70-year-old conundrum of the hot solar corona may be solved

Solar eclipse 2006-03-28, The sun's corona, or...

Solar eclipse 2006-03-28, The sun’s corona, or outer atmosphere, is visible during totality — when the sun is totally obscured by the moon’s shadow. Credit: NASA TV (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From Columbia University

Astronomers find clues to decades-long coronal heating mystery

Drs. Michael Hahn and Daniel Wolf Savin, research scientists at Columbia University’s Astrophysics Laboratory in New York, NY, found evidence that magnetic waves in a polar coronal hole contain enough energy to heat the corona and moreover that they also deposit most of their energy at sufficiently low heights for the heat to spread throughout the corona. The observations help to answer a 70-year-old solar physics conundrum about the unexplained extreme temperature of the Sun’s corona – known as the coronal heating problem.

Hahn and Savin analyzed data from the Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer onboard the Japanese satellite Hinode. They used observations of a polar coronal hole, a region of the Sun where the magnetic fields lines stretch from the solar surface far into interplanetary space. The findings were published on September 30th in the October 20th edition of The Astrophysical Journal.

To understand the coronal heating problem, imagine a flame coming out of an ice cube.

A similar effect occurs on the surface of the Sun. Nuclear fusion in the center of the Sun heats the solar core to 15 million degrees. Moving away from this furnace, by the time one arrives at the surface of the Sun the gas has cooled to a relatively refreshing 6000 degrees. But the temperature of the gas in the corona, above the solar surface, soars back up to over one million degrees. What causes this unexpected temperature increase has puzzled scientists since 1939.

Two dominant theories exist to explain this mystery. One attributes the heating to the loops of magnetic field which stretch across the solar surface and can snap and release energy. Another ascribes the heating to waves emanating from below the solar surface, which carry magnetic energy and deposit it in the corona. Observations show both of these processes continually occur on the Sun. But until now scientists have been unable to determine if either one of these mechanisms releases sufficient energy to heat the corona to such high temperatures.

Hahn and Savin’s recent observations show that magnetic waves are the answer. The advance opens up a realm of further questions; chief among them is what causes the waves to damp. Hahn and Savin are planning new observations to try to address this issue.

###

This research has been supported by the National Science Foundation Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences through the Solar, Heliospheric and Interplanetary Environment program.

Advertisements

175 thoughts on “70-year-old conundrum of the hot solar corona may be solved

  1. Nice to see some humor in a science press release:

    cooled to a relatively refreshing 6000 degrees

    what causes the waves to damp

  2. Great post! You’d never read about something like this on Real Climate!
    I’m waiting for Dr. Svalgaard to contribute…Leif?

  3. Does the “over one million degrees” corona (sun’s atmosphere) heat the surface of the 6000 degree surface?

  4. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is a theory that’s a stretch, I have never seen anything that remotely passes as a theory just a bunch of wild ideas that pretty much violate most of known physics. Little green alien men and some unseen anti-gravity or anti-matter are equally solid theories as LENR so we better check them for match as well.

  5. Pfft… A million degrees in the corona? Everybody knows that the interior of the Earth is millions of degrees.

  6. I guess the mechanism would be similar to an induction stove? And if it can heat suns atmosphere to a million degrees maybe it’s variation in intensity can change earths atmosphere by a degree or so too? Why not?

  7. A propos of magnetic effects, I’ve understood various commentators to be saying that the Earth’s magnetic field is weakening.
    Can someone who has studied the subject explain to me the likely impact of this phenomenon upon atmospheric temperatures?
    It might be negligible, or it might be a (reasonably significant) heating effect, say by permitting the energy of charged particles to be deposited deeper into the atmosphere, or cooling, say by promoting aerosols, or by reducing the energy previously produced by accelerating charged particles through the earth’s magnetic fields, or of course, by other physical effects I haven’t considered.
    But I’d love to know the answer.

  8. mkelly says:
    October 16, 2013 at 8:06 am
    Does the “over one million degrees” corona (sun’s atmosphere) heat the surface of the 6000 degree surface?
    ###
    Only if it supports the narrative.

  9. 40 years ago there was a school of thought that the energy needed to heat the Corona came from the dissipation of accoustic waves. The idea was that turbulent motions due to the convection of the outer layers (as seen in the granulation) made the out layers an extremely noisy place (should there be someone or something to hear it). The density of the Corona drops off quite rapidly with altitude and the non-linear dissipation of those sound waves was thought to dump enough energy to heat it to a million degrees. The competing idea was that it were Alfven (magneto-accoustic) waves doing the job. It seems that the mechanism based on magnetic waves is more likely.

  10. SOLOR in the title. Really?
    [typo fixed, suspect it is some voice recognition issue – used to type some posts – mod]

  11. Leo Morgan says:
    October 16, 2013 at 8:33 am
    ###
    Not to worry. The weakening of the terrestrial magnetic field, like the lengthening of the day and the movement of continents, happens on geologic time scales.

  12. The earth’s exosphere also gets very hot (around 1500 K). I always assumed this will happen wherever a planet’s upper atmosphere gets so thin that molecular collisions are very rare, allowing individual, gravitationally bound, gas molecules to acquire considerable energy from being struck by a large number of solar UV photons between collisions. The temperature equilibrium achieved would be determined by photon flux, gravity, and the escape velocity of the gas molecule species. If my assumptions are incorrect, what is the current explanation of the temperature of our exosphere and why isn’t the same mechanism responsible for heating the sun’s corona?

  13. They are finally on to the true nature of fusion reactions. The reason for the high temperature is the generation of new protons via a process similar to the Casimir effect, but which occurs with protons instead of electrons. Magnetic waves are the same thing as space waves. It is the ripple of space-time, itself, that places protons in the correct position to generate new protons from the “vacuum.” The process that occurs at the center of the Sun is not fusion, but rather the decay of a neutron core as adequately explained by Oliver Manuel. Given enough time, they will eventually get this right.

  14. LdB says: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is a theory that’s a stretch, I have never seen anything that remotely passes as a theory just a bunch of wild ideas that pretty much violate most of known physics.
    Interesting observation. Could the existence of observed LENRs be evidence that most of known physics is wrong?

  15. The sun’s corona was explained by Langmuir in the middle of the 20th century. The plasma around the sun has a pinched galactic current running thru it, which makes it hot. But then just as now the dogma amongst astronomers was that electricity doesn’t exist in space so Langmuir’s explanation was ignored. After plasma cosmologist Alfven won the physics nobel prize and said electromagnetism was at heart of cosmology ( he drew out the galactic electric circuit and the sun’s electric circuit ) the astronomy community strangely accepted half of what he said by accepting that magnetic fields shape the cosmos, but they still refused to consider electricity in space. Why? They had just been brainwashed by Chapman for 20 years who insisted absolutely no electromagnetism in space.
    Today the acolytes of Chapman are still in the seats of power in the astronomy community and they still use Chapman’s old simple dismissive argument to ignore electricity in space. ” Any separate charges in free space would have nothing to resist electrostatic attraction so would come together rapidly and neutralize each other. Thus practically all of cosmology is electrically neutral “.
    Leif has used this argument in response to me.
    So today we have a sun with a magnetic field changing powerfully enough to create 2 million K temperatures, but no electric current of consequence.
    Here’s a pertinent point. Search Stellar magnetic field using wiki. You get a stellar magnetic field page. Now try stellar electric field. There isn’t a wiki page for that. Eh? How can there not be a page? NASA have spent billions and more than half a century directly investigating the stellar magnetic field ( centuries if you count sunspots ) . So how come by contrast the astro-community hasn’t so much as amassed a single page of info on the stellar electric field? Even if its just to say, we searched, this is how we searched, and we didn’t find one.
    There can be no rational reason !
    The truth is astronomers are forbidden by their dogma to investigate the sun’s electric field. The sun’s electric field is assumed to be zero! It’s a relic\shrine of the Chapmanian ideal of no electricity in space.
    Crazy.
    The Earth has an electric field of 1,000,000 volts per 10km , but the sun is assumed to have an electric field of zero and astronomers won’t even check this assumption?
    As the cracks in this insane assumption have widened due to modern solar observation instruments, solar observers will admit there’s localized temporal electric fields here and there on the sun, but none of much lasting consequence, and they are spose to all be products of changing magnetic fields. It’s a very wrong way to interpret what is seen.
    Interesting what ” sun’s electric field ” google search returns.
    – A physics forum question where an admin educated in conventional astronomy replies that the sun’s electric field is zero.
    – some electric universe pages
    – some conventional papers from the early-mid 20th century.
    – conventional pages on the sun’s magnetic field
    where’s the modern conventional study of the sun electric field? There isn’t any!

  16. “…found evidence that magnetic waves in a polar coronal hole contain enough energy to heat the corona…”
    Waves, as in varying amplitude? Does the coronal temperature vary, as in “sinusoidally”?
    Or, are they just using “waves” in reference to a standing magnetic field?

  17. LbD et al.
    For the LENR solar corona theory, see:
    Srivastava, Y.N., Windom, A., & Larsen, L., “A primer for electro-weak induced low energy nuclear reactions” (2008). Physics Faculty Publications. Paper 11. http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20000364
    See presentations by Srivastava on LENR
    NewEnergyTime.com is compiling papers and presentations to/against LENR.
    See Windom Larsen theory
    Defkalion and others are presenting experiments purporting to show substantial excess energy from excited nickel and hydrogen.
    Gordon Docherty gives one example of LENR-101
    I see Physics in ferment with potential for net energy systems.

  18. “Two dominant theories exist to explain this mystery”
    No, no, no they’re doing this all wrong. When there are more than 2 theories to explain a phenomenon than you take a vote to see which is most popular. That idea wins and then all alternative ideas must be shouted down.

  19. Climate “science” is the only science that is settled and was settled by concensus and relies on models. All the other sciences are open to question, experiment, revision, and validation. So which is the real science and why are we spending so much money on something that is NOT scientifically backed. Don’t ask the believers. They get cranky and resort to names and you all know what that name is. Its a pleasure to real actual science.

  20. Oh, good…when I teach about the sun in a few weeks I can casually interject this info as if I knew it all along!

  21. mkelly says: October 16, 2013 at 8:06 am
    Does the “over one million degrees” corona (sun’s atmosphere) heat the surface of the 6000 degree surface?

    Despite the million degree temperature, there isn’t much heat in the corona. There really isn’t much of anything in the corona.
    The sun’s visible surface density is about a thousandth of our sea level air density, and the corona is eleven orders of magnitude less dense than the sun’s surface. That’s far less than the vacuum inside a tokamak fusion reactor.

  22. Object can and do, in isolation, emit a magnetic field.
    Objects in isolation can not, as far as I am aware not emit an electrostatic field, but be one part of a pair of ‘conductors’ that can have a difference in electrical charge between them.
    IE a capacitor has a measurable electrostatic field when charged up.
    Charging of a capacitor is the temporary removal of electrons combined with the insertion of the same parcel of electrons into the opposite plate.
    Move one plate to another continent, there would be no measurable electrostatic effect or capacitance.
    If the sun or other astronomical body has a net positive or negative charge, this can only be, if there is a counter balancing charge in an adjacent body.

  23. Bob Mount says:
    October 16, 2013 at 9:47 am
    “What a pity that Climate “Science” isn’t as open and above board as real science, such as Astro-physics!”
    Is that the study of the properties of the Jetson’s dog?

  24. Lester Via says: “The earth’s exosphere also gets very hot (around 1500 K). I always assumed this will happen wherever a planet’s upper atmosphere gets so thin that molecular collisions are very rare, allowing individual, gravitationally bound, gas molecules to acquire considerable energy from being struck by a large number of solar UV photons between collisions. The temperature equilibrium achieved would be determined by photon flux, gravity, and the escape velocity of the gas molecule species. If my assumptions are incorrect, what is the current explanation of the temperature of our exosphere and why isn’t the same mechanism responsible for heating the sun’s corona?”
    The thermosphere may be much more interesting. I often speculate that it functions like a grid in a vacuum tube, producing effects much greater than its low density would predict. It is true, however, that the odds are against any one photon passing directly through the thermosphere without striking something. It’s very tenuous, but it’s also very thick, and its thickness varies significantly with solar UV influx. Does that apply to the exosphere, as well?

  25. David Thomson says:
    October 16, 2013 at 8:54 am
    They are finally on to the true nature of fusion reactions. The reason for the high temperature is the generation of new protons via a process similar to the Casimir effect
    and
    October 16, 2013 at 8:59 am
    Interesting observation. Could the existence of observed LENRs be evidence that most of known physics is wrong?
    Eh? This is new to me. Please cite some references.

  26. Robertvd says October 16, 2013 at 11:38 am
    How exactly can a Nuclear Reaction create magnetism ?

    Surely not by the uniform movement or flow of electrons?
    “Shirley not …”
    .

  27. meemoe_uk says:
    The sun’s corona was explained by Langmuir in the middle of the 20th century. The plasma around the sun has a pinched galactic current running thru it, which makes it hot. But then just as now the dogma amongst astronomers was that electricity doesn’t exist in space so Langmuir’s explanation was ignored. etc
    Well said.

  28. Réaumur says October 16, 2013 at 11:26 am

    Eh? This is new to me. Please cite some references.

    Dr. Peter Hagelstein of MIT earlier this year in a series titled “Cold Fusion 101” covering a wide range of subjects/topics back to Pons and Fleischmann up to present day?

    .

  29. Moving charges create magnetic fields. Magnetic fields make charges move. That is how electromagnetism works. If you have a number of moving charges (plasma) and they are heating up, you can bet there is a magnetic field that is causing it.

  30. thks Robertvd
    and what I was saying shows in the comments here aswell!
    plp here in the comments looking for explanations for the corona will consider Low Energy Nuclear reactions and exotic versions of the Casimir effect but they won’t consider such elementary 19th century physics such as heating by electric current.

  31. Very interesting, I’ve been studying up on Ultraviolet radiation lately too, My current thinking is when UV reaches the earth or collides with a planet it slows down and releases its energy as heat. Solar Magnetic –> UV –> Heat –> IR. Thats global warming and cooling solved. It also works for ozone too, Solar Magnetic –> UV –> Ozone –> Heat –> IR.

  32. Physics Prof. Yeong E. Kim, of Purdue University

    explained to the conference that Hyperion (Defkalion’s reactor) contains a core of metallic nickel foam that is heated from 180 ° C to 849 ° C, with a plasma arch. After that, you observe a sharp increase of the magnetic field within the reactor between 0.6 to 1,6 Tesla. This according to Kim indicates that “the reaction results in very strong electric fields E, currents I and magnetic fields B”.

  33. thank you meemoe_uk! at least one WUWT follower shows to have some understanding of the sun’s structure that takes electricity into account and disagrees with the centenial self-contradictory nuclear furnace obsession.

  34. 6000 Degrees – Pah that’s Nothing !
    As everybody knows the EARTH’s CORE is MILLIONS of DEGREES

  35. “The observations help to answer a 70-year-old solar physics conundrum about the unexplained extreme temperature of the Sun’s corona – known as the coronal heating problem.”
    Clearly its the sun people and their SUVs.

  36. Papers that explain coronal heating appear from time to time all purporting to be THE answer. This new paper is no exception. It has long been clear that some kind of waves steepening into shocks [because of the rapidly decreasing sensity] were responsible, much like the crack of the bullwhip.
    The various pseudo-scientific ‘theories’ put forward by some commenters are just their usual junk which we have debunked enough times that we don’t need to go through the motions any more.

  37. Magnetic waves?
    Interesting.
    While, again, I don’t think the Electric Universe theory is correct in the main, it’s interesting that — as I said a few years ago here — short shrift was given to electro-magnetic and plasma explanation of solar and other astronomical phenomena.
    As others pointed out, these are major areas for mainstream research. Quite rightly. And yet, the degree to which they were important was still underestimated by many.
    I think the Electric Universe folks, while mostly going with an alternative theory as a business so they could sell books and conferences to a niche market of followers, still did some favours to us by pointing out that there’s lots more to learn about the universe in terms of the extremely prevalent and long-distance effects of electro-magnetism and plasma.

  38. Mark says:
    October 16, 2013 at 1:56 pm
    If a magnetic field extends to interstellar space, then it must be powered by electric currents coming from interstellar space. The corona is so hot because the sun is powered by interstellar electric currents.

    This is not a logical argument. It definitely does not justify the word “must” or the certain sentence at the end of it. What you have here is called a hypothesis, for which there is much missing evidence.

  39. Christoph Dollis says:
    “This Oliver Manuel…”
    I know nothing of this, or of OK Manuel, but with such serious allegations, let’s hang him now. We can have the trial later.
    However, I did notice this little item:
    The case is currently set to begin on September 27. Published in The Missouri Miner, 8-31-06
    So please explain to us what happened. When was the trial? Your link used seven year old information. Last I heard, all charges but one were dropped. So, when was the trial? What was the outcome? You gratuitously started the ad hom, now you need to explain the outcome.
    Manuel may be a scientific wacko [I suspect he is], but posting such an inflammatory blog article has nothing whatever to do with science, and everything to do with character assassination.
    What, you automatically believe the kids? Maybe they are all telling the truth. But maybe they hate Dad for other reasons — and a trial is the place to sort out the truth. [I just heard from an 84-year old friend, whose 59-year old daughter convinced him to put her name on the checking and savings account. And then promptly cleaned him out of every penny.]
    Now, do we wait for a trial? Was there ever a trial?? Or do you propose we just hang him now?

  40. “You gratuitously started the ad hom, now you need to explain the outcome.”

    Not necessarily. I have only vaguely heard of him before and didn’t remember the name. I was asking if that’s the same Oliver Manuel, which it is.

    Now, do we wait for a trial? Was there ever a trial??

    He was convicted of attempted sodomy of an 11-year old. The remaining charges had to be stayed due to statutes of limitations.
    Of course, none of this means his scientific theory is wrong, but to answer your question, there was a trial.
    Of note, this blog’s owner had this to say about him:

    Strangely, one of the authors, Oliver K. Manuel, is a person I’ve banned from WUWT for carpet bombing threads with his vision of the Iron Sun Theory, which I personally think is nutty. So, that right there gives me some pause. But, I haven’t read the book, so it may have nothing to do with that. OTOH, he’s one of the most well mannered commenters you’ll ever find.

    Anyway, I don’t want to spend more time on Oliver Manuel the man. I glanced at a site maintained in his name briefly. His idea is that the Sun, through differing magnetic field strengths, sorts different elements at differing regions within the Sun, diffusing them.
    Meh.

  41. I answered, dbstealey. My comment is caught up in moderation. Short answer, he was convicted. Long answer, most charges were dropped due to statutes of limitations. Longer answer, of course that doesn’t mean his hypothesis is wrong, but this blog’s owner clearly thinks so as he banned Oliver Manuel for carpet bombing threads with his idea.

  42. Christoph Dollis@6:13.
    Very classy act you got there.
    Do you have anything to contribute to the science being discussed or are you here to threadjack?

  43. dbstealey, if you want to you can search “Prof. Oliver Manuel” verbatim in quotes. I can’t direct link as it will cause my comment to enter moderation.
    I agree that doesn’t mean he’s wrong on science, but another commenter was positing that Manuel was the one guy who had solar physics right and everyone else needed to catch up to him. That made me curious about Manuel and I did a google search with the best of intentions.
    I have some problems with his solar model based on a cursory glance, but that’s another story.

  44. Christoph Dollis says:
    October 16, 2013 at 6:22 pm
    Magnetic waves?

    Well spotted. U made me smile, nearly laugh. It’s a succinct question but I don’t think you know why! Magnetic waves don’t exist without an associated electric wave, hence ‘electromagnetic waves’. Trust the conventional astronomers to use term ” magnetic wave ” neglecting the electric aspect! It’s pure comedy! No-one who has an education in electromagnetism can take them seriously.

  45. I’m sure I spent at least a few hundred hours, probably more, reading up on the Electric Universe hypothesis, meemoe. I understand what you’re getting at.
    Magnetic waves means magnetic oscillations, basically. You don’t need huge intergalactic electron streams to accomplish this sorts of things. Material moving within the Sun can do it, electron flow within the Sun could do it, etc.

  46. the eLectric sun people are all Out in force today.
    I Find them quite annoying and I Wish they’d go away.
    eLectric fields and currents are quite Easily detected.
    No such field is there and so the Theory is rejected.
    Once upon a time when nuclear Fusion was unknown,
    it was Tricky to explain the source of Power for the sun.
    and So was born a theory of magNificent simplicity
    the Sun was like a lightbulb all lit Up by electricity
    Huge electric currents flowing Darkly in the ether,
    were Said to power up the sun by Arcing through its plasma.
    and Since nobody way back then had Travelled into space
    we Could imagine giant currents flowing through the place.
    but Now we know of fusion and we Know it powers the sun,
    we have Counted the neutrinos, and the numbers match our sums.
    and we Know a giant current isn’t There between the stars,
    since our Astronauts have been there and they Didn’t come back charred.
    Einsteins relativity made the Ether obsolete,
    and our Theories of everything are getting more complete,
    there Is no need today to think of the Electric Sun
    as a Theory of science its course is very clearly run

  47. “Moving charges create magnetic fields. Magnetic fields make charges move. That is how electromagnetism works. If you have a number of moving charges (plasma) and they are heating up, you can bet there is a magnetic field that is causing it.”
    Electric fields cause charges to move. Moving charges then create magnetic fields. Magnetic fields deflect moving charges, but it’s the electric field which causes the charge movement.
    As for the ‘magnetic field lines’ in the coronal hole(s) – no such physical thing. Magnetic field lines are similar to topographic contour lines – artefacts to aid visualisation. However as these magnetic “strings” are observed and measured, they can thus be only one thing – Birkeland currents, often erroneously also described as magnetic flux tubes.
    So the coronal holes are the discharge sites of galaxy-sized electric currents.

  48. {███} [October 16, 2013 at 6:13 pm] says:
    “The process that occurs at the center of the Sun is not fusion, but rather the decay of a neutron core as adequately explained by {███}. Given enough time, they will eventually get this right.”
    This {███}: “Dr. {███} arrested for …”?

    {███} [October 16, 2013 at 7:41 pm] says:
    Anyway, I don’t want to spend more time on {███} the man. I glanced at a site maintained in his name briefly. His idea is that the Sun, through differing magnetic field strengths, sorts different elements at differing regions within the Sun, diffusing them.

    Waitaminnit! You’ve got a responsibility to clear this up now. Is this the same person or two different people with the same name?
    I can’t believe you even went there. The only way that what you did would make any sense would be if you were 100% positive ( and even Six Sigma doesn’t cut it for such a serious criminal charge ).
    I’m aware of this person {███} that comments at Curry and Goddard and other places, and formerly here at WUWT. I don’t know enough about his Sun theory to speak to it myself, it may be off-the-wall but that doesn’t require this level of response. But you really should now spend ALL of your available time to determine if they are one and the same. Either that or get the mods to wipe this thread clean of that name just to be safe, before Wayback, and the Google and Bing bots enshrine it forever. The Mods can wipe this one too.
    Seriously, since you are apparently using your own name here and on Facebook, it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist ( pardon the pun ) to drop your name in Google and turn up something about another person with your own name ( I wouldn’t do it though ). You also have may have exposed yourself to potential legal headaches I fear.
    (Reply: The offending ad-hom post has been deleted. ~ mod.)

  49. the corona is almost a vacuum…as is the upper atmosphere of the earth…what is the temperature of a vacuum in the shade ??

  50. They are saying magnetic waves Hmmm Perhaps pulsations would be a better term, if they have pulses through a plasma they will create mega electricity. Induction heating on a grand scale.

  51. if the temperature of the corona is a million degrees…it should be radiating X-Rays or Gamma rays..

  52. You’ve got a responsibility to clear this up now. Is this the same person or two different people with the same name?

    I have no idea why you couldn’t follow along. It’s the same person. I linked to the official record that proves the conviction.
    I didn’t even know about the conviction until I researched the person when another commenter talked about that person as being the saviour of solar physics or something, the one person who got it right, who everyone else should try to catch up to.
    It was of some interest to note that that person had been accused of the most egregious crimes by his offspring and subsequently convicted, with most charges being dropped due to statutes of limitations.
    Further, it wasn’t an ad hominem attack — I took pains to note that that didn’t mean his scientific ideas are wrong — although WUWT’s owner did, in a 2010 post, call the theory he was pushing “nutty”, and explained why he banned him from commenting because of his constant pushing of it.

  53. “So the coronal holes are the discharge sites of galaxy-sized electric currents.”

    I really don’t know how you get there from here.
    Anyhow, while I’ve believed for a long time that mainstream climate scientists were overestimating Earth’s sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 and way underplaying various natural factors including astronomical, there are times when I ask myself if perhaps I’ve made some error in reasoning.
    Those times are almost exclusively when I realise how unscientific are many people who’ve reached similar conclusions as I have regarding climate. My consolation is that the average person who believes the (somewhat manufactured) consensus regarding AGW probably has a lot of irrational stuff flowing through their noggin too.
    Although I’m not even sure that’s true. It might be just wishful thinking on my part because we seem to have a disproportionate number of Creationists, Electric Universe proponents (full disclosure: I flirted with those ideas myself while investigating them), etc.
    Even yesterday I was saying on this thread that the Electric Universe proponents may have done us a favour — or at least coincidentally have been in accord with the scientists looking into these aspects of nature — by pointing out that plasma and electro-magnetic phenomena are pretty important and haven’t been looked into enough. And what do you know? This post is about a possible magnetic-wave explanation for a superheated plasma problem.
    So I’m not hating on the whole idea. It’s very elegant and simple, aesthetically pleasing. But there is no good evidence for there being intergalactic electricity currents powering the Sun.
    That Earth’s sensitivity to CO2 has been overestimated? Yeah, there’s tons of evidence for that, in IPCC AR5 even.

  54. Attention Anthony/Moderators:
    Item 1:

    john robertson says:
    October 16, 2013 at 8:01 am
    Interesting, do the fluctuations in magnetic field strength, cause similar effects on earth?

    Item 2:

    oebele bruinsma says:
    October 16, 2013 at 8:03 am
    John Robertson: An excellent question about magnetic fluctuations having a possible impact on the earth.

    The “oebele” linked site is ‘synthetic mind’ and the “comment” is a reworded parroting.
    And the online acronym finder came up with “enumerable bios” as the best two-word possibility for the unscrambled name, although I teased out “mobile user bane” as a great three-word combo.
    Is it a sign of how popular WUWT is that comment robots are sent here for detection testing?

  55. This post is another fine example of how to divert inquiring minds away from a very rich subject.
    @kadaka 9.03am, WTF????
    On the topic at hand,Heat created in the solar corona, if a magnetic field is being “cut” by a conducting material, voltages will be induced, electric currents will flow wherever a circuit exists, and magnetic fields in opposition to the” inducer” will arise.
    Does the solar plasma conduct electricity?
    The Earth effects alone are somewhat mind boggling, as each electromagnetic effect will cause others to arise, interact,induce others, different materials conduct at different phase states, the voltage induced across a material can cause it to become a conduit.
    Taking the sun as the source of electromagnetic energy, not to imply that to be true, but as a start, for this is a chicken/egg business.
    With a constant sun, earth crossing the magnetic fields of sol will induce an electrical motive force in any closed linear path on the planet.
    Currents will flow where they can, creating magnetic effects opposing the solar magnetic field, each other and causing heat.
    Lacking a perfect conductor any currents flowing on earth will generate heat.
    Current squared X resistance being the simplest expression of this.
    Now the planet rotates, probably as a direct effect of these electromagnetic effects, the “molten core” of this planet has physically moving conductive material, the magnetic fields of earth must change as the core material moves,on the surface, salt water and wet earth both conduct.
    Point here is the attempts to model these interactions get bogged down very quickly by this complexity and the behaviour is reminiscent of turbulence in hydraulic systems.
    Now add the fluctuations of the sun.
    I am very happy to see satellites actually measuring the solar activity, better late than never.
    If we humans bother, we might attempt to measure the magnetic fields of the planet, first the strong effect, then the interactions.
    But do we have the technology to discern core effects,crust effects and surface effects from each other?
    Sorry for the rant but this was such a wasted thread.

  56. john robertson says:
    October 17, 2013 at 12:58 pm
    But do we have the technology to discern core effects,crust effects and surface effects from each other?
    That technology [and the conclusion to draw from it] was developed in the 1830s by Carl Friedrich Gauss….Almost all the magnetic field we measure at the surface comes from the core of the Earth.

  57. “Almost all the magnetic field we measure at the surface comes from the core of the Earth.”

    But … but … but … how can that be? That must mean there is a constant current of electricity from the Earth’s core, through the Earth along iron or copper plasma fields, probably, and then through the air through some unknown medium until the electric current hits the magnetic compass needle you hold in your hand.
    /s

  58. Christoph Dollis says:
    October 17, 2013 at 2:54 pm
    “Almost all the magnetic field we measure at the surface comes from the core of the Earth.”
    But … but … but … how can that be? That must mean there is a constant current of electricity from the Earth’s core, through the Earth along iron or copper plasma fields, probably, and then through the air through some unknown medium until the electric current hits the magnetic compass needle you hold in your hand.

    No, you can feel a magnetic force at a distance [in this case of 3000 km], no currents needed. Your little ‘/s’ is easily lost on gullible souls.

  59. I notice in the registry information under Aliases it does not report a ‘Dr. Oliver…..’. I’m inclined to think then that the two are not the same. Go back to 2008 here at WUWT and Leif and Oliver went around and around ad exhaustion. Oliver’s idea was based on a theorized answer to the purported ‘missing neutrino’ problem. He was given permission by an act of Congress to study NASA moon rocks but he basically re-asserted his challenged (and some say debunked) theory without introducing anything new and didn’t seem to realise he was not convincing (to those that know the difference). Anytime anything remotely Solar came up; a important aspect of our inquiry here at WUWT into where the Global warming could be coming from, bang came OKE with the same cut-and-paste theory. DID not take heed of Anthony’s repeated warnings to desist and so was banned.

  60. @ Isvalgaard 2.20pm
    Thank you, is there a plain english site/text of the conclusions to be drawn from Gauss’s 1830 technology? Googling did not get me far.
    As this has been understood since the 1830s, is there an estimation available of the heating effect upon earth, from the electromagnetic effect of orbiting the sun?
    And an estimation of the change in this heating effect caused by a fluctuation in the suns magnetic strength?
    Or is there no measurable heating effect?

  61. lsvalgaard says:
    October 16, 2013 at 6:21 pm
    Papers that explain coronal heating appear from time to time all purporting to be THE answer. This new paper is no exception. It has long been clear that some kind of waves steepening into shocks [because of the rapidly decreasing sensity] were responsible, much like the crack of the bullwhip.
    ———–
    I’ve seen them referred to as Rossby waves, similarily to those created in Earths atmosphere.
    But been messing around with, “Warps, Bending and Density Waves Excited by Rotating
    Magnetized Stars: Results of Global 3D MHD Simulations”
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1161.pdf
    But the models were using tilted magnetic dipoles with respect to rotational axis. And modeling accretion rates with respect to inclination of current sheets.
    When I came across this.
    “The Tilted Solar Dipole as Observed and Modeled during the 1996 Solar Minimum”
    http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/682/2/1306/fulltext/73868.text.html 2008
    A. A. Norton, N.-E. Raouafi, and G. J. D. Petrie
    During solar minimum, the polar dipole term was always strongest in the sense of g^{0}_{1} being larger than any other term. We were surprised during these times at the influence of the higher order terms on the neutral line. Perturbations of the dipole by higher order terms seem to be most obvious around the equator, where a polar dipole field is weakest. If the quadrupolar terms were about as strong as the polar dipole, we would have a more complex structure, with multiple neutral lines. However, we were surprised to find the dipole perturbed and the neutral lines warped to such an extent.
    The polar caps exhibit a tilt with values ranging from 1° to 10°, with an average value of about 4°-6°. Although the polar hole geometries do not maintain a stable phase in azimuth over the entire time period CRs 1900-1932, a consistent azimuthal phase is found for several successive CRs (e.g., 1911-1919). The azimuth angles during this period decreases 8° per CR, indicating that the pattern moves more slowly than the CR rate. Note in Figure 10 that the north and south polar caps COG are offset 145° in azimuth, not the 180° expected for hemispheric symmetry. The instability of the COG phase in longitude during other time periods may be dominated by equatorial extensions of the polar caps. The dipole tilt of the two-sector heliospheric current sheet is consistently predicted to have a 5°-10° inclination during solar minimum; see, e.g., the work of Zhao et al. (2005), whose calculations of the N-S displacement of the current sheet include a careful analysis of the magnetic dipole tilt. Our results are consistent with the 5°-10° inclination.
    The 4°-6° value of the dipole tilt is an acceptable amplitude to result from the MHD instability of the toroidal bands. The stability of the azimuthal phase for CRs 1911-1919 indicates that the mechanism may be present. However, without polar cap geometries determined from the unipolar magnetic regions as seen in surface flux (and not just as determined from the polar hole locations), the viability of the proposed mechanism for creating a nonzero magnetic dipole tilt at solar minimum remains in question……….
    So now I am wondering why the inclination of the helio current sheet doesn’t hit zero when the the polar fields do? And how does it the ‘heliocurrent sheet’ hits its maximum extent with such low polar field values and lack of solar activity?

  62. john robertson says:
    October 17, 2013 at 5:31 pm
    Thank you, is there a plain english site/text of the conclusions to be drawn from Gauss’s 1830 technology? Googling did not get me far.
    Here is a [lengthy] discussion of this subject: http://www.reeve.com/Documents/SAM/GeomagnetismTutorial.pdf
    It may be a bit more technical than you would like, but it is hard to explain complicated things in a sentence or two.
    As this has been understood since the 1830s, is there an estimation available of the heating effect upon earth, from the electromagnetic effect of orbiting the sun?
    As the Earth orbuts the Sun it receives a lot of electromagnetic radiation [we call it ‘light’] which has the effect of raising the Earth’s temperature 252 degrees centigrade.
    And an estimation of the change in this heating effect caused by a fluctuation in the suns magnetic strength?
    Those fluctuations heaths the Earth by about a tenth of a degree in a cyclic fashion as the number of sunspots vary in their 11-yr cycle.
    Or is there no measurable heating effect?
    That one-tenth of a degree is barely measurable among the noise and other general natural variation of the temperature.

  63. Carla says:
    October 17, 2013 at 7:00 pm
    So now I am wondering why the inclination of the helio current sheet doesn’t hit zero when the polar fields do? And how does it the ‘heliocurrent sheet’ hits its maximum extent with such low polar field values and lack of solar activity?
    The inclination [tilt] of the current sheet is lowest when the polar fields are strongest. The the polar fields go away [as now] the tilt is maximal.This is explained in: http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields,%20the%20Solar%20Corona,%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf

  64. @Isvalgaard 7.10, double thankyou , just skimmed the tutorial, will read over weekend I hope, just what I hoped to be directed to.
    However Light does not answer the question I thought I was asking, sorry ignorance and poor choice of words.
    Are there estimates of the heating effects from the magnetic field interactions?
    As in heat generated by this iron cored orb travelling thro the magnetic fields of the sun?
    If its in the tutorial feel free to ignore this question.
    Appreciate your help.

  65. john robertson says:
    October 17, 2013 at 7:52 pm
    Are there estimates of the heating effects from the magnetic field interactions?
    There is a little bit of heating of the upper atmosphere [above 100 km altitude], but since the atmosphere up there is a million to a billion times thinner at the surface, the higher temperature does not translate into a lot of energy, so ho measurable effect at the surface.
    As in heat generated by this iron cored orb travelling thro the magnetic fields of the sun?
    The magnetic effect of the Sun does not penetrate that deep into the Earth.

  66. As this has been understood since the 1830s, is there an estimation available of the heating effect upon earth, from the electromagnetic effect of orbiting the sun?
    I think you’r talking about the sun earth system modeled as a homopolar electric generator. Seems Leif thinks you are talking about this too, he’s familiar with the concept because his friend Hannes Alfven proposed such a model for the sun & earth ( and for the galaxy too ). It shows in his reply to you because he was obviously deliberately obtuse ( he hates the idea of electricity in space ) by erroneously going off about about sunlight heating the Earth, which is completely separate physics and not what you wanted to talk about.
    Here’s a proper answer :
    Yes, the Earth is a conductor traveling thru a magnetic field and highly conductive medium ( interplanetary space ), so it should generate and receive electricity, similar to aeroplanes as they travel thru the Earth’s atmosphere which generate voltage on themselves ( they can’t conduct much electricity cos air is a insulator )
    Now for the sorry part :
    Despite such physics being tenable and approachable since the understanding of electrodynamics of the 19th century, its hasn’t been properly investigated. In the last few decades the idea electricity can flow in space has been suppressed by the Chapmaniacs such as Leif. However we know something is heating the interior of the Earth to very high temperatures. There’s a tremendous power supply somewhere.
    Leif could roughly calculate the homopolar voltage generation for you if he wanted to. He knows the IMF strength, the velocity of Earth thru the medium, the mass of earth, he can have a good guess of the conductivity of Earth.
    In a previous post when I mentioned the Earth had an electric field Leif just said ” lightning is the cause of the Earth’s electric field ” as if lightning just happens for no reason at all and required no further explanation. If he ever dare have a go at calculating the homopolar e.m.f of the Earth he would find lightning isn’t just a act of god. But he’s been refusing to do such a calculation since at least 1981 when Alfven drew the circuit diagram for him.

  67. meemoe_uk says:
    October 17, 2013 at 8:37 pm
    However we know something is heating the interior of the Earth to very high temperatures. There’s a tremendous power supply somewhere.
    Yes, indeed there is: it is called radioactivity. Uranium [and Thorium] turning into Lead.
    Leif could roughly calculate the homopolar voltage generation for you if he wanted to.
    Ah, the difference between us is that I can, but that you cannot.
    My calculation is spelled out in the appendix of my 40-year old paper http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
    Almost everything of interest is caused by electric currents [so your idea that astronomers hates currents and try to suppress mention of them is dead wrong]. Those electric currents are generated by changing magnetic fields in accordance with Faraday’s law http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html
    In a neutral plasma with near infinite conductivity no electric field exists in the reference frame of the plasma as Alfven was at pains to point out.
    Now all this has been explained to you many times, so you seem to have a severe learning disability. Take this opportunity to improve on that.

  68. From lsvalgaard on October 17, 2013 at 9:31 pm:

    Now all this has been explained to you many times, so you seem to have a severe learning disability. Take this opportunity to improve on that.

    But Leif, meemoe_uk is so entertaining and informative just as he/she/it is. Why so far at the lightning thread, I’ve learned the energy for Electric Universe comes from solar fusion and the Milky Way’s Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN), except “AGN” is when lots of mass is dropping into the super-massive central black hole and our GN hasn’t been A in about a million years or so, however black holes are a myth of astronomers to cover their ignorance, thus there are still nuclear reactions going on in the core generating the Electric Universe energy but they’ve gone “dark” rather than “bright” thus we know they’re there even though we don’t.
    And as you use the flawed solar core fusion model which is obviously wrong thus Electric Universe must be true (it cannot be A thus it must be B as we don’t acknowledge any other choices, etc), you’re not aware of the solar fusion happening exclusively in the rarefied solar corona which is driven by the galactic electric circuit which is transporting enough energy to instantly vaporize whole moons yet does so completely undetected by conventional science through electrically-insulating vacuum, due to a “pinch” of that circuit that somehow drives only the corona to fusion, much like “Z-pinch” fusion devices on Earth which have such a promising record of delivering limitless fusion energy in the near future.
    Such obvious fusion spontaneously occurring due to such “tight spots” in these electric circuits is why Io, a volcanic moon of Jupiter heated externally by tidal forces, is actually heated by fusing oxygen into sulfur, which requires temperatures greater than a billion Kelvins, which is evidenced by Io being coated in sulfur dust, even though Sulfur-32 is the tenth most abundant isotope in the Solar System, sulfur is the tenth most common element in the Milky Way galaxy, fifth most common element in the Earth’s composition, etc.
    Really Leif, why would you want interrupt such entertaining and enlightning displays of the intellect of a die-hard Electric Universe scholar?

  69. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    October 17, 2013 at 10:41 pm
    Really Leif, why would you want interrupt such entertaining and enlightning displays of the intellect of a die-hard Electric Universe scholar?
    It i rather obviously the lack of intellect that is at display here. As to its entertainment value: we also laugh at Bozo, the clown, and a good laugh has value in itself, but the credibility of WUWT takes a hit every time we laugh.

  70. From lsvalgaard on October 17, 2013 at 10:46 pm:

    As to its entertainment value: we also laugh at Bozo, the clown, and a good laugh has value in itself, but the credibility of WUWT takes a hit every time we laugh.

    But that we are willing to entertain even “banned” topics every once in a while actually lends itself to WUWT’s credibility, when compared to the outright total censorship elsewhere. Prohibition is encouragement of exploration somewhere else. Here we can point out the fallacies and inconsistencies.
    Although I was taken aback at reading so much odd stuff above. But then it is the Northern Hemisphere fall season, lots of nuts falling out of the trees all over. Seriously, it’s hardhat time out there, protect your brain from accidental injury by dense objects.

  71. Christoph Dollis [October 17, 2013 at 7:22 am] says:
    I have no idea why you couldn’t follow along. It’s the same person. I linked to the official record that proves the conviction.

    Christoph Dollis [October 17, 2013 at 4:15 pm] says:
    I know they’re the same because they held the same positions in the same universities, johnny. Further, their pictures.

    Okay then, I guess you are sure about it.
    I had no idea whatsoever which is why I was taken aback by the news. I apologize for amping up the discussion.

  72. except “AGN” is when lots of mass is dropping into the super-massive central black hole and our GN hasn’t been A in about a million years or so
    You need to chuck all that out when trying to understand EU theory. No blackholes and galaxies are always actively maintaining their electric circuit regardless of whether the current produced is in dark ( inactive by conventional theory ) or glow mode ( active ).
    Electric Universe energy but they’ve gone “dark” rather than “bright” thus we know they’re there even though we don’t.
    Yes because electricity can travel without glowing or arcing. You know this from the +200 years knowledge of electricity.
    due to a “pinch” of that circuit that somehow drives only the corona to fusion
    Well what do you expect? Heat induced fusion from the galactic current in places where there’s no current?
    much like “Z-pinch” fusion devices on Earth which have such a promising record of delivering limitless fusion energy in the near future.
    A bit like the blackhole devises with there promising record, except they don’t exist.
    yet does so completely undetected by conventional science through electrically-insulating vacuum
    You can detect the galactic current with your eyes. Look up at a stary sky. The light from the stars is energy from the galactic current. Conventional science detects it but misinterprets it.
    …even though Sulfur-32 is the tenth most abundant isotope in the Solar System,
    Correct. Just because something is common doesn’t stop nature from making more of it. Take helium for example. Thats the 2nd most abundant element in the universe. It’s also the most commonly produced element at the current time*. In fact there’s a good correlation – The more there is of something, the more its being produced by nature. Sulphur is common because oxygen and electrical discharges around oxygen are common.

  73. Yes, indeed there is: it is called radioactivity. Uranium [and Thorium] turning into Lead.
    I don’t like that theory
    Uranium 235s 704MY half life is to short. If it was a factor now it would have kept the Earth’s surface molten up to around 500MYa.
    Thorium 232 has a long enough half life, but then we have to think we got lucky, just the right amount to keep a very thin crust solid with a molten layer just underneath. All other rocky planets got lucky too and don’t have a molten surface due to too much thorium. Since most other planet and moons are thought to have inert cores the Earth has a close shave in that it seem to have a heck of a lot more thorium than most planets, but not quite enough to melt the surface.
    It doesn’t explain enough, and makes the Earth too special. Prefer the extra-terrestrial current theory myself.
    My calculation is spelled out in the appendix of my 40-year old paper
    Nice, but that’s for the solar wind. Why not do one for the IMF? There’s a clue in your calcs thats there’s another source of voltage ; since you are getting answers on the magnitude of millivolts per meter due to the solar wind while the Earth’s voltage per metre is around 100 to 400 V/m. i.e there’s something around 10,000 times more powerful that the solar wind acting electrically on the Earth.

  74. meemoe_uk says:
    October 18, 2013 at 2:37 pm
    I don’t like that theory
    You don’t seem to know it:
    Uranium 235s 704MY half life is too short.
    But U238 and K40 are not and they produce most of the heating.
    just the right amount to keep a very thin crust solid with a molten layer just underneath.
    Except that the crust+mantle overlying the core is not very thin, but 2900 km thick.
    My calculation is spelled out in the appendix of my 40-year old paper
    Nice, but that’s for the solar wind. Why not do one for the IMF?

    It was for the IMF carried by the solar wind.
    while the Earth’s voltage per metre is around 100 to 400 V/m.
    As we have discussed, that voltage is generated and maintained by thunderstorms originating right here on the Earth [not Thunderbolts from the intergalactic space]: http://dev.space.fmi.fi/~makelaa/fairw.html
    Now, I did not see any calculations by you [or other adherents] about this. Come to think about, I have NEVER seen any calculations based on EU. Care to link to any?

  75. They don’t believe in math, Leif. It’s elitist or something.
    I’d really like to see the math for the intergalactic and intragalactic electric currents powering the Sun, including on the efficiency of transmission over those distances, and an explanation of how the electron flow works exactly.
    At least the iron sun proponents can offer something resembling a model.

  76. Except that the crust+mantle overlying the core is not very thin, but 2900 km thick.
    you’re evading the point, the argument works for the mantle and U238.
    How come the Earth got lucky and got a very thin crust ontop on its interior >99% of its radius which is >700K due to radioactive decay? How come every other rocky planet and moon also got lucky? We’re assuming the Venusian surface temp is due to solar heating and thick atmosphere, unless you want to propose that its due to internal radioactive decay.
    It was for the IMF carried by the solar wind.
    In that case u’ve shown there’s something other than the solar wind and IMF powering the Earth electrically.
    As we have discussed, that voltage is generated and maintained by thunderstorms originating right here on the Earth
    Don’t believe it. Evaporating and convecting water can’t create such giant charge separation. The charging of water clouds is an effect not a cause of charge separation. The cause is much grander but I’m not totally sure what it is yet. Could be a direct effect of the solar corona and galactic current.
    Now, I did not see any calculations by you [or other adherents] about this. Come to think about, I have NEVER seen any calculations based on EU.
    Science doesn’t need to be quantitative. It’s nicer and more accurate, but it’s not mandatory. I admit my quantitative analysis isn’t up to scratch yet. But that of others is. You have seen quantitative analysis but you dismiss it. Prof Scott, guest EU lecturer at NASA does some. http://electric-cosmos.org/ . Peratt does some. Here’s bunch of about 2 dozen technical papers. http://www.electricuniverse.info/Peer_reviewed_papers
    You could join in too! All you need to do is chuck out that old stellar core fusion model and the bigbang model and accept the electric induced fusion model you could start contributing to the EU model and the demise of 20th century cosmology.

  77. meemoe_uk says:
    October 19, 2013 at 7:49 am
    “Except that the crust+mantle overlying the core is not very thin, but 2900 km thick.”
    you’re evading the point, the argument works for the mantle and U238.
    How come the Earth got lucky and got a very thin crust ontop on its interior 99% of its radius which is greater than 700K due to radioactive decay?

    The thin crust and the thick mantle have nothing to do with getting lucky. From the known contents of U238, Th232, U235, and K40 we can calculate how much heat should be generated. The crust is hot too at depth.
    How come every other rocky planet and moon also got lucky?
    They also did not get lucky, most are also hot at depth. Even the Moon has a small partially molten core.
    It was for the IMF carried by the solar wind.
    In that case u’ve shown there’s something other than the solar wind and IMF powering the Earth electrically.

    Nothing of the sort is needed. Radioactive decay does a fine job already in heating the interior and thunderstorms do a fine job of charging the atmosphere..
    As we have discussed, that voltage is generated and maintained by thunderstorms originating right here on the Earth
    Don’t believe it. Evaporating and convecting water can’t create such giant charge separation. The charging of water clouds is an effect not a cause of charge separation. The cause is much grander but I’m not totally sure what it is yet. Could be a direct effect of the solar corona and galactic current.

    The galactic current is very good then to find a thundercloud and charging it to create lightning. Perhaps some aliens put a little beacon on each storm to guide the current…
    Science doesn’t need to be quantitative.
    A hallmark of good science is that we can predict quantitatively what will happen. If not it is not science, but hand waving.
    You could join in too!
    Sounds like I’m invited to join a cult. As such there is no hope for you. The deeper your science illiteracy is, the easier it is for you be beguiled by pseudo-scientific quacks. They have their hook deep in, I can tell.

  78. If the Universe is electric, somebody must have put a red beacon on the top of my head. The dry cold air in NE Oregon puts my red Irish locks into charged up mode. Oh. Wait a minute. Somebody DID put a red beacon on the top of my head.
    By the way, anybody here know why there is a rubber coating on the handle of a shopping cart? Or does the electric universe follow me into the grocery store?

  79. The thin crust and the thick mantle have nothing to do with getting lucky.
    Lucky is figurative. Had the amount of these radioactives been slightly higher then Earth surface would be heated over 500C now and a billion years into future. You seem to be set on evading this simple facet of your radioactive model. Are u scared of it?
    From the known contents of U238, Th232, U235, and K40 we can calculate how much heat should be generated.
    U make it sound like someones walked down a few flight of steps, picked a piece of Earth core and brought it back for examination. The radioactive contents u mention are estimates derived from the power output from the interior of the earth and there is no way to confirm them. Therefore the power source of the Earth’s interior is unknown and open to debate.
    The galactic current is very good then to find a thundercloud and charging it to create lightning. Perhaps some aliens put a little beacon on each storm to guide the current…
    Yes, electricity will find the lowest resistance path. Also matter is pulled towards galactic current just as current carrying electric cables attract static dust. This way, plasma, electric current and neutral matter naturally attract each other in the cosmos, cue interaction between them including 100 Megavolt water clouds on Earth.
    pseudo-scientific quacks.
    Care to name names? Scott and Peratt?

  80. meemoe_uk says:
    October 19, 2013 at 10:08 am
    Had the amount of these radioactives been slightly higher then Earth surface would be heated over 500C now and a billion years into future. You seem to be set on evading this simple facet of your radioactive model. Are u scared of it?
    But since it is not slightly higher there is no need to fear anything. Again you lack numbers. What is slightly higher? 0.1%, 1%, 10%, 50%, …
    “From the known contents of U238, Th232, U235, and K40 we can calculate how much heat should be generated.”
    U make it sound like someones walked down a few flight of steps, picked a piece of Earth core and brought it back for examination. The radioactive contents u mention are estimates derived from the power output from the interior of the earth and there is no way to confirm them. Therefore the power source of the Earth’s interior is unknown and open to debate.

    There are several ways of getting that knowledge. One way is to measure it directly. In 2005 scientists in the KamLAND collaboration, based in Japan, showed that there was a way to measure the contribution directly by observing geoneutrinos – more precisely, geo-antineutrinos – emitted when radioactive isotopes decay [similar to the way we measure the neutrino flux generated by fusion in the Sun]. The radioactive heat is about about half of the heat in the interior. The other half is primordial heat left over from the formation of the Earth plus the heat generated by gravitational sinking of heavier material.
    “Perhaps some aliens put a little beacon on each storm to guide the current…”
    Yes…

    “pseudo-scientific quacks”
    Care to name names? Scott and Peratt?

    You seem to do pretty well on your own. Do you know more?

  81. Anyway, the homegrown \ ‘water clouds make their own charge separation’ lightning theory that was carefully cultivated over a century or 2 was dealt a blow in the 1990s when lightning above the clouds going into the ionosphere was 1st recorded and recognized. Sprites made theories of extra terrestrial voltage source much more plausible.

  82. meemoe_uk says:
    October 19, 2013 at 10:35 am
    Sprites made theories of extra terrestrial voltage source much more plausible.
    Every lightening bolt between cloud and ground produces a sprite above the cloud some milliseconds after the lightening. A sprite BTW is a cold plasma phenomenon akin to what you have in ordinary florescent tube discharges.

  83. What is slightly higher? 0.1%, 1%, 10%, 50%
    Use standard deviation. Given that most rocky moons and planets don’t appear to be geothermally active to anywhere near as much as Earth looks like we got way more than our fair share of radioactive material. If thats the case then there no reason to think that whatever caused this huge extra anomalous dollop of radioactives could not have concentrated an amount even more adrift from the average per rocky planet/moon. So whats Earth’s deviation of interior radioactives compared to the average of other planets? I don’t claim to be able to quantify it accurately, but I guess it to be around 500~5000% more. Bear in mind I think the radioactive geothermal source theory is wrong so trying to get accurate numbers for it is not a priority for me. If you want better numbers ask someone else.
    here was a way to measure the contribution directly by observing geoneutrinos – more precisely, geo-antineutrinos – emitted when radioactive isotopes decay
    Neutrinos are a common product in nuclear fusion too. I think the neutrinos they are detecting could be from the electric induced fusion reaction in the Earth’s interior.
    The radioactive heat is about about half of the heat in the interior. The other half is primordial heat left over from the formation of the Earth plus the heat generated by gravitational sinking of heavier material.
    I don’t believe the Earth was created from gravitational collapse of a load of dust 5BYa. I think it started out as an asteroid perhaps around 7-8BYA and grew by internal outpouring of molten rock, not external gravitation accretion of primordial matter. The source of this internal outpouring of rock was direct energy to matter conversion. The candidate for the source of the energy is the galactic current which continues to present day and is about 40% the power output of the sun. Awesome huh?

  84. meemoe_uk:
    I follow solar threads to learn because I know almost nothing about solar matters. So perhaps you would explain something you said which I don’t understand.
    Concerning energy supplied to the Earth, at October 19, 2013 at 11:15 am you say

    The candidate for the source of the energy is the galactic current which continues to present day and is about 40% the power output of the sun. Awesome huh?

    Well, I would be awed if you could convince me it is true.
    Please explain why I notice the power output of the Sun which reaches the Earth but I don’t notice the energy of the galactic current which you claim exists.
    Richard

  85. meemoe_uk says:
    October 19, 2013 at 11:15 am
    I guess it to be around 500~5000% more.
    So, slightly higher is 5000% higher…
    I don’t believe the Earth was created from gravitational collapse of a load of dust 5BYa. I think it started out as an asteroid perhaps around 7-8BYA and grew by internal outpouring of molten rock…Awesome huh?
    Awesome that somebody can believe such nonsense.

  86. Every lightening bolt between cloud and ground produces a sprite above the cloud some milliseconds after the lightening.
    Sure. The troposphere is the last barrier for the galactic current on its journey to Earth. as such a charge builds up at the top of the troposhere. When it cracks ( a lightning bolt ) this charge Earths, leaving behind room for more charge to fall from the ionosphere to the top of the troposphere, such charge begins falling immediately as the troposphere lightning discharges to Earth, but of there is a slight delay due to cause and effect but also pehaps because glow mode plasma current is slightly slower to radiate than arc mode.

  87. Hi Rich,
    Please explain why I notice the power output of the Sun which reaches the Earth but I don’t notice the energy of the galactic current which you claim exists.
    Excluding electrical output, the power observed from the sun is near pure radiated energy ( and some solar wind ). The power output from Earth’s interior is mostly mass creation but with some energy. Since E=mc^2 a huge amount of energy is equivalent to a tiny amount of mass. That’s why a mass output of 40% sun’s power isn’t too obvious. But you can see it if you know what to be looking for. Volcanoes and the mid ocean rifts are pouring out new matter. Nearly all mountain ranges are gaining height at around 5mm a year. The Earth quakes as in adjusts to accommodate the new matter. These are all results of the Earth interior power source, which could be the galactic current.

  88. So, slightly higher is 5000% higher…
    You are in evade mode. I mean most rocky planets and moons have a meemoe radioactivity linear index of 1 , while the Earth is between around 5 to 50. If the Earth can be 5 to 50 times as radioactive as most planets then within this deviation from the average, Earth could easily had a semi molten surface. That’s if u believe the radiative decay model for geothermal emission, which I don’t.
    Awesome that somebody can believe such nonsense.
    xD

  89. meemoe_uk:
    Thankyou for your reply to me which you provide at October 19, 2013 at 11:50 am.
    Sorry, but your answer is very incomplete. If this “energy of the galactic current” is creating mass in the Earth’s interior where it cannot be detected then why is that not happening at the Earth’s surface where it could be seen?
    All the observed effects you cite are explicable as being effects of plate tectonics.
    So, the only ‘evidence’ for the “energy of the galactic current” acting on the Earth is the asserted mass creation which cannot be detected.
    Richard

  90. why is that not happening at the Earth’s surface where it could be seen?
    Earth’s surface and interior are 2 very different environments. The interior is highly electrically conductive, while the surface is less so. I don’t know whats going on down there so i can only speculate. A promising new field of study is that of plasmoid physics. Plasmoids are balls of plasma formed from electrical discharge. They are known to collapse in on themselves down to nanoscopic scales creating extremely high energy environments. The scientific investigation of plasmoids has been much sidelined for decades. For decades a small group of scientists have been saying that plasmoids have a crucial role in nature and any understanding of nature must have plasmoids at its core but these people haven’t had significant science research funding. Recently though interest in plasmoids has been picking up along with funding. Amazingly, recently nuclear fusion was demonstrated to occur in plasmoids. Up till a few years ago , the only place where fusion was thought possible was at the centre of stars. Now it’s been demonstrated it can occur in electric discharges much less powerful than a lightning bolt. Lightning in the troposphere of earth can create temperatures over 1 billion degrees, it’s perfectly possible that electric discharges in other environments could get far hotter than that, hot enough for any type of nuclear fusion. Pure energy to matter creation has been demonstrated in our synchrotrons for decades. The energys required to do this are not much more than for the heaviest nuclear fusion. This means if heavy elements such as thorium and uranium exist in nautre, then direct energy to matter conversion probably exists too.
    This of course creates a completely different interpretation of the genesis and evolution of the physical world. Bear in mind that its empirical evidence, real phyiscs, unlike the conventional stellar model which can never be evidence directly ( no one can go to the Sun’s core and check ). But old conservatives like Leif aren’t going to drop the old theories because of new evidence. When I mention plasmoid induced fusion to Leif he doesn’t explore the potentials and far reaching implications of plasmoid genesis of elements but instead just ignores them and pokes that the current lab evidence has not yet produced all the elements and that there’s no direct evidence of it in nature ( clue no one has had the funding to measure a lighthning bolt so carefully to detect fusion within it yet ).
    So with this in mind I think there could be plasmoid actvity within the Earth concentrating galactic current to extremely high enegy densities, enough for nuclear fusion of elements and matter creation ( hydrogen ).
    The very deepest boreholes into the Earth’s continental crust produced results unexpected by conventional geology. The deep continental crust is saturated in water, and hydrogen gas (!), the only theory I know that explains the hydrogen gas is subsurface plasmoid induced energy to matter conversion.
    I follow plasmoid research and I’ve submitted articles to WUWT on the latest plasmoid news. It gets chucked straight in the WUWT bin because of its association with electric unverse theory. Never the less, plasmoid research is ongoing and is a current hot topic in plasma physics. Right now they are developing a new type of plasmoid generator, the 1st major redesign for 40 years. It is designed to be far more powerful than previous generators.We’re all lookng forward to it.

  91. All the observed effects you cite are explicable as being effects of plate tectonics.
    So, the only ‘evidence’ for the “energy of the galactic current” acting on the Earth is the asserted mass creation which cannot be detected.

    When i assessed plate tectonic theory I found it was unsatisfactory so I rejected it as a myth. The geological phenomena attributed to plate tectonics are caused by something else.

  92. meemoe_uk:
    Thankyou. You have told me all I need to know when you write

    All the observed effects you cite are explicable as being effects of plate tectonics.
    So, the only ‘evidence’ for the “energy of the galactic current” acting on the Earth is the asserted mass creation which cannot be detected.
    When i assessed plate tectonic theory I found it was unsatisfactory so I rejected it as a myth. The geological phenomena attributed to plate tectonics are caused by something else.

    So, instead you adopted an idea which creates new matter in the interior of the Earth where it can not be seen but not at the surface where it could be.
    Oooooh Kaaaaaay
    Richard

  93. hehe. I take it you won’t be subscribing the focus fusion society for news on the 1st experiments with the proposed new DPF then?
    Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.
    ~ sherlock holmes
    & sherlock meemoe
    truth is sometimes stranger than fiction
    – old saying
    yeah especially when the fiction has been drilled into your skull and everyone elses for the last umpteen years.
    ~ meemoe’s extension to the old saying

  94. meemoe_uk says:
    October 19, 2013 at 11:34 am
    as such a charge builds up at the top of the troposhere. When it cracks ( a lightning bolt ) this charge Earths, leaving behind room for more charge to fall from the ionosphere to the top of the troposphere
    nonsense, causality flows the other way. Sprites were predicted on theoretical grounds by Wilson in 1925, but only now do we have the technology to observe them.
    meemoe_uk says:
    October 19, 2013 at 11:50 am
    Earth could easily had a semi molten surface.
    It actually did have a completely molten surface as result of the collision that created the Moon.
    richardscourtney says:
    October 19, 2013 at 12:24 pm
    drop the old theories because of new evidence
    all the new evidence support the old theories in spectacular fashion..
    nuclear fusion of elements
    So you think fusion occurs on earth but not in the Sun, go figure…
    meemoe_uk says:
    October 19, 2013 at 1:22 pm
    When i assessed plate tectonic theory I found it was unsatisfactory so I rejected it as a myth.
    When you assessed something…That you don’t get it just display your illiteracy. I think we have wasted enough time on you.

  95. lsvalgaard:
    You do me an injustice at October 19, 2013 at 3:24 pm by attributing to me something I did not say.
    I do NOT think “fusion occurs on earth but not in the Sun” and I do not know why you claim I do. I have NEVER said anything like that.
    Richard

  96. richardscourtney says:
    October 19, 2013 at 3:46 pm
    You do me an injustice at October 19, 2013 at 3:24 pm by attributing to me something I did not say.
    Sorry for that, I copied pasted from meemoe and your name got copied by accident. This nonsense is, of course, all meemoes’s.

  97. richardscourtney says:
    October 19, 2013 at 3:46 pm
    You do me an injustice at October 19, 2013 at 3:24 pm by attributing to me something I did not say.
    Although, your comment:
    “richardscourtney says:
    October 19, 2013 at 1:29 pm
    meemoe_uk: Thank you. You have told me all I need to know when you write…
    Oooooh Kaaaaaay”
    could be interpreted as support for meemoe.

  98. I don’t believe the Earth was created from gravitational collapse of a load of dust 5BYa. I think it started out as an asteroid perhaps around 7-8BYA and grew by internal outpouring of molten rock…Awesome huh?

    In something akin to photosynthesis, but of rock?
    Out of curiosity, why would intragalactic electricity currents cause a rock to grow and outpour more rock?

  99. >Out of curiosity, why would intragalactic electricity currents cause a rock to grow and outpour more rock?
    already told you.
    nonsense, causality flows the other way. Sprites were predicted on theoretical grounds by Wilson in 1925, but only now do we have the technology to observe them.
    We’re using different models in case you hadn’t noticed. We aren’t going to agree if you think 10^8Volts is generated by water evaporating and convecting.
    It actually did have a completely molten surface as result of the collision that created the Moon.
    I’ll take this decoy to mean you understand what i was saying about other planets radioactive content wrt Earth. And no I don’t believe the moon was created by another moon colliding into Earth therefore making the current moon theory, unlike the stellar core fusion model which was reasonable but not born out by evidence, this one is just plain daft and makes me smirk.
    >So you think fusion occurs on earth but not in the Sun, go figure…
    I’ve explained how it figures, and i also said that you would ignore my plasmoid explanation because its such a solid empirically evidenced threat to the 20th century theory on matter genesis. I was right and the theory I think is right.
    When you assessed something…That you don’t get it just display your illiteracy. I think we have wasted enough time on you.
    Nothing wrong with being a bit harder to convince than most. Feynman often lamented there were too many sheeple in academia, just nodding there heads and eating up everything that was fed to them. Well he wasn’t talking about me.

  100. meemoe_uk says:
    October 19, 2013 at 5:34 pm
    We aren’t going to agree if you think 10^8Volts is generated by water evaporating and convecting.
    I’m not fishing for agreement, just trying to tell you how things work. You are bit overestimating the voltage, it is more like 10^7 Volt, but such a voltage is easy to generate. A simple Van de Graff generator will do nicely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_de_Graaff_generator Perhaps your galactic electric current also can seek out all VdG generators and charge those. The total global current that flows between the surface and the ionosphere is small, only 1000 Ampere so we are not talking about huge energies, only about that which can be delivered by 30 car batteries.
    And no I don’t believe the moon was created by another moon colliding into Earth
    There is nothing as distasteful as willful ignorance.
    I was right and the theory I think is right.
    Based on the ignorance you display makes claims as to what is right highly dubious.
    Nothing wrong with being a bit harder to convince than most.
    Yet you uncritically lap up the pseudo-scientific nonsense of EU.

  101. So, instead you adopted an idea which creates new matter in the interior of the Earth where it can not be seen but not at the surface where it could be.
    Oooooh Kaaaaaay

    Oh god, it took me a couple minutes to stop laughing before I could type this comment. And that’s all I had to say.

  102. Dr. S., you still here? Thanks for your time again today. You are da man for this E U dispute. Lots of good responses that help clarify some things for the rest of us…..
    Try this on for size.
    Interstellar magnetic field pressure on the heliotail, they say may be what is causing the offset recently found in the heliotail. Can that offset be correlated to the helio current sheet warp at the corona? And why not? Could changes in the warp latitude be an influence on rotation changes in the outer corona? That would cause changes in the wind up of the IMF?
    Gazillion questions and more questions and more questions………………………………………………………….
    The tilt of the sheet doesn’t seem to require much in solar magnetic strength to get er up. Or much in solar activity to inflate it… By comparison of this cycle to previous cycles.
    http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
    http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif

  103. Carla says:
    October 19, 2013 at 7:32 pm
    Can that offset be correlated to the helio current sheet warp at the corona? And why not?
    No, because the solar wind is supersonic: no magnetic changes can travel upstream towards the sun.
    Could changes in the warp latitude be an influence on rotation changes in the outer corona? That would cause changes in the wind up of the IMF?
    Yes, these things are loosely connected.

  104. So.. the angle at which the heliosphere strikes the Interstellar magnetic field creates a dent in the nose and an offset in the tail? Or the angle at which the interstellar wind(s) strike the nose creating the dent and also affecting the draping of the Interstellar field, at the heliotail, which creates the offset?

  105. lsvalgaard says:
    October 19, 2013 at 7:51 pm
    Could changes in the warp latitude be an influence on rotation changes in the outer corona? That would cause changes in the wind up of the IMF?
    Yes, these things are loosely connected.
    ____
    Is the warp a frozen in structure that fluctuates, and how?
    If frozen in? Like for billions of years like frozen in? Is this ubiquitous in stellar regimes? This warp that makes bends…

  106. lsvalgaard says:
    October 19, 2013 at 7:51 pm
    Carla says:
    October 19, 2013 at 7:32 pm
    Can that offset be correlated to the helio current sheet warp at the corona? And why not?
    No, because the solar wind is supersonic: no magnetic changes can travel upstream towards the sun.
    ___
    I was referring to magnetic pressure..from the draping over of the Interstellar field on the heliotail, as it extends outward 100’s of AU. Dent in the nose, offset in the tail, GCR running up the helio magnetic equator.. something fishy about that picture..

  107. correction GCR running up a warped heliomagnetic equator.
    The neutral hydrogen was found changing latitudinally unlike the other neutrals.

  108. Carla says:
    October 19, 2013 at 8:14 pm
    the angle at which the heliosphere strikes the Interstellar magnetic field creates a dent in the nose and an offset in the tail? Or the angle at which the interstellar wind(s) strike the nose creating the dent and also affecting the draping of the Interstellar field, at the heliotail, which creates the offset?
    Don’t know where you are going with this, but it doesn’t matter for the Sun.
    Carla says:
    October 19, 2013 at 8:22 pm
    Is the warp a frozen in structure that fluctuates, and how?
    If frozen in? Like for billions of years like frozen in? Is this ubiquitous in stellar regimes? This warp that makes bends…

    The warp is created in the corona and is frozen in as the solar wind travels outwards until it about a year later hits the heliopause from the inside. Then whatever structure there was is destroyed in the turbulent shock.
    Carla says:
    October 19, 2013 at 8:30 pm
    And Earths magnetic equator is warped to the north with respect to its geographic equator?
    It warps both North and South, but is something completely different from the Sun’s.
    Carla says:
    October 19, 2013 at 8:43 pm
    I was referring to magnetic pressure..from the draping over of the Interstellar field on the heliotail, as it extends outward 100′s of AU. Dent in the nose, offset in the tail, GCR running up the helio magnetic equator.. something fishy about that picture..
    whatever it is [and we don’t really know much about it] it has no importance at the or for the Sun.

  109. lsvalgaard:
    I objected to your misrepresenting me by claiming I said things in a post which you cited. However, I had not said anything like what you claimed ever or anywhere.
    You said your misrepresenting me was a mistake and I accepted that.

    Now, at October 19, 2013 at 3:52 pm you say

    richardscourtney says:

    meemoe_uk: Thank you. You have told me all I need to know when you write…
    Oooooh Kaaaaaay”

    could be interpreted as support for meemoe.

    True, it could be misunderstood as being “support for meemoe” by somebody with reading comprehension difficulties who – as you have done – selected and only considered specific phrases out of context. And it could be deliberately misunderstood by someone with malign intent.
    But meemoe_uk understood because in the immediately subsequent post to my post which you selectively quote, at October 19, 2013 at 1:59 pm he replied

    hehe. I take it you won’t be subscribing the focus fusion society for news on the 1st experiments with the proposed new DPF then?
    Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.
    ~ sherlock holmes
    & sherlock meemoe
    truth is sometimes stranger than fiction
    – old saying
    yeah especially when the fiction has been drilled into your skull and everyone elses for the last umpteen years.
    ~ meemoe’s extension to the old saying

    So, meemoe understood I was ridiculing his assertions.
    But you made a post that claimed I said what I did not, and when I objected you said it was a mistake. Now you have selectively quoted me to claim my rejection of meemoe’s could be acceptance of those assertions when meemoe replied at length claiming my rejection was because I had been indoctrinated by what he calls “fiction”.
    I do not know why you are making these misrepresentations of me but strongly request that you desist.
    Richard

  110. richardscourtney says:
    October 20, 2013 at 12:01 am
    You said your misrepresenting me was a mistake and I accepted that.
    Well, I’ll say it again. My point was that in exchanges like this one has to be very explicit and not leave any room for misunderstanding, so subtle hints, ridicule, or sarcasm are not effective. Better to be open, direct, and to the point.

  111. lsvalgaard:
    re your post at October 20, 2013 at 3:24 am.
    OK. I have learned.
    When you make mistakes you blame somebody else.
    I am disappointed by learning this.
    I think that is “open, direct, and to the point”.
    Richard

  112. lsvalgaard says:
    October 19, 2013 at 9:03 pm
    ..Carla says:
    October 19, 2013 at 8:30 pm
    And Earths magnetic equator is warped to the north with respect to its geographic equator?
    It warps both North and South, but is something completely different from the Sun’s.
    ———
    Ok, Dr. S., the exercise is this.
    Sun has an orbit and with that comes, pressure changes to its magnetosphere.
    The planets also have an orbit that has changes in pressures on their magnetospheres.
    So after having looked over;
    Warps, Bending and Density Waves Excited by Rotating
    Magnetized Stars: Results of Global 3D MHD Simulations
    M. M. Romanova,1?, G. V. Ustyugova2, A. V. Koldoba2, R. V. E. Lovelace 1
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1161.pdf
    Which is part of, US-RUSSIA COLLABORATION in Plasma Astrophysics, which is involved with,
    DISK ACCRETION TO MAGNETIZED STARS
    3D SIMULATIONS OF DISK ACCRETION TO AN INCLINED DIPOLE. HOT SPOTS AND VARIABILITY
    http://astro.cornell.edu/us-rus/spots.htm
    I became interested in our solar warp and the ubiquitousness in other orbiting, rotating objects such as planets.
    Modelling the Forces in Saturn’s Warped Magnetodisc
    Achilleos, N.; Arridge, C. S.; Guio, P.
    EGU General Assembly 2012
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012EGUGA..14.8582A
    Observations from the Cassini spacecraft have established that Saturn’s outer magnetospheric current sheet does not generally lie in the planet’s rotational equatorial plane. Previous analyses have revealed that the current sheet adopted a ‘bowl-like’ shape, swept northwards of the equator, during the Cassini prime mission (southern summer solstice). In order to quantify the relationship between solar wind dynamic pressure, planetary dipole tilt, and the shape of the near-noon current sheet, we examine a simple model of magnetopause currents within systems where the planetary dipole / rotation axis is oriented at ~65 degrees (solstice) and 90 degrees (equinox) to the upstream flow direction of the solar wind. We use this simple model to compute the ‘shielding field’ for the UCL Magnetodisc Model. We show model predictions of the north-south asymmetry in the current sheet for varying dipole orientations and magnetopause sizes. We comment on the potential application of using observed magnetic signatures of current sheet displacement (relative to the equator) as an indep endent probe of solar wind pressure.
    You will notice the reference to Saturns magnetospheric current sheet. And after reading this abstract, the thoughts now turn back to Earth and say “that sounds similar to Earth’s magnetosphere.”
    But back to the solar disk. Is that feature on our solar disk considered a dent, hotspot or bulge? Is the feature related to the formation of the current sheet warp?

  113. richardscourtney says:
    October 20, 2013 at 5:06 am
    When you make mistakes you blame somebody else.
    I am disappointed by learning this.
    I think that is “open, direct, and to the point”.

    I have owned up to my [honest, clerical] mistake several times now.
    How many more times do you need?
    Carla says:
    October 20, 2013 at 8:04 am
    But back to the solar disk. Is that feature on our solar disk considered a dent, hotspot or bulge? Is the feature related to the formation of the current sheet warp?
    Solar ‘disk’ is ambiguous. Ordinarily it means the ‘face’ of the disk as we see it in the sky. It can also mean a ‘circumsolar’ disk in the plane of the planets as many other stars also have. I Assume you here mean the latter. In that case it has nothing to do with the warp in the current sheet. That warp originate on the solar surface it itself [and presumably just reflects some inner organization], see e.g. Slides 11, 15, 16 of http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf [or if you want an animated version: http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.ppt ].

  114. I’m not fishing for agreement, just trying to tell you how things work. You are bit overestimating the voltage, it is more like 10^7 Volt, but such a voltage is easy to generate. A simple Van de Graff generator will do nicely:
    Thunderclouds can get over 10^8 voltage, i checked before writing. A van-de-graf isn’t rising water vapour. Why not link to a machine that demonstrates voltage generation by water vapour convection in a room where the Earth’s electric field has been nullified?
    The total global current that flows between the surface and the ionosphere is small, only 1000 Ampere so we are not talking about huge energies,
    You forgot to say over what time duration the 1000Amp flows. ( I notice this was lost on the other remaining commentators here, but you can’t slip it past me! ) 1000Amp at 10^7V per nanosecond is a lot of power.
    Assuming you say something like 1 day to 1 year, I don’t think you’re right. Dark current is hard to detect and if you’re not looking for it, you’ll miss it. Dark current has been found recently in unexpected places. Significant dark current has been found in cyclones. Until a thorough investigation has been made its possible there’s much more dark current flowing into the Earth than previously thought.
    “pseudo-scientific quacks”
    Care to name names? Scott and Peratt?
    You seem to do pretty well on your own. Do you know more?

    I see what your doing here.
    If you going to label the EU professionals as “pseudo-scientific quacks” don’t be coy about it as this looks like you are unsure of your 20th century cosmology when compare with EU theory. Make an explicit statement : ” I, L Svalgaard think Scott, Perrat are… ”
    You are da man for this E U dispute. Lots of good responses that help clarify some things for the rest of us
    Don’t forget that I was right that he typically avoids the keystone evidence underlying the EU theory – electric discharge induced plasmoid nuclear fusion, and instead pokes at my detailed and technical understanding of electromagnetic phenomena. EU theory is young and all the details haven’t been sorted out yet, but the core evidence is unbreakable. It is the seed of scientific revolution that is in the slow process of usurping 20th century cosmology right now.
    Perhaps your galactic electric current…
    Not my galactic currents, Alfven’s.

  115. lsvalgaard:
    re your post addressed to me at October 20, 2013 at 8:43 am.
    QED and very, very disappointing.
    Richard

  116. meemoe_uk says:
    October 20, 2013 at 8:48 am
    Thunderclouds can get over 10^8 voltage, i checked before writing. A van-de-graf isn’t rising water vapour. Why not link to a machine that demonstrates voltage generation by water vapour convection in a room where the Earth’s electric field has been nullified?
    You are confusing several issues: the ‘fair-weather global electric circuit’ [ever heard of that one?] and the voltage inside a single thundercloud. And you keep harping on water vapor, but that is not how a thundercloud works, to wit: In a thundercloud, small ice crystals collide with rime-growing graupels [snow pellets]; the crystals gain positive charge by friction [same way as a VdG generator], the graupels negative charge. Convection in the thundercloud carries the ice crystals to the cloud top, the heavier graupels staying in the mid-cloud so you get charge separation and hence voltage. The process is just the same as in a VdG generator.
    You forgot to say over what time duration the 1000Amp flows.
    The global electric circuit exists all the time, so the 1000Amp flows all the time [and have done so for billions of years]
    Until a thorough investigation has been made
    This has been studied for more than a hundred years.
    If you going to label the EU professionals
    There are no persons that can be called EU professionals, A professional is someone who has completed formal education and training in a profession. EU is not a profession. And I have no problem to declare that ‘everybody who adheres to the cult of EU is a pseudo-science quack’
    electric discharge induced plasmoid nuclear fusion
    This happens on a very small scale in a fusion reactor and only with very light elements such as Boron, the plasmoid created in a cage of superstrong magnetic field, not on any large scale. So can safely be ignored in cosmological context.
    “Perhaps your galactic electric current…”
    Not my galactic currents, Alfven’s.

    Alfven went to great pains to show that all electric current in the cosmos are created by changing magnetic fields according to Faraday’s law of induction. You have several times used the phrase ‘homopolar induction’ without, apparently’ knowing what it is. Here is a nice explanation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCBhD8wQtsQ here is a dictionary explanation: “If the magnetized body is a conductor, homopolar induction may be explained in the framework of classical electrodynamics. Under the action of the Lorentz force, free electrons drift within the body in a direction perpendicular to the directions of v and B until an
    electric field that impedes the drift is generated in the body”
    So electric fields and currents are generated whenever a conductor moves in a magnetic field.
    richardscourtney says:
    October 20, 2013 at 8:51 am
    QED and very, very disappointing.
    So be it. did I not apologize enough? As I asked: how many more times do I have to say it?

  117. meemoe_uk says:
    October 20, 2013 at 8:48 am
    Thunderclouds can get over 10^8 voltage, i checked before writing. A van-de-graf isn’t rising water vapour. Why not link to a machine that demonstrates voltage generation by water vapour convection in a room where the Earth’s electric field has been nullified?
    You are confusing several issues: the ‘fair-weather global electric circuit’ [ever heard of that one?] and the voltage inside a single thundercloud. And you keep harping on water vapor, but that is not how a thundercloud works, to wit: In a thundercloud, small ice crystals collide with rime-growing graupels [snow pellets]; the crystals gain positive charge by friction [same way as a VdG generator], the graupels negative charge. Convection in the thundercloud carries the ice crystals to the cloud top, the heavier graupels staying in the mid-cloud so you get charge separation and hence voltage. The process is just the same as in a VdG generator.
    You forgot to say over what time duration the 1000Amp flows.
    The global electric circuit exists all the time, so the 1000Amp flows all the time [and have done so for billions of years]
    Until a thorough investigation has been made
    This has been studied for more than a hundred years.
    If you going to label the EU professionals
    There are no persons that can be called EU professionals, A professional is someone who has completed formal education and training in a profession. EU is not a profession. And I have no problem to declare that ‘everybody who adheres to the cult of EU is a pseudo-science quack’
    electric discharge induced plasmoid nuclear fusion
    This happens on a very small scale in a fusion reactor and only with very light elements such as Boron, the plasmoid created in a cage of superstrong magnetic field, not on any large scale. So can safely be ignored in cosmological context.
    “Perhaps your galactic electric current…”
    Not my galactic currents, Alfven’s.

    Alfven went to great pains to show that all electric current in the cosmos are created by changing magnetic fields according to Faraday’s law of induction. You have several times used the phrase ‘homopolar induction’ without, apparently’ knowing what it is. Here is a nice explanation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCBhD8wQtsQ here is a dictionary explanation: “If the magnetized body is a conductor, homopolar induction may be explained in the framework of classical electrodynamics. Under the action of the Lorentz force, free electrons drift within the body in a direction perpendicular to the directions of v and B until an electric field that impedes the drift is generated in the body”
    So electric fields and currents are generated whenever a conductor moves in a magnetic field.
    richardscourtney says:
    October 20, 2013 at 8:51 am
    QED and very, very disappointing.
    So be it.

  118. meemoe_uk says:
    October 20, 2013 at 8:48 am
    ..“pseudo-scientific quacks”
    Care to name names? Scott and Peratt?
    You seem to do pretty well on your own. Do you know more?
    I see what your doing here….
    —————————————-
    Whoaah huh.. looked like baiting and entrapment from this vantage point, seeing as how you baited with the first question. “Care to name names?” bad boy Play nice
    You want interactive currents in the solar/galactic system try looking at current sheets, that have a lot of rotating potential when mixed with SIRs or CIRs or reconnection or waves of energy.

  119. lsvalgaard:
    I am replying to the questions you put to me in your post at October 20, 2013 at 9:43 am.
    This will be my last comment on this silly and off topic matter whatever you reply.
    You ask me

    So be it. did I not apologize enough? As I asked: how many more times do I have to say it?

    Actually, you did not apologise at all. You admitted that you had claimed I said something I did not. And you repeated that admission (claiming you had done it several times) in response to my complaint at your later having quoted me out of context to pretend I had agreed with meemoe_uk. In reality I had quoted his saying

    When i assessed plate tectonic theory I found it was unsatisfactory so I rejected it as a myth. The geological phenomena attributed to plate tectonics are caused by something else.

    and I had replied to that saying

    So, instead you adopted an idea which creates new matter in the interior of the Earth where it can not be seen but not at the surface where it could be.
    Oooooh Kaaaaaay

    And you have not admitted that you misrepresented me then at all.
    I admit that I had expected better of you.
    Richard

  120. richardscourtney says:
    October 20, 2013 at 10:21 am
    This will be my last comment on this silly and off topic matter whatever you reply.
    Actually, you did not apologise at all.

    I said I was sorry.
    I admit that I had expected better of you.
    Nobody is perfect, honest mistakes happen and are not under my control [by definition].
    Expectations do seem to be among those things that are under one’s control, but let that slide.
    This exchange should have ended with my very first admission of my mistake and apology.

  121. Jeepers creepers dude ..
    “pettiness which plays so rough, walk upside down inside handcuffs,”
    Bob Dylan
    “It’s Alright Ma, I’m Only Bleeding”
    Take care Dr. S., when walking on that “high wire.”
    Which reminds of another song by Leon Russell, Tight Rope, “up on the high wire..”

  122. Whoaah huh.. looked like baiting and entrapment from this vantage point
    Not really. He waves his arms at the EU crowd calling them quacks but won’t point a finger at any one of them in particular in case he has to applaud him at the next nobel prize ceremony and say ” oh i didn’t mean you! “. Just wanted to be clear on that. I prompted him to name names and he didn’t because secretly he knows there’s potential for a scientific revolution.
    You are confusing several issues: the ‘fair-weather global electric circuit’
    You can keep telling me a bit more about the conventional model of lightning generation every post and I will read and note but it’s not my preferred model. I think lightning occurs around rainclouds because the water makes the air more conductive to the intergalactic current.
    This has been studied for more than a hundred years.
    Yet new stuff is still being discovered. The science ain’t settled.
    When I mention plasmoid induced fusion to Leif he doesn’t explore the potentials and far reaching implications of plasmoid genesis of elements but instead just ignores them and pokes that the current lab evidence has not yet produced all the elements – meemoe
    This happens on a very small scale in a fusion reactor and only with very light elements such as Boron, the plasmoid created in a cage of superstrong magnetic field, not on any large scale. So can safely be ignored in cosmological context. -leif
    I saw that one coming. It’s a very pessimistic standpoint one which is diametrically opposed to science progress. It’s the Leifs in the science funding panels around the world that have suppressed and been dismissive of plasmoid research for 40 years. 20 years ago there was no fusion at all measured on plasmoids. 10 years ago it was measured for light elements. Now a new type of DPF is in the making for more powerful plasmoids. What do you think they will do next? fuse heavier elements perhaps?
    If Leif had his way he would disband all plasmoid research groups and stop their funding since plasmoid elemental synthesis is a threat to the sacred 20th century theories of creation – the bgbang and stellar core element synthesis .
    ot on any large scale. So can safely be ignored in cosmological context
    Except that as any plasma scientist will remind u ( u seem to have conveniently forgotten here for the umpteenth time), plasma phenomena are very scalable, any microscopic features have macro equivalents. Indeed many plasma structures and features photoed in the lab are strikingly similar to photos of cosmology.
    created in a cage of superstrong magnetic field,
    The giga-Wb magnetic field of the plasmoid is not produced directly by the lab machinery. The main function of the DPF is just to unleash an electric current which is then left to collapse in on itself via ampere’s law, one product of which is a ultra high power magnetic field.
    I remember you struggled on this point b4. You thought the strong magnetic field was a starting point set by the lab, and I think I know you well enough to know why you made this mistake now. You have a misguided belief that magnetic fields are the causal agent in any electromagnetic physics. In your explanations you often conclude with – and this is due to the magnetic fields. You know every time you do that its sounds weak to everyone trained in electromagnetism. There is no magnetron particle. The fundamental particles of electromagnetism are cheifly the electron and proton, which both have magnetic components but there behavior is more controlled by their electric charge. Your conclusions should never come to rest on magnetic fields but on the matter which creates those fields – electric particles.
    So, whats a lab plasmoid to Leif?
    It’s an object where the strong magnetic field is created by electricity obeying a law of electricity, is scalable physics, that looks and behaves like objects in space, and that can synthesis new elements.
    Its the biggest threat to his 20th century cosmology that could possibly exist.
    Don’t expect Leif to start enthusing about them any time soon.

  123. richardscourtney says:
    October 20, 2013 at 10:21 am
    “Actually, you did not apologise at all. “

    Except for the part where he says, “Sorry for that, I copied pasted from meemoe and your name got copied by accident.”

  124. meemoe_uk says:
    October 20, 2013 at 1:05 pm
    I prompted him to name names
    I strongly emphasized that EVERYBODY believing in this stuff is a pseudo-science quack. How more inclusive can one get?
    it’s not my preferred model.
    That does not mean that it doesn’t happen that way. Your next statement shows the depth of your ignorance: “I think lightning occurs around rainclouds because the water makes the air more conductive to the intergalactic current
    If Leif had his way he would disband all plasmoid research groups and stop their funding since plasmoid elemental synthesis is a threat to the sacred 20th century theories of creation – the bgbang and stellar core element synthesis .
    Of course not. Plasma fusion research is very important and might one day supply almost limitless energy. But is in no way a threat to modern physics. On the contrary, uses modern physics as a indispensable tool.
    You have a misguided belief that magnetic fields are the causal agent in any electromagnetic physics.
    Alfven and Faraday taught us that. You yourself admit as much when you invoke homopolar induction, but perhaps you didn’t know what you very talking about.
    Its the biggest threat to his 20th century cosmology that could possibly exist
    I [and all other physicists] don’t see it as a threat. On the contrary, it very nicely confirms the standard theories we have.
    Christoph Dollis says:
    October 20, 2013 at 1:13 pm
    Actually, you did not apologise at all. “
    Except for the part where he says, “Sorry for that, I copied pasted from meemoe and your name got copied by accident.”

    I say: let sleeping dogs lie.

  125. So, instead you adopted an idea which creates new matter in the interior of the Earth where it can not be seen but not at the surface where it could be.
    Oooooh Kaaaaaay

    And you have not admitted that you misrepresented me then at all.

    That’s because Leif didn’t misrepresent you any more than he misrepresented me when I said:

    But … but … but … how can that be? That must mean there is a constant current of electricity from the Earth’s core, through the Earth along iron or copper plasma fields, probably, and then through the air through some unknown medium until the electric current hits the magnetic compass needle you hold in your hand.
    /s

    and Leif said:

    Your little ‘/s’ is easily lost on gullible souls.

    All Leif’s doing is making sure that both your and my sarcasm is not missed because he knows that many people with these alternative solar and cosmological models are already a little on the credulous side. He’s not sure they’ll pick up it. Plus I don’t think Leif Svalgaard’s a native English speaker so just like my little “/s” may go unnoticed by some, he may not have known the significance of how you pronounced “Oooooh Kaaaaaay”. You go on to say:

    But meemoe_uk understood because ….

    Yeah, so what? There’s other people reading this site beyond meemoe_uk.
    Relax. It’ll all be good.
    By the way from our previous discussion where I said

    “Richard, your comments about Poptech self-harming were malign.
    “Or really, really baseless.”

    to which you replied:

    “How dare you!”

    “I will not answer any more of your abusive, untrue and offensive posts.”

    “nothing not anything. Sorry, I should not type when very angry. Richard”

    … I think the answer is now clear.
    It was option 2. I did include it as a possibility.
    I’ll accept that you weren’t intentionally lying, you were just badly misreading the situation.

  126. meemoe_uk says:
    October 20, 2013 at 1:05 pm
    ” I think lightning occurs around rainclouds because the water makes the air more conductive to the intergalactic current.”
    Then why do I not see lightning in every rain storm?

  127. Christoph Dollis says:
    October 20, 2013 at 1:53 pm
    “Well I think this intergalctic current stuff is, to say the least, unproven. But electron flows aren’t necessarily all visible.”
    Ok, then why don’t I feel the effects in every rain storm?

  128. Reread what you posted:

    meemoe_uk says:
    October 20, 2013 at 1:05 pm
    ” I think lightning occurs around rainclouds because the water makes the air more conductive to the intergalactic current.”

  129. Christoph Dollis:
    re your posts culminating at October 20, 2013 at 1:46 pm.
    OK. I trust that knowing I read them makes you feel better.
    Oh, and I inform that I felt better when I read the kind advice to me – which I adopted – from The Pompous Git in response to the exchange which you misrepresent. He wrote saying to me

    Be aware that Christoph and PopTick are manipulating you. Successfully. Please take a break and regain control of yourself. You deserve better than being dragged down into their slime.

    Richard

  130. Yeah, I was disagreeing with Poptech a third of the time, Richard, and that continued on Roy Spencer’s site after the thread was closed.
    But OK then. Continue your stellar record of reading these situations correctly and think that Poptech and I were acting in concert with the goal of manipulating you into saying nutty things like he’s a danger to himself.
    lolz.

  131. Tom in Florida says:
    October 20, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    Alright, so cutting to the chase, I would imagine it’s because you’re not in the clouds. Being in thunder-producing clouds is probably unwise.

  132. Christoph Dollis says:
    October 20, 2013 at 2:16 pm
    “Alright, so cutting to the chase, I would imagine it’s because you’re not in the clouds. Being in thunder-producing clouds is probably unwise.”
    What meemoe_uk said :
    meemoe_uk says:
    October 20, 2013 at 1:05 pm
    ” I think lightning occurs around rainclouds because the water makes the air more conductive to the intergalactic current.”
    Meemoe said “around rainclouds”. So I was wondering under the EU idea why the intergalactic current doesn’t cause lightning around all rain clouds. Now, one does not have to be in the clouds to see or feel the effects of lightning. So I was just asking Meemoe if the EU idea had any validity why doesn’t the intergalactic current show up as lightning around all rain clouds rather than just thunderstorms. The answer of course is because that is not what causes lightning.

  133. Then why do I not see lightning in every rain storm?
    Because some\ most rain is from water clouds that has adjusted to the different electric field in the sky.
    You need the water to rise fast to the top of the troposphere e.g. hammer head cloud on a hot convective day. This might sound like contrary to what I’ve been saying, but it isn’t. The rising water vapor is subject to the strong electric field of the Earth. It doesn’t create it. As long as you understand that, then most of the conventional theory on lightning can be adapted to fit in with it.
    So the water is initially the same voltage as the Earths surface, i.e. it initial surrounding, it rises fast into the atmos, where it is suddenly a very different voltage to its environment (i.e 10^7V difference). The water tries to adjust to the voltage of the environment by shedding electrons ( clouds are usually positively charged wrt Earth ), but these electrons can’t escape the cloud, so accumulate at the bottom. This in turn causes a reservoir of positively charge water to pool at the top of the cloud. This builds up until the voltage breaks the resistance of the lower troposphere and the lightning starts.
    I’m sure ice rubs against water etc in a cloud. But the idea of ice rubbing water creates charge separation is wrong ( to my mind at least ). The water is subject to a high voltage that exists in the atmosphere regardless of the cloud. Conventional science is looking for a reason for the 10^7volts and uses a van de graf analogy and is sticking with it to the exclusion of consideration of other causes.

  134. meemoe_uk says:
    October 20, 2013 at 3:31 pm
    I’m sure ice rubs against water etc in a cloud. But the idea of ice rubbing water creates charge separation is wrong ( to my mind at least ).
    The ice pellets do not rub against water [fluid or as vapor] but against the graupel [pellets of snow]. I explained that already. The ice pellets are small and light and are convection to the top of the cloud, while the graupels are heavier and stay where they are in the middle of the cloud or might even fall down [melt and become rain]. The creation of charge separation by friction is something every knows and experiences [walk across a nylon carpet, touch a metal doorknob and feel the shock]. What a VdG generator and a thundercloud have in common are 1) friction, 2) moving the charges, and 3) a place to store them.

  135. And i find it amusing when conventional science tries to explain lightning in pyroclastic clouds ( clouds of steam & volcanic fine material ). They plough straight on with the van de graf analogy and ice rubbing against the water in the cloud. Doesn’t bother them that a pyroclastic cloud is too warm for ice to exist in it.
    The real cause is simply moving material fast between 2 environments with different voltages causing the excess charge to arc back to its initial environment.

  136. The ice pellets do not rub against water [fluid or as vapor] but against the graupel [pellets of snow]. I explained that already.
    Excuse me if I don’t parrot the details of the ice friction storm cloud theory precisely. My desire to learn all the details is dampened when I think the theory is wrong.
    The creation of charge separation by friction is something every knows and experiences
    Yes. Probably why it was favored as a candidate to explain storm clouds.
    But the reality is its hard to get any charge built up by playing around with a combo of snow ice and water, I played around in many winters, never had the slightest experience to suggest any snow\ice\water combo can readily separate electric charge to a notable degree. Never heard anything to the contrary.
    Only way to do it is to shift snow\ice\water to an environment with a preexisting different voltage e.g earth to 4 km in the sky in. Then it will act electrically, but so do most things.

  137. meemoe_uk says:
    October 20, 2013 at 4:11 pm
    “And i find it amusing when conventional science tries to explain lightning in pyroclastic clouds ( clouds of steam & volcanic fine material ). They plough straight on with the van de graf analogy and ice rubbing against the water in the cloud. Doesn’t bother them that a pyroclastic cloud is too warm for ice to exist in it.”
    Is it not true that the fine volcanic material moving rapidly inside such cloud would create the friction needed for charge separation?

  138. “They plough straight on with the van de graf analogy and ice rubbing against the water in the cloud. Doesn’t bother them that a pyroclastic cloud is too warm for ice to exist in it.

    It isn’t too warm for sudden forced friction by different materials.

  139. meemoe_uk says:
    October 20, 2013 at 4:11 pm
    But the reality is its hard to get any charge built up by playing around with a combo of snow ice and water,
    You cling to that water bit. The friction is always between solid particles, be they cold as in thunderclouds and a VdG generator or hot is in pyroclastic flows.
    meemoe_uk says:
    October 20, 2013 at 4:29 pm
    My desire to learn all the details is dampened when I think the theory is wrong.
    You can only judge if a theory is correct or wrong if you know the details. Sticking your head in the sand and not wanting to see is cult-mentality: why bother with evidence when you know the TRUTH. You confirm that nicely here.

  140. Is it not true that the fine volcanic material moving rapidly inside such cloud would create the friction needed for charge separation?
    It could, but I doubt it. Leif will tell you it does.

  141. You can only judge if a theory is correct or wrong if you know the details.
    Ok. Here’s a detail on which the theory is based which i find dubious. Solid particles are needed to rub against each other for the charge separation to work. As we’ve only got water to work with it’ll have to be ice. A problem here is that usually dissimilar solids are required to rub against each other. But here we’ve only got ice. So we need to appeal to water’s ability to make different forms of ice and hope that qualifies as different solids, but really it’s ice on ice, so its a bit of a reach. There’s always been a lot of research into ice, but I’ve never heard of anyone rubbing 2 blocks of dissimilar synthesized ices together to get charge separation, even though this would be strong evidence for the ice rubbing theory for storm clouds.

  142. meemoe_uk says:
    October 20, 2013 at 6:32 pm
    (Tom in Florida says: Is it not true that the fine volcanic material moving rapidly inside such cloud would create the friction needed for charge separation?)
    It could, but I doubt it. Leif will tell you it does.
    ———————————————————————————————–
    Please provide me with supporting evidence on why you doubt it.

  143. meemoe_uk says:
    October 20, 2013 at 6:53 pm
    So we need to appeal to water’s ability to make different forms of ice and hope that qualifies as different solids
    They don’t really need to be of different chemical composition, just to have different response to the friction with the air and with each other. Smaller particles become positively charged [loses electrons] while larger ones pick up negative charge [captures electrons]. The friction between snow and a ski also produces an electric field [as shown by Petrenko and Colbeck, 1995, “Generation of electric fields by ice and snow friction” J. App. Phys., 77 (9), 4518-4521] or is that again the aliens zapping the skier with the galactic electric currents?

  144. meemoe_uk says:
    October 20, 2013 at 6:53 pm
    There’s always been a lot of research into ice, but I’ve never heard of anyone rubbing 2 blocks of dissimilar synthesized ices together to get charge separation, even though this would be strong evidence for the ice rubbing theory for storm clouds.
    That you have never heard about something is not evidence that that thing doesn’t happen and people have, in fact, created electrification by rubbing ice on ice: e.g http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281969%29026%3C1259%3AEPOARI%3E2.0.CO%3B2

  145. They don’t really need to be of different chemical composition, just to have different response to the friction with the air and with each other. Smaller particles become positively charged [loses electrons] while larger ones pick up negative charge [captures electrons].
    Sounds desperate verging on ridiculous. Same material, ice, not a particularly good dielectric, building up 10^7V just cos some bits are bigger than others. Don’t believe it.
    Anyway I’ve looked around the old research papers and found lab results that explain that under thundercloud conditions charge separation is achieved when micro supercooled water droplets and ice crystals are mixing. Super cooled water is odd stuff, it has a stash of potential energy to become ice but cant state change without help. To this effect it seems like it tries to fall towards this state change potential by trying to alter its electric charge hence it will grab charge off nearby ice crystals.
    This for me is a satisfactory conventional explanation for static charge build up, not like ice just rubbing ice.Feynman’s spirit is proud of me.
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281957%29014%3C0426%3ATCS%3E2.0.CO%3B2

  146. meemoe_uk says:
    October 20, 2013 at 11:09 pm
    under thundercloud conditions charge separation is achieved when micro supercooled water droplets and ice crystals are mixing.
    What happened to the galactic electric current?

  147. Dunno. Could still be there, for sure its powering the sun.
    For Earth, there are 3 possibilities. An external power source is necessary to explain the 40% solar power Earth internal power output. Either that or there’s ‘creation’ going on inside the Earth and every other planet moon star i.e. a breach of the 1st law. Lastly it could be a hollow planet\star universe. Both the 1st 2 are plausible, the last one is unlikely but I can’t rule it out yet.

Comments are closed.