Electric Clouds

[nick c]

Aveo and Webo,

Air is composed of approximately 78% N2, 21% O2, and 1% Argon, with some CO2 and other molecules.
Air is a mixture of (the above gas) molecules, ie. there is no such thing as an air molecule.
They are of differing specific weights, why do these gases not seperate in layers, regions or pockets? Why is the atmospheric mix (of the main components) so consistent over time (measurements made from moment to moment) and space (measurements made from place to place in the atmosphere)?

Nick

[webolife]

Interesting question about air molecules (ie different molecules comprising air) as a mixture.
But this answer comes from the nature of gases, which is to expand to fill a volume, in this case the atmosphere around the earth. The expansion process itself obviously involves electrical interactions between the not-actually-"colliding" molecules of O2, N2, etc. Since there is so much room between the (various) air molecules, they have no trouble expanding to fill it. The relative %'s of each gas are simply a "count" of how many would be found in any particular volume. If you're wondering how this relates to why water vapor rises, you have to think further about the somewhat unique latent heat attribute of water. Maybe because the H20 molecules have more kinetic energy [hence less dense] than the surrounding air molecules, but being constrained by the earth's surface, they end up going "up"! Other aspects of the electrical/magnetic environment of the earth do play a huge part in the various gradients that form our atmospheric layers, most notably the stratosphere and ionosphere which are geometric sub-elements of the magnetosphere. These important auroral and sub-auroral features are being understood increasingly in terms of "spaceweather", (driven by our local Electric Sun!) and their effect on the tropospheric weather patterns is a fascinating study.

[nick c]

webo,
Thanks for that explanation. But there has to be more.
The atmosphere is a mixture of gases, as opposed to a compound. That Nitrogen and Oxygen mix homogenously throughout the atmosphere tells us that gravity must have little or no effect on the mixture.

So why does not H2O in gas form not mix the way Oxygen and Nitrogen mix? That is, why does it not disperse evenly throughout the atmosphere, but rather clumps into clouds?
Answer: because H2O is a polar molecule.

Polar or non-polar
Typically, all the molecules in a solution are either polar or non-polar. For example, Nitrogen (N2), Oxygen (O2) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) are all non-polar molecules. They mix well together to form the solution we call air.

Under normal conditions combinations of polar and non-polar molecules do not mix to form a solution. There are exceptions, such as the non-polar Carbon Dioxide dissolving in the polar solvent water (H2O) under high pressure.

http://www.school-for-champions.com/che ... _types.htm

The dipolar nature of the water molecule is the key to understanding the nature of clouds in the Earth's atmosphere. While the water molecule is overall electrically neutral, the negative and positive charges are not distributed evenly.

Comment: It seems that the basic problem in gaining acceptance for ionization technology is the facile description of what causes rain. And that is a problem inherited from the experts –' the meteorologists and atmospheric scientists. The water molecule is fascinating because, unlike the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the air, it is electrically polarized.

>>The oxygen (blue) side of the water molecule is more negative than the hydrogen side (red), forming an electric dipole.

In an electric field, the water molecule will rotate to line up with the field. When it condenses in a cloud the average electric dipole moment of a water molecule in a raindrop is 40 percent greater than that of a single water vapor molecule. This enhancement results from the large polarization caused by the electric field induced by surrounding water molecules. In the atmospheric electric field the water molecules will be aligned with their dipoles pointing vertically and in a sense that is determined by the charge polarization in the cloud. It is interesting to note that the tops of storm clouds are positively charged and the base is negative. That is the reverse of the radial charge polarization within the Earth itself. And it is this charge polarization that gives rise to the low-order attractive force we call gravity. So it is proposed that water droplets in clouds experience an antigravity effect. It appears to be related to the 'Biefield-Brown Effect,' where a charged high-voltage planar capacitor tends to move in the direction of the positive electrode. That effect may explain how millions of tons of water can be suspended kilometres above the ground, when cloud droplets are about 1,000 times denser than the surrounding air.

Of course, this raises the issue of charge separation in clouds. The conventional 'isolated Earth' view is that positive and negative charge is 'somehow' separated by vertical winds in clouds and that this process in thunderstorms is responsible for charging up the ionosphere and causing the atmospheric electric field. But this begs the question of cause and effect. Recent high-altitude balloon flights find that charge is not built up in the cloud, it already exists in the ionosphere above. In January 2002 I argued the electric universe model: "Thunderstorms are not electricity generators, they are passive elements in an interplanetary circuit, like a self-repairing leaky condenser. The energy stored in the cloud 'condenser' is released as lightning when it short-circuits. The short-circuits can occur either within the cloud or across the external resistive paths to Earth or the ionosphere. The charge across the cloud 'condenser' gives rise to violent vertical electrical winds within the cloud, not vice versa."

This view accords with a recent report (17 November 2003) in Geophysical Review Letters by Joseph Dwyer of the Florida Institute of Technology, which says that according to conventional theory electrical fields in the atmosphere simply cannot grow large enough to trigger lightning. "The conventional view of how lightning is produced is wrong." And so "the true origin of lightning remains a mystery."

Water vapor in rising air cools and condenses to forms clouds. The conventional explanation for rising air relies upon solar heating. The electrical weather model has an additional galactic energy source (the same that powers the Sun) to drive the movement of air. It is the same energy source that drives ferocious high-level winds on the giant outer planets, where solar energy is extremely weak. Once the water vapor condenses into water droplets it is more plausible that millions of tons of water can remain suspended kilometres above the Earth by electrical means, rather than by thermal updraughts. The clouds would act to reduce thermals.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9eq6g3aj

(Highlights added)

Sorry, but Wal's explanation makes more sense to me then the conventional explanations that have been put forth on this thread. It also has the advantage in that it fits in with the bigger picture- Electric Universe theory....that is, the Earth is a charged body within the plasmasphere of the Sun, as such electric currents are a major factor in determining the planet's weather. It follows that features within the atmosphere, such as clouds, would have an electrical explanation.

Nick

[starbiter]

Hello Webo: Would you please explain where Wal went astray with this post.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9eq6g3aj

Your position and Wal's seem diametrically opposed. I hope Wal gets to see your response. Matbe you can straighten him out. We don't want Wal to be deluding people, do we?

michael steinbacher

[Aveo9]

But nick ... they're ... not ... suspended.

As I've been repeating - the mystery of how water droplets could be suspended in clouds remains a mystery just because it doesn't happen! Invoking plasma physics to explain suspension of water in the atmosphere is like conventional astronomers trying to explain how neutron stars create the effects we see in the universe: the explanation is meaningless because neutron stars don't even exist! Likewise, using electrostatics to explain how water is suspended in the air is meaningless because it isn't suspended!

I'm not sure how many more times I have to repeat this ... water droplets ... are ... not ... suspended in clouds!

They're constantly trying to fall back to earth! It's not even correct to say a water droplet stays in a cloud! It doesn't! A cloud is simply a collection of water droplets that are either:

- Still rising but slowing down due to gravity
- OR falling due to gravity

I've covered this about 5 times. Water droplets have never been observed suspended in the air! If they have then please provide a link because I've never heard of it. If the Biefield-Brown Effect is operating, then how do some droplets break free and fall to the ground as rain? There's no difference between a raindrop and any other droplet of water in the cloud - so why do some fall and some "don't"? (Quote marks because really all water droplets are either rising or falling)

I understand that there are probably electrical dynamics present in clouds, just like there is in surf (and anywhere else with a large quantity of churning water), but I've never seen any evidence (just discussions) that clouds are layers of water forced to maintain a certain distance from the Earth's surface. I would have thought that the cloud separation occurs in thunderclouds because the top of the thundercloud is closer to the ionosphere than the bottom of the cloud. It would be comparable to stringing a wire between two terminals of a battery and then wondering why one end of the wire becomes positively charged while the other becomes negatively charged (correct me if I've got the mechanic wrong though).


As for your comments on mixtures:

The molecular mass of H2O is roughly 18, while the molecular masses of N2 and O2 are 28 and 32 respectively. There is a relatively large mass difference between H2O and the other two, so you would expect water molecules to rise through an N2/O2 mixture. On the other hand, the difference between the masses of N2 and O2 are relatively small, so it wouldn't take much to keep them mixed together in roughly equal quantities.

The reason H2O doesn't rise forever is because it can't maintain its vapour form at temperatures below the dew point. At a certain height it has to condense into water droplets - which, as I've said - continue rising until they run out of momentum, and then come falling back.

There is an altitude in the atmosphere called the turbopause. It's roughly 100 km up. Above this height the air pressure is too weak to maintain the atmospheric mixture, and the individual gases do tend to layer themselves by mass. At least - N2 reaches further into space than O2 does. Below this altitude, though - it seems there is enough mixing of the gases to keep them in roughly equal concentrations.

[Aardwolf]

We have also repeatedly explained in very plain terms that water vapor, which is LESS DENSE THAN AIR, RISES through the air at up to 30 meters per sec (depending on the temperature gradient below the cloud -- faster in a cold front, slower in a warm front) producing different shapes and sizes of clouds. Nothing is working against gravity here except sheer momentum.

Did you even look at the picture of fog particles I posted? Where's the upward momentum? Seems completely random to me.

Also there are many gases that are LESS DENSE THAN AIR. Why do they not act the same way? I thought the mainstream answer was that it's because it's well mixed. Is water immune to this mixing? Why does gravity single out water for this special treatment?

[Aardwolf]

They're constantly trying to fall back to earth! It's not even correct to say a water droplet stays in a cloud! It doesn't! A cloud is simply a collection of water droplets that are either:

- Still rising but slowing down due to gravity
- OR falling due to gravity

Can you explain how this fits in to the photo I posted earlier which clearly shows the movement of the water droplets to be largly random and not even remotely behaving in the way you describe.

[starbiter]

Hello Aveo: Sorry i didn't include you with my question to Webo.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9eq6g3aj

Where are the flaws?

michael

[nick c]

But nick ... they're ... not ... suspended.

As I've been repeating - the mystery of how water droplets could be suspended in clouds remains a mystery just because it doesn't happen! Invoking plasma physics to explain suspension of water in the atmosphere is like conventional astronomers trying to explain how neutron stars create the effects we see in the universe: the explanation is meaningless because neutron stars don't even exist! Likewise, using electrostatics to explain how water is suspended in the air is meaningless because it isn't suspended!

With all due respect, this is nothing more than playing with words and the analogy to neutron stars has no relevance whatsoever. Use of the word "suspended" is not in anyway meant to imply that water molecules are motionless. Obviously there is motion of water molecules, up, down and lateral...an observational fact. The fact that there is motion does not disprove the electrical model, movement of molecules would be expected in an electrical model, as well as any other. Electrical and mechanical forces would both be at work. Motion in itself says nothing about the causes of said motion.

Nick

[webolife]

I stand behind Aveo here. There is no need to explain why clouds are suspended contrary to gravitation, because it is simply not happening. The random motion of tiny fog droplets, or of turbulently buffeted cloud droplets of whatever size, needs no additional explanation. Although I would explain differently from Aveo how the voltage differential in clouds can be readily explained by the upward transport of charge from earth's surface by smallish water vapor molecules/aggregates [not quite droplets], followed by the transfer of that charge to adjacent larger falling water droplets in the clouds, thus the upward "discharged" water droplets are found near the tops of the cumulonimbus clouds while larger "charged" droplets are found near the bottom, setting up for the capacitance of lightning. The "wiring" of clouds is thus explanable in terms of streaming differentially charged water droplets, and need not be attributed to the electric curcuitry model put forth by Wal. Neither Aveo not I have disavowed the importance of electricity in the atmosphere, just questioning its alleged effects under the model you folks are promoting. I respectfully disagree with Wal's analysis here... I think he is stretching the EU model beyond its useful application in this case.

[Aveo9]

With all due respect, this is nothing more than playing with words and the analogy to neutron stars has no relevance whatsoever. Use of the word "suspended" is not in anyway meant to imply that water molecules are motionless. Obviously there is motion of water molecules, up, down and lateral...an observational fact.

Ok that's a relief. I misinterpreted you on that one. My frustration was unwarranted.

------


Hello starbiter, I'd like to respond to the link that you and nick c have posted with a few comments of my own:

- Wal states that water molecules inside the droplets in clouds will all be aligned with their dipoles pointing vertically. The basis of his statement is the observation that "In an electric field, the water molecule will rotate to line up with the field." In Aardwolf's photo of the movement of cloud droplets in fog (on the previous page), we see that the droplets are subjected to bombardment from all directions, and this causes random Brownian motion of the droplets. How do the molecules within a droplet react to this bombardment of air molecules? They aren't rigidly bonded together, so it's safe to infer that molecules closer to the surface of the droplet will be repeatedly thrown out of alignment by the force of these impacts as the droplet is deformed and thrust in a new direction. It would be effectively impossible for the outer molecules in a droplet to maintain their vertical alignment. Wouldn't this serve to cancel out much of the droplet's induced electric field - or even prevent it from fully developing at all?

- If the upper surface of a water droplet in a cloud has an overall positive charge and the lower surface has a negative charge, then what is stopping each droplet from becoming attracted to the droplets immediately above and below it? Why aren't the droplets forming into long, vertical filaments? Filamentary or vortical alignments are seen almost everywhere there is an electric interaction - and the appearance of these alignments in the universe is one of the greatest strengths of the EU theory. So why aren't they observed in "electric clouds"?

- Wal states that the cloud top is positively charged and the base is negatively charged, and that this charge separation is a response to the greater atmospheric electrical field (ie. the charge difference between the positive ionosphere and the negative ground). In that case the cloud base should be negatively charged with respect to the cloud top, but positively charged with respect to the even more negatively charged earth. This would result in an attraction between the cloud base and the ground?

- Wal's theory is also based on the assumption that charge separation causes gravity. While this is an attractive theory, it isn't yet fact. Actually ... has it even been demonstrated that radial charge polarisation occurs within the rocks that make up the Earth?

- What mechanism stops the water droplets from continuously accelerating upwards until they reach the ionosphere? If they're experiencing anti-gravity, then why do they fall back down shortly after forming?

- Wal acknowledges that solar heating may be a factor in atmospheric circulation, but that electric fields provide an "additional" energy source. I would like to suggest that this view is probably the correct one. Having read and re-read arguments by both sides of the debate I think it seems reasonable to conclude that large storm clouds are clearly a response to electrical conditions. According to my understanding of the thermal-kinetic model, the cloud should start raining out its contents long before it reaches thunderstorm size. However it also seems reasonable to me that the smaller clouds (cumulus and stratus) are a response to local temperature variations. The thermal-kinetic model explains their dynamics very well, and I've never yet seen an electrical model that explains them in the same depth. Electrical models always seem to focus their attention solely on storm clouds and ignore the observed behaviour in smaller clouds.



Aardwolf,

It's almost impossible to tell what's going on with a single photo of such a small part of the fog. To even begin to explain that photo would require a lot of knowledge that we simply don't have. For example:
- What is the size of that photo? Judging purely by the number of droplets in the photo, I'd say it's maybe a few centimetres across?
- What happened immediately before it was taken? Has anyone just walked past? Is the photographer breathing in or out? All these things would have an effect on the droplets directly in front of the camera.
- Is there a breeze? Even a gentle breeze would create completely unpredictable effects when viewing such a small section of the overall cloud.
- Even if the photo showed droplets all moving uniformly in one direction, which way are they going? If they were all moving vertically, would they be moving up or down? It'd be impossible to tell.

The photo shows Brownian motion within the fog. This isn't unexpected - in fact it's long since been proven that this happens between particles in a gas medium. However that doesn't tell us about the average velocity of the overall mass of particles. Yes, individual droplets within the mass are being deflected, but what about those uniform diagonal streaks in the background? There are streaks going diagonally left as well as diagonally right. You'd need a wider view showing the whole cloud in motion in order to see what's going on. The uniform streaks could be due to vertical momentum, or due to wind, or who-knows-what. The deflected streaks in the foreground could be from a person walking past and leaving a wake. It's impossible to draw conclusions from it beyond the existence of Brownian motion.

Furthermore, on page 2 of this thread you said

We are talking about droplets that are 1000 times the density and weight of the very slow moving warm air below moving upward. There shouldn't be any physical process to overide the gravity pulling on those droplets.

I would like to point out that your photo provides evidence of a physical process (Brownian motion) overriding the gravity pulling on the droplets. Based on your statements I would like to suggest (with all respect) that perhaps your understanding of the dynamics of water droplets in cloud and fog isn't as complete as you assume it is, and therefore some of your other assumptions may also be wrong. For example, the assumption that density is the only factor affecting droplet weight, and not relative volume or pressure.


Aveo

[Aardwolf]

Aveo,

The picture is of very high speed movement of water particles. They may be experiencing brownian motion but not from buffeting. That could only be from something stronger influencing them, not from being randomly pushed around by molecules millions (billions?) of times smaller and lighter. To do so would require a concerted effort from those molecules not random ones. Either way it bears no relation to your description of why water is found suspended anyway. Where's the upward momentum you previously prescribed to? The physical process you describe just does not hold up to scrutiny.

Also, the photo was specifically taken to show the movement of the particles, there's no reason to believe it was badly done or polluted by movement. And when I have ever been in fog or seen it collect in pools, there is a distinct lack of wind or movement of air. Below is the high speed photo of the same thing. I doubt they would go to so much trouble for it to be polluted;

On another note, how would you explain mercury vapour's ability to defy gravity as well?

[Aardwolf]

I would like to point out that your photo provides evidence of a physical process (Brownian motion) overriding the gravity pulling on the droplets.

Just going back to this point, If that were so the movement couldn't be random, it would have to be upwards. Therefore not brownian.

[Aardwolf]

I stand behind Aveo here. There is no need to explain why clouds are suspended contrary to gravitation, because it is simply not happening. The random motion of tiny fog droplets, or of turbulently buffeted cloud droplets of whatever size, needs no additional explanation.

Fog droplets are billions of times larger and heavier than the surrounding air molecules. Explanation for why these defy gravity certainly is required. They are not buffeted nor blown around by the (pathetic in comparison) air they move in. Nor do they buffet each other. The fact that no mechanism can be provided is a problem for the theories hence the need to ignore their individual behaviour by the mainstream. However, the mainstream clearly acknowledges they can be manipulated by electric fields that nature apparently has no knowledge of or ability to apply...

[webolife]

Oooh, now your fog droplets are not just 800 or so X the surrounding air, but 1,000,000,000's of X.
Fortunately for what Aveo and I have been saying all along, there are 1000's and billions of times more air molecules, and you know what? Many of them are streaming together UPWARD due to the density differences caused by #1. differential heating, and #2. water in vapor form [incl its latent heat] which is how the droplets are originating. That condensation process itself is clearly electrical. Within that streaming, the Brownian motion in your image, which is the main evidence behind your protests against tested convection processes, is most certainly an electrical phenomenon. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that this is true. The turbulence we describe in clouds, and the turbulence you showed in your image, are two scales of the same essential physics of motion. That this intermolecular electrical ES action is happening everywhere that any kind of molecules come in "contact" with each other is undisputed at least since Van der Waal. That there is some atmosphere sized electrical counterforce to gravitational centropy sufficient to suspend tons of water in clouds high in the atmsophere is what we're disputing, because there is no need for it, as clouds are not suspended per se, except as Nick carefully redefined earlier. The dynamics we've explained tell what's happening in any kind of cloud, from fog to cumulonimbus, and are sufficient to account for the buildup of voltage that results in lightning. In addition, our explanation goes right along with everything you know about how thousands of tons of aircraft are able to "suspend"[???] themselves in the air, and it is not antigravity, that is for sure. At no time have I disputed the intriguing connection between space weather, auroral effects and tropospheric phenomena, such as is observed in stratospheric jets, sprites and elves... this is a fascinating area of study, and I have taught a magnetically based atmospheric layering model since the early 80's. There is simply no need for a countergravitational electric gradient to explain clouds, or fog. Just look at the basic elements of humidity and dew point, phase change, simple thermodynamics of temperature and the adiabatic process, and a few nuclei of condensation.