There is a small earth to air current. Very weak but measurable. There were attempts to gather this current with balloons covered with spikes, hundreds of feet up. So, I guess the earth is negative.
From: H LV <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 3:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:A simpler test What do you mean by the Earth's relative charge? Does it have net positive or negative charge relative to deep space? Harry On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:50 AM Chris Zell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Could there be a way to generate energy by ‘transmitting away’ the earth’s relative charge into neutral space? Using something similar to this method? From: H LV <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 12:33 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Vo]:A simpler test Update... I haven't done any experiments yet, but I have refined my thinking about the nature of cooling or frigorific radiation. Instead of striving for extremely low temperatures, I recently realised it should be possible to look for cooling radiation between bodies which have a large relative temperature difference. Also I was worried that if frigorific radiation were real then we should readily detect a cooling effect on our eyes or instruments every time a telescope is aimed into the cold depths of space. Does the fact that no one has reported such a cooling effect mean frigorific radiation doesn't exist. Not necessarily. Such a conclusion is based on the assumption that when a concentrator of a given size focuses cooling radiation from a colder body the effective cooling power increases as the temperature of the colder body decreases in the same way as the effective heating power of a hotter body increases as the temperature of the hotter body increases. However, if cooling power does not scale like heating power, then using a thermometer to detect cooling from radiation from deep space at 3 degree Kelvin will probably require a concentrator (i.e. a telescope) that is much larger than any current or planned telescope. Harry On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 9:18 PM H LV <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Some telescopes by virtue of their design should already be capable of revealing cooling radiation if it existed. eg. This telescope consists of a primary parabolic reflector and three secondary mirrors which direct the collected light into an instrument room several meters away from the primary reflector. See the first few two photos on this page: http://www.vikdhillon.staff.shef.ac.uk/teaching/phy217/telescopes/phy217_tel_coude.html<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vikdhillon.staff.shef.ac.uk%2Fteaching%2Fphy217%2Ftelescopes%2Fphy217_tel_coude.html&data=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C03ded8ade33b48add9af08da26ee10de%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637865101179940425%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9yd6F%2FEnsmiWWzjNwSC%2Bg5MRqJMUEAiuZOk7PsLVpOU%3D&reserved=0> This telescope should be capable of focusing enough frigorific radiation it could be sensed by a hand crossing the path of the beam in the instrument room. It seems unlikely that such an odd cooling sensation would go unreported. Therefore it is likely frigorific radiation is not real. Harry On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 4:43 PM MSF <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Don't forget to give us the result of your experiment if you do it. > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 9:06 PM, MSF > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > Now that we have learned about all there is to learn about the acquisition > > and preservation of dry ice, I think you're right about this test. The > > double parabola test you initially proposed would not have proved or > > disproved cooling radiation. The dry ice at the focus would have been a > > radiative heat sink and would have lowered the temperature at the other > > focus. At least that's my opinion of it. > > > > The simpler test you propose really demonstrates the idea of cooling > > radiation as its own wave phenomenon, if it exists. > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 5:35 PM, H LV > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > From a fabrication standpoint here is an even simpler test for cooling > > > > > > radiation. > > > > > > It consists of a truncated cone lined with reflective mylar on the > > > > > > inside. The wide end is open to the sky and a thermometer is located > > > > > > at the vertex of the cone. > > > > > > See diagram: > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p7coRgUqwzMGw40DhUQzJACCyHrd8EL5/view?usp=sharing<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrive.google.com%2Ffile%2Fd%2F1p7coRgUqwzMGw40DhUQzJACCyHrd8EL5%2Fview%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C03ded8ade33b48add9af08da26ee10de%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637865101179940425%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AWUL0ow8dYise5QBn1rHxP5izMUXun%2FKKh1T9qpcaww%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > If cooling radiation does not exist then the temperature of the > > > > > > thermometer should be about the same or perhaps slightly warmer when > > > > > > the cone is above it. > > > > > > However, if cooling radiation is real and has wave-like properties > > > > > > then the cone should focus the cooling radiation from the sky onto the > > > > > > thermometer and lower its temperature. > > > > > > Harry > CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
