Electric Clouds

[Ion01]

That is really interesting.
I just thought I might add this article by Thornhill which illustrates the electrical nature of clouds and storms.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9eq6g3aj

[MGmirkin]

Here's a way-too-long list of papers by Friedmann Freund on the topic of the electronics of the earth's crust and earthquakes. Discussion of p-holes (positive holes; no dirty jokes, please...), piezoelectric stress, etc.

(Stress Activation and Propagation of Electronic Charge Carriers in Igneous Rocks)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMMR13C1407L

(How can Stresses in the Earth's Crust Lead to Bursts of Electromagnetic Signals?)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.S41D..06F

(Pre-earthquake signals - Part I: Deviatoric stresses turn rocks into a source of electric currents)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007NHESS...7..535F

(Pre-earthquake signals - Part II: Flow of battery currents in the crust)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007NHESS...7..543F

(Gabbro in a Temperature Gradient turns into a Battery Generating Electric Currents)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFMMR21A0001M

(Electromagnetic Signals and why they don't show up before every Earthquake)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFM.T34B..04F

(Rocks, when Stressed, turn into a Battery that is Rechargeable)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFM.T31A0421L

(Stress-Activated Electronic Charge Carriers in Igneous Rocks)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFM.T31A0420P

(Antipodal Magnetic Anomalies on the Moon, Contributions from Impact Induced Currents Due to Positive Holes and Flexoelectric Phenomina and Dynamo)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005LPI....36.1854K

(Stress-Rate-Dependent Seismo-Electrodynamcis of Non-Quartz Bearing Rocks)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.T51B1334L

(Positive charge carriers flowing out of partially stressed synthetic quartz: a fundamental experiment for modeling seismo-electromagnetic phenomena)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.T51B1336T

(Anomalous Magnetic Field Pulses, Ground Currents, and the Build-up of Stress prior to the Chi-Chi Earthquake)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUFM.T51B0448H

(Large-Scale Model of the Electrical Conductivity in the Crust)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUFM.T51B0444L

(Stress-Induced Changes in the Electrical Conductivity of Igneous Rocks)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUSMGP21A..06T

(Charge generation and propagation in igneous rocks)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002JGeo...33..543F

(Impact-Generated Electric Charges in Igneous Rocks)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998LPI....29.1106B

(O in Olivine: Cause for a Pronounced Electric Anomaly Around 600 deg C)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991LPI....22..413F

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[seasmith]

MGMirkin wrote:

Here's a way-too-long list ...

Hmmm, it is possibly a bit "way-to ..."
Out of sheer undeserved kindness to we time-challenged peons, might you mercifully include a few pertinent guiding quotes to ease the pain?




mas gracias,
s

[MGmirkin]

MGMirkin wrote:

Here's a way-too-long list ...

Hmmm, it is possibly a bit "way-to ..."
Out of sheer undeserved kindness to we time-challenged peons, might you mercifully include a few pertinent guiding quotes to ease the pain?




mas gracias,
s

If I get a few spare moments to copy more than the title / URL, then perhaps. ;o]

Lots to do, nowhere near enough time! That's life, right?

I'll see what I can do.
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

Well, for now I'll just post up one of the abstracts:

If we ever hope to understand the non-seismic signals that the Earth sends out before major earthquakes, we need to understand the physics of rocks that are coming under increasing levels of stress. In particular we need to understand the generation of electrical currents in the ground. We have begun to study how the electrical conductivity of igneous rocks changes under stress and what types of charge carriers are involved. We show that granite and (quartz-free) anorthosite under stress generate electronic charge carriers. These charge carriers are positive holes (p-holes), e.g. defect electrons on the oxygen anion sublattice. The p-holes spread out of the stressed rock volume, the "source volume", into the surrounding unstressed rocks. This outflow of charges is probably the mechanism by which ground currents can be generated. Large ground currents are necessary to generate local magnetic field anomalies and low-frequency electromagnetic emissions reported in the literature. The outflow of p-holes is expected to also lead to changes in the ground potential and is implicated in the reported "thermal anomalies", which consist of rapid variations of the land surface temperature detected in night-time mid-IR satellite images.

Bolded a "duh" statement. Large ground currents are required to generate local magnetic field anomalies and low-frequency EM emissions. Y'think? Electro-magnetic, whatnow? At least someone in the sciences has it close to right. E & M generally go together.

Might as well quote another abstract:

Earthquakes are feared because they often strike so suddenly. Yet, there are innumerable reports of preearthquake signals. Widespread disagreement exists in the geoscience community how these signals can be generated in the Earth’s crust and whether they are early warning signs, related to the build-up of tectonic stresses before major seismic events. Progress in understanding and eventually using these signals has been slow because the underlying physical process or processes are basically not understood. This has changed with the discovery that, when igneous or highgrade metamorphic rocks are subjected to deviatoric stress, dormant electronic charge carriers are activated: electrons and defect electrons. The activation increases the number density of mobile charge carriers in the rocks and, hence, their electric conductivity. The defect electrons are associated with the oxygen anion sublattice and are known as positive holes or pholes for short. The boundary between stressed and unstressed rock acts a potential barrier that lets pholes pass but blocks electrons. Therefore, like electrons and ions in an electrochemical battery, the stress-activated electrons and pholes in the “rock battery” have to flow out in different
directions. When the circuit is closed, the battery currents can flow. The discovery of such stress-activated currents in crustal rocks has far-reaching implications for understanding pre-earthquake signals.

http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.n ... 5-2007.pdf

Part 2 abstract follows:

When rocks are subjected to stress, dormant electronic charge carriers are activated. They turn the stressed rock volume into a battery, from where currents can flow out. The charge carriers are electrons and defect electrons, also known as positive holes or pholes for short. The boundary between stressed and unstressed rock acts as a potential barrier that lets pholes pass but blocks electrons. One can distinguish two situations in the Earth’s crust: (i) only pholes spread out of a stressed rock volume into the surrounding unstressed rocks. This is expected to lead to a positive surface charge over a wide area around the future epicenter, to perturbations in the ionosphere, to stimulated infrared emission from the ground, to ionization of the near-ground air, to cloud formation and to other phenomena that have been reported to precede major earthquakes. (ii) both pholes and electrons flow out of the stressed rock volume along different paths, sideward into the relatively cool upper layers of the crust and downward into the hot lower crust. This situation, which is likely to be realized late in the earthquake preparation process, is necessary for the battery circuit to close and for transient electric currents to flow. If burst-like, these currents should lead to the emission of low frequency electromagnetic radiation. Understanding how electronic charge carriers are stress-activated in rocks, how they spread or flow probably holds the key to deciphering a wide range of pre-earthquake signals. It opens the door to a global earthquake early warning system, provided resources are pooled through a concerted and constructive community effort, including seismologists, with international participation.

http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.n ... 3-2007.pdf

Heck, might as well go for one more:

We challenge the assumption that igneous rocks,
when dry, are always good insulators, unable to generate and transport electric charges. We report on a successful demonstration that highly mobile electronic charges are generated by impacts. The charges are positive holes, generated from peroxy links which derive from traces of H2O dissolved in the minerals[1].

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[seasmith]

~
M,

Mucho Gracias

c

[redeye]

Thanks Micheal. I was looking at a boring day at work until I found your post.

Fantastic stuff!

Cheers!

[Osmosis]

Instruments to measure the local magnetic field, over a suspected fault, have been around for many years. If the operators of these instruments
finally accept that the field changes may be caused by currents running through the Earth, we will be on our way to verified prediction of earthquakes.

[MGmirkin]

Thanks Micheal. I was looking at a boring day at work until I found your post.

Fantastic stuff!

Cheers!

Yeah, I was looking at an already-boring / stressful day at work when I found.. my... post... Hmm? We'll just not mention that to the boss. ;o]

Nah, did it on a well-deserved break... That's my story and I'm sticking to it. *Tongue planted firmly in cheek*

~Michael

[MGmirkin]

Instruments to measure the local magnetic field, over a suspected fault, have been around for many years. If the operators of these instruments finally accept that the field changes may be caused by currents running through the Earth, we will be on our way to verified prediction of earthquakes.

Well, we should already *BE* there, but nobody's listening. At least according to several articles proffered originally on "Thunderbolts Forum 1.0" prior to the catastrophic crash.

(Large, impending earthquakes may broadcast warnings)
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2 ... 10908.html

(Large earthquakes may broadcast warnings, but is anyone tuning in to listen?)
http://www.physorg.com/news116685860.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 201254.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 121207.php
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/ ... 00155.html

(Evidence Mounts for Electromagnetic Earthquake Precursors)
http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... uake_alarm

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[redeye]

I speculated, on the old forum, that bullseye and rimshot craters could be caused by a discharge down the vertical plume thrown upwards from the central mascon in a mechanical impact. It seems to me that if this plume consists of highly charged fragments of rock it would fit my (half assed) model quite nicely.

Cheers!

[Osmosis]

I was looking at a picture of the Grand Canyon, the other day and thought about what lightning strikes can do to soil. Above,
I mentioned the magnetic-field measuring instrument (magnetometer).

If massive electrical discharges did carve the canyon, magnetic anomalies should be wide spread.

Hello, out there-any geophysicsts watching this? Perhaps a wide survey of the Grand Canyon area, similar to Dr. Peratt's search of ancient petroglyphs, would be a good project .

[StefanR]

It seems in the geological/tectonic- field things are changing slowly too

Ten to twenty years ago, we could never have imagined
that such a positive environment would ever emerge:
whenever we tried to publish papers which did not support
plate tectonics tenets in mainstream journals, manuscripts
were bounced back, often with a reviewer’s comment
saying that “if this paper adds a paragraph supporting plate
tectonics it is acceptable for publication” (for example,
Bulletin of Geol. Soc. America). Some of our colleagues were threatened or sacked for publishing or even trying to
publish papers that undermined plate tectonics. Several such cases were documented in the early numbers of the
NCGT Newsletter.
However, despite making tremendous progress, we have
not yet achieved our goal. The above developments are
only a start. The stifling old systems, dogmatic ideas, and
old gatekeepers are still there and are still dominating
geological circles today. The only way to defeat them is to
present a pile of hard data and to establish a tenable tectonic hypothesis. The past achievements by our group members prove that we are on a winning track and
approaching the goal step by step. We will eventually prevail by successfully creating a grand tectonic model that
can explain all tectonic phenomena and give the right
answers to the serious tectonic issues which the human race
is facing today – such as global warming and earthquakes.
However, even after having become successful, we need to
remain open-minded, and keep the model refined and
adjusted to the real world. We have to recognize that we
are not infallible and that we still don’t know much about
the Earth. The new model must not become another dogma,
as we cannot afford to repeat the dark history of geology from which we have all suffered.

From the same PDF:

THE RECENT SUCCESSFUL M6.4 INDONESIA EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION
Abstract: This paper gives an example of how to distinguish an earthquake cloud from weather clouds by sudden heat. Although the author only obtained two images in 6 hours, the irresistible strength of his earthquake vapor theory made his recent M6.4 Indonesia prediction the only successful one for this killer earthquake in the world. To persuade skeptics, he suggests that they try
to simulate his 50 independent predictions verified by the USGS, with an accuracy of 68% (assuming that all earthquakes data are
without error) and a probability of 1 in 16,000, and his Bam prediction, with a probability close to 0, and see whether they can
explain the strange phenomena, e.g. the Bam cloud.

--------------------
t 2:51 (UTC) on 22 December 2006, the author
publicly predicted an earthquake of magnitude 5 or
above, likely 5.5 or above, in Western Indonesia (see Figure
1) (prediction no. 52 on page 30 at http://quake.exit.com/).
He only obtained two images: one at 18:00 on 18 December
2006 and the other at 0:00 of 19 (Figure 2) although there
were 96 images a day. Comparing the two, he found the
sudden emergence of the black part, whose boundary is
depicted by the black curve in Figure 1 (right), which is
denoted as a “Geoeruption” due to earthquake heat (1 & 2).
These infrared images are from EUMETSAT’s IODC
satellite (http://www.eumetsat.de/en/index.html),
transformed and offered to the public at a rate of 4 images a
day by Dundee University, UK
(http://www.sat.dundee.ac.uk/pdus.html ). From 18:00 on 18 December 2006 to 0:00 on 19 December, an earthquake
cloud suddenly appeared with heat. On 6 March 2007, an M6.4 earthquake happened at (-0.47, 100.57) and killed 70 people. It occurred exactly at the
predicted time and place, and with the predicted magnitude,
so the prediction was successful. A web search shows that
this prediction was the only successful one in the world for
this earthquake. On 1 December 2006, the author also successfully predicted another Sumatra earthquake of
magnitude 5.8 at (0.63, 100.04) on 17 December 2006
(prediction no. 37 on page 30), which killed 4 people and
injured more than 100. On page 30, 43 predictions were
checked and 41 or 95.3% were all correct in time, area and
magnitude in spite of a lack of necessary data (1 & 2).
Although the author could not obtain the data he needed, the
irresistible strength of his vapor theory made the UN select it for publication in its yearbook, which is shared with all
member states. Skeptics still doubt that earthquakes can be
predicted, so the author suggests that they try to simulate his 50 independent predictions verified by the USGS with an accuracy of 68% (assuming that all earthquakes data are without error) and a probability of 1 in 16,000, and his Bam prediction, with a probability close to 0, and see whether
they can explain the strange phenomena, e.g. the Bam cloud
in his papers (1&2).

http://quake.exit.com/copies/Ncgt42.pdf

[StefanR]

For those who wish to read further on:
Organized Opposition to Plate Tectonics:
The New Concepts in Global Tectonics Group

NCGT Group: Origins and Activities

The New Concepts in Global Tectonics Group is an informal association of earth scientists who are critical of plate tectonics and want to explore alternative theories. It arose after a symposium on “Alternative theories to plate tectonics” held at the 30th International Geological Congress (IGC) in Beijing in August 1996. The name “New Concepts in Global Tectonics” was taken from an earlier symposium held in association with the 28th IGC in Washington, DC, in 1989 (see Chatterjee & Hotton, 1992).

The first issue of the New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter appeared in December 1996. In their editorial, J. M. Dickins and D. R. Choi wrote:

Although enormous strides have been made in our knowledge of the earth and much has been added to Geology by Physics and Chemistry, we need to acknowledge that we are only at the beginning of tabulating and understanding what is at the surface of the earth, let alone what is underneath....
In this context, in the 1950s and 60s the new theory of Plate Tectonics was propounded by “Geophysicists” (Physicists) and mainly young Geologists with little experience, depth of understanding or respect for existing geology. The theory, although admittedly simplistic and with little factual basis but claiming to be all embracing, was pursued by its proponents in an aggressive, intolerant, dogmatic and sometimes unfortunately an unscrupulous fashion. Most geologists with knowledge based locally or regionally were not confident in dealing with a new global theory which swept the world and was attractive in giving Geology a prestige not equalled since the nineteenth century.
The ideological influence and strength of the Plate Tectonic Theory has swept aside much well-based data as though it never existed, inhibited many fields of investigation and resulted in the suppression or manipulation of data which does not fit the theory. In the course of time the method has become narrow, monotonous and dull: a catechism repeated too often. As new data has arisen there is a growing scepticism about the theory.

Conclusion

Since its formation in 1996, the New Concepts in Global Tectonics Group and its newsletter have become the main focus of organized opposition to the reigning paradigm of plate tectonics. The NCGT Newsletter provides a vital forum where critics and opponents of plate tectonics can present and discuss anomalous data and alternative interpretations and theories. The group is now firmly established, and its activities will remain necessary until it once again becomes possible for a variety of competing hypotheses and theories, and the data underpinning them, to be openly aired and debated in mainstream publications.

Comments by editor-in-chief Henry Bauer, JSE 20:1, 2006, p. 2

I learned of the existence of the New Concepts in Global Tectonics (NCGT) group some years ago, when we received a manuscript questioning aspects of the theory of plate tectonics. Until then, I had thought that plate tectonics (formerly described as continental drift) had become as well established as the theory of biological evolution: that while there might remain important questions about “How?”, no one doubted that it had happened and was continuing to happen. Now I recognize this as just another instance of what is routine in the mainstream of science: The very existence of unorthodox views is a “hidden event” (Westrum, 1982), irrespective, whether or not those views have intellectual merit. So it is with anti-Big Bang cosmology, anti-HIV/AIDS claims, and more. The popular media are in the thrall of Big Science and there is a lack of investigative science reporting. Knowledge monopolies and research cartels (Bauer, 2004) describe the circumstances of 21st-century science.

When David Pratt recently offered a lengthy “Article of Interest” extract from the newsletter of the NCGT group, I asked for a piece about that group, and I’m very pleased that in this issue we have a highly informative essay that details the formation of the group and also makes clear what the chief points of substantive geological contention are. The most appalling point is that mainstream organizations not only suppress unorthodox interpretations, they censor factual material. A general feature that characterizes dissents from established scientific dogmas is also illustrated: While the received view is monolithic, the critiques are anything but. That makes very challenging the task of creating non-mainstream organizations and publications, for those with unorthodox views may disagree among themselves as much as they disagree with the governing paradigm.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... gt-jse.htm

With some extra links on the bottom of that page. It seems Internet is revolutionizing science.

[redeye]

If massive electrical discharges did carve the canyon, magnetic anomalies should be wide spread.

That's a great idea.

scroll down for the papers relating to magnetic anomolies

loads of maps

Cheers!