Charge Field Storage

Earth Radiation Map
The image below is from The Cause of the Solar Cycle at http://milesmathis.com/cycle.pdf


Earth Insolation Map
http://www.eohandbook.com/eohb2011/images/case_studies_img_42.jpg


The first image shows Earth's charge field strength at:
0-40 deg N & S: 250 W/m^2 {i.e. average of 180-300 W/m^2}
40-90 deg N: 190 W/m^2 {i.e. average of 150-230 W/m^2}

The second image shows the incoming charge strength at:
0-40 deg N & S: 220 W/m^2 {i.e. average of 170-270 W/m^2}
40-90 deg N& S: 120 W/m^2 {i.e. average of 70-170 W/m^2}

This shows that Earth is emitting in the tropics 30 W/m^2 more than it receives; and it is emitting in the higher latitudes 70 W/m^2 more than it receives. This means charge is stored in the Earth.

Earth's and Sun's Eneergy is Stored, then Radiated
This site http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156098 says: The total quantity of energy emitted from the sun's surface is approximately 63,000,000 W/m^2. Yet the Sun receives much less "insolation" than does Earth. Earth receives about 120 W/m^2, so the Sun must receive much less. That means the Sun has to have a large amount of energy stored within it, much more than Earth has stored.

Lloyd wrote:The first image shows Earth's charge field strength at:
0-40 deg N & S: 250 W/m^2 {i.e. average of 180-300 W/m^2}
40-90 deg N: 190 W/m^2 {i.e. average of 150-230 W/m^2}

The second image shows the incoming charge strength at:
0-40 deg N & S: 220 W/m^2 {i.e. average of 170-270 W/m^2}
40-90 deg N& S: 120 W/m^2 {i.e. average of 70-170 W/m^2}

This shows that Earth is emitting in the tropics 30 W/m^2 more than it receives; and it is emitting in the higher latitudes 70 W/m^2 more than it receives. This means charge is stored in the Earth... somewhat like batteries do… Does anyone agree that charge must be stored in batteries, planets and stars?

Just because more charge is apparently emitted by the Earth than is received by the sun (in this example) doesn’t mean that the Earth is using stored energy to produce more output energy than it receives. For one thing, your example doesn't include photonic matter received at the Earth’s poles. It is of course true, that charge is present in all bodies. All matter recycles the charge field. The amount of charge recycling is a simple function of volume and density.

A battery is more complex. A battery’s charge content is not based simply on overall volume and density, it is based on charge separation designed to produce electrical current, with distinct sub-sections with their own volume and density calculations. We understand that the battery is designed to maximize a desired charge path, with the result of electrical charge flow.

So, batteries and normal matter are not equivalent. All matter is comprised of charge, while batteries are said to ‘store charge’.

As we’ve discussed in the past. In our solar system, in our corner of the galaxy, we may assume that the emitted charge fields of heavenly bodies is equal to charge field received by those bodies. The sun is emitting “roughly” the same amount of matter as it receives. You’ve indicated your objection to this previously, but that is what the charge recycling model describes.

Lloyd wrote:Since MM said in the Star Formation paper that free electrons and protons are attracted to one another, if electrons are held away from protons, does anyone agree that they store potential energy, like the potential energy of a body of water held back by a dam?

From Star Formation http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf: “Protons and electrons that far apart shouldn't be able to affect one another via E/M, since the field should have long dissipated. Super tenuous gases simply shouldn't be E/M structures, according to the standard model. That is why we get these ridiculous gravitational collapse models.”
Also from Star Formation: “How does this capture of ions initiate collapse? Why would a plasma capture ions at all? If the electrons and protons were prone to rejoin, why wouldn't the original electrons join, instead of new ones? And if they did join, wouldn't the photons just knock them apart again? Well, all that does happen, but because the gas remains ionized, it has a way of capturing other free ions. The plasma cannot tell incoming ions from its own ions, and since free electrons and protons attract one another, the plasma tends to gain weight, as it were. The charge field inside the plasma also tends to the same effect, since the spinning protons and electrons are recycling the charge field whether they are part of molecules or not. This means the charge field itself is denser and more magnetic inside the plasma than outside, so it tends to capture ions even without the ions being attracted to one another. We have a doubled weight gain.”

In the first quote Miles states that protons and electrons do not attract via E/M. In the second, he indicates that the attraction between electrons and protons exists at the atomic level, but that is understood to be a function of gravity. The language may be loose here, but this is a basic fact of the charge field.

You equate “charge recycling” with “charge separation”, mainly, it appears, by diminishing charge recycling. Matter is a source of charge energy, and charge separations are common, but charge separation, taken together with "potential energy" (when separated from kinetic energy) is central to the gravity only Standard Model. It may be true that when charge recycling is better understood we may better appreciate Earth’s naturally occurring charge separations, but IMO we are currently unprepared to incorporate CC’s ideas within Miles’ charge field model.

LongtimeAirman wrote:

Lloyd wrote: This shows that Earth is emitting in the tropics 30 W/m^2 more than it receives; and it is emitting in the higher latitudes 70 W/m^2 more than it receives. This means charge is stored in the Earth... somewhat like batteries do… Does anyone agree that charge must be stored in batteries, planets and stars?

Just because more charge is apparently emitted by the Earth than is received by the sun (in this example) doesn’t mean that the Earth is using stored energy to produce more output energy than it receives. For one thing, your example doesn't include photonic matter received at the Earth’s poles.

Why do you think the polar charge field is not included?

The amount of charge recycling is a simple function of volume and density.

It looks to me like charge recycling has to be dependent on how much charge is available. If there's a lot of charge, such as in a star, or even in a planet, more charge should be recycled up to the maximum possible. And when little charge is available, as when matter is at or near absolute zero K(?), little or no charge is recycled.

In our solar system, in our corner of the galaxy, we may assume that the emitted charge fields of heavenly bodies is equal to charge field received by those bodies.

The Sun emits 63 million watts per square meter and receives less than 1 thousand watts per square meter. So how can it be assumed that it receives as much as it emits?

The sun is emitting “roughly” the same amount of matter as it receives.

I'm talking about charge emitted and received, not matter emitted and received.

You’ve indicated your objection to this previously, but that is what the charge recycling model describes.

Are doubts objections? The model is a work in progress. It's not set in stone yet. Is it?

From Star Formation http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf: [] “How does this capture of ions initiate collapse? Why would a plasma capture ions at all? If the electrons and protons were prone to rejoin, why wouldn't the original electrons join, instead of new ones? And if they did join, wouldn't the photons just knock them apart again? Well, all that does happen, but because the gas remains ionized, it has a way of capturing other free ions. The plasma cannot tell incoming ions from its own ions, and since free electrons and protons attract one another, the plasma tends to gain weight, as it were. The charge field inside the plasma also tends to the same effect, since the spinning protons and electrons are recycling the charge field whether they are part of molecules or not. This means the charge field itself is denser and more magnetic inside the plasma than outside, so it tends to capture ions even without the ions being attracted to one another. We have a doubled weight gain.”

Yes, charge is stored in large volumes of matter, because it gets trapped there for a time. Some of the photons form electrons, protons and neutrons, which can also dissolve back into photons. And when electrons are held away from protons they store potential energy which will produce radiant energy if they get a chance to recombine. But while held apart they store energy.

[] charge separation, taken together with "potential energy" (when separated from kinetic energy) is central to the gravity only Standard Model.

Do you disbelieve in potential energy and disbelieve that potential energy is stored energy?

IMO we are currently unprepared to incorporate CC’s ideas within Miles’ charge field model.

If you can entertain Shoulders' ideas and others, what's wrong with entertaining CC's ideas? If we can figure out how free electrons and protons are attracted to one another with MM's model, we would then be in a position to combine the two models into a much more complete one. Have you managed to read up on CC's model yet?

Lloyd wrote:Why do you think the polar charge field is not included?

One diagram shows that emission varies over the surface of the earth between 190-250w/m^2 and the other diagram shows incoming charge varies from 120-220 w/m^2. Based strictly on these two diagrams, you can say, that the recycling model is wrong. The Insolation map most directly contradicts the recycling model - It shows maximum incoming radiation at the 30deg areas exactly the same as the emission map. Why is that? Does it show just incoming solar radiation?

But for discussion here, I assume that Miles' recycling model is correct. Perhaps the methods used in obtaining the two diagrams are not accurate enough to make a direct comparison. w/m^2 measures E/M fields, but it doesn’t necessarily register photons/m^2. I assume that the most inaccuracy will be due to undercounting incoming photonic matter at the poles, since the Insolation map shows the minimum incoming energy there.

Lloyd wrote:It looks to me like charge recycling has to be dependent on how much charge is available. If there's a lot of charge, such as in a star, or even in a planet, more charge should be recycled up to the maximum possible. And when little charge is available, as when matter is at or near absolute zero K(?), little or no charge is recycled.

I also believe that the recycling rate of heavenly bodies varies greatly between galactic centers and interstices, which is due to the presence or absence of all matter, including photonic matter. Your statement - “charge recycling has to be dependent on how much charge is available”, is confusing to me. Charge is used as both matter and density, and you also seem to want to use it as positive or negative too. I would restate it as "charge recycling has to be dependent on how much photonic matter is available", since charge and matter are equivalent, and charge, at minimum, is photons. I can agree that charge recycling is a function of charge density.

Lloyd wrote:The Sun emits 63 million watts per square meter and receives less than 1 thousand watts per square meter. So how can it be assumed that it receives as much as it emits?

That variation (63 million w/m^2 vs less than 1 thousand w/m^2) seems to be based on the same sort of data difference shown with the Earth Insolation map. Here you can say charge recycling in the sun is a myth. I don’t know what could be wrong with your numbers, other than incoming photons are vastly undercounted.

Lloyd wrote:I'm talking about charge emitted and received, not matter emitted and received.

Charge is photonic matter. With spin.

Lloyd wrote:Are doubts objections? The model is a work in progress. It's not set in stone yet. Is it?

No disagreements here.

Lloyd wrote:Yes, charge is stored in large volumes of matter, because it gets trapped there for a time. Some of the photons form electrons, protons and neutrons, which can also dissolve back into photons. And when electrons are held away from protons they store potential energy which will produce radiant energy if they get a chance to recombine. But while held apart they store energy.

Charge and matter are equivalent. I don’t believe that electrons and ions have more charge then neutral matter. Charge separation as with electrons and protons in batteries is just a specific way to organize matter to maximize charge flow which we recognize as electrical current.

Lloyd wrote:Do you disbelieve in potential energy and disbelieve that potential energy is stored energy?

I believe in potential energy as stored energy insofar as I believe in batteries and our electrical distribution system. I do not believe that charge recycling as performed by the Earth or sun or neutral matter is dependent on charge separations. I do not believe that electrons and protons attract at long distances.

Lloyd wrote:If you can entertain Shoulders' ideas and others, what's wrong with entertaining CC's ideas? If we can figure out how free electrons and protons are attracted to one another with MM's model, we would then be in a position to combine the two models into a much more complete one. Have you managed to read up on CC's model yet?

I certainly agree with CC’s (and the electric universe’s) idea of z-pinches, plasmas and Birkeland currents. You say that CC is unorthodox, but aside from these new ideas from the electric universe, I don’t see it. I was hoping you might point some out. All that I’ve read of his work seems to me to be an effort to extend the standard model to include those electric universe additions.

What's the difference between CC's CFDLs and the Sun as a Thermo-Element then?

The formation of + and - charges at these scales have to have an air-tight explanation. Why doesn't CC's sun just "short-out" from a leak in the double-layer?  This question is why I haven't really paid much attention. It has to be solid and air-tight.

If we are working with a simple-circuit it has to be sui-generis, doesn't it? What came first?

This quote by LTAM is the key to the matter. How is a CFDL organized for the Charge Field?
-----

Charge and matter are equivalent. I don’t believe that electrons and ions have more charge then neutral matter. Charge separation as with electrons and protons in batteries is just a specific way to organize matter to maximize charge flow which we recognize as electrical current.

I'll be brief for now, since the time for chatting is near. In CC's model the CFDLs do not short out because pressure forces electrons out of atoms in deeper locations and heat keeps electrons from sticking to nuclei in upper layers of stars. I believe CC has referenced studies that indicate both of these processes are real. I can look them up later, if I remember to and have time.

Airman said & Cr6 concurred[?]: Charge and matter are equivalent. I don’t believe that electrons and ions have more charge then neutral matter. Charge separation as with electrons and protons in batteries is just a specific way to organize matter to maximize charge flow which we recognize as electrical current.

I'd say charge and matter have mass, but matter isn't plain photons. MM said neutral matter doesn't emit much charge; it mostly just recycles charge within itself. He said ions emit a lot of charge. I think there's potential energy between the different ions in batteries, as well as in stars etc. We'll see later.

I'm starting a related discussion here: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14950&p=103236#p103236

It would be good to get the highlights from that thread and post them here eventually.

I started the following discussion on the TB forum MM thread.

Power Generation
A few months ago we analyzed a battery circuit in this thread and came up with a lot of material, but no very clear explanation of how photons energize a light bulb or other electric load. I'd like to go through that again one of these days and try to clarify it better. But for now I'd like to try to analyze several forms of power generation to see what role photons play in each case.

Water Pressure
Water can generate power via gravity. Water stored at a higher altitude can generate power as it falls to lower altitude. The weight of the water can turn a water wheel or an electric turbine etc.
Comment: By MM's model it may be upward photon pressure that raises water molecules into the atmosphere, where they condense onto dust particles etc to form ice crystals that either melt and drop as rain, or do not melt and fall as snow etc.
- In this TB forum post http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15230&p=103243#p103238 Charles Chandler explains why dust particles are needed for the ice crystals to form. It's because the water molecules all have the "same" charge and so they repel each other, but dust particles tend to have the "opposite" charge and so they "attract" the water molecules. When enough molecules thus clump together, they become heavy enough to fall downward.
- MM acknowledged in the Star Formation paper that the negative and positive ions attract. All he didn't do is explain how the attraction occurs. I suggested somewhere here that, as protons suck in photons at their poles, electrons are sometimes carried along in the photon streams and the electrons get stuck to the protons. I'd like to see a calculation that would show how strong this sort of attraction of electrons to protons would be. Can anyone suggest such a calculation? Or is there a better explanation of the attraction?
- Another question: when the weight of falling water from a dam to a turbine or water wheel does work, such as by producing electricity, how many photons are needed to do a certain amount of that work and how are the photon masses applied to a circuit load?

Wind Energy
The weight of air movement can power a pump or electric generator or charge a battery etc.

Solar Energy
Photons can be converted to electric power in solar cells.

Fuel Combustion
Fuel can be burned to heat water for steam power or to turn vehicle motors etc.

Animal Power
Animals and humans can pull or push implements etc to do work.

Power Storage
Water stored above a dam is one form of power storage. I discussed the idea recently that charge can be stored in stars, planets, batteries etc, similar to storing water energy, but other Mathis supporters don't seem to like that idea, though it seems obvious to me that the Sun emits vastly more energy than it receives. I showed also that even a battery seems to produce a lot more energy than it receives. I was talking about a small 9 volt battery, but the same seems to apply to a car battery.

I think MM said in his Battery Circuit paper that protons and electrons are segregated in a battery and that the leads supply different signals to the load and the difference is what somehow provides energy to the load, such as a light bulb. Can anyone say if that's accurate? Or can anyone explain how MM's model works in detail to power the bulb?