Electric Tornadoes - a complete theory at last!

[CharlesChandler]

1. Regarding Dust Devils:...it slowly meandered over towards the pile of scrap car bodies, and casually picked one up about 30 ft high and tossed it about 100 feet away from where it was...Are 'fair weather vortices' noted for that kind of power?

Conventional wisdom cannot guess at an explanation for this. In my opinion, that's proof that there is more to dust devils than just surface heating that results in a thermodynamic updraft. I just have no idea what that might be...

2. Regarding Waterspouts: So a 'waterspout' is only considered a 'fair weather phenomenon'? So a tornado over water is still considered a proper tornado?

Like I said, the terms are used ambiguously in the literature, but meteorologists are coming to recognize that a supercellular vortex is the same breed whether it's over land or water, and that the "other" vortexes that more commonly occur over water, and sometimes over land, which are called waterspouts, are a different breed.

From the degree of damage, the vortex in Mobile Bay definitely sounds like a tornado. Was it connected to the cloud? (You said that the clear sky began at the beach, and the tornado was out in the bay, hence the question.) If a waterspout did that kind of damage, some people will have to do some re-thinking. Waterspouts are just a tad outside of my field of focus, so I can't say that I have studied them. But to my knowledge, they're not given credit for being capable of greater than F1 damage. Boats getting tossed up into the trees is way beyond F1 damage.

So as to the above- how does that fit into the overall model of tornado behavior that we're trying to build here? I can understand maybe the hydro-tornado behaving like a normal tornado and being as strong as one, but... what about that clear blue sky dust devil I saw flinging car bodies around? Will the new model explain that?

Here's a video of some cars getting tossed around by a very small tornado, not quite as dramatically as what you saw, but still...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFOyiYVWm0

I'm having a really hard time believing that such is pure aerodynamics. For the air to enter the vortex and then turn upward and move that fast, there has to be more to it. So I'm looking at combinations of charges and aerodynamics. This might generalize to dust devils.

Could you then consider a tornado as an instability brought on by such an immediate charge differential, that it creates a sustained charge transfer, that takes the form of a charged sheath vortex capable of generating a magnetic field of enough strength to overcome the magnetic field of the double layer and allowing for a much higher transfer of charge across one (or even more?) double layers of the atmosphere?

I haven't dismissed the possibility of such a transfer. But if it only comes into play after the tornado forms, then it's not what causes the tornado, and that's what I'm trying to answer.

I do hope you forgive me, Charles- I know you have a lot of classical knowledge of the thermodynamic properties of storm and tornado evolution, and thus all the EU stuff we bring up gets worked into the nooks and crannies of that standard model. My problem is- I don't have that classical education, and I see everything from an electrical perspective with the thermo/hydro/geo-whatever descriptions worked into that!

First of all, relax! I thrive on criticisms! Second, I actually started out by totally dismissing thermodynamics, and by trying to work the whole thing through with the supercell as a plasmoid, where rapidly-moving electric charges were generating powerful magnetic fields that constrained the charges and turned the whole thing into a capacitor that would start behaving the way no thermodynamic system ever could. But as I've learned more, I'm coming to understand that at the speeds in question, the magnetic fields will be extremely weak. Still more powerful than the thermodynamic forces present, since thermodynamics is an artifact of gravity, which is 39 orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism. So a near-infinitesimal magnetic force might still dominate a thermodynamic system. But the electric forces will be way more powerful than the magnetic forces. So I've promoted the electric force and decentralized the magnetic force in the work that I'm doing. When I came to the conclusion that the electric force all by itself wouldn't yield the correct property set for explaining tornadoes, I then reconsidered the thermodynamics, and realized that the EM forces are modulating the thermodynamic forces.

The effective means of determining whether a tornado will form or not from a supercell is going to be deduced by analyzing the values of electrical charge differential between the Earth and the topmost layer of a storm, and that- by analysis -a charge condition threshhold can be deduced that will accurately predict when and even where in the storm a tornado might form! Of course- the technology probably isn't yet available to determine if I'm right, or that I could ever convince anyone to even look...

The only way to proceed, then, is to work out, in broad strokes, what would be the expected properties of such forces. Do what can be done, and leave the rest for the next guy...

How can we truly understand anything if we don't acknowledge that primacy in our observations of the Universe around us?

Absolutely! Meteorology (like astrophysics and other modern disciplines) is dominated by numeric modeling, and there's this "new pragmatism" that basically says, "don't sweat the small stuff -- a few anomalies don't amount to a reason for rethinking a well-accepted theory." The problem is that these anomalies are little road-signs telling them that they're lost. They can be "pragmatic" if they want, and continue to drive off into the wilderness. People like us, who read the road-signs, will beat them to the party.

When the thermodynamics are sufficient to trigger a charge sheath vortex, within a "friendly" goemagnetic environment, the charge transfer/voltage is "shunted" through the charge sheath vortex, where most of the current is converted into kinetic energy in the form of wind, instead of heat and EM radiation in an arc discharge.

What is the mechanism by which electromagnetic energy is converted into wind?

[mharratsc]

What is the mechanism by which electromagnetic energy is converted into wind?

Ionic wind? A giant Ionic Breeze air purifier? o.O

Mike H.

[CharlesChandler]

ionic breeze, why didn't think of that...

There are (theoretical) ways of accelerating air just with EM forces, but so far, the numbers have not been convincing. See my critique of Dehel's work, in the "Alternative Theories" section, for more info:

http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes%20Main.php#id_47

This is why I'm looking at combinations of electromagnetic and thermodynamic forces. There is plenty of thermodynamic force in a supercell, but the properties aren't right to explain tornadoes. There is some electromagnetic force, but not enough to do the job, and all by itself, the properties aren't right. But if electromagnetism is modulating thermodynamics, the combination of forces is easily capable of doing the job, and you get all of the right properties, and none of the wrong properties, to explain tornadoes. So I'm thinking that this is the correct approach.

[mharratsc]

Of course I agree with ya that a tornado isn't simply a whirling electromagnetic vortex, but... if we roll back to what we'd discussed in the beginning of this thread about the charge distribution in the local area, the Earth, and the supercell- is it not plausible that the EM side is what is creating the thermodynamic forces?

You state that you concur that electromagnetic forces are indeed at work, but you don't believe that it is enough to account for all the power evident in the storm/tornado, right? Is that a measured observation, or simply a first assessment?

Take for example the TPOD [url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090910dust.htm]Dust in the Wind[/url2]:

Dust in the Wind
Sep 10, 2009
Dust particle alignment may have a significant impact on atmospheric models.
A recent report describes an unexpected alignment of Sahara dust grains in the atmosphere above La Palma in the Canary Islands. The vertical alignment of the dust grains is caused by electrical polarization by the Earth's electric field.

The article published February 10, 2009, describes the discovery in a way that makes it seem recent and serendipitous. It was made after mounting the PlanetPol polarimeter on the William Herschel Telescope (part of the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes).

However, these observations (by the same investigators) date back to at least 2007, when a paper on this topic was published in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Journal (Ulanowski et al, 2007). The original paper is a good analysis of the dust alignment and models the dynamics of the dust grains assuming gravitational forces, the fluid flow of the surrounding atmosphere, and the electric field strength.

The polarization of the dust particles was “unexpected” and seems to be the first observation of its kind. However, it should not be surprising given different fundamental assumptions. Earth carries a net charge relative to its local electrical environment in space. In essence, the Earth’s atmosphere is a capacitor with a radially oriented, variable electric field. It has been shown that atmospheric conductivity is decreased with haze, particulates, water vapor, etc. The electric field over part of the capacitor is intensified by these effectors.

The fair weather electric field at the Earth’s surface is about 120 volts-per-meter. It is interesting that the investigators estimated that the electric field orienting the Saharan dust grains was on the order of 2000 volts-per-meter (the E-field below dust storms can be many thousands of volts). If the dielectric properties of the Earth’s atmosphere are changed by the presence of the dust particles, creating a less conductive dielectric, then the electric field strength will build locally. The electric field strengths can be considerable, as high as 20,000 volts-per-meter at ground level during dust storms, even tens of kilometers from the storm (Kamra, 1972).

(How much force would eventually be brought to bear if the EM field started drawing in ions from "tens of kilometers away"? Would be a bit of inertia added to it, and maybe explain some of the straight-line wind phenomena as well?)

It seems that a side effect of the electric field enhancement in particulate clouds is the polarization of the dust grains. This polarization changes the radiative properties of the atmosphere in ways not included in current climate models. In addition, the electric field strength also enables the dust grains to travel great distances. For example, to take an excerpt from Ulanowski’s paper:

“Interestingly, it appears that some hitherto unknown atmospheric process counteracts gravitational settling of larger atmospheric dust particles (Maring et al., 2003), as models of long-range dust transport often underestimate the larger particle fraction (Colarco et al., 2003, Ginoux et al., 2001), and dust samples collected after fallout events show that large numbers of “giant” dust particles (larger than 62.5 micrometers) can be carried thousands of kilometers from their source (Middleton et al., 2001).”

(If that much force can move "giant" dust particles, how much more so on simple air molecules? Are we sure we're not understimating the amount of force that charge interactions in a storm system can bring to bear?)

A widespread and inherent electrical field in the Earth’s atmosphere that is altered by the traveling dust cloud might be part of the missing answer. In essence, the cloud of dust particles maintains an increased electric field in its locality simply by altering the conductivity of the Earth’s atmosphere. It carries its enhanced electric field with it. In fact, the electrical field effects of the dust cloud extend beyond its locality and can influence the conductivity of the atmosphere kilometers away, as was mentioned above. It is likely that similar mechanisms are at work on Mars.

Regional dust storms are not uncommon on Mars, but occasionally the regional storms organize into planet-wide events. The mechanism where dust particles increase the electric field through their presence, allowing more dust particles to become suspended, is an example of what engineers would call a positive feedback loop. In the proper circumstances, a small number of regional storms could combine, greatly altering the electrical field strength not just locally, but to a large extent beyond the storm itself. There is a widespread reinforcing effect that feeds on itself, and this is the nature of a positive feedback loop.

There has been some work done on the potential electrical properties of Martian dust storms and dust devils but all these studies begin with the assumption that the electric fields are generated locally through charge separation. Obviously, none have approached the problem from the perspective that an ambient electric field exists between the planet’s surface and the outer reaches of its atmosphere. I would propose installing polarimetry equipment in a subsequent Mars lander to observe the polarization properties of particulate matter in the Martian atmosphere. One would predict that the particles are aligned along an “unexpectedly” strong electric field in the middle atmosphere.

It is remarkable the degree to which scientists in various fields are surprised by the electrical nature of the Universe. I also find it interesting that our physical sciences have become dominated by a mindset that allows for only local causality rather than allowing for a broader connectedness. It took a very long time for conventional wisdom to accept that the Earth was electrically connected to the Sun. The logical next step in accepting that electricity flows between a star and its planets is allowing that the Earth exists in a lively electrical environment in its orbit around the Sun. That electrical environment reaches right down to the biosphere, impacting our climate both directly and indirectly.

By Tom Wilson

Yet again I play the (Electric) Devil's Advocate... but I know that you're pretty tolerant of my quirks by now, and I appreciate the fact that you listen to my newbie questions!

Maybe you're right in that the charge field in the storm literally cannot expend the amount of energy necessary to move the tons of air in a single tornado, but... as the above article shows (along with myriad ones strewn across the Thunderbolts pages)- electromagnetism often surprises the people who don't stare at it like it's about to do something "completely unexpected"...

27 times more powerful that gravity IS quite respectable, if you think about it!

Mike H.

[CharlesChandler]

You state that you concur that electromagnetic forces are indeed at work, but you don't believe that it is enough to account for all the power evident in the storm/tornado, right? Is that a measured observation, or simply a first assessment?

Good question. A well-known authority on the subject of tornadoes told me in personal correspondence:

There's no lack of energy to sustain supercell storms in the thermodynamics of moist air - the energies involved are enormous. Numerical simulations based wholly on fluid dynamical principles that neglect completely any contribution from electromagnetic processes are more than capable of simulating with some relatively high accuracy the process we describe as a supercell.

For more detail, you could look at the following citation from the refereed literature, though you won't find it meaningful unless you're seriously into the concepts and terminology of meteorological simulations. I'm just citing this to show that meteorologists are talking in very specific terms about the thermodynamic potential in the atmosphere.

Lilly, D. K., and Jewett, B. F., 1990: Momentum and Kinetic Energy Budgets of Simulated Supercell Thunderstorms. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 47: 707-726.

Numeric simulations don't always prove much, but they have clearly demonstrated one thing: in overall terms, we can definitely move the amount of air that needs to be moved using just thermodynamics, given accurate measurements of temperature, pressure, humidity, etc. What we can't explain is the rate at which the work is being done, and the form that the energy release takes. In other words, we have to inject artificial forces to get the simulation to act like a tornadic supercell. But we don't have to inject any artificial energy, because we have plenty of that. In fact, if we had any more energy, then we'd have another problem that we currently do not have -- we'd have more energy than we needed. So we'd have to go looking for an energy sink to get it out of the way so it wouldn't mess up the energy budget. Then we could get back to figuring out how tornadoes work.

So the original source of the energy is definitely thermodynamic. But the principles of thermodynamics say that tornadoes should be impossible. So I started playing around with the variety of energy conversions that could be going on. And the only way that I could get it to work all of the way through, without any artificial forces, and where the expected behaviors matched the field data, was to frame it as a "thermodynamics modulated by electromagnetism" problem. The energy comes from thermodynamics, but some of it is converted to electromagnetic forces that then redirect the thermodynamic fluxes into the form that we see. Then the whole thing rings like a bell. Positing the existence of new forms of energy, or new sources of force, can only be significant if such can explain things that cannot be explained otherwise. In other words, if you add something new, then that something new is going to do something. OK, what is it going to do? How is it going to influence the system? What are the behaviors that are not already accounted for? If you have a force and it's not doing anything, then you don't have a force -- it cannot be there, metaphysically speaking. Properties are manifestations of forces, and forces result in properties. Take the data and the known forces of physics and work it out. That's what I'm doing.

[smartart]

Might this thread branch out into 'Electric Rain' ? I would like to raise the question of retention and release of water from clouds that are 'performing electrically'. In my youth, the 'cloudburst' (in UK) was a rare phenomenon - or so it seemed. In recent times flooding due to the sheer rate of precipitation (rather than topography) seem to be quite common. I read that 1 deg. C affords 8% more water retention to air, but doubt 'global warming' is the cause here.
Anyone had the same - or related - thought(s)?

Do I recall that Velikovski touched on torrential rain after earthquakes - now increasingly 'electric' and connected, via 'earthquake lights', to the cosmos?

[mharratsc]

I am reminded of the old addage "A rose by any other name..."

The data you presented looks to me to be very well laid out (granted, not a lot of it 'clicks' for me for lack of training) and I don't doubt the validity of any of it.

I wonder about some of it's interpretation, however...

To begin with- no one has ever approached the study of storm/supercell formation and lifecycle from the concept of *electromagnetic* anything! Electro-static, yes. Viewing it from the perspective of a 'short circuit of our atmosphere'? Not so much...

Why is it that hot and cold 'layers' form in our atmosphere? Why do they seem to mix at (relatively) small points between them? You can stare at this very picture all... day... long... and come away with veritable reams of data on the 'thermodynamics' of the whole event you witnessed. Sure you can! There was kinetic motion, right? There were differing temperatures, with cold air and warmer air doing wierd things. You could even measure electrostatic energy relative to a specific point against Earth pottential with just equipment from Radio Shack, if you wanted to!

But what about measuring charge potential of the warm layer vs. the colder layer? Or those layers vs. Earth ground potential?

Has anyone maybe considered that those 'layers' in the atmosphere might actually be plasma double layers, and that some of their more odd (from a thermokinetic perspective) behaviors might be attributable to their behaving more as a plasma? Has anyone ever considered that a supercell might actually be akin to a rupture in a plasma double layer?

Most of the experiments that I've read about seem to have revolved around experiments with plasmas in a vacuum, and whatnot. Yet we know that plasma events take place at (at least) up to one atmosphere of pressure (like lightning), but I haven't seen the results of much experimentation with that, nor how it might be applicable to understanding the dynamics of our atmosphere from a plasma physics perspective.

I know that I'm reaching here. I'll grant it and sign my name to it. I am aware that I'm making suppositions without any form of fact to back it up... Isn't being a layman wonderful!

Regardless, I can't help shake the feeling that- because no one (that I have read about, at least) has actually gone looking for a circuit *outside* of the supercell... maybe the data would look differently compared to a bigger picture? Could the temperature and pressure differentials be simply side effects of electromagnetic forces at work? Would layers of atmosphere of differing charge values show a difference in thermal signature as a side effect? That sort of thing?

I guess what I'm trying to say is- maybe it's not new data that we need. Maybe we need to look at the same old data from a different perspective?

Plausible? Whatcha think?

Mike H.

[GaryN]

Hi Charles,
I am not trying to be awkward, honestly, and I can see you have put a tremendous amount of work into your site, but I still do not see you addressing the acoustic aspects.

Infrasound.



http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... ources.png

The Rossby wave has been discussed before on TB, and is applicable not just to earth, but Saturn and Jupiter too.



http://www.answers.com/topic/rossby-wave

I haven't gone fully through your site, Charles, appologies if you have covered this topic.

[davesmith_au]

An off-topic interjection to this thread is in order...

I would like to personally thank and acknowledge Charles for his initiative and assistance in creating a new look for the Thunderbolts forum. Though many of us have "wanted" to do this for some time, Charles just went ahead and started developing a new look, and once he had a reasonable start on it he contacted me privately with the details. We then collaborated for a few days, and you're all now looking at the final result.

Whilst none of us here are experts in php it goes to show that with enough drive and initiative, almost anything can be accomplished. Thanks again Charles, your help is very much appreciated.

Cheers, Dave.

We now return you to the important topic of this thread...

[mharratsc]

It looks slick, guys! Nice job!


Mike H.

[CharlesChandler]

Has anyone ever considered that a supercell might actually be akin to a rupture in a plasma double layer?

Well, I did, for a while. The problem was that at the relevant speeds, I couldn't get the magnetic fields to be peers with the electric fields, so I couldn't get a true plasmoid going. While the magnetic fields might be powerful enough to influence, if not dominate, the thermodynamic forces present, the electric fields will be way, way more powerful than that (if the electric charges are generating influential magnetic fields). So we should look first at the electric force, and then at the magnetic and thermodynamic forces present.

Most of the experiments that I've read about seem to have revolved around experiments with plasmas in a vacuum, and whatnot. Yet we know that plasma events take place at (at least) up to one atmosphere of pressure (like lightning), but I haven't seen the results of much experimentation with that, nor how it might be applicable to understanding the dynamics of our atmosphere from a plasma physics perspective.

Here's an example:

Kikuchi, H., 2005: EHD Approach to Tornadic Thunderstorms and Methods of Their Destruction. American Geophysical Union, Spring Meeting 2005, abstract #AE11B-01.

This is representative of a handful of recent explorations that have been made into the possibility that plasma physics principles can be applied to the study of tornadoes. The works are quite exotic, using principles that are contentious even within the plasma physics community, and make no attempt to associate the principles in question to any sort of large body of observations. As such, they're being dismissed as epiphanies by the mainstream meteorological and geophysical communities.

The difference between those works and what I'm trying to do is that they are taking just a few facts and going way out on a limb concerning what could be happening, while I am taking a lot of facts and triangulating a solution that gets everything to make sense. Their works are far more detailed (though with far fewer facts taken into account) while I'm using much broader theoretical strokes. They have more chance of hitting a home-run -- if they're in the right ballpark -- or maybe they'll just be "wrong with confidence," while I have a better chance of being a bat-boy in the right ballpark.

Isn't being a layman wonderful!

Yup.

Regardless, I can't shake the feeling that, because no one (that I have read about, at least) has actually gone looking for a circuit *outside* of the supercell, maybe the data would look differently compared to a bigger picture? Could the temperature and pressure differentials be simply side effects of electromagnetic forces at work? Would layers of atmosphere of differing charge values show a difference in thermal signature as a side effect? That sort of thing?

Yes, but how?

I guess what I'm trying to say is- maybe it's not new data that we need. Maybe we need to look at the same old data from a different perspective?

No, we need more data. Atmospheric currents, especially in the stratosphere and above, have not been thoroughly researched. But it's still useful to develop ideas that lead us to look in places we would not have looked otherwise.

I still do not see you addressing the acoustic aspects.

OK, I've added a new section to my "alternative theories" section.

http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes%20Full.php#id_48

But I have to call 'em like I see 'em, so my comment there is:

This is a "anything's possible" theory that needs to be developed into a "this is possible" theory before it can be evaluated.

I'm not saying that it's wrong. I'm just saying that 1) I don't understand it, and 2) you haven't explained it.

[mharratsc]

mharratsc wrote:
Regardless, I can't shake the feeling that, because no one (that I have read about, at least) has actually gone looking for a circuit *outside* of the supercell, maybe the data would look differently compared to a bigger picture? Could the temperature and pressure differentials be simply side effects of electromagnetic forces at work? Would layers of atmosphere of differing charge values show a difference in thermal signature as a side effect? That sort of thing?

Yes, but how?

Well, from my own (limited, I'll confess) knowledge, there is a marked difference in scope between the size of the studies done between weather patterns of a hemispherical scale, and anything at all regarding electrostatic or electromagnetic effects in weather.

Like looking at a hydrogen 'cloud' near a galaxy. Experiments saw that it was there... but later on other experiments saw that that same 'cloud' went on and on and on all the way to the next galaxy over!

I would think that electromagnetic effects (akin to the ones responsible for moving all that dust off of Western Africa) of that scale would be very subtle, unless you were actively looking for them?

Ehh! I ask more questions than I answer...

We're seeing a correspondence between the Earth's 'jet streams' and the Sun's... I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we didn't discover it is reflected on the other planet's as well. Likewise, the weather that we're so familiar with on Earth, is probably seen to a similar degree on the other planets, barring the fact that the atmosphere's are wildly different. Look at Mars... the bugger has electrical activity that is probably proportional to Earth's- the 'lightning' just takes a different form.

Positive ions bombard the poles of the planets, depositing matter blown off from the Sun (hydrogen ions). The way I understand it- that means that the Sun must be scavenging electrons/negative ions back from the planets to complete the circuit. Positive in at the poles, negative out from the equatorial regions (in a much larger swathe).

If that is true, then 'weather' as we define it must somehow be related or tied to that endless event... but can we motivate anyone to look for that relationship?? That is the real question.

I guess I want to see the Big Picture painted right away... but that isn't gonna happen!

It's going to occur more like a jigsaw, or a patchwork- identifying the electrical nature of tornados, then maybe hurricanes, volcanos, on and on, until one day all the pieces just click- and everyone will smack themselves in the head and say 'Doh!' and the race will be on to see who can take credit for the discovery!

Sigh... I wish I had more to offer than just more questions, Charles. :\

Mike H.

[MrAmsterdam]

Another interesting abstract. unluckily I could not find the document on the internet;
-
Laboratory Experiments of Helicity or Vortex Generation in an Electric Quadrupole: Simulation of Tonadoes with and without Lightning Authors: Kikuchi, H.
-
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUSMSA54A..02K

[solrey]

Arrrggghhhh. I saved this as a draft a couple of weeks ago but got busy and forgot to post it.

After I finally complete a porch refinishing project tomorrow, I'm going to assemble a little discharge vortex experiment.
I plan on using an old CRT (provides electrostatic charge) with the screen facing up, surrounded by a cardboard box with one end open. I have a DC balast from an old RV fluorescent light that I'm going to connect to a wire mesh laying on the CRT screen (negative side for Earth) and another, smaller wire mesh disc (positive side for ionosphere), at the end of a wood dowel sticking through a slot in the top of the box to provide vertical and horizontal adjustments. The DC balast will be hooked up to a dimmer switch on the AC side to control voltage potential. I plan on using fine talc powder on the bottom of the screen, a burning incense stick to add particulates to the air, a plant mister to add moisture and a tube that I can insert into the front opening of the box, just above the CRT screen, to provide a moist thermal updraft.
I think the injection of a jet of steam will trigger a discharge vortex, that once initiated will continue after the steam injection is removed.

Turns out, the abstract that MrAmsterdam linked to uses a similar technique.

Abstract Usually the source-origins of helicity or vortex generation have been considered to be thermohydrodynamic in the hydrodynamic (HD) regime and/or magnetohydrodynamic in the magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) regime. It has been shown, however, by the present author that an electric quadrupole is also capable for helicity or vortex generation and a new electric helic- ity defined as hE= v·E (v: flow velocity; E: electric field) has been introduced. Accordingly, we have now three kinds of helicity, namely fluid, magnetic, and electric helicity. In many cases of atmospheric and space electricity phenomena in nature, electric helicity or vortex generation of electric origin is involved as typically seen in tornadic thunderstorms. Conventional theory of tornadoes, however, space- charge and electric fields have never been considered properly so far, surprisingly in spite of their effects of significance, because of no theorv for such cases, although those effects have been recognized implicitly by field experiments. This paper fills up these demands by newly introducing the concept of 'Electric Helicity' based on 'Electrohydrodynamics' (EHD) established and developed over the last more than two decades and such a whole theory is applied to tornadioes with and without lightning. Further, experimental evidence of this theory is presented for the first time by using a 'universal electric-cusp type plasma reactor' designed more than a decade ago [1]. This device is composed of two positive and negative electrodes of lead spheres 1.5 cm in diameter suspended 2~5 cm above a copper plane on which a semispherical lead 1.25 cm in diameter or its modified object is placed. A whole setup is arranged in a wooden box whose back and both sides are covered by black papers to prevent scattered and reflected light while its front side is open. We are particularly focusing on 'significance of electric quadrupole(s) in helicity and vortex generation',taking photos of wind flows with the use of a bunch of incense sticks burned and placed on the semispherical lead at the cusp center in the reactor. With increasing both electrode voltages from zero to a certain kV, ascending straight wind flows turn to be cyclonic separately toward the both electrodes. As soon as electric discharge from both electrodes to object starts at a certain breakdown voltage, typically 20~30 kV, wind flows suddenly turn to be violent and wind flows toward negative electrode are still cyclonic but wind flows toward positive electrode become anticyclonic. These results are shown by a number of photos taken and provide at the same time 'laboratory simulation of tonadoes with and without lightning'. [1] Kikuchi, H. Electrohydrodynamics in Dusty and Dirty Plasmas, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/The Netherlands, 2001, pp.93-94.

I think I'm taking the same approach, albeit with spare parts lying around my workshop.

[mharratsc]

What's this bit about?

wind flows toward negative electrode are still cyclonic but wind flows toward positive electrode become anticyclonic.

Traditionally, everyone has believed that the direction of vortex flow was determined by location of hemisphere and rotational spin, right? But if what these guys are saying is true, then does that give us an idea of what the current flow of the planetary circuit is, north and south?

I've always wondered about that... o.O


Mike H.