Plasma Physics and Tornadoes

[CharlesChandler]

I'm working on a new theory of tornadoes based on the principles of plasma physics. This theory basically states that supercell thunderstorms are negatively-charged toroidal plasmoids, and that tornadoes are dark discharges of positive ions responding to the electrostatic potential between the supercell and the Earth.

I have written two introductory papers:

Part 1: http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunder...guest_chch.htm

Part 2: http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysi...og/index2.html

If you're still curious, and willing to slog through a 80-page paper (with lots of images and references) that lays out the full detail, have a look here:

http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes.php

I'm really interested in comments and criticisms on this work, and if anybody has ideas about other sources of which I should be aware, please let me know.

Charles Chandler
http://charles-chandler.org

[antoniseb]

Hi Charles Chandler,

I moved this thread to ATM from General Science. Basically, you are exploring a new idea here. So here is your opportunity to defend it.

[captain swoop]

How about amn overview of what your papers say? IF you want to defend them here then it's a good idea to post your ideas here rather than link us blind to a long paper.

[tusenfem]

I'm working on a new theory of tornadoes based on the principles of plasma physics. This theory basically states that supercell thunderstorms are negatively-charged toroidal plasmoids, and that tornadoes are dark discharges of positive ions responding to the electrostatic potential between the supercell and the Earth.

negatively charged toroidal plasmoids? Got any measurements that show that a supercell is negatively charged and why would the charge remain and don't you need currents to create a plasmoid.

dark discharges of positive ions? What are those?

Ahhhhh thunderbolts, now you're making sense.

And a document too, with lots of pics and diagrams and not 1 equation!

Too much for me to read on screen, unless you come up with a decent format, I ain't gonna read this.

[CharlesChandler]

How about an overview of what your papers say? IF you want to defend them here then it's a good idea to post your ideas here rather than link us blind to a long paper.

There are two main sections to the proposed theory: one concerning the nature of supercell thunderstorms, and one concerning how supercells generate tornadoes.

Supercell Thunderstorms
The proposals that I am making start with the fact that there is a toroidal flow of air within a supercell thunderstorm. The updraft is in the center. At the top of the cloud, the updraft hits the temperature inversion at the bottom of the stratosphere, and splays outward. From there, downdrafts descend around the outside of the cloud. At the bottom, some of the downdraft air mixes with the inflow, and gets drawn back into the updraft. Hence there is an endless loop of motion within the supercell, in toroidal form. Embedded in this air is precipitation, and in the relevant portion of the cloud, the predominant electric charge is negative. Hence the toroidal airflow is bearing negatively-charged particles. The movement of charged particles constitutes an electric current. Hence there is a toroidal electric current within the supercell. Note that this is a pole-less current, not formed by the presence of an electric field, but simply because the charged particles are suspended within a moving substance. Regardless, the moving charged particles will generate magnetic fields, and the magnetic pinch effect will consolidate and constrain the charged particles. In the case of a toroidal electric current, the magnetic pinch effect will encourage the charged particles to follow a strict toroidal motion, not escaping the toroid and falling to the ground. The movement of these particles then exerts an aerodynamic effect on the air, encouraging it to follow the same strict toroidal form. This helps transform the toroidal airflow into a fast-moving, low-friction recirculation pattern. The faster the airflow, the more powerful the magnetic field surrounding the supercell. Hence the airflow and the current accentuate each other, and this constitutes a run-away system in which the air speed will continue to increase. This coincident airflow and electric current is therefore proposed to be the organizing force within a supercell.

Tornadoes
Once organized, the supercell then becomes capable of generating a tornado. The build-up of negative charge within the supercell will induce a positive charge at the surface of the Earth, and there will be a large electrostatic potential. But this electrostatic potential will not be diffused by the flow of free electrons out of the supercell toward the ground. This is because the magnetic field around the supercell will discourage charged particles from escaping the supercell. The only remaining way for the electrostatic potential to be diffused is with the flow of positive ions out of the ground. If these ions are flowing fast enough, the magnetic fields that they generate will combine into a unified magnetic field that will pinch the particle flow into a consolidated discharge.

Got any measurements that show that a supercell is negatively charged?

There are plenty of data. I can start quoting references, but I'm trying to keep this as simple and high-level as possible.

dark discharges of positive ions? What are those?

The flow of charged particles can be in one of three modes, depending on the speed of the particles: dark, glow, or arc. There are reasons to believe that at the top of the tornado, the particles achieve the speed necessary for a glow discharge, or even an arc discharge. But the main body of the tornado typically doesn't emit any light, so if there is a flow of particles, it is a "dark discharge."

Ahhhhh thunderbolts, now you're making sense.

If that was a slur, it was too subtle for me. PM me if you want to make a bolder statement. I don't take any of this personally, and I'd rather know what you think. Good theory is objective, not personal, and good comments are not censored!!! If I take the comments personally, that is my problem.

And a document too, with lots of pics and diagrams and not 1 equation!

That's correct. I'm trying to keep this work as high-level as possible. I reference a lot of literature in the full version, in case you're curious. But for now at least, I'm attempting to sanity-check the general idea. The complete work-up of the entire thing will constitute a huge project. Before me and my buddies spend 10 years on that, it would make a lot of sense trying to float the general idea in front of a broader audience.

Too much for me to read on screen, unless you come up with a decent format, I ain't gonna read this.

I'd be happy to break it up into a series of individual pages, if that's what you mean. Please specify.

-- Charles

[tusenfem]

There are plenty of data. I can start quoting references, but I'm trying to keep this as simple and high-level as possible.

Naturally, there is a lot of data that tells us that there is charge on the clouds which discharges in the form of lightning. However, I am unaware of any data that shows that a convective cell, which you are basically describing, is carrying only negative charge and is in and of it self a giant current loop. So, please, show me at least one or two references in published refereed literature (i.e. e.g. no links to pages on thunderbolts)

The flow of charged particles can be in one of three modes, depending on the speed of the particles: dark, glow, or arc. There are reasons to believe that at the top of the tornado, the particles achieve the speed necessary for a glow discharge, or even an arc discharge. But the main body of the tornado typically doesn't emit any light, so if there is a flow of particles, it is a "dark discharge."

So basically, what you want to describe here is a neutralizing flow, or something? You have your big "negative" cell and then suddenly charges are pulled out of the Earth, flowing upward.

The only remaining way for the electrostatic potential to be diffused is with the flow of positive ions out of the ground.

Now, the problem is that ions don't get easily pulled out of the Earth, electrons can get pulled out easily, so you really need one heck of a field to accomplish what you want to do here. But most likely you mean that maybe dust can be charged on the surface of the Earth, or whatever.

If that was a slur, it was too subtle for me. PM me if you want to make a bolder statement. I don't take any of this personally, and I'd rather know what you think. Good theory is objective, not personal, and good comments are not censored!!! If I take the comments personally, that is my problem.

Well, it was at least skeptical of thunderbolts, the one page where real physics does not seem to exist. But let's not go there.

A good theory also shows math, also very missing on the thunderbolts website, because plasma physics very often works differently from conventional wisdom. Like your idea of "flow of positive ions out of the ground" which will not happen.

That's correct. I'm trying to keep this work as high-level as possible. I reference a lot of literature in the full version, in case you're curious. But for now at least, I'm attempting to sanity-check the general idea. The complete work-up of the entire thing will constitute a huge project. Before me and my buddies spend 10 years on that, it would make a lot of sense trying to float the general idea in front of a broader audience.

But without math, you cannot describe plasmas. My favourite example in this case is an electron in a magnetic and an electric field and the two fields are at an angle with respect to each other. What does the electron do? Surprise surprise, it will move perpendicular to both the magnetic and the electric field, according to the so called E×B drift. This example by itself shows you that it is basically impossible to understand plasmas if you don't do the math. They will not follow your gut feelings, only after you have studied plasma physics for a long time do you start to get some intuition into the processes, and even then you can be wrong now and then.

As you are a software consultant and a natural philosopher, I have to ask you where you studied plasma physics and if you have any legit qualifications in this field? Do you really think that the process about the super cell and tornado can work out? Do you think that there is enough charge floating around to create this immense toroidal field and did any magnetometer measure this magnetic field? Coming up with a nice story is great, but please, in order to make it a real theory you need to put some quantitave stuff in there, calculate E and B fields that are generated and the power that is needed to do all this.

I'd be happy to break it up into a series of individual pages, if that's what you mean. Please specify.

Ah, something fell out here, I was thinking more of a pdf document that one can print out. but there are a lot of claims that are basically unfounded if not ridiculous on your page, e.g.

So we have a toroidal plasmoid that can store an unlimited amount of charge, and none of it can escape.

unlimited amount of charge? You have got to be kidding!

[CharlesChandler]

I am unaware of any data that shows that a convective cell, which you are basically describing, is carrying only negative charge and is in and of it self a giant current loop.

The actual charge structure of a thunderstorm is far, far more complex, and since every storm is different, it is almost difficult to make generalizations. For detailed accounts, see:

MacGorman, D. R., Rust, W. D., Krehbiel, P., Rison, W., Bruning, E., and Wiens, K., 2005: The Electrical Structure of Two Supercell Storms during STEPS. Monthly Weather Review, 133: 2583-2607.

Kuhlman, K. M., Ziegler, C. L., Mansell, E. R., MacGorman, D. R., and Straka, J. M., 2006: Numerically Simulated Electrification and Lightning of the 29 June 2000 STEPS Supercell Storm. Monthly Weather Review, 134: 2734-2757.

Nevertheless, if one were to make a single generalization, it would be that the main positive charge region is at the top of the cloud, and the main negative charge region is in the upper middle of the cloud. Coincidentally, the mesocyclone first forms in the upper middle of the cloud. Once formed, the mesocyclone rearranges the distribution of charge, from a flat charge region 7~8 km above the surface, to a vertically-oriented distribution of charge. (A flat plate of charge in the middle of the cloud isn't going to stay that way with a powerful updraft driving up through its center, and with powerful downdrafts coming down around the outside.) Despite being rousted from its initial position, the precipitation will still be bearing a negative charge. As the updraft continues to manufacture precipitation, the process that separates positive from negative charges will continue, leaving the positive charges at the top of the cloud, and putting negative charges into motion in the middle of the cloud. That much is all in the textbooks. How the mesocyclone forms is, of course, still in debate. The theory under consideration proposes that it is charged particles in the main negative charge region that are encouraging the development of a toroidal airflow.

For information concerning the EM properties of a supercell thunderstorm, see:

http://www.lightning.nmt.edu/nmt_lms...9_tornado.html

Suffice it to say that it is not a perfect world, and the airflow within a supercell is not a perfect toroid -- it's a skewed toroid, and the main reflectivity region in the mesocyclone is in the sagging belly of the skewed toroid. Though the toroidal shape is the central construct in the theory under consideration, the actual shape is not important -- the important thing is simply that the charges are moving in a continuous loop, and that they are generating magnetic fields that constrain the charged particles. All of the properties of the proposed theory come from those facts, not from the toroidal shape per se.

Now, the problem is that ions don't get easily pulled out of the Earth, electrons can get pulled out easily, so you really need one heck of a field to accomplish what you want to do here. But most likely you mean that maybe dust can be charged on the surface of the Earth, or whatever...

...Like your idea of "flow of positive ions out of the ground" which will not happen.

Considering the mobility of electrons compared to positive ions, all other factors being the same, it will be the electrons that will move, not the positive ions. To anyone with any working knowledge of electromagnetism, electric currents are the flow of electrons -- period. And it's not just a practical fact. It's something that is learned at the undergraduate level, and subsequently becomes the framework in which all electric currents are conceived. It then becomes impossible to conceive of a flow of positive ions. Nevertheless, if we go all of the way back to first principles, we find that positive ions can indeed flow in a fluid substance such as the atmosphere. We just need a way of restricting the flow of free electrons so that they will not flow first, as they would typically do. The theory in question proposes that this rare feat is accomplished by the magnetic fields surrounding the mesocyclone, due to the rapid motion of the charged particles. If Ampere was right about moving charges always generating magnetic fields, and if the magnetic pinch effect constrains the charged particles, and if the charged particles in a mesocyclone are moving, we have every reason to believe that those particles will be constrained.

A good theory also shows math.

I totally agree. I'm just not there yet. It took 7 years to get this far into the theory. The mathematics that it will take to substantiate the claims that I am making will be extremely complex. As I mentioned elsewhere, it would seem to make a lot of sense to vet the "idea" in front of a larger audience, before taking on such an enormous task. This might mean that this work is not up to the standards of BABB, and if this is the case, please forgive me. In my defense, it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever to be working on a project this size without taking every opportunity to let others know, and to seek like minds in the endeavor. I hope that I haven't misused this forum.

As you are a software consultant and a natural philosopher, I have to ask you where you studied plasma physics and if you have any legit qualifications in this field?

Argumentum ad hominem.

And PLEASE do not lecture me on "how things are" in the scientific community -- that if one does not have the proper credentials, one's work will not be accepted. I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid, and I think I got that point after the 200th time that I heard it. Nevertheless, and regardless of how things are in the "scientific" community, in good science, fallacious reasoning cannot prove or disprove anything. For more on this topic, please see:

Kuhn, T. S., 1962: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press.

What we learn from a study of the history of science (besides the fact that we learn nothing from the history of science!) is that when an intellectual community gets to the point that one can only gain acceptance within the community by demonstrating the proper credentials and by showing existing support from within the same community, the next thing that happens is an intellectual revolution that totally discredits the existing intellectual community!!! So if you'd like to proof-read my resume, be my guest. If you find any spelling errors, please let me know! But my resume cannot, and should not pretend to, have any bearing on the truth value of my statements.

(That having been said, I DO need to hear this criticism, and it DOES need to be repeated. But please, not more than once per thread. )

Do you think that there is enough charge floating around to create this immense toroidal field and did any magnetometer measure this magnetic field?

Brook, M., 1967: Electric Currents Accompanying Tornado Activity. Science, Vol. 157, Issue 3795, 1434-1436.

unlimited amount of charge? You have got to be kidding!

Absolutely not. A toroidal plasmoid is a rare thing in nature. Nevertheless, at least theoretically speaking (correct me if I'm wrong) the forces involved do not place theoretical limits on the size of the structure, and the amount of charge within it. The size of the plasmoid will be a function of the amount of charge (which increases the size, by electric repulsion) and the speed of the particles (which decreases the size, by the magnetic pinch effect). If the magnetic field around the outside is powerful enough to keep the particles from flying off into space, a continuous-loop current is possible. If friction is not a factor, the motion will continue forever.

You're the plasma physicist -- you tell me why this couldn't work!

-- Charles

[captain swoop]

Argumentum ad hominem.

How is asking a question to establish your level of expertise or qualifications an ad hom?

You're the plasma physicist -- you tell me why this couldn't work!

Well, I would have thought it was up to you to show us why it would work, that's how the ATM forum works.

[CharlesChandler]

How is asking a question to establish your level of expertise or qualifications an ad hom?

I wasn't implying that it was an ad hom attack, or anything like that. I was just saying that someone's credentials have no bearing on the truth value of the statements being made. Strictly logical stuff, you know.

Well, I would have thought it was up to you to show us why it would work, that's how the ATM forum works.

Indeed. Just a conversational comment.

Please, keep the questions and criticisms coming!

-- Charles

[CharlesChandler]

But without math, you cannot describe plasmas.

I forgot to mention that a decent mathematical treatment of the dynamics of tornadoes, in electromagnetic terms, has been published:

Dehel, T. F, Dickinson, M., Lorge, F., and Startzel, F. Jr., 2007: Electric field and Lorentz force contribution to atmospheric vortex phenomena. Journal of Electrostatics, Vol. 65, Issues 10-11, 631-638.

The part that is still lacking mathematical description is the "toroidal plasmoid" construct for the supercell thunderstorm, and for the interaction between the supercell and the tornado.

-- Charles

[tusenfem]

There is no denying that there are electric/electromagnetic phenomena going on during thunderstorms. However, you will have to show us that what you are proposing can actually work. I am rather troubled by what you wrote here:

Considering the mobility of electrons compared to positive ions, all other factors being the same, it will be the electrons that will move, not the positive ions. To anyone with any working knowledge of electromagnetism, electric currents are the flow of electrons -- period. And it's not just a practical fact. It's something that is learned at the undergraduate level, and subsequently becomes the framework in which all electric currents are conceived. It then becomes impossible to conceive of a flow of positive ions. Nevertheless, if we go all of the way back to first principles, we find that positive ions can indeed flow in a fluid substance such as the atmosphere. We just need a way of restricting the flow of free electrons so that they will not flow first, as they would typically do. The theory in question proposes that this rare feat is accomplished by the magnetic fields surrounding the mesocyclone, due to the rapid motion of the charged particles. If Ampere was right about moving charges always generating magnetic fields, and if the magnetic pinch effect constrains the charged particles, and if the charged particles in a mesocyclone are moving, we have every reason to believe that those particles will be constrained.

The problem is not that ions cannot flow to create currents, and I never said anything like that. The problem is that you want to get the positive ions from the Earth, pulling them out, which is almost impossible, and I think only happens at certain lightnings. That is where the math comes in, to see if what you propose can work.

Another problem which you do not seem to see:

unlimited amount of charge? You have got to be kidding!

Absolutely not. A toroidal plasmoid is a rare thing in nature. Nevertheless, at least theoretically speaking (correct me if I'm wrong) the forces involved do not place theoretical limits on the size of the structure, and the amount of charge within it. The size of the plasmoid will be a function of the amount of charge (which increases the size, by electric repulsion) and the speed of the particles (which decreases the size, by the magnetic pinch effect). If the magnetic field around the outside is powerful enough to keep the particles from flying off into space, a continuous-loop current is possible. If friction is not a factor, the motion will continue forever.

If this was possible, then we would have solved the problem of plasma confinement in a Tokamak and would have working fusion generators.

You can collect charge in your cell, and have it create a toroidal magnetic field. However, at a certain point there will be too much charge there (coz you seem to be collecting only negative charge here in your model) and the electrostatic forces will overcome the Lorentz force that is working at the same time. No pinch will help you here, which might help you a bit in a normal plasma where e.g. the ions can be considered often as a neutralizing background.

Unfortunately, I have no access to the journals you gave the references for. So, I cannot judge if what is discussed in said papers will support your claims in any way.

For information concerning the EM properties of a supercell thunderstorm, see: http://www.lightning.nmt.edu/nmt_lms...9_tornado.html

I fail to see what you are pointing at here. The page shows lightning during a storm. Okay, but how does this support your theory? There is a picture in the middle of the page labeled +CG Discharge in the Tornado Storm, maybe that is what you are referring to? But that describes positive cloud-to-ground lightning, and not positive ions being pulled out of the Earth.

And PLEASE do not lecture me on "how things are" in the scientific community -- that if one does not have the proper credentials, one's work will not be accepted. I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid, and I think I got that point after the 200th time that I heard it. Nevertheless, and regardless of how things are in the "scientific" community, in good science, fallacious reasoning cannot prove or disprove anything. For more on this topic, please see: Kuhn, T. S., 1962: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press.

I am not lecturing you in any way, I just want to know your expertise in plasma physics. The fact that you ignored my non-intuitive plasma physics example shows enough that you don't want to go there. But that is okay. I am not saying you are stupid, neither do I claim you are crazy. You have an idea an you want to put it forward. But as the idea is rather ATM you need to expect the people here on the board to "attack with glee and fervor" as is says in the rules of the board. And yes, you can quote Kuhn if you like, but that still does not help you in showing that your model if feasible. If like you say:

I'm just not there yet. It took 7 years to get this far into the theory.

If after 7 years you have only this document, it is not really impressive. I understand that as an "amateur" you cannot put in full time into looking into this stuff. But in 7 years you might have tried to put some quantitative information into your theory.

Brook, M., 1967: Electric Currents Accompanying Tornado Activity. Science, Vol. 157, Issue 3795, 1434-1436.

Unfortunatly, according to ADS this paper does not seem to exist. But checking the Science page, it does seem to be there, but I have no access.

You're the plasma physicist -- you tell me why this couldn't work!

Well, like Captain Swoop already said, it is not for me to prove you wrong, this being basically impossible with the qualitative model you are presenting here. First you have to give quantitative evidence that your model is feasible. After that, we can discuss if it is wrong or right.

I forgot to mention that a decent mathematical treatment of the dynamics of tornadoes, in electromagnetic terms, has been published:

Dehel, T. F, Dickinson, M., Lorge, F., and Startzel, F. Jr., 2007: Electric field and Lorentz force contribution to atmospheric vortex phenomena. Journal of Electrostatics, Vol. 65, Issues 10-11, 631-638.

The part that is still lacking mathematical description is the "toroidal plasmoid" construct for the supercell thunderstorm, and for the interaction between the supercell and the tornado.

This could be an interesting paper, although from the abstract I see no mention of ExB, but it can well be in the paper and just not mentioned in the abstract. Gotta see if a colleague of mine can get that paper. But, if this mainstream paper does not discuss your toroidal plasmoid, then that would be a rather strong indication that it might not exist.
ETA: Got the paper now, will read it soon.

[CharlesChandler]

The problem is that you want to get the positive ions from the Earth, pulling them out, which is almost impossible.

Right -- tough but not impossible. The powerful inflow into a tornado indicates that air molecules are being accelerated upward, and the thermodynamic forces necessary to do this have not been established. And particulate matter at the surface is being accelerated upward, and again, there is no thermodynamic reason why this would happen. The contention is that the electric force is ionizing the molecules/atoms in the air and in the loose particulate matter at the surface, and then accelerating the molecules/atoms upward. And you're right -- I haven't shown the math for this.

At least theoretically speaking (correct me if I'm wrong) the forces involved do not place theoretical limits on the size of the structure, and the amount of charge within it. The size of the plasmoid will be a function of the amount of charge (which increases the size, by electric repulsion) and the speed of the particles (which decreases the size, by the magnetic pinch effect).

If this was possible, then we would have solved the problem of plasma confinement in a Tokamak and would have working fusion generators.

A Tokamak is a somewhat different scenario. To clarify my statement, an infinite charge could be stored in an infinitely large plasmoid. Storing an infinite charge in a finite plasmoid wouldn't work as well. Achieving the temperatures necessary for fusion by plasma confinement is pure genius, but the inherent difficulties are partially, but not entirely, relevant.

I fail to see what you are pointing at here. The page shows lightning during a storm. Okay, but how does this support your theory?

The figure named "Balloon Trajectory Through Storm" shows a vertical section of the storm. The panel named "Reflectivity dBZ" shows the concentration of reflective particles (i.e., precipitation) in the cloud at the time. The dark red patches indicate extremely high concentrations. The geometry of this charge region is obviously not toroidal, but like I said elsewhere, the important thing is not that the form is toroidal per se, but that the charges are moving. I provided the reference just so you could see that the charge region very definitely does exist, though it's not the somewhat flat charge region that we would expect to see in a normal thunderstorm. Sorry for not being more specific.

I am not lecturing you in any way, I just want to know your expertise in plasma physics. The fact that you ignored my non-intuitive plasma physics example shows enough that you don't want to go there. But that is okay. I am not saying you are stupid, neither do I claim you are crazy. You have an idea an you want to put it forward. But as the idea is rather ATM you need to expect the people here on the board to "attack with glee and fervor" as is says in the rules of the board. And yes, you can quote Kuhn if you like, but that still does not help you in showing that your model if feasible.

OK, you've been kind, fair, patient, and generous. So I'll lay my cards on the table. Yes, I'm an amateur, and a self-educated amateur at that. And yes, wanting to know the background of someone with whom you are conversing is reasonable. And you're absolutely right that citing Kuhn proves nothing, and I resent it when people attempt this. The burden of proof is still on me, and I know that.

If after 7 years you have only this document, it is not really impressive.

If I had been told 7 years ago to develop the support for the contention that supercell thunderstorms are plasmoids, I'd be further along. The bulk of the time was spent sifting through what supercells and tornadoes are not. Oh well.

If this mainstream paper does not discuss your toroidal plasmoid, then that would be a rather strong indication that it might not exist.

WHAT??????? IF IT'S NOT ALREADY IN THE MAINSTREAM, IT PROBABLY DOESN'T EXIST???????? Ooooooooookay.....

BTW, I have corresponded with the principle author, and he didn't tell me that I was wrong. A study of the electrodynamics of supercell thunderstorms was outside the scope of his research. I asked him for a critical review of the work that I am doing, but he is busy on other projects, and currently has no funding for this, so I'm left to comb the Internet for more opinions.

-- Charles

[sabianq]

Hi there!

I trust that you know that this is not a new theory (1995)

I noticed that Edward Lewis was never mentioned in this thread.

Are you continuing his work?

http://www.padrak.com/ine/ELEWIS4.html
http://pe2bz.philpem.me.uk/Power/-%2...g/PLASMOID.TXT
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Torn...ypothesis.html
http://orbstudy.com/BIZyCart.ASP?STY...y&ACCOUNT=9276
http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20...sma_hypothesis

[CharlesChandler]

I trust that you know that this is not a new theory (1995). I noticed that Edward Lewis was never mentioned in this thread. Are you continuing his work?

This work goes further back than that, depending on how close the relationship has to be in order to say that the works are related.

Edward Lewis has simply stated that tornadoes are plasmoids, and left it at that. I cite him as a reference in my main paper, because he bothered to scare up a lot of relevant observations of EM activity associated with tornadoes. But he offers no support for any specific contentions on how tornadoes are plasmoids.

My work diverges from his (and pretty much everybody else's) in that he seems to believe that tornadoes, like ball lightning, are negative plasmoids, while I'm contending that the supercell is a negative plasmoid, and that the tornado is a dark discharge of positive ions, responding to the electrostatic potential between the supercell and the ground. I just couldn't see how I could get the gross properties of a steady-state electron stream, and the properties of a tornado, onto the same page. But positive ion streams seemed to have all of the right properties, and none of the wrong properties, for a tornado. Then the question became, "What could create a steady-state positive ion stream?" That's when I started thinking of supercells as plasmoids with a huge negative charge "frozen" inside.

-- Charles

[tusenfem]

Right -- tough but not impossible. The powerful inflow into a tornado indicates that air molecules are being accelerated upward, and the thermodynamic forces necessary to do this have not been established. And particulate matter at the surface is being accelerated upward, and again, there is no thermodynamic reason why this would happen. The contention is that the electric force is ionizing the molecules/atoms in the air and in the loose particulate matter at the surface, and then accelerating the molecules/atoms upward. And you're right -- I haven't shown the math for this.

Okay, now you are changing your model! This is exactly what I said in my first reply to you. That you probably don't want to pull out positive ions out of the Earth proper, which is basically impossible, you need tremendous electrostatic fields to overcome the crystal structure. Thus I told you, you probably want to pull of dust off the surface.

Now, the problem is that ions don't get easily pulled out of the Earth, electrons can get pulled out easily, so you really need one heck of a field to accomplish what you want to do here. But most likely you mean that maybe dust can be charged on the surface of the Earth, or whatever.

And now you suddenly let this drop and come up with what I bolded in your quoted post above. So, there really is no reason for pulling out positive ions from the surface of the Earth. But naturally it sounded spectacular. You just want an electrostatically driven updraft.

A Tokamak is a somewhat different scenario. To clarify my statement, an infinite charge could be stored in an infinitely large plasmoid. Storing an infinite charge in a finite plasmoid wouldn't work as well. Achieving the temperatures necessary for fusion by plasma confinement is pure genius, but the inherent difficulties are partially, but not entirely, relevant.

Ohhhh, stupid me!! An infinite plasmoid! How could I not have understood that? So this comment on your page was bunk too.

The figure named "Balloon Trajectory Through Storm" shows a vertical section of the storm. The panel named "Reflectivity dBZ" shows the concentration of reflective particles (i.e., precipitation) in the cloud at the time. The dark red patches indicate extremely high concentrations. The geometry of this charge region is obviously not toroidal, but like I said elsewhere, the important thing is not that the form is toroidal per se, but that the charges are moving. I provided the reference just so you could see that the charge region very definitely does exist, though it's not the somewhat flat charge region that we would expect to see in a normal thunderstorm. Sorry for not being more specific.

So, yeah there is precipitation in a storm. And there is updraft and downdraft, all fine and good, nothing special there. But where specifically do you get the idea that there is this toroid and the electrostatic updraft. What shows you that the particles are charged? Yes, there is mention of charge in the cloud itself:

From numerous other observations in STEPS, such discharges are between negative charge at upper levels in the storm and positive charge at mid-levels, rather than the other way around. Also, individual discharges tend to develop downward with time during their initial stages rather than upward.

But this is about intra-cloud lightning discharges.

There is no figure which shows you your charges. Only a comment near the end of the paper says (above figure "Lightning Activity at Time of Balloon Flight")

These probably indicate the presence of an electrical `screening' charge in this part of the storm, which is penetrated by some of the discharges.

So, I do not see evidence here on this page that your charge model is correct.

WHAT??????? IF IT'S NOT ALREADY IN THE MAINSTREAM, IT PROBABLY DOESN'T EXIST???????? Ooooooooookay.....

No, what I meant was, that if this toroidal magnetic field would be an important part of a super cell that it would most definitely have been mentioned. So, either it is not important, or it does not exist. And I tend to believe the latter. I have had no time yet to read this Dehel et al. paper, but looking though it quickly, it only seems to focus on the behaviour in a tubular tornado of 154 m diameter.

However, I notice in Section 9 as short discussion about the uplifting of charged particles. To show:

Why would a tornado uplift many charged particles? The answer may be that the charged particles are being uplifted by the electric fields above the tornado; these electric fields were formed by the charge separation process of the storm clouds. Usually, these electric fields lead to lightning. It has been observed, however, that a rapid decrease in lightning immediately precedes the formation of a tornado. As has been suggested several times by several researchers, the tornado serves as an alternative conduit to lightning for transferring electric charge [12]. To see if the total charge of the tornado core wall is at all realistic, we will calculate the total charge there. This computation gives us:

0.0068 C/m³ × 485m² × 500m = 1649C.

If this amount of charge were also stored in the clouds above the hypothetical tornado (at an actually observed 10 C/km³ [19]) then the volume of the storm clouds above the hypothetical tornado would require 164.9km³, which would work out to a storm system approximately a cube 5.5 km on a side. This is smaller than the severe storm systems that sit above actual tornados. So, it seems highly reasonable that some of the power of the tornado is provided by the same charge separation mechanism, which causes lightning; the difference in the case of the tornado is that the continuous supply of charged particles prevents the electric field in the clouds increasing to a point where lightning is initiated. This concept is supported by the existence of ‘‘lightning holes’’ or rapid decreases of lightning rates in the vicinity of tornados [20].

Now, here I am doing the work for you CharlesChandler, looking through the paper and bringing evidence, that in this case might even slightly support your electrostatic updraft model.

BTW, I have corresponded with the principle author, and he didn't tell me that I was wrong. A study of the electrodynamics of supercell thunderstorms was outside the scope of his research. I asked him for a critical review of the work that I am doing, but he is busy on other projects, and currently has no funding for this, so I'm left to comb the Internet for more opinions.

From personal experience, I know a reply like this is the academically correct version of "sod off".

[CharlesChandler]

OK, so let's take a close look at what Dehel et al. are saying. They have established that there are enough coulombs in the cloud to initiate a discharge, and that this discharge will generate a measurable Lorentz force acceleration around the discharge. They have (correctly) established that the Lorentz force is not capable of producing all of the rotation around the discharge -- some of the force has to be coming from elsewhere (i.e., fluid dynamics). But it's significant to note the fluid dynamics itself is lacking in explaining the rotational speed of a tornado vortex, so something feels right about there being two forces operative. So this is a solid foundation.

But here's where I get off:

Why would a tornado uplift many charged particles? The answer may be that the charged particles are being uplifted by the electric fields above the tornado; these electric fields were formed by the charge separation process of the storm clouds. Usually, these electric fields lead to lightning. It has been observed, however, that a rapid decrease in lightning immediately precedes the formation of a tornado. As has been suggested several times by several researchers, the tornado serves as an alternative conduit to lightning for transferring electric charge [12].

If we sanity-check this, we find that Dehel et al. are missing something fundamental.

They are saying that usually the electric fields cause lightning, but sometimes a tornado provides an alternate conduit for the discharge. They correctly note that the lightning rate drops during the tornadic period, and it is clear that while tornadoes very definitely have EM properties, and occasionally have been observed to generate glow or even arc discharges at the tornado/supercell interface, tornadoes and cloud-to-ground lightning are mutually exclusive (spatially if not temporally).

What they do not establish are the conditions necessary for the cloud to decide to use the alternate conduit instead of the primary one for the discharge. Why do we go from fair weather cloud-to-ground potentials (< 5 kV/m) to foul weather potentials producing lightning (> 20 kV/m), and then in the tornadic stage, to very small potentials (< 5 kV/m), where the lightning rate drops, and then the discharge takes the form of a tornado? In other words, the data "seem" to suggest that a tornado forms when the electrostatic potentials are (apparently) very low. As the storm develops, and charge builds within the cloud, why didn't a tornado form before the first lightning strike, while the potentials were still in the "tornadic range" (near the fair weather potentials)?

Many researchers have believed that tornadoes are at least partially electromagnetic, and Dehel et al. have filled in some of the blanks. But nobody has worked out what is going on inside the cloud to make the difference between a lightning discharge and a "tornado discharge." This is especially problematic since tornadoes appear to release far more energy than lightning, yet with far less potential. This jacks up the improbability factor, and until this problem is worked out, EM theories of tornadic storms cannot be considered plausible. For this reason, and because many of the EM proposals have been more blatantly wrong, EM theories are not taken seriously, and funding is sparse. Walking away from electromagnetism as a possible explanation for tornadoes, and redoubling the efforts to find a thermodynamic explanation, would make sense except for the fact that thermodynamicists have been at it for 50 years (the last 20 of which with the aid of decent computing power) and they still can't work it out. We're talking about a vortex here, and teams of PhDs using supercomputers can't figure out the thermodynamic principles of these vortexes. In a sense, the failure of thermodynamics at explaining tornadoes has been more complete than the failure of electromagnetism, at least in the sense that thermodynamics has gotten the lion's share of effort. This bounces us back into the EM camp looking for answers.

When I finally realized just how troubled the EM paradigm actually is, as currently stated (by Dehel and many others), I knew that the whole thing had to be reconceived, and that high-level sanity checking had to play an important role. We're not going to work this out one piece at a time -- we have to consider every contention within the broader context. This led me to take a close look at the proposals, and that's when I realized that a "standard" electrostatic discharge, with a flux of negative charges, in a very weak electric field, just isn't going to work. The only way to get all of the right properties, and none of the wrong properties, to explain tornadic vortexes required a positive ion stream.

As soon as I realized that I was definitely talking about a positive ion stream, I knew that I had jumped from the pan into the fire, so to say. Positive ion streams are not likely to happen. It would take a special set of circumstances to do this. But having reviewed the other proposals, with even higher improbability factors, I decided to at least give the positive ion thing a chance. This is what led me to the proposal that negative charges locked inside a plasmoid could create the potentials necessary for a positive ion stream.

The remaining question, then, is how we can develop the potentials necessary for a positive ion stream, when the measurements of the electric field are going down. A positive ion stream is going to take more E-field than lightning, and we have less E-field. So something is definitely not right.

[Please read to the end before commenting on this section.]

But if we take a close look at how E-fields are measured in the atmosphere, it might not be the theory under consideration that is wrong, but rather, the field data indicating a low E-field. E-fields are measured with "field mills." These instruments use an array of plane conductors that are alternately exposed to, and then shielded from, the E-field to be measured. When one of the plane conductors is exposed to the E-field, current will flow through a wire connecting it to one of the shielded plane conductors.

Intuitively, we immediately conclude that this is because the E-field induced the current, by simple electrostatic attraction or repulsion. For example, if there is a powerful negative charge overhead, and we expose a plane conductor to that field, and if there is a wire connecting that plane conductor to another plane conductor that is shielded from that field, the electrostatic repulsion will blow electrons off the exposed conductor and onto the shielded one. If we move the shield to the opposite position, the electrons will flow back. Hence we will have an alternating current in the wire connecting the two plane conductors. The current density on that wire will be directly proportional to the strength of the E-field.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but something doesn't seem right with this. In order for electrons to get blown off a plane conductor, and over a wire to another plane conductor, the electrons would have to leave a positive charge behind. Wouldn't that positive charge be far stronger than the E-field that was (supposedly) repelling them? Electrostatic force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. There may be a powerful negative charge in the cloud, but that charge is hundreds or thousands of meters away. In order for electrons to exit a plane conductor and to leave a positive charge behind, they'll have to walk away from charges nanometers away.

In actuality, when a plane conductor is exposed to an E-field, charges might migrate to the other side of the plane. Or more realistically, it is not so much a matter of the charges migrating per se, but rather, that the atoms get polarized, showing one charge on one side and the opposite charge on the other side. But the charges at the atomic level are just as legitimate as the charges in the cloud, and a whole lot closer, so they'll be far more powerful. So we would expect the net flux to be extremely small.

Nevertheless, exposure to E-fields DOES produce a current in a plane conductor. So what's going on?

If there is actually a measurable current present, then it has to be because of flux in the atmosphere. Yes, exposure to an E-field will induce charges in a plane conductor, and this induction could induce an electric current. But an E-field will also induce a flux in the atmosphere, and the larger portion of the current measured coming off the plane conductor will be due to the fact that in the presence of the E-field, it was getting bombarded with free electrons moving in the field. This excess negative charge then flows freely in the plane conductor, and over the wire connecting it to a shielded plane conductor.

Normally, it will be nearly impossible to isolate how much current is generated by electrostatic induction, versus the current resulting from the flux in the atmosphere. If one is present, the other will be present, and in an exact ratio. It would take a rare set of circumstances to alter this ratio.

But the construct that I am proposing constitutes exactly the type of circumstances that would alter the ratio of induction to flux. If the negative charge is locked inside the magnetic field around a plasmoid, the E-field will still be present, but the atmospheric flux will not. Hence any instrument that is actually measuring more flux than induction will show a reduction in the (perceived) E-field in the presence of a plasmoid. The drop in E-field corresponds precisely with the measured rise in magnetic field, though no one has suggested a correlation. The theory in question suggests that the two facts are directly related, and that the E-field is actually going up, despite lower field mill readings, and that the lightning rate falls, not because of a lower E-field, but because of an absence of the flux necessary for lightning. In the heightened E-field, and in the absence of lightning to discharge the potential, a discharge of positive ions occurs.

-- Charles

[CharlesChandler]

Oh and I forgot to mention that this means that all of the numbers will have to be recalculated. When I told Dehel that he was on the right track, but that he had gotten it 100% backwards, he told me (like I said) that he was busy with other projects, and had no funding for this.

-- Charles

[tusenfem]

Oh and I forgot to mention that this means that all of the numbers will have to be recalculated. When I told Dehel that he was on the right track, but that he had gotten it 100% backwards, he told me (like I said) that he was busy with other projects, and had no funding for this.

Oh yeah, that is a real good start, immediately accusing the guy you want to help you that he is wrong. No wonder that gave you the cold shoulder.

Then to my own impression of the Dehel et al. paper. I think it is a lot of handwaving, with lots of typos (e.g. cm³ when they mean m³, 1014 particles when they mean 10¹⁴ particles, etc., I wonder why J. Electrostat. does not have an proofreader). In all, I am totally unconvinced that this process will work. Indeed, the Lorentz force will lead the charged particles in (near) circular orbits around the (near) vertical magnetic field of the Earth. But to assume that these 10¹⁴ charged particles will accelerate the neutral particles in the cubic meter through collisions, I would like to see a real calculation of the momentum transfer. Also they forget that when a charged particle collided, it loses energy (velocity) and thus they will have a smaller gyro radius.

In all, I would not have accepted this paper as a referee.

Then what CharlesChandler wrote. He throws away convetional stuff, and replaces it with his own reasoning.

But if we take a close look at how E-fields are measured in the atmosphere, it might not be the theory under consideration that is wrong, but rather, the field data indicating a low E-field. E-fields are measured with "field mills." These instruments use an array of plane conductors that are alternately exposed to, and then shielded from, the E-field to be measured. When one of the plane conductors is exposed to the E-field, current will flow through a wire connecting it to one of the shielded plane conductors.

Usually, electric fields are measured by double probes, that measure the electric potential at two points, which then gives the electic field, as we know the distance of the two points.

I am not familiar with the "field mills" (never heard the term, but maybe it is something atmospheric and not space physical. However, the technique that you describe here will work too.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but something doesn't seem right with this. In order for electrons to get blown off a plane conductor, and over a wire to another plane conductor, the electrons would have to leave a positive charge behind. Wouldn't that positive charge be far stronger than the E-field that was (supposedly) repelling them? Electrostatic force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. There may be a powerful negative charge in the cloud, but that charge is hundreds or thousands of meters away. In order for electrons to exit a plane conductor and to leave a positive charge behind, they'll have to walk away from charges nanometers away.

Well, to correct you, positive charge being stronger than the E-field is nonsense. A charge cannot be stronger than an E-field. If you have one of your "plates" in an electric field, i.e. at a certain potential, then the system wants to get into equilibrium, that the electrons in the system will move such that the plate in the E-field has the same potential, thus either the electrons move to or away from the exposed plate. For the rest I cannot follow your reasoning about your electrons moving etc.

In actuality, when a plane conductor is exposed to an E-field, charges might migrate to the other side of the plane. Or more realistically, it is not so much a matter of the charges migrating per se, but rather, that the atoms get polarized, showing one charge on one side and the opposite charge on the other side. But the charges at the atomic level are just as legitimate as the charges in the cloud, and a whole lot closer, so they'll be far more powerful. So we would expect the net flux to be extremely small.

No, just polarization of the atoms is not enough. There need to be electrons (in the free electron gas of the metal) moving from one side of the system to the other. If there would only be a polarization the created electric field would be waaaaaay to small to measure any electric field. Somehow, I have the feeling that you do not know enough about electrostatics.

Nevertheless, exposure to E-fields DOES produce a current in a plane conductor. So what's going on?

Now a whole discussion comes that I totally do not understand. There can be large electric fields, even in vacuum, which can be measured and there is no need for electrons bombarding the plate or whatever. You really need to read a book on electrostatics.

Also, question: How strong will your toroidal magnetic field be, in which the electrons are locked up? How much current will they have to drive to not be influenced by the Earth's magnetic field, which is close to 50,000 nT.

[Argos]

There seems to be a general consensus that some dry air is an important ingredient to Tornadoes. Also, if tornadoes were triggered by EM phenomena we should expect to find them more evenly distributed across the planet. How would you explain the clustering of occurrences in specific parts of the Earth, like the north-american mid-west?

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] Also, if tornadoes were triggered by EM phenomena we should expect to find them more evenly distributed across the planet. How would you explain the clustering of occurrences in specific parts of the Earth, like the North-American midwest?

{Emphasis mine}
I would also like an answer to this question.

I'd also like to know why tornadoes seem to be attracted to trailer parks, but you don't have to answer that one.

[PraedSt]

Also, if tornadoes were triggered by EM phenomena we should expect to find them more evenly distributed across the planet. How would you explain the clustering of occurrences in specific parts of the Earth, like the north-american mid-west?

That's a good point. Why didn't I think of that?

[CharlesChandler]

Also, if tornadoes were triggered by EM phenomena we should expect to find them more evenly distributed across the planet. How would you explain the clustering of occurrences in specific parts of the Earth, like the north-american mid-west?

I am proposing that tornadoes are a purely electromagnetic process. But it is supercell thunderstorms that are the most prolific producers of tornadoes, and these are mainly thermodynamic. (It's possible that electromagnetism might act as a force multiplier, to help the supercell get organized. I have not presented any of this reasoning -- will do so if asked, but it will require a lot of space. Nevertheless, the original source of all of the energy in the supercell is purely thermodynamic.)

If we go looking for the thermodynamic factors conducive to supercell thunderstorms, we find that these factors are not evenly distributed across the globe. The most violent thunderstorms are the result of three different layers of air (warm, moist air at the surface, capped by a layer of hot, dry air, with cool, dry air on top) all traveling in different directions. In the US MidWest, the warm, moist air comes from the Gulf of Mexico; the hot, dry air comes from west Texas or New Mexico; and the cool, dry air comes across the Rockies. Where these air masses meet is where the storms will be the most violent.

Similar conditions exist elsewhere in the world, such as northern India, Pakistan, Australia, and England. But without such conditions, you're not going to get the same violent thunderstorms. To put it another way, tornadoes can (and do) occur anywhere, but they occur far more frequently when these thermodynamic conditions are present on a regular basis.

Tornadoes are not attracted to trailer parks, but if something is going to take off in a tornado, it will be trailers (and cars) first. This is actually because of high pressure that builds up underneath the object, not so much because of low pressure above it. Because cars and many trailers have exposed under-carriages, a gust of high pressure can get underneath the object and lift it up. So these objects fly easily in high winds. But they are notoriously inept at landing properly.

-- Charles

[CharlesChandler]

There can be large electric fields, even in vacuum, which can be measured and there is no need for electrons bombarding the plate or whatever.

I agree, that there can be electric fields in a vacuum. But I'm questioning whether the stator plates in a field mill will measure as much electric field in a vacuum as they do in the atmosphere, given the same amount of electric field. In the atmosphere, there will also be the flow of electrons. I realize that the mean free path of an electron in the air at sea level pressure is very small. Nevertheless, there will be an atmospheric flux, even in fair weather, because of the potential gradient between the Earth and the upper atmosphere. In the presence of concentrated charge regions within a thunderstorm, we would expect for this atmospheric flux to be far greater. If a field mill is present within this electric field, it will get bombarded will electrons. I agree that it doesn't have to be bombarded with electrons in order to register the presence of an electric field. But if atmospheric flux is present, the flux will contribute to the "perceived" strength of the electric field. Furthermore, if an electric field is present, but a magnetic field is preventing the atmospheric flux, the field mill readings will be low compared to those made in the absence of the magnetic field. The absence will be interpreted as an absence of electric field, when actually, the electric field may have been the same, or even greater, but the perturbing factors were not properly noted.

The interesting question, then, is exactly how much of the "electric field" that is being measured by a field mill is actually atmospheric flux instead of induction. Maybe I'm not phrasing the question properly, because I'm having a hard time getting people to actually address the very question head-on. I've even spoken on the phone with a couple manufacturers of field mills, and they did a good job of answering questions that I did not ask, while leaving the driving question in the air. I think that I am challenging some sort of deeply-set way of thinking, and I don't know the right words to properly identify the true nature of the question. So let's try baby-steps.

Do electrons ever flow in the atmosphere in the presence of an electric field? If so, would they impact a plane conductor in the atmosphere, resulting in an excess of electrons on the plane conductor? If there was an excess of electrons on the plane conductor, would these electrons flow off the plane conductor if given a path to ground from there (assuming that the ground in this case is also exposed to the electric field, and a positive charge has been induced in the ground)? If those electrons were flowing along a wire to ground, would the current density on the wire be measurable?

If the answer to the last question is "yes", then a field mill measures both induction and atmospheric flux.

-- Charles

[stutefish]

I am proposing that tornadoes are a purely electromagnetic process.

"Purely" electromagnetic? As in "fluid dynamics plays no significant part in the formation of tornados"?

[CharlesChandler]

Continuing the previous post (after stopping for dinner), I should like to mention that this whole thing about field mill readings is actually a make-or-break issue for the theory under consideration. So if anybody can actually demonstrate (with logic, not rhetoric) that I'm wrong on this issue, it's back to the drawing board for me. This is why I brought it up -- it's a more specific statement that is easier to evaluate than the entire framework, so I might get more focused criticisms on this issue than on the bigger picture stuff. If I'm wrong, I want to know.

There is no mistaking the fact that field mill readings under a supercell thunderstorm are abnormally low. There is also no mistaking the fact that the lightning rate drops during the tornadic phase of the storm.

These two facts sit nicely together. A weaker electric field will produce less lightning.

But these two facts are anomalous in that the charge regions are still present within the cloud. We can see these charge regions on Doppler Radar (measuring the reflectivity of the particles, not the charge). We know that these particles were bearing charges before the tornadic phase, and generating an electric field, and we know that after the tornadic phase, the charge regions all of a sudden (within a matter of minutes, that is) go back to generating the same foul-weather field as before the tornadic phase. We also know that the lightning strike rate jumps back to its pre-tornadic level. What we cannot explain is why charge regions within the cloud would stop generating electric fields for a while, and then start back up again after the tornado ropes out.

There is also no mistaking the fact that the magnetic field gets stronger during the tornadic phase, even as the electric field gets weaker, and the lightning rate drops.

The theory under consideration suggests that these facts are all related. As the magnetic field gets stronger, the "perceived" electric field gets weaker, and the lightning rate drops. This is because the magnetic field is blocking the flow of free electrons necessary for high field mill readings, as well as for lightning. Then the tornado forms. This is a discharge of positive ions in response to the elevated electric field (even in the presence of low field mill readings and a low lightning rate).

-- Charles

[CharlesChandler]

"Purely" electromagnetic? As in "fluid dynamics plays no significant part in the formation of tornados"?

I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean, and as I will surely get flamed if I offer a poorly-focused response, can you please be more specific? I am saying that the driving force in a tornado is purely electromagnetic, though it's a flow of positive ions, not a flow of free electrons. The positive ions will collide with neutrally-charged molecules, accelerating them in the same direction. This will create a vacuum inside the tornado, and air from outside the vortex will flow in, to fill the vacuum. So there will be a fluid dynamic counterpart to the behavior of the tornado. But in this context, the fluid dynamics is an artifact of the electromagnetic discharge -- it's not a driving force. Is that what you meant?

-- Charles

[tusenfem]

Continuing the previous post (after stopping for dinner), I should like to mention that this whole thing about field mill readings is actually a make-or-break issue for the theory under consideration. So if anybody can actually demonstrate (with logic, not rhetoric) that I'm wrong on this issue, it's back to the drawing board for me. This is why I brought it up -- it's a more specific statement that is easier to evaluate than the entire framework, so I might get more focused criticisms on this issue than on the bigger picture stuff. If I'm wrong, I want to know.

A very short description of the field mill is given here.

There is absolutely no need for bombardment of the plate by electrons or ions. A conductor put into an electric field will want to take up the potential in which it is embedded. Now if this conducting plate is connected though a wire with a plate at Earth, then the way of obtaining the same potential is by either getting or losing electrons through the Earth.

Ah, and here is a full description of a field mill. (Interesting, I only now learned about this technique)

If there is only a bar of metal in the electric field, then the electrons of the free electron gas will move in such a way that the potential of the field at the top and the bottom respectively of the bar is the same at the potential at the top and the bottom inside the bar created by the charge separation that has taken place in the bar of metal. You can read all about it in very introductory physics books, e.g. Allonso and Finn, Physics, (Addison Wesley World Student Series) Chapter 19 "The static electromagnetic field". (see e.g. here at amazon, a slightly different version than I have) I am sorry but this is just basic physics, and I am not going to copy a text from a book here. The problem is, if you don't even understand what a conductor in an electric field does, how can you even think of doing plasma physics?

This is because the magnetic field is blocking the flow of free electrons necessary for high field mill readings, as well as for lightning.

But as the mill works on potential, and not on free electrons this whole idea is bogus.

[CharlesChandler]

Do electrons ever flow in the atmosphere in the presence of an electric field?

[stutefish]

I am saying that the driving force in a tornado is purely electromagnetic, though it's a flow of positive ions, not a flow of free electrons. The positive ions will collide with neutrally-charged molecules, accelerating them in the same direction. This will create a vacuum inside the tornado, and air from outside the vortex will flow in, to fill the vacuum. So there will be a fluid dynamic counterpart to the behavior of the tornado. But in this context, the fluid dynamics is an artifact of the electromagnetic discharge -- it's not a driving force. Is that what you meant?

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

Are you rejecting the mainstream theory of fluid dynamics as the driving force in tornado formation because you believe such a driving force is impossible? Or are you rejecting it because you believe that, while possible, it doesn't commonly (ever?) happen?

[CharlesChandler]

Are you rejecting the mainstream theory of fluid dynamics as the driving force in tornado formation because you believe such a driving force is impossible? Or are you rejecting it because you believe that, while possible, it doesn't commonly (ever?) happen?

#1 -- explaining tornadoes via fluid dynamics (or thermodynamics) is impossible.

There are many types of vortexes in thermodynamics, but none of them have the right properties.

Tornadoes are commonly thought to be suction vortexes, vacuuming the surface of the Earth with intense low pressure. The source of the low pressure is presumed to be the updraft within the mesocyclone. But suction vortexes and tornadoes have very different property sets.



The only vortex type in thermodynamics that has the gross characteristics of a tornado is a vortex formed by a powerful heat source on the ground. The hot air generated by the heat source will rise, and new air will flow in to replace it. If the heat source is at the surface level, all of the inflow will be at the surface level as well. If the inflow is fast enough, sooner or later a random gust will initiate rotation in the inflow, and once started, the rotation is self-pertuating in a vortex like that. Furthermore, this vortex will expand in the direction of the flow, and it will not draw in air except at the surface. But it would take temperatures in the hundreds of degrees Celsius to create a tornado this way, and there is no evidence of such temperatures in the damage paths of tornadoes. In fact, there's no consistent evidence of any elevated temperatures at all within tornadoes.

Thermodynamics just doesn't have an explanation for tornadoes.

-- Charles