
Thunderstorms in Earth's upper atmosphere remain something of a mystery. Scientists cannot reach them directly with instruments; they are too high for balloons and too low for weather satellites. Flying through thunderstorms or camping out on mountaintops waiting for one typically ranks low even on an adventurers' bucket list.
An investigation aboard the International Space Station has come to the rescue. The European Space Agency (ESA) Atmosphere-Space Interactions Monitor (ASIM) is a collection of optical cameras, photometers and a large X- and gamma-ray detector mounted on the outside of ESA's Columbus Module on the station. For at least two years, it will observe thunderstorm-generated electrical discharges in the upper atmosphere - the stratosphere and mesosphere - up to the ionosphere, the edge of space. This Earth observation facility enables study of severe thunderstorms and their role in the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Upper-atmospheric lightning, known as transient luminous events, includes colorful phenomena with names straight out of a fairy tale: sprites, elves, and giants.
The space station offers this investigation an ideal observing platform for several reasons. Its low-Earth orbit brings the observations as close as possible to these upper-atmosphere phenomena. The station's orbit also offers almost complete coverage of tropical and subtropical regions, much of which are difficult to access but are where some of the most intense thunderstorms form. Finally, observations are made in optical bands that are subject to absorption in the atmosphere and so cannot be used for ground observations.
Sprites are flashes caused by electrical breakdown in the mesosphere. Blue jets are lightning discharges reaching upwards through the stratosphere, and elves are concentric rings of emissions caused by an electromagnetic pulse at the ionosphere's bottom edge. Giants are large discharges that create an electrical breakdown of the atmosphere from the top of thunderstorms to the bottom ionosphere. Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes are a flash phenomenon generated at the top of thunderstorms. Evidence suggests that run-away electron discharge causes some of these phenomena.
In the 1920s, English scientist C.T.R. Wilson received a Nobel Prize for work with a cloud chamber that made visible the ionizing radiation from cosmic rays and X-rays. He predicted that electrical discharges can occur above thunderstorms in the mesosphere, and that thunderstorm electrical fields can accelerate electrons to relativistic energies. Instruments were not sensitive enough to provide a definitive answer until 1993, however, when flashes of X-rays over thunderstorms were observed from NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.
In 1990, the first observation of a sprite was documented, and since then ground and aircraft observations discovered a multitude of discharges above thunderstorms, and spacecraft in low orbit observed X- and gamma-ray radiation.

ASIM represents a comprehensive global survey of these super-high altitude, difficult-to-observe-from-the-ground events to help determine their physics and how they relate to lightning. The investigation also studies high-altitude cloud formation and determines what characteristics make thunderstorms effective in disturbing the high-altitude atmosphere. The research improves understanding of the effect of thunderstorms on Earth's atmosphere and contributes to better atmospheric models and meteorological and climatological predictions.
"High-altitude observation allows us to study these events without the obscuring clouds," said principal investigator Torsten Neubert of the National Space institute of the Technical University of Denmark. "With ASIM we will better understand the complex processes of upper-atmospheric lightning, which are also elements of ordinary lightning, although they take on different forms. This understanding can improve technology for detecting ordinary lightning."
The investigation also helps clarify the effect of thunderstorms on the atmosphere, ionosphere and radiation belts, and will monitor the influx of meteors in Earth's environment and their effect on its atmosphere. Blue jets at the top of thunderstorm clouds, for example, change the concentration of greenhouse gases, another way thunderstorms can affect the stratosphere.
The types of discharges and their structure help scientists better understand the structure of the atmosphere where they occur and of the thunderstorm battery that powers them.
"We will learn more about thunderstorm clouds and more of the fine-structure of the stratosphere and mesosphere, of which little is known," Neubert said. Based on video taken by ESA astronaut Andreas Mogensen from the space station in 2015, scientists already learned more about what types of cloud create such activity, and that lightning comes from clouds at an altitude of about 10.5 miles (17 km). "These are solid scientific results documenting for the first time how active the tops of thunderclouds can be," he added.
ASIM observations also improve understanding of the effect of dust storms, urban pollutants, forest fires, and volcanoes on cloud formation and electrification, and the relation of eye-wall lightning activity to intensification of thunderstorms. That could help us all live more happily ever after.
Explore further:
A space window to electrifying science
cantdrive85
The thunderstorm is only part of a much larger circuit. The thunderstorm is a result of the charge exchange between the Earth and the Sun's plasma environment.
tallenglish
691Boat
What is Earth's net charge compared to the net neutral solar wind?
cantdrive85
Are you unfamiliar with Earth's electric field? There is about 300,000V potential between the Earth's surface and ionosphere.
Also, you need to understand the differences between neutral and what is relevant to plasmas, quasi-neutral. They are much different concepts.
691Boat
so....net neutral solar wind has an overall charge difference before and after interacting with Earth? As far as I know, that's how DC circuits work. You have that data available to support your circuit?
jonesdave
I know of studies that correlate solar wind and lightning. However, this is nothing to do with any exchange of charge, but to do with SEPs (solar energetic particles), creating ionised paths for the charge already built up by earthly processes. For instance:
Evidence for solar wind modulation of lightning
Scott, C. J. et al.
http://iopscience...5/055004
Whydening Gyre
If ya wanna really get down to it, it's more about resistance than charge...
Da Schneib
It will be interesting to see how these middle and upper atmosphere effects correspond with actual lightning strikes, among other things.
cantdrive85
'Fraid not snookems, doesn't create nearly the energy density to create lightning with the observed frequency. It's not even close.
From NOAA;
"The conditions needed to produce lightning have been known for some time. However, exactly how lightning forms has never been verified so there is room for debate."
https://www.weath...ightning
This description ,however, fits the bill. I would challenged anyone to find a flaw in the science or reasoning. It's relatively simple plasma physics, coronal discharge.
https://www.thund...ectrode/
And the super-cell thunderstorm, tornadoes are also an electric discharge.
https://www.thund...rmopile/
cantdrive85
https://www.thund...c-model/
jonesdave
Certainly, no peer reviewer would have let this go:
Huh? Venus has no intrinsic magnetic field. It is induced, just as at a comet, and Mars, by the interaction of the solar wind with the atmosphere.
cantdrive85
jonesdumb....
Whooooshhh.....
It doesn't matter, the induced field doesn't do anything whatsoever to disprove. It supports the concepts via different conditions. There are still changing electromagnetic fields, similar concepts under different conditions but accomplishing the same results.
cantdrive85
https://www.space...rth.html
cantdrive85
https://www.newsc...ery-day/
Simplicity at it's best. The same physics to describe everything. Who needs a TOE?
jonesdave
Which is kind of a kick in the bollocks to Mr. Hall, isn't it? Where are the currents at Venus? According to Hall's piece, "The circuit is completed — a worldwide current from Earth to the sky, and storms that return it from sky to ground." Which is bollocks, by the way. However, Venus has no current from ground to sky (and neither does Earth). If there is a current (and I need to research it), then it will be as at a comet - induced by the IMF piling up against the atmosphere of the planet. It will be getting nowhere near the planet itself. So, whatever is going on down in the lower atmosphere is not going to be anything to do with the pile up region. The current there, if it exists (probably) will likely close in the tail, just as at comets. No lightning at comets, though!
cantdrive85
jonesdave
And what have dust devils on Mars got to do with anything?
jonesdave
Nope, wouldn't get past the editor of a decent journal, let alone peer review, which is why they only exist on Velikovskian woo sites. Where the average IQ of the denizens is vanishingly small, and they'll believe pretty much anything. If it's so simple and obvious, where is it published?
cantdrive85
Cold cathode discharge, different conditions same result.
http://www.holosc...beliefs/
jonesdave
Lol. Which has been totally debunked by a complete lack of evidence from various missions that would see such nonsense. And didn't. Not that it is possible, anyway. Something else you got conned about.
cantdrive85
That's not what it was written for, similar to this article above. Not every written word needs to be presented in peer-reviewed due to the fact that the concepts are so well understood. But, it explains in terms in a way moron could understand. Sorry that you can't, but that's you're problem.
jonesdave
As I've said, it's bollocks. That is why it is on a woo site. If it were true (which it can't be, due to scientific impossibility) then it would overturn established science. That is why it is on a woo site. Anyone with any brains, and a decent understanding of the relevant fields, will see it for the nonsense that it is. So, it'll never get near peer review, because that is not what these woomeisters want. They just want believers, followers, cult status, hero worship. They can't do science for shit, but they don't care.
Plus they've got books and DVDs to sell.
cantdrive85
jonesdave
So where is it written up? Have none of these ignorant EEs got the cojones to subject their idiotic Velikovskian woo to scientific scrutiny? Wonder why not? How come they'd rather just post their idiotic woo at crank sites, where nobody with an IQ above that of a brain damaged trilobite is going to see it? I'll tell you why - they are all Velikovskian loons, who are crap at science. That's why.
Whydening Gyre
Which would explain why morons gravitate (electrically?) to it...
jonesdave
https://thedailyplasma.blog/
So, my take would be that not only is he scientifically illiterate, but that there is also a good case for sectioning the loon.
cantdrive85
cantdrive85
Which is why artists gravitate to impressionism and relatism and other such nonsense.
jonesdave
I don't need ad homs, I just need sane people to read that crap. Nothing I need to say. Lol. F***ing Mandelbrot set!! Dear me, I was laughing out loud reading that stuff. I don't suppose this loon has ever taken a geology degree, has he? Planetary sciences? Nope, another bloody engineer!
gculpex
more support for the flat-earthers.
cantdrive85
But that is all you got. Oh, and to change the subject. The article is about lightning and how it's created. Coronal discharge fits perfectly, you got nothing to show otherwise.
Whydening Gyre
The sooner you realize we live in a fluid, constantly changing universe, the sooner you'll understand reality.
Oh... and it's relatiVism. Do try and know your terms prior to using them...
humy
cantdrive85
No, it isn't. Or at least that clearly isn't the main causal factor.
Here is what the science says;
http://www.weathe...orms.htm
"What causes thunderstorms?
Thunderstorms form when an air mass becomes so unstable that it overturns (convects) violently. "Unstable" means that the air in the lowest layers is unusually warm and humid, or that the upper layers are unusually cool, or oftentimes, both.
Pockets of rising near-surface air in an unstable air mass expand and cool, and as some of the water vapor present condenses into a cloud it releases heat, which then makes the air parcel even warmer, forcing it to rise still higher in the atmosphere.
If the lower level air is sufficiently warm and humid, and the higher altitude air is sufficiently cool, this process continues until a tall convective cloud forms "
cantdrive85
That is so existential, artist. BTW, was posting on my phone, errors are quite easy to make.
So you don't want to discuss the coronal discharge as the progenitor of lightning? Prefer to stick with grammar?
cantdrive85
That's not what "science" says, that's what consensus stooges say. And those same stooges can't explain how lightning is caused so there is plenty of opportunity to add to the explanation.
BTW, all the churning in the atmosphere is due to the electrodynamic properties of the matter involved.
humy
No, it is what the atmospheric scientists say. And they know a lot more about it than you do.
Here is the relevant science;
https://en.wikipe...sciences
Science is still researching various aspects of lighting but has already pinned down the main cause;
https://en.wikipe...ightning
cantdrive85
And every weather and climate forecast is a test of that hypothesis, needless to say there is much room for improvement of knowledge. The links I provided goes a long way in resolving many discrepancies in the standard view. How the Earth is connected to the Sun's plasma environment is of primary significance.
jonesdave
No, they don't. It is just a bunch of Velikovskian word salad on a woo site. You only need to read this bloke's blog to realise that he is not playing with a full deck. His claims about the same thing happening at Venus make this trivially false. Please, do point out where this lunatic has ever published any work within the scientific literature. Why would anybody listen to him? He's obviously a bit gone in the head. Bigfoot? Dear me. Science really isn't his forte, is it?
cantdrive85
jonesdave
No discussion to be had. This nonsense doesn't exist within the scientific literature. End of story. The fact that the bloke is also an obvious loon doesn't help him any. On the plus side, however, it is highly unlikely that any journal editors or peer reviewers will have heard of him. Therefore there is nothing stopping him behaving like a **real** scientist, and having his work reviewed. I think we all know that won't happen, and the reasons why.
humy
cantdrive85
No, it clearly does not test the accepted scientific theory on the cause of lightning. Weather/climate forecasts don't predict the causes of lightning. Part of a weather forecast might predict a lightning storm, not what causes lightning in the storm if its prediction of a lightning storm is correct. The reliability of a weather forecast for a lightning storm is not the reliability of the accepted theory of what causes lightning in lightning storms.
Since your baseless hypothesis of the sun's plasma causing lightning has also failed to reliably weather forecast lightning storms, using your same flawed 'logic', that should mean your hypothesis must be also wrong. But it is actually wrong only because it is contradicted by evidence and baseless.
Whydening Gyre
What's wrong with pointing out the real nature of universe we live in?
Ahhh... That old ruse...
Wasn't on the table until you just brought it up. But, let's do -
Since I asked for it earlier, you first. Explain the mechanic of it...
Whydening Gyre
And actually...
Lightning here on Earth is the discussion, here. Coronal discharge was your own insertion...
Da Schneib
These guys constantly come up with completely irrelevant stuff to try to bamboozle.
Whydening Gyre
I know, DS.
That's why I asked for an explanation...
cantdrive85
Here; https://www.thund...ectrode/
Here; https://www.thund...rmopile/
And here; https://www.thund...c-model/
The concepts described are fairly simple, if the mechanism is not valid then explain why. And don't say something moronic like the are no wires or something remarkably stupid like that, the proposal is we are discussing plasmas and the "wires" are available in the plasma.
humy
so, that is what you call all the scientists and experts that know more than me and you that disagree with your baseless opinions that are contrary to what the scientific evidence says. Age has nothing to do with it; young and old alike disagree with you.
Better to have no opinion than one based on ignorance.
No opinion due to insufficient knowledge or understanding is a perfectly legitimate position while opinion based on ignorance is not.
The first thing any good scientist does when he makes a theory is to see how it could be wrong.
But, It is just as unscientific to dismiss a theory before scrutiny as it is to accept a theory before scrutiny.
You dismiss without scrutiny the tested scientific theory of what causes lightning.
cantdrive85
Point me to where the proposed coronal discharge has been scrutinized. The currently accepted model (which has no explanation as how lightning is initiated) has been tested for decades, this is why it can be shown to be wrong. If the standard theory of lightning genesis is so robust why this statement from a NOAA webpage?
"The conditions needed to produce lightning have been known for some time. However, exactly how lightning forms has never been verified so there is room for debate."
Even according to NOAA it is legitimate to postulate a cause for lightning genesis, that is what is being done. The postulated mechanisms above not only demonstrate how lightning is created, but also describes specific phenomena related to thunderstorms including the morphology of the cloud structures as well as tornadoes, precipitation, as well upper atmospheric effects.
cantdrive85
Point to any reasonable concept that falsifies the coronal discharge hypothesis.
It should also be known, these very same principles that are postulated to be the cause of thunderstorms are the same principles the cause all weather, interaction of charged particles and regions on all relevant scales is what drives the movement of the atmosphere and the mixing thereof, along with Earth's rotation and interaction of EM fields within the Sun's electric plasma environment.
jonesdave
We are being 'unscientific'? This loon, who believes in Bigfoot, and thinks that mountains are formed by some sort of electrical woo, writes a bunch of garbage on a crank website, and you expect it to be treated scientifically? Grow up. If there was any merit to this woo, he would have the cojones to do what any decent scientist would do, and invite criticism and assessment from experts, by submitting it to a relevant, respectable journal. Unless and until he does that, we have every right to dismiss it out of hand. He already screwed up with the Venus analogy. The rest of it sounds like crap, as well. Get back to us when he grows a pair, and has had his nonsense properly scrutinised. It won't gain anything by being discussed here, or on a woo site. It essentially doesn't exist.
cantdrive85
Again, all you got is ad hominem attacks. Not a single comment of the proposal, clearly it is beyond your ability to comprehend. This is the basis for your claim "it essentially doesn't exist", it's easier to ignore than give a reason it is wrong. It should be easy enough to explain why it is wrong. Above you said;
"According to Hall's piece, "The circuit is completed — a worldwide current from Earth to the sky, and storms that return it from sky to ground." Which is bollocks, by the way."
"Thunderstorms alone send 1 amp (A) of current skyward. But the circuit courses through the atmosphere even on fair-weather days when a slight current of 2 picoamps (or 0.0000000000002 A) flows from every square meter of ground upward."
https://scied.uca...ctricity
cantdrive85
To suggest the Sun-Earth electrical connection isn't of primary importance ignores decades of observation and research which has shown this to be folly.
jonesdave
humy
The scientific accepted cause of naturally occurring lightning is NOT that is as a result of coronal discharge, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.
By definition, coronal discharge is the electrical discharge that results from the ionization of fluid/gas surrounding a solid CONDUCTOR, typically but not necessarily made of metal. What the hell has that got to do with the accepted scientific theory of what causes lightning in storms? Last time I checked, nobody is saying there are lumps of solid metal in storms causing lightning.
So, you not only dismiss the accepted scientific theory of what causes lightning in storms without scrutinized it, you dismiss it without even having the slightest idea what that theory says! How the hell can you rationalize your opinion that a scientific theory is wrong when you don't even have the slightest clue what that theory says!?
Whydening Gyre
One might consider that more of an Earth-Space circuit...
humy
"...A corona discharge is an electrical discharge brought on by the ionization of a fluid such as air surrounding a CONDUCTOR that is electrically charged. ..." (my emphasis)
Although sometimes some people, even some experts, misuse the term to refer to an electrical discharge brought on by the ionization of a fluid such as air surrounding an INSULATOR that is electrically charged, that just isn't the correct term for it (as clearly implied by the above link). Thus true corona discharge has nothing to do with lightning in naturally occurring storms and shouldn't be confused with the accepted scientific theory of what causes lightning in storms.
Whydening Gyre
So... in your view - what comprises a solar "coronal discharge"?
And what would be the "conductor" in that solar discharge?
cantdrive85
The CONDUCTOR that is electrically charged is the cloud of plasma (ionized gas) that arises in the presence of the high electric field of the storm. (your emphasis)
The Earth's atmosphere works as a self-repairing capacitor, the circuits described above are nested in the larger circuits.
http://www.thunde...itor.htm
The electric circuit analogy is valid due to the fact the Earth is a charged object orbiting within the Sun's dynamic electromagnetic plasma environment. It's why AGWism is bupkis, the Sun-Earth connection is drastically misinterpreted.
humy
relevance? -I still see no mention there of, like you unwittingly implied due to you failing to understand science terminology, corona discharge from solid conductors such as lumps of metal in storms causing lightning. You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Your link mentions sprites but not other much more common types of lightning and there is no suggestion there of the common causes of other types of lightning.
cantdrive85
The definition you posted, which you added emphasis, said a conductor was required, the "solid" conductor is you own definition which has no basis. The cloud of plasma within the high electric field fits the bill as the conductor.
All of the electric discharges in the diagram at the top of this page are manifestations of the same processes with different conditions present. The only difference between a lightning flash and a red sprite is where it occurs in the atmosphere, there need not be any added epicycles of complexity to a fairly simple process.
691Boat
If weather is determined/caused by the Sun, why don't we have tornadoes equally dispersed across the globe? Why aren't there tornadoes in winter? Does the Sun stop doing it's magic when it gets cold?
humy
No it clearly doesn't. Not for the definition of a electric discharge. A corona discharge is an electrical discharge brought on by the ionization of fluid/gas SURROUNDING a conductor that is electrically charged.
To say that the ionization of fluid/gas that surrounds that conductor can be by definition of corona discharge called the conductor itself is just nonsense for it would beg the question were do you by definition define the boundaries between the ionized fluid/gas that surrounds that ionized fluid/gas? -it ALL conducts! So iwhy not say is ALL the conductor!? Only if the conductor isn't the ionized fluid/gas itself can the definition make any sense.
humy
misedit; That should have been "..corona discharge".
cantdrive85
Correct, there is a cloud of plasma (the conductor) which is surrounded by air. The air is not a good conductor, so energy builds up in the cloud of plasma until the avalanche breakdown ensues. The air is then ionized by the discharge.
Sheaths and/or double layers naturally form around plasmas, especially when those plasmas are immersed in a gas or plasma with different properties. We have known this since the 1920's thanks to Langmuir, it's why he got a Nobel prize.
Da Schneib
cantdrive85
691Boat
why no tornadoes during blizzards? I have seen and heard lightning/thunder during a blizzard, but never a tornado..
cantdrive85
There aren't?
https://weather.c...angerous
Certain factors are still required.
cantdrive85
http://www.olemis...des.html
According to that diagram there must be, "pools of separated charges" within the cloud equates to an ionized gas or plasma. I'm not sure why this is difficult. If there is a plasma and electric discharges are taking place why wouldn't those physics be relevant to the processes? Electric discharges and plasmas as used by people are described with known electrical engineering concepts, why should these electric discharges and plasmas be different?
jonesdave
Oh well, that's settled then - tell Mr. Hall to pack his bags for Stockholm! Assuming he ever writes this gibberish up somewhere where scientists might actually see it.
Da Schneib
Maybe you didn't notice.
Da Schneib
Check this out, and pay particular attention to Wilson currents: https://www.nssl....g_77.pdf
humy
Not ionized air if you define the plasma (the conductor) to be ionized air thus it is nonsense to call that "corona discharge". This just confirms you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. you cannot just validly call anything "corona discharge"; don't make crap up.
cantdrive85
I did notice that they were missing the proper terminology. Did you notice the diagram at the top of the page? Did you notice the little plus/minus signs at the various area within the cloud? Those areas are of ionized gas, i.e. plasma. No leaps in terminology there, just the well understood fact that an ionized gas is in fact a plasma.
And in case you missed the first few posts in the thread, even NOAA acknowledges there is a missing aspect in the creation of lightning. The electric circuit Hall proposes is remarkably similar to the standard model "circuits". The main difference being the electronic circuits Hall is describing are valid whereas the standard theory is missing vital parts of their circuit, so they are invalid.
cantdrive85
You are clearly having difficulty with this rather simple concept. First, the atmosphere is generally not plasma, it is air which behaves like an insulator.
Second, within that air, regions become ionized such as within these clouds. Hence, those ionized regions (plasma) are still immersed in air, i.e. you have a conductor (plasma) surrounded by an insulator (air). The plasma will then store energy until it reaches the breakdown values, then the discharge occurs. It's really a much simpler concept than you guys are grasping, which raises the question. Who puts on your pants in the morning?
691Boat
Get lots of blizzards in the bible belt, do we?? You do realize that was about winter, in the south, where blizzards don't really happen...
cantdrive85
You asked;
To which I linked the related article about tornadoes in winter. Now you seem to choose to ignore the context given and build up a non-existent strawman for which you can then tear down. Typical!
humy
Your 'terminology' isn't the 'proper' one but just made up crap.
humy
I have no difficulty with your simple made-up nonsense; it's simply nonsense. What is so difficult about understanding that?
cantdrive85
691Boat
No, it is called you cherry picking. I know that technically it is winter, but I don't consider 65F to be the average temperature for winter. You knew full well, since I was discussing blizzards in the same comment that a more northern climate was what was being referenced. Either way, if you wanna cherry pick, why aren't there commonly tornadoes in 'winter' in California, Arizona, Hawaii? The sun circuit must be very preferential if they don't get their fair share of space weather.
jonesdave
No, they aren't. You'll find that they are water droplets and ice crystals. If it were a plasma, how did it form within the overwhelmingly neutral atmosphere?
cantdrive85
No, I answered the question you posed, and included your quote for context. You are not so cleverly trying to build something up so you can attempt to tear it down.
Da Schneib
You're lying again, @cantthink69.
cantdrive85
So according to jonesdumb, there are no electric charges (inspite of known observations) or water vapor in clouds. The atmosphere has no gas, it's just liquids and solids...
691Boat
Since you ignored the rest of that line of questioning and cherry picked the question in the middle, answer the questions on either side of it as well. And FYI, on average the southern US is not 'cold' during winter. an average winter temp in the 50's+ is not cold.
cantdrive85
That is some kind of moronic statement there, if a "scientist" didn't write it up it doesn't exist. LOL!
You all seem to be claiming this is all known, yet as the NOAA link above states there is something missing in the description of the cause of lightning. This is what is missing, the understanding that we're dealing with more than thermodynamics and the appropriate plasma physics be involved.
Da Schneib
If you're just going to lie I'll leave you to the tender mercies of @691Boat and @jones. It's not worth arguing with a liar once the lie has been pointed out; all they do is make excuses. And we all know about excuses: they're like assholes, everybody has one and they all stink.
jonesdave
This coming from someone who doesn't even know what a collisionless plasma is! And thinks Earth used to orbit Saturn! And that Venus was doing handbrake turns around the solar system a week last Tuesday! Forget it lads, the bloke is thick as pigsh*t. Yes?
cantdrive85
humy
That isn't what I said and you know it.
cantdrive85
That is exactly what I said. I also said that plasma is a conductor, which is equally valid.
Whydening Gyre
"an ionized gas consisting of positive ions and free electrons in proportions resulting in more or less no overall electric charge, typically at low pressures (as in the upper atmosphere and ...)."
Why would "no overall electric charge" conduct?
Why would "air" be an insulator?
Isn't "conduction" the transfer of electrons? And which direction are they actually travelling?
Sure seems like "air" would be the electron source and "plasma" the drain...
cantdrive85
Really? You need to ask that question? Due to the positive ions and free electrons. It is a fundamental aspect of plasma, 101 stuff.
LOL, really again?
"Air (like in the atmosphere) is actually an excellent electrical insulator."
http://energyeduc...nsulator
You should stick with art, scientific concepts seem too difficult for you and your assumptions are more than likely backwards.
Whydening Gyre
With all those "free" electrons runnin' around, why aren't they attracted to all those ionized protons right in front of 'em?
And add a little water and it becomes an excellent conductor. Hmmmm...
Why do you suppose they insulate wires instead of just leaving them open to the air?
Ever seen a power line arc to the ground line on a transmission line tower?
It ain't the "air", it's the proximity...
And... once air DOES conduct, notice how it is superheated?
And all the air molecules stripped of their electrons it leaves behind?
Lightning discharge CREATES ions...
cantdrive85
You're letting that artistic mind get in the way again. You remember a couple posts back I included a diagram of a cloud with all the plus signs in one region and all the minus signs in another? It's called charge separation.
Bingo! That's why these clouds are cold, weakly ionized plasmas.
From wikistupidia;
"Since most of the insulation is provided by air, overhead power lines are generally the lowest-cost method of power transmission for large quantities of electrical energy."
How do you suppose the discharge occurs without charge separation? As you ALWAYS do, you've got your horse behind the cart. Wag the dog?
cantdrive85
And yes, the electric/plasma discharge does create more electric charges.
691Boat
Which is obviously why a single lightning bolt never stops, right? I mean, they are fed from space, the plasma from the bolt generates more charge separation than was already in the plasma clouds above our heads, and it is an amazing process. That one lightning bolt that has been hanging around my neighborhood the last couple years has really become tiresome.
cantdrive85
691Boat
I am just putting together all the little tidbits you like to throw out there:
-Our clouds are plasma, an ionized gas.
-Our weather is affected and driven by solar plasma, which is the electrical power source for the planet.
-The "magnetic portal" that opens between the Earth and Sun happens every 8 minutes and is the obvious method that the Earth is powered.
-Earth is clearly a ground compared to the sun, since we are downstream in the "electric circuit"
-Lightning is an electrical discharge, which is clearly a plasma event.
-The only definition needed for plasma is "ionized somethingr"
-Electrical discharge generates more ions.
-More ions means more charge separation.
-More charge separation means larger capacitance, meaning a bigger discharge available.
-Since the Sun provides electricity to Earth through our atmosphere, which is actually a plasma, there is a near infinite power supply. Why would lightning ever stop?
cantdrive85
Those "magnetic portals" (more appropriately Birkeland currents) are ONE OF the energy transfer mechanisms available in the Sun-Earth connection. There are multiple mechanisms such as particle energy from the solar wind, solar storms from flares and such, irradiance, electrical energy, and so on.
Point 4;
The Earth is a charged object orbiting within a dynamic plasma environment.
Point 5;
Yep
Point 6;
Ionized gas=plasma, this is a simple undeniable fact.
Point 7;
As old as you are I know you have seen a lightning bolt, maybe even at night? The darkness you don't see before the bolt, there aren't too many ions and electrons there, so it's not glowing. Then when your eyes are blinded by the flash, there are a lot of ions and electrons as seen by the bright light. It's the avalanche breakdown, then there is recombination. Just like accepted science understands, why don't you?
Whydening Gyre
I call it charge differential, but no matter. Different exchanges are constantly occurring at lower voltages. It takes many numbers of these exchanges to show large enough differentials on a larger scale to create lightning.
Not. It's matter with lots of electrons available to strip.
If it insulates so well, why are power lines 30 ft apart and not 3?
Any discharge CREATES ions (By stripping electrons from the "air".)
I don't. It just ain't as clean a process as you think.
cantdrive85
More ions means more ions.
Point 9;
Yep, the difference between a gentle wind, positive lightning, a tornado, or lightning to space.
Point10;
"Cloud-to-ground lightning bolts are a common phenomenon—about 100 strike Earth's surface every single second—yet their power is extraordinary. Each bolt can contain up to one billion volts of electricity."
It doesn't stop...
granville583762
Reading down to the end, I needn't have bothered, I could have just opened another electrifying portal, you must be losing your grip, or some ones given all the portal keys away! It must be some form of electric quantum lock, of the Electric Quantum World or EQW another to add to add to the growing electrifying wooist's list
Looks like you've got your hands full as it is, as the saying goes "you ain't seen nothing yet"!
cantdrive85
Is that what you call "artistic license"?
The dielectric breakdown of air is 3,000,000V, that's a lot of whatever you said.
Probably efficiency and safety.
You obviously don't have a clue as to what I think, but just exactly how dirty is it?
cantdrive85