Electric Scarring of the Earth’s Surface

Paul E. Anderson, PhDUS Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806

eu4you2@gmail.com 862-324-3414

Match the description

A. Northeastern Grand Canyon

B. Discharge across polycarbonate

C. Lightening strike on concrete

A

B C

Background

• Discharges across dielectrics exhibit fractal behavior

• Shorelines, riverbeds, and other geological features exhibit fractal behavior

• Is the current geological paradigm missing something?

Objectives• Determine if certain landforms arose from

electrical discharge (glow/arc) rather than fluvial erosion

• We therefore must quantifiably delineate between fluvial and electrical events.

• For this paper I assumed:– The earth received higher incoming charged

plasma than now (~100x1015 W)– The events occurred over vast areas of land and

operated in the arc mode of discharge

Plasma Universe Theory• Developed over the past few decades by a variety of

professionals (astronomers, electrical engineers, geologists)• Main tenets are generally agreed to be

1. The same basic laws of plasma physics holds throughout the universe

2. Knowledge of the electric field distribution in the universe is central to understanding the plasma universe

3. Space is filled with filamentary and cellular structure as a result of the plasma

4. Double layers/pinch effects are central to understanding how matter is formed throughout, from planets to elemental distributions (Birkelend Currents)

Alfven, H. 1990 Cosmology in the Plasma Universe: An Introductory Exposition. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 18(1):5-10.

Background on Dielectric Discharge

• Y. Murooka, K. Hidaka, “Theoretical Studies on Nanosecond Surface Discharge Phenomena Observed using Lichtenberg Figure Method”, Archiv für Elektrotechnik 74: 163-173 (1990).

• L. Niemeyer, L. Pietronero, H. J. Wiesman, “Fractal Dimension of Dielectric Breakdown”, Physical Review Letters 52 (12): 1033-1036 (1984).

• L. A. Dissado, “Understanding Electrical Trees in Solids: from Ex-periment to Theory”, IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation 9: (4): 483-497 (2002).

• K. Kudo, “Fractal Analysis of Electrical Trees”, IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation 5 (5): 713-727 (1998).

Studies show that electric trees from discharges exhibit fractal patterns.

Discharges Simplified

• Charge buildup occurs at electrodes and across dielectric.• Charge equilibrates in circuit by inducing current path in dielectric.• Factors: electrode materials, dielectric material (gas pressure, solids,

particulates), potential, surface topography, surface morphology…• Responses: magnetic field, current, hν (full spectrum), heat, nuclear

interactions

+Q

E

-Q

Q

Q

IB

Downhill

Downhill

Alluvial fans expand as the slope decreases

Fluvial patterns Fluvial patterns…?

Electrical Patterns

What measurements could be used to test this hypothesis?

• A fractal is defined as a self-similar set or pattern, i.e. “the same from near as they are from far”

• Electrical discharges are known to be self-similar• Fluvial systems

– Braided river networks are known to be self-affine (scaled by different amounts in certain directions) arising from current flow

– Confined river networks (by landform) exhibit some self affinity as well as some self similarity

• Could one test the significance of dissimilarity between measured fractal dimensions of electric discharges on dielectrics, riverbeds, and actual fluvial systems?

Experimental• Images analyzed with ImageJ microscopy analysis software

(National Institutes of Health, US Government Public Domain Software)

• Fractal dimension D was determined by the Box counting method, which is the same as the Hausdorff-Besicovitch dimension for 1 ≤ D ≤ 2, in both binary and skeletonized forms.

• Area of each image was ~500-1,000 miles2; maximum resolution was 1 pixel per 1/25 of a mile2

• Topography was ignored for these studies which is valid. Projection of 3D electrical tree patterns onto a 2D plane leads to valid assessment of the fractal dimension when D < ~1.7

• FLUVIAL – known flood and river events; ELECTRICAL from known electrical events, and UNKNOWN from Google terrain mode captures

Image Processing

1log logN D

s

D = slope of the line (fractal dimension)N = number of boxes s = box size

• Riverbeds and canyons (UNKNOWN) are statistically not similar to FLUVIAL flood events, but are similar to ELECTRICAL patterns.

• Skeletonized data enables normalization of topological (depth) differences between water bodies

• The higher the D value, the more self-affine.

Statistical Difference Test

• Limited distribution sets were expanded using Monte Carlo simulations and assumed a normal distribution.

• Analysis further illustrates differences of FLUVIAL data set to ELECTRICAL and UNKNOWN.

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Dat

a

Electrical Skel Fluvial Skel Unknown Skel

Label

All Pairs

Tukey-Kramer

0.05

Unknown Skel

Electrical Skel

Fluvial Skel

-0.02314

0.005561

0.313326

0.005561

-0.02314

0.284629

0.313326

0.284629

-0.02314

Abs(Dif)-LSD

Unknown Skel Electrical Skel Fluvial Skel Larger number denotes less similarity

Conclusions

• Morphologically, an electrical paradigm rather than fluvial better describes the fractal dimension of certain geological riverbeds

• Fractal analysis when combined with EU concepts may be key to explaining otherwise unexplained geomorpholgy

• Contact me for my Google© map URL of this study

Future Work

• Augmentation of current data set• Actual discharge studies with statistically

designed experimentation (DOE)– Factors include type of soil, water content, partial

pressure, electrical potential, electrode morphology

– Responses include changes in hardness, fractal patterns, chemical/physical composition of the rock/soil

Acknowledgements

• My patient wife Emily who encourages my many hobbies and pursuits

• William Davis (US Army ARDEC) who introduced me to the EU

• Mike Steinbacher and Monty Childs for their discussions and comments

BACKUPS

Grand Canyon FormationAssume canyon is 4100 km3. The scaled weight W of TNT (trinitrotoluene) blast experiments, the crater diameter d for a height of zero above the ground is approximately

d = 0.8W1/3 If we assume sandstone density of 3 kg/m3 then the amount of rock

removed is 1.23 x 1013 kg.

Assume a hemispherical crater we can calculate a diameter4100 km3 = 2πr3/3

r = 12.5km, d = 25.0 km And thus the TNT equivalence of such an event

W = (d/0.8)3

W = (25.0/0.8)3

W = 3.05 x 1013 kg TNT 1 ton TNT = 4.184 GJ, so we have a blast of 1.41 x 1011 GJ.

Assuming an escape velocity of 11,200 km/s, we then have a kinetic energy needed of

KE = ½ (mv2) = ½[1.23 x 1013kg x (11200 km/s)2] = 1.54 x 1012 GJNote that the explosive energy required to remove the above volume or rock into orbit is an order of magnitude greater than that needed to lift into orbit.

If we assume a discharge of 10 minutes, we can roughly estimate the power of the discharge since wattage = (joules/sec), which comes to 2.0 x 1018 watts. This

would be equivalent to a factor of 3 times the present solar constant of the entire earth, which is reported to be 174 x 1015 watts.

Formation Latitude/Longitude D Skel-D Ratio D / Skel-D

Origin Category

Ethiopia A 8.497, 42.161 1.76 1.38 1.27 UnknownYoung's Corner, IN 39.361, -85.036 1.78 1.50 1.18 UnknownYoung's Corner, IN 39.206, -84.951 1.78 1.43 1.25 Unknown

Pleasant Valley, WA 45.858, -120.515 1.55 1.32 1.17 UnknownQuebec 48.609, -64.827 1.69 1.47 1.15 Unknown

Ethiopia B 4.727, 39.058 1.61 1.36 1.18 UnknownManchester, IN 39.089, -85.001 1.68 1.52 1.11 Unknown

Armistad 29.469, -101.118 1.66 1.35 1.23 UnknownArmistad (2x zoom) 29.469, -101.118 1.67 1.24 1.34 Unknown

Scablands, WA (5 mile) 47.424, -120.080 1.55 1.32 1.17 UnknownRenovo, PA 41.323, -77.736 1.65 1.46 1.13 Unknown

Sixprong, WA 45.961, -120.128 1.71 1.64 1.04 UnknownGrand Canyon 36.245, -112.931 1.77 1.41 1.26 Unknown

N Grand Canyon 36.600,-112.644 1.57 1.39 1.13 UnknownYemen 16.142, 48.190 1.78 1.68 1.06 Unknown

Geological Structures AnalyzedLocations and measured D-values from ImageJ analysis of various geological landforms.

Formation Latitude/Longitude D Skel-D Ratio D / Skel-D Category

Mississippi 31.130, -91.616 1.40 1.05 1.33 FluvialArmistad (river trace only) 29.225, -100.792 1.54 1.15 1.34 FluvialArmistad (river trace only

2x zoom) 29.225, -100.792 1.59 0.98 1.61 FluvialWaimakariri River, New

Zealand -43.360, 172.077 1.68 1.12 1.50 FluvialRakaia River, New

Zealand -43.537, 171.662 1.68 1.22 1.38 FluvialCanyon Lake, TX 29.858, -98.1961 1.55 1.18 1.32 Fluvial

Mt. St. Helens flood 46.296, -122.400 1.81 1.01 1.80 Fluvial

Fluvial Geological Structures AnalyzedLocations and measured D-values from ImageJ analysis of various geological landforms that were known to arise from

fluvial events.

Formation Reference D Skel-D Ratio D / Skel-D Category

Lichtenberg pattern,

polyethylenehttp://www.chaos-101.com/?page_id=41 1.65 1.43 1.15 Electrical

Lichtenberg pattern,

polyethylenehttp://akiroom.com/redbook-e/collection2/tnk01.html 1.71 1.62 1.06 Electrical

Golf course lightning strike http://www.cosmosvolts.com/ 1.64 1.55 1.06 Electrical

Cement lightning strike http://www.notjustrocks.com/ 1.84 1.77 1.04 Electrical

Lightning O. Mendes, 2003 1.50 1.29 1.16 ElectricalDielectric discharge N. Femia, 1993 1.57 1.25 1.26 Electrical

Dielectric discharge L. Niemeyer, 1.32 1.08 1.22 Electrical

Lightning A. A. Tsonis, 1991. 1.51 1.23 1.23 Electrical

Dielectric Breakdown http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Electrical_treeing 1.48 1.35 1.09 Electrical

Electrical Structures AnalyzedLocations and measured D-values from ImageJ analysis of various structures derived from actual

electrical events.

Some SQH (Semi-Qualitative Handwaving)

• Deluge conditions and sloshing effect would lead to drastic changes in dielectric properties of the earth surface– Sea water 50-80 mS/cm– Ground 0.005-0.3 mS/cm

• With the same incoming electrical current, equilibration would occur upon exposure to land