Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Large Plasma Tubes Confirmed to Exist *Above* The Earth's Atmosphere

31 views
Skip to first unread message

Sam Wormley

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 9:25:34 AM3/5/16
to
Large Plasma Tubes Confirmed to Exist *Above* The Earth's Atmosphere
> http://io9.gizmodo.com/large-plasma-tubes-confirmed-to-exist-above-the-earths-1708434105

> For over six decades, scientists have speculated about the existence
> of plasma structures that reside in the magnetosphere’s inner layers.
> Researchers in Australia have now created 3D images of these tubes
> for the very first time, proving they’re quite real.
>
> This is an important discovery for a number of reasons. First, these
> structures are the likely cause of unwanted signal distortions
> affecting both civilian and military satellite-based navigation
> systems. The discovery is also offering an unprecedented glimpse of
> the odd plasma formations that arise in the Earth’s atmosphere; it’s
> the first time scientists have directly observed these tubes over a
> large scale and mapped their shape.

> The Earth’s magnetosphere — the magnetic field surrounding the Earth
> — is inundated with plasma, i.e. ionized gas consisting of positive
> ions and free electrons in proportions that produce no electric
> charge. This plasma is produced when the atmosphere is ionized by
> incoming sunlight. The innermost layer of the magnetosphere is called
> the ionosphere, and above it resides the plasmasphere. Plasma
> structures take on a variety of strange forms within these regions —
> including the now-documented plasma tubes.




--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 9:43:37 AM3/5/16
to
Good find, Sam.

Our atmosphere is a slight plasma. Likewise, our atmosphere is charged by the solar wind. This is the energy that causes evaporation, which is a much lower energy process than boiling but one that, strangely, brings up droplets of H2O, it doesn't produce gaseous H2O.

And this all sets the stage for the plasma tubes that are the jet streams and tornadoes.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063699/full

Real-time imaging of density ducts between the plasmasphere and ionosphere
First published: 25 May 2015

Abstract

Ionization of the Earth's atmosphere by sunlight forms a complex, multilayered plasma environment within the Earth's magnetosphere, the innermost layers being the ionosphere and plasmasphere. The plasmasphere is believed to be embedded with cylindrical density structures (ducts) aligned along the Earth's magnetic field, but direct evidence for these remains scarce. Here we report the first direct wide-angle observation of an extensive array of field-aligned ducts bridging the upper ionosphere and inner plasmasphere, using a novel ground-based imaging technique. We establish their heights and motions by feature tracking and parallax analysis. The structures are strikingly organized, appearing as regularly spaced, alternating tubes of overdensities and underdensities strongly aligned with the Earth's magnetic field. These findings represent the first direct visual evidence for the existence of such structures.

Sam Wormley

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 9:54:07 AM3/5/16
to
On 3/5/16 8:43 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> Our atmosphere is a slight plasma.


Nope -- The only plasma in the troposphere is during a lightning
discharge and quickly disappears. Plasma state is restricted to
the ionosphere and above. These are things you should have learned
in school, James.

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 10:05:41 AM3/5/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:54:07 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/5/16 8:43 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> >
> > Our atmosphere is a slight plasma.
>
>
> Nope -- The only plasma in the troposphere is during a lightning
> discharge and quickly disappears. Plasma state is restricted to
> the ionosphere and above. These are things you should have learned
> in school, James.

Actually you are wrong, and I am right. Sorry.

Poutnik

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 10:10:17 AM3/5/16
to
Dne 05/03/2016 v 15:43 James McGinn napsal(a):
> Good find, Sam.
>
> Our atmosphere is a slight plasma. Likewise, our atmosphere is
> charged by the solar wind. This is the energy that causes
> evaporation, which is a much lower energy process than boiling

Directly refuted by *tons* of experimental evidence,
you would be aware of, if you had ever bothered to learn the basics.

++++++++++++++++++++
E.g:
ENTHALPY OF VAPORIZATION OF WATER
The enthalpy (heat) of vaporization of water is tabulated as a function
of temperature on the IPTS-68 scale.
REFERENCE
Marsh, K. N., Ed., Recommended Reference Materials for the Realization
of Physicochemical Properties, Blackwell, Oxford, 1987.

t ∆ vap H
° C kJ/mol
0 45.054
25 43.990
40 43.350
60 42.482
80 41.585
100 40.657
120 39.684
140 38.643
160 37.518
180 36.304
200 34.962
220 33.468
240 31.809
260 29.930
280 27.795
300 25.300
320 22.297
340 18.502
360 12.966
374 2.066

http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~dturney/WebResources_13/WaterSteamIceProperties/EnthalpyOfVaporizationH2O.pdf

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 10:16:44 AM3/5/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 7:10:17 AM UTC-8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 05/03/2016 v 15:43 James McGinn napsal(a):
> > Good find, Sam.
> >
> > Our atmosphere is a slight plasma. Likewise, our atmosphere is
> > charged by the solar wind. This is the energy that causes
> > evaporation, which is a much lower energy process than boiling
>
> Directly refuted by *tons* of experimental evidence.

Really. Like what?


> you would be aware of, if you had ever bothered to learn the basics.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++
> E.g:
> ENTHALPY OF VAPORIZATION OF WATER
> The enthalpy (heat) of vaporization of water is tabulated as a function
> of temperature on the IPTS-68 scale.

Undoubtedly, you haven't the slightest idea what enthalpy is.
So what is your point?

Sam Wormley

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 10:23:34 AM3/5/16
to
That is sorry, for there is no mechanism to create an sustain plasma
in the troposphere, James.

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 10:29:05 AM3/5/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 7:23:34 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/5/16 9:05 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:54:07 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 3/5/16 8:43 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Our atmosphere is a slight plasma.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nope -- The only plasma in the troposphere is during a lightning
> >> discharge and quickly disappears. Plasma state is restricted to
> >> the ionosphere and above. These are things you should have learned
> >> in school, James.
> >
> > Actually you are wrong, and I am right. Sorry.
> >
>
> That is sorry, for there is no mechanism to create an sustain plasma
> in the troposphere, James.

This isn't Star Wars, Sam. I'm a scientist. You are are guy with a PC and internet access. Know your place in the world.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 2:16:07 PM3/5/16
to
James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good find, Sam.
>
> Our atmosphere is a slight plasma.

Nope, if it were radio wouldn't work.

--
Jim Pennino

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 2:16:14 PM3/5/16
to
If there were plasma in the lower atmosphere, radio wouldn't work and it
obviously does.

You have really strange delusions.

Has anyone ever taken out a restraining order on you?


--
Jim Pennino

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 2:30:28 PM3/5/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:16:07 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Good find, Sam.
> >
> > Our atmosphere is a slight plasma.
>
> Nope, if it were radio wouldn't work.

How so?

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 2:46:06 PM3/5/16
to
Short answer: wouldn't propagate

Long answer: read a physics book.


--
Jim Pennino

James McGinn

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 2:51:04 PM3/5/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> Short answer: wouldn't propagate
>
> Long answer: read a physics book.

So, you dont' know. You are just assuming from what you've read. Right?

Alie...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 3:16:59 PM3/5/16
to
Slight correction; it wouldn't work the way it does.

> How so?

Plasmas are very good electrical conductors, meaning they have very low electrical impedance. The impedance of free air is easily measured to be slightly less than 377 ohms.

Radio antennas are impedance transformers; they provide a shift in impedance from whatever the internal circuit impedance is (50 ohms is common) to the free air value in order for the signal to get from the circuit through the antenna out into the air. If air were a plasma, antennas as we use them would not work. The signal would be reflected back into the radio transmitter circuitry because the plasma would resemble a dead short.

Q. E. D.


Mark L. Fergerson

edpr...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 3:50:44 PM3/5/16
to
Your evidence: none.

Still trying to argue from a position of authority?
It is hard to do when you have no authority.

You know in this case you should be able to present
a simple experiment that proves your claim of
atmospheric plasma. (I can think of one.) But your
lack of any science training or skill forces you to
use these childish tactics. Really JM it is time to
give up and go home.
ed

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 5:16:08 PM3/5/16
to
Nope, read it again.

Short answer: wouldn't propagate

For details consult a physics text.


--
Jim Pennino

Solving Tornadoes

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 5:33:59 PM3/5/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 12:16:59 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> Radio antennas are impedance transformers; they provide a shift in impedance from whatever the internal circuit impedance is (50 ohms is common) to the free air value in order for the signal to get from the circuit through the antenna out into the air. If air were a plasma, antennas as we use them would not work. The signal would be reflected back into the radio transmitter circuitry because the plasma would resemble a dead short.

So, you have a theory, but you don't have proof, right?

Solving Tornadoes

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 5:37:40 PM3/5/16
to
It seems to me your objection is emotional and not substantive.

Sam Wormley

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 6:01:24 PM3/5/16
to
On 3/5/16 4:37 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> It seems to me your objection is emotional and not substantive.


Atmospheric plasma is confined to the ionosphere and above--easily
confirmed by radio propagation, James.

There is no mechanism (energy source) to sustainably create plasma
in the troposphere. In other words observation shows that there is
no plasma in the troposphere.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 6:04:26 PM3/5/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 3:01:24 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/5/16 4:37 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > It seems to me your objection is emotional and not substantive.
>
>
> Atmospheric plasma is confined to the ionosphere and above--easily
> confirmed by radio propagation, James.
>
> There is no mechanism (energy source) to sustainably create plasma
> in the troposphere. In other words observation shows that there is
> no plasma in the troposphere.

You know this how?

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 6:16:06 PM3/5/16
to
It seems to me that the only one emotional is you, which is typical
of the delusional.


--
Jim Pennino

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 6:16:09 PM3/5/16
to
Solving Tornadoes <solvingt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, you have a theory, but you don't have proof, right?

Consult a physics book for proof.


--
Jim Pennino

Sam Wormley

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 6:22:55 PM3/5/16
to
On 3/5/16 5:04 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 3:01:24 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>
>> Atmospheric plasma is confined to the ionosphere and above--easily
>> confirmed by radio propagation, James.
>>
>> There is no mechanism (energy source) to sustainably create plasma
>> in the troposphere. In other words observations shows that there is
>> no plasma in the troposphere.
>
> You know this how?
>

Observations shows that there is no plasma in the troposphere. I take
it this is a surprise to you, James. You should not be surprised as
temperatures required for plasma are 10,000 degrees and higher.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 6:45:46 PM3/5/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 3:22:55 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:

> > You know this how?
> >
>
> Observations shows that there is no plasma in the troposphere.

My observation suggest otherwise.

> I take
> it this is a surprise to you, James. You should not be surprised as
> temperatures required for plasma are 10,000 degrees and higher.

It is true that some plamas are very hot. But not all.

Sam Wormley

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 7:19:27 PM3/5/16
to
Perhaps, James, you don't even understand the plasma state of matter.
There are no molecules in the plasma state, only nuclei and electrons.

noTthaTguY

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 7:54:56 PM3/5/16
to
quelle absurdite;
droplets weigh more than air, although
water vapor is lighter than air; how simpler can it be

Sam Wormley

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 8:05:00 PM3/5/16
to
On 3/5/16 8:43 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> Our atmosphere is a slight plasma.


Observations shows that there is no plasma in the troposphere. I take
it this is a surprise to you, James. You should not be surprised as
temperatures required for plasma are 10,000 degrees and higher.



Solving Tornadoes

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 8:36:37 PM3/5/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 4:19:27 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:

> Perhaps, James, you don't even understand the plasma state of matter.
> There are no molecules in the plasma state, only nuclei and electrons.

I agree that this is a good description of some types of plasma.
Fire, for example, is a type of plasma that fits the description
that you provide here.

Sam Wormley

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 8:43:21 PM3/5/16
to
Is fire a plasma? What is plasma?
> http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/05/q-is-fire-a-plasma-what-is-plasma/

> Physicist: Generally speaking, by the time a gas is hot enough to be
> seen, it’s a plasma.
>
> The big difference between regular gas and plasma is that in a plasma
> a fair fraction of the atoms are ionized. That is, the gas is so
> hot, and the atoms are slamming around so hard, that some of the
> electrons are given enough energy to (temporarily) escape their host
> atoms. The most important effect of this is that a plasma gains some
> electrical properties that a non-ionized gas doesn’t have; it becomes
> conductive and it responds to electrical and magnetic fields. In
> fact, this is a great test for whether or not something is a plasma.
>
> For example, our Sun (or any star) is a miasma of incandescent
> plasma. One way to see this is to notice that the solar flares that
> leap from its surface are directed along the Sun’s (generally twisted
> up and spotty) magnetic fields.
>

> As it happens, fire passes all these tests with flying colors. Fire
> is a genuine plasma. Maybe not the best plasma, or the most ionized
> plasma, but it does alright.


Fortunately the troposphere is not on fire and harbors no plasma.

Solving Tornadoes

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 8:57:36 PM3/5/16
to
On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 5:43:21 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 3/5/16 7:36 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:

> Fortunately the troposphere is not on fire and harbors no plasma.

Unfortunately your opinion doesn't mean that much to me, Sam. Sorry.

Sam Wormley

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 9:02:56 PM3/5/16
to
I know that, James. The true arbiter is the hard data of observation
and experiment.

Remember, James, I true plasma has no molecules.

Alie...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 5, 2016, 9:52:40 PM3/5/16
to
Wrong, I have experimental evidence.

Have you ever built and operated a radio?

Have you ever done *any* experimental work to test your claims?


Mark L. Fergerson
0 new messages