Electric Clouds

[mharratsc]

Dust in the Wind

Perhaps you're right that in the case of clouds EM principles are unnecessary to explain observations, but you need to admit that EM suspension of particles in our atmosphere does occur. I was in a plane that was struck by lightning flying between clouds of red dust suspended over Luzon, Philippines. They were hanging there in the sky all day long too- they weren't just poofs of dust that the wind blew off... those things hung up there all day and they were as big as any other clouds you'd see in the Pacific sky.

I should think that- if you admit that EM forces can loft dust into the sky and hold it there damn near indefinitely, then the same forces are going to be at work on water molecules/droplets flying around in the sky as well?

[mharratsc]

I should add the link to Humidity Electricity Confirmed in Lab, as well.

[webolife]

Mike,
I like your signature line.
"Suspension" of volcanic dust and/or smog in the atmosphere does indeed follow the same principles as for clouds and fog, with the possible exception that their precipitation rate, albeit very slow, is probably more of a constant than the chaotic and turbulent actions of and upon vapor molecules and water droplets. It's Brownian, which, as Aveo and I have both repeatedly conceded, is an electric phenomenon. That earlier link quoted an assertion that it was believed at some time that water droplets were neutral, but I have been learning and teaching atmospheric science from texts for over 35 years that clearly state or imply that raindrops are charged. I just reached around to the bookshelf behind my desk and pulled out my college meteorology text Elements of Meteorology, by Miller and Thompson, 1970, to verify this; and the section on lightning formation clearly states that the water droplets at top and bottom of clouds were differentially charged, and that this was largely due to the lower droplets' larger size and capacity to "scoop" negative ions from smaller rising droplets around them.

[seasmith]

Not looking to upset anyone's applecart here, just some random thought while out by the pool watching clouds come and go.

Premise:
Clouds, as dynamic phenomena within the confines of ~concentric doubleE-layers ie: earth surface and ionosphere, follow two basic morphologies:
~globular and linear.

The first, rising and billowing due to decrease in atmospheric pressures/gravity, are primarily following the influence of thermal conductions. The other, linear formations, often parallel and diverging, extend across the sky; most likely following magnetic guidelines.

Coalescence vs Dispersion:
The two primary forms meld seamlessly in-and-out of each other as moisture is heated and energized by Earth and Sun. The thermal functions are fairly well recognized, as those forms are displayed by many fluidic systems. The functions of stratospheric energy flows are less obvious because
1) the ‘clouds’ are in a state of transition, from one primary morphology to another and;
2) the moisture ‘droplets’ are vaporizing with impetus of altitude and solar radiation, thus disassociating from their nucleus or seed.

It seems marginally reasonable to assume, that the aforementioned magnetic guiding “lines” (begetting charge transporting filaments) are associated with, and stretching out from, two or more contingent electric bodies (or plasmoids).
These systems, at first nebulous (note the sheet-like or stringy appearance of precursor Cirrus and Cirrostratus formations), circulating structures of concentrating charge would be driven by a grande and intricate interplay of solar and telluric currents. If they become well organized around local centers, we call them weather systems and, wether high or low pressure systems, they process moisture in and out of clouds.

s

[Osmosis]

It seems frustratingly difficult to measure the "stringy things", except visually. If the possible currents are flowing, direct methods, such as magnetometers, would require millions of measurement points, in a cloud.
even the DOD would be hard-pressed to get funding---The clouds are pretty to watch, anyway.

osmosis

[seasmith]

[mharratsc]

Thanks Web

Regarding the notion of 'thermal up/down-drafts' and being mindful of the facts that:

a) motion of a conductor (water vapor) through a magnetic field creates an electric current, and

b) the Earth is a negative body in regards to the Sun, then

... what we should have then are events of thermal and electromagnetic force carrying electrons/negative ions skyward, and positive ions dispersing downwards.

Is that correct?

Because if that were the case, then you would also presume that the charge-carrying zones would also be generating magnetic fields and self-organizing... which would lend much explanations to some of the shapes we were looking at, correct?

Basically I'm trying to see if I'm understanding what Seasmith is talking about...

[webolife]

Mike,
I think my view ends up reversing your charge picture. See what you think.
Start with the idea [may be unconventional] of charge being relative rather than there being specific separate things called positive and negative charges... Initial condition of the earth's surface is "charged". Rising water vapor ["driven" by temperature/density differential] carries this charge upward into the atmosphere [leaving the ground relatively uncharged/positive] where it cools and condenses around relatively "uncharged" [ie positive] dust or other aerosols... accumulating greater amounts of charge as the droplets coalesce and eventually begin to fall. The falling larger water droplets have a great capacity to acquire charge [a water property] and may strip additional charge from rising water vapor, or simply by acquiring them as they grow, nevertheless more charge accumulates at the base of the cloud creating a multiple charge differential: top of clouds relatively "uncharged"[positive], bottom of clouds relatively "charged"[negative] and earth' surface relatively "uncharged"[positive]. The amount of charge/voltage increases dramatically and quickly as cumulonimbus clouds form, setting up the capacitance required for lightning. Now admittedly this view temporarily ignores the stratospheric contribution to charge differential, but acknowledges it in the observation of stratospheric lightning [jets, sprites, and elves]. Furthermore nothing has been said of the solar contribution, which I would suggest is more evident in the ionospheric levels, as a subdivision of the magnetosphere, as polar aurora. Electricity is in, all around and throughout, but it is not required as an operation contrary to the action of gravity as has been repeatedly suggested. In fact, the view that electricity is somehow contrary to gravity defeats the premise that gravity is an electrical effect, IMHO.

[mharratsc]

I think a lot of this argument is revolving around semantics at this point, myself. "Antigravity" is a misnomer in reality (or at least as far as we understand physics), but truthfully- when you compare EM vs gravity- is it really necessary to negate or 'reverse' gravity, when we know the order of magnitude by which gravity is weaker than EM forces? I personally don't think so.

Regarding your assessment of how charges might roll around in a thundercell- you're probably right, Web. But the funny thing about large scale circuitry is- your being correct about charges rolling around in an isolated thundercell in no way negate the view that this weather is also at the mercy of large scale charge equalization taking place between the Earth's body, the atmosphere, and the near-Earth solar environment.

Double layers in the Earth environment can allow for both of the scenarios mentioned above to be correct in particular application to particular observations- just because secondary loads or currents are smaller than planetary primaries doesn't mean they aren't really important! If that were so, stars would not be important secondary circuits in galactic observations, right? o.O

[webolife]

I follow you... part of the argument may be semantic, but a picture of cloud formation involving levitation by atmosphere scale capacitors or double layers against the downward pull of gravity is more than just a semantic, it's a model. It's not the importance of electricity I dispute, it's the actual effect being presented. That water is the moderating charge carrier is significant, but I consider observations of "dry lightning" and volcanic ash ES. The prime moving force in common is HEAT generated updraft of corpuscles. Now, if "warm air rises" needs an additional electrical explanation, than I'm finished with anything more on this topic.

[starbiter]

Hello Webo: Me again. Just went for a long walk, and you were on my mind. At least your position on this thread. You never responded to my question about pyroclastic flows. The maximum temperature is between 1500 and 2000 degrees F. The dust is extremely fine. The flow currents travel accross large bodies of water leaving behind the large rocks a boulders.

[...] Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroclastic_flow
Crossing water
Testimonial evidence from the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa (see the article), supported by experimental evidence,[5]shows that pyroclastic flows can cross significant bodies of water. One flow reached the Sumatran coast as much as 48 km (30 mi) away.
A recent documentary film, Ten Things You Didn't Know About Volcanoes,[6] demonstrated tests by a research team at Kiel University, Germany, of pyroclastic flows moving over water.[7] When the reconstructed pyroclastic flow (stream of mostly hot ash with varying densities) hit the water two things happened. The heavier material fell to the water, precipitating out from the pyroclastic flow and into the liquid. This large displacement of heavy ash into the water hence caused a similarly sized displacement of water; in reality, this would cause a tsunami due to the displacement via precipitate mass, as it did with the Krakatoa eruption. The temperature of the ash caused the water to evaporate, propelling the pyroclastic flow now only consisting of the lighter material along at an even faster pace than before on a bed of steam.


If a warm, gentle, zepher drives weather into the edge of the stratosphere , why does a 1500 degree ball of gas and micro dust go down, and stay down.


me again,
Also, high pressure is quite often warmer than low pressure. The colder low pressure seems to produce weather quite often. The high pressure is a downward moving current in the EU model. The low pressure is upward moving current. The upward motion of the current drags along the water molecule [dipole], if i understand EU correctly. The upward current is traveling from the negative Earth to the positive Ionosphere [our solar connection]. Do you dispute water molecules being unbalanced in an electrical sense,a dipole, as Wal points out? If heat were the driving force, wouldn't the often warmer high pressure create weather?

Speaking of Wal, i think his model is accepted by many of the Ph.D's in the EU community. These would be the leaders in government and industry, plasma physics. I would like to hear a discussion between the the plasma experts concerning this subject. Maybe one will opine. They could all [some may disagree, but i haven't noticed this] be wrong, and you could be right. But don't you have a bit of trepidation. I know your representing mainstream meteorology, but your up against people with a pretty good record opposing mainstream. My money is on the team of EU thinkers. On the other hand, i'm wrong all the time. I amaze myself in this respect, sometimes.

michael

[mharratsc]

Now, if "warm air rises" needs an additional electrical explanation, than I'm finished with anything more on this topic.

It may not need an additional electrical explanation, but you can bet your bottom dollar that there is an additional electrical effect occuring, as that conducting medium moves through the Earth's magnetic field.

I'm just saying that you cannot disassociate the electrical characteristics of matter even while attempting to analyze the thermokinetic characteristics of matter... and the reverse is equally true, as well! Mankinds understanding of reality is going to grow in leaps and bounds when an actual synthesis of classical and plasma physics occurs.

One quick aside regarding thermokinetic energy as being the prime moving force in the case of Saharan dust- a quote from the TPOD 'Dust in the Wind':

“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).”

I mention this because I find it difficult to fathom how large dust particles could cross the Atlantic Ocean propelled by a warm updraft? I could easily see how a hot wind could initiate lofting of the dust initially, but what force could this 'hot wind' bring to bear vs an E-field below the dust cloud measuring thousands of volts, and the concurrent EM force generated?

We need to reach for that synthesis of sciences, and do some experiments that consider ALL aspects of the physics- otherwise I think we'll continue staring at jigsaw puzzle pictures with lots of pieces missing. :\

[webolife]

Starbiter, I guess that supports my point that it is not just a semantic argument. Put your money wherever you wish... your appeal to alleged authority has become a standard response. A pyroclastic flow contains very heavy solid materials buoyed up by very hot expanding gases, including a large proportion of heavier-than-air CO2. As they contact "regular" air they also cause this to expand with the result that the materials of the flow are still relatively denser than the surrounding air "tunnel". The buoyancy of the hot gases sharply reduces the friction of the flow, resulting in remarkable speeds and deadly effects. I have spoken with survivors of, and family members of victims of, the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Friends and family members were in eastern Washington at the time and got hit by the falling ash, and of course collected memorable samples of the stuff. I was in the ashfall of the 5th eruption, visiting Paradise at Mt. Rainier at the time, and watched the ash cloud channel its way up the Paradise valley from the southwest. The sand-sized ashgrains fell like rain all over us. I'm absolutely sure that interactions between the solid particles involve charge distribution, as there was a notable "static feel" to the ashfall I experienced, but think about the final results of a pyroclastic flow: the majority of the material eventually deposits itself on the ground, via gravity, by the way, while the remainder of the gases disperse into the atmosphere, as one would expect under conventional meteorologic principles. When I look at footage of pyroclastics, this is what I see happening. Looking at photographs or footage of the ashclouds of various famous volcanoes, plenty of the ash follows just the scenario you outlined, including your description of pyroclastics over water. The "very fine" stuff you are referring to is many times heavier than the surrounding air, just as has been touted for water droplets in this thread. Remarkable as they are, no additional electrical atmospheric gradient needs to be invoked to explain the dynamics. Charged particle interactions in the ash plume explain volcanic lightning by the same standard meteorology.

Other Michael, I support the Saharan dust storm particles [some of which travel 1000's of miles across the Atlantic] interacting electrically with each other, mostly through repulsion, as supporting them in their journey, with the additional effect of tropopausal wind dynamics... once the particles are lofted high enough, they encounter a significant drop in air density and may become buoyed by the higher density air beneath them. This would be supported by their lack of cohesion due to repulsive electrical charge. That this might also be mediated by stratospheric/tropospheric charge gradients I do not dispute, I don't think enough is known about that. Again, it's not the presence of electricity I am objecting to, it is the alleged levitational effect. Your position sounds quite reasonable to me, however, and I will look forward to learning more about this.

I put my money on Occam, regardless.

[starbiter]

Hello Webo: What is the temperature of the stratosphere reaching updrafts? This differential must explain hurricanes and tornadoes, if plasma is to be ignored. Of course you allow for electrical heating of the air by plasma. Thanks for the bone.

Why doesn't warmer high pressure cause even greater storms. You never hear, batten down the hatches, here comes warm high pressure. Low pressure seems to equal storms. Although high pressure can equal wind. It's a spinning electrical vortex, IMHO.

michael

[mharratsc]

Thanks for the consideration, Web- and I couldn't agree more about Occams's Razor, either!