Electric Charge Upon Earth's Atmosphere

[Village Idiot]

There seems to be a consensus that our atmosphere holds a positive charge.

 

My problem is that any evidence I think to understand points the other way. For instance, a coin-of-the-realm explanation given for the atmosphere's electric field is that it points downward, meaning that down is the direction it would push a test proton. That seems consistent with the meteorologists' Fair Weather Current.

 

It does seem that misinterpretation of some counter-intuitive phenomena would explain a lot of misinterpretations of evidence on hand.

[Moontanman]

There seems to be a consensus that our atmosphere holds a positive charge.

 

My problem is that any evidence I think to understand points the other way. For instance, a coin-of-the-realm explanation given for the atmosphere's electric field is that it points downward, meaning that down is the direction it would push a test proton. That seems consistent with the meteorologists' Fair Weather Current.

 

It does seem that misinterpretation of some counter-intuitive phenomena would explain a lot of misinterpretations of evidence on hand.

 

 

consensus? by whom?

[Village Idiot]

consensus? by whom?

 

Most experts on the subject: authors of textbooks on meteorology, forum moderators, official forum trolls, the NSF, NASA, etc.

[Moontanman]

Most experts on the subject: authors of textbooks on meteorology, forum moderators, official forum trolls, the NSF, NASA, etc.

 

 

Well then you shouldn't have any problem providing links to information that supports your idea.... Supporting your assertion is part of the rules of this site...

[Lancewen]

There seems to be a consensus that our atmosphere holds a positive charge.

 

My problem is that any evidence I think to understand points the other way. For instance, a coin-of-the-realm explanation given for the atmosphere's electric field is that it points downward, meaning that down is the direction it would push a test proton. That seems consistent with the meteorologists' Fair Weather Current.

 

It does seem that misinterpretation of some counter-intuitive phenomena would explain a lot of misinterpretations of evidence on hand.

 

I would say the atmosphere contains both negative and positive charges depending on where you are in the atmosphere. I found a site that talks about both types of lightning strikes.

 

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00054.htm

[Village Idiot]

Well then you shouldn't have any problem providing links to information that supports your idea.... Supporting your assertion is part of the rules of this site...

 

I take you to refer to my incidental assumption of the stated consensus as being my assertion to be supported. I list references to support existence of such consensus. Because I have never been able to find evidence of more protons than electrons in the atmosphere, I posted my thread as a request for help in identifying the evidence to which I find myself so blinded.

 

 

Electrical Balance in the Lower Atmosphere

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ea.01.050173.001501?journalCode=earth

 

Jules GUILLOT

Atmospheric Electric Generator

Gillbert Delrida

http://www.rexresearch.com/guillot/guillot.htm

 

“Lightning Physics and Effects

Vladimir A Rakov & Martin Uman

Paragraph 1.4.3

http://assets.cambridge.org/052158/3276/sample/0521583276WS.pdf

Edited June 24, 2012 by Heedless

[Village Idiot]

I would say the atmosphere contains both negative and positive charges depending on where you are in the atmosphere. I found a site that talks about both types of lightning strikes.

 

What you say is true, but is not germane to the net charge of the atmosphere nor of the entire globe. Variations in the polarity and concentration of ions throughout a hosting body do not detract from the relative constancy of the total electric charge. I don't know if my practice of discriminating between distributed variations of charge and total charge as microscopic electric charge as opposed to macroscopic electric charge gets across to the reader. An alternative description of the issue is to consider the earth as a jug with a given number of protons inside and a differing number of electrons within. No matter how you shake the jug, those numbers would go unchanged. For initial simplicity of discussion, we might at first ignore relatively minor importation/exportation of charged particles just to attend to our basic issue.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Heedless

[Moontanman]

I take you to refer to my incidental assumption of the stated consensus as being my assertion to be supported. I list references to support existence of such consensus. Because I have never been able to find evidence of more protons than electrons in the atmosphere, I posted my thread as a request for help in identifying the evidence to which I find myself so blinded.

 

 

Electrical Balance in the Lower Atmosphere

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ea.01.050173.001501?journalCode=earth

 

Jules GUILLOT

Atmospheric Electric Generator

Gillbert Delrida

http://www.rexresearch.com/guillot/guillot.htm

 

“Lightning Physics and Effects

Vladimir A Rakov & Martin Uman

Paragraph 1.4.3

http://assets.cambridge.org/052158/3276/sample/0521583276WS.pdf

 

Thank you, now we've both learned something and we can have a discussion. You made an unsupported assertion, I wasn't being rude but google is our friend. I had no idea what you were trying to say, now i do.

 

 

What you say is true, but is not germane to the net charge of the atmosphere nor of the entire globe. Variations in the polarity and concentration of ions throughout a hosting body do not detract from the relative constancy of the total electric charge. I don't know if my practice of discriminating between distributed variations of charge and total charge as microscopic electric charge as opposed to macroscopic electric charge. An alternative description of the issue is to consider the earth as a jug with a given number of protons inside and a differing number of electrons within. No matter how you shake the jug, those numbers would go unchanged. For initial simplicity of discussion, we might at first ignore relatively minor importation/exportation of charged particles just to attend to our basic issue.

 

 

I will ask if you think that the Earth is a sealed jug as far as charge goes when you consider the charged particles from the sun. the Earth recieves a huge amount of charge from the sun, solar wind That article seems to indicate the solar wind is composed of both positive and negative charges, a proposed force field on the moon to protect a base from solar radiation is both positive and negative charged atmospheric phenomena like sprites and blue jets would seem to indicate the Earth is actively exchanging electrical charges with the solar wind at the very least indicates this is not a relatively minor issue.

[Village Idiot]

 

I will ask if you think that the Earth is a sealed jug as far as charge goes when you consider the charged particles from the sun. the Earth recieves a huge amount of charge from the sun, solar wind That article seems to indicate the solar wind is composed of both positive and negative charges ...

 

I believe that the prevailing majority of solar wind is of electrons. I strongly suspect that when protons are included, it is due to a somewhat equal mix of charges from solar plasma ejected around sunspots as solar flares. (Hence, somewhat of neutral overall charge.) Such flares bear many additional electrons that arise by outward conduction upon the towering flares of plasma. It seems doubtful that we would encounter any net charge from the sun other than a negative one in our lifetimes. I do believe that our electrosphere provides a limiting factor upon our total negative global charge by simply shedding excess electrons into space when they fall beyond our net gravitational and electrical attraction that holds them. Lest our salient issues escape us, we might abandon further needless scrutiny of my reference to my little jug. The intended point was that at any point in time, the net charge of the earth is due, not to any concern for ionizations and deionizations, but only for the comparison of the total count of the two flavors of electrical charge. The whole is equal to the sum of its parts, no matter how many pieces it might have been broken into.

 

 

a proposed force field on the moon to protect a base from solar radiation is both positive and negative charged ...

 

Certainly not both at the same time!

 

 

 

atmospheric phenomena like sprites and blue jets would seem to indicate the Earth is actively exchanging electrical charges with the solar wind at the very least indicates this is not a relatively minor issue.

 

I meant not to subordinate such issues, just to defer them where they might not be gating items. My theories on sprites and sunspots would have to pass for speculation until the astrophysicists catch up a little. :D

[Moontanman]

I believe that the prevailing majority of solar wind is of electrons. I strongly suspect that when protons are included, it is due to a somewhat equal mix of charges from solar plasma ejected around sunspots as solar flares. (Hence, somewhat of neutral overall charge.) Such flares bear many additional electrons that arise by outward conduction upon the towering flares of plasma. It seems doubtful that we would encounter any net charge from the sun other than a negative one in our lifetimes. I do believe that our electrosphere provides a limiting factor upon our total negative global charge by simply shedding excess electrons into space when they fall beyond our net gravitational and electrical attraction that holds them. Lest our salient issues escape us, we might abandon further needless scrutiny of my reference to my little jug. The intended point was that at any point in time, the net charge of the earth is due, not to any concern for ionizations and deionizations, but only for the comparison of the total count of the two flavors of electrical charge. The whole is equal to the sum of its parts, no matter how many pieces it might have been broken into.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

 

The solar wind consists of both electrons and protons as well as positively charged nuclei of heaver elements, these nuclei are known as cosmic rays although cosmic rays also come from outside the solar system.

 

Certainly not both at the same time!

 

yes both at the same time...

 

I meant not to subordinate such issues, just to defer them where they might not be gating items. My theories on sprites and sunspots would have to pass for speculation until the astrophysicists catch up a little. :D

 

Lets hope they catch up with you soon...

[Village Idiot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

 

The solar wind consists of both electrons and protons as well as positively charged nuclei of heaver elements, these nuclei are known as cosmic rays although cosmic rays also come from outside the solar system.

 

 

 

yes both at the same time...

 

 

 

 

The net polarity of electric charge upon an isolated hosting body is naturally a manifestation of which charged particles are in the majority. Likewise, if the flow of electrical particles from the sun that we call solar wind finds itself always to contain more electrons than protons, it seems justifiable to term the solar wind to be of negative charge. It is of no significance to the overall charge of solar wind that it sometimes includes eruptions of plasma that is made up of very nearly equal counts of positive and negative particles. As a matter of fact, when such eruptions occur, as with solar flares, the outflow of plasma would, because of the near parity involved, produce no magnetic storm. The magnetic storms that do result from such flares would have to be due to the additional rise of surface electrons from the negatively charged sun, thereby increasing the magnitude of the negative component to solar wind despite the exceptional presence of positive ions.

 

Hence, the macroscopic charge, that is, the net charge upon the solar wind cannot be both positive and negative at the same time unless its net magnitude were zero.

 

Wikipedia deliberately adheres to the mediocrity of consensus and need not be taken to fault for so doing: Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia confirms that consensus trumps truth in his encyclopedia. Such is not the case for true science.

 

Edit 1: Perhaps for some reason, no one of the belief in a positive atmosphere wishes to present evidence for the belief. I am sure that many schooled in Florida accept the premise on faith, justified by the high esteem for others who teach accordingly but are loathe to debate.

 

For those who say that the non-gaseous surface is charged negative and the atmosphere is charged to an equal but opposite charge, their rationale can hardly be a secret. They do not entertain any notion that an electrical imbalance is in place on our planet. Their gig is that Earth gets its negative charge by friction of the atmosphere against the ground, and presume that none of that solar wind makes any difference.

 

Of course I doubt the notion of a positive atmospheric charge. Wouldn't the downward-pointing electrical field attributed to our atmosphere push electrons upwards just as Fair Weather Current strongly suggests to be the case, and push positive charges downward as far as they can go?

 

http://physics.info/electric-field/

 

It is possible that persons who have not examined the consequences of concentric formations of charged particles could suppose that it would take a positive outer potential to repel a proton downward within a globular structure. To arrive at such a conclusion, they would have to lose sight of the fact that the entire globe would be of positive charge, and that the sky above is strictly a minority portion of the total sphere of influence. (Literally!)

 

Edit 2: So far, any avenues I pursue toward finding possibly valid evidence of a positive charge upon out atmosphere have dead-ended with plausible deceptions that have corrupted a broad host of scientists. It is my professional opinion that nature has performed legerdemain that spoofs our blessed process of the scientific method. We deal with the illusion of evidence!

 

A thought experiment applied to the existence of consistent upward travel of electrons (The meteorologists's Fair Weather Current) provides for such migration as mere manifestation of the mutual repulsion of like charged particles. Faraday's ice pail experiment has never been explained to suggest some mysterious opposite charge hovering above to attract all excess particles of the charge polarity. Rather, a negatively charged ice pail would find all excess electrons departing from each other just as far as they could go. Even the most tardy electron, coming upon an outer shell of electrons, would join them, even though a greenhorn technician might think it should flee back to the center. Electrons are not really that smart.

 

Bringing this logic to a situation whereby a solar wind of prevailing negative polarity takes leave of the sun night and day (it is really always daytime up there), it is an interesting riddle that such depletion of electrons does not arrest solar wind by cultivating a positive charge upon the sun itself. For that not to be would call for some inner destruction of positive charge within the sun. That doesn't happen where solar plasma produces energy. Does that not leave us with a manifestation of a positive solar core where static forces press protons together? Such a static fusion process, being confined to a place where no electrons can go, would perform as a virtual generator of excess electrons.

 

Edit 3: Discovered elegant simplification for concentric electrostatic formations.

 

Newton's Shell Theorem shows that the net presentation of a spherical shell of electrons is at its center. Hence, a positive core develops as positive charges propagate or travel to the center of the host seeking that total negative charge presented as at the center. When they get there, protons find none of the promised electrons with which to neutralize. What could that lead to in stars except for some static nuclear fusion?

Edited October 22, 2012 by Heedless