Distribution of electrical particles

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Dale, Mar 22, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    My Father-in-Law uses LASERs to determine stratospheric NOx concentrations. ^_^
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Aha! All in the family, huh? Now we getting to the bottom of the goose-stepping nepotist conspiracy!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    OK, so that would involve illuminating the sky and reading back the reflections into a very sensitive low-noise spectrometer? And then if it's pulsed it can set up a gate that marks off return delay to calculate range like a radar. (I'm supposing it works like that.)

    That's very interesting, Trippy, and very vital to environmental science. How about ion levels? I would imagine that would require inordinate accuracy.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    I have to be honest and say that I'm not at all sure on the finer details, although I have an inkling that he might look at flourescent back-scatter rather than reflection. Excite the molecules at a fingerprint wavelength, then measure the light emitted as they decay back to their ground state.

    Sounds right. I have seen some of the modelling he does, but again, I'm not real sure on the details. He may also use balloon measurements as well.

    No idea regarding ion levels.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dale Geriatric friend of trolls Registered Senior Member

    The topic of this thread concerns the electrical charge imposed upon a planet by any exclusive overabundance of either polarity, but of course not both, because by overabundance we should mean an outnumbering of particles by a given charge over the opposite charge.

    I am less troubled over the volume of ad hominem invasions than by the irrelevant traffic pertaining to ionization of atmospheric gasses. The macroscopic effect of all of the ionizations in the world together have absolutely no impact upon the topic.

    We have been hijacked! It is amazing that one of the invading society is permitted to cast slurs upon your informant without addressing any technical issues and providing no justification for the slurs even when pursued for such reasoning.

    They seem to have arrived simply to throw me off the island. This is saddening, because as I looked over this forum, it showed the promising intellectual membership with which I hoped to converse.
  8. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    I am afraid that this is heading to the fringe area my geriatic friend. You make unsupportable claims and refuse to acknowledge factual data that conflicts with your ideas. You then accuse trained scienctist of being fools.

    There is some interesting information that is being presented by others but it may not be enough to keep this thread in the science area. We shall see...
  9. Dale Geriatric friend of trolls Registered Senior Member

    I have called no one a fool. I have not even brought up the name of Gauss whom I am accused of impugning. You have profiled me as being your geriatric friend. You now pass judgement upon me with generalities. Name one unsupportable claim. Specify any factual data that conflicts with what idea. I have trained scientists but none of them are immune to any disagreement.
  10. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member


    It's easier to just say charge. Just say the earth is charged.
    You mean the attacks against science?
    That's odd, you are the one that brought it up.
    You're saying all the charged particles in the world have nothing to do with the charge of the earth?
    Yes, by random unwarranted attacks on global knowledge.
    Is it possible for you to speak English without hyperbole and metaphor? It would help with the communication issue.
    So far you have been asked to explain your contempt for science. How do you then become the victim?
    You have been given at least a dozen links to technical information. Origin found one that was for non-technical people such as yourself. Perhaps if you were to limit your remarks to technical matters, the rest of your issues would go away.
    That describes your own slurs against science. The other thing that has you wired up is that the technical folks are trying to get you to take your medicine, to buckle down and pay attention to what the science is saying. As long as you kick and scream, you're not able to absorb that facts and principles being discussed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    That's paranoid.
    So far your idea of conversing is to keep pulling off the road and driving us out into the weeds of your angst. Provided, that is, that I get to fling a little hyperbole and metaphor of my own.


    Meanwhile back at the thread. . .

    You seem to want to know how to calculate the charge on a uniform spherical surface enclosing a point source, assuming ideal conditions. I will go ahead and provide that, so you can decide whether or not it meets your criteria for relevancy, intellectual adequacy, or whatever else is bothering you.

    Gauss's law tells us the charge density at any radial from a point source is equal to the electric permittivity times the field strength at that position:

    σ = ϵ[sub]0[/sub]E[sub]0[/sub]

    For a sphere the total surface charge is density times area:

    Q = 4πr²σ = 4πr²ϵ[sub]0[/sub]E[sub]0[/sub]

    Now you can plug in and solve:

    r[sub]earth[/sub] = 6378 m

    ϵ[sub]0[/sub] =8.85 × 10[sup]-12[/sup] C[sup]2[/sup] N[sup]-1[/sup] m[sup]-2[/sup]

    E[sub]0[/sub] = -100 Vm[sup]-1[/sup]

    which gives:

    Q = -5.6 × 10[sup]-6[/sup] C
  11. Dale Geriatric friend of trolls Registered Senior Member

    I invite the attention of intelligent moderators that do attend this forum. My intention here is to present a valid argument against what I see as an inadvertent technical error predominating in the general consensus that presents an expensive burden upon mankind. Although it is an unseemly thing to reproach anyone for his disabilities, it seems necessary to acknowledge that their intellectual disabilities lead some trolls into hostilities that destroy the serviceability of an entire forum.

    A mutual admiration society of such trolls has assaulted my thread with slander, non sequiturs, and arguments far short of even specious category. I have been hoping that the rational population of moderators would intervene upon this destructive disorder so that I might speak my own words without interference of capricious misquotation, to deliver a needed message.
  12. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member


    In my last post I erred. For Earth radius I mixed km and m. In any case I didn't crunch the numbers properly. The answer should be

    Q = -452 kC

    Q means "charge" and kC are kilo-Coulombs. A Coulomb is the standard unit for electrostatic charge. -1 C = 6.241 x 10[sup]18[/sup] electrons.

    What this means, Dale, and we can adjust it for different scenarios, is that the charge on a perfect homogeneous surface the radius of the Earth, consistent with an perfectly uniform electric field in the air measured at ground level of -100 V/m is about 452,000 Coulombs. Remember this is a idealized estimate based on many assumptions, esp. that the earth and the atmosphere are perfectly homogeneous and uniform, which, of course they aren't.

    But it can help you to understand Gauss's law, which describes what nature is doing at the surface, subject to the actual properties of the earth and air, etc. The ideal model says that ideally there must be 452k Coulombs of negative charge at the surface.

    To find out how many electrons there are, multiply by 6.24 x 10[sup]18[/sup]:

    -452 kC = 2.82 x 10[sup]24[/sup] e[sup]-[/sup].
    (e[sup]-[/sup] means "electron")

    This was done under the assumption that the average field strength at ground level is -100 V/m. For any E-field strength (E) you choose, the answers are:

    Net charge at the surface:

    Q = -4,520 x E

    Number of electrons:

    N = 6.72 x 10[sup]22[/sup] e[sup]-[/sup]

    Have you understood that all calculations are ideal? We are never going to get a number that is meaningful without accounting for all the effects in play, which is a huge undertaking.

    Have you understood that, in the ideal case, the charge sits there, that it's not going anywhere?

    These are very basic concepts, a first step to try to understand the nature of surface charge and the accompanying electric field.
  13. Dale Geriatric friend of trolls Registered Senior Member

    You might just be confused about the the nature of the topic of this thread. You are far off the mark.

    Your pretentious pedantic parade of arithmetic is meaningless. Nothing has to be perfectly uniform. We do not care how many coulombs get caught in my concept. The nominal +100 volts per meter of elevation has nothing to do with the electric charge of the planet. That gradient is just the voltage drop caused by rising electrons flowing through the resistance of the atmosphere.
    The total charge upon the planet is pegged simply to the material count of total electrons minus total protons. Without water on earth, the electric field would go to zero. The macroscopic charge of the entire earth is not altered by any ionizations anywhere anyhow.

    Our topic is very simple. You will not understand what I am talking about until you learn that stable concentric macroscopic formations of electrical particles take form.
  14. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Dale, if you tried to just communicate and gave up trying to sound like a freshman English major, it would make your post more understandable.
  15. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Yes it is. You refuse to accept measurements that disagree with your beliefs. You are therefore practicing pseudoscience, which is at odds with real science. That is the rub.
  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Your wish, is my command.

    Moderator Note:

    Thread closed. Dale has been presented with several pages of hard, physical evidence illustrating why the mainstream has reached the conclusion it has. Instead of addressing the points raised, he has presnted obfuscation and name calling, and so we're done here.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page