That's similar to the temperature profile in the Earth's atmosphere, which starts at roughly 60 ºF at the surface, drops to -40 ºF at a height of 15 km, and then rises back up to 60 ºF at a height of 45 km. The temperature decrease with altitude is actually to be expected in a hydrostatic equilibrium, due to the reduction in pressure, meaning no convection. The "absolute temperature" (i.e., the particle velocity) continues to increase with altitude, but the "measured temperature" decreases, since it is measured by the total kinetic energy of the number of particles impacting the sensor (which is a function of pressure) times the energy of the impacts (which is a function of the absolute temperature). So there isn't necessarily going to be any convection, even though at first glance it seems like there is hotter gas at the bottom, which should rise. To find out if there will actually be convection, you have to run the numbers, to see if surface temps are actually hotter than the hydrostatic equilibrium. In the Earth's atmosphere, convection inside a thunderstorm is driven by differences of less than 10 ºF compared to neighboring parcels, so there's no way of telling at first glance whether or not there will be convection -- you have to run the numbers.viscount aero wrote:I must not understand convection. The Venusian atmosphere varies widely in temperature at distinct layers. The surface is almost 900ºF whereas at 100km height it is -279ºF. Then at 200km the temperature goes back up to 80ºF. Are these temperature differences irrelevant to convection? I would think just the opposite, ie, that it would create extremely violent weather at the boundary layers.CharlesChandler wrote:Without sunlight reaching the surface, there shouldn't be much in the way of convection, since there shouldn't be any differential heating, and thus no stirring mechanism. And without convection, there shouldn't be much of a charging mechanism.
Then, above a certain altitude, you start to get heating from external sources, such as UV radiation from the Sun, and collisional heating from cosmic rays. So the temperature would continue to drop with altitude in a hydrostatic equilibrium. But with an external heat source, the outer layers will be hotter, which creates a stable configuration (i.e., hotter on top). The only reason why we have convection here on Earth is because of surface heating due to the transparency of the atmosphere, allowing the surface to absorb sunlight and re-radiate infrared energy.
I'm contending that Venus' atmosphere is too thick to allow sunlight to reach the surface, and thus all of the sunlight should be gradually absorbed by the atmosphere. This should produce a stable temperature gradient, because higher in the atmosphere, more energy is absorbed, and thus the temperature is higher, which isn't going to produce convection.
Yes, but to get lightning, you need more than just ionization -- you need a charge separation mechanism. H + and HSO4 - right next to each other isn't going to produce a spark. So I'm contending that there has to be an electric field that separates charges, producing potentials sufficient for discharges.viscount aero wrote:Also, Venus' atmosphere conducts electricity probably because it is composed of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) which can dissociate and become H + and HSO4 -. The atmosphere is then an electrolyte.
I haven't made a thorough review, but I don't think that "self-generated magnetic fields" is accurate. They have 36 magnets creating 4000 G fields (wow!) that at rest are perfectly balanced, and thus cancel each other out, but the competition between the fields creates an enormous instability. Then they stir the plasma with 320 amps of current (40 amps at each of 8 cathodes -- wow! again).peter wrote:Yes see: http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8637Have they gotten any results yet?
But when I read the paper its a bit above my IQ level. But I does seem that they got self generated Magnetic fields from rotating confined Plasmas
They are using Plasmas in their latest experimental work as Previous and ongoing dynamo experiments use flowing liquid metals.suffer from several limitations which can be avoided by using plasmas.
Trying scaling those numbers up to get something the size of the Sun, and see if you don't laugh yourself off of your chair.The Madison plasma dynamo experiment (MPDX) is a novel, versatile, basic plasma research device designed to investigate flow driven magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) instabilities and other high-β phenomena with astrophysically relevant parameters. A 3 m diameter vacuum vessel is lined with 36 rings of alternately oriented 4000 G samarium cobalt magnets which create an axisymmetric multicusp that contains ∼14 m3 of nearly magnetic field free plasma that is well confined and highly ionized (> 50%). At present, 8 lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6) cathodes and 10 molybdenum anodes are inserted into the vessel and biased up to 500 V, drawing 40 A each cathode, ionizing a low pressure Ar or He fill gas and heating it. Up to 100 kW of electron cyclotron heating (ECH) power is planned for additional electron heating. The LaB6 cathodes are positioned in the magnetized edge to drive toroidal rotation through J × B torques that propagate into the unmagnetized core plasma. Dynamo studies on MPDX require a high magnetic Reynolds number Rm > 1000, and an adjustable fluid Reynolds number 10 < Re < 1000, in the regime where the kinetic energy of the flow exceeds the magnetic energy (M2A = (v/vA)2 > 1). Initial results from MPDX are presented along with a 0-dimensional power and particle balance model to predict the viscosity and resistivity to achieve dynamo action.
If I were Don Scott, I'd be all over this like white on rice. If it takes electrical stirring to generate the differential rotation with a plasma, and to get the observed toroidal magnetic field that can invert in polarity at the slightest suggestion, that would pretty much seem to prove the Electric Sun hypothesis. But both Scott and Cooper still have to establish what drives such currents inside the Sun, and what would create the impossibly powerful magnetic conflicts that would be so unstable as to resolve into one toroidal field or the other at the slightest suggestion. The Sun isn't a laboratory contrivance -- it's a naturally occurring phenomenon, so you have to work only with what would naturally occur at that scale. Hence I don't think that these results are relevant. I'd call it just a big exercise in how to spend money coming up with something that is so complicated that the general public can't fathom the sleight of hand that they're doing.
My theory predicts that Venus' atmosphere has a net positive charge. So somebody just has to determine the polarity of the galactic (Orion Spur) field, and then see if the solar system's motion through that field should produce induction by the right or the left hand rule. This image from the IBEX team might help:
