Issues surrounding the EU theory of lightning formation can also be observed when reading analyses such as this:-
The sprite discharge is driven by the quasi-electrostatic (QE) field in the mesosphere following a positive cloud-to-ground (+CG) flash in a thundercloud below
Lightning couples energy directly to the mesosphere and lower ionosphere through quasi-electrostatic (QE) and electromagnetic pulsed (EMP) fields. The fields heat the partly ionised atmosphere and cause additional ionisation, thereby changing the atmospheric conductivity. Electromagnetic waves from lightning discharges may also have an indirect effect on the lower ionosphere via reflection effects or interactions with radiation belt electrons that can be precipitated from the magnetosphere into the upper atmosphere. Perturbations to the ionosphere are observed as perturbations to the amplitude and/or phase of signals from Very Low Frequency (VLF) transmitters used for submarine communications. Quantitative estimates of ionisation and heating by TLEs are still lacking but can in principle be modelled. They hold the promise of new insights into the properties and microphysics of the mesosphere.
http://www.trappa.es/content/thundersto ... system-tea
Charles Chandler does assume that the electric field potential in terrestial particles alone - are enough to generate thunderstorms, lightning and their associated tornadoes.
But he is mistaken to rush to this assumption. Firstly, he needs to actually get reliable measurement of the ACTUAL electric fields that may not be subject to double-layer shielding. He needs to find out how water-particles and other condensation nuclei and their electrical interactions, can - in and of themselves - be suffice to generate sufficient electric fields to power lightning discharges and tornadoes, whilst shielding the true electric fields inside double-layers.
Regarding current measurements of electric fields, we have a scientist interviewed by NPR who stated:-
Dr. DWYER: Well, all the questions about lightning that we don't know. They're all very basic ones, like how does it get started, how does it move? For example, it's a real mystery how lightning gets started up inside the thunderstorms. There never seems to be enough charge up there and big-enough electric field to actually make a spark.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =127477667
Charles doesn't address the issue of insufficient charged particles up there to generate the lightning discharges that are observed:-
It's possible that the discrepancy is coming from the fact that electric fields and lightning rates are not actually directly related, and it's easily possible for the electric field to be well beyond the normal threshold for lightning, without discharges occurring. In the laboratory, at standard temperature and pressure, it takes 3,000 kV/m to get an arc discharge in the air. So this is a physical limit that cannot be surpassed, and which is known as the breakdown voltage of the air. Interestingly, lightning becomes probable in fields over 20 kV/m, and virtually certain in fields over 30 kV/m. So meteorological literature talks about 30 kV/m as if it's the breakdown voltage, when really it's only 1⁄100 of the required field. So how is lightning even possible at 30 kV/m?
The answer is that lightning is not a simple, instantaneous arc discharge — it's a complex process. It starts with a flash inside the cloud less than 100 m long, where the potential has exceeded the breakdown voltage of the air. Then, in a process that sometimes last several seconds, the lightning channel elongates. Each stepped leader occurs in a local field in excess of the breakdown voltage, but this process can continue until distant regions with a resting potential far below the breakdown voltage can eventually become connected by a discharge channel. So the electric field meter might be showing only 30 kV/m, but a couple of microseconds before it gets struck by lightning, the field jumps up to 3,000 kV/m, and no physical principles have been violated.
The significance of this is that without the initial flash, the whole process never would have been initiated, and we should theoretically be able to see close to 3,000 kV/m of potential without there being any lightning.
Then the critical question becomes: what causes the initial flash? The quick answer is that nobody knows for sure. It shouldn't be possible to develop the charge densities necessary for an arc discharge, when the charges are held by the air itself, as electrostatic repulsion should prevent it. But we do know that lightning occurs in a turbulent environment. Some of the lay literature states that colliding parcels in a turbulent flow generate static electricity that sets off the lightning strike. It's probably more accurate to think that turbulence simply brings oppositely charged parcels closer together far more rapidly than we'd see in a laminar flow, and this is what increases the local field density beyond the breakdown voltage.
http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/ ... etric#id_7
Charles cannot account for the sort of radiation that lightning storms produce, as this article cites:-
Nobody understands how lightning makes X-rays," says Martin Uman, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Florida. "Despite reaching temperatures five times hotter than the surface of the sun, the temperature of lightning is still thousands of times too cold to account for the X-rays observed."
http://www.livescience.com/2712-lightni ... stery.html
And here:-
The electric fields in thunderstorms appear to be too weak to form lightning, so scientists have been puzzled by how the bolts form. Cosmic rays have also been suggested as a trigger for the flashes.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ays_2.html
Again, we have weakly measured electric fields. What does this remind you of? It reminds you of the weak electric fields measured inside the tornadoes. Yet, strong perturbations in the Earth's surface magnetic field were detected adjacent to the tornadoes. Perhaps this offers a clue as to the cause of the electro-dynamic environment of the thunder-storm itself. Perhaps there are Birkeland Currents that merge into larger and denser currents extending downward from the ionosphere at specific intervals and generating vorticity within the atmosphere. Like the tornado, and as Charles pointed out - the double-layers of these Birkeland Currents could be shielding the actual electric fields and voltages from being detected.
Still - the question remains, ARE terrestial charge-particle interactions suffice as the initiator of the electrical breakdown? Or do we need a cosmic circuit as the source of the breakdown?
Results from one study:-
Cummer found signs of the missing currents by teaming up with Fuellekrug, who works with magnetic field sensors exceptionally sensitive to ultra-low electromagnetic frequencies. Stationing those sensors in the summer of 1998 at Santa Cruz, Calif., Soccoro, N.M., and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Fuellekrug focused on three different cases - in Michigan, Minnesota and Oklahoma - where high-altitude sprites followed lightning strikes below by more than 40 milliseconds.
The lightning and sprite events were linked by their timing and locations, the first being logged by the National Lightning Detection Network, while the sprites were video-imaged by University of Alaska researchers.
Applying mathematical modeling analysis to Fuellekrug's much more sensitive measurements, Cummer found continuing cloud-to-ground currents in one event that varied from about 4,000 to 7,000 amperes over a period of about 150 milliseconds. "That number is extremely big," he said. "Most measurements of continuing currents like this in less spectacular lightning are on the order of 100 to 200 amps."
http://ftp.ee.duke.edu/news/?id=211
Now, this begs the question about the anode and cathode dynamics with respect to any leaky capacitor function of the Earth in an ionospheric circuit. Which direction do electrons and positive ions flow respectively? Do we have uni-directional flow? Flows from high to low potential or vice versa or both? Clearly, one could assume a complex circuit in the vicinity of such systems if you are relying on an Electric Universe theory of thunder-storms and their associated tornadic manifestations.
Here, cosmic rays and runaway breakdown are proposed as mechanisms:-
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -lightning
But again, run into problems.
Seems - we still lack compelling data as to the likely cause of terrestial lightning and tornadogenesis. This paper discusses some of the problems and offers some interesting summaries of various studies and potential ways forward:-
http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~rsonnenf/ph ... hysics.pdf
My own humble opinion, as a science journalist and researcher - is that lightning could possible be terrestially generated by charge separation mechanisms as part of the behaviour of ice particles and super-cooled water droplets in a thermodynamic turbulent environment. A voltage gradient develops, and - like we have seen in the Floating-Water-Bridge experiments by Dr Elmar Fuchs - rotating vortices of bi-directional charge could well develop. These could produce double-layers on the annulus of the filaments that shield the actual electric fields from measurement.
I think EU researchers can sometimes be prone to becoming fixated with cosmic electric currents, when the possibility of self-contained circuits are possible. My idea of the Morning Glory Cloud and various filamentary twisting Arcterus clouds also relies only on terrestially-bound circuits that form local field-aligned currents that give additional energy to the thermodynamic components.