The Electrical Nature of Storms

Rating:
Summary: Part of the Problem
Review: The book, THE ELECTRICAL NATURE of STORMS, appears oblivious to interpretation of simple evidence that the earth is negatively charged. (It would be most unlikely for the sun to leave us with a perfect balance, with thermionic emission, solar wind, etc.) Such comprehension would then suggest how electrons leach their way down from the ionosphere as part of negatively charged ions to produce the prevailing lightning to ground that remains uncontested. These ions cluster up during the condensation of moisture and continue to intensify in density as raindrops combine because of their confinement to raindrop surface areas. This sometimes raises high voltages sufficient for thunderbolt production, using energy tapped from convectional forces of storms. Note that new ion production is definitely not required for lightning to be formed. How can experts so presume to explain a technology without mastering the bottom line? Not to kill the messenger: The authors did not create the admittedly flawed technology, and may have been simply reporting it.

With respect to the book: It is suggested here that little more need be spent speculating how storms might proceed to manufacture ionic material (Ch 3, Ch 4): The violent winds have all they can do to spawn sufficient high voltage from existing raw materials before the game is all over. The fact that the vertical mileage embraced by a thunderstorm covers broad temperature ranges does not necessarily establish temperature as a major player in lightning formation (Ch 3). The capacitance between solid/liquid earth and the ionosphere has nothing to do with sustained dc current in the global electrical circuit (Ch 1). Positively charged clouds are no mystery to the casual electronics technician (Ch 3): A good thunderbolt or so from a negatively charged cloud can easily produce a good one by flywheel effect aka inductive kick. An electron in air, being pulled or pushed by other charges, will travel: Conductance be damned (Ch 1).

Contemplate the Faraday cage, in its static state, and in its dynamic formative state. Overcome the subconscious kink that readily supposes repulsive force would alienate all free electrons from each other forever. Earth nets them into an array at the edge of space where they nab molecules that ballast them for descent back into our atmosphere. Scattered ions of moisture are gathered together during rain formation absorbing wind energy that accounts for the consequential increased potentials of static electricity.

The bottom line: The fair weather current; upward negative current flow of some 2 picoamps per square meter is that simple evidence of negative earth charge as mentioned above. All agree that prevailing thunderbolts bring electrons to ground (they strike earth "all of the time"). Naturally, these electrons go back up to complete the circuit. Tell your weatherman that this doesn't require a positive sky. Electrons always travel toward the cathode (negative terminal) inside a power supply! Those electrons are already almost home within the radius of the ionosphere as they emerge. Electrons above push back at them, but not as hard as the greater sky below/behind (ignore the solid earth for now). The electrons above push less against our fair weather electron than all those behind it. For that reason, a positive ionosphere would call an electron down to the center (keep ignoring solid earth) where attractions would balance out. Hence, we have a dynamic Faraday cage. Our electron needn't shun the journey, none of those already up there did.

Here is a tip of the hat to the profound tome under discussion for all its fine detail, but connecting the dots just didn't get me to where they were going. Methinks they chopped the chicken feathers too fine to ever get them put back together again. Where it is here affirmed that the endothermic kernel of lightning formation is compression of like charges, THE ELECTRICAL NATURE of STORMS professes separation of opposite charges for such conversion. What do they do for an encore? The separation concept leads to dispersal (and early termination) of charged particles without a shot at concatenation, whereas the necessary convergence of energy and reiterations of the process are conspicuous advantages of the compression theory. Nevertheless, there is strong reason to believe that our taxes support pursuit of false doctrine conveyed in this book. The writer hereby makes an appeal for thinking people to enlighten our government on this matter. The National Science Foundation apparently faults my theory on the basis of its noncompliance with doctrine from THE ELECTRICAL NATURE of STORMS. Another thing, I hate the pathetic perennial disclaimer that scientists cannot agree on what causes lightning. Show your kids the truth I bring you here. It took me 72 years to stumble upon it!