Notices
Results 1 to 34 of 34
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By The Finger Prince

Thread: Available ions

  1. #1 Available ions 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    The Fair-Weather Current is said to be of 1350 to 1800 amperes of negative current flowing from the total earth surface to the ionosphere. Most of such flow serves as restoration of electrons that have been delivered to Earth by lightning, and are making their way back to the ionosphere at the outer reaches of our atmosphere. As demonstrated by Michael Faraday with his ice pail, this rise of electrons is evidence that the earth has a net negative charge. Mutual repulsion of particles of like charge, if in the majority, repel each other to the outer limits of their hosting bodies, by particle migration or by propagation, whatever it takes. Because of Fair Weather Current, we can reason that the earth contains more electrons than protons.

    The consistent flattening of the ionosphere with the noonday sun and its upward extension at night suggests electrostatic influence from a negatively charged sun. We might suspect the sun to be our source of excess electrons.

    For our planet and our sun to hold outer shells of electrons, it should follow that both would have positive cores. Negative current flowing to the outer limits is the electrical equivalent of positive current converging toward the center. When a positive ion has parted from its electron sufficiently to be overcome by downward global force, then it advances toward the central core. It is important to realize that such migrations of charged particles within a charged spherical body, by virtue of being exothermic processes, represent a stable form of macroscopic discharge. Mutual attraction between the shell and core arrays of charged particles presents us with the counterintuitive phenomenon of polarized arrays holding themselves apart from each other because of mutual attraction for each other. Neither shell structures nor core formations present us with conspicuous evidence, simply because they are so far out of reach and sight. Consequential trivialization of electrostatic influence might understandably contribute to a slighting of such phenomena during the training of many scientists.

    The foregoing reasoning brings plausibility for a considerable density of negative ions resident to our atmosphere. Such a bias may seem inconsistent with atmospheric voltage measurements presenting a positive voltage gradient of some one hundred volts per meter of elevation. Such voltage measurements manifest the potential difference between two points. What reference would be possible for such measurements other than earth ground? No matter how far one plunges a test lead into the ground, the effect is to measure with respect to the surface potential of the earth, where a high negative ion density is to be found. The “hot” lead of any meter would be measuring the IR voltage drop accomplished by flow of electrons through the resistance of the atmosphere. That voltage drop would be minus to positive along the path of electron conduction: More appropriately such measurements would stand to be thought of as representing so many volts less negative than that of the surface of the earth. Such measurement results provide no exception to an atmosphere that is heavily laden with negative ions. Semantics takes over as we list positive voltages amidst an array of negative ions.


    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    We may be onto what has thrown meteorology a curve. Direct measurements of atmospheric potential with respect to Earth ground have demonstrated a gradient of some +100 volts per meter of elevation. Therefore, It has been perfectly natural for the shop talk to refer to an atmosphere of positive charge more or less. In fact, a distinguished professor has advanced an explanation that the surface of the earth holds a large negative charge and the that atmosphere holds an equal but opposite charge.

    However, an old run-of-the-mill electronics technician has come along to reveal that those voltage measurements show nothing about the atmospheric bias voltage. The Fair Weather Current claimed to be of some two pico-amps of upward electron flow, more or less, through an atmosphere of some 50 Giga-ohms of resistance per cubic meter. If I have this straight, such an electron flow through such a resistance produces a minus-to-positive voltage drop in the direction of electron travel of 100 volts per meter of elevation. When rockets ascend to measure atmospheric voltage, they are simply measuring this IR drop across the resistance in the path of such electrons. Direct measurements of such potential are manifestations of energy applied to the atmosphere from the dynamics of weather disturbances and have no bearing as measures of the physical makeup of the atmospheric material. The excess of electrons embedded onto the planet represent material, not energy, and a voltmeter does not measure material.

    Kirchoff has mentioned that the algebraic sum of voltage around an electric circuit is zero. Hence, that Earth ground reference potential we access when measuring atmospheric potential is equivalent to millions and millions of negative volts.

    It is hoped that this insight clarifies the mysteries of atmospheric lightning: A negatively biased atmosphere presents the means of storing energy, not by on the spot dislodging of electrons from water molecules, but by mere compression of negative ions into closer proximity. Not only do such processes find a readily prepared infrastructure for energy storage, but they lend themselves to successive reiterations toward development of intense voltages. If you compress a volume of anything, it remains right under your nose. Were charge separation the actual means, then the pulling-apart of anything is a spreading out of its volume. That makes it harder and harder to reiterate a process because you have to go all ways at once to recollect everything just so that you can spread it all out some more!

    With our biased atmosphere, heat absorbed with the evaporation of water can be returned as electrical energy through an understandable process. This simpler reality negates the requirement of gathering more and more data for generation after generation. When it takes a lifetime just to count all of the data, no time is left to draw any conclusions from it.

    Any glitch embedded within traditional scientific dogma is a formidable challenge for its finder. However, one such fallacy, the alleged positive charge supposed for Earth’s atmosphere should never have ever become so deeply rooted. Faraday made it clear enough that electric charge presents itself to the outer limits of any isolated hosting body. Prevailing solar wind is composed of electrons. Plasma ejected as solar flairs at times from around sunspots contributes protons readily discriminated from the consistently negative solar wind. Little logic is required to manifest a common negative electrical polarity upon our planet and sun.

    The negative polarity that prevails for strokes of lightning to ground is consistent with the superabundance of electrons suggested above. Nevertheless, actual scientists insist atmospheric ions to be of positive polarity. Do they mistake the voltage drop developed by fair weather current to represent the electrical charge of the ions? Such voltage aloft with respect to earth-surface is due to current flowing through the resistance of the air. It has nothing to do with the electrical balance or imbalance of the molecules. AFAIK, atmospheric ion density is estimated by measuring atmospheric conductance. Since conductance increases with ion density of either polarity, then those readings should hardly offer a clue to ionic polarity. If anyone can tell me why rocket scientists fancy a positive electrosphere, please help me see where I have gone wrong. Mistakes are easy to make, but they are so much easier for a committee to make them that the odds are on my side.


    Last edited by dalemiller; August 19th, 2011 at 04:50 AM. Reason: Added two paragraphs
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    The writer humbly invites comments, pro or con, as this thread now leads into extended implications. Until such controversy is supplied, the foregoing material will be tentatively deemed non-controversial.

    Within a shining star, we might expect to find two mechanisms for providing nuclear fusion: the dynamic phenomena within heated plasma, and a static process upon the positive core to be found at the center. The writer speculates that the static form of fusion might be the initial process because of the cooler core to be expected before there is any fusion at all. The cooler a ball of protons might be, the less distance to be found between adjacent protons. With any negative charge at all, a forming star would develop its supplementation of electrons in its outer shell commensurate with the number of protons that become isolated at the center. A lesser initial charge would seem only to affect the rate of such development. Thus, electrostatic phenomena would have located a growing cluster of protons precisely where the maximum pressure must be expected within the entire body of the growing orb. It would be just a matter of time before such pressure should mount to the level that proton proximity produces nuclear fusion. There would be no electrons available in such quarters to annihilate against the positron produced at such an event. Speculating only that such a positron would nevertheless become converted to energy, we would have occasion to conclude that the charge of a positive particle would have become missing from the universe to leave us with the virtual production of an additional electron! If that can happen once, it can just keep on happening.

    A growing star would thus be capable of adding to its negative charge until all further increase of free electrons would begin to produce a solar wind of electrons. That would explain how we come to have a negative charge upon the earth. That would explain that bright galaxies with billions of burning stars would have a negative charge most intensely upon the rim of its great disk. That would explain a migration of any interstellar positive particles between the stars of such galaxies to migrate directly toward the centers of those galaxies. That would explain the collection of positive particles into a hollow sphere or tubular formation surrounding the electrical center of a galaxy. That would explain gravitation of electrically neutral interstellar particles toward the gravitational center of the hollow formation of positive particles. That would explain why the central point within a galaxy takes on a lot of weight. Etc.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    uhm - sorry, but could you state in a few sentences what the point of the previous 3 posts was ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    uhm - sorry, but could you state in a few sentences what the point of the previous 3 posts was ?
    My point was to defend the contention that Earth's surface and atmosphere bears a negative charge. I have been told that direct measurements contradict such a theory.

    However, voltage measurements made between earth and elevated atmosphere show nominal +100 volts per meter gradient for quite a ways up and I question that such readings might be subject to the oversight of some -300 thousand volts or more at the earth's surface. Relative to that extreme reference voltage, the atmospheric IR drop accounting for atmospheric voltage measurements does not deny that a shell of electrons accounts for the ionosphere.

    This suggests a positive core within the earth and within the sun, and leads to insight accounting for a virtual production of excess electrons within all burning stars.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by dalemiller View Post
    My point was to defend the contention that Earth's surface and atmosphere bears a negative charge. I have been told that direct measurements contradict such a theory.
    surely if measurements contradict a theory, then the theory must be flawed ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Seeing so much room for error for measurement interpretation is the whole point. Will check my source on so-called direct measurements. The electron shell can hardly bear a positive charge. Earth ground, an old friend of electricians is poster child for zero volts, but the true value is logically of extreme negative with respect to any neutral matter. I must find out how anyone could get a direct measurement.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post

    surely if measurements contradict a theory, then the theory must be flawed ?
    That is just an if. The measurements spoken of are hearsay. Interpretations of measurements can be flawed as readily as theories. We are unlikely to find flaws in Ohm's law and Kirchhoff's law. The nominal +100 Volts per meter measured with respect to Earth's surface, divided by the alleged nominal fair weather current of some 2 pico amps per square meter suggests some 50 trillion Ohms resistance per cubic meter of atmosphere for a good ways up. Casual rumors of an atmosphere of positive ions should not surprise us because it is so easy to overlook the surface charge of the earth when it presents no noticeable effect upon us. We are fooled almost as easily as birds resting on high voltage power lines. The only manifestation of the great negative offset voltage from Earths electric charge would lie in the density of excess electrons. That would not show up for voltage measurements because offset potential adds algebraically to the reference and the measurement point under test thereby bearing no effect upon the difference measurement accomplished by a voltmeter.

    This rationale spares us from embarrassing occasions to declare a shell of electrons to be a body of particles of positive charge.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Encouraged by lack of dispute so far, it is time to advance the proposition, because of the absence of electrons, that the dynamic fusion with plasma attributed to stellar bodies would not be possible within the confines of a stellar core. At the central core of stellar formations, only a static pressure would bring protons closer together. No anti-neutrinos would have occasion to appear. (There is no way to get electrons into such locations!) The story about changing flavors to account for their shortage would be less essential in a world with such an understanding. The superabundance of electrons in the visible cosmos would then be well explained. There would even be a more rational explanation for the accelerating portions of the universe and a reason to expect SMBH formation in the electrical center of any galaxy worth living in. Any banishment of truth from science is bound to eventually prove fruitless.

    We are in such awe of our finest scientific scholars that we give them a pass on declaring gravity to be going out of style, calculate orbital velocities with no attention to electrical factors, ignore the secret phenomenon of electron beam formation demonstrated within so many television sets but assemble conferences to muddle over astral polar jets, muddle cause and effect behind the sun spot process, and post atmospheric lightning as beyond human ken. Let a blue-collar slob think to have blundered into any insight and we prove that it will follow to his grave.
    Last edited by dalemiller; October 18th, 2011 at 03:19 AM.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,270
    Its not a lack of dispute, its a matter of tl/dr and thus not even bothering with them.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    That stupid thread title hasn't helped!

    A widely held belief holds that a Dr. Martin Uman is at least one of the most astute PhD experts on Earth’s atmospheric lightning. Your informant called him up once on the telephone back in ‘late ’03 or early ’04 to hand him a tip from the top. I wanted to tell him about the negative charge on Earth and her atmosphere and how simply solar energy concentrates those extra electrons into thunderbolts. He gave me a disconnect in jig time, and since then I figured why: I think that he had already decided our air to be in short supply of electrons even though he supposedly knew that most thunderbolts to ground are made up of electrons. An unsolicited incoming call could hardly change his mind about positvely charged air. Too bad for him. How anyone could think so beats anything I ever learned from six decades in electronics technology. The valued experiences lay in processes of reverse engineering. Maybe all the other PhD’s are waiting for him to noodle out how real lightning is made. Fat chance! The powerful attribute of overwhelming consensus has established Earth as bearing a positive charge with no logical reason for nature to fashion such a monstrous situation. If anyone knows how we supply electrons for thunderbolts from a relative void of electrons (positive charge), please show me how it could be and I will get back to Sudokus and booze where I belong.

    I appeal to other laymen, who can use their time to think instead of trying to remember everything they were told in universities: accept that lightning is not beyond human ken and that a planet throws its charged particles of the excess polarity to its outer limits. Furthermore, plasma or ions do present charged particles of the lesser polarity, and these are driven into the opposite direction from that particles of the more numerous polarity. You will find that such action puts a positive core into the center of any blazing star.

    That leads to a bountiful path to a treasury of truth and as the path least taken, to a harvest of valid findings and ridance to some moldy old dogma. (The electrons loath each other and all mob the outer surface only to be hemmed in all the more.) Any isolated hosting body will do this just like with Faraday’s ice pail, be it a moon, a planet, a star or a galaxy. Don’t ask Jimmy Wales; he knows that his Wikipedia thrives on consensus, and he serves us well by good stuff and bad stuff, mostly just so long as it is cut and dried. It helps a lot to see what the clods are reading, eating, smoking and thinking.

    Imbeciles will condemn your findings with generalities and slurs, but they have never yet measured up to Carl Sagan’s Balogna Detector.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    There is an appearance of arrogance, distasteful and irrelevant, in your posts that disinclines me to look seriously at your thesis. While this may reflect a weakness in me rather than you, it may not be an uncommon reaction. If you were to increase the evidential content of your posts and dispense with the injured voice crying in the wilderness you might get more takers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Positive and negative charges seek to neutralize each other, do they not? This is the basis for ionic bonding in chemistry, among other things.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Positive and negative charges seek to neutralize each other, do they not? This is the basis for ionic bonding in chemistry, among other things.
    If there are more electrons than protons on a relatively isolated body, that excess population of electrons has no occasion to seek out positive charges. They do have occasion to redistribute themselves upon such a host by seeking to shun each other. Thereby, a global situation awaits development of plasma or occasions of ionization whereby liberated electrons can find the same thrust that has repelled the excess electrons to outer surfaces. When an electron becomes sufficiently distant from its erstwhile mate that the remaining attraction between those two particles is exceeded by global traction of the electron toward the outer surface and global traction of the positive charge toward the center of the hosting body, then the tendency of the particles to neutralize each other will have been defeated. This brings on the counterintuitive phenomenon of an array of positive particles remaining apart from an array of negative particles as a result of their mutual attraction for each other.

    The greater negative influence manifested by the greater portion of the negatively charged body draws upon a positive charge until it has descended to the center of its hosting body. If it reaches dead center, it stops because attraction from the rear has finally matched attraction from the forward direction. If the center is plugged with other positive particles, then their repulsion halts the newcomer a little sooner. Square-law attenuation of particle influence drops through the cracks due to compensation from increased particle count within the scope as range increases.

    It helps to bear in mind that gravity seeks to unite particles that have mass, but the cosmos remains far from becoming all one lump.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    You move from electromagnetism to gravity seamlessly, Prince is having trouble following. Let us say there are negative ions, say chlorine, in solution with positive ions, e.g., sodium. What propels chlorine to surface and sodium away from surface? Again, Prince is trying to understand this unique hypothesis. Thank you for patience, dotcomrade.
    dalemiller likes this.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    You move from electromagnetism to gravity seamlessly, Prince is having trouble following. Let us say there are negative ions, say chlorine, in solution with positive ions, e.g., sodium. What propels chlorine to surface and sodium away from surface? Again, Prince is trying to understand this unique hypothesis. Thank you for patience, dotcomrade.
    I thank Prince for his interest and patience. Council from an expert critic has recently advised that my writing capability is severely lacking.

    My mention of gravity sought to suggest an analogy to electrostatic phenomena. Comparing your point that positive and negative charges seek to neutralize each other (implying perhaps, a question as to why should any positive particles and electrons remain apart as though aloof to each other) as equivalent to "why has gravity not gathered all matter together?" Please disregard the analogy. It shouldn't be necessary.

    The wet chemistry circumstances you mention probably do not fall within the scope of my hypothesis. Wouldn’t the sodium and chlorine ions normally remain in such close proximity that their mutual attraction would by far exceed whatever global traction might prevail upon the containing vessel. Let us start with consideration hydrogen as the most prevalent matter. An ionizing stimulus such as high temperature, radiation or cosmic rays might separate electrons and protons by such distance that a high negative charge upon the hosting body might exceed the remaining force between proton and electron. In most cases, it is after such external intervention that electrons and protons would respond to global traction by parting further into opposite directions. (I dare profess here and now to merely speculate that at the outer surface of a galaxy’s central bulge, a nearly pure layer of protons topping a domain of positive charge would draw all electrons from all encountered matter and would send those electrons straight to the rotational axis of the accretion disk that feed a super massive black hole. That disk might be considered a spheroid that has collapsed along its polar axis to thin out as a disk, or a disk that has since expanded along its axis by electrostatic repulsion. While sufficiently thin to function as a disk, that central structure would perform as a bipolar jet spewing electrons afar.)
    To revisit the counterintuitive concept of concentric arrays of charged particles, I describe the central core of the sun. A relatively static ball formation of positive particles presses somewhat against their mutual repulsive forces. This is due to the greater attraction any outward proton would have toward the greater half of a predominately negative body: A proton at the bottom of a proton ball would strain toward the upper shell of the concentric formation, and so on. The upper edge of the proton ball would likewise strain toward the greater bottom of the electron shell as presented from that perspective.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    It is true that proton's mass is much greater than that of electron, and that electron is much more easily parted from atom than any larger particle confined to nucleus. Does this have any bearing upon your hypothesis? Electric charge should behave predictably regardless of solid, liquid, or other setting, or do you disagree?
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    It is true that proton's mass is much greater than that of electron, and that electron is much more easily parted from atom than any larger particle confined to nucleus. Does this have any bearing upon your hypothesis? Electric charge should behave predictably regardless of solid, liquid, or other setting, or do you disagree?
    The only significant bearing that mass would have upon what I have mentioned would be the gravitational impact imposed by the congestion of positively charged particles gathered to the center of a galaxy. It plays no key role in the formation process of concentric arrays of charged particles.


    I agree to the predictability of the behavior of electric charge but fear that I have completely failed to convey my concept to you. Within Earthly experience, the slight traction offered by natural global negative charge is miniscule in comparison with the force of attraction of opposite charges in immediate presence of each other. It does not follw that we make the same predictions regardless of the state of matter. Heated gas molecules travel above their mutual escape velocities, presenting greater potentiality that charged particles will travel so far from each other after a seperation that their mutual attraction will have diminished below the slight force of a global charge.
    Last edited by dalemiller; November 28th, 2011 at 06:29 AM.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    There is an appearance of arrogance, distasteful and irrelevant, in your posts that disinclines me to look seriously at your thesis. While this may reflect a weakness in me rather than you, it may not be an uncommon reaction. If you were to increase the evidential content of your posts and dispense with the injured voice crying in the wilderness you might get more takers.
    I do not matter and my defects are off-topic. The technical issues with which I have been dealing are presented in the hopes of reaching people who can understand the use of logic and who would be loath to stifle a valid contribution to spite its author, even one so easy to hate as myself.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by dalemiller View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    There is an appearance of arrogance, distasteful and irrelevant, in your posts that disinclines me to look seriously at your thesis. While this may reflect a weakness in me rather than you, it may not be an uncommon reaction. If you were to increase the evidential content of your posts and dispense with the injured voice crying in the wilderness you might get more takers.
    I do not matter and my defects are off-topic. The technical issues with which I have been dealing are presented in the hopes of reaching people who can understand the use of logic and who would be loath to stifle a valid contribution to spite its author, even one so easy to hate as myself.
    So, you believe your message to be so unimportant that you will make no effort to modify your presentation style to make it more digestible? Interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dalemiller View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    There is an appearance of arrogance, distasteful and irrelevant, in your posts that disinclines me to look seriously at your thesis. While this may reflect a weakness in me rather than you, it may not be an uncommon reaction. If you were to increase the evidential content of your posts and dispense with the injured voice crying in the wilderness you might get more takers.
    I do not matter and my defects are off-topic. The technical issues with which I have been dealing are presented in the hopes of reaching people who can understand the use of logic and who would be loath to stifle a valid contribution to spite its author, even one so easy to hate as myself.
    So, you believe your message to be so unimportant that you will make no effort to modify your presentation style to make it more digestible? Interesting.
    Sorry. If I had realized that you were trying to help me I would have done better. I do not know what is meant by my being an injured voice crying out in the wilderness. I don't have a clue. I make so many mistakes that I never really know what is giving me away as the awful guy I turned out to be. I have to accept the appearance of arrogance because I doubt so many professional scientists. It is true. I ain't smart, but I compensate for my stupidity by finding easy ways to figure things out. Like, it is just knowing that our atmosphere is of negative charge that gives me the edge over Dr. Uman. I had contacted him privately, and mentioned that so I would not bring down shame upon myself for not going to the author when I think I see his problem. I don't mean to be arrogant but I am because I think I am correct in my theory. Only if you had critiqued me by private message would I have realized that you meant to rehabilitate me. So much of my recent findings have extended into astrophysics that I am accustomed to the impracticality of holding out for exhaustive evidence, but I point out what I can to verify my logic. The focusing anode of the electrostatic version for electron guns used in CRTs, for instance, demonstrates that a charged particle encircled by an array of the opposite charge will be attracted to the center of that array.

    I admit to believing that my message is important, but that belief in itself is proof of shameless arrogance! I have to be somehow irrelevant unless I know to what I am supposed to become relevant. Tastefulness is in the eye of the beholder. Once you blew the whistle on me, I thought it was then to late for anyone to love me. The genie was out of the bottle! Specify what gave you heartburn and I will try to make that more digestible if there is ever another chance. In my last attempt to write more interestingly, I changed the subject and told about how sunspots are really caused. But who cares about that either? I couldn't write an interesting suicide note to save my life!
    Last edited by dalemiller; November 26th, 2011 at 10:57 AM. Reason: adverb ok, adjective was inappropriate
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    There is an appearance of arrogance, distasteful and irrelevant, in your posts that disinclines me to look seriously at your thesis.
    Your responses seem to have been limited to implicit reproaches for my having failed you and myself by not delivering complete recovery from the unsavory personality that I have manifested incidental to how I delivered my message. I have appealed to you to clarify the generalities of your critique. If I were to know more about you I might be able to begin to imagine what bothers you. If you are nontechnical personnel, you might resent my use of words that you do not understand. If you believe that I have no moral right to contradict some one whom you admire, then I cannot afford to heed your distress. There is little to prompt me to take your slurs to heart, but I wonder what satisfaction you gain by telling the world just how you pass judgement upon me. Unless you deliver an iota of specification of just how my postings trouble you so, I can only pray for you.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Excessively wordy and without references, illustrations or equations make it very hard to read or understand.

    Potential measurements have been made by a variety of methods form kites, to rockets, and charge measurement of precipitation going back to the 19th century. Also lightning can be of either charge, typically negative in summer thunderstorms, but more often positive in winter thunder events and from the anvil of summer storms.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Potential measurements have been made by a variety of methods form kites, to rockets, and charge measurement of precipitation going back to the 19th century. Also lightning can be of either charge, typically negative in summer thunderstorms, but more often positive in winter thunder events and from the anvil of summer storms.
    We do not get much lightning around here in the winter. The typical negative lightning that prevails does not suggest an atmosphere of positive charge. The potential measurements you refer to do not reflect upon the polarity of atmospheric ions. Ohm's Law clearly demonstrates that resistance of a conductor establishes the ratio of voltage to current. Given that we are told that in fair weather, some two pico amps of upward electron flow per square meter results in some plus 100 volts per meter of elevation. That is the IR drop due to the flow of electrons. It has nothing to do with the ionic polarity of the atmosphere. Simple logic shows that the atmosphere is charged negative. Details withheld for brevity, available upon demand.

    That ground that we use as a reference point in potential measurements is of the outer surface of a negatively charged Earth. All excess electrons are there consistent with more than hundreds of thousands of negative volts. If I could find written documentation to establish this information then I wouldn't have a need to even mention it. With all of their rocket scientists, I am afraid that NASA has not noticed any of this. Neither have any other experts that I can find. Maybe they are all just drinking in celebration of their great success. And I am just a dummy but I think Iv'e got it right!

    Yes, I believe that misinformation has abounded for a long time but that does not make it true. Occasions of positive rain and/or lightning are of no consequence because a stroke of negative lightning to ground will have an inductive kick that continues to drain electrons from a neutralized cloud due to collapse of the magnetic field developed throughout buildup of an initial stroke. It would seem that measurements of ionic density simply borrow the polarity found with potential measurements of the atmospheric IR drop: ion density being found by conductivity tests on air samples.

    Once I am taught to adhere to beliefs within the consensus, the foregoing will have become unspeakable. I will then join the big crowd that knows so much and thinks so little.

    Thank you very much for, so far, not faulting me for my lack of social graces. Too late: am in my eighties and entirely absorbed in learning how to pick up the house, graciousness be damned. Any coaching on the latter is like a pie in the face. Glad to hear from you.
    Last edited by dalemiller; December 17th, 2011 at 05:15 AM.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    It has nothing to do with the ionic polarity of the atmosphere.
    Actually it does because the tops of those same storms are positively charged.

    Simple logic shows that the atmosphere is charged negative. Details withheld for brevity, available upon demand.
    Your simple logic contradicts more than a century of direct measurement using a wide variety of methods. When what you think happens contradicts what's observed than you must change your thinking--that's how science works.

    Once I am taught to adhere to beliefs within the consensus, the foregoing will have become unspeakable.
    Careful, statements like are an indicator of pseudo science--the other being there's some conspiracy to suppress ones work.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; December 17th, 2011 at 06:55 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    It has nothing to do with the ionic polarity of the atmosphere.
    Actually it does because the tops of those same storms are positively charged.
    When speaking of voltage drop due to FWC (Fair Weather Current), then the discussion is restricted from any storms at all.
    [/QUOTE]
    Last edited by dalemiller; December 17th, 2011 at 09:33 PM.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    [QUOTE=Lynx_Fox;297547]
    Your simple logic contradicts more than a century of direct measurement using a wide variety of methods. When what you think happens contradicts what's observed than you must change your thinking--that's how science works.
    Where my logic simply presents Earth's atmosphere as to be charged negative, which is to say that there are more electrons than protons among its molecules, would you tell of any direct measurement by any specific method that contradicts my logic? I need just one peg to hang your rebuttal on.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    would you tell of any direct measurement by any specific method that contradicts my logic? I need just one peg to hang your rebuttal on.
    You could do your own research but anyhow.... you could start at the begining , early to early 19th century with the number of kite experiements all showing clear air positive charge increasing with hieght, or go to mid 19th century to the balloon experiments such as those by Lussic and Biot showing the same thing.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    would you tell of any direct measurement by any specific method that contradicts my logic? I need just one peg to hang your rebuttal on.
    You could do your own research but anyhow.... you could start at the begining , early to early 19th century with the number of kite experiements all showing clear air positive charge increasing with hieght, or go to mid 19th century to the balloon experiments such as those by Lussic and Biot showing the same thing.
    I could actually spend the rest of my life looking for any contradiction of my theory. That would entail extensive research I should perform in order to support your rebuttal against my own findings which I believe in. Surely you refer to voltage measurements between two points that show atmosphere to run some 100 volts per meter of more positive potential above or hence less negative potential below the potential at the surface of the earth. That is a mere voltage drop produced by electron flow up through the resistance of the atmosphere. It represents nothing but the voltage difference between two points and has no direct bearing at all upon the ionic polarity of the conducting medium. Interestingly enough, taking the FWC as a constant current, if ion density were ever to increase, whatever the polarity, it would increase conductance of the air causing the voltage readings to decrease.

    Nowhere have I found any contradiction to the notion that the earth has a negative charge. Michael Faraday determined for us that such charge goes to the outer surface of an isolated body. The electrical discontinuity afforded by the interface of land or water and the atmosphere suffices to serve as an outward surface, and highest ground is where the greatest intensity of negative electrical charge resides. In other words, that is where the most intense congestion of excess electrons exist. That is the reference point for the potential measurements between Earth and its atmosphere. The positive voltages of some 100 volts per meter represent nothing but a diminished intensity of electron density at the elevated locations under measurement.

    I do seem to have been burned for seeing my disregard of tradition as inoffensive harmlessness. If I err as an amateur scientist that makes me a pseudo-scientist. So be it. If professional scientists err, I hold them in no contempt but must beg them to hear me out even if to little avail.

    Please explain how results of such measurements conflict with anything I have ever stated in my postings.
    Last edited by dalemiller; December 18th, 2011 at 02:23 PM.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    That is a mere voltage drop produced by electron flow up through the resistance of the atmosphere. It represents nothing but the voltage difference between two point and has no bearing at all upon the ionic polarity of the conducting medium.....
    Nowhere have I found any contradiction to the notion that the earth has a negative charge.
    I guess I'm missing the point of this entire thread. The Earth is on negative charge and we've known this for almost 200 years.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    [QUOTE=Lynx_Fox;297720]

    I guess I'm missing the point of this entire thread. The Earth is on negative charge and we've known this for almost 200 years.
    The point of the thread is to establish a case for examining the implications of prevalent scientific advice that Earth's atmosphere is positive.

    The static charge of our atmosphere is negative: by this is meant that more negatively charged particles exist there than do positively charged particles. Understanding this is imperative for clear understanding of the prevailing transfer of electrons to the surface by lightning and negatively charged rain.

    Reports of positively charged fair weather atmosphere must certainly refer, not to the static charge, but to the voltage drop created between Earth surface and atmospheric points aloft by the reported nominal value of some two pico amps of electric current per square meter of surface. That voltage is natural to dynamic forces in play within the atmosphere. It is a voltage difference measurement relatively unaffected by the static potentials distributed to both sides of any meter used.

    A casual indifference of humans neglecting to distinguish between electrical voltage and electrical charge is causing innocent mistakes in thinking. The term "pseudoscience" should be reserved for misinformation fabricated out of whole cloth rather than as a slur used as whip whose handle is afforded to whomever holds the more lofty position.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    [QUOTE=Lynx_Fox;297547]
    Your simple logic contradicts more than a century of direct measurement using a wide variety of methods. When what you think happens contradicts what's observed than you must change your thinking--that's how science works.

    .
    You have not specified what measurement result is in conflict with my simple logic. There is no need to inform me how the measurement apparatus was elevated. Balloon, kite, rocket or bamboo pole, that is irrelevant. Are you referring to voltage measurements between the surface of the earth and the atmosphere at a certain height? If that is the observation you refer to, then my theory is that one would discover a positive voltage aloft with respect to the reference point. It does not follow that such readings suggest the existence of positive ions. It is a voltage not a charge. The Fair Weather Current flowing between Earth and sky develops a positive voltage drop equal to the current in amperes multiplied by the atmospheric resistance in Ohms. That is a dynamic electrical result of restoration storm-driven electrons that have been delivered to the earth and are on their way back up. The negative charge I speak of throughout the atmosphere is a static electrical phenomenon whereby essentially the same static potential is presented to both sides of the voltmeter. The voltmeter responds only to difference in potential between those two points.
    Last edited by dalemiller; December 30th, 2011 at 07:21 AM.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    223
    I believed that had I tested the water with Lynx_Fox last June, and seemed to have been encouraged that his Earth Science threads could tolerate revelation of an original realization which of course could not emerge riding upon a wave of premature popularity. I had discovered what I was looking for: an explanation for how so many people might have been mistaken about atmospheric electricity.

    I was ready to challenge what I take as dogma that our atmosphere holds a positive electrical charge. For the first time in my life I had found a venue where the author of a discovery would be immediately stigmatized as a practitioner of false science. Although I have, in all humility, distinguished myself in a career of reverse engineering radar/computer complexes, singlehandedly detailing of well-validated maintenance procedures during my six decades of involvement with electronics, I am to be deemed incompetent by folks with no such experience and without an iota of specific contradiction. All I have been trying to do is share information that I hold with no reason to doubt. I beg readers to forgive limitations of my style and defer any spite that my lack of grace might engender.

    It has been granted to me that Earth has a negative electrical charge. I had stipulated that as a given not from intentional pedanticity but as a critical initial premise. A corresponding congestion of electrons would therefore be present at the surface of the earth, of increasing intensity along elevated surfaces. Logically, that electron congestion would be the equivalent of a significant negative voltage sufficient for coronal ejection of electrons into the atmosphere. Such rising electrons, suggested to us as of some 2 pico-amps per square meter at sea level surfaces must, according to Ohm's Law, produce a positive-going (AKA less negative) voltage drop along its vertical journey toward the ionosphere. Any casual observer (no offense) reading a voltmeter bridging Earth surface to an elevated electrode adapted to atmospheric potential of the atmosphere would call such a measurement a direct measure of positive ionization. The nominal 100 volts reduction of high negative potential per meter of elevation would be readily be mistaken as empirical manifestation of a positive atmosphere. It is the inevitable result of predominately negatively charged rain and thunderbolts to Earth. The polarity of such electrical particle migration is demonstrated by the consequential Fair Weather Current.

    Cause and effect can easily be mistaken under investigation of such subtle relationships. For instance, positive voltages found aloft in electrical storm clouds might seem responsible for causing events of lightning when, contrary-wise, such potentials have resulted from electron depletion as result of downward retreat by electron-coated raindrops heading for the surface. It seems that the reason that negative ions dwell vertically throughout the atmosphere is because of the continuous world-wide occurrence of lightning (some 100 volts per second). As many ions are in the making below as are delivered aloft at any interval.

    Whereby the electrons congested upon Earth's surface are a fair weather equivalent of negative voltage, Kirchhoff's Law provides that algebraic summation of voltages around a loop must equal zero. Hence, we can estimate the equivalent voltage at Earth surface to be equal and opposite to the voltage reductions measured with increasing altitude.
    Last edited by dalemiller; January 5th, 2012 at 12:04 AM.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." --Buddha (563BC-483BC)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,270
    Please stop bumping your thread. The last reply to you was on December 20th, so the interest is gone.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •