© Lloyd

Source: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~

--- Earth's Heat Source
Postby CharlesChandler» Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:01 am
- I hadn't thought of it like that, but you're right — [the Sun is] a battery.
- But like any energy system, you're never going to get more energy out of it than you put into it.
- So you'd have to find some sort of natural force that was developing some sort of extreme pressure, sufficient for compressive ionization, and then you'd have to be able to release the pressure and harness the electric current that resulted.
- To be a worthwhile endeavor, the electric current would have to be more usable than any other energy conversion.
- So where, here on Earth, are you going to get that kind of pressure?
- I'm convinced that compressive ionization occurs in the Earth's mantle.
- Something that always puzzled me was how sedimentary rock forced under the surface under sufficient pressure can "flow" inside the Earth.
- Usually rocks under sufficient pressure get crushed — they don't flow.
- But ionized matter definitely flows, because the crystal lattice has been weakened, and the matter goes from being brittle to being viscous.
- The problem is that such pressures only occur deep inside the Earth.
- This does have interesting implications concerning simply how we come to understand our own planet.
- There are inexplicable heat sources inside the Earth, without which it would have frozen over a long time ago, like the Moon and like Mars.
- These heat sources keep churning things up, producing volcanism, tectonic plate movement, and the whimsical geomagnetic field.
- You really can't say that this is still just heat left over from the initial condensation.
- Under such pressures, heat conduction is nearly perfect, and the temperatures should have been thoroughly distributed soon after the condensation.
- Thereafter, you're really not going to get any adiabatic convection the way you would in a non-conducting substance (such as the atmosphere).
- So for there to be convection, there has to be an internal heat source.
- Heat is generated by friction from tidal forces, but this is well-distributed, and again, in a highly-conducting substance, we wouldn't expect convection.
- What if tidal forces are raising and lowering pressures inside the Earth, and at the threshold of compressive ionization, stuff is being ionized and neutralized on a daily basis?
- That would be an internal heat source.
- I wonder where that boundary occurs?
- Maybe it's at the bottom of the Earth's lithosphere, which is the solid crust, below which the rock has plasticity, meaning to me that it is ionized.
- And that would put a heat source right where volcanic magma originates.

--- Hollow Planet Theory
Postby CharlesChandler» Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:10 pm
- LK: By the way, it seems important to try to settle the issue of hollow planet theory.
- Would nat-tokamaks rotate while forming stars etc?
- CC: Actually, I'm thinking that the NT is a star.
- So there's only 3 major pieces to that construct: 1) the accretion disc, 2) the NT, and 3) the bipolar jets.
- The NT is the star in the middle of the whole thing.
- As a toroidal plasmoid, it has a doughnut hole in the center.
- But I don't think that the properties of an NT star could morph into the properties of a CI star.
- As long as the NT star is spinning at a relativisitic speed, the centrifugal force will keep the center open, and the magnetic pinch effect will consolidate the matter into a toroid.
- The only thing that could slow down an NT star would be a collision with something else, which would perhaps create a supernova.
- So I don't see any overlap between the constructs of NT stars and CI stars.
- The only possibility that I ever considered for a hollow-core star was that perhaps a star that used to be heavy enough for nuclear fusion in its core, but no more, might have a hole left where the fusion used to be.
- The extreme temperatures under a constant gravitational force would create a low-pressure core.
- If a really thick iron crust solidified, it could (potentially) keeps its shape, even after the fusion stopped, leaving a hollow interior.
- But that begs more questions than it answers.
- First, with fusion in the core, how did a thick iron crust on top get cool enough to solidify?
- Second, how thick would the crust have to be to keep its shape despite gravity pressing in, and with a vacuum in the interior?
- Third, would the properties of such an object resemble a real star — what would be the source of the photons, etc.? [-------]

--- Earth's Primordial Heat and CI
Postby CharlesChandler» Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:10 pm
- CC: But the weight of all of the particles above it adds up to a respectable force, once you get a couple hundred thousand kilometers inside the Sun.
- LK: But the Earth doesn't have that many kilometers, though you're saying it has CI material too.
- So apparently megameters must be sufficient. Right?
- CC: In the Sun, the threshold for CI appears to be at 125 Mm below the surface, while in the Earth I'm thinking that it occurs at only 50 km below the surface.
- This seems odd, but it might still be correct.
- In the Sun, that 125 Mm on top is mostly hydrogen, which is very light.
- Furthermore, hydrogen is tough to ionize, as its single electron is tightly bound to the nucleus.
- In the Earth, the pressure under the surface builds up much faster, because the crust is much heavier than hydrogen.
- Furthermore, heavier elements are easier to ionize, as their outer electrons are weakly bound to the nuclei. [-------]
- CC: Conduction in the high-pressure aggregate should have distributed the heat within the first couple million years.
- LK: But EU theorizes that some planets are only thousands of years old, which may include Earth.
- Can you calculate more precisely how fast a newly formed planet should cool down to Earth's present temperature?
- Mathis says the charge field determines a planet's temperature and that Venus gets its charge from the Sun and the planets.
- He says the charge field is photons, which makes sense to me.
- CC: According to Tassos (pg. 46), "the 2 x 1030 J of the supposed primordial heat could have lasted for only the first 67 million years, given constant expenditure at the present annual global energy dissipation rates."
- This is way out of range for the standard model, which maintains that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, meaning either that the Earth is somewhat less than 67 million years old, or the internal heat comes from some other source.
- But it's also out of range for an extremely young Earth (< 6000 years), as it would still be molten, or the initial temperature was far less.
- Regardless, the uneven distribution of near-surface heat is not expected if the source was the initial condensation, and suggests near-surface sources.
- So I'm exploring the possibility that ohmic heating from electric currents is the primary heat source. [-------]
- CC: Direct measurements of the internal temperature show that it increases by 20-30°C/km.
- At that rate, the temperature at a depth of 40 km should be 800-1200 °C, LK: The Kola peninsula borehole encountered slow rock plasticity at about 12 km.
- CC: The depth at which plasticity is achieved is an interesting topic.
- I'm still using the working hypothesis that the plasticity is ionization, which weakens the crystal lattice.
- CI is a function of pressure, but also of the chemical composition of the rock.
- So the pressure at which plasticity (i.e., CI) is achieved might vary, depending on differences in composition. [-------]
- CC: This is because at the atomic level, electrons can only exist as free particles or in specific shells, and if the atoms are pushed too close together, the shells fail, thus releasing the electrons as free particles.
- LK: I think Kanarev's findings on the sizes of electrons would also be worth mentioning here as a reference [in your paper] to show how easy it may be for electrons to get squeezed out.
- CC: I agree. I'm trying to stay out of QM in this thing, but I should at least show that there is a possible theoretical substrate. [-------]
- So as depth increases, so does the pressure, and hence the ionization, at a more-or-less steady rate.
- LK: That's only true down to half the Earth's radius, according to the Wikipedia graph I referenced on the forum. Right?
- CC: Here's the link that you posted (for good book-keeping): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Ea~
- That shows the force of gravity per depth, and you get your pick of which density model to believe.
- But the pressure is a function of how much stuff is bearing down on something from above, and this always increases with depth if there is any gravity at all. [-------]

--- Compressive Ionization and the Moho Layer
Postby CharlesChandler» Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:31 pm
- Lloyd wrote: Are you suggesting that the Earth is a battery too, if you're saying it has condensed ions in its core like the Sun?
- If so, does that mean any warm body is a similar battery, or is being heated by such a battery?
- Basically, I guess so. I'm saying that any object with mass sufficient to cause compressive ionization is generating electrostatic potentials.
- This could be a perfectly stable arrangement, with no energy release, unless something is perturbing the pressures, in which case there will be charge recombination, and thus the release of heat and/or light.
- In the Sun, I'm contending that this is occurring 125,000 km below the surface, due to s-waves at the liquid~plasma boundary.
- In the Earth, I'm considering the possibility that it occurs at the bottom of the lithosphere, where tidal forces are playing around with the pressures.
- Too deep and the pressure is always sufficient for compressive ionization.
- Too shallow and it's never sufficient.
- But right on the boundary, varying pressures could make the difference between ionized and neutral, with charge recombination occurring on a regular basis, and hence a heat source at that depth.
- So yes, this would apply to anything of sufficient mass that was being perturbed.
- Lloyd wrote: Fred Jueneman had the idea for some time, probably over ten years, that the barycenter between the Earth and the Moon, which is within the Earth, has major influence geological activity.
- I agree with the astronomer on this one, that all by itself, the barycenter doesn't do anything.
- It's just a mathematical entity, not a physical force.
- Lloyd wrote: It would be funny if global warming...
- Don't EVEN get me started on global warming... :D
- Lloyd wrote: Peter James, a Velikovskyan, stated once that the Moho layer is plasma.
- I think that layer averages about 20 miles deep, but it varies quite a bit.
- The fact that the speed of seismic waves increases dramatically below the Moho is suggestive of ionization.
- At that pressure, it will be a supercritical fluid, which will flow like a plasma, but you wouldn't call it that.
- Lloyd wrote: Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory discusses piezoelectric effects quite a bit.
- That looks like a cool site, with a lot of useful information.
- From this page, I got the following quote:
- David Finkelstein and James Powell, "Earthquake Lightning," Nature, Vol. 228, 21 November 1970, p. 759 wrote:
- In some parts of the world, earthquakes are often accompanied by ball lighting, stroke lightning and sheet lightning. ...
- We propose that the piezoelectric effect in the Earth's crust causes the electrical field. ...
- In rock with a mean piezoelectric coefficient several percent that of x cut single crystal quartz, and with typical seismic stress changes of only 30–300 bars, an earthquake makes an average electrical field of 500–5,000 V/cm.
- For distances of the order of half the seismic wavelength, the generated voltage is 5 × 107 to 5 × 108 V, which is comparable with the voltage responsible for lightning in storms.
- This might have been the research that I was thinking about.
- Lloyd wrote: Juergens theorized that granite is sedimentary rock that was subjected to electrical breakdown.
- Interesting.
- Lloyd wrote: We probably ought to start a new thread for this topic, if we want to pursue it in some depth.
- I truly don't know much about geology, so maybe I'll just lurk & learn. ;)

--- The Moho Layer
Postby CharlesChandler» Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:49 pm
- Lloyd wrote: Peter James, a Velikovskyan, stated once that the Moho layer is plasma.
- I think that layer averages about 20 miles deep, but it varies quite a bit.
- Charles wrote: The fact that the speed of seismic waves increases dramatically below the Moho is suggestive of ionization.
- At that pressure, it will be a supercritical fluid, which will flow like a plasma, but you wouldn't call it that.
- Actually, I got to thinking about this, and about how the tidal forces would actually operate on the Earth.
- At the top there is a solid crust, and then below, the rock has plasticity.
- So the crust is going to flex.
- It's not like the oceans that can rise and fall — it's solid, so it just bends in response to the gravitational forces.
- So what happens if you flex a solid crust that has a high-viscosity fluid below it?
- There could be an incredible drop in pressure where the crust is getting elevated, and the fluid rock can't move fast enough to fill the void under the crust.
- In the extreme low pressure, you could actually get hot rock to evaporate for a little while, 20 miles below the surface (until low tide, when the crust would compress it all back into rock). :shock:

--- Moho Layer --- Compressive Ionization
Postby CharlesChandler» Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:35 am
- Lloyd wrote: So I think the Moho is still a good candidate for the compressive ionization threshold.
- You're right — compressive ionization isn't going to follow the top of the terrain — it's going to follow the level of equal pressure, which is a function of the amount of weight pushing down from above.
- If the continents are made of lighter stuff, the CI threshold under the continents will be deeper. Thanks!
- BTW, in my reading I've found 5 different mechanisms that "might" be responsible for the electric fields associated with seismic activity.
- piezoelectricity Quartz crystals under pressure get polarized, thus exhibiting electric fields.
- The most common objection to this is that we have no reason to believe that the crystals would all be oriented in the same direction.
- Hence under pressure, they'd all get polarized, but the net effect should be slight.
- A somewhat more substantial criticism is that even if the particles were oriented the same way, individual crystals wouldn't produce a net field.
- The positive field from one crystal locks into the negative field of the next crystal.
- This doesn't produce a net field except between the two crystals.
- But this is still a potential explanation for The Hum, if it's being caused by high-power electric lines near the surface.
- The alternating current generates time-varying magnetic fields which can then induce currents in the ground.
- If (somehow) the quartz crystals in the ground got oriented the same way, and if they are exposed to alternating magnetic fields, you'll still get the mechanical effect.
- So the "piezo woofer" explanation of The Hum is still on the table.
- triboelectricity Tectonic plates rubbing against each other might produce static electricity between them.
- Normally, triboelectricity requires friction between dissimilar materials.
- A fractured rock rubbing against itself shouldn't produce this effect.
- If it did, it would only produce static charges during the seismic event, leaving the electric fields before and after the quake unexplained.
- streaming potentials Ground water flowing through cracks in the rock as a consequence of changes in pressure will get ionized in a process roughly analogous to triboelectricity (i.e., static electricity).
- The total potentials that can be developed are limited by the conductivity of the water, and seem to be only millivolts over a distance of kilometers.
- positive holes One researcher showed how a surface effect, where electric currents flow better across the surface of granite, can be instantiated inside the rock if it gets fractured.
- Essentially, the valence bands of the crystals are much weaker where the crystals terminate at a boundary.
- Thus in an applied field, more current flows along the surface, or through cracks in the rock, than through the crystals themselves.
- This explains a reduction in resistance, but it is not a charge separation mechanism.
- The reduced resistance should actually reduce the net electric field, not enhance it, because less resistance makes it harder to maintain the charge separations that generate electric fields.
- So if this mechanism is real, the enhanced electric fields, before, during, and after seismic events, are totally unexplained.
- compressive ionization This is purely a function of the amount of pressure being applied, which causes the failure of outer electron shells, and thus the expulsion of the electrons, leaving positive ions behind.
- This works for all matter.
- So it is not reliant [on] specific crystals, such as quartz (for piezoelectricity), or silicates and oxides (for "positive holes").
- It is not even reliant on the matter being in the solid state, and thus it works for molten magma as well.
- Everything that I've read so far states that if the Earth buckles upward, the ground gets positively charged.
- A substantial amount of instrumented data have been collected, so this is not anecdotal or theoretical.
- This is an unambiguous prediction of the CI model.
- The buckling will create a low pressure below it.
- The reduction in pressure sends the CI threshold deeper into the Earth.
- Rock that was ionized becomes free for de-ionization, and electrons flow down into that rock.
- This leaves the surface with a deficiency of electrons (i.e., positively charged).
- Thus CI is still on the table as the charging mechanism.
- And the correlation between electric fields and increased temperatures seems to be holding as well.
- The CI model asserts that raising and lowering of the degree of compressive ionization causes currents that cause ohmic heating, which is conjecture.
- But the buckling, the fields, the currents, and the heating are real, and they coincide.
- Lloyd wrote: An even more important issue seems to be your tokamak model.
- It seems to be an excellent model, except for one thing, the quasar data.
- Quasars are found almost always near a galaxy and the plasma gun model seems to be the best candidate for getting quasars out of galactic nuclei, but not too far away.
- If quasars didn't exist near galaxies, there'd be no problem, but they do so there is (I think).
- It seems that the tokamak needs to be redesigned as a shooter.
- Could there be a stage of tokamak development where it gets hyperactive and shoots out quasars?
- If things can explode, like novae and supernovae, and other things can zip through space, like runaway planets and stars, can't there be a connection between the two, and can't tokamaks explode or something, maybe from collisions, if nothing else?
- The "natural tokamak" is very definitely a shooter.
- If it is still feeding, because matter from an accretion disc is still being sucked in by the magnetic confinement, there will be polar jets driven by the high-energy ejecta from the fusion reactor.
- This could be a spray, if the inflow is steady, or it could sputter, if the fuel supply varies.
- It could also oscillate, where extreme temperatures in the reactor might cause the matter to expand, reducing the reaction rate, only to collapse again, producing a new round of fusion.
- This offers an explanation for pulsars, which produce gamma rays in phases that can last as little as 1/1000 of a second.
- An implosion/explosion cycle, with extreme hydrostatic pressure countered by extreme magnetic confinement, could produce oscillations at this rate.
- I don't know of another model that can explain this with plausible physics.
- I "think" that the only difference here comes down to whether or not the quasars (or whatever else) come out of the plasma gun as ready-made objects, or as fully atomized plasma, later to condense into discrete objects.
- The natural tokamak will produce a plasma stream, perhaps that sputters.
- It won't produce fully assembled planets or stars. I don't know what would.
- Plasma pinches and condensed matter are mutually exclusive.
- The magnetic fields in a z-pinch push like charges together, and opposite charges apart.
- This can fuse lighter elements into heavier ones, but it's still just atomic nuclei — no molecules, much less liquids or solids.
- As plasma, it can only stay organized by the magnetic pinch effect, wherein extreme linear velocities keep the polar jets organized, or extreme radial velocities keep toroidal plasmoids organized.
- The latter would seem to be the relevant case for a quasar, which is a point-like object, not a stream.
- So how do you get a plasma gun to shoot toroidal plasmoids?
- I'm thinking in nuts-n-bolts terms here, not just off-handed suggestions.
- I personally think that a quasar, like any star-like object, has its own accretion disc.
- Perhaps matter imploding toward the center of an elliptical galaxy spins off smaller accretions, sorta like the way hurricanes spin off tornadoes?
- Thus there would be angular momentum converging toward the AGN, and quasars forming near it and then drifting away.
- But that doesn't mean that the AGN plasma gun shot out the quasars.

--- Wavy Moho Layer and Compressive Ionization
Postby CharlesChandler» Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:42 pm
- Lloyd wrote: Can the compressive ionization threshold go up and down much over a short horizontal distance?
- I've seen a diagram of the Moho layer, I think under Europe and the Atlantic, in which the Moho has very high waves near the coast I think, but is fairly smooth elsewhere.
- I don't find the image right now.
- I'm looking for information like that. :)
- A few little waves wouldn't surprise me.
- Big waves would probably be a big problem.
- Just make sure that you're not looking at a diagram that has an exaggerated vertical scale, which seems to be common in this topic.
- Lloyd wrote: If the Moho layer marks the CI threshold and it goes no more than 90 km deep, how can earthquakes occur deeper than that (up to 700 km deep), within CI matter, if earthquakes require microfractures etc to produce them?
- Can microfractures exist within CI matter?
- If so, then I suppose sunquakes could occur in the Sun's CI matter. Eh?
- This is a good question.
- First, compressive ionization isn't an all-or-nothing kind of thing.
- It depends on the elements, where heavier elements are easier to ionize, because the outer electrons are not so tightly bound.
- And it goes by degrees, one electron at a time.
- So it's not that above the threshold, nothing is ionized, while below, everything is ionized.
- It would be more accurate to say that ionization begins at a certain depth, and then increases with depth.
- Now, at what depth do what elements hit the first degree of ionization? The second? The last?
- I don't know how to answer these questions.
- I thought that it was a simple matter of calculating the Coulomb force per degree of ionization.
- So you could just find the weight of the rock above, and then find the electrostatic equilibrium.
- But I'm still researching that.
- It seems that atoms start repelling each other long before the electron shell conflicts occur.
- Some have suggested that there are magnetic conflicts between opposing electron spins th[at] create repulsion.
- Anyway, I'm still working on this.
- I'll let you know if I make any progress.
- Anyway, electric currents would flow as deep as the ionization is still changing with pressure differences.
- Would that go all of the way down to 700 km? I don't know. :D

--- Moho Question
Postby CharlesChandler» Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:46 pm
- Has anybody calculated the isobars running under the continents as well as the oceans?
- I guess I could do it, knowing the densities, but if somebody has already done it, I'll just go with that. :)
- I want to see what that does (good or bad) to the "CI = Moho" idea.
- Also it would be interesting to know what happens to the isobars in the trenches.