Earth's Surface Formed Recently

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: Making Granite

Unread postby robinrenee » Tue Apr 28, 2015 7:16 pm

LunarSabbathTruth wrote:Michael Steinbacher has said that he knows of a process whereby dirt can be transformed into a form of granite via a process similar to an electric arc furnace. Does anyone know the details required to reproduce this experiment?

- joe


Is this what you're talking about?

"Instant High Grade Metamorphic Granite"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk6tm25RPGc
User avatar
robinrenee
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:59 am

Re: Making Granite

Unread postby LunarSabbathTruth » Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:07 pm

robinrenee wrote:....
Is this what you're talking about?

"Instant High Grade Metamorphic Granite"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk6tm25RPGc


Yes, that is the reference, but I am looking for the details. Can it be done with a welder, or does it require custom equipment? How many volts, amps? AC or DC?

Michael?

- joe
LunarSabbathTruth
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Making Granite

Unread postby starbiter » Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:47 pm

LunarSabbathTruth wrote:
robinrenee wrote:....
Is this what you're talking about?

"Instant High Grade Metamorphic Granite"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk6tm25RPGc


Yes, that is the reference, but I am looking for the details. Can it be done with a welder, or does it require custom equipment? How many volts, amps? AC or DC?

Michael?

- joe


Carbon electrodes, high amps [higher the better], low volts recommended as a starting point. The trick is to strike the arc. Once that's done it conducts. He used a little sulfuric acid as an ionic fluid. In some cases he put lead between the electrodes [balancing lead] to start the arc. The lead melts and goes to the bottom of the ceramic crucible. Sifted dirt from a stream bed might be a good start. Additions can be made. And be careful of fumes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some modern shops can do 600 amps with 5 or 6 volts, again as a starting point. DC, but try AC if You can do both. Learning is good.
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: Making Granite

Unread postby LunarSabbathTruth » Wed Apr 29, 2015 9:09 am

starbiter wrote:Carbon electrodes, high amps [higher the better], low volts recommended as a starting point. The trick is to strike the arc. Once that's done it conducts. He used a little sulfuric acid as an ionic fluid. In some cases he put lead between the electrodes [balancing lead] to start the arc. The lead melts and goes to the bottom of the ceramic crucible. Sifted dirt from a stream bed might be a good start. Additions can be made. And be careful of fumes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some modern shops can do 600 amps with 5 or 6 volts, again as a starting point. DC, but try AC if You can do both. Learning is good.


Thanks, Michael.

How long do you need to 'cook' it? And do you need to stir it, or provide any other intervention during the process?

Also, you mention "fumes". This is off-topic for this post, but I recall that many fossils show signs of asphyxiation. I wonder if a similar process was involved?

- joe
LunarSabbathTruth
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Making Granite

Unread postby starbiter » Wed Apr 29, 2015 9:26 am

LunarSabbathTruth wrote:
starbiter wrote:Carbon electrodes, high amps [higher the better], low volts recommended as a starting point. The trick is to strike the arc. Once that's done it conducts. He used a little sulfuric acid as an ionic fluid. In some cases he put lead between the electrodes [balancing lead] to start the arc. The lead melts and goes to the bottom of the ceramic crucible. Sifted dirt from a stream bed might be a good start. Additions can be made. And be careful of fumes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some modern shops can do 600 amps with 5 or 6 volts, again as a starting point. DC, but try AC if You can do both. Learning is good.


Thanks, Michael.

How long do you need to 'cook' it? And do you need to stir it, or provide any other intervention during the process?

Also, you mention "fumes". This is off-topic for this post, but I recall that many fossils show signs of asphyxiation. I wonder if a similar process was involved?

- joe


I think he kept it going for two minutes. No stirring required. Shaken, just kidding. The longer the better i'd think. But variations would be great.

I asked if sulfuric acid might be available in nature during events like this. He mentioned that the formations were full of sulfides whose components might become available during the electric events.

This brings to mind reports of fire and brimstone during the catastrophes. I believe brimstone is sulfur. The sulfur might be transmuted from oxygen as Dr V thought, or it might be released from the rocks. This brings to mind visions of hell. I think hell is a description of the catastrophes. With smells.

I have a geologist friend who will try to repeat the experiments this Summer. It would be nice to have a chat with those working on making high grade metamorphic rock. Sharing info would be helpful.

If anyone knows of a computerized industrial welding setup please let me know. A commercial electric service is required for high amps.

If these experiments creating metamorphic rock from dirt using an arc discharge can be replicated, geology will never be the same.
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: Making Granite

Unread postby Osmosis » Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:52 pm

Perhaps someone knows an electroplating shop owner. The DC currents could be useful to cook granite. An AC current source, using a filament transformer from old vacuum tube transmitters might also be interesting.
I agree-be careful of fumes and vapors!!!!
Osmosis
Osmosis
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: San Jose, California

Re: Making Granite

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri May 08, 2015 12:17 pm

Granite is formed by the oxidation of K, Si, Al and Na and eventual crystallization of those newly formed molecules, under very high temps/pressures inside of gas giants.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Making Granite

Unread postby seasmith » Fri May 08, 2015 6:30 pm

... under very high temps/pressures inside of gas giants.


Granites are Metamorphic Formations (if they can be produced from sand and e-arcs, right?), so completely ruling out radiant gas-giants.
Time to change out the hammer-and-nails, for maybe screwdriver and screws ?
;)
seasmith
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Making Granite

Unread postby Johnstwin » Sat May 09, 2015 5:22 pm

[ How many Hydrogen bombs detonated simultaneously would be required to produce the same energy as a gigantic Birkeland current of five seconds duration? (: > })) ]

Transmutation?
Several elements can be converted into other elements; usually these are results of energetic nuclear reactions and radioactive isotopes. Mercury was converted into gold in 1924 and 1941.The Spallation Neutron Source has a liquid mercury target which will be transmuted into gold, platinum, and iridium, which are lower in atomic number than mercury.
But is it be possible that the very large voltages and currents of negative and positive ions that exist in the plasma of Birkeland currents could also create transmutations? If so, then the rings might have elements that are contain one or two electrons more those in the elements outside of but close to the ‘Eye’ if those rings were created by an immense negative voltage (and current); and the other rings created by an immense positive voltage (and current) might have one or two electrons less that those elements outside of but close to the ‘Eye’. In addition, these transmuted elements might be more plentiful near the centre than at the extremity because the voltage, current and energy is greater at the centre than at the outside ring. A plot of abundance of elements versus distance from the centre of the ‘Eye’ might be indicative of a Birkeland current. Radial plots could be taken every 30 (45) degrees, for a total of 12 (8) samples that could be added together to create a single cumulative radial plot.
Could a Birkeland current melt, fuse and change sand into different geological rocks? Would + ions create different substances and elements than - ions? It seems so, although the descriptions which follow are in the language of currently-accepted geological terminology and ideas.

http://WWW.Wikipedia.org/wiki/richat_structure displays: “The Richat Structure, also known as the Eye of the Sahara, is a prominent circular feature. This structure is a deeply eroded, slightly elliptical, 40 km in diameter dome. The sedimentary rock exposed in this dome ranges in age from Late Proterozoic within the center of the dome to Ordovician sandstone around its edges.
... Exposed within the interior of the Richat Structure are a variety of intrusive and extrusive igneous rocks. They include rhyolitic volcanic rocks, gabbros, carbonatites and kimberlites. .... According to field mapping and aeromagnetic data, the gabbroic rocks form two concentric ring dikes. The inner ring dike is about 20 m in width and lies about 3 km from the center of Richat Structure. The outer ring dike is about 50 m in width and lies about 7 to 8 km from the center of this structure. Thirty-two carbonatite dikes and sills have been mapped within the Richat Structure. ... These intrusive igneous rocks are interpreted as indicating the presence of a large alkaline igneous intrusion that currently underlies the Richat Structure and created it by uplifting the overlying rock. [The included diagram would not produce circular rings.]

Scar? Transmutation?
In my speculation, an immense Birkeland current could produce both a circular scar and transmuted desert sand simultaneously. I further speculate that the “Eye of Sahara” is such a Scott Scar. Perhaps various measurements - mechanical, electrical, magnetic and electromagnetic - can be conducted on the ‘Eye’ which will indicate/prove or discount/disprove my speculations.

Is the “Eye of the Sahara” a Scott Scar, an example of transmutation, or both?

A Scott Scar?
In Donald Scott’s 2014 presentation on ‘Modeling Birkeland Currents’ (presently on Youtube.com/watch=?vYIFR67sekK0), near minute 16:30 he shows a cyclic X_Y graph of an alternating voltage where the +peaks decrease by the square-root of distance. The negative voltage peaks also decrease by the square root, with the first negative peak midway between the first and second positive peaks. The distance between each peak is a wave length and therefore each peak is equal distance from adjacent similar + or - peaks, which means that the bottoms of the valleys are the same distance apart as are the tops of the peaks
In fact, the Y-axis is the centre of a Birkeland current and as such the 2D graph should extend in both right and left directions from the y-axis. In reality, it would extend in three dimensions, which would create a 3D graph that consists of a series of equally-spaced rings about a common centre, with the value of each +peak and each -peak gradually reduced.
Images of the ‘Eye of the Sahara’, generated by a http://www.goole.com search for ‘Eye of the Sahara’, does indeed look like a series of equally-space circular rings with a common centre. Although the peaks appear to be of approximately the same height (most views are from above), one image might show the centre to be slightly higher than the rest and a gradual decrease with height with greater distance from the centre. If a dome, could it be curved in a manner reminiscent of a square-root function?
One very important aspect of Donald’s graph is that the voltages vary from a high positive value to a low negative value and back up to a slightly less high value, down to a etc., etc. This means that Birkeland currents are flowing simultaneously into the Sahara desert and out of the desert. This could cause some excavation of the desert, and perhaps, add some material to adjacent rings. Being ignorant of the attributes and action of plasma, I won’t guess whether the + or - voltages could do the excavation. Also, I have trouble visualizing magnetic field being adjacent to each other without cancelling each other, but it might be possible to determine magnetic direction at the peaks and valleys. ??
Could the “Eye of the Sahara” be a scar left behind from a massive Birkeland Current? The eye of the Sahara is circular, or almost circular, concentric valleys and peaks exist (perhaps due to evacuation and deposition), the bottoms of the valleys appear to the same distance apart as are the peaks, and the dome might? exhibit a square-root decrease in height from centre to extremity. If these and other measureable properties exist, and there might be others, then it is probable that the ‘Eye of the Sahara’ was created by a huge Birkeland current.

Currents going into the desert would have a magnetic field about them and currents going out of the desert would have a magnetic fields of opposite polarity and direction. Have there been any magnetic surveys done from ground vehicles or very low flying aircraft? If so, what did the magnetic field look like?

==========
Are Birkeland Currents usually/always twinned?

John Plaxton
Johnstwin
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 7:50 am

Re: Making Granite

Unread postby JeffreyW » Fri May 22, 2015 5:13 pm

seasmith wrote:
... under very high temps/pressures inside of gas giants.


Granites are Metamorphic Formations (if they can be produced from sand and e-arcs, right?), so completely ruling out radiant gas-giants.
Time to change out the hammer-and-nails, for maybe screwdriver and screws ?
;)

Idk. I was just pissed that my geology professor back at the University of Maryland in '04 decided to gloss over the most important part of rock formation: chemistry/chemical reactions taking place in gas giants. It is like gas giants don't exist to geologists. Yet they are the intermediate aged objects before completely rocky bodies are formed.

This is why I have been drawing up a completed theory of star evolution which includes all phases of matter, not just solids/liquids as per the rock cycle, but plasma, gas, solids and liquids. They are all important. I guess it was just my first experience with how compartmentalized the sciences have become. They mimic the secret clearance justifications of the U.S. Marine Corps.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

No recent planetary catastrophe?

Unread postby willendure » Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:48 am

Saturn used to be our second star.
Venus is a new planet, its arrival re-arranged the heavens. The ancient Egyptians depicted it as a comet.
The grand canyon and other structures on Earth, Mars, all show that there were massive electrical discharges between planets.
The plasma squatting man is found all over the world in ancient paintings.
Catastrophic comet oil, and written evidence of its arrival by survivors.
The sahara desert formed suddenly by dust arriving from space.
...

All very interesting ideas, and there would seem to be plenty compelling evidence of electrical activity. Did some of these things happen even in the last few thousand years? But... here is something I have been wondering about.

Today we are told that climate change will wipe out much life on earth, and that many species will simply fail to adapt to a small change of only a few degrees. A great shame to lose so many species that have taken millions of years to evolve. But if a change of only a few degrees is all that is needed to wipe so many out, does that not imply that the last few million years have been very stable and quiet in terms of major planetary catastrophies?

If the planets were thrown out of alignment by a major event in the last few thousand years, would that not have caused say a massive change in temperature or other conditions on Earth? How are the hypothesized catastrophic events rationalized against the apparent stability of our planet over a such a long period prior to now?
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: No recent planetary catastrophe?

Unread postby D_Archer » Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:39 am

Today we are told that climate change will wipe out much life on earth


Do not let the fear mongering get to you. The climate panic lobby, or CPL is not concerned with science or life on this planet.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: No recent planetary catastrophe?

Unread postby willendure » Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:56 pm

D_Archer wrote:
Today we are told that climate change will wipe out much life on earth


Do not let the fear mongering get to you. The climate panic lobby, or CPL is not concerned with science or life on this planet.


I'm not so sure. I think that it is entirely possible that planetary catastrophe would lead to a mass extinction event. But I'm also not so convinced that every mass extinction would show up in the fossil record; perhaps very specific conditions are needed to preserve fossils. There could perhaps have been a mass extinction and all the corpses simply rotted away and were recycled by nature.

Some other hypothesis:

Bright plasma objects in the sky within recorded human history may simply have been bright, not necessarily leading to catastrophic electrical discharges.

Signs of massive electrical events carving out canyons and craters may be much much older than these more recent events.
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: No recent planetary catastrophe?

Unread postby nick c » Fri Jun 12, 2015 5:43 pm

Ancient testimony of cosmic catastrophes are ubiquitous. So, there is ample evidence that these events took place within the time of human experience.
There are numerous accounts from around the world of planetary encounters with a wide array of geological effects including floods, fire, overturning mountains, earthquakes and other alterations of the Earth's surface, often accompanied by thunderbolts. The combination of the physical trauma of the event and the changed climate/environment caused extinction of some species and expansion of others who were better adapted to the new conditions.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: No recent planetary catastrophe?

Unread postby Metryq » Sun Jun 14, 2015 2:56 am

If there was no recent planetary catastrophe, then our insurance won't go up. :P

willendure wrote:How are the hypothesized catastrophic events rationalized against the apparent stability of our planet over a such a long period prior to now?

Don't confuse consensus with fact. And the consensus is that geological time is accurate and that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. That is an unthinkably long time, yet paleontologists are finding soft tissue on dinosaur remains. Most people automatically assume the 65 mya extinction is accurate (because "everyone knows" a single asteroid strike killed the dinosaurs) and proceed to argue that soft tissue couldn't have survived, let alone viable fragments of DNA. There are attempts to "understand" metals in the tissue that could have somehow maybe (mumble, mumble) allowed the tissue to survive over that span of time. Rarely does one find a person who flips the question over and ask, "Is the 65 mya date accurate?"

One can find reports of variation in any dating method—there is even a seasonal variation in radioactive decay! (If that is due to proximity to the Sun or other bodies, imagine the variation we'd find if those bodies were much, much closer than we observe today.) But this never causes a conundrum for those disposed to retreat to establishment when things get confusing. Scientific models must account for everything we observe, otherwise the wrong guy may be convicted on incomplete and circumstantial evidence.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest