Jump to content

Talk:Atmospheric electricity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

13:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)174.109.113.253 (talk) The following sentence is not supported by the reference that is cited. (and the sentence is not correct, either.) "The potential gradient in most locations is much lower than this value because it is an average of the charge built up by every thunderstorm and atmospheric disturbance around the globe.[4]"

174.109.113.253 (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

modification

[edit]

I think the part discussing the conductivity of the atmosphere needs modification. It makes an unqualified assertion that conductivity increases exponentially with altitude. This may be true within a certain distance regime, however it is not true in general. Those who work with vacuum systems are aware that there is a range of pressures in which the atmosphere is especially easy to ionize. I believe that it is the onset of this pressure range that corresponds to the exponential increase with altitude.

However, past some altitude the atmosphere will be so rarefied that the conductivity will again drop -- a vacuum is not a good conductor. Another point is that there is no upper bound to the atmosphere. The density of the gas drops exponentially but never reaches zero.

I don't have time to make changes, but hopefully this feedback is useful to someone.

Justin Hannigan

I'll try to work that in, if i can. Thanks for the information. J. D. Redding 23:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. It is incorrect that the conductivity of the atmosphere increases exponentially with altitude, so I've removed that text. Marconi sparks (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patents

[edit]

In the United States Patent Office classification, the main classification is 310/308 Electrical Generator or Motor / Charge accumulating. Other applicable classes regarding atmospheric electricity include:

  • 307/149 Electrical Transmission or interconnection systems / Miscellaneous Systems
  • 320/166 Electricity: Battery of Capacitor Charging or Discharging / Capacitor Charging or Discharging
  • 361/212 Electricity: Electrical Systems and Devices / Discharging or Preventing accumulation of Electric Charge(e.g., Static Electricity)
  • 174/6 Electricity: Conductors and Insulators / Earth Grounds
  • 174/2 Electricity: Conductors and Insulators / Lightning Protection
Source: United States Patent Office classification system - Classification Definitions, June 30, 2000.
Patents related to atmospheric electricity

American

  • Vion, U.S. patent 28,793, "Improved method of using atmospheric electricity", June 1860.
  • Ward, U.S. patent 126,356, "Improvement in collecting electricity for telegraphing", using towers to collect atmospheric electricity, April 1872.
  • Loomis, U.S. patent 129,971, "Improvement in telegraphing" "without the aid of wires or artificial batteries", Jul. 1872.
  • Palencsar, U.S. patent 674,427, "Apparatus for collecting atmospheric electricity" using a balloon, May 1901.
  • Pennock, U.S. patent 911,260, "Apparatus for collecting atmospheric electricity", using one or more balloons, Feb. 1909.
  • Pennock, U.S. patent 1,014,719, "Apparatus for collecting electrical energy", Jan. 1912.
  • Plauson, U.S. patent 1,540,998, "Conversion of atmospheric electric energy". Jun. 1925.
  • Britten, U.S. patent 1,826,727, "Radio apparatus" "to economize and conserve the current, and to regulate and clarify the tone", Oct. 31, 1931.
  • Crump, U.S. patent 2,813,242, "Powering electrical devices with energy attracted from the atmosphere" using transistor circuits, Nov. 12, 1957.
  • Ruhnke, U.S. patent 3,273,066, "Apparatus for detecting changes in the atmospheric electric field", Sep. 1966.
  • Smith, U.S. patent 3,205,381, "Ionospheric battery", March, 1962.
  • Kasemir, U.S. patent 3,458,805, "Electric field meter having a pair of rotating electrodes", Jul. 1969.
  • Winn, et al., U.S. patent 4,025,913, " Electrical field sensing and transmitting apparatus", May. 1977.
  • Colombo, et al., U.S. patent 4,097,010, " Satellite connected by means of a long (100 km) tether to a powered spacecraft", Jun. 1978.
  • Carpenter, Jr., U.S. patent 4,180,698, " System and equipment for atmospherics conditioning", Dec. 1979.
  • Shoulders, U.S. patent 5,018,180, " Energy conversion using high charge density", May 1991 .
  • Shoulders, U.S. patent 5,123,039, " Energy conversion using high charge density", Jun. 1992.
  • Mims, U.S. patent 5,367,245, " Assembly for the induction of lightning into a superconducting magnetic energy storage system", Nov. 1994.

Other

  • Traun's Forschungs laboratorium, GB157263

J. D. Redding 18:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite needed

[edit]

A real 18th century flavor to the descriptions here...needs a rewrite. I don't think "atmospheric electricity" is a very modern classification at all, and we have a lot of really elderly creaky references here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this is a shameful and misleading article, cobbled from old references to antique instruments such as "gold leaf electroscope" as a method of measuring electric charge. Rather than being edited, this article needs to be replaced by one that is reasonably up-to-date and competently written. it's very existence reflects badly on Wiki! Edfredkin (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly agree that this article is thoroughly inconsistent in its presentation of *very* historical theories and exceedingly old data intermixed with what one assumes to be modern content. As a general encyclopedic page, most of the historical references are unnecessary. Only that which is generally accepted current science should be presented outside a specific and limited **History** section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinchudgar (talk • contribs) 05:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a cleanup tag. The article is obfuscatingly verbose, and indeed uses a lot of obsolete 19th century knowledge. --Centzon (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular "obsolete" 19th century knowledge, should be noted for historical purposes. Please, also, provide referenced sources for that which makes it obsolete. --J. D. Redding 15:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a hatchet to bits of this article, but there's still lots left to be checked and updated. Don't make me do all of it! --Heron (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a good old go at it, still a lot to do but hopefully it's better now. Marconi sparks (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

100 Volts per Metre?!

[edit]

That doesn't sound right... If it was like that, wouldn't an exposed wire about a metre long hanging vertically shock anyone that touch it? --TiagoTiago (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because as a good conductor, there will be no potential difference between the ends. The presence of a good conductor in an electric field distorts the field pattern. The figure quoted is in the absence of any conducting element. —BillC talk 16:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Well, not really so. If the potential difference between the two ends of the cunductor is 100 volts (think 0 at one end 100 at the other)then the conductor will have a surface voltage of 50 volts. The reason you don't get a shock is that the effective source impedance is greater than 10,000 megOhms (actual value depends on humidity and other factors). So there is essentially no current sufficient to deliver a shock. Much longer wires will sometimes produce a spark that can be easily felt. However even here it is the spark (and heat shock wave + noise "splat") that you feel, not the current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maleny Neil (talk • contribs) 00:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


You have to understand voltage. Charge is constantly being exchanged between everything. A 12V battery if the positive end is taken as zero reads -12V. If the negative is taken as zero, then it is +12V. If a midway point is taken as zero, it is -6V one terminal and +6V the other. If that same battery is compared to earth, it may be -250 volts. Asking how much voltage it should have can never be answered without asking in relation to what. So how high is your voltage in relation to that piece if wire?68.13.249.174 (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

[edit]

The scope of the article is unclear. "Atmospheric electricity" can be interpreted in a broad sense to include all electromagnetic phenomena that take place in the atmosphere, or in a much narrower sense, meaning just the global atmospheric electrical circuit (GAEC), or somewhere in between. At this point, the article is written in such a way that it is unclear what exactly is being discussed.

I think there are three viable purposes for this article:

  1. An overview page for all atmospheric electrical phenomena, little more than a list of phenomena with links to their respective main pages;
  2. An article about the history of research into atmospheric electricity, although this is probably sufficiently covered by the dedicated article;
  3. An article about the GAEC.

So my proposal is this: to reduce this article to a quick overview of all atmospheric electrical phenomena, and create a new article dedicated to GAEC. Parts of the current article can be integrated in other articles as applicable (GAEC, history of electromagnetism, etc.).

What do you think? Good/bad, remarks, alternatives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centzon (talk • contribs) 00:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking up the article is a horrible idea. Atmospheric electricity includes all electromagnetic phenomena that take place in the atmosphere.
If this is pushed through, see Wikipedia:Splitting for refactoring an article into child or sister articles. --J. D. Redding 15:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., please read Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy.--J. D. Redding 17:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and created a separate article for the global atmospheric electrical circuit. I'm hoping to expand that article and at the same time make this one a bit clearer. --Centzon (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I'm with you, and I've started to clean up this article. I think the best way forward is to write better articles with a more modern viewpoint, so that this article will gradually shrink to an overview, possibly a purely historical one. Now I think of it, all the stuff about lightning is probably covered elsewhere so could be removed too. --Heron (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heron / Centzon edits

[edit]

Heron and Centzon removal of information. Compare here. --J. D. Redding 02:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Variations

[edit]

It is thought that with sufficient experience the formulas that have been deduced here, and illustrated, can be made to yield other valuable data regarding the atomic and subatomic activities which are concerned in the variations of the fundamental terms and their very numerous derivatives.[36]

What formulas? Illustrated? Where? Weaselly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.27.187 (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric Electricity is not the thunder.

[edit]

This page gives a concept the Atmospheric electricity is cause of thunder. However, work is still being done on discovering the mechanism of thunder. Thus, this article should also demarcate difference between Atmospheric Electricity and Thunder.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Atmospheric electricity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atmospheric electricity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Atmospheric electricity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Atmospheric electricity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edits and Citations

[edit]

Hello, I'm just leaving this note here for a bit before I change anything, I'm planning to add a couple of citations to the Lead, Description, Near Space, and Earth-Ionosphere Cavity sections of this article. I will also add a comment on the fact that the term atmospheric electricity has a long history to the lead, since this article has a sizeable section on the history which isn't mentioned in the lead. I'm also planning to add some clarification to the lead and description section regarding the 100V/m number, since I see that there's been some discussion of it on this talk page in the past and I found another citation that gives the same number and explains it a bit.[1]

Smith4e4 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Soaking in atmospheric electricity". 2008-03-17. Retrieved 2018-10-31.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atmospheric_electricity&oldid=1194944626"