Can we control the temperature of Earth?

[Sensation_of_physics]

(...)it is not quite spherical but I doubt that will make any difference to your ideas.

After all, the Earth isn't spherical either.

 

[dafydd]

Even a cow knows that the Earth is spherical in the Bjarneverse.

 

[Toke]

Even a cow knows that the Earth is spherical in the Bjarneverse.

I still wonder what difference it would make to his "measurements" whether the metal shell is cylindrical or spheric.

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

I still wonder what difference it would make to his "measurements" whether the metal shell is cylindrical or spheric.

None at all

What Bjarne has yet to realise is, that the magnetization he proposes is so energetically unfavorable that even if he manages to produce such a magnetiztion - that alone would require a very carefully designed magnetic field - a mundane amount of thermal activity will instantly quench any free poles and thereby any external field - it would simply not be stable for longer periods

 

[MRC_Hans]

None at all

What Bjarne has yet to realise is, that the magnetization he proposes is so energetically unfavorable that even if he manages to produce such a magnetiztion - that alone would require a very carefully designed magnetic field - a mundane amount of thermal activity will instantly quench any free poles and thereby any external field - it would simply not be stable for longer periods

Of course not. It is possible that by a very well-planned and systematic scheme of point heating you could shape a a chaotic magnetization into a dipole field, however, any kind of random heating would not do the job. And continued heating would also revert it to chaotic.

However, the main problem here is that Bjarne has only the most sketchy understanding of anything he talks about, and he fills in the blanks with pure imagination.

Hans

 

[dafydd]

Of course not. It is possible that by a very well-planned and systematic scheme of point heating you could shape a a chaotic magnetization into a dipole field, however, any kind of random heating would not do the job. And continued heating would also revert it to chaotic.

However, the main problem here is that Bjarne has only the most sketchy understanding of anything he talks about, and he fills in the blanks with pure imagination.

Hans

He lacks any knowledge of basic physics and he comes here and pontificates and takes issue with real scientists.I suspect some kind of personality disorder,probably involving cows.

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

Of course not. It is possible that by a very well-planned and systematic scheme of point heating you could shape a a chaotic magnetization into a dipole field

First of all, what exactly do we mean by dipole field? Do we mean the pure dipole? In that case, there exists only one magnetization that I know of, that can produce such field: A solid sphere, homogeneously magnetized along one axis. Heating will not produce such a magnetization, no matter how well-planned, because heating (or for that matter, mechanical treatment) presents an opportunity to rearrange the domains to reduce the number of free surface poles, which any magnet will instantly seize - magnets hates free surface poles.

In case we mean any field with one "north" and one "south" pole, well yeah, there are many fields that can produce this and perhaps heating could at some point make a field that resembles this, but the argument is still valid; sooner or later, the domain structure will start to eliminate free poles.

I also dislike the term "chaotic magnetization" - what exactly does it cover? That the domains have arranged themselves to completely avoid free surface poles?

The essential point I was trying to make is that Bjarnes magnetization, though it will produce one "north" and one "south" pole on the sphere initially (it is certainly not a dipole field in the magnetostatic sense), there is a large divergence in the magnetization at these poles, as you force a large number of field lines to "collide" in very little space. This is not going to last, and heating these areas will only speed the process of getting rid of it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

First of all, what exactly do we mean by dipole field? Do we mean the pure dipole? In that case, there exists only one magnetization that I know of, that can produce such field: A solid sphere, homogeneously magnetized along one axis.

Since we are discussing the magnet field of Earth, I assume we are talking about a field with one dominant NP and one dominant SP.

Heating will not produce such a magnetization, no matter how well-planned, because heating (or for that matter, mechanical treatment) presents an opportunity to rearrange the domains to reduce the number of free surface poles, which any magnet will instantly seize - magnets hates free surface poles.

'Hates'? I think that basically magnets 'hate' themselves, and left to themselves will do what they can to revert to a chaotic state.

In case we mean any field with one "north" and one "south" pole, well yeah, there are many fields that can produce this and perhaps heating could at some point make a field that resembles this, but the argument is still valid; sooner or later, the domain structure will start to eliminate free poles.

Agreed.

I also dislike the term "chaotic magnetization" - what exactly does it cover? That the domains have arranged themselves to completely avoid free surface poles?

Again a soft definition: A situation where there is no dominant pole pair.

We are working on the continuous line between a perfect dipole and total chaos.

The essential point I was trying to make is that Bjarnes magnetization, though it will produce one "north" and one "south" pole on the sphere initially (it is certainly not a dipole field in the magnetostatic sense), there is a large divergence in the magnetization at these poles, as you force a large number of field lines to "collide" in very little space. This is not going to last, and heating these areas will only speed the process of getting rid of it.

Agreed.

Hans

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

'Hates'? I think that basically magnets 'hate' themselves, and left to themselves will do what they can to revert to a chaotic state.

To put it in strick conventional terms: Having free poles generates a demagnetization field, which has an associated magnetostatic energy density of

[latex]$\frac{B^2}{2\mu_0}$[/latex]

However, according to the universal principle of minimal energy being the most favorable state for any system, any magnet left to itself will in time minimize this energy, that is to say, minimize the number of free poles

 

[Bjarne]

You could use the container from a household water heater (varmvandsbeholder) it is not quite spherical but I doubt that will make any difference to your ideas.

I am sure that the magnetic polarizations will be at the edges.
Hence properly bended rings of flat iron would be better
A ball must be more almost completely round.

What about measuring near powerlines ?

I don’t understand ??

First of all, what exactly do we mean by dipole field? Do we mean the pure dipole? In that case, there exists only one magnetization that I know of, that can produce such field: A solid sphere, homogeneously magnetized along one axis. Heating will not produce such a magnetization, no matter how well-planned, because heating .........

I am not talking about solid iron ball, but a hollow ball.

It's a big difference how a MF will be in these.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am sure that the magnetic polarizations will be at the edges.
Hence properly bended rings of flat iron would be better
A ball must be more almost completely round.

It should not matter if it is completely round. The difference between a solid ball and a hollow ball is only that the magnet field must be conducted through the material of the hollow one. Therefore, as I have told you before, the thickness of the shell is also important, and to simulate Earth's crust, you need a very thin shell.

I am not talking about solid iron ball, but a hollow ball.
http://www.science27.com/Earth/Mag Cont.jpg
It's a big difference how a MF will be in these.

Your picture does not represent how a crustal magnet field in Earth would function. Since the crust is very thin compared to the diameter, you can't have an equivalent magnet pole to pole. Instead, you would have a composite magnet consisting of lots of localized fields.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

It should not matter if it is completely round. The difference between a solid ball and a hollow ball is only that the magnet field must be conducted through the material of the hollow one. Therefore, as I have told you before, the thickness of the shell is also important, and to simulate Earth's crust, you need a very thin shell.

Agree
But edges are per experience not so god, polarizations are “attracted” to these.

Your picture does not represent how a crustal magnet field in Earth would function. Since the crust is very thin compared to the diameter, you can't have an equivalent magnet pole to pole.

I do not agree
A MF has long range, so far I know you can measure the MF even from stars far away; - hence inside the crust of the Earth it should be no problem to integrate a global field.

Instead, you would have a composite magnet consisting of lots of localized fields.

And this is what sometimes happens on Earth too.

So the challenge is; can we experimentally integrate chaotic MF's to a global MF, only by the use of heat on a thin walled hollow iron ball. – I feel my self 879 % sure this is possible.

 

[MRC_Hans]

So the challenge is; can we experimentally integrate chaotic MF's to a global MF, only by the use of heat on a thin walled hollow iron ball. – I feel my self 879 % sure this is possible.

As I have already told you, the answer is yes. If you use a careful and deliberate scheme, that should be possible. This would not prove the ferromagnetic theory, however. Such a field would originate in the crust (wall of the ball), not from deep within the ball.

Also, of course, the heating of Earth's surface does not happen in some deliberate sequence, one place at a time. Instead, it is a chaotic effect, in many places at a time.

So I really don't see what you are trying to prove.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

As I have already told you, the answer is yes. If you use a careful and deliberate scheme, that should be possible.

It’s not necessary to follow a pattern when heating/cooling.
It’ simply all about the local MF that has it’s MNP over a thermal heated area, - that MF would be the strongest MF on that ball, simple because the less magnetic collision at its MNP, the more we must expect the "MF-entrance" to be open.
It’s very important to get that point.

The strongest MF on the ball, will easy “demand” weaker MF to adapt.
It’s the law of the jungle that is important.

This would not prove the ferromagnetic theory, however. Such a field would originate in the crust (wall of the ball), not from deep within the ball.

I am sure that thermal heat at the MNP area (magnetic entrance), in a thin walled and global ball shaped MF, will (seen from superficial perspective) seems to behave in the exact same way as if the ball were solid, or if it was a beam dipole.
Experiment must show this, none us of can answer that important question based on what we believe. – So long experiment isn’t done we are not talking about science, - but scamped work /conclusion.

Also, of course, the heating of Earth's surface does not happen in some deliberate sequence, one place at a time. Instead, it is a chaotic effect, in many places at a time.

Read above, >> Jungle law is what you need. >> The MNP placement is important and that’s it.
But this also mean that attempt to integrate the MF of the Earth (after a period with magnetic chaos) could happens from Congo,- only a question if a local MNP accidentally would be over Congo (that probably also have large thermal heat flow) and not over the Arctic magnetic (and thermal) anomaly, etc...

 

[Toke]

Bjarne,
I have still not gotten a good explanation of why you find measuring a regular power line's influence on earth's magnetic field irrelevant.

To me it sounds like a good place to start, right after reading through the reports of how compass users have been complaining about the lines.

Think of ships going through Øresund and checking their magnetic compass at every watch shift. There must be lots of reports, try call the pilot station.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne,
I have still not gotten a good explanation of why you find measuring a regular power line's influence on earth's magnetic field irrelevant.

I don’t

To me it sounds like a good place to start, right after reading through the reports of how compass users have been complaining about the lines.

The compass off course must point to MNP (so long the MF is integrated in a global field).

We are only discussing, - shortly spoken; how can the power lines on the MNP point directly into the ground.

The answer is that thermal heat makes it possible for the magnetic power lines to bend and hence avoid magnetic collision. (magnetic collision are weakening and disrupting a MF)
Notice thermal heat is everywhere in the crust.
But some places stronger than others.
When MNP is in a perfect thermal heated area, the magnetic disturbing influence is much weaker than cold areas, - this will open the “MF-entrance” more widely.
This is what experiments must reveal.

The fact that the magnetic power lines at MNP points directly into the ground, is the only argument that justifies the geo dynamo invention.

I am sure it is easy experimental to smash that only argument, >> thermal heat + MNP gives the exact same result.

Would you honestly believe in the geo dynamo, the day you know that the only argument for that is gone, and a ferro-MF model seems to me enough?

If not, think about all the phenomena that in no possible way can be adapted to the old geo-dynamo speculation, - they “should” – in order to give some holistic common sense.
It so crystal clear >> something is seriously rotten.

 

[Reality Check]

We are only discussing, - shortly spoken; how can the power lines on the MNP point directly into the ground.

http://www.science27.com/Earth/Heatstrem.jpg

Your diagram is idiotic. There is no Big Box of Thermal Heat below the north or south magnetic poles. The Earth's crust below the magnetic poles is completely normal. There is nothing special about it.

Then there are your bits of ignorance:

• There is something called "magnetic power lines".
  There is not - there are magnetic filed lines which are a representation of the magnetic vector field. They do not flow along the Earth's crust as your pretty picture suggests.
• There is something called "magnetic collision". You have never defined this.
• That "thermal heat makes it possible for the magnetic power lines to bend and hence avoid magnetic collision".
  Heat reduces the magnetic field. It does not redirect it.

 

[Reality Check]

Flaws and outstanding questions in Bjarne's MF idea

Bjarne has an idea that the Earth's magnetic field is generated by ferromagnets in the Earth's crust and the solar wind.The flaws in this idea are easy to see:

1. The magnetic poles have been measured to be ~5000 kilometers below the surface of the Earth.
   This has been known for 172 years !
2. The solar wind does not change the overall strength of the Earth's MF.
   It has even stopped without any effects on the MF.
3. The crust varies in thickness - the MF does not correlate
   The strength of a magnetic field from a ferromagnetic material depends on the amount of the material. There is less crust under oceans and so Bjarne's idea predicts a geographical correlation between the MF strength and oceans.
4. MF reversals are not explained by Bjarne's idea
   The only ways that I can think of to reverse the MF in his idea are to turn the Earth's crust inside out or to heat it all up to ~800K and apply an external field.
5. Bjarne is ignorant that heat decreases the strength of ferromagnets
   And that is all that happens until the Curie temperature where they become paramagnetic.
6. An abysmal lack of physics and mathematics on his crank web page.
7. What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?
   First asked 15 February 2010
   A resounding silence from Bjarne so far.
8. Rocks aren't strongly enough magnetized to account for the observed geomagnetic field
   First asked 16 February 2010
   Bjarne, if you have sources that contradict this please cite them.
   A resounding silence from Bjarne so far.
9. Sources to support your assertion that the Earth's MF is caused by the solar wind
   First asked 16 February 2010
   The physical evidence is that the solar wind obviously shapes the Earth's magnetosphere. Geomagnetic storms can even influence the Earth's surface over short periods. But when the solar wind varies (or even stops) the overall strength of the MF does not change.
   A resounding silence from Bjarne so far.

Bjarne ignorance of physics has lead him to make up his own language. So we cannot really know what "magnetic collisions" are. According to his latest post it is something to do with the magnetic poles and a Big Box of Thermal Heat.


So lets have a look at the Big Box of Thermal Heat (BBTH). It is obviously in the Earth's crust just below each magnetic pole. We know that the magnetic poles move st rates of kilometers per year.

• The NMP is moving at 64 km per year towards Russia.
• The SMP is ng north west by about 10 to 15 kilometers per year.

Thus the BBTH must also be moving at the same rate. This is a problem for Bjarne since we know that heat sources in the Earth do not move. What happens is that the crust moves above them, e.g. the mantle plume that created the Hawaiian Islands. That movement is on the scale of centimeters per year.

First asked 26 February 2010
Bjarne,
What creates your Big Box of Thermal Heat?

 

[Toke]

10. Bjarne cannot tell the difference between a power line that carries electrical power from one place to another and a magnetic field line.

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

I am not talking about solid iron ball, but a hollow ball.

Well, I wasn't talking to you, so what you are talking about doesn't really matter

It's a big difference how a MF will be in these.

I believe one of Reality Check's questions to you is about just that - number 7 in fact:

What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?

Hint: The field produced by your magnets is not like the earth's actual magnetic field at all.