Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

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

Expand Messages
  • midlantwx
    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 1 of 6 , Jul 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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.
      >
      > Take your words in the context of my further comments about Texas
      > flooding and Doran waves:
      >
      > http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag87.html
      >
      > Above, again, the strike/radar link.
      >
      >
      > 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
      > if it did not, we would not be hear rapping about this.
      >
      >
      > 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.
      > >
      > > My question I asked before, unanswered, is what is your PhD? 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
      > about
      > > 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
    • pawnfart
      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 2 of 6 , Jul 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        > the doran wave thread posts without reading them.

        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.
        > >
        > > Take your words in the context of my further comments about Texas
        > > flooding and Doran waves:
        > >
        > > http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag87.html
        > >
        > > Above, again, the strike/radar link.
        > >
        > >
        > > 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
        > > if it did not, we would not be hear rapping about this.
        > >
        > >
        > > 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.
        > > >
        > > > My question I asked before, unanswered, is what is your PhD?
        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
        > > about
        > > > 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
      • midlantwx
        I would like to be presented with the Long answer please:) When you have the time:) Please load it up with your usual terminology and links!:)) I really enjoy
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 6, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          I would like to be presented with the Long answer please:)

          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
          > > the doran wave thread posts without reading them.
          >
          > 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.
          > > >
          > > > Take your words in the context of my further comments about Texas
          > > > flooding and Doran waves:
          > > >
          > > > http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag87.html
          > > >
          > > > Above, again, the strike/radar link.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > 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
          > > > if it did not, we would not be hear rapping about this.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > 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.
          > > > >
          > > > > My question I asked before, unanswered, is what is your PhD?
          > 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
          > > > about
          > > > > 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
        • foryeshua1@juno.com
          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 4 of 6 , Jul 7, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            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:
            I would like to be presented with the Long answer please:)

            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
            > > the doran wave thread posts without reading them.
            >
            > 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.
            > > >
            > > > Take your words in the context of my further comments about Texas
            > > > flooding and Doran waves:
            > > >
            > > > http://www.weatherimages.org/data/imag87.html
            > > >
            > > > Above, again, the strike/radar link.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > 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
            > > > if it did not, we would not be hear rapping about this.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > 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.
            > > > >
            > > > > My question I asked before, unanswered, is what is your PhD?
            > 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
            > > > about
            > > > > 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



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.