Earths Magnetic Field

[peter]

It would seem that the problem with this discussion is that we (myself included) have been going off track by proposing just one source for geomagnetism.

Looking into this further it would seem that geomagnetism ( and more broadly planetary magnetism) has at least 3 sources:

1. Main Field
Dynamo effect due to Earth's fluid core at depths larger than 2,900 km; this is the so-called core field. Its strength at the Earth's surface varies from less than 30.000 nT near the equator to about 60.000 nT near the poles, which makes the core field responsible for more than 95% of the observed field at ground.

2 Crustal Field
Magnetized material in the crust (the uppermost few km of Earth) causes the crustal field; it is relatively weak and accounts on average only for a few percent of the observed field at ground. Core and crustal fields together make the internal field (since their sources are internal to the Earth's surface).

3. External field
External magnetic field contributions are caused by electric currents in the ionosphere (at altitudes 90-1000 km) and magnetosphere (at altitudes of several Earth radii) caused by the solar wind. On average their contribution is also relatively weak-a few percent of the total field at ground during geomagnetic quiet solar wind conditions.

Te exact mechanism of how the Solar wind interacts with the ionosphere - that the that the ionosphere acts like a coil as described by Fixationable is an interesting proposition

[seasmith]

~
Fixationable wrote:

... the idea that the ionosphere acts like a coil.

Yes.
That and related concepts have been discussed hereabouts from time to time. Particularly with regards to a solarsystem
Electro-Magnetic Gyroscopic model (EMG),
[or an electro-static gyroscope ESG, in one prefers to work with Maxwell's "displacement currents"] .


http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... &start=150

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =3&t=14558

Welcome aboard F

[CharlesChandler]

An atmosphere is Dependent on planet size and atmospheric composition.

I agree that composition is a factor, and Venus' carbon dioxide certainly has a greater molar mass than the Earth's diatomic nitrogen and oxygen. But Venus has an average surface temperature of 735 K, compared to Earth's 287 K. Hotter gases are supposed to expand, and thus get lighter. If you're going to say that 735 K carbon dioxide has a greater density than 287 K diatomic nitrogen, you'll have to show me the math. And remember that the density has to be greater on Venus with only 81% of the gravity of Earth.

A lack of magnetic field does not determine the fate of a planet's atmosphere.

Obviously.

It is because Venus has a denser atmosphere that its is somewhat shielded from solar winds.

So what shields the atmosphere from the solar winds, so that it can be more dense, such that it shields itself from the solar winds? (I'm so confused!)

We combined observations of radio emissions and energetic particle streaming with extensive three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic computer simulations of magnetic field draping over the heliopause to show that the plane of the local interstellar field is ∼60° to 90° from the galactic plane. - The Orientation of the Local Interstellar Magnetic Field

Is this more along the lines of what you're asking Charles?

Exactly, except for the fact that it isn't clear whether the orientation was observed or hypothesized. "MHD simulations" are like Einsteinian thought experiments -- they can be whatever they want them to be. As a consequence, it's dubious to base any additional work on them. It sounds like they're saying the same thing in words that this image says graphically:

http://www.eos.unh.edu/Spheres_1110/gra ... ex2_lg.jpg

But the way scientists do MHD these days, they think that magnetism is like a fluid that would flow around something (like the heliosphere), instead of passing through it. Such is not the actual nature of magnetism. For those field lines to get bent like that, there would have to be a parallel field inside the heliosphere, and magnetic pressure between the two fields. But the field associated with the heliospheric current sheet isn't like that. So I'm not sure that we have a smoking gun here.

First my disclaimer, as this is my first post on these forums.

Welcome! Your mechanical reasoning fits right into what a lot of people are doing on this forum, so make yourself at home.

What I want to introduce is the idea that the ionosphere acts like a coil. We know that its conductive, as well as the earth's surface. So it follows that if the ionosphere is (acts like) a coil, then it would create a current (magnetic field) whenever it is moving toward or away from another magnetic field (such as the sun's magnetic field); also creates a current (magnetic field) moving into or out of the magnetic field, or rotating the coil (ionosphere) relative to the magnet (sun).

I agree with the induction hypothesis, but I'm not convinced that the Sun's magnetic field is doing the work. The Sun's field is actually very complex, even in the quiescent phase (between the peaks in the 11.2 year sunspot cycle). Instead of being toroidal like the Earth's field, the lines of force are stretched into straight lines projecting outward from the Sun. I propose what causes this here, as depicted in the following diagram:

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/C ... rs_wbg.png

The heliospheric current sheet is thinner than the diameter of the Earth, and as it fluctuates above and below the Earth, like a flag waving in the breeze, the associated field exposed to the Earth flips in polarity. Yet the Earth's magnetic field doesn't flip. So that wire moving through the magnetic field isn't getting an induced AC current. So I think that we need to keep scratching our heads here. Nevertheless, EM is governed by strict laws, and you have the ability to apply those laws to observations. You're on the right track, so just keep heading in that direction, and you'll get to the next whistle-stop sooner or later. I'm not convinced that my model is the last word -- we can't even seem to find definitive source data to evaluate it. So this is still a wide-open topic.

The solar wind, I have read is of one polarity, and solar events such as corona, flares, coronal mass ejections are of the opposite polarity.

Do you remember where you read this? I agree -- I just want to see if I can learn something more from your sources. In my model, CMEs original from a positive layer near the surface of the Sun, and thus the CMEs are positively charged. As a consequence, the Sun is left with a corresponding negative charge, and this drives a drift of electrons out of the Sun. Knowing the average mass and frequency of CMEs, and assigning a positive charge to them, the average positive charge loss works out to roughly 5.86 × 1015 A, so this is the amps of the corresponding electron drift. Given a rough estimate of the surface voltage of 1.7 × 109 V (which was derived by Hannes Alfvén before all of these other numbers were available), we can just multiply the amps times the volts to get the watts, which comes out to 9.96 × 1024 W. The total power output of the Sun is 3.8 × 1026 W. As rough as these numbers are, this electron drift might actually be the primary power source for the Sun. This is supported by several other lines of reasoning, so this is the model that I'm using. For more info, see this.

(Sorry for going OT there, but anybody doing mechanistic reasoning needs to get on board with what me & the gang have been doing.)

1. Main Field: Dynamo effect due to Earth's fluid core at depths larger than 2,900 km; this is the so-called core field. Its strength at the Earth's surface varies from less than 30.000 nT near the equator to about 60.000 nT near the poles, which makes the core field responsible for more than 95% of the observed field at ground.

That isn't an explanation. Calling it a fluid so that you can invoke MHD (which can do whatever you want it to) only works among mainstream scientists. Here we're using the actual properties of EM (which are supported by countless laboratory tests and practical applications) to explain astrophysical phenomena. Why use artificial MHD when proven EM principles provide a much more accurate description?

[Fixationable]

Thanks for the welcome and thanks for the links. There are some very interesting tidbits in there. (I have lots more reading to do - thank you)
One thing I found that may be relevant to the topic of this thread is the launch of the Swarm Mission
http://geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/swarm_overview.html

The mission consists of three identical satellites which will measure the strength and direction of Earth's magnetic field to new levels of precision. The new data will be processed by BGS to produce the most accurate maps of the Earth's magnetic field ever.

If my hypothesis is correct, that the ionosphere is a conductor that acts like a coil and generates a magnetic field, then the orbits of the satellites will put them right in the middle of this magnetic field.
My prediction is that the data from these satellites will not give them the data or measurements that they expect. I dont know what effect it would have on all the magnetometers on board them, but I suspect the readings will be way off.

[peter]

That isn't an explanation. Calling it a fluid so that you can invoke MHD

Although this is an over simplification -( more accurately that there is a liquid electrically conducting outer/inner and core consisting of a Fe-Ni alloy )

Are you denying that the Earth has a molten core (Fluid Core) ? Have you looked at the Volcanic eruptions on the Big Island of Hawaii - the lava tubes that flow from Mt Kilauea to the ocean

So what shields the atmosphere from the solar winds, so that it can be more dense, such that it shields itself from the solar winds? (I'm so confused!)

Yes exactly the dense atmosphere does act as a shield from the solar wind together with the weak Magnetic Field generated caused by electric currents in the ionosphere .

MHD is the explanation for the Main (Strong) Internal Field. EM is the explanation for the weak Ionospheric Contribution.

[celeste]

The solar cycle affects the solar wind and the magnetic field embedded in it. The heliospheric current sheet (HCS) is known to change its inclination in respect to the solar rotation axis as the solar cycle progresses. The flows produced by the HCS and the solar cycle in the heliosheath has not yet been studied in detail.

We do need more observations, but so far, this is consistent with Donald Scott's filament model,and the idea that the solar cycle is caused by changing current intensity to the sun (as opposed to changing current direction). I'll go fast here: If the sun is strung on one of Scott's filaments, then changing the current intensity, causes the solar cycle. But changing the current intensity, changes the radius at which the magnetic field goes from more axial, to more azimuthal. So an observer (on Earth, or a satellite at some fixed distance to the center of the solar system filament), will see a different "winding rate" of the magnetic field, around the filament axis. We'll see this as a change in inclination of magnetic field direction, and current flow, compared to the sun's axis.

So they have something backwards in that quote. Instead of:
A. the solar cycle affects the solar wind, and the magnetic field embedded in it.
We would have:
B. The changes in current intensity to the to the sun, cause the solar cycle, AND changes in current intensity, change the winding of the magnetic field around the solar system axis (observed as changing INCLINATION of magnetic field with respect to solar axis)

[CharlesChandler]

Are you denying that the Earth has a molten core (Fluid Core)?

No, I'm pointing out that you have to do more than just melt something to generate a magnet. In fact, melting destroys magnets, at least in the physical world. Of course, MHD doesn't have this problem, because MHD isn't physical. Rather, MHD is like science fiction -- if you believe it, then it's real for you. For some people, that's good enough. You obviously believe it, so you think that it is real. But I see more utility in believing things that are coupled with the physical world. If you want science fiction, watch Star Wars or Dr. Who, which offer better entertainment at a cheaper price. If the Science Channel is going to follow that model, they should learn to stick to a Hollywood budget and hire better talent, instead of dropping billions of dollars every year into a discipline that has been taken over by MHD, GR, QM, and other non-physical non-sense.

We do need more observations, but so far, this is consistent with Donald Scott's filament model, and the idea that the solar cycle is caused by changing current intensity to the sun (as opposed to changing current direction).

Yes, but Scott doesn't have a realistic voltage regular, so he can't explain why all of the potential doesn't get discharged all at once in one huge lightning bolt, after which the Sun would go dark forever.

[seasmith]

Yes, but Scott doesn't have a realistic voltage regular, so he can't explain why all of the potential doesn't get discharged all at once in one huge lightning bolt, after which the Sun would go dark forever.

Charles,

If one is to view the sun as powered externally, then it would logically follow that Sol acts as transformer/convertor
and the solar System~ as an induction-resistance circuit.
That earthly experience based perspective of course begs the very interesting question :
why is Earth the ultimate grounding terminal, in all our common electrical circuitry ?

[CharlesChandler]

If one is to view the sun as powered externally,

How?

then it would logically follow that Sol acts as transformer/convertor

How?

and the solar System~ as an induction-resistance circuit.

How?

That earthly experience based perspective of course begs the very interesting question:
why is Earth the ultimate grounding terminal, in all our common electrical circuitry?

Because the Earth is a conductor, with an electron cloud big enough to absorb pretty much anything you (operating at the human scale) decide to pump into it. But to fully understand that circuit, you need to understand the electromotive force, and if the circuit does useful work, there has to be a voltage regulator. These are physical entities that obey well-known laws. So if you say that the Sun is electrically powered, I'll agree, but if you say that Scott's voltage regulator is realistic, I'll disagree, because it has plasma doing things that plasma just won't do.

[Solar]

We combined observations of radio emissions and energetic particle streaming with extensive three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic computer simulations of magnetic field draping over the heliopause to show that the plane of the local interstellar field is ∼60° to 90° from the galactic plane. - The Orientation of the Local Interstellar Magnetic Field

Is this more along the lines of what you're asking Charles?

Exactly, except for the fact that it isn't clear whether the orientation was observed or hypothesized. "MHD simulations" are like Einsteinian thought experiments -- they can be whatever they want them to be. As a consequence, it's dubious to base any additional work on them. It sounds like they're saying the same thing in words that this image says graphically:

http://www.eos.unh.edu/Spheres_1110/gra ... ex2_lg.jpg

But the way scientists do MHD these days, they think that magnetism is like a fluid that would flow around something (like the heliosphere), instead of passing through it. Such is not the actual nature of magnetism. For those field lines to get bent like that, there would have to be a parallel field inside the heliosphere, and magnetic pressure between the two fields. But the field associated with the heliospheric current sheet isn't like that. So I'm not sure that we have a smoking gun here.

Worked with some of the references and plugged in a few different concepts related to this. It appears more favorable to search under 'orientation of the sun's dipole':

In 1976 the sunspot number was at a minimum (cycle 20/21). The magnetic field was mainly dipolar, as the dipole strength was much higher than the quadrapole strength. The dipole axis was oriented along the Sun's spin axis, which meant that the current sheet was almost flat and in the ecliptic plane.

As the cycle progressed, the sunspot number increased, the quadrupole strength increased and the field became more quadrupolar. The dipole axis slowly tilted away from the Sun's axis, meaning that the current sheet was no longer flat, but was highly inclined, and reached up almost to the poles. - The Sun and the Heliosphere as an Integrated System

Also: Variations of the Dipole Magnetic Moment of the Sun during the Solar Activity Cycle:I.M.Livshitsand V.N.Obridk

Fig 7 basically shows spin axis stabilized until pole flip periods whereupon the dipole precesses equatorward. Although the MHD sim was on target way out yonder at the 'boundary' of the sheath asymmetries can get pretty muddy as to orientation as seen by the Voyagers. Nonetheless, it appears that the Sun's dipole aligns with its spin axis excluding quadrupole duration.

[Krackonis]

If one is to view the sun as powered externally,

How?

then it would logically follow that Sol acts as transformer/convertor

How?

and the solar System~ as an induction-resistance circuit.

How?

That earthly experience based perspective of course begs the very interesting question:
why is Earth the ultimate grounding terminal, in all our common electrical circuitry?

Because the Earth is a conductor, with an electron cloud big enough to absorb pretty much anything you (operating at the human scale) decide to pump into it. But to fully understand that circuit, you need to understand the electromotive force, and if the circuit does useful work, there has to be a voltage regulator. These are physical entities that obey well-known laws. So if you say that the Sun is electrically powered, I'll agree, but if you say that Scott's voltage regulator is realistic, I'll disagree, because it has plasma doing things that plasma just won't do.

Dr. Michael Clarage: Earth's Electric Environment | EU2014 - On youtube describes the Voltage Regulator via the excitement of the Van Allen Radiation belts. It's very well presented. I hope this helps define the Voltage Regulation you are seeking. It specifically refers to 'Blobs' of high current low voltage plasmas passing by the earth and having the voltage pumped up to be absorbed by the Earth's geo-magnetic circuit.

[CharlesChandler]

Dr. Michael Clarage: Earth's Electric Environment | EU2014 - On youtube describes the Voltage Regulator via the excitement of the Van Allen Radiation belts. It's very well presented. I hope this helps define the Voltage Regulation you are seeking. It specifically refers to 'Blobs' of high current low voltage plasmas passing by the earth and having the voltage pumped up to be absorbed by the Earth's geo-magnetic circuit.

No, I was talking about the voltage regulator in the Sun, that prevents the discharge of all of the Sun's potential. In Scott's model, there is a stored potential that gets converted to power at a steady rate, but his regulator is not realistic.

[seasmith]

~
[with deference to Dr Clarage and Krackonis]

by CharlesChandler » Sun May 04, 2014 7:56 pm

seasmith wrote:
If one is to view the sun as powered externally,

“How?”

Via inter and intra-galactic currents. [Electric currents are normally visible as ‘filaments’ only when passing through a suitably electrically-luminescent medium. ]
A galaxy is not simply a maelstrom of matter bits swirling around in a void of nothingness.

seasmith wrote:
then it would logically follow that Sol acts as transformer/convertor

“How?”

Currents in<> ions, electro-magnetic and electro-static (displacement) fields out.

seasmith wrote:
and the solar System~ as an induction-resistance circuit.

“How?”

Look at a solarsystem as another electrical device, ie: sub-fields are generated, heat & other EM-ES spectra are produced and work is done.
A solar system is not simply a maelstrom of matter bits swirling around in a void of nothingness.

seasmith wrote:
That earthly experience based perspective of course begs the very interesting question:
why is Earth the ultimate grounding terminal, in all our common electrical circuitry?

“Because the Earth is a conductor, with an electron cloud big enough to absorb pretty much anything you (operating at the human scale) decide to pump into it. But to fully understand that circuit, you need to understand the electromotive force, and if the circuit does useful work, there has to be a voltage regulator. These are physical entities that obey well-known laws. So if you say that the Sun is electrically powered, I'll agree, but if you say that Scott's voltage regulator is realistic, I'll disagree, because it has plasma doing things that plasma just won't do.”

This “electron cloud” has somehow densely and permanently coalesced upon this rocky orb ?
How?

I’ll let Celeste speak for Dr. Scott, but an inductance/capacitance/resistance circuit IS a voltage regulator.

Ω

[CharlesChandler]

Seasmith, your answers are too vague. I'm asking about the specific properties of plasma that can instantiate the resistance, where Scott says it is, in order to establish realism. Otherwise, his construct is just as non-physical as the mainstream MHD models.

[Fixationable]

I posted the following under a geomagnetism thread, but they seem to be discussing other things and I didnt want to interfere. So I am starting a new thread because I want to invite some discussion on these ideas. To begin I will introduce the summary hypothesis and then follow up with a brief suggestion about the Schumann Resonances.

Hypothesis=
Ionospheric Dynamo Effect
<Any change in the magnetic environment of a coil of wire will cause a voltage (emf) to be "induced" in the coil. Current within the conductor gives rise to magnetic fields. Geomagnetism is caused by the induced currents into "coils", and the interaction of those coils to act like a motor. The ionosphere is a conductive plane that acts like a coil and produces a magnetic field. The surface of the earth is another conductive plane that acts as a coil and produces a magnetic field. The source of the induction is the magnetic field of the sun and the frequencies of other charged output of the sun such as solar wind, corona, spots and filaments, and coronal mass ejections.>

The first post...
First my disclaimer, as this is my first post on these forums. The subject of geomagnetism and the smaller scale affects of things here are earth and in our atmosphere are what attracts me here, and my amateur study into this subject. My perspective is not from that of a cosmologist or a physicist, but that of a one-time electronics technician. I have studied ohm's law, and coulombs, amperes, and farads, and what they do on a micro scale in electronic circuits. So I tend to look out from this point of view.
That being said, I have an idea on Earth's magnetic fields and how they are generated. I have read the previous posts, and several others sources on the electric universe and electric sun theories and so far I have not found the following suggested anywhere; although I recognize that this may not be anything new, I just haven't found where or who may have presented this in history.

I'm contending that the Earth's field is a consequence of the differential rotation of charged double-layers, meaning...

This idea agrees with this statement. It presents a way in which this would work.
Things we know about magnetism: Faraday's law: Any change in the magnetic environment of a coil of wire will cause a voltage (emf) to be "induced" in the coil. No matter how the change is produced, the voltage will be generated. The change could be produced by changing the magnetic field strength, moving a magnet toward or away from the coil, moving the coil into or out of the magnetic field, rotating the coil relative to the magnet, etc.

What I want to introduce is the idea that the ionosphere acts like a coil. We know that its conductive, as well as the earth's surface. So it follows that if the ionosphere is (acts like) a coil, then it would create a current (magnetic field) whenever it is moving toward or away from another magnetic field (such as the sun's magnetic field); also creates a current (magnetic field) moving into or out of the magnetic field, or rotating the coil (ionosphere) relative to the magnet (sun).

Second, is that since the surface of the earth is conductive, that it also is a coil (acts like). The earth's surface would also generate a magnetic field the same as described in faraday's law.

The two of these form the "double layer" that was mentioned previously.

For an electronic technician this makes me think of an electric motor. The ionosphere is the stator, and the earth is the rotor. So as these pass through the sun's magnetic field a current is generated in both the stator and the rotor. As in the case of an electric motor, when the (fixed position) stator produces a magnetic field it cause the rotor to rotate.

Lenz's law: When an emf is generated by a change in magnetic flux according to Faraday's Law, the polarity of the induced emf is such that it produces a current whose magnetic field opposes the change which produces it. The induced magnetic field inside any loop of wire always acts to keep the magnetic flux in the loop constant.

The relationship between the stator and the rotor, or the ionosphere and the surface creates this double layer.

But its not that simple is it? of course the ionosphere is not stationary like a stator. Therefore the magnetic field from the coil of Earth's surface will also generate a magnetic field which will cause the ionosphere to rotate, or react to its polarity.

I guess another major concept that I might be introducing here is that the Earth's magnetic field is not merely one field, but the "summation" or combination of more than one field.

And if we look at the ionosphere as a coil, as well as the earth's surface as a coil, then someone with better math skills than I, should be able to calculate things and put them in similar terms as that of a motor. For example number of coils in the motor. As in an AC motor which can be composed of various number of phases, 2-phase has two opposing pairs of coils. The more the coils the smoother the motor runs. 3-phase has 3pairs of opposing coils, or 6 coils.
"The theoretical speed of the rotor in an induction motor depends on the frequency of the AC supply and the number of coils that make up the stator and, with no load on the motor, comes close to the speed of the rotating magnetic field."

The frequency is supplied by the sun. The solar wind, I have read is of one polarity, and solar events such as corona, flares, coronal mass ejections are of the opposite polarity. If you look at this from an electrical standpoint, what you have is an alternating current (AC).

During Solar maximum this frequency increases which will cause changes in the magnetic fields and increases in the inducted currents. This could be responsible for the "reactive" properties of the magnetic field that acts like a shield.
During the solar minimums, the frequency decreases, the motor slows, and the magnetic fields will decrease accordingly.

To bring this to a summation, the idea is that geomagnetism is caused by the induced currents into the "coils", one of the ionosphere, one of the earth surface. These coils produce magnetic fields following Farady's and Lenz's laws. These magnetic fields cause the coils to rotate in reaction to each other, like an AC motor stator and rotor, which in turn causes more magnetic fields.

This concept has implications for magnetic fields on other planets. The strength of the current induced in a coil will be determined by its movement through a magnetic field, it place with the magnetic field (stronger force closer to the sun), and the number of the coils of the planet and its "secondary layer" (do other planets with magnetic fields have an ionosphere?) The two layers of the "Double layer" could have different rations of number of coils between the first and second layer, which will affect the " theoretical speed of the rotor " and result in a stronger or weaker magnetic field.


That was it. But since then I have been reading about the Schumann Resonances, and this hypothesis of Ionospheric Dynamo Effect could also be an alternative explanation for the source of these electromagnetic frequencies that bounce between the ionosphere and the earth surface.The conventional theory is that these frequencies are the resonant result of all the random lighting bolts occurring around the world.

The amount of resonance fluctuates as the ionosphere becomes more or less dense, which depends largely on the amount of solar radiation striking it. At night, that part of the ionosphere that's in the Earth's shadow thins out. Another influence is that the world's three lightning hotspots — Asia, Africa, and South America — also follow a day/night cycle, and are seasonal as well. Thus, the peaks of radio signal strength at the Schumann resonance follow a constantly shifting, but reasonably predictable, schedule.

It is also said that every planet and moon that has an ionosphere has its own set of Schumann resonances defined by the planet's size. This would also be defined by the thickness of the ionosphere. (Do those planets also have lightning?) By the way, conductors have resistance, which will affect current, voltage and the resultant emf's. Resistance is influenced by temperature and that would also influence these resonances.

The condition of the ionosphere is dependent on the output of the sun.

The induction of a current and its production of a magnetic field seems like a more likely cause for the frequencies found within the atmosphere. The increases of lighting bolts is only a correlation, not the causation of the resonance frequencies.

In addition to these implications on the Schumann Resonances, the "coils" of the ionosphere and earth surface are not only like wires in a transformer, or rotor and stator, but also like plates within a capacitor IF they have opposing polarities. These plates also form a waveguide, and the properties of waveguides and their possible changes to the emf strength within the waveguides could be inserted here.



I will continue to read up, and study on these topics and I invite your knowledgeable input to help verify or disprove this hypothesis.