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...
(From 'An Integrated Electromagnetic and Thermodynamic (EMTD)
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.
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!
"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington