The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Mon Sep 05, 2016 8:01 am

@jimmcginn: please use the forum's quoting mechanism to clearly identify who said what. Don't just copy the text, insert your comments, and post it back, without clearly identifying which statements are yours and which statements were made by someone else. It adds unnecessary confusion when other people have to compare your posts to previous posts, to figure out which statements were yours.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am

CharlesChandler wrote:@jimmcginn: please use the forum's quoting mechanism to clearly identify who said what. Don't just copy the text, insert your comments, and post it back, without clearly identifying which statements are yours and which statements were made by someone else. It adds unnecessary confusion when other people have to compare your posts to previous posts, to figure out which statements were yours.


One of the things If deal with all the time is blowback from people who upon being informed (by me) that their intuition has been misleading them want to lash out at me. It's not my fault, dude. You believed what you believed because you weren't careful enough, skeptical enough, cynical enough. Don't get mad at me because I followed the scientific method while you ignored the scientific method and followed your intuition. Don't get mad at me because you took people's word on it while I sought empirical verification. Don't get mad at me because I worked hard to verify first and believe second while you lazily accepted the consensus.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

These are my books currently available on Amazon:
Vortex Phase: http://goo.gl/JFbXQr
What Goes Up: http://goo.gl/R6798E

Other books on the horizon:
Why Wind Farms Cause Drought
Meteorology of the Future
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby MosaicDave » Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:31 am

jimmcginn wrote:Don't get mad at me because I worked hard to verify first and believe second while you lazily accepted the consensus.

What method have you used to verify that water evaporates to form microdroplets?

Just because you reject a consensus interpretation doesn't make you right. Even if the consensus is wrong, you can end up being even more wrong.
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:37 am

jimmcginn wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:@jimmcginn: please use the forum's quoting mechanism to clearly identify who said what. Don't just copy the text, insert your comments, and post it back, without clearly identifying which statements are yours and which statements were made by someone else. It adds unnecessary confusion when other people have to compare your posts to previous posts, to figure out which statements were yours.

One of the things If deal with all the time is blowback from people who upon being informed (by me) that their intuition has been misleading them want to lash out at me. It's not my fault, dude. You believed what you believed because you weren't careful enough, skeptical enough, cynical enough. Don't get mad at me because I followed the scientific method while you ignored the scientific method and followed your intuition. Don't get mad at me because you took people's word on it while I sought empirical verification. Don't get mad at me because I worked hard to verify first and believe second while you lazily accepted the consensus.

See how easy that was? You just click the "Quote" button, and add your text at the end. To get fancy, you can learn how to do multiple quotes in the same post, by manually placing the begin/end quote directives around the quoted text. When doing this, refrain from inserting your own text in the middle of the quote, because that makes it look like the person said something that he/she did not (as you have done a couple times). Then, if you could just refrain from ad hominem arguments, we'd have the bare minimum requirement for a productive discussion.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby MosaicDave » Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:01 am

jimmcginn wrote:> How big do you say the microdroplets are?
Not my area of expertise. Try doing a google search.

Well then, could they be just a single molecule? Would each one still consist of a liquid then, if the temperature were below the boiling point?

How do you suppose these microdroplets form? I mean, if a drop of water is just sitting there on your table, and it can't diffuse into the air as a gas because it's well below the boiling point, then what makes little groups of molecules sort of leap up into the air to form droplets?

I'm also still wondering how the microdroplets-in-air that you describe, differs from an aerosol - since that word seemed to quite displease you, when Charles suggested it.
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby willendure » Mon Sep 05, 2016 1:42 pm

willendure wrote:Does the presence of water in air make ir more or less dense than equivalent air at the same temperature and pressure?

jimmcginn wrote:More dense. See Avogadro's law.



I am a little confused. Did you not earlier claim that wet air is less dense, hence why it rises to form clouds? Perhaps you changed your mind and we are now all in agreement that wetter air is denser.
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Sep 05, 2016 2:59 pm

MD: How big do you say the microdroplets are?

JMcG:
Not my area of expertise. Try doing a google search.

MD: Well then, could they be just a single molecule?

JMcG:
Actually, that’s impossible. (Consult steam tables.)

MD: Would each one still consist of a liquid then, if the temperature were below the boiling point?

JMcG:
Yes, of course. (However, along the surface of microdroplets it is solid--this being surface tension. [btw, surface tension and ice are the same thing])

MD: How do you suppose these microdroplets form? I mean, if a drop of water is just sitting there on your table, and it can't diffuse into the air as a gas because it's well below the boiling point, then what makes little groups of molecules sort of leap up into the air to form droplets?

JMcG:
There are basically two forces that cause microdroplets to be separated from a body of water and rise against the force of gravity, as we see in evaporation: 1) Their own momentum [in this sense, they really do “leap”] and, 2) electrostatic forces, the origin of which is the electricity (negatively charged) that constantly flows into the top of the atmosphere as the solar wind.

Also, keep in mind that the molecules in our atmosphere are moving around at 700 to 900 miles an hour, so there is no shortage of energy to facilitate the separation and up-movement of heavier H2O microdroplets as they, effectively, balance out the electric charges that constantly flow in from the top of the atmosphere, allowing moist air to “diffuse” upward and remain suspended as high as or higher than a thousand feet in the lower troposphere.

(Note: I put the word, ‘diffuse’ in quotes because it is commonly misused to suggest that diffusion is a process, force, or cause rather than just an observation. [Just to be clear, my denotation here is that diffusion is an observation and not a process, force, or cause.] As I indicated, electro-statics are the force that causes heavier microdroplets to rise.)

The inclusion of suspended microdroplets (which have an external positive charge [due to their surface tension]) are what makes moist air both heavier and slightly more viscous than dry air.

MD: I'm also still wondering how the microdroplets-in-air that you describe, differs from an aerosol - since that word seemed to quite displease you, when Charles suggested it.

JMcG:
I don’t think there is an absolute difference other than that suspended microdroplets are small enough to remain in suspension and to remain invisible to the naked eye whereas aerosol tends to be bigger and therefore prone to falling out of suspension and/or be visible to the naked eye.

-----------------------------------------

JMcG:
You guys are trying to come up with a linear understanding of a substance the collective behavior of which is decidedly non-linear. That is the mistake everybody makes with H2O. IOW, everybody starts with the assumption that H2O must be simple and it just isn't so.

There is a very counterintuitive mechanism happening with H2O at the molecular level. Once you understand that mechanism you have the basis for understanding all of the quirkiness of H2O. But, on the other hand, if you want to get an understanding of it all without first understanding the "underlying mechanism" that I attempt to explicate in my paper (see "Breakthrough" link up-thread) then you are going to have to struggle with it alone, as I did for four years. So, if you are looking for a shortcut I suggest reading and studying this paper. If you take my advice and work at it real hard you may eventually overcome your desire to impose a linear understanding on a substance, H2O, the collective behavior of which is decidedly non-linear.

-----------------------------------------

JMcG:
Here is an interesting concept that might get you back on the right track and into the right frame of mind. Did you know that the instant before water that is being heated in an enclosed container (as in a steam engine, for example) flashes into steam it goes through a phase (maybe no longer than a billionth of a second) in which it is as hard or harder than ice? When you understand why this is the case you will also understand why it is totally impossible for evaporation (at ambient temperatures) to produce gaseous H2O.

BTW, the same thing happens in non-Newtonian fluids:
How Non-Newtonian Fluids Reveal the Mechanism Underlying Ice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vPdAo78rU

And the same thing happens in the atmosphere under moist/dry wind shear conditions
Surface Tension, Jet Streams, Storms and the Twisted Truth of Meteorology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6GZEn7N7Ss

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:06 pm

willendure wrote:
willendure wrote:Does the presence of water in air make it more or less dense than equivalent air at the same temperature and pressure?

jimmcginn wrote:More dense. See Avogadro's law.



I am a little confused. Did you not earlier claim that wet air is less dense, hence why it rises to form clouds? Perhaps you changed your mind and we are now all in agreement that wetter air is denser.


Yes, somehow you got the wrong idea. I've always maintained that moist air is heavier:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16306#p113238
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:11 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:Then, if you could just refrain from ad hominem arguments, we'd have the bare minimum requirement for a productive discussion.


Uh, okay. Let's start here:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16318
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:30 pm

MosaicDave wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:Don't get mad at me because I worked hard to verify first and believe second while you lazily accepted the consensus.

What method have you used to verify that water evaporates to form microdroplets?

Just because you reject a consensus interpretation doesn't make you right. Even if the consensus is wrong, you can end up being even more wrong.


I would welcome being shown wrong in that the first step to a new discovery is to be shown that what you currently believe is wrong.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby willendure » Tue Sep 06, 2016 2:18 am

jimmcginn wrote:MD: How big do you say the microdroplets are?

...

JMcG:
The inclusion of suspended microdroplets (which have an external positive charge [due to their surface tension]) are what makes moist air both heavier and slightly more viscous than dry air.


I think these questions could be answered by experiment fairly easily.

We can determine the density of a gas easily by gas laws:

http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/GasDensity.html

But you claim that Avagadro's number is wrong in the case of water micro droplets. Therefore I suggest taking some moist air from the atmosphere, fixing its temperature and volume and measuring its pressure. Then freeze out the water, and weigh that to determine how much water there was in the air. Then return the air without the water to the same temperature and volume and measure pressure, to determine how its density is different.

To measure the size of the micro droplets of air, simply pass through ever finer filters. Measure weight of filters before and after until you get to one that catches the droplets. Then you can measure how much of the water exists as droplets of a given size.
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Sep 06, 2016 4:41 am

willendure wrote:I suggest taking some moist air from the atmosphere, fixing its temperature and volume and measuring its pressure. Then freeze out the water, and weigh that to determine how much water there was in the air. Then return the air without the water to the same temperature and volume and measure pressure, to determine how its density is different.

To measure the size of the micro droplets of air, simply pass through ever finer filters. Measure weight of filters before and after until you get to one that catches the droplets. Then you can measure how much of the water exists as droplets of a given size.


I think it easier and more definitive to control for all factors except humidity and directly weigh two volumes of moist vs. dry air, as eluded to up thread.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby GaryN » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:03 am

BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
https://zenodo.org/record/37224

You may not find this paper an easy read, but if you can understand what is being said you will have the basis of a very profound understanding of H2O.


I like it, and if I understand it correctly, which I won't say I do fully yet, then the implications are profound indeed. Some further ideas came to mind, staggering in their implications, but will have to re-read your paper and make sure I'm not jumping the gun, but my brain put the work of Buckminster Fuller, Gerrald Pollack, and perhaps Bob Beckwiths' neutrino models together and came up with a concept of 'charge-pattern integrities'.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2535
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:35 am

GaryN wrote:I like it, and if I understand it correctly, which I won't say I do fully yet, then the implications are profound indeed. Some further ideas came to mind, staggering in their implications, but will have to re-read your paper and make sure I'm not jumping the gun, but my brain put the work of Buckminster Fuller, Gerrald Pollack, and perhaps Bob Beckwiths' neutrino models together and came up with a concept of 'charge-pattern integrities'.


I prefer the KISS method:
GoodBadWeather.png
On the other hand, sinking air is associated with warming and drying conditions. So the first important point to keep in mind is rising air = moistening, and sinking air = drying.

http://www.weatherworksinc.com/high-low-pressure


If I was a pipe fitter, I might not be able to move beyond a steam table.

So a simple falsification of the notion, wet air is heaver than dry air is;
Rainy weather generally low pressure, rising moist air.
Calm weather, high pressure, associated with heavier dry air.
Which goes along with reduced lift on aircraft wings due to lower density, and reduced engine efficiency due to lower (displaced)oxygen levels. Engine efficiency would be greater if wet air was heavier, O2 levels would be normal and air would have more mass for thrust.
Which supports clothes drying on a clothes line.
Electrostatic extraction of microdroplets from soil and water surface or any surface, as an alternative to evaporation, is all conjecture and all mind experiment.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:10 pm

A link to a 1953 paper using two methods to remove precipitated water from artic air and in the next step to weigh only the condensed H2O gas.
One method is use of air filters the other is a absolute methanol solution to filter. But the idea being to weigh only condensed H2O gas.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... -0469(1954)011%253C0214:ATFTDO%253E2.0.CO%253B2&ved=0ahUKEwjmr4j8mIvPAhUDPz4KHYQmAigQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNFuHeVXDWZDUYMyLf-gPHtGnLEAJQ&sig2=QAlYcnAM06W3DQEP4S8tIA

Thereby falsifying J M "s notion of wet steam only in humid air and also the boyancy of humid air. I think someone posted this method previously but maybe the post was removed.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests