Electric discharges to dusty CRT match planetary features

[dahlenaz]

In a recent private exchange referring to a Utah fossil find, the Lichtenberg-like characteristics of the surface were pointed out through this link:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&ie=UTF8& ... 85968&z=11

As I looked over this area, seeing patterns familiar from experiments, I had to keep reminding myself that the area had been an inland sea that had, almost certainly, experienced repeated sudden drainage. This thought still left me unsatisfied in the department of explanations. Keeping in mind that the first body of water at this location was likely of a high concentration of salt water with a heavy debris and sediment burden, the thought came to mind on the possibility that electric discharges to this salt and debris solution causing submerged materials to become bound to each other along the discharge paths. When the water was drained away those areas remaining un-eroded because of their bonding through high energy electrical discharge processes.

I mention this as food for thought and to hear if this has been proposed yet. If these are positive relief lightening scars i can't dismiss the possibility of them being resistant to erosion. dhlnz http://www.dahlendesigns.com

[dahlenaz]

Here are some of the latest additions to the image selection and explanation effort.

http://www.para-az.com/cratercrazy.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MJ6Bmoe15E (be sure to view the other discharge vids)

http://www.para-az.com/deposits.html

From someone else and worth a look. I think this is important towards
understanding the dynamics of a discharge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKAKdEaeQTE&NR=1

I'll also have a page up soon giving more detail of why i think this is very relavant.

d...z

http://www.electric-spark-scars.com

[dahlenaz]

Here is a new item from another form of experiment which i how has some simalarity to the CRT experiments. I do not know quite yet what the power soure characteristics of this two-plate experiment. but i'll go into detail of the setup for those of you who want to venture into new territory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXrA0vCUD14

The setup is two plates connected to the two polarities of an air-
ionizer but separate from the ionizer. The plates are separated by
only a piece of plexi-glass, i'm hoping this amounts to a capacitor.
Material is distributed on the negative plate and a probe is attached
to the positive plate.
These arcs were more intense than those achieved by the use of just
one plate and a probe. The purpose of the experiment was to determine
if an arc blast material away, by a force other than the arc itself,
to form a crater on a hard surface and how that differs from the
formation of craters in deep material. In the deep material the arc
appeared to form a blast crater and then cut a deep central path
with repeated discharges. d...z

http://www.electric-spark-scars.com

[dahlenaz]

You'll find this image and a bunch of others at the page being assembled to describe the capacitor-plate experiment.



http://www.para-az.com/cap-plate.html

d...z

http://www.electric-spark-scars.com

[StefanR]

Wow, great stuff.

The last picture on this page you gave...:
http://www.para-az.com/cap-plate.html



..reminded me of a nice image at HiRISE of a double "impact" crater:


http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_009619_1630

This image shows a double impact crater in Syria Planum, and probably formed when a binary asteroid pair (two asteroids closely orbiting each other, while also orbiting the Sun) struck the surface. The asteroids must have been about the same size, on the order of a few hundred meters across, to produce these craters.

I thought binary asteroids consisted of a large object and a smaller companion? But I'm not sure about that. What I liked is the seeking for an explanation for the lacking of overlapping ejecta. Then if I look at the images you provided at the above mentioned link, the resemblance is quite fascinating. The intactness of the rims and general appearance of the craters even though they seem to overlap is remarkable.
I bow humbly to your efforts.

[dahlenaz]

Hi Stefan,
Our efforts, if I recall correctly, it looks allot like one of the images you might have pointed out last year. It also
put in a new twist to crater chain observations. Here is where CRT results give something different. More needs to be considered when looking at connected craters. CRT results seem to differ from EDM when it come to overlapping craters. EDM sure holds true in specific cases but the mechanism which pushes the material into raised rims might not be the spark itself. In experiments with atmosphere it is almost clearly the blast force. I would raise the question; What actually creates atmosphere, is it possibly a produce of pressure and temperature? If that were the case would an arc create an atmospheric pressure in a localized sense? If so then movement of material may not fall under the rules of a vacuum when an arc is present. There is also electric wind to consider in the displacement of material, especially in low pressure environments. I hope you saw the "X-rays from pealing tape" video.
It opens up a whole new vista when thinking about electric discharges and what qualifies as the necessary potential.
In reference to the photo above, I'd sure like to stick my fingers in that material to see what it is and if it is solid or just accumulated material. Thanks for your input. d...z

[dahlenaz]

From the CRT experiments there are certain levels of material behavior and pattern formation which
I'm not seeing in these other setups. The depositing of material into spider formations seems to be
unique to the CRT surface. Why this is the case needs to be considered thoroughly since spidery deposits
and excavations are a common planetary feature. Until these experiments with visivle arc-discharges provide
some more diversity of features, i'll remain persuaded that the CRT surface gives the best demonstration of
whatever is going on at planetary scale. Why this is happening is something i cannot answer but the
experiments with these three different setups, CRT's, single plate discharges, and
the capacitor-plate (two-plate) setup, lends reason for a thorough evaluation of what is happening to
produce these differences.

Seeing arcs on video was the objective of this latest video and there may be some extra information
gained in the process. As each arc adds its effect on the material there are occasions to see how
hexagonal features might come about. I also saw some clues to adjoining crater formation.

The positive plate surface area was doubled and the arcs to the negative plate seemed more intense
and had a greater laterally reaching characteristic than the previous setup.

I still prefer the results, from CRT experiments, at producing more detailed uniform features, and this
is done without a visible arc. Very curious! I am inclined to wonder how residual charge or localized charge
imprints to the surface or material play a role in how feature form. In the powered-on fiberglass-on-crt experiments,
a discharge would have little effect on the material and then a crater feature would take shape without any additional arcs to that location. I just don't know what to make of this all except that if uniformity is not seen in planetary features then these differences may not be an issue. d...z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9gYE1oyA30

http://www.electric-spark-scars.com

[dahlenaz]

From the link below there is a statement which may lend some validity to my thoughts, two posts earlier, about localized atmosphere associated with discharge activity. Could localized conditions have a role in the appearance of features?


http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0812/12comet/

As a comet's surface warms near the sun, the ices turn to gas and form a tenuous atmosphere, or coma, measuring hundreds of thousands of miles across. The solar wind pushes this gas back to form a comet's glowing gas tail. X-ray emission is a side effect of this interaction.

I do understand that this explanation's value is highly conditional on how much the presence of their tenuous atmposphere is bassed on the 'supposed' presence of ices. Without the ice, or should i say, if the body is rock solid the statement may loss any value. But i'd still wonder what gasses would be present even if the percentage of ice was minimal.

I do wonder, wouldn't you say? d...z

http://www.electric-spark-scars.com

[StefanR]

Personally, I think your quite right in your wonder.

I would raise the question; What actually creates atmosphere, is it possibly a produce of pressure and temperature? If that were the case would an arc create an atmospheric pressure in a localized sense? If so then movement of material may not fall under the rules of a vacuum when an arc is present. There is also electric wind to consider in the displacement of material, especially in low pressure environments.

This is a very difficult question, what do you consider an atmosphere? Then it might be easier to determine how it might be created, as it seems to me that there are a variety of atmospheres and different interactions could be described at different levels. Pressure, temperature and volume are state discriptions of gas so are in a sense part of of the atmosphere and can not be the producers of an atmosphere themselves. But I might be wrong in that.
As for the atmospheric pressure of an arc, it seems to me that lightning as we know it provides a nice example for that. In what sense or magnitude that pressure wave is able to move material on the level you are working on, I'm not sure. I'm still seeing that underwater discharge also being in relevant to what you are saying.

Maybe this is something that has some relation to atmospheres?

Stimulated Desorption of Atoms and
Molecules from Bodies in the Outer Solar System
http://www.sbfisica.org.br/bjp/files/v29_444.pdf

Photon-stimulated desorption as a substantial source of sodium in the lunar atmosphere
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 642a0.html

What happens when a laser interacts with a solid and what are the applications ?
http://webh01.ua.ac.be/plasma/pages/laser-ablation.html

[dahlenaz]

This is a very difficult question, what do you consider an
atmosphere? Then it might be easier to determine how it might be created, as
it seems to me that there are a variety of atmospheres and different
interactions could be described at different levels.

I haven't yet looked at the links you provided, even so, thanks i'll get to them soon.
Your
question, i suspect is primarily directed at the term atmosphere as it
applied to these last few posts of mine, anything beyond that is not
suggested in this reply.

The only specific aspect that i was thinking about was an increase in
atmospheric density sufficient enough to disturb surface particles by
mechanical force. Something on the line of a shock-front or something
like that.

There is more on my mind but it will have to stay there for now. d...z

[dahlenaz]

This post is to express my appreciation to all the contributors to this thread since its beginning. There are many suggestions about alternative explanations which I hope will be explored thoroughly to leave no stone unturned.

Through observations of low energy electrical discharges we have seen clearly the patterns left under earth-atmospheric conditions and this is quite possibly the best mechanism to explain many features. We probably see a form of this process most actively on comets. Certain moons my also seem to give us a clue about current activity but i'd suspect that we are not seeing everything that is going on as new features are being formed. We see an extremely high energy process in comets yet we know that lower levels of energy are capable of creating features in loosely assembled material, dust, and this is clearly a common surface material on so many bodies, particularly moons and asteroids. There also seems to be evidence that in electrical discharges material is liberated or exchanged. I would suggest that through these two characteristics that we may be able to identify what has formed certain features but there are some features that i've seen which make me wonder about other the need to consider other mechanisms. Two that have attracted my recent attention, one is the shock waves from bolides coupled with the hydraulic effects of water or semi fluids, to include impacts from objects in a non solid state. The other is the collapse of surface material as gasses are liberated from a body as it experiences changes in pressure and temperature. I don't know how far this last process can be taken into the space environment but it can be demonstrated in the presence of an earth-like atmospheric pressure.
The first process has a number of elements one has been mentioned in reference to the meteor crater of Arizona which was formed where there had been a large inland body of water. Numerous considerations in the chain of events associated with that event would be worthy of a great deal of investigation, since that area seems to be a relatively fresh feature. Of the other aspects associated with impact event, an undeniable reality through modern observations, there is an aspect which i've begun to explore as a result of observations, that being impact by non-solids. It is through this form of impact that features can be made which closely resemble two particular features, broad/flat craters with low elevated rims and doughnut shaped craters. Each of these is formed by a single impact of a non-solid. I'm currently observing this through the effects of water on loosely assembled soil/dust and this is only to look at the dynamics of a non-solid. How this might be applied is what I would like to suggest for consideration in the realm of what happens to larger objects which encounter the effects of re-entry, do certain object remain solids of might they become something else that more closely resembles a fluidized mass?
You might be able to replicate the features i've seen in my preliminary observation and i hope you'll join in with your observation along this line of thinking. Consideration all possibilities seems to be justified in light of similar results from different mechanisms. I'd say we'd better cover these options ourselves because if we don't it might come back to haunt us. I think the thread might be called something like Fluid dynamics and Impacts. When i get some pictures ready I'll get the discussion going, unless this has already been explored. I'll just toss in a few more pieces once i learn of that thread.

Thanks again for your participation in this thread. d...z

http://www.dahlendesigns.com

[dahlenaz]

As promised here is a sample of what the splash features look like. When they dry you'll see why I have to consider
this line of thinking, at least for the sake of covering all possibilities. I'd show you the ones that initially caught my attention but they got damaged. I'll try to repeat their natural formation.

The big question in my mind is whether or not all objects on a collision course remain solid enough to be regarded
from that dynamic perspective. If not then there may be reason to entertain what would be the outcome if considered
from a fluid dynamics angle. An added point to consider is if an object would hold together by forces that would create an envelop as it is encountering forces of entering the region of a body with little or no protection like earth's.

Remember this is only an exercise in scientific CYA.



http://www.para-az.com/dsc249s30c.jpg
A different image, slightly weathered and dry.


I've decided to keep this investigation under this same topic heading since it is related to making sure that no
stone has been overlooked. d...z

http://www.electric-spark-scars.com

[dahlenaz]

Here are a few more to further the demonstration of non-solid impact dynamics.




http://www.para-az.com/dsc262c.jpg
Note the five points around the perimeter those occurred as part of a single drops splash.


http://www.para-az.com/dsc277cs85.jpg
This one has a central peak


d...z

http://www.electric-spark-scars.com

[dahlenaz]

Here is another angle of the five pointed crater mentioned above. d..z



Link to a larger image.
http://www.para-az.com/dsc265s40.jpg

This is flatter view
http://www.para-az.com/dsc263s60c.jpg


http://www.electric-spark-scars.com

[dahlenaz]

For those of you who might read about these splash experiments and who might wonder of the rationale here is one reason why.

Somewhere in the material about the failures associated with impact theory I remember a statement that central peaks could not be achieved with an impact. This statement was challenged, in my mind, by the appearance of central concentrations of material resulting from a single impact of a droplet of water to a dusty surface.

I don't know what all is possible in space, but if it is possible in a gravity environment, where atmospheric pressure and gravity restrict free movement, then i would wonder if something similar could result in light atmosphere and gravity.
It may not be possible and produce them same quality-of-features that an arc produces and if so then our hand is only strengthened by thorough consideration of all possibilities. d...z

http://www.electric-spark-scars.com