Electric Tornadoes - a complete theory at last!

[jjohnson]

Here's a thought experiment. If the electric current flow in a tornado is upward, put your right hand in it with the thumb up. Seen from above (plan view) the fingers curl counter-clockwise. Do the winds follow this curl? Does this happen the same everywhere, regardless of hemisphere? Are there exceptions? Is the current flow down sometimes and up the other times? If the latter, it may be that the voltage differential may be higher above sometimes, and lower, above, at others. If plasma pinches are what accelerate the rotational winds, does something similar occur at galactic formation scale? More questions here than answers.

[CharlesChandler]

If the electric current flow in a tornado is upward, put your right hand in it with the thumb up. Seen from above (plan view) the fingers curl counter-clockwise.

This would be true for an upward flow of positive charge, and/or a downward flow of negative charge. This does, indeed, appear to be correct, as there appears to be both in tornadoes. The inflow to the tornado appears to be positively-charged, and there appears to be a flow of electrons down from the cloud and into the tornado. Where they meet in the middle can sometimes generate glow discharges or even small-small sustained arc discharges.

Do the winds follow this curl? Does this happen the same everywhere, regardless of hemisphere? Are there exceptions?

Most tornadoes in the Northern Hemisphere rotate CCW, and most tornadoes in the Southern Hemisphere rotate CW. (Since this is the same as the rotation of tropical cyclones in each hemisphere, this is called "cyclonic" rotation.) But there are very definitely exceptions. I have never found statistics on this, because meteorologists don't consider the direction of the rotation to be significant, and hence they don't maintain stats on this, but anecdotally speaking, less than 5% of tornadoes rotate "anti-cyclonically."

Is the current flow down sometimes and up the other times? If the latter, it may be that the voltage differential may be higher above sometimes, and lower, above, at others.

There are not any great reasons to believe that the electric charges in a thunderstorm are ambiguous in polarity. While being equal in electric charge, negative and positive charges play very different roles in a thunderstorm, accumulating is distinctly different regions of the storm, held in distinctly different particles, etc. There is little consensus on how this all works, but we very definitely can't just switch the polarity and expect for the storm to behave in the same way. So it seems most reasonable to think in terms of a positively-charged inflow to the tornado, and a flow of negative charges down from the cloud.

If that's the case, then explaining the rotation of a tornado just in terms of the right-hand rule becomes problematic, for the minority of CW tornadoes in the Northern Hemisphere, and for the majority of them in the Southern.

The characteristic "cyclonic" rotation becomes (at least theoretically) easier to explain if we think not about the movement of the charges inside the tornado, but the movement of the air along the surface toward the tornado. If this air is positively-charged, then it will experience a Hall effect, because it is a moving charge in the presence of the Earth's magnetic field. This will deflect the charges to the right in the Northern Hemisphere, and to the left in the Southern, potentially setting up a cyclonic inflow pattern.

Then we just have to explain the occasional "anti-cyclonic" tornado in both hemispheres.

In the end, the rotation is more probably a result of the differences in wind directions at various altitudes within the storm. That gets a bit complex, but this diagram presents one of the theories, and this is, IMHO, the most plausible.

More information on this can be found at:

http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes%20Full.php#id_22

Then, the Lorentz force and the Hall effect will contribute and detract at various places, depending on which hemisphere you're in.

[mharratsc]

Speaking of the physics of cyclones- did you read that TPOD on Plasma Volcanos? Now they're suggesting that ALL plumes may display cyclonic characteristics.

Looks to me like meteorology and geology may start holding hands soon and sharing some fieldwork really soon!


Mike H.

[jjohnson]

Mike - have you noticed that although the weather folks and the geophysical folks may not read each other's papers very often, many EU readers read and quote both and draw conclusions from both which may help us see such unifications early on. Maybe before they do. Maybe we are just programmed bots for the EU hierarchy! Cool!

[mharratsc]

That SO sounds like a show my 4 year old would watch...

"J.J. the Happy Little Electric Robot!"

We'll get you booked on prime-time PBS, don't you worry, pal!


BTW- I got two Sea Eagle inflatables that just love calm backwaters!


Mike H.

[CharlesChandler]

Yes, I saw the Plasma Volcanos thing -- no doubt that is Lorentz force acceleration. The reason why we don't see it all of the time is that normally, the heat from the plume prevents condensation of water molecules. Only a winter-time eruption in Alaska could have produced this, and only early in the eruption as well.

But jjohnson is right -- we're the ones seeing the inter-relationships among these different disciplines!

[jjohnson]

Mike H: put 'em in the van or on the roof and bring 'em out!
Charles: making cross-connections seems such a ...fertile... way to approach critical enquiry. Others' disciplines are always cheap sources for new ideas, fresh slants and different ways of solving problems or looking at the world. Why that's gone missing in most of the Standard Model gen, I can't fathom. When it's just a job anymore, maybe the fun and adventure and all sort of go out. I know how that can happen. Remember that TV show, Connections? Sort of a hop, skip and jump among a timeline of inventions (which may or may not have been connected) ending in some current technology or product.

This pan-discipline approach is why we need to read up on Crothers and Miles Mathis and Lerner and Peratt as well as "our gurus". It's so true that the more you know, the more you don't know. I've practically just started, and already know I'm down to about nothing!

I wonder who's taking IR photos of volcanic plumes. Do you think it's the radiant heat that is being absorbed by the water vapor in the surrounding air, as opposed to hot air from the caldera boiling up via convection, in and around the ejecta?

[CharlesChandler]

Do you think it's the radiant heat that is being absorbed by the water vapor in the surrounding air, as opposed to hot air from the caldera boiling up via convection, in and around the ejecta?

I figured that the plume was ionized (not uncommon in extremely hot substances), and therefore it was generating a magnetic field around it as it rose rapidly. This then accelerated water molecules in a circular pattern around the charge stream. The acceleration of the water molecules then lowered the pressure of the air, cooling it below the dewpoint, resulting in condensation. So the water vapor was already in the air, and got accelerated because it is (weakly) responsive to the magnetic force.

[mharratsc]

You're probably gonna wanna kill me, Charles, but....

Have you maybe ever considered that the air in the plume wasn't getting ionized because of the heat, but rather that the earth gets heated because of current flow? A melting dielectric? o.O

We know that telluric currents exist, but mainstream doesn't connect them with a planetary circuit to the Sun. We know that we have a circuit to the Sun that connects to our atmosphere, but we don't look to trace the circuits between the two!

What if volcanos are just shorts between the Earth and the atmosphere? In that case, the answer to the old question of "Which came first- the chicken or the egg?" is then "Electricity!"

And I still say that Martian dust devils are nothing more than Martian lightning, and if the physics work on Mars, then they will work on ANY planetary body with an atmosphere/geosphere similar enough to support the physics! Hell, they've discovered HUGE twisters in the Lagoon Nebula for crying out loud!

Mike H.

Mike H.

[CharlesChandler]

You're probably gonna wanna kill me, Charles, but....

Relax, dude! I don't kill people who come up with great ideas. I just rough 'em up a little bit, and steal their wallets.

Have you maybe ever considered that the air in the plume wasn't getting ionized because of the heat, but rather that the earth gets heated because of current flow?

I haven't studied that stuff, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. But either way, there was a current inside the plume, and then we observe rotation around the plume, so the most logical conclusion is that the current generated a magnetic field.

Hmmm, so if I have a great idea, does that mean that you get to steal your wallet back?

[mharratsc]

Yes. AND you have to put me in your Will.

Mike H.

[MrAmsterdam]

Hello all.

I think this discussion is closed. All facts point to electric/plasma phenomena.

This eyewitness account says it all in a populair science article;

http://books.google.com/books?id=xCoDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA100&ots=xyLu7YRmoH&dq=ozone%20electric%20tornado&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q=ozone%20electric%20tornado&f=false

ps. There is a documentairy on National geographic or discovery where a parachutist or paraglider finds himself catched in the middle of a thundercloud. As I remember he was describing the sides of the clouds as having a glow.
Does anyone know about this documentairy?

[mharratsc]

Wow! However did you find that old Popular Science article?

I haven't heard of that documentary myself, but I would be really interested in hearing more about it if anyone finds a link or showing times for it.

[mharratsc]

I just read through the latest incarnation of Charles' paper, and I have to say that it is a prodigious piece of work!

I hope it's getting the attention in the meteorological circles it deserves. Most of the sciences need a good dose of common sense these days.

My favorite quote from his paper:

Code: Select all

But here's the problem: the U.S. census counts roughly 10 million people with bachelor of science degrees (which required credits in thermodynamics), and all 10 million can take one look at the meteorological model of tornadoes, and conclude two things: 1) whoever developed that theory never studied thermodynamics, and 2) there isn't anybody in the discipline of meteorology who studied thermodynamics, otherwise somebody would have spoken up.

I think this paper is a masterful work detailing the dynamics of what goes on in the lower atmosphere down to the ground. I would love to see a bit better clarification of how EU perceives weather phenomenon as part of the overall make-up of the atmospheric portion of the circuit, however...

Electric Universe — Ionosphere-Surface Current
This theory states that the Earth is negatively-charged, and that the atmosphere is a leaky capacitor, where there is a fair-weather current all of the time flowing from the Earth toward outer space, but that unique conditions can reduce the resistance within this capacitor, resulting in an enhanced current.143,144 One such condition would be the reduced pressure within a mesocyclone, which would increase the conductivity of the column of air from 1 km to over 12 km above the surface. This is only a fraction of the distance to the ionosphere, but it traverses the densest part of the atmosphere, and this is the source of 2⁄3 of the resistance between the surface and the ionosphere. Hence the mesocyclone could be opening up a conduit through which a current could flow.

The problem with this theory is that is does not explain vortexes that descend from non-mesocyclonic thunderstorms.It also does not take into account the fact that the global current is extremely weak. The "fair weather field" is something like .1 kV/m, which is vanishingly small compared to the fields in a thunderstorm. So it is far more likely that storm-generated fields are the only forces that could possibly be influential. It also labors under the same criticisms directed at the joule heating theory — the airflows in a discharge vortex are fundamentally different from those in a tornadic vortex.

(From 'An Integrated Electromagnetic and Thermodynamic (EMTD)
Approach to the Study of Supercell Thunderstorms and Tornadoes ', by Charles Chandler)

I think that rather than simply look for variable resistance, we should also consider varations in the input power even moreso. The above makes it sound like the charge never increases nor decreases, and that a steady and measurable current always exists- but drops in atmospheric resistance cause lightning, tornadic activity, and whatnot. Also, recent NASA reports that over 100,000 amps are hitting the Earth and are producing the aurora... perhaps 'disperse' may be a better term than 'weak'? Of course- I'm not an expert on EU theory or anything, but I'm pretty sure some clarification would fit in there somewhere.

Without speaking for EU proponents universally- I personally think that there are layers of charge in the atmosphere, that slowly build to where threshholds are surpassed, and current will flow along the path of least resistance between the areas of differing charge in one form or other, depending on many variables- geography/geology/temperature/altitude/pressure/charge/etc.

I think tornadic storm systems are one type of such an equalization event, as are lightning, volcanic activity, earthquakes, and other events.

I think it needs to be borne in mind that the circuit between the Sun and the Earth is NOT a 'steady-state' circuit. The solar wind is not a constant charge, and what the Earth scavenges or generates orbitally is not constant, and equalization events occur when charges exceed threshhold values. Thus it is not necessary to deal with the entire potential charge of Earth (or even a particular geographic location), or the charge of the upper atmosphere. It should be enough to consider the amount of charge over threshhold in the equations, with regards to the studied atmospheric equalization event.

What good is this hypothesis, however, if we do not know what those threshhold values are? If we did know what those values were, how could they help to predict tornadic activity and reduce damages and loss of life?

I only wish I knew.

I do believe that future research will bear fruit regarding this pursuit, however. It must, because the physical nature of the Universe appears to me- from galaxy clusters down to subatomic structures- as an interconnected, open system, rather than as localized, individual 'closed systems' as we'd previously been led to believe! If there is one single idea that can be considered a 'core tenet' of the EU theory, it's that ALL system are connected! And the connection is electric!

I think Charles has masterfully meshed existing thermodynamic data with some basic EM principles and come up with a solid explanation of the lower atmosphere portion of tornadic systems. I think Charles has taken a courageous and pioneering step in the right direction regarding tornadic systems study. It is entirely reminiscent of Ralph Jeurgens attempting to describe the Sun in electrical terms, in my opinion! Multi-disciplinary approaches are going to be the key in understanding the circuitry of the Universe we're plugged in to here on planet Earth.

I only hope that, unlike Mr. Jeurgens and so many other of the pioneers, Charles doesn't have to receive his credit posthumously.

May all scientists everywhere re-discover the love of scientific discovery, and end the Rule of Dogma in the Sciences!

Kudos, Charles!

[MrAmsterdam]

Agreed with Mike Harratsc, what a great piece of paper;
"An Integrated Electromagnetic and Thermodynamic (EMTD)Approach to the Study of Supercell Thunderstorms and Tornadoes"

My compliments Charles. It's a superb read.

2 more questions;

1 Electric vortices have been replicated in labs, hasn't it?
2 Are there any hot/cold temperature phenomena been observed during this creation of small electric vortices?

I wonder if this phenomena is taking place in tornados; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube

"Separation of a compressed gas into a hot stream and a cold stream"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tube_ ... Hilsch.png

Or a simular phenomena ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric

Just a bit of speculation on my part.