Is Ambient Static Electricity Always Present in Our Surroundings?

[Fischer777]

I think I remember reading somewhere that almost every moment of our lives we are surrounded by thousands of volts of ambient static electricity caused by the movement of air and clouds, it's just that we don't notice it. I may have mixed up my information so I'm just asking for clarification: is that statement true?

 

[Discord7]

I think I remember reading somewhere that almost every moment of our lives we are surrounded by thousands of volts of ambient static electricity caused by the movement of air and clouds, it's just that we don't notice it. I may have mixed up my information so I'm just asking for clarification: is that statement true?

There might be more useful terminology for describing what someone was getting at. Voltage is a term one might apply to the difference in electrostatic pressure between two points. We are likely to be closely surrounded with negative ions that have no effect upon us because, they maintain uniform proximity to each other to net no greater pressure in one direction than in any other. Given an entire atmosphere with such a negative bias, any free electrons, lacking the ballast of negative ions would repel to a strata aloft from such an atmosphere. Simple natives to such a planet might mistake such a strata as being of positive potential: thereby being thought to attract such electrons into the sky. Ham radio operators would spin great tales of the ionosphere they exploit in their short wave transmissions.

Any charged particle that has terminated travel relative to its surroundings could be considered to be cradled into a stable situation, but such a bubble of electrons surrounding us all would be most likely to bring many tongues to terms about voltages. Nevertheless, a charged particle at rest is no manifestation of energy.

Movement of air and clouds seems a superficial attempt to explain something by someone possessed of no idea. Electrical energy can be stored in a biased atmosphere by crowding like charges together or by pulling unlike charges apart. The former case is the better bet to contemplate.

 

[Dotini]

I think I remember reading somewhere that almost every moment of our lives we are surrounded by thousands of volts of ambient static electricity caused by the movement of air and clouds, it's just that we don't notice it. I may have mixed up my information so I'm just asking for clarification: is that statement true?

Movement of air and clouds seems a superficial attempt to explain something by someone possessed of no idea. Electrical energy can be stored in a biased atmosphere by crowding like charges together or by pulling unlike charges apart. The former case is the better bet to contemplate.

"There is an electrical balance to the atmosphere.

The electrical resistivity of the atmosphere decreases with height. From the point of view of atmospheric electricity, the resistivity is sufficiently low at an altitude of about 30 miles that the voltage does not vary much above that point. The region beginning at about 30 miles and extending upward is called the electrosphere. The voltage between the Earth and the electrosphere in regions of fine weather is about 300,000 volts. To maintain this voltage the Earth has a negative charge of about a million coulombs on its surface and an equal net positive charge is distributed throughout the atmosphere. Measurements have shown that the negative charge on Earth remains roughly constant with time. At first glance, this fact is difficult to understand since the charge on Earth is continuously leaking off into the conducting atmosphere. In fact, calculations show that if the Earth's charge were not being continuously re-supplied, the charge on Earth would disappear in less than an hour.

The Earth is recharged by thunderstorms. Thunderstorms deliver a net negative charge to Earth as a result of the sum of the effects of the following processes:
(1) negative charge carried from cloud to Earth by lightning,
(2) positive charge carried from cloud to ground by rain and
(3) positive charge carried upward (the equivalent of negative charge carried downward) through the air beneath and above a thunderstorm, the source of the positive charge being corona discharge off grass, trees and other objects with sharp points on the ground beneath thunderstorms. The total current flowing beneath all thunderstorms in progress throughout the world at any given time is thought to be about 2000 amps, and is in such a direction as to charge the Earth negatively. An equal and opposite current flows in regions of fine weather. The result is that the net negative charge on Earth and the equal and opposite net positive charge in the atmosphere remain approximately constant."

Source: All About Lightning, Martin A Uman, Dover, 1986

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Nik_2213]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_electricity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_voltage

Wiki (YMMV) quotes ~ 30 V / foot or ~ 100 V / metre of altitude on average. This is enough for a modest antenna to harvest enough power to work a micro-machine. Getting the safety wrong, however, could zap both you and your widget with a lightning strike...

Of course, there's also frictional and induced static Voltages, anything from walking across a synthetic carpet in winter, to Kelvin's Dropper...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_water_dropper

 

[Discord7]

Thunderstorms deliver a net negative charge to Earth as a result of the sum of the effects of the following processes:
(1) negative charge carried from cloud to Earth by lightning,
(2) positive charge carried from cloud to ground by rain and
(3) positive charge carried upward

----



The result is that the net negative charge on Earth and the equal and opposite net positive charge in the atmosphere remain approximately constant."

If typical atmospheric lightning is developed from a negative charge accumulated upon rainwater, and negative charge is stated to be brought down by lightning, then wouldn't most rainwater tend to be of negative charge? It seems as though some negatively charged rain might reach the ground before it could become discharged by a stroke of lightning. Some positive rainwater might be encountered due to inductive kick upon lightning bolts, but that would necessarily be more than offset by the thunderbolt involved. Is there supporting evidence for the referenced author's contention that the Earth's atmosphere holds an opposing charge to that of the earth?

 

[Dotini]

If typical atmospheric lightning is developed from a negative charge accumulated upon rainwater, and negative charge is stated to be brought down by lightning, then wouldn't most rainwater tend to be of negative charge? It seems as though some negatively charged rain might reach the ground before it could become discharged by a stroke of lightning. Some positive rainwater might be encountered due to inductive kick upon lightning bolts, but that would necessarily be more than offset by the thunderbolt involved. Is there supporting evidence for the referenced author's contention that the Earth's atmosphere holds an opposing charge to that of the earth?

Dear Discord7, thanks for your questions and insights. I'm not the expert, so I can only refer to what Martin Uman had to say in 1986:
"The top of the lightning channel is found in the (lower) N-region of the cloud. The N-charge resides on supercooled water and ice particles. Stepped and dart leaders are negatively charged, drawing their charges from the N-region. The return stroke drains the negative charge of the leader to the ground. After the return stroke has reached the top of the lightning channel, the whole channel, a good conductor to the ground, becomes positively charged in response to the negative cloud charge above and around it. The leader-return stroke process results in a negatively-charged leader channel being replaced by a positively charged channel in a time that is short compared to that in which any of the surrounding negative cloud charge can move appreciably. If electrical effects cause the rain gush, the charged cloud particles must coalesce in response to the rapid change in the sign of the charge on the lightning channel. The mechanism for coalescence most closely examined is that proposed by Bernard Vonnegut and Charles Moore. They postulate that the cloud droplets in the immediate vicinity of the newly-completed return stroke channel acquire a net positive charge from the positively charged channel. Since similar charges repel one another, the positively charged droplets fly away from the channel, initially at perhaps tens of yards per second, colliding and coalescing with the surrounding negatively charged droplets. The initially stationary negative droplets are attracted toward the moving positive droplets by virtue of their opposite charge, further increasing the collision rate. The positive droplets may travel about 10 yards, increasing in size all the time. The end result is a group of large water drops surrounding the channel."

Moore, C.B., B. Vonnegut, et al, Radar Observations of Rain Gushes Following Overhead Lightning Strokes, J. Geophys. Res., 67, 207-220 (1962)

Moore, C.B., B. Vonnegut, et al, Gushes of Rain and Hail After Lightning J. Atmos. Sci., 21 646-665 (1964)

Moore, C.B., B. Vonnegut, et al, A Possible Effect of Lightning Discharge on Precipitation Formation Process, Am Geophy. Union Monograph Number 5, 287-304 (1960)

As for Uman's ideas of how the electrical balance of the atmosphere is maintained, I think he got them from Atmospheric Electricity, J.A. Chalmers, 2nd Edition, Pergamon Press, 1967.

Possibly Uman or others have progressed in their investigations since then. If so, it would be fun to learn about it.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Dotini]

A notice of ground current detected, said due to coupling of magnetosphere to lithosphere.

http://spaceweather.com/ <---Archive November 30, 2011
GROUND CURRENTS IN NORWAY: A solar wind stream is buffeting Earth's magnetic field and this is causing electrical currents to flow in the Earth itself at high latitudes. Rob Stammes sends this report from the Polarlightcenter in Lofoten, Norway: "Today, a magnetic disturbance began around 12.00 UTC. The [shaking of Earth's magnetic field] induced a ground current around our observatory: data. This is a good sign that we will see Northern Lights tonight."

Auroras from the CME impact are subsiding, but another display is in the offing. Earth is entering a solar wind stream that could re-energize geomagnetic activity around the poles. High-latitude sky watchers should remain alert for auroras.

http://spaceweather.com/submissions/large_image_popup.php?image_name=Rob-Stammes-Nov.30_1322668463.jpg <--- Ground current, magnetometer data

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Discord7]

Possibly Uman or others have progressed in their investigations since then.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

I would like to share your hopes. May we meet again, but elsewhere. This site is too sad for me.