Lightning

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Plasma and Lightning: reconnecting branches

Unread postby MGmirkin » Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:26 pm

I'm trying to recall, what's the explanation for the long-range attraction and for the short-range repulsion? IE, why isn't it attraction all the way or repulsion all the way?

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Plasma and Lightning: reconnecting branches

Unread postby Steve Smith » Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:36 pm

You don't recall your own forum postings about filamentation? That's surprising considering the diagrams that you've posted.
Steve Smith
Guest
 

Re: Plasma and Lightning: reconnecting branches

Unread postby Solar » Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:06 am

MGmirkin wrote:I'm trying to recall, what's the explanation for the long-range attraction and for the short-range repulsion? IE, why isn't it attraction all the way or repulsion all the way?


That would be the Biot-Savart force.

"Because the electrical current-carrying filaments are parallel, they attract via the Biot-Savart force law, in pairs but sometimes three. This reduces the 56 filaments over time to 28 filaments; hence the 56 and 28 fold symmetry patterns. In actuality, during the pairing, any number of filaments less than 56 may be recorded as pairing is not synchronized to occur uniformly. However, there are 'temporarily stable' (longer state durations) at 42, 35, 28, 14, 7, and 4 filaments. Each pair formation is a vortex that becomes increasingly complex." - Holoscience


The signature of electromagnetic forces at work is "doubleness". Wherever there are multiple strands of electric currents, they prefer to interact in pairs. The reason for this derives from Ampére's Law or the Biot-Savart force law which states that currents in the same direction attract while currents in the opposite direction repel. They do so inversely as the distance betweeen them. This results in a far larger ranging force of interaction than, say, the gravitational forces between two masses. The latter give a force that is always attractive and which varies inversely as the square of the distance between them.- Anatomy of a Galaxy in Evolution


The simplest "model" put forth by Peratt deduced that Biot-Savart long-range attraction short-range repulsion is how parallel Birkeland currents 'wrap' around each other during galaxy formation. The result is the spiral pattern. Whether the galaxy is barred or spiral depends on the homogeneity of the plasma with which the Birkeland currents interact. Peratt's particle-in-cell experiment is the dynamic that shows the Biot-Savart interaction. The totality of the Hubble Tuning Fork diagram of galaxy evolution is demonstrating this observationally as well. From E0 to S0 in particular, the elongation of the elliptical galaxy is due to Biot-Savart Law.

"Evolution of the Plasma Universe". Peratt's work in this area is one of the things that constantly has me wondering why current astronomy and astrophysics is still on the aberrant path it follows.

Peratt's Papers
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Plasma and Lightning: reconnecting branches

Unread postby MGmirkin » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:19 am

Steve Smith wrote:You don't recall your own forum postings about filamentation? That's surprising considering the diagrams that you've posted.


Well, yes, I recall the diagrams of interacting pairs of currents, which I assume are correct. It's been a while since I've read the technical explanation of why the current pairs remain separate and spiral around each other rather than merging into a single stream of particles.

~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Did lightning cause the crash of AF447?

Unread postby solrey » Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:56 am

First, my sympathies to the souls lost, and their loved ones, in this unfortunate accident.

Great analysis of the weather that AF447 flew into:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/03/air-france-flight-447-a-detailed-meteorological-analysis/#more-8151

Excellent work, but they still fail to recognize lightning as a primary cause of the crash, focusing on wind shear instead.

Could the crash of AF447 have been caused by 'mega-lightning'? There was a tropical MCS (Multicell Convective System) at the time, which likely would have had associated ionospheric discharge activity. Another interesting aspect, as noted by a commenter to the above article, was that there was an earthquake in the mid-atlantic ridge, very close to the location and the time of the crash. I'm sure most EU'ers are familiar with the electrical activity of earthquakes.

The last transmission was an automated one, probably an independent battery powered emergency transmitter, indicating electrical failure and loss of cabin pressure. There were no further communications from the crew. All these factors makes me think that it was a case of flying into a strong EM field in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The only way to really know is if they can find the FDR and CVR in such deep water.

http://www.iris.edu/seismon/zoom/?view=eveday&lon=-33&lat=6

Click on the yellow circle over the mid atlantic ridge off the NE coast of Brazil for details of the quake.

I thought that ROCSAT-2 was supposed to be monitoring ionospheric discharge activity. I haven't been able to find any data though. If data is available, I'll bet that the area where the plane crashed was pretty active.

Although they don't happen often, maybe accidents like this could be more readily avoided if EU theory was the dominant paradigm.
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla
User avatar
solrey
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Air France jet Crashes in Tropical Convergence Zone

Unread postby Anaconda » Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:42 am

The disappearance and now discovered crash of Air France Flight 447 is a human tragedy and our hearts go out to the families and loved ones (see msnnbc link below).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31047897/

Is electrical weather responsible? And what generates the weather in that specific area of the Atlantic Ocean?

In reading the story and seeing the graphics, I became aware ot an area known as the Intertropical Convergence Zone (henceforth referred to as "Tropical"). Apparently, according to conventional understanding, this area is where the Equitorial Trade Winds converge and generate tremendous lines of thunderstorms. As near as I can figure it, the Tropical Convergence Zone is a giant "standing wave" of thunderstorms that permanently resides along the equator.

As noted, above, I was unaware of this weather phenomena.

Speculation is rife as to what brought the Air France jet down. Clearly, electrical weather phenomena is a possible reason.

Others, have presented detailed analysis of the weather generally in the area and specifically at the time of the disaster (see Watt's Up With That? link below).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/03/a ... -analysis/

But is a conventional analysis satifactory for understanding the weather patterns in that region?

Thunderbolts.info has had numerous TPOD on weather, principally thunder and lightning storms (see links below).

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/ ... eather.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/ ... clouds.htm

What struck me when I saw the radar map of this giant line of thunderstorms running along the equator from South America all the way to Africa was the dynamics involved. In North America, lines of thunderstorms principally form in the Mid-West along cold fronts moving down from the North running into warm fronts moving up out of the Gulf of Mexico. Conventionally, it is thought that the interaction of cold and warm air is responsible for the generation of the thunder and lightning (Here there is a more wholistic interpretation that can be reviewed at the, above, TPOD links. But in the present instance, the Tropical Convergence Zone, must operate on a different dynamic since the two converging air masses are both warm air bodies (the two trade winds going in opposite directions on each side of the equator).

I've thought about the Earth's weather a lot (doesn't everybody) in terms of Electric Universe analysis. It seems as stated in the TPOD pieces that weather acts as a medium for electricity to flow from the ionosphere into the Earth (see TPOD article below for schematic of Earth's ionosphere as positive electrode below).

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/ ... acitor.htm

Can I suggest that this phenomena of weather acting as an electric medium is not independent of temperature interaction (cold and warm air mixing) and wind interaction (in my opinion)? Electrical phenomenon and temperature and wind are self-reinforcing processes. The formation of Double Layers is at least partially dependent on discontinuities of plasma bodies interacting (see Double Layer definition below).

http://plasmadictionary.llnl.gov/terms. ... age=detail

The salient part of the definition for Double Layer: "And although plasmas are highly electrically conductive, a property that tends to neutralised charges, double layers may self-generate, or form when two plasma regions with different properties come into contact."

The different properties can be temperature and or velocity vector and even dry air and moisture laden air, such as would happen in weather. Water is polarized, and so water vapor acts as a weak plasma. In my opinion one can not seperate the electrical properties from the temperature and wind discontinuities, they are self-reinforcing.

Interestingly enough there is something else unique about the equitorial region. Apparently, there is something known as the magnetic equator: "Many believe the source of the plumes is near Earth's magnetic equator," explains NASA heliophysicist Lika Guhathakurta who is attending the Workshop. "Africa is a great place to check this possibility because the magnetic equator passes directly over the sub-Sahara. (see NASA link below discussing this phenomena).

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007 ... list883541

Of course, the Earth's magnetic equator stretches out over the Atlantic Ocean right where the Tropical Convergnce Zone sits and this permanent (or near permanent) line of giant thunderstorms reside.

The, above, Science@NASA Headline news release is embedded in the, below, TPOD "Electric Space Weather Baffles Scientists" where electrical effects of the ionosphere are discussed in more detail: "For answers, investigators are turning toward Earth's magnetic equator, which passes along the sub-Sahara (see link below).

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/ ... eather.htm

"The Earth's ionosphere is an outer region of the atmosphere that contains a high concentration of free electrons. Since scientists have observed electrical properties of the ionosphere for more than 100 years, why should they find the plumes' discovery "strange?" Answer: The plumes behavior indicates something that scientists have resisted for many decades -- that the Earth itself is a charged body moving in a plasma medium, and interacting electrically with its plasma environment. In the electric view of the Solar System, the Sun becomes a central player in the electrodynamics of planetary behavior. And exchanges between the Sun and Earth can be seen as the answer to numerous mysteries that have accumulated over decades."

"Another science story on the "mysterious plumes" indicates that they may seriously disturb air travel, obviously increasing the stakes for investigators who don't understand how or why the plumes form."

Now, it must be recognized that the Sun is quiet and there were no Coronal Mass Ejections contacting the Earth at this time, but still it can reasonably be wondered whether unusual electrical turbulance in the region of the Air France Flight 447 was present and if so, did it have an impact on this airplane suffering catastrophic failure?

Continued from the TPOD: "We see here a profound illustration of the potential human cost of ignorance. And this ignorance amounts to little more than the momentum of historic dogma, which has excluded electricity from space. To put these new findings in perspective, it is only necessary to see Earth as proponents of the Electric Universe see it. The electrical theorists recognize the Earth as a self-repairing, "leaky" capacitor (a capacitor is a device for accumulating and storing electric charge.)"

Finally, something to think about, Science has finally recognized that electricity goes "UP" into space (see TPOD "Giant Lightning to Space", schematic of giant lightning link below).

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... sprite.htm

"The pilots who saw it wouldn’t talk about it for fear of ridicule or worse. The pilots whose airplanes were hit by it wouldn’t talk about it because they were dead. Then in the early 1990s investigators began to take the rumors seriously and to look for evidence of lightning above the clouds."

If the Tropical Convergence Zone is a semi-permanent line of active thunderstorms that traverses the "magnetic equator" and takes advantage of "mechanical" discontinuities generated by converging trade winds, could this "electrical self-reinforcing" medium act as a semi-permanent "bridge" for electromagnetic energy to flow back and forth between the Earth and ionsphere thus being an area of greater frequency for the "extreme" electrical phenomena described, below, such that:

"And under the clouds the investigators documented extraordinary strikes of “positive” lightning. These bolts were six times as powerful as ordinary “negative” lightning, and they lasted ten times as long. Where ordinary lightning could punch a tiny hole in a wing, positive lightning could burn through struts and wires and rip pieces apart. These bolts carry forces many times greater than what airplanes are designed to withstand. In one crash, rivets had been melted. In another, a pipe had been crushed and twisted. Crash specialists suspected these planes had been brought down by strikes of positive lightning."

Granted, one does not know what kind of lightning, if any, hit the plane, but there is evidence that some kind of electrical failure effected the air plane: "0214 GMT - The plane sends automatic messages indicating an electrical fault, Air France says. Prime Minister Francois Fillon says messages were sent regularly over a three minute period showing all "systems were out of order." Brazilian authorities are reported as saying messages also indicated a loss of pressure in the aircraft. No mayday or distress signal received (see Reuters link below)."

http://mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/Full ... rc=RSS-WOR

While average lightning and turbulence would not likely bring down a commercial airliner (indeed, modern commercial airliners are designed to withstand this kind of weather), could "extreme lightning" have caused this tragedy?

The answer, at least tentatively, seems to be, "yes".

Doesn't the public have a right to know the full dynamics of the environment the Air France Flight 447 went down in?

Without explaining the full range of electrical phenomena and their sources and causes, it seems the general public is, at best, only given a partial explanation.

I say that's not good enough.
Anaconda
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Did lightning cause the crash of AF447?

Unread postby Anaconda » Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:29 pm

@ solrey:

solrey states:
"Another interesting aspect, as noted by a commenter to the above article, was that there was an earthquake in the mid-atlantic ridge, very close to the location and the time of the crash."


Yes, I also noted that comment with interest and, later down in the comments, another commenter, self-identified as "noaaprogrammer" (15:05:11), provided a series of links (at least one peer reviewed journal) that noted electromagnetic effects associated with seismic activity.

This could have contributed to the intensity of the thunderstorms in that area. I would suggest a combination of "extreme" lightning and extreme turbulence in rapid concurrent succession (the two are often seen in combination) likely resulted in the break up of the aircraft.

AP provides more details in:Air France jet likely broke apart above ocean:

". . .The pilot sent a manual signal at 11 p.m. local time saying he was flying through an area of “CBs” — black, electrically charged cumulonimbus clouds that come with violent winds and lightning. Satellite data has shown that towering thunderheads were sending 100 mph (160 kph) updraft winds into the jet’s flight path at the time.

Ten minutes later, a cascade of problems began: Automatic messages indicate the autopilot had disengaged, a key computer system switched to alternative power, and controls needed to keep the plane stable had been damaged. An alarm sounded indicating the deterioration of flight systems.

Three minutes after that, more automatic messages reported the failure of systems to monitor air speed, altitude and direction. Control of the main flight computer and wing spoilers failed as well.

The last automatic message, at 11:14 p.m., signaled loss of cabin pressure and complete electrical failure — catastrophic events in a plane that was likely already plunging toward the ocean.

“This clearly looks like the story of the airplane coming apart,” the airline industry official told The Associated Press. . . ."


This suggests to me that an electrical failure likely proceeded the break up of the aircraft -- initial electrical failure suggests a lightning strike first (causing loss of control and possibly contributing to going into the extreme turbulence) before extreme turbulence broke up the aircraft.

Here is a link to a series of satellite images that give great detail to the weather in the region at the time (see link below):

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/blog/

Regrettably, it appears an electrical "perfect storm" engulfed the aircraft possibly contributed to by a "seismic electrical discharge" increasing the intensity of the electromagnetic effects, "extreme" lightning, which include extreme air turbulence as well.
Anaconda
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Did lightning cause the crash of AF447?

Unread postby redeye » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:38 am

Regrettably, it appears an electrical "perfect storm" engulfed the aircraft possibly contributed to by a "seismic electrical discharge" increasing the intensity of the electromagnetic effects, "extreme" lightning, which include extreme air turbulence as well.


I kinda agree with what you're saying but I see this as being all part of one system, i.e. the link between the Sun and the Earth's magnetosphere and beyond.

If a change in the local electromagnetic environment (which would probably be influenced by our local galactic electromagnetic environment which would in turn be influenced by...you get the picture) this would cause deformation of the Earth's magnetosphere. Imagine each of the "layers", formed by the magnetosphere, as being full of pressurised fluid (rather than charge at some sort of equilibrium). When the magnetosphere deforms, each of these layers is subjected to increased pressure and is forced to find a new equilibrium. Therefore fluid will pass from layer to layer, travelling out from the centre, until a new equilibrium is achieved. You can't have activity in one layer without it causing changes in the layers above and below because the whole thing is driven by the field, not by any individual events within each individual layer.

Cheers!
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind."
Bob Marley
User avatar
redeye
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:56 am
Location: Dunfermline

Re: Did lightning cause the crash of AF447?

Unread postby redeye » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:46 am

As for wind shear. Planes encounter wind shear when they cross the tropopause. This is due to the differential in wind speeds between the different layers of the ionosphere. An interesting way to visualise this would be to look at the "counter rotating" cloud bands of Jupiter, but imagine this as a cross section of the Earth's atmosphere. Although this is experienced as differing wind speeds, I don't think wind is the cause, rather the effect. If something causes the Earth's magnetosphere to deform it will alter the height of the tropopause, causing unexpected, severe wind shear effects to an airplane whose altitude has not changed much.

Cheers!
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind."
Bob Marley
User avatar
redeye
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:56 am
Location: Dunfermline

Re: Did lightning cause the crash of AF447?

Unread postby redeye » Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:45 am

First, my sympathies to the souls lost, and their loved ones, in this unfortunate accident.


I always feel a wee bit dodgy, speculating about an incident that has taken so many lives. In this case it is completely unfounded. The authorities charged with air safety do not consider lightning to be a major issue:

Composite fuselage

Disassembled fuselage section of the Boeing 787 DreamlinerThe 787's all-composite fuselage makes it the first composite airliner in production. While the Boeing 777 contains 50% aluminum and 12% composites, the numbers for the new airplane are 15% aluminum, 50% composite (mostly carbon fiber reinforced plastic) and 12% titanium. Each fuselage barrel will be manufactured in one piece, and the barrel sections joined end to end to form the fuselage. This will eliminate the need for about 50,000 fasteners used in conventional airplane building. According to the manufacturer the composite is also stronger, allowing a higher cabin pressure during flight compared to aluminum.[100] It was suggested by many, such as former senior engineer Vince Weldon, that the risks of having a composite fuselage have not been fully assessed and should not be attempted.[citation needed] It was also added that carbon fiber, unlike metal, does not visibly show cracks and fatigue.[101] Boeing has dismissed such notions, insisting that composites have been used on wings and other passenger aircraft parts for many years and they have not been an issue. They have also stated that special defect detection procedures will be put in place to detect any potential hidden damage.[102]

Another concern arises from the risk of lightning strikes.[103] The 787 fuselage's composite could have as much as 1,000 times the electrical resistance of aluminum, increasing the risk of damage during a lightning strike.[104] Boeing has stated that the 787's lightning protection will meet FAA requirements.[105] FAA management is planning to relax some lightning strike requirements, which will help the 787.[106]



The dangers of more powerful positive lightning were not understood until the destruction of a glider in 1999.[5] It has since been suggested that positive lightning may have caused the crash of Pan Am Flight 214 in 1963. At that time aircraft were not designed to withstand such strikes, since their existence was unknown at the time standards were set.


From Wikipedia

It doesn't even seem like the airspace industry is interested in investigating the possibility of lightning being a real danger.

Cheers!
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind."
Bob Marley
User avatar
redeye
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:56 am
Location: Dunfermline

Re: Did lightning cause the crash of AF447?

Unread postby redeye » Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:02 am

This is a link to the audio transcripts of a documentary entitled "The Secrets of Megalightning". It's great!

Cheers!
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind."
Bob Marley
User avatar
redeye
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:56 am
Location: Dunfermline

Re: Did lightning cause the crash of AF447?

Unread postby solrey » Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:01 am

Anaconda, redeye; thanks for the additional info.

It doesn't even seem like the airspace industry is interested in investigating the possibility of lightning being a real danger.


I'm a licensed aircraft mechanic, the university where I earned my license and Aerospace Technology degree from had an excellent electrical theory course. My instructors emphasized concern over lightning being an oft overlooked issue in the aerospace industry. Even though all planes have static discharge 'wicks' on the trailing edges of wings and control surfaces, an aluminum plane is still a conductor moving through a strong EM field (in the case of lightning storms), whether it dissipates static charge from friction or not.


As far as composites, the A330-200 is made of some composites (control surfaces/flaps/spoilers and some minor components, I believe) but mostly advanced alloys and aluminum. I don't think structural failure due to composites is relevant to this model of Airbus.

Ten minutes later, a cascade of problems began: Automatic messages indicate the autopilot had disengaged, a key computer system switched to alternative power, and controls needed to keep the plane stable had been damaged. An alarm sounded indicating the deterioration of flight systems.

Three minutes after that, more automatic messages reported the failure of systems to monitor air speed, altitude and direction. Control of the main flight computer and wing spoilers failed as well.

The last automatic message, at 11:14 p.m., signaled loss of cabin pressure and complete electrical failure — catastrophic events in a plane that was likely already plunging toward the ocean.

“This clearly looks like the story of the airplane coming apart,” the airline industry official told The Associated Press. . . ."


What that tells me is that it was catastrophic electric failure, not catastrophic structural damage.
Those planes are all controlled electronically, it's called 'fly-by-wire'. All control surface inputs are sent electrically from the cockpit controls out to actuator motors that move the ailerons, rudder, elevator, flaps and spoilers. Cabin pressurization comes from piping some of the pressurized air in the compressor section of the engines into the cabin.

My theory of events are:
A powerful, catastrophic lightning strike caused the initial systems failures, loss of radio (inferred by lack of pilot communication at this time) and switching to alternate power. At this point the plane was probably operating on battery power only, which lasted about three or four minutes at which point all electronic systems stopped functioning, the engines quit running, which resulted in loss of cabin pressure, then battery power was completely drained resulting in total electrical failure. The plane then went into an uncontrolled, high speed, angled dive into the ocean. If there were any mid-air structural failures, they would have happened during that dive.

I read this morning that they found a debris field in a strip about 5km long. If the plane had broken apart in mid-air at 35,000 ft. and 520 mph, I would expect the debris field to cover a much larger area. The runways for commercial jets are somewhere between 3km and 4km long, or ~12,000 ft. So the debris field was maybe twice as long as what would be covered in a normal, controlled landing. Considering ocean currents were probably spreading the debris from the time of impact to the time of discovery, it seems to me that the plane was intact when it hit the water, then broke up on impact.

We may be seeing, once again in a variety of disciplines, a refusal of the 'mainstream experts' to take electricity into account.
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla
User avatar
solrey
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Did lightning cause the crash of AF447?

Unread postby Anaconda » Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:54 am

@ redeye:

I appreciate the feedback.

redeye states:
"I kinda agree with what you're saying but I see this as being all part of one system, i.e. the link between the Sun and the Earth's magnetosphere and beyond."


I agree with you that it is "all part of one system."

But it does seem that there are discontinuities. The Earth's atmosphere is an insulator between the ionosphere and the Earth's surface. Within that overall insulator medium, the atmosphere, there is another conducting "medium", water vapor.

redeye states:
"You can't have activity in one layer without it causing changes in the layers above and below because the whole thing is driven by the field..."


Again, I do agree with the, above, statement.

However, I can't agree with the next phrase in the sentence:

redeye states:
"...not by any individual events within each individual layer."


But a capacitor has an insulator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, in this case the positive electrode is the ionosphere and the negative electrode is the Earth and the insulator is the atmosphere(see schematic above).

The insulating medium's capacity to retard or propagate electric current can change due to changes in the constituency of the insulating medium. The electric field strength (pressure) does drive the overall system, but it is the insulator's ability to retard or propagate electric current flow in combination with the overall strength of the electric field which determines the amount and intensity of electric current flow at any given time and location.

Water vapor is the principle propagating medium for electric current in the atmosphere (however, there are others).

In this case the primary variable in determining the amount and intensity of electric current flow between the positive electrode (ionosphere) and the negative electrode (Earth) is the insulator's ability to retard or propagate electric current.

Weather is the primary determiner of the atmosphere's ability to retard or propagate electric current flow.

redeye states:
"Although this is experienced as differing wind speeds, I don't think wind is the cause, rather the effect."


I would suggest the various discontinuities that I pointed out, above, vector velocity of the contrasting discontinuities of inhomogeneous bodies of plasma (wind), warm air and cold air, and dry air and moisture laden air, are simultaneously cause and effect (self-reinforcing dynamics), "double layers may self-generate, or form when two plasma regions with different properties come into contact."

Particularly, warm air and cold air, and dry air and moisture laden air will have dynamics (interactions or changing relationships) whether an electrical field is present or not. But an electric field is present in the Earth's atmosphere, so the formation of double layers and changing conductivity will effect the atmoshere's interactions or changing relationships as well(primarily accelerate and increase the intensity of the dynamics, thus the electric field also acts on the insulator's capacity to retard or propagate the amount and intensity of electric current flow at any given time and location within the insulator medium).

Electric current flow within the atmosphere is time, location, and insulator medium specific, i.e., some areas experience higher current flow than others.

That is why I propose that cause and effect are inseperable and self-reinforcing, so, therefore, in conducting analysis one can't seperate the the cause and effect and say, "wind is strictly a function of electric current flow, or wind is strictly a function of thermal fluid dynamics, rather, wind is a product of mutually reinforcing phenomenon. Wind is a product of both electomagnetic dynamics and thermal fluid dynamics, one and at the same time. And the combination of the two produces more dynamic conditions then either the one or the other could achieve alone.

The, above, discussion is not to say that the electric field strength (pressure) between the cathode and the anode could not be changed by overall changes in the electric current flow from the Sun to the Earth or from the interstellar medium and the Sun. It certainly could and this would effect the amount and intensity of electric current flow between the ionosphere and the Earth's surface, as it would also likely change the dynamics of the Earth's weather as well (how much is unknown at present).
Last edited by Anaconda on Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:11 am, edited 4 times in total.
Anaconda
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Did lightning cause the crash of AF447?

Unread postby ElecGeekMom » Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:01 am

Even though the sun is still relatively quiet, we do currently have a significant sunspot. Flares have reached the B1 level, according to spaceweather.com. I'm not logging the level of flares, myself, but I do look at the chart several times a day. It's been virtually flatlined for quite a while. So perhaps A1 to B1 flares have more of an impact on a relatively undisturbed environment than they do on a space environment that is being continually disrupted. (I wonder if it isn't similar to a situation where a pond or lake is calm as glass, then someone tosses a sunflower seed, say, into the middle of the water. The waves it creates will be quite noticeable, won't they? But throw that sunflower seed into the same pond or lake during a storm, and you'll never see it.)

Here are some electric-related incidents that I've noticed in a timeframe not too distant from the crash:

May 31 - 00:47:04 Z - Earthquake near crash site

May 31 - 20:48 UT - Fireball in Poland (see June 2 page on spaceweather.com for a photo) They called it a meteoroid, but don't know where it came from or where it went.

May 31 - 20:55 UT - A1 flare logged (that's just the official log time for the purposes of the spaceweather.com web page; I believe I did see some flaring activity before that time)

June 1 - 02:20 UT - plane crash

So the earthquake was almost a day earlier than the crash. How long does it take for strong electrical charges to dissipate from the site of an earthquake?
ElecGeekMom
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 9:01 am

Re: Did lightning cause the crash of AF447?

Unread postby Drethon » Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:14 am

Interestingly, someone did spot a flash of light in the air in the area of the crash: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/04/plane.crash/index.html

Could have simply been an explosion, who can say for sure...
Drethon
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:20 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests