## Re: [Methane Hydrate Club] A question for "Dr". Walt.

Expand Messages
• Pawn, I taught Science, and every other subject in grade school, then went to Middle school, and taught Science & Health, as a Substitute I teach k-12. My
Message 1 of 6 , Jul 5, 2002
Pawn, I taught Science, and every other subject in grade school, then
went to Middle school, and taught Science & Health, as a Substitute I
teach k-12. My PhD is in education Curriculum and instruction. My
dissertation was a statistical analysis of the relative effectiveness of
a polarized light answering device for programmed instruction which I
had invented and patented several years earlier. This was not my first
intention, but it was readily accepted by my advisor, when the first idea
ran up against a lack of adequate machines to measure what I wanted to
measure. I come from a family of inventors. I have invented 20
infinitely variable mechanical, non slipping transmissions, and patented
3. I have come up with original questions in every area I have studied,
as well as several original answers. I believe that I have several Prima
Facia (meaning that one example is enough to prove it, this is no
statistical game. It is a game of seeing structures that exist, making
predictions from the order they infer, coming up with answers because the
inferences are accurate, and then statisticians can go to work evaluating
the possibility odds that are indicated by the fulfillment of the
predictions.) examples of the SE working in several places. People that
are so used to seeing everything and looking for everything in
statistical terms don't know that you can't measure the possibilities of
the cause without inferring the source and sequence of how it possibly
works by coming up with inference that if proven true becomes a theory.
Seeing lightening strike does not enable you to understand where it is
coming from and going to. No phenomena can be statistically evaluated
until someone evaluates it with questions and answers which give an idea
that can be measured. Then you can say I couldn't find this when I
measured it this way. You then know you measured wrongly, or your idea
doesn't exist and obviously can't be measured. When I found that
insulating the drilling shaft of early oil well drilling rigs stopped
both lightening and tornados, I knew what was the process and cause of
tornados. The people that did it, said "Whew" went on drilling and
getting oil without tornadoes nor lightening and didn't say to
themselves. We can control where tornados hit. This is an example of
Prima Facia Evidence that was totally missed.
Lately some of the descriptions being given of what is going on that
you are describing, have been more understandable. I think you are
describing something. I am not convinced that a whole enough picture is
being painted to allow people to decide where to measure and what it can
tell us. I believe the SE and its interaction is what you need to really
have a picture that completes the whole pattern of what is happening
electrically. I have tossed out static electricity a long time ago. All
electricity is coming from somewhere and going along a path which will
eventually find it retracing its paths. The main path is from and back
to the Sun, for all of the planets of our solar system. It is NOT
CMEjections. It is far more steady in its current or CME would control
it instead of the other way around. It turns the world on its axis, it
powers the weather jets, it heats the center of the earth, etc.
Maybe later, Walter
I didn't know you asked that question. I also did not feel that you
read enough of my materials to even be interested in what I was saying. I
did not get feedback on a lot of things I wrote and decided that you
didn't respond because you had no input nor questions, or you didn't get
it. It also has occurred to me that we both are trying to sell
electricity as a foundational force that most scientists, don't know
enough about to begin to think in its terms. needed to do if there is to
be successful challenging and changing of the current Scientific attitude
toward electricity.

On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 16:25:41 -0000 "pawnfart" <mike@...> writes:
If you want to unsubscribe, I am not sure you did it correctly. But
that isn't my question.

IOW, do you teach?

++++++++

Here is a specific comment from last year where a substantive
discusssion did occur on another bb regarding EMFs and what is
discussed here. I posed it to B-1 and we didn't get to far. This is
the type of question I was hoping someone like you could help us out
with but it appears that you aren't who you say you are:

(quoting B-1 solar CME data):

Solar wind speed : 664.5 km/sec Solar wind density : 5.3 protons/cc
Solar wind pressure : 3.9 nPa

<SNIP>

Me again:

"What I think you should note more then anything is the proton stream
from the sun, because these are particles that will be sorted by
SSTs. "

Alan from OZ writes:

"Mike what I want you to note, is just how small this flux of protons
appears to be to this dimbo technician. And if this is the solar wind
before hitting the earth's surface, then presumably not all of these
charges even make it to the earth.

***I really do need a physicist's comment here, **** if i=q/t, (where
i = current in amps, & q = quantity of electric charges in Coulombs)
and if the electrical charge on a electron is about 1.602 x 10^-19
coulombs, then we need to move: 1 / 1.602 x 10^-19C per sec to pass
1Amp of current. Or 6.24 x 10^18 electrons must be moved for a
current of 1A.

The solar wind protons moving in a "tube" of space of csa 1cm^2 @
664. km/s above would only move 5.3 x 664.5 x 1000m charges, or 3.52
x 10^6 protons. If this calc. is correct, then you should be able to
see that this is a *very small* movement of charges/second compared
to even 1 ampere. [John L. please comment] {my comment inserted--
another poster in the conversation who is a physics head}

It seems to me that you are seeing something here that is a form of
"number blindness". "

Comments? How would the SE organize these charges? SSTs? Strikes
caused by convection in relation to current movement in the
ionosphere? Induction of currents in the ionosphere from daily
expansion and contraction? QBO (50 mb winds of ions that move about
90 mph)?

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
methanehydrateclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• ... is ... I agree with that. But there is now science about strikes out there that when put into context of radar images is very helpful. More below. When I
Message 2 of 6 , Jul 5, 2002
> Seeing lightening strike does not enable you to understand where it
is
> coming from and going to.

I agree with that. But there is now science about strikes out there
that when put into context of radar images is very helpful. More
below.

When I found that
> insulating the drilling shaft of early oil well drilling rigs
stopped
> both lightening and tornados, I knew what was the process and cause
of
> tornados. The people that did it, said "Whew" went on drilling and
> getting oil without tornadoes nor lightening and didn't say to
> themselves. We can control where tornados hit. This is an example
of
> Prima Facia Evidence that was totally missed.

flooding and Doran waves:

http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag87.html

I want to talk a little more about Doran waves. South of Texas in
Mexico along the southern border the monsoons started in a way that
the wet strip extends south to there based on a world radar I saw
today on TWC. The wet lines extend far north. Dry strips, again, go
to the Sea of Cortez, and there is a dry line w/ undoubtedly west to
east winds in the GOM. There is also a dry strip that has been moving
Anyway, there is a reason why they are shaped in strips and if there
is EMF activity in a strip it is severe, I suspect. If there is any
convection in a dry strip (say a jet stream causes instability or an
area of storms with intense EMF activity by strikes from wave top to
wave top with the area in question between them in the dry strip) and
a strike goes to ground, there would be much larger positive ion
concentrations to ground and a source of, therefore, VERY positively
charged cloud tops pre strike. If a storm were more on a frontal
boundary the EMF extremes, the ion concentrations, would find much
easier equilibriums.

My view is the cirrus must be sustained in incredible ways, and that
explains some of the outrageous rainfalls and tornado activity that
has resulted. The strike activity in Texas has been very interesting
to watch for about two weeks now.

Yet the Doran waves have had difficulty reaching Arizona, given the
EMF condition, very positive, of the north Sea of Cortez.

When Allison flooded Texas last year about the same time as it is
being flooded now, it was the product of a tropical storm, or a warm
core low. In this instance, the flooding is per an upper low.

Last year, the W. GOM was completely covered w/ cirrus and the
surface winds moved from the middle of the GOM to the low--inducting
EMF for cirrus. The low sucked all that moisture in the E. GOM into
Texas. Right now, the dry air portion of the E. GOM has winds moving
essentially west to east, inducting against cirrus and providing
upper air balances for negative EMF in the ionosphere for the charges
to enhance cirrus in the upper atmosphere. The heat and convection
is local but the EMF source of the movement of cirrus to provide such
balances that cause this rain are also based in the E. GOM. This is
all electrical.

> Lately some of the descriptions being given of what is going on
that
> you are describing, have been more understandable. I think you are
> describing something. I am not convinced that a whole enough
picture is
> being painted to allow people to decide where to measure and what
it can
> tell us.

Now that I know a little more about you I will re post some of the
conversations I have had w/ Alan, a systems electrician. It gets
pretty mathy and it breaks down, I think, in ways you will appreciate.

I believe the SE and its interaction is what you need to really
> have a picture that completes the whole pattern of what is happening
> electrically.

I agree. What I wanted to comment on is there are Dr. Gray
statistics as to 500 mb winds over Greenland and near the Pac NW that
are TS intellegant for the following season. I will have more
comments later. But for now, the key issue is going to be the
insulative properties of the air and how that defines things in terms
of strikes and Schumann resonances--and IR balances and what is then
feed back from that. What you may be hitting on will have to do with
how EMF get organized and why the induction works in a directional
manner . . .

I have tossed out static electricity a long time ago. All
> electricity is coming from somewhere and going along a path which
will
> eventually find it retracing its paths. The main path is from and
back
> to the Sun, for all of the planets of our solar system. It is NOT
> CMEjections. It is far more steady in its current or CME would
control
> it instead of the other way around.

I don't disagree. HOWEVER, the SE controls the organization of the
field and the particles in it, not the particles in it. The
particles impact the cirrus, which impacts the convection, strikes,
and so forth--so you have a feedback impact, whereas the SE is in
less flux relative to WEATHER. Climate may be another thing
(timescales), BUT at the end of the day the biosphere wins, because

It turns the world on its axis, it
> powers the weather jets, it heats the center of the earth, etc.
> Maybe later, Walter
> I didn't know you asked that question. I also did not feel that
you
> read enough of my materials to even be interested in what I was
saying. I
> did not get feedback on a lot of things I wrote and decided that you
> didn't respond because you had no input nor questions, or you
didn't get
> it. It also has occurred to me that we both are trying to sell
> electricity as a foundational force that most scientists, don't know
> enough about to begin to think in its terms. needed to do if there
is to
> be successful challenging and changing of the current Scientific
attitude
> toward electricity.

We have common ground for sure. I don't think, however, that EMF are
THE modulating force by and of themselves. Instead, it is EMF
modulated by the biosphere . . .

>
> On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 16:25:41 -0000 "pawnfart" <mike@u...> writes:
> If you want to unsubscribe, I am not sure you did it correctly.
But
> that isn't my question.
>
> IOW, do you teach?
>
> ++++++++
>
> Here is a specific comment from last year where a substantive
> discusssion did occur on another bb regarding EMFs and what is
> discussed here. I posed it to B-1 and we didn't get to far. This
is
> the type of question I was hoping someone like you could help us
out
> with but it appears that you aren't who you say you are:
>
> (quoting B-1 solar CME data):
>
>
> Solar wind speed : 664.5 km/sec Solar wind density : 5.3 protons/cc
> Solar wind pressure : 3.9 nPa
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Me again:
>
>
> "What I think you should note more then anything is the proton
stream
> from the sun, because these are particles that will be sorted by
> SSTs. "
>
> Alan from OZ writes:
>
>
> "Mike what I want you to note, is just how small this flux of
protons
> appears to be to this dimbo technician. And if this is the solar
wind
> before hitting the earth's surface, then presumably not all of
these
> charges even make it to the earth.
>
> ***I really do need a physicist's comment here, **** if i=q/t,
(where
> i = current in amps, & q = quantity of electric charges in
Coulombs)
> and if the electrical charge on a electron is about 1.602 x 10^-19
> coulombs, then we need to move: 1 / 1.602 x 10^-19C per sec to pass
> 1Amp of current. Or 6.24 x 10^18 electrons must be moved for a
> current of 1A.
>
> The solar wind protons moving in a "tube" of space of csa 1cm^2 @
> 664. km/s above would only move 5.3 x 664.5 x 1000m charges, or
3.52
> x 10^6 protons. If this calc. is correct, then you should be able
to
> see that this is a *very small* movement of charges/second compared
> to even 1 ampere. [John L. please comment] {my comment inserted--
> another poster in the conversation who is a physics head}
>
> It seems to me that you are seeing something here that is a form of
> "number blindness". "
>
> Comments? How would the SE organize these charges? SSTs? Strikes
> caused by convection in relation to current movement in the
> ionosphere? Induction of currents in the ionosphere from daily
> expansion and contraction? QBO (50 mb winds of ions that move
> 90 mph)?
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> methanehydrateclub-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
> [Non-text portions
• From midlantwx: Your discussions are fascinating! How do these Wet Strips and Dry Strips correlate to the devastating drought in the Mid Atlantic? Our
Message 3 of 6 , Jul 6, 2002
From midlantwx: Your discussions are fascinating!

How do these "Wet Strips" and "Dry Strips" correlate to the devastating drought in the Mid Atlantic? Our lawns are brown already and it's only early July! Precipitation income has been below climatic norms since early September last year.

-midlantwx

--- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
> > Seeing lightening strike does not enable you to understand where it
> is
> > coming from and going to.
>
> I agree with that. But there is now science about strikes out there
> that when put into context of radar images is very helpful. More
> below.
>
> When I found that
> > insulating the drilling shaft of early oil well drilling rigs
> stopped
> > both lightening and tornados, I knew what was the process and cause
> of
> > tornados. The people that did it, said "Whew" went on drilling and
> > getting oil without tornadoes nor lightening and didn't say to
> > themselves. We can control where tornados hit. This is an example
> of
> > Prima Facia Evidence that was totally missed.
>
> flooding and Doran waves:
>
> http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag87.html
>
>
>
> I want to talk a little more about Doran waves. South of Texas in
> Mexico along the southern border the monsoons started in a way that
> the wet strip extends south to there based on a world radar I saw
> today on TWC. The wet lines extend far north. Dry strips, again, go
> to the Sea of Cortez, and there is a dry line w/ undoubtedly west to
> east winds in the GOM. There is also a dry strip that has been moving
> Anyway, there is a reason why they are shaped in strips and if there
> is EMF activity in a strip it is severe, I suspect. If there is any
> convection in a dry strip (say a jet stream causes instability or an
> area of storms with intense EMF activity by strikes from wave top to
> wave top with the area in question between them in the dry strip) and
> a strike goes to ground, there would be much larger positive ion
> concentrations to ground and a source of, therefore, VERY positively
> charged cloud tops pre strike. If a storm were more on a frontal
> boundary the EMF extremes, the ion concentrations, would find much
> easier equilibriums.
>
> My view is the cirrus must be sustained in incredible ways, and that
> explains some of the outrageous rainfalls and tornado activity that
> has resulted. The strike activity in Texas has been very interesting
> to watch for about two weeks now.
>
> Yet the Doran waves have had difficulty reaching Arizona, given the
> EMF condition, very positive, of the north Sea of Cortez.
>
> When Allison flooded Texas last year about the same time as it is
> being flooded now, it was the product of a tropical storm, or a warm
> core low. In this instance, the flooding is per an upper low.
>
> Last year, the W. GOM was completely covered w/ cirrus and the
> surface winds moved from the middle of the GOM to the low--inducting
> EMF for cirrus. The low sucked all that moisture in the E. GOM into
> Texas. Right now, the dry air portion of the E. GOM has winds moving
> essentially west to east, inducting against cirrus and providing
> upper air balances for negative EMF in the ionosphere for the charges
> to enhance cirrus in the upper atmosphere. The heat and convection
> is local but the EMF source of the movement of cirrus to provide such
> balances that cause this rain are also based in the E. GOM. This is
> all electrical.
>
>
>
>
> > Lately some of the descriptions being given of what is going on
> that
> > you are describing, have been more understandable. I think you are
> > describing something. I am not convinced that a whole enough
> picture is
> > being painted to allow people to decide where to measure and what
> it can
> > tell us.
>
> Now that I know a little more about you I will re post some of the
> conversations I have had w/ Alan, a systems electrician. It gets
> pretty mathy and it breaks down, I think, in ways you will appreciate.
>
>
>
>
> I believe the SE and its interaction is what you need to really
> > have a picture that completes the whole pattern of what is happening
> > electrically.
>
> I agree. What I wanted to comment on is there are Dr. Gray
> statistics as to 500 mb winds over Greenland and near the Pac NW that
> are TS intellegant for the following season. I will have more
> comments later. But for now, the key issue is going to be the
> insulative properties of the air and how that defines things in terms
> of strikes and Schumann resonances--and IR balances and what is then
> feed back from that. What you may be hitting on will have to do with
> how EMF get organized and why the induction works in a directional
> manner . . .
>
>
>
> I have tossed out static electricity a long time ago. All
> > electricity is coming from somewhere and going along a path which
> will
> > eventually find it retracing its paths. The main path is from and
> back
> > to the Sun, for all of the planets of our solar system. It is NOT
> > CMEjections. It is far more steady in its current or CME would
> control
> > it instead of the other way around.
>
> I don't disagree. HOWEVER, the SE controls the organization of the
> field and the particles in it, not the particles in it. The
> particles impact the cirrus, which impacts the convection, strikes,
> and so forth--so you have a feedback impact, whereas the SE is in
> less flux relative to WEATHER. Climate may be another thing
> (timescales), BUT at the end of the day the biosphere wins, because
>
>
> It turns the world on its axis, it
> > powers the weather jets, it heats the center of the earth, etc.
> > Maybe later, Walter
> > I didn't know you asked that question. I also did not feel that
> you
> > read enough of my materials to even be interested in what I was
> saying. I
> > did not get feedback on a lot of things I wrote and decided that you
> > didn't respond because you had no input nor questions, or you
> didn't get
> > it. It also has occurred to me that we both are trying to sell
> > electricity as a foundational force that most scientists, don't know
> > enough about to begin to think in its terms. needed to do if there
> is to
> > be successful challenging and changing of the current Scientific
> attitude
> > toward electricity.
>
> We have common ground for sure. I don't think, however, that EMF are
> THE modulating force by and of themselves. Instead, it is EMF
> modulated by the biosphere . . .
>
>
>
> >
> > On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 16:25:41 -0000 "pawnfart" <mike@u...> writes:
> > If you want to unsubscribe, I am not sure you did it correctly.
> But
> > that isn't my question.
> >
> > IOW, do you teach?
> >
> > ++++++++
> >
> > Here is a specific comment from last year where a substantive
> > discusssion did occur on another bb regarding EMFs and what is
> > discussed here. I posed it to B-1 and we didn't get to far. This
> is
> > the type of question I was hoping someone like you could help us
> out
> > with but it appears that you aren't who you say you are:
> >
> > (quoting B-1 solar CME data):
> >
> >
> > Solar wind speed : 664.5 km/sec Solar wind density : 5.3 protons/cc
> > Solar wind pressure : 3.9 nPa
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > Me again:
> >
> >
> > "What I think you should note more then anything is the proton
> stream
> > from the sun, because these are particles that will be sorted by
> > SSTs. "
> >
> > Alan from OZ writes:
> >
> >
> > "Mike what I want you to note, is just how small this flux of
> protons
> > appears to be to this dimbo technician. And if this is the solar
> wind
> > before hitting the earth's surface, then presumably not all of
> these
> > charges even make it to the earth.
> >
> > ***I really do need a physicist's comment here, **** if i=q/t,
> (where
> > i = current in amps, & q = quantity of electric charges in
> Coulombs)
> > and if the electrical charge on a electron is about 1.602 x 10^-19
> > coulombs, then we need to move: 1 / 1.602 x 10^-19C per sec to pass
> > 1Amp of current. Or 6.24 x 10^18 electrons must be moved for a
> > current of 1A.
> >
> > The solar wind protons moving in a "tube" of space of csa 1cm^2 @
> > 664. km/s above would only move 5.3 x 664.5 x 1000m charges, or
> 3.52
> > x 10^6 protons. If this calc. is correct, then you should be able
> to
> > see that this is a *very small* movement of charges/second compared
> > to even 1 ampere. [John L. please comment] {my comment inserted--
> > another poster in the conversation who is a physics head}
> >
> > It seems to me that you are seeing something here that is a form of
> > "number blindness". "
> >
> > Comments? How would the SE organize these charges? SSTs? Strikes
> > caused by convection in relation to current movement in the
> > ionosphere? Induction of currents in the ionosphere from daily
> > expansion and contraction? QBO (50 mb winds of ions that move
> > 90 mph)?
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > methanehydrateclub-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> > [Non-text portions
• Hi Mid, Nice to hear from you. The short answer is how strongly neg the Gaia produced Doran wave has been to the Florida to Mississippi delta region compared
Message 4 of 6 , Jul 6, 2002
Hi Mid,

Nice to hear from you.

The short answer is how strongly neg the Gaia produced Doran wave has
been to the Florida to Mississippi delta region compared to the
drought areas off the NE coast, which provided a place for a dry
strip to curve. But also the dams from W. Africa and S. America have
really delayed EMF pulses from the tropics that sometimes bring Cape
Verde waves and moisture to your neck of the woods.

Here are two exchanges from another climate bb on the Doran waves:
Subject: Re: More Doran waves and Texas flooding

> Yet the Doran waves have had difficulty reaching Arizona, given the
EMF
> condition, very positive, of the north Sea of Cortez.
>
> Where do you get your "figures" for the EMF condition? Is there a
site
> which lists them, or do you calculate them from a formula or what?

When you watch a wave ripple outward on a lake from a stone you have
thrown, do you do math? Are you really THAT DUMB with your math?

Again, I have been merely observing this link:

http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag87.html

And watching dry strips and wet and cirrus and strikes. It's all
very
basic.

The numbers on EMF I have posted here again and again. For instance,
the
numbers of fair weather voltage positive to ground of 250 volts. Or
what
strike voltages are, or sprites and elves from cloud top to
ionosphere.
Or what ion concentrations are prestorm. Or how cloud bottoms go
negitive pre strike and tops positive. So there certainly is a
relative
or general path. The general description works, because all I am
describing is a wave.

The relative biological conditions between the North Sea of Cortez
and
the GOM would then present relatively more negitive strikes and a
negitive to posistive condition between the two Gulfs, and has very
significant Gaia implications. The fact that it then can be observed,
both in terms of dry patches over sea AND land, as well as wave forms
and
severe weather from shorts across these waves, is significant without
math.

I will say this. When Alan was here there were calculations about
CME
winds and protons and what currents would be involved and what he
showed
was that the solar wind was on order of magnetude smaller then what
would
be expected to be signifincant. These are valuable mathematical
comments, but certainly should apply when the current peer reviewed
science on EMFs and strikes are in agreement about the lower
ionosphere's
positive charges and strikes, elves, and sprites, as well as there is
agreement, say, about the terresphere's slightly acidic pH.

Which brings me to John Lerch's assertion that rivers are not crossed
because they are thermally different. I tend to think that would go
to
intesity not whether it would occur or not. I further think that
water
spouts is not a good example because a body of water can gain a net
charge, and lakes tend to have acidic pHs. A river, OTOH, will be
connected more likely then not to EMFs that do not provide charge
accumulations that the storm seeks. If the charges were found on a
lake,
for instance, the lakes surface temperature compared to the land is
more
offset by the IR differences between sustained cirrus or not far
above
the spout. So, where a river fails is more likely by its EMF
potential.
Likewise, the metal of a tailer park is more likely to maintain, like
capacitors, a positive charge accumulated from fair weather
conditions
and hold it to be discharged for a storm.

John, I am truly surprised you cannot see this.

++++++++++++++

> tornadoes is probably idiotic, but I've been trashing

I don't know what to say to that or whether I should even reply.

> Therefore, I did a google search to see if this is
> original with you; and I guess it must be since I found
> nothing.

My name is Mike Doran. Figure it out.

> If you want to, would you please post a primer with
> these facts (less than 5k):
> What is the inertial object (i.e. what coasts along)?

In general the ionosphere is slightly positive. Published peer
reviewed
authors on the subject maintain that the ionosphere is maintained by
strikes, and recently evidence of sprite and elve activity above
thunderstorms confirms this theory. Fair weather voltages then apply
this positive charge accumulation to ground, which leads to the fair
weather voltage that has been discussed here by Alan and others.
Alan
got a 150 volt positive reading from one of his text books. I have
seen
several internet sources for fair weather voltages--all at a range
from
100 to 250 volts per meter squared.

Strikes, as you know, carry very powerful EMF. They in general bring
electrons or negitive charges to ground, and the ultimate source of
those
electrons is the ionosphere.

I submit that there are current flows in the ionosphere and deep
under
the earth where magma is more conductive, as well as charge
accumulations
in the oceans, on land. That there are charges that ocean currents
present, as well as varying resistances. As you may know, when
induction
occurs there is not only the resistance of the medium but also
resistance
from the induction itself. Further, there is the insulation by the
hydrates and the pH and temperatures differences in the oceans.

> What is the restoring "force"?

The currents flow from charge accumulations to charge depreciated
areas.
What happens is that there are several areas where insulation is so
great
that great accumulations must occur before a discharge creates EMF
equillibrium in a area. But while charge seperatations exist, they
enhance or not cirrus cloud behavior, which in turn varies IR
balances
and convection processes.

> Is there something that builds up i.e. is there some
> kind of shock?

See above.

> Is the interaction of the inertial object and the
> restoring object dependent on one or the other to a
> much higher than linear dependence? I.E. is there a
> feedback which causes the shock? (Reverse the order of
> these last 2 paragraphs.)

There is a discussion below on the life of thunderstorms, how
initially
the charges of a forming thunderstorm accumulate. The ground below
the
thunderstorm, where the dry line exists, accumulates positive
charges. I
provided a link on the ions accumulating in a previous post. The
bottom
clouds then bring their electrons, pre strike, near these charges.
Those
charges come from the entire cloud, making it more positive,
relatively
speaking. Cirrus clouds, then, with a positive charge in the upper
reaches of the cloud, eventually reach a point where they are more
positive then the lower ionosphere--which is pretty positive to start
with. That causes movements of ions in the ionosphere--negitive
ones, to
come above the forming thunderstorm. This then attracts the cirrus
clouds and causes favorable IR balances for further convection and
heating of the cloud--because instead of falling, the ice crystals
are
attracted to the ionosphere. This is why severe weather contains
hail!
I realize there are other thermal processes at work, but the basic
driving dynamic of SEVERE storms is EMFs.

Now, once a strike occurs, the cloud becomes EXTREMELY positively
charged, and so the sprite and elve activity occurs. That passes the
electrons accumulated in the ionosphere to the cloud top and balances
EMFs just above the storm. The ice crystals are no longer held by
EMF
and they begin to fall--as precip.

However, the ionosphere post strike is now relatively positively
charged
for loss from the elve/sprite activity and the cirrus that doesn't
fall
as rain carries the charge of the ionosphere where electrons
accumulated--
so it will be relatively negitive compared now to the ionsphere, and
hence blow off cirrus is going to be attracted to the ionosphere for
some
time after a strike . . .

Slowly, as the ionosphere regains its relatively more negitive charge
and
the cirrus its positive charge, sometimes 75 miles away from a storm
center, they are no longer enhanced by EMFs . . .

It is in these delicate balances of EMFs that Doran waves move up and
down between ground and ionosphere over hundreds of miles. The
result is
clearly visable on the link I have provided for this discussion.

> PS what is the origin of the word doran? JAL

Doran means 'stranger' in Gaelic.

What does Lerch mean?

--- In methanehydrateclub@y..., midlantwx <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> From midlantwx: Your discussions are fascinating!
>
> How do these "Wet Strips" and "Dry Strips" correlate to the
devastating drought in the Mid Atlantic? Our lawns are brown already
and it's only early July! Precipitation income has been below
climatic norms since early September last year.
>
>
> -midlantwx
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
> > > Seeing lightening strike does not enable you to understand
where it
> > is
> > > coming from and going to.
> >
> > I agree with that. But there is now science about strikes out
there
> > that when put into context of radar images is very helpful. More
> > below.
> >
> > When I found that
> > > insulating the drilling shaft of early oil well drilling rigs
> > stopped
> > > both lightening and tornados, I knew what was the process and
cause
> > of
> > > tornados. The people that did it, said "Whew" went on drilling
and
> > > getting oil without tornadoes nor lightening and didn't say to
> > > themselves. We can control where tornados hit. This is an
example
> > of
> > > Prima Facia Evidence that was totally missed.
> >
> > flooding and Doran waves:
> >
> > http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag87.html
> >
> >
> >
> > I want to talk a little more about Doran waves. South of Texas in
> > Mexico along the southern border the monsoons started in a way
that
> > the wet strip extends south to there based on a world radar I saw
> > today on TWC. The wet lines extend far north. Dry strips, again,
go
> > to the Sea of Cortez, and there is a dry line w/ undoubtedly west
to
> > east winds in the GOM. There is also a dry strip that has been
moving
> > about in the NE.
> > Anyway, there is a reason why they are shaped in strips and if
there
> > is EMF activity in a strip it is severe, I suspect. If there is
any
> > convection in a dry strip (say a jet stream causes instability or
an
> > area of storms with intense EMF activity by strikes from wave top
to
> > wave top with the area in question between them in the dry strip)
and
> > a strike goes to ground, there would be much larger positive ion
> > concentrations to ground and a source of, therefore, VERY
positively
> > charged cloud tops pre strike. If a storm were more on a frontal
> > boundary the EMF extremes, the ion concentrations, would find
much
> > easier equilibriums.
> >
> > My view is the cirrus must be sustained in incredible ways, and
that
> > explains some of the outrageous rainfalls and tornado activity
that
> > has resulted. The strike activity in Texas has been very
interesting
> > to watch for about two weeks now.
> >
> > Yet the Doran waves have had difficulty reaching Arizona, given
the
> > EMF condition, very positive, of the north Sea of Cortez.
> >
> > When Allison flooded Texas last year about the same time as it is
> > being flooded now, it was the product of a tropical storm, or a
warm
> > core low. In this instance, the flooding is per an upper low.
> >
> > Last year, the W. GOM was completely covered w/ cirrus and the
> > surface winds moved from the middle of the GOM to the low--
inducting
> > EMF for cirrus. The low sucked all that moisture in the E. GOM
into
> > Texas. Right now, the dry air portion of the E. GOM has winds
moving
> > essentially west to east, inducting against cirrus and providing
> > upper air balances for negative EMF in the ionosphere for the
charges
> > to enhance cirrus in the upper atmosphere. The heat and
convection
> > is local but the EMF source of the movement of cirrus to provide
such
> > balances that cause this rain are also based in the E. GOM. This
is
> > all electrical.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Lately some of the descriptions being given of what is
going on
> > that
> > > you are describing, have been more understandable. I think you
are
> > > describing something. I am not convinced that a whole enough
> > picture is
> > > being painted to allow people to decide where to measure and
what
> > it can
> > > tell us.
> >
> > Now that I know a little more about you I will re post some of
the
> > conversations I have had w/ Alan, a systems electrician. It gets
> > pretty mathy and it breaks down, I think, in ways you will
appreciate.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe the SE and its interaction is what you need to really
> > > have a picture that completes the whole pattern of what is
happening
> > > electrically.
> >
> > I agree. What I wanted to comment on is there are Dr. Gray
> > statistics as to 500 mb winds over Greenland and near the Pac NW
that
> > are TS intellegant for the following season. I will have more
> > comments later. But for now, the key issue is going to be the
> > insulative properties of the air and how that defines things in
terms
> > of strikes and Schumann resonances--and IR balances and what is
then
> > feed back from that. What you may be hitting on will have to do
with
> > how EMF get organized and why the induction works in a
directional
> > manner . . .
> >
> >
> >
> > I have tossed out static electricity a long time ago. All
> > > electricity is coming from somewhere and going along a path
which
> > will
> > > eventually find it retracing its paths. The main path is from
and
> > back
> > > to the Sun, for all of the planets of our solar system. It is
NOT
> > > CMEjections. It is far more steady in its current or CME would
> > control
> > > it instead of the other way around.
> >
> > I don't disagree. HOWEVER, the SE controls the organization of
the
> > field and the particles in it, not the particles in it. The
> > particles impact the cirrus, which impacts the convection,
strikes,
> > and so forth--so you have a feedback impact, whereas the SE is in
> > less flux relative to WEATHER. Climate may be another thing
> > (timescales), BUT at the end of the day the biosphere wins,
because
> >
> >
> > It turns the world on its axis, it
> > > powers the weather jets, it heats the center of the earth,
etc.
> > > Maybe later, Walter
> > > I didn't know you asked that question. I also did not feel
that
> > you
> > > read enough of my materials to even be interested in what I was
> > saying. I
> > > did not get feedback on a lot of things I wrote and decided
that you
> > > didn't respond because you had no input nor questions, or you
> > didn't get
> > > it. It also has occurred to me that we both are trying to sell
> > > electricity as a foundational force that most scientists, don't
know
> > > enough about to begin to think in its terms. needed to do if
there
> > is to
> > > be successful challenging and changing of the current
Scientific
> > attitude
> > > toward electricity.
> >
> > We have common ground for sure. I don't think, however, that EMF
are
> > THE modulating force by and of themselves. Instead, it is EMF
> > modulated by the biosphere . . .
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 16:25:41 -0000 "pawnfart" <mike@u...>
writes:
> > > If you want to unsubscribe, I am not sure you did it
correctly.
> > But
> > > that isn't my question.
> > >
What,
> > > IOW, do you teach?
> > >
> > > ++++++++
> > >
> > > Here is a specific comment from last year where a substantive
> > > discusssion did occur on another bb regarding EMFs and what is
> > > discussed here. I posed it to B-1 and we didn't get to far.
This
> > is
> > > the type of question I was hoping someone like you could help
us
> > out
> > > with but it appears that you aren't who you say you are:
> > >
> > > (quoting B-1 solar CME data):
> > >
> > >
> > > Solar wind speed : 664.5 km/sec Solar wind density : 5.3
protons/cc
> > > Solar wind pressure : 3.9 nPa
> > >
> > > <SNIP>
> > >
> > > Me again:
> > >
> > >
> > > "What I think you should note more then anything is the proton
> > stream
> > > from the sun, because these are particles that will be sorted
by
> > > SSTs. "
> > >
> > > Alan from OZ writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > "Mike what I want you to note, is just how small this flux of
> > protons
> > > appears to be to this dimbo technician. And if this is the
solar
> > wind
> > > before hitting the earth's surface, then presumably not all of
> > these
> > > charges even make it to the earth.
> > >
> > > ***I really do need a physicist's comment here, **** if i=q/t,
> > (where
> > > i = current in amps, & q = quantity of electric charges in
> > Coulombs)
> > > and if the electrical charge on a electron is about 1.602 x 10^-
19
> > > coulombs, then we need to move: 1 / 1.602 x 10^-19C per sec to
pass
> > > 1Amp of current. Or 6.24 x 10^18 electrons must be moved for a
> > > current of 1A.
> > >
> > > The solar wind protons moving in a "tube" of space of csa 1cm^2
@
> > > 664. km/s above would only move 5.3 x 664.5 x 1000m charges, or
> > 3.52
> > > x 10^6 protons. If this calc. is correct, then you should be
able
> > to
> > > see that this is a *very small* movement of charges/second
compared
> > > to even 1 ampere. [John L. please comment] {my comment
inserted--
> > > another poster in the conversation who is a physics head}
> > >
> > > It seems to me that you are seeing something here that is a
form of
> > > "number blindness". "
> > >
> > > Comments? How would the SE organize these charges? SSTs?
Strikes
> > > caused by convection in relation to current movement in the
> > > ionosphere? Induction of currents in the ionosphere from daily
> > > expansion and contraction? QBO (50 mb winds of ions that move
> > > 90 mph)?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > methanehydrateclub-unsubscribe@y...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service.
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions
Message 5 of 6 , Jul 6, 2002

When you have the time:)

Please load it up with your usual terminology and links!:)) I really enjoy your discourses, reading them and learning from them is one way I unwind after a long day. I kick back in my easy chair and enjoy all your fascinating ideas!!

Again, please give me the Long version, When you have plenty of time!:) I am willing to wait a couple weeks if need be:)

Hey man, never give up on this Group!!! I find your discussions interesting, I always have!!! You must have a doctorate or something! Anyway, I enjoy this place!!!! Please keep up your excellent work! You've got some way cool members too!!! They also post very good, quality articles!!!

Sincerely,

-midlantwx

--- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
> Hi Mid,
>
> Nice to hear from you.
>
> The short answer is how strongly neg the Gaia produced Doran wave has
> been to the Florida to Mississippi delta region compared to the
> drought areas off the NE coast, which provided a place for a dry
> strip to curve. But also the dams from W. Africa and S. America have
> really delayed EMF pulses from the tropics that sometimes bring Cape
> Verde waves and moisture to your neck of the woods.
>
> Here are two exchanges from another climate bb on the Doran waves:
> Subject: Re: More Doran waves and Texas flooding
>
> > Yet the Doran waves have had difficulty reaching Arizona, given the
> EMF
> > condition, very positive, of the north Sea of Cortez.
> >
> > Where do you get your "figures" for the EMF condition? Is there a
> site
> > which lists them, or do you calculate them from a formula or what?
>
> When you watch a wave ripple outward on a lake from a stone you have
> thrown, do you do math? Are you really THAT DUMB with your math?
>
> Again, I have been merely observing this link:
>
> http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag87.html
>
> And watching dry strips and wet and cirrus and strikes. It's all
> very
> basic.
>
> The numbers on EMF I have posted here again and again. For instance,
> the
> numbers of fair weather voltage positive to ground of 250 volts. Or
> what
> strike voltages are, or sprites and elves from cloud top to
> ionosphere.
> Or what ion concentrations are prestorm. Or how cloud bottoms go
> negitive pre strike and tops positive. So there certainly is a
> relative
> or general path. The general description works, because all I am
> describing is a wave.
>
> The relative biological conditions between the North Sea of Cortez
> and
> the GOM would then present relatively more negitive strikes and a
> negitive to posistive condition between the two Gulfs, and has very
> significant Gaia implications. The fact that it then can be observed,
> both in terms of dry patches over sea AND land, as well as wave forms
> and
> severe weather from shorts across these waves, is significant without
> math.
>
> I will say this. When Alan was here there were calculations about
> CME
> winds and protons and what currents would be involved and what he
> showed
> was that the solar wind was on order of magnetude smaller then what
> would
> be expected to be signifincant. These are valuable mathematical
> comments, but certainly should apply when the current peer reviewed
> science on EMFs and strikes are in agreement about the lower
> ionosphere's
> positive charges and strikes, elves, and sprites, as well as there is
> agreement, say, about the terresphere's slightly acidic pH.
>
> Which brings me to John Lerch's assertion that rivers are not crossed
> because they are thermally different. I tend to think that would go
> to
> intesity not whether it would occur or not. I further think that
> water
> spouts is not a good example because a body of water can gain a net
> charge, and lakes tend to have acidic pHs. A river, OTOH, will be
> connected more likely then not to EMFs that do not provide charge
> accumulations that the storm seeks. If the charges were found on a
> lake,
> for instance, the lakes surface temperature compared to the land is
> more
> offset by the IR differences between sustained cirrus or not far
> above
> the spout. So, where a river fails is more likely by its EMF
> potential.
> Likewise, the metal of a tailer park is more likely to maintain, like
> capacitors, a positive charge accumulated from fair weather
> conditions
> and hold it to be discharged for a storm.
>
> John, I am truly surprised you cannot see this.
>
> ++++++++++++++
>
> > Please forgive me Mike. I still think the post about
> > tornadoes is probably idiotic, but I've been trashing
>
> I don't know what to say to that or whether I should even reply.
>
> > Therefore, I did a google search to see if this is
> > original with you; and I guess it must be since I found
> > nothing.
>
> My name is Mike Doran. Figure it out.
>
>
>
> > If you want to, would you please post a primer with
> > these facts (less than 5k):
> > What is the inertial object (i.e. what coasts along)?
>
> In general the ionosphere is slightly positive. Published peer
> reviewed
> authors on the subject maintain that the ionosphere is maintained by
> strikes, and recently evidence of sprite and elve activity above
> thunderstorms confirms this theory. Fair weather voltages then apply
> this positive charge accumulation to ground, which leads to the fair
> weather voltage that has been discussed here by Alan and others.
> Alan
> got a 150 volt positive reading from one of his text books. I have
> seen
> several internet sources for fair weather voltages--all at a range
> from
> 100 to 250 volts per meter squared.
>
> Strikes, as you know, carry very powerful EMF. They in general bring
> electrons or negitive charges to ground, and the ultimate source of
> those
> electrons is the ionosphere.
>
> I submit that there are current flows in the ionosphere and deep
> under
> the earth where magma is more conductive, as well as charge
> accumulations
> in the oceans, on land. That there are charges that ocean currents
> present, as well as varying resistances. As you may know, when
> induction
> occurs there is not only the resistance of the medium but also
> resistance
> from the induction itself. Further, there is the insulation by the
> hydrates and the pH and temperatures differences in the oceans.
>
> > What is the restoring "force"?
>
> The currents flow from charge accumulations to charge depreciated
> areas.
> What happens is that there are several areas where insulation is so
> great
> that great accumulations must occur before a discharge creates EMF
> equillibrium in a area. But while charge seperatations exist, they
> enhance or not cirrus cloud behavior, which in turn varies IR
> balances
> and convection processes.
>
> > Is there something that builds up i.e. is there some
> > kind of shock?
>
> See above.
>
>
> > Is the interaction of the inertial object and the
> > restoring object dependent on one or the other to a
> > much higher than linear dependence? I.E. is there a
> > feedback which causes the shock? (Reverse the order of
> > these last 2 paragraphs.)
>
> There is a discussion below on the life of thunderstorms, how
> initially
> the charges of a forming thunderstorm accumulate. The ground below
> the
> thunderstorm, where the dry line exists, accumulates positive
> charges. I
> provided a link on the ions accumulating in a previous post. The
> bottom
> clouds then bring their electrons, pre strike, near these charges.
> Those
> charges come from the entire cloud, making it more positive,
> relatively
> speaking. Cirrus clouds, then, with a positive charge in the upper
> reaches of the cloud, eventually reach a point where they are more
> positive then the lower ionosphere--which is pretty positive to start
> with. That causes movements of ions in the ionosphere--negitive
> ones, to
> come above the forming thunderstorm. This then attracts the cirrus
> clouds and causes favorable IR balances for further convection and
> heating of the cloud--because instead of falling, the ice crystals
> are
> attracted to the ionosphere. This is why severe weather contains
> hail!
> I realize there are other thermal processes at work, but the basic
> driving dynamic of SEVERE storms is EMFs.
>
> Now, once a strike occurs, the cloud becomes EXTREMELY positively
> charged, and so the sprite and elve activity occurs. That passes the
> electrons accumulated in the ionosphere to the cloud top and balances
> EMFs just above the storm. The ice crystals are no longer held by
> EMF
> and they begin to fall--as precip.
>
> However, the ionosphere post strike is now relatively positively
> charged
> for loss from the elve/sprite activity and the cirrus that doesn't
> fall
> as rain carries the charge of the ionosphere where electrons
> accumulated--
> so it will be relatively negitive compared now to the ionsphere, and
> hence blow off cirrus is going to be attracted to the ionosphere for
> some
> time after a strike . . .
>
> Slowly, as the ionosphere regains its relatively more negitive charge
> and
> the cirrus its positive charge, sometimes 75 miles away from a storm
> center, they are no longer enhanced by EMFs . . .
>
> It is in these delicate balances of EMFs that Doran waves move up and
> down between ground and ionosphere over hundreds of miles. The
> result is
> clearly visable on the link I have provided for this discussion.
>
> > PS what is the origin of the word doran? JAL
>
> Doran means 'stranger' in Gaelic.
>
> What does Lerch mean?
>
> --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., midlantwx <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > From midlantwx: Your discussions are fascinating!
> >
> > How do these "Wet Strips" and "Dry Strips" correlate to the
> devastating drought in the Mid Atlantic? Our lawns are brown already
> and it's only early July! Precipitation income has been below
> climatic norms since early September last year.
> >
> >
> > -midlantwx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
> > > > Seeing lightening strike does not enable you to understand
> where it
> > > is
> > > > coming from and going to.
> > >
> > > I agree with that. But there is now science about strikes out
> there
> > > that when put into context of radar images is very helpful. More
> > > below.
> > >
> > > When I found that
> > > > insulating the drilling shaft of early oil well drilling rigs
> > > stopped
> > > > both lightening and tornados, I knew what was the process and
> cause
> > > of
> > > > tornados. The people that did it, said "Whew" went on drilling
> and
> > > > getting oil without tornadoes nor lightening and didn't say to
> > > > themselves. We can control where tornados hit. This is an
> example
> > > of
> > > > Prima Facia Evidence that was totally missed.
> > >
> > > flooding and Doran waves:
> > >
> > > http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag87.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I want to talk a little more about Doran waves. South of Texas in
> > > Mexico along the southern border the monsoons started in a way
> that
> > > the wet strip extends south to there based on a world radar I saw
> > > today on TWC. The wet lines extend far north. Dry strips, again,
> go
> > > to the Sea of Cortez, and there is a dry line w/ undoubtedly west
> to
> > > east winds in the GOM. There is also a dry strip that has been
> moving
> > > about in the NE.
> > > Anyway, there is a reason why they are shaped in strips and if
> there
> > > is EMF activity in a strip it is severe, I suspect. If there is
> any
> > > convection in a dry strip (say a jet stream causes instability or
> an
> > > area of storms with intense EMF activity by strikes from wave top
> to
> > > wave top with the area in question between them in the dry strip)
> and
> > > a strike goes to ground, there would be much larger positive ion
> > > concentrations to ground and a source of, therefore, VERY
> positively
> > > charged cloud tops pre strike. If a storm were more on a frontal
> > > boundary the EMF extremes, the ion concentrations, would find
> much
> > > easier equilibriums.
> > >
> > > My view is the cirrus must be sustained in incredible ways, and
> that
> > > explains some of the outrageous rainfalls and tornado activity
> that
> > > has resulted. The strike activity in Texas has been very
> interesting
> > > to watch for about two weeks now.
> > >
> > > Yet the Doran waves have had difficulty reaching Arizona, given
> the
> > > EMF condition, very positive, of the north Sea of Cortez.
> > >
> > > When Allison flooded Texas last year about the same time as it is
> > > being flooded now, it was the product of a tropical storm, or a
> warm
> > > core low. In this instance, the flooding is per an upper low.
> > >
> > > Last year, the W. GOM was completely covered w/ cirrus and the
> > > surface winds moved from the middle of the GOM to the low--
> inducting
> > > EMF for cirrus. The low sucked all that moisture in the E. GOM
> into
> > > Texas. Right now, the dry air portion of the E. GOM has winds
> moving
> > > essentially west to east, inducting against cirrus and providing
> > > upper air balances for negative EMF in the ionosphere for the
> charges
> > > to enhance cirrus in the upper atmosphere. The heat and
> convection
> > > is local but the EMF source of the movement of cirrus to provide
> such
> > > balances that cause this rain are also based in the E. GOM. This
> is
> > > all electrical.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Lately some of the descriptions being given of what is
> going on
> > > that
> > > > you are describing, have been more understandable. I think you
> are
> > > > describing something. I am not convinced that a whole enough
> > > picture is
> > > > being painted to allow people to decide where to measure and
> what
> > > it can
> > > > tell us.
> > >
> > > Now that I know a little more about you I will re post some of
> the
> > > conversations I have had w/ Alan, a systems electrician. It gets
> > > pretty mathy and it breaks down, I think, in ways you will
> appreciate.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe the SE and its interaction is what you need to really
> > > > have a picture that completes the whole pattern of what is
> happening
> > > > electrically.
> > >
> > > I agree. What I wanted to comment on is there are Dr. Gray
> > > statistics as to 500 mb winds over Greenland and near the Pac NW
> that
> > > are TS intellegant for the following season. I will have more
> > > comments later. But for now, the key issue is going to be the
> > > insulative properties of the air and how that defines things in
> terms
> > > of strikes and Schumann resonances--and IR balances and what is
> then
> > > feed back from that. What you may be hitting on will have to do
> with
> > > how EMF get organized and why the induction works in a
> directional
> > > manner . . .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have tossed out static electricity a long time ago. All
> > > > electricity is coming from somewhere and going along a path
> which
> > > will
> > > > eventually find it retracing its paths. The main path is from
> and
> > > back
> > > > to the Sun, for all of the planets of our solar system. It is
> NOT
> > > > CMEjections. It is far more steady in its current or CME would
> > > control
> > > > it instead of the other way around.
> > >
> > > I don't disagree. HOWEVER, the SE controls the organization of
> the
> > > field and the particles in it, not the particles in it. The
> > > particles impact the cirrus, which impacts the convection,
> strikes,
> > > and so forth--so you have a feedback impact, whereas the SE is in
> > > less flux relative to WEATHER. Climate may be another thing
> > > (timescales), BUT at the end of the day the biosphere wins,
> because
> > >
> > >
> > > It turns the world on its axis, it
> > > > powers the weather jets, it heats the center of the earth,
> etc.
> > > > Maybe later, Walter
> > > > I didn't know you asked that question. I also did not feel
> that
> > > you
> > > > read enough of my materials to even be interested in what I was
> > > saying. I
> > > > did not get feedback on a lot of things I wrote and decided
> that you
> > > > didn't respond because you had no input nor questions, or you
> > > didn't get
> > > > it. It also has occurred to me that we both are trying to sell
> > > > electricity as a foundational force that most scientists, don't
> know
> > > > enough about to begin to think in its terms. needed to do if
> there
> > > is to
> > > > be successful challenging and changing of the current
> Scientific
> > > attitude
> > > > toward electricity.
> > >
> > > We have common ground for sure. I don't think, however, that EMF
> are
> > > THE modulating force by and of themselves. Instead, it is EMF
> > > modulated by the biosphere . . .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 16:25:41 -0000 "pawnfart" <mike@u...>
> writes:
> > > > If you want to unsubscribe, I am not sure you did it
> correctly.
> > > But
> > > > that isn't my question.
> > > >
> What,
> > > > IOW, do you teach?
> > > >
> > > > ++++++++
> > > >
> > > > Here is a specific comment from last year where a substantive
> > > > discusssion did occur on another bb regarding EMFs and what is
> > > > discussed here. I posed it to B-1 and we didn't get to far.
> This
> > > is
> > > > the type of question I was hoping someone like you could help
> us
> > > out
> > > > with but it appears that you aren't who you say you are:
> > > >
> > > > (quoting B-1 solar CME data):
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Solar wind speed : 664.5 km/sec Solar wind density : 5.3
> protons/cc
> > > > Solar wind pressure : 3.9 nPa
> > > >
> > > > <SNIP>
> > > >
> > > > Me again:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "What I think you should note more then anything is the proton
> > > stream
> > > > from the sun, because these are particles that will be sorted
> by
> > > > SSTs. "
> > > >
> > > > Alan from OZ writes:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Mike what I want you to note, is just how small this flux of
> > > protons
> > > > appears to be to this dimbo technician. And if this is the
> solar
> > > wind
> > > > before hitting the earth's surface, then presumably not all of
> > > these
> > > > charges even make it to the earth.
> > > >
> > > > ***I really do need a physicist's comment here, **** if i=q/t,
> > > (where
> > > > i = current in amps, & q = quantity of electric charges in
> > > Coulombs)
> > > > and if the electrical charge on a electron is about 1.602 x 10^-
> 19
> > > > coulombs, then we need to move: 1 / 1.602 x 10^-19C per sec to
> pass
> > > > 1Amp of current. Or 6.24 x 10^18 electrons must be moved for a
> > > > current of 1A.
> > > >
> > > > The solar wind protons moving in a "tube" of space of csa 1cm^2
> @
> > > > 664. km/s above would only move 5.3 x 664.5 x 1000m charges, or
> > > 3.52
> > > > x 10^6 protons. If this calc. is correct, then you should be
> able
> > > to
> > > > see that this is a *very small* movement of charges/second
> compared
> > > > to even 1 ampere. [John L. please comment] {my comment
> inserted--
> > > > another poster in the conversation who is a physics head}
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that you are seeing something here that is a
> form of
> > > > "number blindness". "
> > > >
> > > > Comments? How would the SE organize these charges? SSTs?
> Strikes
> > > > caused by convection in relation to current movement in the
> > > > ionosphere? Induction of currents in the ionosphere from daily
> > > > expansion and contraction? QBO (50 mb winds of ions that move
> > > > 90 mph)?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > methanehydrateclub-unsubscribe@y...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > Service.
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions
• Mid- I don t know if you are talking to me. I think you are probably talking to Mike the Pawn. Just in case you would like to know about what my ideas are
Message 6 of 6 , Jul 7, 2002
Mid- I don't know if you are talking to me. I think you are probably
talking to Mike the Pawn. Just in case you would like to know about what
my ideas are you can find them on http://www.vorbitz.com/electrojet You
can't write to me there though. You need to write to me at
foryeshua1@... My last three years interaction are not on this site
though. Descriptions of what have happened must come from me. Dr. Walter
Peterson

On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 03:54:24 -0000 midlantwx <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
writes:

When you have the time:)

enjoy your discourses, reading them and learning from them is one way I
unwind after a long day. I kick back in my easy chair and enjoy all your
fascinating ideas!!

Again, please give me the Long version, When you have plenty of time!:) I
am willing to wait a couple weeks if need be:)

Hey man, never give up on this Group!!! I find your discussions
interesting, I always have!!! You must have a doctorate or something!
Anyway, I enjoy this place!!!! Please keep up your excellent work! You've
got some way cool members too!!! They also post very good, quality
articles!!!

Sincerely,

-midlantwx

--- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
> Hi Mid,
>
> Nice to hear from you.
>
> The short answer is how strongly neg the Gaia produced Doran wave has
> been to the Florida to Mississippi delta region compared to the
> drought areas off the NE coast, which provided a place for a dry
> strip to curve. But also the dams from W. Africa and S. America have
> really delayed EMF pulses from the tropics that sometimes bring Cape
> Verde waves and moisture to your neck of the woods.
>
> Here are two exchanges from another climate bb on the Doran waves:
> Subject: Re: More Doran waves and Texas flooding
>
> > Yet the Doran waves have had difficulty reaching Arizona, given the
> EMF
> > condition, very positive, of the north Sea of Cortez.
> >
> > Where do you get your "figures" for the EMF condition? Is there a
> site
> > which lists them, or do you calculate them from a formula or what?
>
> When you watch a wave ripple outward on a lake from a stone you have
> thrown, do you do math? Are you really THAT DUMB with your math?
>
> Again, I have been merely observing this link:
>
> http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag87.html
>
> And watching dry strips and wet and cirrus and strikes. It's all
> very
> basic.
>
> The numbers on EMF I have posted here again and again. For instance,
> the
> numbers of fair weather voltage positive to ground of 250 volts. Or
> what
> strike voltages are, or sprites and elves from cloud top to
> ionosphere.
> Or what ion concentrations are prestorm. Or how cloud bottoms go
> negitive pre strike and tops positive. So there certainly is a
> relative
> or general path. The general description works, because all I am
> describing is a wave.
>
> The relative biological conditions between the North Sea of Cortez
> and
> the GOM would then present relatively more negitive strikes and a
> negitive to posistive condition between the two Gulfs, and has very
> significant Gaia implications. The fact that it then can be observed,
> both in terms of dry patches over sea AND land, as well as wave forms
> and
> severe weather from shorts across these waves, is significant without
> math.
>
> I will say this. When Alan was here there were calculations about
> CME
> winds and protons and what currents would be involved and what he
> showed
> was that the solar wind was on order of magnetude smaller then what
> would
> be expected to be signifincant. These are valuable mathematical
> comments, but certainly should apply when the current peer reviewed
> science on EMFs and strikes are in agreement about the lower
> ionosphere's
> positive charges and strikes, elves, and sprites, as well as there is
> agreement, say, about the terresphere's slightly acidic pH.
>
> Which brings me to John Lerch's assertion that rivers are not crossed
> because they are thermally different. I tend to think that would go
> to
> intesity not whether it would occur or not. I further think that
> water
> spouts is not a good example because a body of water can gain a net
> charge, and lakes tend to have acidic pHs. A river, OTOH, will be
> connected more likely then not to EMFs that do not provide charge
> accumulations that the storm seeks. If the charges were found on a
> lake,
> for instance, the lakes surface temperature compared to the land is
> more
> offset by the IR differences between sustained cirrus or not far
> above
> the spout. So, where a river fails is more likely by its EMF
> potential.
> Likewise, the metal of a tailer park is more likely to maintain, like
> capacitors, a positive charge accumulated from fair weather
> conditions
> and hold it to be discharged for a storm.
>
> John, I am truly surprised you cannot see this.
>
> ++++++++++++++
>
> > Please forgive me Mike. I still think the post about
> > tornadoes is probably idiotic, but I've been trashing
>
> I don't know what to say to that or whether I should even reply.
>
> > Therefore, I did a google search to see if this is
> > original with you; and I guess it must be since I found
> > nothing.
>
> My name is Mike Doran. Figure it out.
>
>
>
> > If you want to, would you please post a primer with
> > these facts (less than 5k):
> > What is the inertial object (i.e. what coasts along)?
>
> In general the ionosphere is slightly positive. Published peer
> reviewed
> authors on the subject maintain that the ionosphere is maintained by
> strikes, and recently evidence of sprite and elve activity above
> thunderstorms confirms this theory. Fair weather voltages then apply
> this positive charge accumulation to ground, which leads to the fair
> weather voltage that has been discussed here by Alan and others.
> Alan
> got a 150 volt positive reading from one of his text books. I have
> seen
> several internet sources for fair weather voltages--all at a range
> from
> 100 to 250 volts per meter squared.
>
> Strikes, as you know, carry very powerful EMF. They in general bring
> electrons or negitive charges to ground, and the ultimate source of
> those
> electrons is the ionosphere.
>
> I submit that there are current flows in the ionosphere and deep
> under
> the earth where magma is more conductive, as well as charge
> accumulations
> in the oceans, on land. That there are charges that ocean currents
> present, as well as varying resistances. As you may know, when
> induction
> occurs there is not only the resistance of the medium but also
> resistance
> from the induction itself. Further, there is the insulation by the
> hydrates and the pH and temperatures differences in the oceans.
>
> > What is the restoring "force"?
>
> The currents flow from charge accumulations to charge depreciated
> areas.
> What happens is that there are several areas where insulation is so
> great
> that great accumulations must occur before a discharge creates EMF
> equillibrium in a area. But while charge seperatations exist, they
> enhance or not cirrus cloud behavior, which in turn varies IR
> balances
> and convection processes.
>
> > Is there something that builds up i.e. is there some
> > kind of shock?
>
> See above.
>
>
> > Is the interaction of the inertial object and the
> > restoring object dependent on one or the other to a
> > much higher than linear dependence? I.E. is there a
> > feedback which causes the shock? (Reverse the order of
> > these last 2 paragraphs.)
>
> There is a discussion below on the life of thunderstorms, how
> initially
> the charges of a forming thunderstorm accumulate. The ground below
> the
> thunderstorm, where the dry line exists, accumulates positive
> charges. I
> provided a link on the ions accumulating in a previous post. The
> bottom
> clouds then bring their electrons, pre strike, near these charges.
> Those
> charges come from the entire cloud, making it more positive,
> relatively
> speaking. Cirrus clouds, then, with a positive charge in the upper
> reaches of the cloud, eventually reach a point where they are more
> positive then the lower ionosphere--which is pretty positive to start
> with. That causes movements of ions in the ionosphere--negitive
> ones, to
> come above the forming thunderstorm. This then attracts the cirrus
> clouds and causes favorable IR balances for further convection and
> heating of the cloud--because instead of falling, the ice crystals
> are
> attracted to the ionosphere. This is why severe weather contains
> hail!
> I realize there are other thermal processes at work, but the basic
> driving dynamic of SEVERE storms is EMFs.
>
> Now, once a strike occurs, the cloud becomes EXTREMELY positively
> charged, and so the sprite and elve activity occurs. That passes the
> electrons accumulated in the ionosphere to the cloud top and balances
> EMFs just above the storm. The ice crystals are no longer held by
> EMF
> and they begin to fall--as precip.
>
> However, the ionosphere post strike is now relatively positively
> charged
> for loss from the elve/sprite activity and the cirrus that doesn't
> fall
> as rain carries the charge of the ionosphere where electrons
> accumulated--
> so it will be relatively negitive compared now to the ionsphere, and
> hence blow off cirrus is going to be attracted to the ionosphere for
> some
> time after a strike . . .
>
> Slowly, as the ionosphere regains its relatively more negitive charge
> and
> the cirrus its positive charge, sometimes 75 miles away from a storm
> center, they are no longer enhanced by EMFs . . .
>
> It is in these delicate balances of EMFs that Doran waves move up and
> down between ground and ionosphere over hundreds of miles. The
> result is
> clearly visable on the link I have provided for this discussion.
>
> > PS what is the origin of the word doran? JAL
>
> Doran means 'stranger' in Gaelic.
>
> What does Lerch mean?
>
> --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., midlantwx <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > From midlantwx: Your discussions are fascinating!
> >
> > How do these "Wet Strips" and "Dry Strips" correlate to the
> devastating drought in the Mid Atlantic? Our lawns are brown already
> and it's only early July! Precipitation income has been below
> climatic norms since early September last year.
> >
> >
> > -midlantwx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
> > > > Seeing lightening strike does not enable you to understand
> where it
> > > is
> > > > coming from and going to.
> > >
> > > I agree with that. But there is now science about strikes out
> there
> > > that when put into context of radar images is very helpful. More
> > > below.
> > >
> > > When I found that
> > > > insulating the drilling shaft of early oil well drilling rigs
> > > stopped
> > > > both lightening and tornados, I knew what was the process and
> cause
> > > of
> > > > tornados. The people that did it, said "Whew" went on drilling
> and
> > > > getting oil without tornadoes nor lightening and didn't say to
> > > > themselves. We can control where tornados hit. This is an
> example
> > > of
> > > > Prima Facia Evidence that was totally missed.
> > >
> > > flooding and Doran waves:
> > >
> > > http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag87.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I want to talk a little more about Doran waves. South of Texas in
> > > Mexico along the southern border the monsoons started in a way
> that
> > > the wet strip extends south to there based on a world radar I saw
> > > today on TWC. The wet lines extend far north. Dry strips, again,
> go
> > > to the Sea of Cortez, and there is a dry line w/ undoubtedly west
> to
> > > east winds in the GOM. There is also a dry strip that has been
> moving
> > > about in the NE.
> > > Anyway, there is a reason why they are shaped in strips and if
> there
> > > is EMF activity in a strip it is severe, I suspect. If there is
> any
> > > convection in a dry strip (say a jet stream causes instability or
> an
> > > area of storms with intense EMF activity by strikes from wave top
> to
> > > wave top with the area in question between them in the dry strip)
> and
> > > a strike goes to ground, there would be much larger positive ion
> > > concentrations to ground and a source of, therefore, VERY
> positively
> > > charged cloud tops pre strike. If a storm were more on a frontal
> > > boundary the EMF extremes, the ion concentrations, would find
> much
> > > easier equilibriums.
> > >
> > > My view is the cirrus must be sustained in incredible ways, and
> that
> > > explains some of the outrageous rainfalls and tornado activity
> that
> > > has resulted. The strike activity in Texas has been very
> interesting
> > > to watch for about two weeks now.
> > >
> > > Yet the Doran waves have had difficulty reaching Arizona, given
> the
> > > EMF condition, very positive, of the north Sea of Cortez.
> > >
> > > When Allison flooded Texas last year about the same time as it is
> > > being flooded now, it was the product of a tropical storm, or a
> warm
> > > core low. In this instance, the flooding is per an upper low.
> > >
> > > Last year, the W. GOM was completely covered w/ cirrus and the
> > > surface winds moved from the middle of the GOM to the low--
> inducting
> > > EMF for cirrus. The low sucked all that moisture in the E. GOM
> into
> > > Texas. Right now, the dry air portion of the E. GOM has winds
> moving
> > > essentially west to east, inducting against cirrus and providing
> > > upper air balances for negative EMF in the ionosphere for the
> charges
> > > to enhance cirrus in the upper atmosphere. The heat and
> convection
> > > is local but the EMF source of the movement of cirrus to provide
> such
> > > balances that cause this rain are also based in the E. GOM. This
> is
> > > all electrical.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Lately some of the descriptions being given of what is
> going on
> > > that
> > > > you are describing, have been more understandable. I think you
> are
> > > > describing something. I am not convinced that a whole enough
> > > picture is
> > > > being painted to allow people to decide where to measure and
> what
> > > it can
> > > > tell us.
> > >
> > > Now that I know a little more about you I will re post some of
> the
> > > conversations I have had w/ Alan, a systems electrician. It gets
> > > pretty mathy and it breaks down, I think, in ways you will
> appreciate.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe the SE and its interaction is what you need to really
> > > > have a picture that completes the whole pattern of what is
> happening
> > > > electrically.
> > >
> > > I agree. What I wanted to comment on is there are Dr. Gray
> > > statistics as to 500 mb winds over Greenland and near the Pac NW
> that
> > > are TS intellegant for the following season. I will have more
> > > comments later. But for now, the key issue is going to be the
> > > insulative properties of the air and how that defines things in
> terms
> > > of strikes and Schumann resonances--and IR balances and what is
> then
> > > feed back from that. What you may be hitting on will have to do
> with
> > > how EMF get organized and why the induction works in a
> directional
> > > manner . . .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have tossed out static electricity a long time ago. All
> > > > electricity is coming from somewhere and going along a path
> which
> > > will
> > > > eventually find it retracing its paths. The main path is from
> and
> > > back
> > > > to the Sun, for all of the planets of our solar system. It is
> NOT
> > > > CMEjections. It is far more steady in its current or CME would
> > > control
> > > > it instead of the other way around.
> > >
> > > I don't disagree. HOWEVER, the SE controls the organization of
> the
> > > field and the particles in it, not the particles in it. The
> > > particles impact the cirrus, which impacts the convection,
> strikes,
> > > and so forth--so you have a feedback impact, whereas the SE is in
> > > less flux relative to WEATHER. Climate may be another thing
> > > (timescales), BUT at the end of the day the biosphere wins,
> because
> > >
> > >
> > > It turns the world on its axis, it
> > > > powers the weather jets, it heats the center of the earth,
> etc.
> > > > Maybe later, Walter
> > > > I didn't know you asked that question. I also did not feel
> that
> > > you
> > > > read enough of my materials to even be interested in what I was
> > > saying. I
> > > > did not get feedback on a lot of things I wrote and decided
> that you
> > > > didn't respond because you had no input nor questions, or you
> > > didn't get
> > > > it. It also has occurred to me that we both are trying to sell
> > > > electricity as a foundational force that most scientists, don't
> know
> > > > enough about to begin to think in its terms. needed to do if
> there
> > > is to
> > > > be successful challenging and changing of the current
> Scientific
> > > attitude
> > > > toward electricity.
> > >
> > > We have common ground for sure. I don't think, however, that EMF
> are
> > > THE modulating force by and of themselves. Instead, it is EMF
> > > modulated by the biosphere . . .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 16:25:41 -0000 "pawnfart" <mike@u...>
> writes:
> > > > If you want to unsubscribe, I am not sure you did it
> correctly.
> > > But
> > > > that isn't my question.
> > > >
> What,
> > > > IOW, do you teach?
> > > >
> > > > ++++++++
> > > >
> > > > Here is a specific comment from last year where a substantive
> > > > discusssion did occur on another bb regarding EMFs and what is
> > > > discussed here. I posed it to B-1 and we didn't get to far.
> This
> > > is
> > > > the type of question I was hoping someone like you could help
> us
> > > out
> > > > with but it appears that you aren't who you say you are:
> > > >
> > > > (quoting B-1 solar CME data):
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Solar wind speed : 664.5 km/sec Solar wind density : 5.3
> protons/cc
> > > > Solar wind pressure : 3.9 nPa
> > > >
> > > > <SNIP>
> > > >
> > > > Me again:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "What I think you should note more then anything is the proton
> > > stream
> > > > from the sun, because these are particles that will be sorted
> by
> > > > SSTs. "
> > > >
> > > > Alan from OZ writes:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Mike what I want you to note, is just how small this flux of
> > > protons
> > > > appears to be to this dimbo technician. And if this is the
> solar
> > > wind
> > > > before hitting the earth's surface, then presumably not all of
> > > these
> > > > charges even make it to the earth.
> > > >
> > > > ***I really do need a physicist's comment here, **** if i=q/t,
> > > (where
> > > > i = current in amps, & q = quantity of electric charges in
> > > Coulombs)
> > > > and if the electrical charge on a electron is about 1.602 x 10^-
> 19
> > > > coulombs, then we need to move: 1 / 1.602 x 10^-19C per sec to
> pass
> > > > 1Amp of current. Or 6.24 x 10^18 electrons must be moved for a
> > > > current of 1A.
> > > >
> > > > The solar wind protons moving in a "tube" of space of csa 1cm^2
> @
> > > > 664. km/s above would only move 5.3 x 664.5 x 1000m charges, or
> > > 3.52
> > > > x 10^6 protons. If this calc. is correct, then you should be
> able
> > > to
> > > > see that this is a *very small* movement of charges/second
> compared
> > > > to even 1 ampere. [John L. please comment] {my comment
> inserted--
> > > > another poster in the conversation who is a physics head}
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that you are seeing something here that is a
> form of
> > > > "number blindness". "
> > > >
> > > > Comments? How would the SE organize these charges? SSTs?
> Strikes
> > > > caused by convection in relation to current movement in the
> > > > ionosphere? Induction of currents in the ionosphere from daily
> > > > expansion and contraction? QBO (50 mb winds of ions that move
> > > > 90 mph)?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > methanehydrateclub-unsubscribe@y...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > Service.
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
methanehydrateclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com