Electrical Polarity Of Our Atmosphere.

[Village Idiot]

A longstanding belief prevails of a positive electrical charge for our atmosphere. Can anyone explain what measurements lead to such a conclusion?

[Turtle]

A longstanding belief prevails of a positive electrical charge for our atmosphere. Can anyone explain what measurements lead to such a conclusion?

 

try as i might i can find no source making that assertion. do you have such a reference?

[Village Idiot]

try as i might i can find no source making that assertion. do you have such a reference?

 

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-10/972662284.Es.r.html

 

http://www.missioninstruments.com/pages/learning/elec_fields.html

 

Both sources above presume a zero net charge to the entire planet including its atmosphere. I have seen asserting positive atmospheric charge in a text by Dr. Martin Uman.

[Chewbalka]

I would assume this is why we ground things to the earth... Negitive

I would also assume if the atmosphere was a higer or above the balanced zone it would increase to a point where we would get injured by just being here

I would assume as well if the ground was above the balance it would degrade the atmosphere electric field charges preventing lighting stikes...

 

I think it makes since... I am currently trying to find a link... But it does not seem to be an easy find lol...

 

What i would like to know is what causes the atmosphere to be constantly charged up... I assume once more it has something to do with the sun lol...

 

Once i find links to confirm these guesses lol ill post them...

[Turtle]

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-10/972662284.Es.r.html

 

http://www.missioninstruments.com/pages/learning/elec_fields.html

 

Both sources above presume a zero net charge to the entire planet including its atmosphere. I have seen asserting positive atmospheric charge in a text by Dr. Martin Uman.

 

ok. i read your links and the wiki page on Dr. Uman. seems he is a top expert on lightning and so i can only assume he was talking about local positive charges that set the stage for a lightning strike. do you have the book? can you quote the exact passage you read and put his comment(s) in context?

 

as far as "presuming" charges, it sounds to me like charge states are measured using field mills. this would not be presumptive.

 

what's you interest if i may ask?

[Village Idiot]

ok. i read your links and the wiki page on Dr. Uman. seems he is a top expert on lightning and so i can only assume he was talking about local positive charges that set the stage for a lightning strike. do you have the book? can you quote the exact passage you read and put his comment(s) in context?

 

as far as "presuming" charges, it sounds to me like charge states are measured using field mills. this would not be presumptive.

 

what's you interest if i may ask?

 

I slammed Uman's book shut the day I first opened it. He would not take my call. I do have MacGorman and Rust's "The Electrical Nature of Storms". There, Figure 1-15 shows graphs of positive ion density versus altitude ranging to several thousand ions per cc as though measured at Wallops Island VA.

 

The fact that a gadget called a Field mill was used to determine electrical field strength does not assert that polarity is identified. An alternative to use of the gadget seems to be the determination of a sequence of air sample conductivity measurements and then estimating the ion density from that data. However, that would not indicate the polarity of the ions involved.

 

My interest in our atmospheric charge polarity comes from my inability to comprehend how a positively charged atmosphere would move electrons down to Earth surface during electrical storms. I would suppose the opposite and have dislodged a fund of discoveries as a result.

 

Also, theories that suggest overall electrical neutrality for orbiting bodies might be mere symptoms of hyper-literal interpretation for the law of conservation of electrical charge.

[Village Idiot]

I would assume this is why we ground things to the earth... Negitive

I would also assume if the atmosphere was a higer or above the balanced zone it would increase to a point where we would get injured by just being here

I would assume as well if the ground was above the balance it would degrade the atmosphere electric field charges preventing lighting stikes...

 

I think it makes since... I am currently trying to find a link... But it does not seem to be an easy find lol...

 

What i would like to know is what causes the atmosphere to be constantly charged up... I assume once more it has something to do with the sun lol...

 

Once i find links to confirm these guesses lol ill post them...

 

I should have shown that my only concern is for the macroscopic electrical charge of an isolated host. That just means, what is the polarity of the electricaly charged particles that are in the majority. If our overall charge on Earth were to be positive, that would simply mean that we find electrons in short supply. Production of ions would have no effect: an electron is here whether or not it mates with a positive ion. Ions won't hurt you unless they are travelling or they are dense enough to disrupt your chemical bonds or something like that. As

Edited October 26, 2012 by Heedless

[Chewbalka]

I am not one hundred percent sure but in order to test for a positive you would turn off the positive on your tester. And to test for negitive turn off the negative. Meaning you could test for which polarity is most abundant. I am just curious what do you think causes lightning. I am thinking your more to the traditional idea of static charged particles of water vapor? If so how do you explain lightning sprites? As well as the ionosphere? Wheres all that charged particles of energy going to go?

Edited October 26, 2012 by Chewbalka

[Turtle]

I slammed Uman's book shut the day I first opened it. He would not take my call.

 

that oughta teach him! :doh:

 

 

My interest in our atmospheric charge polarity comes from my inability to comprehend how a positively charged atmosphere would move electrons down to Earth surface during electrical storms. I would suppose the opposite and have dislodged a fund of discoveries as a result.

 

Also, theories that suggest overall electrical neutrality for orbiting bodies might be mere symptoms of hyper-literal interpretation for the law of conservation of electrical charge.

 

the links you gave describe the conditions for lightning as best as it is understood, hyper-hyperbole notwithstanding.

 

I am not one hundred percent sure but in order to test for a positive you would turn off the positive on your tester. And to test for negitive turn off the negative. Meaning you could test for which polarity is most abundant. I am just curious what do you think causes lightning. I am thinking your more to the traditional idea of static charged particles of water vapor? If so how do you explain lightning sprites? As well as the ionosphere? Wheres all that charged particles of energy going to go?

 

according to the articles heedless linked to, the static charge(s) [are believed to] derive from ice crystals colliding, not water vapor. if i recall they consider discharges moving both down and up. did you read those references? :lightning:

[Village Idiot]

I am not one hundred percent sure but in order to test for a positive you would turn off the positive on your tester. And to test for negitive turn off the negative. Meaning you could test for which polarity is most abundant.

 

 

Unless I were shown the circuitry involved within the gadget, I would have no idea of how they might ever think that they detect the polarity. (psst, Just between you and me, I think they fudged the plus sign into their readings.) The purpose of the mill is just to estimate dangers of lightning which can happen with either flavor.

 

I am just curious what do you think causes lightning.

 

Just between you, me and the lamp-post,

thinking that our entire globe holds a significant negative charge. I believe that the entire charge would be accounted for by a spheroidal formation of electrons hovering like a bubble over the atmosphere. Mutual repulsion would account for their lofty position. They afford an infrastructure affording storage of electrical energy: it takes push to crowd them closer together. Electrons act like springs that can return such stored energy by spreading back out. Water vapor provides a means for solar energy to push electrons together. After vapor has become ionized by attachment of electrons to some such molecules, condensation brings those electrons closer together: some of the solar energy that evaporated the water becomes stored as electrical energy instead of the heat that had turned it to gas. Ions crowd ever closer together as raindrops form due to restriction of ions to the outer layer of the droplets. The liquid coating of charged water (down to around minus forty degrees) surrounds frozen centers, causing a broad consensus that the secret of lightning has to do with ice crystals striking raindrops. (Give me a break).

 

Hence, storm energy builds up and stored energy increases the closer charged rain gets to Earth surface. Continuous storming presents a continuous downward migration of electrons that feed the return-path endothermic process of the negative fair weather current. Consequently, a vertical distribution of negative ions is dynamically sustained as though it were a relatively static, three dimensional array of negative ions.

Now this stuff isn't going to become official until the big kids find out about it. I noodled it out over the last nine years while going to sleep. It happened because books I would otherwise be reading came crashing down too often upon my head when Morpheus called.

 

I am thinking your more to the traditional idea of static charged particles of water vapor? If so how do you explain lightning sprites? As well as the ionosphere? Wheres all that charged particles of energy going to go?

 

If I may, I will refer to the bubble formation of electrons as the electrosphere. Its altitude is due to electrostatic support from the negative ions below. When vertical lightning of sufficient magnitude strikes, it knocks the underpinnings for that bubble directly below an area of the electrosphere, and down come a whole bunch of electrons. That is your sprites explanation.

 

Electrical energy doesn't come in particles. Electrons are matter.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Heedless

[Turtle]

...Now this stuff isn't going to become official until the big kids find out about it. I noodled it out over the last nine years while going to sleep. It happened because books I would otherwise be reading came crashing down too often upon my head when Morpheus called. ...

 

ohhh... you thunk this up in bed! (lol) why didn't you just say so? (lol) clearly you have the edge on everybody doing real science. (lol)

[Village Idiot]

ohhh... you thunk this up in bed! (lol) why didn't you just say so? (lol) clearly you have the edge on everybody doing real science. (lol)

I just did just say so! Chewy ask me what I thought. I told Chewy what I thought. I like to think about evidence. You like to laugh out loud at people. Where did I say that I have the edge on anybody? How do you do real science? What is real science? Believing? That takes faith. Thinking questions faith.

 

Reproach for the sake of reproach amounts to going off-topic. Please address the topical issue.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Heedless

[Turtle]

I just did just say so! Chewy ask me what I thought. I told Chewy what I thought. I like to think about evidence. You like to laugh out loud at people. Where did I say that I have the edge on anybody? How do you do real science? What is real science? Believing? That takes faith. Thinking questions faith.

 

Reproach for the sake of reproach amounts to going off-topic. Please address the topical issue.

 

what evidence have you presented? that's rhetorical; you have presented no evidence. none to support your claim there is "A longstanding belief [that] prevails of a positive electrical charge for our atmosphere." and you present no evidence for "a spheroidal formation of electrons hovering like a bubble over the atmosphere". moreover, you propose no experiments to establish some evidence.

 

you dismiss the one source you claim says the atmosphere has a net positive charge because the guy wouldn't answer your call. you dismiss field mills as "gadgets". you dismiss professional scientists as "big kids". you dismiss the effect of developing a static charge by colliding/rubbing of ice/water droplets. you dismiss "they" & "consensus".

 

in short, you have nothing but a keyboard and unsupported opinions. of course i am just a dumbshit with a keyboard who can look up supported opinions, but how stupid is that? i guess if i had even half a brain i would know to just put my revolver in my mouth and splatter it all over the wall like cheery pie when confronted with such a splendiferous intellect as yours. damn me anyway for being such a prick.

[Village Idiot]

what evidence have you presented? that's rhetorical; you have presented no evidence. none to support your claim there is "A longstanding belief [that] prevails of a positive electrical charge for our atmosphere." and you present no evidence for "a spheroidal formation of electrons hovering like a bubble over the atmosphere". moreover, you propose no experiments to establish some evidence.

 

you dismiss the one source you claim says the atmosphere has a net positive charge because the guy wouldn't answer your call. you dismiss field mills as "gadgets". you dismiss professional scientists as "big kids". you dismiss the effect of developing a static charge by colliding/rubbing of ice/water droplets. you dismiss "they" & "consensus".

 

in short, you have nothing but a keyboard and unsupported opinions. of course i am just a dumbshit with a keyboard who can look up supported opinions, but how stupid is that? i guess if i had even half a brain i would know to just put my revolver in my mouth and splatter it all over the wall like cheery pie when confronted with such a splendiferous intellect as yours. damn me anyway for being such a prick.

 

The topic of this thread represents my quest of evidence that our atmosphere does indeed possess a positive macroscopic electrical charge. It is my failure to understand how that could be true that prompts me to inquire for such evidence. It was reasonable for you to ask why I was interested. I tried to explain that confirmation of the actual polarity of the atmosphere would dispel my alarm that my theory deviates so far from that of so many professional scientists. I exposed my theory to Chewy because he asked me to. I was never trying to sell my convictions, simply trying to reconcile them with convictions of others who outnumber and outclass me to an impressive degree. You parrot non sequiturs. That is not science.

 

If you understand how we are to know that our atmosphere contains a vast shortage of electrons, you would be able to set me straight. Doing so would be a kindness. You could thus convince me that I am simply too intellectually challenged to comprehend how air with an electron shortage of some 5000 electrons per cubic centimeter would consistently contribute a thousand coulombs per second down onto Earth's surface.

 

Do you understand that this thread is but a request for information? Mention of my theory was supplied only to explain why I felt the need for such information. It is merely incidental to a frank reply to another person. Extensive experience with electronics is another factor making me see the popular belief seem so very curious.

[Turtle]

...

Do you understand that this thread is but a request for information? Mention of my theory was supplied only to explain why I felt the need for such information. ...

 

i gave you that benefit of doubt at the outset. when i advanced that benefit and asked about Uman and you said "I slammed Uman's book shut the day I first opened it.", you lost that benefit. you further confirmed my opinion that you were not seriously interested in honest information when you said "Unless I were shown the circuitry involved within the gadget, I would have no idea of how they might ever think that they detect the polarity.", inasmuch as i linked to an article on field mills that contained references/links detailing their construction and operation. were you serious i expect you would have been all over that information.

 

i think your tag pretty well covers the territory, and you'll understand if i excuse myself from further discussion. :)

 

a dictionary

heed·less

adj.

Marked by or paying little heed; unmindful or thoughtless. See Synonyms at careless, impetuous.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Turtle

[Village Idiot]

i gave you that benefit of doubt at the outset. when i advanced that benefit and asked about Uman and you said "I slammed Uman's book shut the day I first opened it.", you lost that benefit. you further confirmed my opinion that you were not seriously interested in honest information when you said "Unless I were shown the circuitry involved within the gadget, I would have no idea of how they might ever think that they detect the polarity.", inasmuch as i linked to an article on field mills that contained references/links detailing their construction and operation. were you serious i expect you would have been all over that information.

 

i think your tag pretty well covers the territory, and you'll understand if i excuse myself from further discussion. :)

 

a dictionary

Turtle's implication that the bickering is over now leaves me in peace. He has been clever enough to show several of my countless severe limitations. Nevertheless, I remain in hope that someone can answer my specific question: "What evidence brings so many to conclude that our atmosphere is of positive charge?" Turtle could have admonished me to go back to school or go to the library, but I need the answer to narrow down to more detailed advice.

 

We needn't think that anyone would expect a field mill to have access to the electrical polarity of the atmosphere. If Turtle had claimed that there was a CHECK POLARITY push-button or toggle switch on the device, that would call for an investigation. The field mill warns of imminent lightning. No one cares for what polarity might strike him down, the objective is to avoid things or people getting hit. Hence, makers of field mills have no motive and no imaginable method to answer my question. Ionic intensity is estimated elsewhere by measuring conductivity of air samples, but that conductivity rises with increase of either polarity. A voltage measurement shows potential differences between two points, but that is not the same as measurement of macroscopic electrical charge.

 

Trolls sitting in judgement of all they survey should not truncate their survey. After slamming shut the book, the valid implication was that I reached out to the author to extend a critique.

 

Non-technical people, IMO, should involve themselves with non-technical issues.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Heedless

[Turtle]

Turtle's implication that the bickering is over now leaves me in peace. He has been clever enough to show several of my countless severe limitations. Nevertheless, I remain in hope that someone can answer my specific question: "What evidence brings so many to conclude that our atmosphere is of positive charge?" Turtle could have admonished me to go back to school or go to the library, but I need the answer to narrow down to more detailed advice.

...

non-technical people, IMO, should involve themselves with non-technical issues.

 

i admonish(ed) you to [please peacefully & technically] describe an experiment that would establish the polarity of the atmosphere and per se the Earth to your satisfaction.