You seem to be the only one who thinks so.:shrug:
Just a running start
- Thread starter Dale
- Start date
You seem to be the only one who thinks so.:shrug:
The only electronics I have had was in physics and 1 electrical engineering course. But nothing you have said here went beyond what I have learned.
Here are my very abreviated answers to your questions if you want more I will supply you with sites that have more in depth information
That is due to the higher concentration of ions and xrays from the sun during the daylight hours as opposed to the nighttime hours
Stellar black holes form when a star in excess of about 8 solar masses uses up its fuel and the pressure of fusion is overcome by gravitational forces and the star collapses in a supernova leaving a remnant black hole.
It is possible for some of the charged particles from the sun or Xrays causiing secondary ionization have some contribution to lightning and sprites.
The plasma in the upperlayer of the sun circulate creating intense magnetic loops. Where the loops enter and exit the surface of the sun are the sunspots.
Uh, gravity.
You simply made statements you did not present evidence. You are the one that is presenting the alternative theory, it is on you to provide the evidence.
Huh?
None of this has to do with my major question; which still is, what evidence do you have to support your contention that the surface of the sun has a negative charge?
I have failed so far to locate references to support my logic. If my premises do fail to be of common knowledge, then the old dogma has a life of his own.
However, in case you will accept evidence in place of references, here goes.
1. Lets eliminate my contention that solar wind is negative. We can learn it is later when we are looking for reasons for Earth's negative charge. It is Earth's charge that makes me so sure, and that starts to sound like circular reasoning.
2. Do you agree that Faraday's ice pail stuff establishes that the total charge on a hosting body is presented to its outside? If not go to step 3, else step 4.
3. I resign. Lets try again in another 150 years. We have gotten by in ignorance for the last 150 years (I don't mean you, I just mean everybody), and all it has cost us is some goofy explanations for lightning and cosmic structure.
4. Then particles of the charge polarity go up. We know electrons go up into our atmosphere so then that tells us Earth is of negative charge.
5. Do you agree that our ionosphere's diurnal behavior confirms that Earth and Sol share an excess of the same polarity? If not go to step 3 else step 6.
6. Congratulations. Now we can just sweep up. The voltage potential aloft is positive with respect to ground, but that is not the charge which stands to be measured in Coulombs. That positive voltage with respect to ground is dynamically produced by running of electrons (FWC) through the electrical resistance of the air. In this context, we must recall that ground potential does not count for zero electric charge at that reference point: AFAIK that point tend to have the highest natural concentration of electrons on Earth, although it does vary with surface altitude. The charge seems to hold up as static electricity whereby it is just a material oversupply of certain charged particles. The fair weather voltage gradient is dynamic activity under way because of the 100 thunderbolts to Earth estimated for the whole world here.
By the way, I have placed a couple of street fighters onto my ignore list just to shy away from public scenes. If that is wrong of me, please advise me because I do not know any better.
Dale, I don't think you have things right. As an example take the charge flow for a lightning strike. While it seems like the electric charge travels down from the clouds to earth, the opposite is actually the case.
Note the closing sentence from the reference above. While there is a variation of charge in the atmosphere, the greater current flow is from the ground up.
Keep in mind this does not suggest that the earth has a net negative charge, it is completely an issue of local charge distribution. It would be my guess that if we were looking at the total net charge for the planet, it would be close to a net neutral charge, distributed sometimes unequally as a function of ion distribution and interactions.
See http://stormhighway.com/does_lightning_travel_upward_or_downward.shtml
For a cloud-to-ground discharge, the stepped leader begins in the lower section of a thunderstorm cloud and travels downward and initiates an upward-moving leader when it gets close to the ground (see animation below). The two meet in midair, usually at a point about 300 feet or less above ground. When the stepped leader and leader meet, they provide a conducting path for charge flow, like a wire connecting the cloud and the ground. There is then a huge flow of current upwards through the channel, brightly illuminating it.
For a cloud-to-ground discharge, the stepped leader begins in the lower section of a thunderstorm cloud and travels downward and initiates an upward-moving leader when it gets close to the ground (see animation below). The two meet in midair, usually at a point about 300 feet or less above ground. When the stepped leader and leader meet, they provide a conducting path for charge flow, like a wire connecting the cloud and the ground. There is then a huge flow of current upwards through the channel, brightly illuminating it.
Note the closing sentence from the reference above. While there is a variation of charge in the atmosphere, the greater current flow is from the ground up.
Keep in mind this does not suggest that the earth has a net negative charge, it is completely an issue of local charge distribution. It would be my guess that if we were looking at the total net charge for the planet, it would be close to a net neutral charge, distributed sometimes unequally as a function of ion distribution and interactions.
Gotcha!! The big kids in electronics continue to honor Ben Franklin by dealing in conventional current. When they say current goes upward they also mean that electron flow goes downward. I just chase electrons and call their flow negative current.
EDIT: Hence, There is then a huge flow of electrons downward wherever electric storms are under way.
The estimated 1500 amps of global FWC current represents the comparable descent of electrons under storm conditions. In hunting down existing text, it was amusing to see how independent thinkers each selects a different muse. They balance their electricity by seeking how Earth surface gets back her electrons loss the FWC by replenishment from lightning etc. I look to the nuisance of lightning as it is keeping the full electric charge of Earth from completing its quest to get entirely into the electrosphere. Same difference.
Last edited:
Under my belief that I have made a case for your last sentence above to be holding that the greater electron flow is from the top down, then I continue to hope for your acknowledgement that we have a case for a negative charge upon the Earth including its atmosphere.
Although solar flares create an exceptional influence upon otherwise prevailing solar wind, it is logical to assume that the sun's negative charge would repel vast quantities of electrons up the newly presented stream of plasma that constitutes the flair. This would assure a large negative bias upon such matter that reaches the earth. Also, the great magnitude of that current climbing a natural antenna thousands of miles high would explain the burn of telegraph wires down here one day long ago. (The plasma content of such flairs should contribute nearly nothing to such a magnetic storm). If the paucity of sun spots is still holding up, there shouldn't currently be much of any solar flares as far as I know.
I would like to explain what causes sun spots and their flares, but would have to first foster more credibility than I have attained so far in this venue. It is something that I had to discover in testing my understanding of how fusion within plasma is restrained from drastic avalanche.
That is a bit of a problem since we have not established that the earth has a negative charge! Please supply evidence that this is true, otherwise this is just a belief of yours (or dogma as you like to say).
I do not have a problem with electrostatic charges being on the outside of objects.
Huh? Sorry, but I don't know what you mean this.
We do? How do we know this? If that were true then the earth would have a positive charge. If you are talking about lightning, that is due to a localized seperation of charges from clouds or volcanic ash and the lightning is simply the charges equalizing.
No I do not agree - you have not supplied a convincing argument. I think it is a bit arrogant to say if I don't agree with your weak evidence then I am part of the 'big bad' establishment that is ignorant.
No Dale, I do not agree with your position on this.
While charge distribution changes within the earth and in the Earth's atmosphere, the idea that there is a net excess of electrons in, on or above the earth when compared to the protons involved in the electron's stable association with matter, is as far as I can tell, and as far as I am concerned, without merit. I did ask for a reference and the only thing you pointed to was a letter to Nature from I think it was the mid 1960s. I don't believe a letter to Nature, unsupported by additional citation, represents a credible source.
Unless some credible source is forthcoming, any further discussion seems more likely speculative imagination, than even an alternative theory.
I have never been in a position to provide documentation that agrees what I have noodled out. I sent you the Nature thing along with stated intentions to send more when and if I could find it. Instead, I have since explained that you might have to settle for an explanation of what evidence clearly demonstrates my contentions.
You do not seem to understand that when formal scientific writings explain to you that the greater electric current within an electric storm is from the ground up, that the conventional current described tells any electrical engineer or technician that the greater flow of electrons is in a downward direction. It is no fault of mine that the conclusions I submit comes from valid application of my expertise in electronics, and that no other people have thought of it.
You publish a statement that my work is without merit because it does not match the opinion of terribly mistaken people. I did not copy my analysis from someone else's writing, and so I am a fool because I might be the first to arrive at the conclusion. You appear to condemn any original work as speculative imagination. I have over six decades of success, some of it phenomenal. I had to work night and day, alone, to create the maintenance philosophy of a major defensive weapons system. Frankly, with all due respect, you do not seem to qualify as at all familiar with electrical theory. You do not understand that the source that you consulted was telling you that electrons are being forced down under thunderstorm conditions.
Michael Faraday made it clear to most of us that the entire charge on a hosting body is to be found on its outer surface. It is just common sense that with a negatively charged body such as his ice pail or the earth, that mutual repulsion of those like charges is the force that at some time along the way, caused those electrons to move out there.
If you would consult an electrical engineer before you pass such judgement against my work before contradicting an expert in the field.
As far as I know, I have been the first to correct the 150 year old screw-up about the charge on the atmosphere. The positive voltage gradient of the atmosphere is clear and unmistakable evidence that the atmosphere is negatively charged. I did not find any document on the subject because maybe there is no such piece of paper, I know about it because I thought about it and am not an idiot.
You called me wrong when you thought electrons go up in a storm. I prove that they go down according to your source and you continue to hold me wrong.
To fault a fresh disclosure that has just emerged is like aborting a baby for the fault not having made itself popular. I had hoped for better.
Dale you are correct. Though when posting, my intent was on the content of the discussion, from the way you took it, in hindsight it could and seems to have been taken personally. My apologies for any personal insult.
The fact remains, that I am not convinced, of your position.
Best just leave it at that.
The fact remains, that I am not convinced, of your position.
Best just leave it at that.
Trying only for second best because I so hate to give up.
There has to be a reason. Why else would electrons rise up out of the ground? That can happen the way it does only for a negative global charge.
The fact that electrons do rise up is well known to meteorologists. They call the phenomenon the Fair Weather Current. (The upward flow of electrons through the earth's atmosphere at the rate of a couple of micro-amps per square kilometer. Or maybe a little more if you get above mountains.)
I defy anyone to find any other reason.
The concept of a planet endowed with extra electrons cannot logically be dismissed just because molecules might be fussy on how to share the land with those charged particles. Although I doubt it necessary, the electrons could just remain free if they had to: they cannot just go away, because everything has to be someplace. By the time any were repelled away from Earth, there would have to be a bunch of electrons left behind in order to have pushed them away. Also, if you ground the positive electrode of a ten thousand volt generator and grab the negative electrode, would you not have a congestion of extra electrons upon your person? I hope you check it out.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
As a disinterested bystander Dale you may be interested to know that I find your argument wholly unconvincing. The tenor of your posts conveys the image of a man with a 'bee in his bonnet' about something. I may not know much electronics (it's been a few decades since I troubleshot electronic gear at a component level, or desinged a few simple circuits with those lovely 555 timers) but I believe I may know something about people. On that basis I am comfortable that you are probably wrong.
You didn't respond to my post so I don't know if you are ignoring me or what but if you aren't I have a question.
Can you supply a source for this what I could find was very sparse and not very informative.
Can you supply a source for this what I could find was very sparse and not very informative.
Lets go with that. It is just a little nicer than a response from a person admittedly stifling an urgent technical issue because he or she found me an unlikable person. Who cares. Why come here just to stick your finger in my eye?
If you were an electronics technician, I hope that you knew the difference between a voltage and a charge. Lack of that realization has led to a 150-year screw-up whereby we told our children that the earth's atmosphere has a positive charge. I hate bum dope. I must take my lumps from people who hate people who hate bum dope. Your elegant sense of justice would make you an excellent jurist in a court of law.
Buzzing off. Goodbye (I hope).
I did apply the ignore function, but am loath to ignore a peaceable debate.
About Earth's charge. For starters, I submit that we have evidence that Sol and Earth do share electric charge of some polarity, simply because of the tear-drop shape of our atmosphere with the pointy part pointing away from the sun. Elucidation will follow if requested.
Next comes the issue of identifying which polarity gets this claim to fame?
I submit that the Fair Weather Current aka clear air electricity tells the story. Earth's charge must be negative because where air is clear, a nominal two micro-amps emerge from most every square kilometer. Elucidation will follow later on. Its past bedtime.) Another manifestation of that electron flow (Negative electric current) goes up is the nominal 100 volts per meter of elevation within the atmosphere. Per M Faraday, particles of the macroscopic charge of an isolated body coat the outside of that host. Naturally, such status is maintained under dynamic situations by the travel of charged particles toward that outside coating. Voltage equals current times resistance. Thus, the more resistance (ergo, the taller the stack of air under voltage measurement), with current at a momentary constant value), the greater the positive voltage.
I blame cookie-cutter educations determined by civil servants. Government hires many of our weather men and astrophysicists. If they down-pedal electronics, that is what you get. Electronics was my life. If Ophiolite could possibly be mistaken, then maybe other great minds could be sharing his problem.
So far we find sun and earth sharing a negative charge.
Other issues from your salvo: the immense radiation (not arrival of charged particles to Earth) due to negative current rising up the solar flare that accounts for all those burned out telegraph wires during an earlier century.
I know that this country has payed people to explain what they do not know, and that leads to a lot of "separation of charges" balogna. Now I admit that is just an opinion, but such spending of my tax dollars is a fact. Come the time that one considers our atmosphere to be loaded with negative ions due merely to a great excess of electrons, then he would be thinking of an infrastructure where no scavenging of charged particles is at the root of lightning. Electric energy can be stored in such an environment simply by bringing electrons (alone or aboard a hence charged molecule) closer together. Such endothermic action allows for exothermic results such as thunderbolts. Within a charged planet, simply pushing a negative charge downwards invests is with additional electrical energy. It is the latent heat business with water that pulls is all off.
Unless we start looking again like the three stooges, I will get back to you with supporting references. All that should be unavailable is my finding that a positive voltage in the air signifies a negative global charge, and that any charged body that has been around for a while would have a positive core. More elucidation will follow barring warfare.
Do you mean the magnetosphere is tear drop shaped?
I am looking forward to being elucidated (I hope my wife doesn't find out).
Good, I couldn't find anything worth crap on this.
Where is this 100 volts per meter from? I would think people who touched the eiffle tower would be electrocuted if that were true.
College course work is not cookie cutter, there are always labs and practicals in which experiments are run. You don't memorize formula, you prove through experimental work that they are accurate and correct.
If you were to prove a pillar of physics as being wrong you would not be ostricized you would win a Nobel!
We need evidence of this before we state it as fact.
Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying the immense radiation is the cause of the telegraph wires burnign out. If that were true then we could easily measure that amount of ionizing radiation. What we do infact measure is the change in the magnetic field of the earth during a CME that corresponds to the current fluctuations in power lines. We also have satellites that measure the charged particles + and - that are associated with the CMEs
Do you really believe that? Why in the world would a goverment do that, it makes no logical sense!
There is no evidence to support this.
If we do start looking like the three stooges - I get to be Curly (a comedic genius Nyuk Nyuk). But that aside I am looking forward to your supporting references.
This is actually true, see Wiki.
Where I grew up in southern California, a few days before the Santa Anna winds would blow the potential difference could jump to near 500 volts, as hot air from the high desert began to shift to the lower valleys.
Note, somewhere in I think the second paragraph of the article, it mentions that though the atmosphere can be both positive or negatively charged, a positive net charge is more common.
No. I speak of the electrosphere and its supporting atmosphere.
Earth is a big ball with an electric charge. M. Faraday rightly showed that the electric charge upon an isolated body is to be found upon its outer surface.
How do electrons get there? They do so by going from where they were to where they are going. They had to come from below because any above would shun away. Thus, the force that holds electrons out there has to be strong enough to push them there. Thus, free electrons rise within a negatively charged body. I the hosting body were of opposite charge, we can be assured that free electrons would go into the opposite direction. Hence, ready evidence of rising electrons in clear air signifies a negative charge upon the earth. The casual interest in electricity among certain scientific disciplines is what I blame for the 150 year-old screw-up due to mistaking of electrical potential for electrical charge. Would you prefer me to instead think my humble self smarter than all those people? Just ask my wife who is the household fool. If I know better than others it might be just the accident of over six decades in electronics.
The 100 Volts per meter comes from the voltage drop produced by some two pico amps of upward flow of electrons through some 50 British billions of Ohms per square meter.
The Eiffel tower is a very low conductor in parallel with its surrounding atmosphere. The 100 Volts per meter gradient begins at its top. If you stood on the tippy top of that tower, your nose would not be at some two hundred volts because your thousands of Ohms of resistance would be in parallel with the millions of Ohms of resistance of your surrounding air. The net resistance could be calculated as the product of the sums of the two resistances. That would bring a low I x R product upon you if you were one square meter fat all the way and but some two times 10 to the minus twelfth amperes passing through.
Let me withdraw the conjecture. But please be mindful of the slack that is payed out for the astrophysicist. They cannot easily drag a galaxy into the laboratory. Dr. Kaku doubts extended life for gravity because he accepts the cosmic acceleration that has slipped into our science. (It took me right out of my chair, but I am from Missouri.)
Please, no need for that, I am actually nothing more than a glorified super-scientist.
By radiation, I referred to the electromagnetic radiation produced by electric current flowing through an antenna. Radio wave, but so dam low in frequency that it is almost direct current. (An admitted exaggeration.)
What would you think if you figured that you had found an answer but could find no audience within the government whereby you could even attempt to present it. Let me withdraw my comment.
We been there done that now,
Where proof is self-evident, no supporting reference is needed. Now I am late for chow, but I appreciate your concern the for these technical issues and should hardly wish for any gullibility.