You mean why don't I pretend that what you say has any worth?
I don't have origin's patience with nonsense.
Just a running start
- Thread starter Dale
- Start date
You mean why don't I pretend that what you say has any worth?
I don't have origin's patience with nonsense.
Dale: Congratulations on your continuing efforts to 'buck' the status quo . . . "Those best bear reproof who merit praise" (Ref: part of one of Pope's epigrams). The 'anointed ones' will continue attempting to 'referee' the content of Sciforums . . . I guess they are pretending to make it comparable to a real 'refereed' resource . . . where they be the referees (IMPO, James R).
Thanks. Am so grateful for any rational witness. Somehow, it helps to know that you are out there.
Simulating an intelligent conversation is the best I can do when discussing concepts devoid of any semblance of intelligence. Your ideas appear to have no merit at all and the only defense of your ideas is repeating the same silly statements over and over.
It would be so worth your while to take some courses at a community college so you could actually understand some of the physics and mathematics of what you are trying to discuss.
My apologies to this forum that I stupidly mistook OnlyMe for a second moderator. Am a greenhorn around here.
Nevertheless, I remain amazed that he ventures to disagree that prevailing lighting provides downward migration of negative charged particles. It is more amazing that he should simply announce his decision as if sitting high in judgement, when he can see for himself the slander I have to deal with. When I mentioned that I had a totally obscured issue that I would reveal to the US government, the poster "origin" ventured to attack that unmentioned issue as totally wrong, something proven wrong over and over again, etc., all out of whole cloth.
Origin gives no-one any means to find him anything but a malicious incompetent. What attracts OnlyMe to origin's side?
Dale, I have tried to understand how you have arrived at the conclusions you have been presenting. I did notice early on you mentioned that you have worked with ohms law for 6 decades. I do not recall any specifics, as to what area that involved. I might assume an industry context of some sort. This being an assumption, and not intended in any way as judgemental, I myself held licence in the state of California as a contractor, with several sub classifications, for many years.
What comes to mind with respect to the above is an old difference of interpretation as to the direction of the flow of electrons relative to the designation of "positive and negative" polarity or potential. I remember a time when in practical electrical engineering and practice, the direction of flow was considered to be from the positive to negative potential. While it has been my understanding within the context of this discussion, at least from my part, when I say there is a positive potential it represents an excess of positive ions capable of accepting additional electrons and when I say a negative potential it represents the presence of an excess of negative ions, which have electrons to share. From this perspective the actual flow of electrons is from the negative potential to the positive potential.
While as the potential for a lightening strike developes, from the Wiki link earlier presented, there is a positive potential that moves up from the earth and negative potential that move down toward the earth, once the two meet, essentially completeling a circuit, there is a massive flow of electrons up from the ground, which we experience as the lightening bolt.
This suggests, that the net charge in the atmosphere was initially positive or composed of mostly positive ions, with a greater positive potential than that of the earth. It does not mean that the earth has a net negative charge. It only means that the net potential difference, as the "conduit" or pathway between the ground and the positive atmospheric potential, is completed the atmospheric potential exceeds that of the ground and electrons flow up to balance the difference.
All in all, though the earth and its atmosphere are dynamic and the ion potentials change over time, the flow of electrons up or down does not represent an excess of free electrons anywhere. What it does represent is an exchange of available electrons between positive and negative ions, which accumulate over time through many different mechanisms in both the atmosphere and the earth.
I just listened, the other day to a pod cast, where the potential to draw energy from mud was discussed. During that discussion a practical demonstration was mentioned where an LED light was powered by nothing more than sticking two electrodes in to the mud at a river bank. I think they said the Potomic but of that I am not certain. I mention this only to reinforce the fact that even over short distance there can be a potential difference, that can result in a current.
This has been far too long a post on a subject that is not so dear to my own interests to merit the effort. At times it has likely been clumsy and I am sure there are "experts" on both sides of the divide who could take issue with the specifics.
Then intent however, was and is to bring the discussion back to a realistic examination of what is happening when currents flow, as in electrons... There are actually very few free electrons in any current we deal with. The exchange of electrons is between potential differences, generally defined by positive and negative ions. Even common conductors are biased this way....
Being insulted by someone who has repeatedly demonstrated his complete ignorance is just par for the course.
My guess it is the whole science versus psuedo-scientific hand-waving conjectures, but that is just my guess.
Just out of morbid curiostiy - what are you talking about?
Quoting your posting #43 in this thread: "If your answer is not accepted by any scientist and has in fact has been shown to be incorrect by science, why would you think the goverment would be interested?".
Where do I start? Who and what is this entity "science" that can possibly show my answer to be so wrong that the government would specifically afford me no audience whereby I might divulge my initial disclosure?
How can an answer be so unworthy that, prior to its revelation, an entire government can be alerted against taking any interest in it, for the very reason that no scientist has ever accepted it?
What is this being of a "scientist", one of whom must preside over the transformation of a conjecture into candidacy for reality?
A key word here is "conjecture" that smites upon my work in your conversation. A conjecture is listed as an admissible entry to this forum, but does not necessarily apply as the definition to every conclusion that is brought forward. An opinion outside of general consensus is not automatically reduced to that definition. A natural liability we assume as we enter a forum unrestricted to dogmatic passage, is that we seem statistically vulnerable as such easy prey that lightweight bullies might await us, aligned in the gutters for the fun of easy assault.
I estimate that about half the posts in this thread are ad hominem. How about we actually discuss the issue that Dale has raised, people?
I'm mean, it's quite useless for people to shout "crank!" until they have at least pointed out one or two errors.
That's uncontroversial, as far as I can tell.
The Earth's surface is negatively charged, so at least part of the time the electrons must be going downwards, leaving the atmosphere positive overall.
This kind of "I'm superior to you" rhetoric doesn't help make your case. It may be why people have ignored your claims and jumped to the "crank" conclusion. In future, perhaps you ought to concentrate on the science.
Or, more likely, the experts know what they are talking about and are being paid for their expertise. How much are you paid as a meteorological expert?
As I said, it is uncontroversial that the Earth's surface usually carries a net negative charge.
I take it you think you're saying something new. Could you briefly summarise for me how your views differ from the mainstream?
I'm mean, it's quite useless for people to shout "crank!" until they have at least pointed out one or two errors.
That's uncontroversial, as far as I can tell.
The Earth's surface is negatively charged, so at least part of the time the electrons must be going downwards, leaving the atmosphere positive overall.
This kind of "I'm superior to you" rhetoric doesn't help make your case. It may be why people have ignored your claims and jumped to the "crank" conclusion. In future, perhaps you ought to concentrate on the science.
Or, more likely, the experts know what they are talking about and are being paid for their expertise. How much are you paid as a meteorological expert?
As I said, it is uncontroversial that the Earth's surface usually carries a net negative charge.
I take it you think you're saying something new. Could you briefly summarise for me how your views differ from the mainstream?
I had understated my stipulation of earthly charge: I contend that the entire globe, including its atmosphere, is of negative charge.
The earth's surface provides a discontinuity for electron flow to the effect of presenting a high concentration of negative ions at that location, increasingly so at higher elevations of terrain. Where fair weather conditions exist, a fairly steady corona discharge emits some 2 picoamps of electron flow per typical square meter of surface, and flows through its column of atmosphere at a beginning resistance of some 5 times 10^14 Ohms per meter of elevation.
The reason for existence of a relatively smooth vertical distribution of negative ions in the atmosphere is the constant endothermic descent of electrons due to electrical storms. Current estimates are that some 100 bolts of lightning per second deliver electrons obtained from aloft, to the surface below, and additional electrons are so delivered upon negatively charged rain. There is such a thing as positively charged thunderbolts and rain, but they bear no more significance in general migration of charged particles than eddy currents along a mighty river influence the transfer of fresh water to the sea.
(For instance, flywheel effect can follow the discharge of electrons from a cloud in a lightning strike, such that after the cloud has been drained of its negative charge, further electron flow continues in the same direction as the encircling magnetic field collapses.) Consequently, a lesser stroke of positively charged lightning will occur, but that does not make for any equivalence to downward mainstream migration of electrons.
Touche'. Thanks, and I will try to do better at revealing my abject humility and/or or more privately ponder my confounding progress despite being more like the village idiot.
Expertise? Not exactly. In all humility, they are playing in my sandbox. Typical textbooks about lightning volunteer that they don't yet quite understand how lightning comes about. They continue to pursue the secrets of charge separations from neutral molecules whereby electrical potential would be stored in broadly expanded volumes of air, instead of comprehending that we have an atmosphere of negative electrons that can receive reiterative events of endothermic conditioning: negative ions getting crowded closer and closer together.
Solar energy evaporates water. The vapor mingles with ions and takes on a moderate dosage of ions. Latent energy, instead of all coming back as heat upon condensation, comes back partly as potential electrical energy. As condensation continues and as droplets merge, the reduced ratio of area to volume crowds electrons all the more because ions remain at the outside surfaces. Paid scientists suspect that ice crystals found as groupel hold a hidden secret to lightning. This unpaid slob observes that the charged surface of raindrops resist freezing down below minus 40 degrees (F or C) by bucking the inter-molecular gravity when lightning is tantamount. Electrical discharge brings that super-cooled water to solidification when lightning lets loose.
I am not a meteorological expert, but years of reverse-engineering electronic systems provides me with the few things I need to know about electricity to present this rationale.
Per my final statement: "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.
I failed to reemphasize that by global negative charge, I mean the whole nine yards: that is, including the atmosphere.
Experts are paid to assume that positive voltages in the air signify a positive atmosphere. Not so! They merely measure the voltage drop across the resistance of the air, due to flow of the fair weather current.
Inviting your attention to my claim of a positive core. Electrons at the surface, of solid or gaseous state, would be the result of electrons propelled or propagated upward. Such migration is one and the same as downward propagation of positive charges, hence, an eventual positive core within the planet. Have never heard this from a paid expert. I work free because I am loath to carry important science to my grave, if you will pardon my regard for my own work. I will die poor, but I have save millions of dollars for my employer with what I did for them.
Elsewhere, and indirectly, JamesR has encouraged me that a vertical voltage gradient of 100 volts per meter conforms to an accepted definition of the downward pointing electric field of our atmosphere. Here, this is taken as a valid formal and sophisticated description. It might fall prey to scrapes with semantic error that inadvertently suggest a positive charge aloft. No harm no foul. This clarifies that the longstanding description of atmospheric electricity deals with the dynamic electrical phenomena that I have been describing as voltage drop due to fair weather current. Hence, I am not obliged to confront any traditional knowledge as foolishness.
Thus, with a civil tongue in my head after all, I can submit that a superimposed negative voltage source of some 300,000 probable volts or so is algebraically superimposed upon that entire self-same electric field. (It might hypothetically be measurable at the earth's surface if one could hook up one's reference meter lead to the electrosphere.) We would enjoy the same downward-pointing electric field by virtue of a less negative potential bearing down toward a more negative potential.
The heavy concentration of electrons congested at Earth's surface would seem to be second in natural electron concentration, only to the extremes produced in electrical storms. As such, in fair weather it is top dog, and serves as the voltage source feeding the corona gap and atmospheric resistance en-route to the electrosphere, where, to the extent that its surface holds its position, a neutral electrical potential would present a virtual return for an in-line equivalent of circuitry.
Main edit: Hold the phone! My mind has been wandering again! A world full of people is still out there with an understandable supposition that there is any truth to existence of a positively charged atmosphere. Am OK with it being carved in stone that our atmosphere's electric field points downward. Now that I know that the big kids dice it up that way (I never had), then some will suppose that the field pushes down by means of repulsion from a positive charge! No way, not since the flat Earth. Above the atmosphere lies an electron bubble. Most of that bubble is over your head when you are upside down. That is, most of the upward pull upon a proton is centered at the opposite point around the earth: straight down from that affected proton, through all of the ground and back up the other side. The range between the far-side portion of Earth's electron shell and that proton being lowered on this side as the criterion for downward pointing of our electric field is not a problem. Point count increase compensates for square law attenuation per point charge.
In a nutshell, a ring or sphere finds opposite charges to be held apart by their attraction for each other.
Thus, with a civil tongue in my head after all, I can submit that a superimposed negative voltage source of some 300,000 probable volts or so is algebraically superimposed upon that entire self-same electric field. (It might hypothetically be measurable at the earth's surface if one could hook up one's reference meter lead to the electrosphere.) We would enjoy the same downward-pointing electric field by virtue of a less negative potential bearing down toward a more negative potential.
The heavy concentration of electrons congested at Earth's surface would seem to be second in natural electron concentration, only to the extremes produced in electrical storms. As such, in fair weather it is top dog, and serves as the voltage source feeding the corona gap and atmospheric resistance en-route to the electrosphere, where, to the extent that its surface holds its position, a neutral electrical potential would present a virtual return for an in-line equivalent of circuitry.
Main edit: Hold the phone! My mind has been wandering again! A world full of people is still out there with an understandable supposition that there is any truth to existence of a positively charged atmosphere. Am OK with it being carved in stone that our atmosphere's electric field points downward. Now that I know that the big kids dice it up that way (I never had), then some will suppose that the field pushes down by means of repulsion from a positive charge! No way, not since the flat Earth. Above the atmosphere lies an electron bubble. Most of that bubble is over your head when you are upside down. That is, most of the upward pull upon a proton is centered at the opposite point around the earth: straight down from that affected proton, through all of the ground and back up the other side. The range between the far-side portion of Earth's electron shell and that proton being lowered on this side as the criterion for downward pointing of our electric field is not a problem. Point count increase compensates for square law attenuation per point charge.
In a nutshell, a ring or sphere finds opposite charges to be held apart by their attraction for each other.
Last edited: