This is the most detailed critical review so far -- my sincerest thanks to you. Every legitimate criticism saves me years of work.
Kceovaisnt wrote:
In Chapter 9. Effect of EM on Supercells:
Quote:
If the air motion is fast enough... the magnetic fields will transform the piece-wise motion into a continuous toroidal loop.
There appears to be no justification as to how the magnetic field was able to stabilize the motion.
Actually, I think this needs a diagram, but here's some text that's a bit more explicit:
"If the air motion is fast enough, and if enough charged particles are present, these four distinct airflow segments will generate magnetic fields, and such fields will begin to influence the movement of the charged particles, by the magnetic pinch effect. And since the fields are far larger than the airflows themselves, the fields will overlap. In the overlapping areas, the net magnetic field won't have sharp corners — they'll be rounded. For example, where the entrainment meets the updraft, there would be more or less of a 90° turn. But at the corner, there will be two overlapping magnetic fields — one from the entrainment and one from the updraft. The net field will begin to turn upward when it comes into the influence of the updraft's field, and the rounded turn will be complete when the updraft's field is out of the influence of the entrainment's field. In this way, the net field from four perpendicular airflows becomes continuous and rounded. And this means that the magnetic pinch effect will encourage the charged particles to fall into a continuous toroidal loop."
Kceovaisnt wrote:
Chapter 21. Inflow Channels.
1. Yes moving charges do create magnetic fields in the form of circular loops around a charge stream according to Biot Savart Law. The direction of the magnetic field is clockwise in the direction of the current flow. Since current is defined as the flow of electrons or negative charges, and the charge stream described in your paper is positively charged and is by standard a "positron" flow, the equivalent current is traveling out from the vortex. Not in. This would generate a magnetic field that is traveling counter clockwise in the direction of air flow.
Hang on a second -- I thought that the standard notation for Ampere's Law was that moving positive charges generate magnetic fields that accelerate magnetically-responsive particles by the right-hand rule. Is that not correct? Usually positive charges don't flow, but my understanding is that the notational convention was established before the elementary particles responsible for electric charges were discovered.
Kceovaisnt wrote:
2. You mentioned in the paragraph that a magnetic force acting on particles in the water. What particles? Water has a relatively low permeability and therefore little effect in a magnetic field. Unless you are considering the water as a charged particle and not so much of a "magnetically responsive particle".
Actually, I am assuming that the water is magnetically-responsive. Not the water molecules, actually, but rather, the iron content (at 0.0034 ppm in seawater). But if I have the direction of the field wrong, I have to re-think the whole thing anyway.
Kceovaisnt wrote:
3. You theorize that since water has more mass than air, the acceleration will act on the air instead. Due to what? Magnetic force is not an attractive force between the air and water molecules. Magnetic force effects a moving charged particle in a magnetic field. Magnetic attraction is a different concept and absolutely negligible here. Yes every force has an equal and opposite reaction but you would have to get into quantum mechanics to explain that. In the domain of influence for your work, there is no opposite reaction to magnetic force. For all intensive purposes, it just happens.
Here again we see the limitations of my knowledge. I was simply thinking that anytime there is a force of any kind between two objects, the force will "act" on whichever one has less mass. Aside from the fact that I might have the direction of the fields wrong, in which case all of this would be moot, then the question is: would the back-pressure actually make the moving gas barrel-roll? The more I think about it, the more naive it sounds. But let's make sure I at least have the forces going in the right direction. Then I'll rethink this section.
Kceovaisnt wrote:
4. It seems that you are of the understanding that magnetic force occurs in a clockwise direction around a flow of charges. This is just not so. Though the terminology of magnetic force lines are synonymous with magnetic field lines indeed. The harsh reality is that the geometry of the magnetic field is only one third of the variables needed to describe the magnetic force. It appears that you are treating the magnetic field lines just as electric field lines with regards to force. In electric force the force is parallel or anti-parallel to the lines. In magnetic force, the force is orthogonal to the plane made by both the electric field and charge velocity unit vectors. Either way the force is always perpendicular to the magnetic field (of which is also perpendicular to the flow of charges). Assume your theory assumes the inflow is along the X axis, the magnetic force on a particle directly underneath the inflow could only be in any direction locked on a plane comprising the z (vertical) axis and the azimuth of the moving water born particle. Since it is doubtful all water particles are moving the same direction, the magnetic force cannot not be in a unified direction. Consequently the motion of the particles could never all be accelerating to the left or anywhere.
I wasn't thinking that the water (or iron in it) is moving, so I wasn't thinking of an ExB drift that would do the accelerating. Rather, I was thinking of the iron molecules as little bar magnets. But the more I think about it, the less sure I am. I'll wait for your replies to my earlier comments, and start over from the beginning with this section.
Kceovaisnt wrote:
Although I think there is a lot wrong with your magnetic theories there is strong evidence that you are onto something with this.
OK, so I have more work to do -- what's new?
Kceovaisnt wrote:
I also see evidence of very broad and somewhat careless assumptions in Chapter 26. Cloud Striations:
Quote:
The rotation within the cloud-base striations can then be explained as a result of the magnetic field surrounding the updraft. The Lorentz force is not powerful enough to generate tornadic wind speeds at the surface, but is sufficient to motivate the slow rotation in the cloud-base striations.
Lorentz Gyrations are plausible. But, you must somehow theorize how the storm is able to create a uniform magnetic field orthogonal to a plane parallel to the surface of the earth at the height of such striations. At the very least it must be uniform along that specific radius from the updraft centroid.
The proposal is that this field is generated by the moving charges within the tornado. I'll look at the wording.
Kceovaisnt wrote:
If you expect for this to be a complete theory it must have more then a weak generalization concerning magnetism. It does not need to be super specific but it needs to have inductive reasoning that confirms more can be discovered upon closer inspection. If the contentions you make are based on misconceptions on basic EM theory, people will close the book on you. It would be a shame because the rest of your paper seems to introduce concepts that make sense and could very well be confirmed. Take some time to explore this. Your work has real value and I look forward to seeing further discussion.
Thank you so very much for your encouragement, and for the helpful nature of your criticisms. (If I had a dollar for every time I took an ad hominem attack, or had to wade through paragraphs of the fallacy of authority...)
I totally agree, that the first evidence of naivete on my part is the last sentence to ever be considered by that reader. This is why scientists don't do work like this. I'm biting off more than I can chew. There's no way to get through this much material, in this complex of a problem domain, without making a mistake, and it only takes one to discredit the entire work. This is not entirely unreasonable. With so much literature, why would you take the time to consider something written by someone obviously beyond the limits of his knowledge?
Despite the absurdity of the entire enterprise, there was a method to my madness. Seeing that 60 years and a billion dollars worth of scientific research still hadn't solved the problem, I decided to take a different tack. Instead of accuracy being the hard constraint, and comprehensiveness being a soft (or non-existent) constraint, I made comprehensiveness the hard constraint. Once a comprehensive framework was achieved, I then started ratcheting up the specificity. Every time an increase in accuracy revealed an error, the relevant aspects of the framework had to be disassembled and rebuilt to fix the problem. Early in the project, this usually revealed problems in other areas. I had the whole thing in pieces on the ground many times. But there was, in fact, a method. There may be many answers to one question, but entirely within one problem domain, there can only be one answer to many questions. If there are many data, especially of a very distinctive nature, comprehensiveness can make the better constraint. Using this method, I was able to narrow down the solution domain. In some cases (such as with the base of the tornado), there is only one possibility. In other cases (such as the mesocyclone), with respect to each datum there might have been many possibilities, but there was only one way to work through the whole thing with one construct. In other cases, multiple possibilities still exist, and I'm just going with a placeholder until more data are available, or I get the chance to do more literary research. And of course, in some cases I've taken a blind shot at something and I missed. But one by one, the errors are detected, and fixes are found. This is how the project got to this point.
And this is where contributions from people like you are so valuable. I don't have the time to get formal education in all of the relevant disciplines. Nobody does, and perhaps that's why this problem hasn't been solved yet. But a collaborative effort involving constructive criticisms from people who do have knowledge in the various disciplines can accomplish what the individual cannot.
My sincerest thanks.