10 meters above the ground, in a light breeze. _There is a sand road with chain-link fences on both sides. _When the condensation gets over the road, it stops moving along, and rather, starts spinning and tumbling. _The condensation then swoops done to the road and accelerates up against the fence, leaving several softball-sized clumps of condensation stuck to the middle of the road. Some of the condensation passes through the fence, but doesn't go far, clinging to the ground and/or the other side of the fence. _Once attached to the fence, the condensation morphs into a nearly cylindrical form. Then it suddenly stands up and becomes perfectly cylindrical as it rolls down the fence. _A portion of the cylinder passes through the fence, forming a sheet of condensation waving in the breeze. _The person sticks his hand into it, and then realizes that it has a high viscosity, which he plays with, forming a hole. It's so "sticky" that he flicks his fingers to remove any remaining goo when he pulls his hand out. _Several seconds later, the hole in the goo is still there, as the video zooms in, and we can see through the hole to the chain-link fence. _Conclusions (assuming this is water condensation): _Water aerosols in a cloud do not typically have an increased viscosity that would make it gooey. This means that there was something different about this clump. The only possible difference is that this clump was electrically-charged. If so, when exposed to an opposite charge, it will be attracted to that charge. The electric field between the two will then polarize the dipolar water molecules, and these will organize into polymer strands. As such, the condensation will then have more viscosity, and might even display a little bit of tensile strength, as did the "sheets" of condensation waving in the breeze. _The charge separation mechanism under these conditions would be ionization from sunlight. When absorbing a photon, molecules in the sand can liberate electrons. Some of these can get captured by water molecules in the air, which are better at hosting excess electrons than nitrogen or oxygen. This will leave the sand positively-charged, and the water molecules negatively-charged. As such, there will be an electric field between the water molecules and the sand, and the attractive force will keep the water nearby. So we can expect a strong humidity gradient near the ground, with bone-dry air above. _Water molecules have another important property that we should take into account. Unlike molecular nitrogen and oxygen, water molecules can absorb and re-radiate infrared waves, meaning that they will also be heated by the sand (even without being in direct contact with it), creating buoyancy in the atmosphere. If the buoyancy overpowers the electric field, the moist parcel will rise. _It's possible that what we're seeing is a moist, negatively-charged parcel of air that rose because of its heat, to an altitude (~10 meters) at which the water vapor condensed. When it passed over the road, the extra positive charge in the fully-exposed sand exerted a force capable of pulling the parcel down to the ground. It then experienced an even stronger attraction to the fence, so we'll guess that the fence was ionized also, and that it wasn't grounded, or it wouldn't have supported a net positive charge. _Note that this high viscosity is consistent with Gerald Pollack's "liquid crystal" concept, though I'm still convinced that condensation, when it first forms, is not typically charged, and could only be weakly polarized by the fair weather field. A little bit of polarization would give it a little bit of coherence, as this sets the stage for polymerization. Perhaps there is more to that than I'm acknowledging. Regardless, Pollack has it as a "like likes like" phenomenon, where the water molecules are charged, and then clump together because of the behavior of the double-layers, which isn't correct if they aren't charged.
Re: Electric Clouds by CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:36 am _If you mean that a cloud droplet is heavier than air, and should be falling, you're right, but the droplets don't fall very fast. A typical droplet has a radius of 10 micrometers, which gives it a calculated terminal velocity of less than 0.33 m/s (.75 mph). (Experimentally-derived measurements are even slower, but vary widely.) Anyway, at that rate, to fall from the top of a thunderstorm, at 10 km above ground, it will take 10 km x 1000 x 3 = 30,000 seconds, which is 8.3 hours. A hailstone can make it in less than 20 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2018 1:53:26 GMT
Re: Electric Clouds www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=31919&sid=7b81a7c8db33bd65e91a462136d347b2#p31919by CharlesChandler » Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:55 am From the article that Dotini quoted: _Scientific American wrote: For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet's atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets. [End quote.] _I may be way off base here, as I haven't studied cosmic rays, but something about this doesn't ring true. Incoming high-energy protons help form aerosols by ionizing the existing molecules? Ionization generally inhibits condensation, as electrostatic repulsion exerts a force that opposes it. (The "Rayleigh limit" defines the amount of ionization that a condensate can tolerate before getting split apart by electrostatic repulsion, and this limit is hit regularly in thunderstorms, and is an important factor in predicting droplet size. See phd.marginean.net/rayleigh.html for more info.) So they might be right, but I want to know what's overpowering the electrostatic repulsion. _A more general concept has the cosmic rays stopping in the stratosphere or above, and not interacting directly with the aerosols. The relationship is then different. The fair weather field is important in cloud formation in that it polarizes the neutrally-charged, yet dipolar water molecules, and polarization is prerequisite to polymerization. So the fair weather field gets all of the molecules facing in the same direction, and then when they collide with each other, they'll be more likely to stick together, because all three atoms in the H2O molecule will develop covalent bonds with the other molecule. If this is correct, then a stronger fair weather field means more cloud droplets forming. And if that is true, and if cosmic rays are mostly protons, and since the fair weather field is between the positively-charged ionosphere and the negatively-charged Earth, the cosmic rays are increasing the fair weather field, which then increases the formation of cloud droplets by polarizing the molecules. If the cosmic rays made it all of the way into the troposphere, they'd actually blow apart the fledgling aerosols, by impact or by ionization. But if the incoming protons are stopped in the stratosphere or above, they aren't directly interacting with the aerosols -- they're just contributing to the fair weather field, that helps neutrally-charged water vapor condense. _Sounds like the data to make/break this hypothesis should already be in existence, so I just have to figure out where to find them. But this is interesting to me because I already found an inverse causal relationship between sunspots and tornado fatalities, while I had no idea of what was causing it. Now it sounds like the CMEs that result from sunspots are powering up the magnetosphere, which blocks cosmic rays. The relationship might be that the stronger magnetosphere, in blocking the cosmic rays, results in a weaker fair weather field, which means fewer cloud droplets forming, less storms, and less tornado fatalities. by CharlesChandler » Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:31 am _Here's a brief introduction to cosmoclimatology: Svensmark, Henrik (2007). "Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges". Astronomy & Geophysics (Blackwell Publishing) 48 (1): 18–24 _Svensmark wrote: By 2005 we had found a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds (Svensmark et al. 2007). The data revealed that electrons released in the air by cosmic rays act as catalysts. They significantly accelerate the formation of stable, ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules which are building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei. [End quote.] _So the particles in question are not protons -- they're muons (a.k.a., "heavy electrons"). Regardless, what I was saying earlier and what they're talking about are two totally different things. They found a strong correlation between muons and low cloud cover (<3.2 km). So the particles are making it all of the way through the stratosphere, and into the lower troposphere. But I guess I'll have to read the book to find out exactly what kind of chemical processes they're talking about, because they didn't get into that in the paper cited. by CharlesChandler » Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:02 am _That's a faithful review of the standard explanation for cloud electrification, but it would be useful to fill in some of the blanks. _The hydrometeors are only frozen above the freezing line, at 4~5 km above the ground. Below that they're liquid, except of course for the larger ice particles such as sleet or hail that don't completely melt as they fall. You're right that it's the ice crystals that are responsible for the charge separation, but triboelectric charging (i.e., "static electricity") isn't the mechanism. A balloon rubbed against hair transfers electrons, because rubber and hair are dissimilar materials separated by some distance on the triboelectric series. A more detailed account of the hypothetical charging mechanisms can be found in one of my previous posts: www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=54641#p54641_The bottom line is that the charging occurs at the top of the cloud, in the anvil, where microscopic, positively charged ice crystals are left behind while heavier, negatively charged particles fall due to their higher terminal velocity. _There is a causal relationship between lightning and fast-moving, turbulent airflows in the storm. This is the source of the suspicion that it's the speed of the air itself that develops the charge separation, hence it's air moving rapidly past other air -- triboelectric charging. But as I said, that would only work if dissimilar substances were involved, and they're not. The mechanisms described in my previous post would work even without turbulence, though there would still have to be an updraft supplying the water to the anvil. The significance of powerful turbulence appears not to be that it is actually the source of the electric field, but rather, that once charges have been separated, turbulence can bring oppositely charged parcels of air into closer proximity faster, increasing the chance of an arc discharge. _But this still leaves a lot on the table. Arc discharges in the atmosphere shouldn't be possible, as it shouldn't be possible to develop the necessary charge densities and gradients. Electrostatic pressure should disperse the charges, and glow discharges should neutralize the potentials long before an arc discharge occurs. Here we have to remember that we're talking about an open-air system, and it takes tens of minutes to develop the charge densities necessary for lightning. So it's not like charging up a capacitor and then flipping a switch to instantaneously provide a path to ground -- the charge separation has plenty of time to bleed off, even as new charges are pumped into the same air. Attempts to reproduce arc discharges in the laboratory in the air itself have all failed for these reasons. So what consolidates the charges, and then brings them into proximity with opposite charges, and prevents the neutralization by glow discharge, such that the charge separation persists until the arc discharge occurs? Seeking an answer to that question is the focus of current research.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2018 1:53:58 GMT
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes.php?text=full&images=onDemand&units=metric_21. A New Hypothesis _The key to sorting this out is in the anomalies. There are several, and if we do a thorough analysis, they will reveal the answer. Most tellingly, the electric current inside the tornado has been estimated by several methods to be in the range of 100~250 amps,30,112,113,114 but evidence of such a current going into the ground has never been found. 100~250 amps doesn't sound like a lot, especially when considering something as powerful as a tornado, so the significance of this is easy to miss. But an electric current passing through the air will find the nearest high-conductivity feature on the ground into which to flow. It could be a lightning rod, or exposed house wiring, or a tree, or a chain-link fence. If that feature offers more electrical resistance than a 25 mm copper cable, it will be charred or vaporized by the sustained 100+ amps. Yet of all the strange things that tornadoes have done, this is not one of them. In 2,000 years of tornado damage reports (including those predating bulldozers, when all of the rubble had to be sorted by hand), there has never been a report of selective charring or vaporization. _As both the presence of the current and the absence of evidence in the ground are irrefutable, there is really only one possibility — the current terminates in the air itself. In other words, the current is between two oppositely charged regions of the atmosphere, one inside the cloud and the other near the ground, and the low pressure inside the tornado serves as the conduit for the current. This means that there is a charge neutralization occurring near the ground, which is an energy conversion. As this is the only conversion that could be occurring near the ground, it needs to be fully investigated as the possible driving force in a tornado. First we should identify the signs of the charges. We know that the air flowing into the tornado is clear, so it isn't bearing any water droplets or aerosols. Furthermore, relative humidity readings in the tornadic inflow are typically something like 20%,132 so all of the water is fully evaporated. Since molecular N2, O2, and H2O are not good at hosting net negative charges, it's reasonable to assume that any noticeable space charge would be positive. (This is confirmed by a variety of means in subsequent sections.) _If the air flowing into the tornado is positively charged, and it's getting neutralized by a current through the tornado, the cloud has to be negatively charged. This is confirmed by radar (and other data). The best radar reflector in the cloud is hail, which is also capable of the greatest negative charge densities, while rain is the 2nd best reflector and negative charge carrier. Hence what we see on radar corresponds roughly to negative charge densities.133,134,135 In Figure 37 we can see the dense precipitation in the hook echo 1 km above the ground, indicating the position of the main negative charge region. So the electric current in the tornado is from a negative charge in the cloud to a positive charge in the air below the cloud. _In addition to the electric field between the charges in the cloud and the air below it, there is another field to be considered. At the ground level, the charge aloft is positive. Due to the conductivity of the Earth, it gets an induced negative charge, resulting in a tripole field, as in Figure 73. _53. Previous Works Electric Universe — Ionosphere-Surface Current This theory states that the Earth is negatively charged, and that the atmosphere is a leaky capacitor, where there is a fair-weather current all of the time flowing from the Earth toward outer space, but that unique conditions can reduce the resistance within this capacitor, resulting in an enhanced current.241,242 One such condition would be the reduced pressure within a mesocyclone, which would increase the conductivity of the column of air from 1 km to over 12 km above the surface. This is only a fraction of the distance to the ionosphere, but it traverses the densest part of the atmosphere, and this is the source of 2⁄3 of the resistance between the surface and the ionosphere. Hence the mesocyclone could be opening up a conduit through which a current could flow. The problem with this theory is that is does not explain vortexes that descend from non-mesocyclonic thunderstorms. It also does not take into account the fact that the global current is extremely weak. The "fair weather field" is something like .1 kV/m, which is vanishingly small compared to the fields in a thunderstorm. So it is far more likely that storm-generated fields are the only forces that could possibly be influential. It also labors under the same criticisms directed at the joule heating theory — the airflows in a discharge vortex are fundamentally different from those in a tornadic vortex. _54. Future Research _55. Call for Volunteers
|
|
|
Post by opuzaxela on May 23, 2019 6:03:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by opuwiiqo on May 23, 2019 7:53:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hfranceareva on Aug 19, 2020 21:53:10 GMT
Bonjour, mon nom est Jimmy B, je m’occupe des communications chez hfrance.fr. Pour atteindre la première position sur google avec différents mot clés convoités cela vous prend l’hébergeur Web le plus puissants sur le marché. Quelque soit la programmation de votre site web, HTML5, Wordpress, Joomla nous vous garantissons l'affichage le plus rapide de l'industrie et une disponibilité de 100%. HFrance est une entreprise d’hébergement de site Web de haute qualité en France. wordpress wordpress theme blog wordpress site wordpress template wordpress créer un site wordpress hebergement wordpress site internet wordpress site internet wordpress site internet wordpress site internet wordpress créer un blog wordpress wordpress gratuit thèmes wordpress installer wordpress De la part de notre équipe, merci de nous avoir laissé la chance de nous inscrire sur votre site Web afin de partager des idées avec la communauté. site wordpress Si vous avez des questions, n’hésitez pas à répondre à ce poste. Cordialement et bonne journée à tous.
|
|
|
Post by hfranceareva on Aug 20, 2020 8:37:22 GMT
Bonjour, mon nom est Jimmy B, je m’occupe des communications chez hfrance.fr. Pour atteindre la première position sur google avec différents mot clés convoités cela vous prend l’hébergeur Web le plus puissants sur le marché. Quelque soit la programmation de votre site web, HTML5, Wordpress, Joomla nous vous garantissons l'affichage le plus rapide de l'industrie et une disponibilité de 100%. HFrance est une entreprise d’hébergement de site Web de haute qualité en France. wordpress wordpress theme blog wordpress site wordpress template wordpress créer un site wordpress hebergement wordpress site internet wordpress site internet wordpress site internet wordpress site internet wordpress créer un blog wordpress wordpress gratuit thèmes wordpress installer wordpress De la part de notre équipe, merci de nous avoir laissé la chance de nous inscrire sur votre site Web afin de partager des idées avec la communauté. site wordpress Si vous avez des questions, n’hésitez pas à répondre à ce poste. Cordialement et bonne journée à tous.
|
|
|
Post by loveawake.ru on Mar 4, 2022 14:44:58 GMT
Welcome to the world of adult Dating loveawake.ru
|
|
|
Post by loveawake.ru on Mar 4, 2022 14:46:45 GMT
Welcome to the world of adult Dating loveawake.ru
|
|