Magnetic field flips caused by the Earth's oceans?

"Antares 531" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:30:23 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:37:50 -0700 (PDT), YKhan
wrote:

On Jun 20, 9:42 pm, Antares 531 wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:44:49 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:
Controversial new theory states that the Earth's magnetic field may
be
created by the circulation patterns of the Earth's oceans, rather
than
the molten iron core.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39469

Are you, or does this indicate that there are more ions of one charge
than there are of the opposite charge in sea water. That is, are there
more sodium ions than there are chlorine ions floating along in the
ocean currents? Where does the "Like charges repel" fit into this?

No, I don't think it means that there are more ions of one type or
another. You can't have more ions of one type or the other, since the
ions arise simply as a result of salt sitting in water. Without the
water, you'd simply have salt again.

However, the water currents probably directly correspond to electric
currents created by the movement of the ions. You don't have to have
an imbalance of charges to create a magnetic field. You just need a
separation of charges, and movement of those charges. Yousuf Khan

That's where my understanding falters. I can't see how there would be
a separation of charged ions. That is, there would not be any zone
where sodium predominates and another zone where chloride
predominates. The two ion types are balanced macroscopically,
throughout the ocean. So, how could ocean currents, moving homogenous,
equal quantities of + and - ions produce magnetic effects similar to a
flow of electrons through a wire or some other conductor.

If one places a bottle of seawater on a long pendulum and swings it
such that the bottle sweeps around the circumference of a circle,
those ions in the bottle wouldn't produce any magnetic field, simply
because there would be an equal number of + and - charges moving along
the same path and their effects would be equal and opposite,
effectively canceling each other. Gordon

I was at first inclined to poo-poo the idea and I ignored the original
post,
but I've since given it consideration.
Lightning is a fairly obvious result of the separation of charges, and
coupled with the jet streams (one in each hemisphere) it is conceivable
that the cause of the Earth's magnetic field and the wandering of the
magnetic poles could be atmospheric in origin, unlikely as that at first
seems.
What bothers me most is the aurora, for if particles from the solar wind
are streaming toward one pole to cause the light show they should be
streaming AWAY from the other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpRHshtwRI

I don't claim an in-depth understanding of the aurora function but
I've always thought it was a matter of charged particles interacting
with the earth's magnetic field flux lines, causing these particles,
either positive or negative to spiral around the flux lines, and a
part of their momentum might take them toward one pole or the other.
But, as the flux lines converge as they approach the poles, these
particles' repulsion interaction with each other causes them to bounce
back. Then they cross the equator and do a repeat performance until
their momentum is exhausted by collisions with atmospheric gasses. If
this is right, a particle of either charge, headed straight toward the
center of the earth along an equatorial plane radius, would actually
swirl around the flux lines indefinitely, or until a collision with
another particle that is in the process of bouncing back and forth,
pole to pole knocks this one out of limbo. Gordon


That's the popular myth, but my experience of charged particles,
whether in a mass spectrometer or the LHC or just a CRT, is they
move at a right-angle to the magnetic field. Charges moving
with the jet stream are consistent with the Earth's magnetic field,
even if not the cause. Periodic reversal of the field is difficult to
resolve, one cannot expect the jet stream to reverse direction and
still have a Coriolis effect.

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:47:02 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:30:23 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:37:50 -0700 (PDT), YKhan
wrote:

On Jun 20, 9:42 pm, Antares 531 wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:44:49 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:
Controversial new theory states that the Earth's magnetic field may
be
created by the circulation patterns of the Earth's oceans, rather
than
the molten iron core.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39469

Are you, or does this indicate that there are more ions of one charge
than there are of the opposite charge in sea water. That is, are there
more sodium ions than there are chlorine ions floating along in the
ocean currents? Where does the "Like charges repel" fit into this?

No, I don't think it means that there are more ions of one type or
another. You can't have more ions of one type or the other, since the
ions arise simply as a result of salt sitting in water. Without the
water, you'd simply have salt again.

However, the water currents probably directly correspond to electric
currents created by the movement of the ions. You don't have to have
an imbalance of charges to create a magnetic field. You just need a
separation of charges, and movement of those charges. Yousuf Khan

That's where my understanding falters. I can't see how there would be
a separation of charged ions. That is, there would not be any zone
where sodium predominates and another zone where chloride
predominates. The two ion types are balanced macroscopically,
throughout the ocean. So, how could ocean currents, moving homogenous,
equal quantities of + and - ions produce magnetic effects similar to a
flow of electrons through a wire or some other conductor.

If one places a bottle of seawater on a long pendulum and swings it
such that the bottle sweeps around the circumference of a circle,
those ions in the bottle wouldn't produce any magnetic field, simply
because there would be an equal number of + and - charges moving along
the same path and their effects would be equal and opposite,
effectively canceling each other. Gordon

I was at first inclined to poo-poo the idea and I ignored the original
post,
but I've since given it consideration.
Lightning is a fairly obvious result of the separation of charges, and
coupled with the jet streams (one in each hemisphere) it is conceivable
that the cause of the Earth's magnetic field and the wandering of the
magnetic poles could be atmospheric in origin, unlikely as that at first
seems.
What bothers me most is the aurora, for if particles from the solar wind
are streaming toward one pole to cause the light show they should be
streaming AWAY from the other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpRHshtwRI

I don't claim an in-depth understanding of the aurora function but
I've always thought it was a matter of charged particles interacting
with the earth's magnetic field flux lines, causing these particles,
either positive or negative to spiral around the flux lines, and a
part of their momentum might take them toward one pole or the other.
But, as the flux lines converge as they approach the poles, these
particles' repulsion interaction with each other causes them to bounce
back. Then they cross the equator and do a repeat performance until
their momentum is exhausted by collisions with atmospheric gasses. If
this is right, a particle of either charge, headed straight toward the
center of the earth along an equatorial plane radius, would actually
swirl around the flux lines indefinitely, or until a collision with
another particle that is in the process of bouncing back and forth,
pole to pole knocks this one out of limbo. Gordon


That's the popular myth, but my experience of charged particles,
whether in a mass spectrometer or the LHC or just a CRT, is they
move at a right-angle to the magnetic field. Charges moving
with the jet stream are consistent with the Earth's magnetic field,
even if not the cause. Periodic reversal of the field is difficult to
resolve, one cannot expect the jet stream to reverse direction and
still have a Coriolis effect.

Right, if the charged particle's initial velocity happens to be
exactly perpendicular to the flux lines.

But, if a component of the charged particle's velocity is parallel to
the flux line it will respond to the right angle motion you describe,
but the parallel component won't be involved with this. The particle
will then spiral around the flux line and slip along it toward the
pole, but as it nears the pole the packing density becomes a problem
and mutual repulsion causes it to bounce back. Gordon

"Antares 531" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:47:02 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:30:23 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:37:50 -0700 (PDT), YKhan
wrote:

On Jun 20, 9:42 pm, Antares 531 wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:44:49 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:
Controversial new theory states that the Earth's magnetic field may
be
created by the circulation patterns of the Earth's oceans, rather
than
the molten iron core.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39469

Are you, or does this indicate that there are more ions of one
charge
than there are of the opposite charge in sea water. That is, are
there
more sodium ions than there are chlorine ions floating along in the
ocean currents? Where does the "Like charges repel" fit into this?

No, I don't think it means that there are more ions of one type or
another. You can't have more ions of one type or the other, since the
ions arise simply as a result of salt sitting in water. Without the
water, you'd simply have salt again.

However, the water currents probably directly correspond to electric
currents created by the movement of the ions. You don't have to have
an imbalance of charges to create a magnetic field. You just need a
separation of charges, and movement of those charges. Yousuf Khan

That's where my understanding falters. I can't see how there would be
a separation of charged ions. That is, there would not be any zone
where sodium predominates and another zone where chloride
predominates. The two ion types are balanced macroscopically,
throughout the ocean. So, how could ocean currents, moving homogenous,
equal quantities of + and - ions produce magnetic effects similar to a
flow of electrons through a wire or some other conductor.

If one places a bottle of seawater on a long pendulum and swings it
such that the bottle sweeps around the circumference of a circle,
those ions in the bottle wouldn't produce any magnetic field, simply
because there would be an equal number of + and - charges moving along
the same path and their effects would be equal and opposite,
effectively canceling each other. Gordon

I was at first inclined to poo-poo the idea and I ignored the original
post,
but I've since given it consideration.
Lightning is a fairly obvious result of the separation of charges, and
coupled with the jet streams (one in each hemisphere) it is conceivable
that the cause of the Earth's magnetic field and the wandering of the
magnetic poles could be atmospheric in origin, unlikely as that at first
seems.
What bothers me most is the aurora, for if particles from the solar wind
are streaming toward one pole to cause the light show they should be
streaming AWAY from the other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpRHshtwRI

I don't claim an in-depth understanding of the aurora function but
I've always thought it was a matter of charged particles interacting
with the earth's magnetic field flux lines, causing these particles,
either positive or negative to spiral around the flux lines, and a
part of their momentum might take them toward one pole or the other.
But, as the flux lines converge as they approach the poles, these
particles' repulsion interaction with each other causes them to bounce
back. Then they cross the equator and do a repeat performance until
their momentum is exhausted by collisions with atmospheric gasses. If
this is right, a particle of either charge, headed straight toward the
center of the earth along an equatorial plane radius, would actually
swirl around the flux lines indefinitely, or until a collision with
another particle that is in the process of bouncing back and forth,
pole to pole knocks this one out of limbo. Gordon


That's the popular myth, but my experience of charged particles,
whether in a mass spectrometer or the LHC or just a CRT, is they
move at a right-angle to the magnetic field. Charges moving
with the jet stream are consistent with the Earth's magnetic field,
even if not the cause. Periodic reversal of the field is difficult to
resolve, one cannot expect the jet stream to reverse direction and
still have a Coriolis effect.

Right, if the charged particle's initial velocity happens to be
exactly perpendicular to the flux lines.

But, if a component of the charged particle's velocity is parallel to
the flux line it will respond to the right angle motion you describe,
but the parallel component won't be involved with this. The particle
will then spiral around the flux line and slip along it toward the
pole, but as it nears the pole the packing density becomes a problem
and mutual repulsion causes it to bounce back. Gordon

Let's give our charged particle three components of velocity, vx, vy
and vz. In approximation to the Earth's field, let the y-axis be defined
as the Earth's axis of rotation, or the direction of the beam current
in a CRT. A particle at the equator is thus moving parallel to the
y-axis if it moves north and perpendicular to that axis if it moves east.
Let easterly movement be defined as the x-axis, in agreement with
the screen of the CRT which as x- and z-axes.

Let a static magnet field deflect the beam in the x- direction.
(Easy to do, bring a bar magnet in the proximity of the cathode.)

If what you claim is so, what force accelerates the particle in the z-axis
toward the magnetic pole?

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:24:45 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:47:02 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:30:23 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:37:50 -0700 (PDT), YKhan
wrote:

On Jun 20, 9:42 pm, Antares 531 wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:44:49 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:
Controversial new theory states that the Earth's magnetic field may
be
created by the circulation patterns of the Earth's oceans, rather
than
the molten iron core.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39469

Are you, or does this indicate that there are more ions of one
charge
than there are of the opposite charge in sea water. That is, are
there
more sodium ions than there are chlorine ions floating along in the
ocean currents? Where does the "Like charges repel" fit into this?

No, I don't think it means that there are more ions of one type or
another. You can't have more ions of one type or the other, since the
ions arise simply as a result of salt sitting in water. Without the
water, you'd simply have salt again.

However, the water currents probably directly correspond to electric
currents created by the movement of the ions. You don't have to have
an imbalance of charges to create a magnetic field. You just need a
separation of charges, and movement of those charges. Yousuf Khan

That's where my understanding falters. I can't see how there would be
a separation of charged ions. That is, there would not be any zone
where sodium predominates and another zone where chloride
predominates. The two ion types are balanced macroscopically,
throughout the ocean. So, how could ocean currents, moving homogenous,
equal quantities of + and - ions produce magnetic effects similar to a
flow of electrons through a wire or some other conductor.

If one places a bottle of seawater on a long pendulum and swings it
such that the bottle sweeps around the circumference of a circle,
those ions in the bottle wouldn't produce any magnetic field, simply
because there would be an equal number of + and - charges moving along
the same path and their effects would be equal and opposite,
effectively canceling each other. Gordon

I was at first inclined to poo-poo the idea and I ignored the original
post,
but I've since given it consideration.
Lightning is a fairly obvious result of the separation of charges, and
coupled with the jet streams (one in each hemisphere) it is conceivable
that the cause of the Earth's magnetic field and the wandering of the
magnetic poles could be atmospheric in origin, unlikely as that at first
seems.
What bothers me most is the aurora, for if particles from the solar wind
are streaming toward one pole to cause the light show they should be
streaming AWAY from the other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpRHshtwRI

I don't claim an in-depth understanding of the aurora function but
I've always thought it was a matter of charged particles interacting
with the earth's magnetic field flux lines, causing these particles,
either positive or negative to spiral around the flux lines, and a
part of their momentum might take them toward one pole or the other.
But, as the flux lines converge as they approach the poles, these
particles' repulsion interaction with each other causes them to bounce
back. Then they cross the equator and do a repeat performance until
their momentum is exhausted by collisions with atmospheric gasses. If
this is right, a particle of either charge, headed straight toward the
center of the earth along an equatorial plane radius, would actually
swirl around the flux lines indefinitely, or until a collision with
another particle that is in the process of bouncing back and forth,
pole to pole knocks this one out of limbo. Gordon


That's the popular myth, but my experience of charged particles,
whether in a mass spectrometer or the LHC or just a CRT, is they
move at a right-angle to the magnetic field. Charges moving
with the jet stream are consistent with the Earth's magnetic field,
even if not the cause. Periodic reversal of the field is difficult to
resolve, one cannot expect the jet stream to reverse direction and
still have a Coriolis effect.

Right, if the charged particle's initial velocity happens to be
exactly perpendicular to the flux lines.

But, if a component of the charged particle's velocity is parallel to
the flux line it will respond to the right angle motion you describe,
but the parallel component won't be involved with this. The particle
will then spiral around the flux line and slip along it toward the
pole, but as it nears the pole the packing density becomes a problem
and mutual repulsion causes it to bounce back. Gordon

Let's give our charged particle three components of velocity, vx, vy
and vz. In approximation to the Earth's field, let the y-axis be defined
as the Earth's axis of rotation, or the direction of the beam current
in a CRT. A particle at the equator is thus moving parallel to the
y-axis if it moves north and perpendicular to that axis if it moves east.
Let easterly movement be defined as the x-axis, in agreement with
the screen of the CRT which as x- and z-axes.

Let a static magnet field deflect the beam in the x- direction.
(Easy to do, bring a bar magnet in the proximity of the cathode.)

If what you claim is so, what force accelerates the particle in the z-axis
toward the magnetic pole?

I may have stated this a bit poorly, but my intention was to stipulate
that the solar wind particles have an initial velocity vector that,
when broken down into the above x, y, & z components have a
significant z component of velocity.

I agree with your assessments but we need to consider those effects
from the initial z component of velocity. This is what causes the
particle, once it is captured by the magnetic field, to oscillate back
and forth between the poles.

The earth is tilted such that its axis is at an angle with the orbital
plane during those periods of time around the solstices. Solar wind
particles come toward the earth in or very near the orbital plane. So,
when we are near a solstice these particles have a significant z
component of velocity. And, even around the equinox times, those
particles that reach the earth near the poles always have a velocity
component that is parallel to the magnetic flux lines in that
immediate area.

Gordon

"Antares 531" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:24:45 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:47:02 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:30:23 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
news:mbat35ts68o0v1soku7cdrt9dj81d95kl3@4ax. com...
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:37:50 -0700 (PDT), YKhan
wrote:

On Jun 20, 9:42 pm, Antares 531 wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:44:49 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:
Controversial new theory states that the Earth's magnetic field
may
be
created by the circulation patterns of the Earth's oceans, rather
than
the molten iron core.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39469

Are you, or does this indicate that there are more ions of one
charge
than there are of the opposite charge in sea water. That is, are
there
more sodium ions than there are chlorine ions floating along in
the
ocean currents? Where does the "Like charges repel" fit into this?

No, I don't think it means that there are more ions of one type or
another. You can't have more ions of one type or the other, since
the
ions arise simply as a result of salt sitting in water. Without the
water, you'd simply have salt again.

However, the water currents probably directly correspond to electric
currents created by the movement of the ions. You don't have to have
an imbalance of charges to create a magnetic field. You just need a
separation of charges, and movement of those charges. Yousuf Khan

That's where my understanding falters. I can't see how there would
be
a separation of charged ions. That is, there would not be any zone
where sodium predominates and another zone where chloride
predominates. The two ion types are balanced macroscopically,
throughout the ocean. So, how could ocean currents, moving
homogenous,
equal quantities of + and - ions produce magnetic effects similar to
a
flow of electrons through a wire or some other conductor.

If one places a bottle of seawater on a long pendulum and swings it
such that the bottle sweeps around the circumference of a circle,
those ions in the bottle wouldn't produce any magnetic field, simply
because there would be an equal number of + and - charges moving
along
the same path and their effects would be equal and opposite,
effectively canceling each other. Gordon

I was at first inclined to poo-poo the idea and I ignored the original
post,
but I've since given it consideration.
Lightning is a fairly obvious result of the separation of charges, and
coupled with the jet streams (one in each hemisphere) it is
conceivable
that the cause of the Earth's magnetic field and the wandering of the
magnetic poles could be atmospheric in origin, unlikely as that at
first
seems.
What bothers me most is the aurora, for if particles from the solar
wind
are streaming toward one pole to cause the light show they should be
streaming AWAY from the other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpRHshtwRI

I don't claim an in-depth understanding of the aurora function but
I've always thought it was a matter of charged particles interacting
with the earth's magnetic field flux lines, causing these particles,
either positive or negative to spiral around the flux lines, and a
part of their momentum might take them toward one pole or the other.
But, as the flux lines converge as they approach the poles, these
particles' repulsion interaction with each other causes them to bounce
back. Then they cross the equator and do a repeat performance until
their momentum is exhausted by collisions with atmospheric gasses. If
this is right, a particle of either charge, headed straight toward the
center of the earth along an equatorial plane radius, would actually
swirl around the flux lines indefinitely, or until a collision with
another particle that is in the process of bouncing back and forth,
pole to pole knocks this one out of limbo. Gordon


That's the popular myth, but my experience of charged particles,
whether in a mass spectrometer or the LHC or just a CRT, is they
move at a right-angle to the magnetic field. Charges moving
with the jet stream are consistent with the Earth's magnetic field,
even if not the cause. Periodic reversal of the field is difficult to
resolve, one cannot expect the jet stream to reverse direction and
still have a Coriolis effect.

Right, if the charged particle's initial velocity happens to be
exactly perpendicular to the flux lines.

But, if a component of the charged particle's velocity is parallel to
the flux line it will respond to the right angle motion you describe,
but the parallel component won't be involved with this. The particle
will then spiral around the flux line and slip along it toward the
pole, but as it nears the pole the packing density becomes a problem
and mutual repulsion causes it to bounce back. Gordon

Let's give our charged particle three components of velocity, vx, vy
and vz. In approximation to the Earth's field, let the y-axis be defined
as the Earth's axis of rotation, or the direction of the beam current
in a CRT. A particle at the equator is thus moving parallel to the
y-axis if it moves north and perpendicular to that axis if it moves east.
Let easterly movement be defined as the x-axis, in agreement with
the screen of the CRT which as x- and z-axes.

Let a static magnet field deflect the beam in the x- direction.
(Easy to do, bring a bar magnet in the proximity of the cathode.)

If what you claim is so, what force accelerates the particle in the z-axis
toward the magnetic pole?

I may have stated this a bit poorly, but my intention was to stipulate
that the solar wind particles have an initial velocity vector that,
when broken down into the above x, y, & z components have a
significant z component of velocity.

I agree with your assessments but we need to consider those effects
from the initial z component of velocity. This is what causes the
particle, once it is captured by the magnetic field, to oscillate back
and forth between the poles.

The earth is tilted such that its axis is at an angle with the orbital
plane during those periods of time around the solstices. Solar wind
particles come toward the earth in or very near the orbital plane. So,
when we are near a solstice these particles have a significant z
component of velocity. And, even around the equinox times, those
particles that reach the earth near the poles always have a velocity
component that is parallel to the magnetic flux lines in that
immediate area.

Gordon

Incoming particles that graze the Earth have an x- and a -ve x-component,
one set going east and the other going west. You need only see sunrise
and sunset to understand that, the solar wind is coming at you from the
sun. The exception is at the poles where x and z are undefined. Magnet
flux lines are parallel to the Earth's axis, or nearly so.

No particles bounce between poles in a TV tube.

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:30:18 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
(snip)

Let's give our charged particle three components of velocity, vx, vy
and vz. In approximation to the Earth's field, let the y-axis be defined
as the Earth's axis of rotation, or the direction of the beam current
in a CRT. A particle at the equator is thus moving parallel to the
y-axis if it moves north and perpendicular to that axis if it moves east.
Let easterly movement be defined as the x-axis, in agreement with
the screen of the CRT which as x- and z-axes.

Let a static magnet field deflect the beam in the x- direction.
(Easy to do, bring a bar magnet in the proximity of the cathode.)

If what you claim is so, what force accelerates the particle in the z-axis
toward the magnetic pole?

I may have stated this a bit poorly, but my intention was to stipulate
that the solar wind particles have an initial velocity vector that,
when broken down into the above x, y, & z components have a
significant z component of velocity.

I agree with your assessments but we need to consider those effects
from the initial z component of velocity. This is what causes the
particle, once it is captured by the magnetic field, to oscillate back
and forth between the poles.

The earth is tilted such that its axis is at an angle with the orbital
plane during those periods of time around the solstices. Solar wind
particles come toward the earth in or very near the orbital plane. So,
when we are near a solstice these particles have a significant z
component of velocity. And, even around the equinox times, those
particles that reach the earth near the poles always have a velocity
component that is parallel to the magnetic flux lines in that
immediate area.

Gordon

Incoming particles that graze the Earth have an x- and a -ve x-component,
one set going east and the other going west. You need only see sunrise
and sunset to understand that, the solar wind is coming at you from the
sun. The exception is at the poles where x and z are undefined. Magnet
flux lines are parallel to the Earth's axis, or nearly so.

No particles bounce between poles in a TV tube.

Androcles, I'm no expert in these matters, but my take is about like
that expressed in the following link;

http://odin.gi.alaska.edu/FAQ/

Look at Paragraph 5 for information on the particles bouncing back and
forth from pole to pole. The key point is that the earth's magnetic
field flux lines are not straight lines. They are loops that project
out of the earth's surface near one pole and extend upward, through
space then back down to the earth's surface near the opposite pole.
These flux lines are approximately parallel to the earth's rotational
axis, only in the equatorial region.

Gordon

On Jun 14, 4:44*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Controversial new theory states that the Earth's magnetic field may be
created by the circulation patterns of the Earth's oceans, rather than
the molten iron core.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

Earth’s magnetic field perturbed by 'electric oceans', claims researcher
- physicsworld.com
"Now, Gregory Ryskin of Northwestern University, Illinois, is offering
an alternative explanation for the origin of this secular variation.
Ryskin believes that electric currents induced in dissolved salts — as
ocean waters circulate through the Earth’s magnetic field — can generate
secondary magnetic fields strong enough to shift the orientation of the
original field. Comparing his own calculations with public geophysical
data, Ryskin links circulation in the North Atlantic with observed
trends in secular variation over Western Europe. "http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39469

Our moon contributes 2e20 N/sec (same as applying 55.5e12 kw at the
surface of Earth). That kind of gravity force or energy doesn't just
vanish into thin air, whereas some of it (perhaps at least 0.1%) keeps
our core and the subsequent geomagnetic field a bit more active than w/
o moon.

~ BG

"Antares 531" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:30:18 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
(snip)

Let's give our charged particle three components of velocity, vx, vy
and vz. In approximation to the Earth's field, let the y-axis be defined
as the Earth's axis of rotation, or the direction of the beam current
in a CRT. A particle at the equator is thus moving parallel to the
y-axis if it moves north and perpendicular to that axis if it moves
east.
Let easterly movement be defined as the x-axis, in agreement with
the screen of the CRT which as x- and z-axes.

Let a static magnet field deflect the beam in the x- direction.
(Easy to do, bring a bar magnet in the proximity of the cathode.)

If what you claim is so, what force accelerates the particle in the
z-axis
toward the magnetic pole?

I may have stated this a bit poorly, but my intention was to stipulate
that the solar wind particles have an initial velocity vector that,
when broken down into the above x, y, & z components have a
significant z component of velocity.

I agree with your assessments but we need to consider those effects
from the initial z component of velocity. This is what causes the
particle, once it is captured by the magnetic field, to oscillate back
and forth between the poles.

The earth is tilted such that its axis is at an angle with the orbital
plane during those periods of time around the solstices. Solar wind
particles come toward the earth in or very near the orbital plane. So,
when we are near a solstice these particles have a significant z
component of velocity. And, even around the equinox times, those
particles that reach the earth near the poles always have a velocity
component that is parallel to the magnetic flux lines in that
immediate area.

Gordon

Incoming particles that graze the Earth have an x- and a -ve x-component,
one set going east and the other going west. You need only see sunrise
and sunset to understand that, the solar wind is coming at you from the
sun. The exception is at the poles where x and z are undefined. Magnet
flux lines are parallel to the Earth's axis, or nearly so.

No particles bounce between poles in a TV tube.

Androcles, I'm no expert in these matters, but my take is about like
that expressed in the following link;

http://odin.gi.alaska.edu/FAQ/

Look at Paragraph 5 for information on the particles bouncing back and
forth from pole to pole. The key point is that the earth's magnetic
field flux lines are not straight lines. They are loops that project
out of the earth's surface near one pole and extend upward, through
space then back down to the earth's surface near the opposite pole.
These flux lines are approximately parallel to the earth's rotational
axis, only in the equatorial region.

Gordon

The page says in answer to Q1, "The electrons travel along magnetic field
lines."
If this were so the beam current in a TV tube would hit the deflection yoke
and electromagnets would not work. The electrons travel perpendicular to
the magnetic field lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CR...r_enhanced.png
The deflection coils are clearly shown (4), that is exactly how they are
arranged.
Notice the focus ring (3) also has its conductors perpendicular to the
beam,
forcing the beam along the magnetic field lines. Focus is obtained because
the beam wants to escape the magnetic field lines, not travel along them.

'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' - Galileo
Galilei

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:10:48 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:30:18 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Antares 531" wrote in message
(snip)

Let's give our charged particle three components of velocity, vx, vy
and vz. In approximation to the Earth's field, let the y-axis be defined
as the Earth's axis of rotation, or the direction of the beam current
in a CRT. A particle at the equator is thus moving parallel to the
y-axis if it moves north and perpendicular to that axis if it moves
east.
Let easterly movement be defined as the x-axis, in agreement with
the screen of the CRT which as x- and z-axes.

Let a static magnet field deflect the beam in the x- direction.
(Easy to do, bring a bar magnet in the proximity of the cathode.)

If what you claim is so, what force accelerates the particle in the
z-axis
toward the magnetic pole?

I may have stated this a bit poorly, but my intention was to stipulate
that the solar wind particles have an initial velocity vector that,
when broken down into the above x, y, & z components have a
significant z component of velocity.

I agree with your assessments but we need to consider those effects
from the initial z component of velocity. This is what causes the
particle, once it is captured by the magnetic field, to oscillate back
and forth between the poles.

The earth is tilted such that its axis is at an angle with the orbital
plane during those periods of time around the solstices. Solar wind
particles come toward the earth in or very near the orbital plane. So,
when we are near a solstice these particles have a significant z
component of velocity. And, even around the equinox times, those
particles that reach the earth near the poles always have a velocity
component that is parallel to the magnetic flux lines in that
immediate area.

Gordon

Incoming particles that graze the Earth have an x- and a -ve x-component,
one set going east and the other going west. You need only see sunrise
and sunset to understand that, the solar wind is coming at you from the
sun. The exception is at the poles where x and z are undefined. Magnet
flux lines are parallel to the Earth's axis, or nearly so.

No particles bounce between poles in a TV tube.

Androcles, I'm no expert in these matters, but my take is about like
that expressed in the following link;

http://odin.gi.alaska.edu/FAQ/

Look at Paragraph 5 for information on the particles bouncing back and
forth from pole to pole. The key point is that the earth's magnetic
field flux lines are not straight lines. They are loops that project
out of the earth's surface near one pole and extend upward, through
space then back down to the earth's surface near the opposite pole.
These flux lines are approximately parallel to the earth's rotational
axis, only in the equatorial region.

Gordon

The page says in answer to Q1, "The electrons travel along magnetic field
lines."
If this were so the beam current in a TV tube would hit the deflection yoke
and electromagnets would not work. The electrons travel perpendicular to
the magnetic field lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CR...r_enhanced.png
The deflection coils are clearly shown (4), that is exactly how they are
arranged.
Notice the focus ring (3) also has its conductors perpendicular to the
beam,
forcing the beam along the magnetic field lines. Focus is obtained because
the beam wants to escape the magnetic field lines, not travel along them.

'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' - Galileo
Galilei

The fundamental difference here is that a Cathode Ray Tube such as a
conventional TV tube is a small scale, near microscopic situation
whereas the solar wind particles interacting with the earth's magnetic
field lines is a very large scale macroscopic situation. In both cases
the electrons will tend to follow along the flux lines, while
spiraling around them.

In the TV tube the electrons don't have time or distance to make a
complete circle around the flux lines. They barely start into the
curvature of this path by the time they have passed through the field
and impinged upon the TV tube's anode (screen). The deflection is just
enough to cause the electrons to swing from right to left and from top
to bottom by the time they reach the anode.

The flux lines in a TV tube are essentially perpendicular to the path
the electrons follow. The electrons do move into a path that would
take them around the flux lines if the time/distance was large enough.

Gordon

Antares 531 wrote:
Would a coil of plastic tubing or a garden hose with a flow of
seawater through it produce a magnetic field in the center of the
coil? Gordon

It might, but I don't know if it still would be measurable. I don't
think even a swimming pool full of seawater would create much of a
field. However an ocean full of seawater might be exactly what's necessary.

Yousuf Khan