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 fosborn_ » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:09 am

FOsborn ;Okay, but all your visions of grandeur, will go unfulfilled until you can show there is no gaseous phase of h20 in the atmosphere, which I have provided in the arctic experiment, showing it does. And you have nothing, of this quality to counter it. A real scientist would admit his thinking is falsified, until he can come up with physical test to show otherwise. Not just imagine it


Mcginn..
Instead of continually making claims based on your imagination why don't you contact the authors of the paper and ask them how they (according to you) verified that their alleged H2O gas was genuinely gaseous. You probably won't get a response, but maybe that in itself will tell you what you need to know.


All your telling me, is you got nothing to counter the results.

In the course of an investigation of ice fog in Alaska, a fild technique was needed for the determination of the water content of teh atmoshere at temperatures below freezing, particularly in the temperature range from -20 to -50 C.
Although the literature revealed that many methods of jumidity measurement have been developed or proposed [1] , no satgisfactory instrumental or chemical technique appeared to be available for field measuremnts at low temperatures.
Further study of the literature showed, however, that Karl Fischer reagent [2]. with use of methanol as the water extractant [3], was useful for laoratory titrimetric determinations of moisture associated with a wide variety of substances, including air. For colorless solutions, such as water in methanol, a visual end-point is applicable and the apparatus is realtively simple. With this information, it was proposed to adapt the Karl Fischer technique for use in the filed.
...Millipore filters were used to separate particulate water from the water vapor component of the atmoshere. This type of filter is a plastic, porous structure, and has a varly low resistance to flow of air.. It will retain particles down to 0.02u within 10u of the suface of the filter [4]. An important characteristic of this filter is that the amount of water vapor it will absorb or release appears to be negligible un the conditions encoutered in the field.


Mcginn..
The notion that condensation requires a solid nucleus to get the process started is one of many urban myths associated with meteorology. (Haven't we been over this already?)
Al


Open Yale Courses
- Clouds and Precipitation (Cloud Chamber Experiment)

http://oyc.yale.edu/geology-and-geophys ... ecture-11#[/quote]
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: 521
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby antosarai » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:55 am

jimmcginn wrote:(snip) it’s common knowledge that a plasma is like a gas but has properties similar to a solid, like the ability to maintain a form and a surface—structural properties. So the possibility that the structure of tornadoes can be explained by it being some kind of plasma also seemed obvious.

Never heard or read plasmas may have surface-structural properties or ability to mantain a form. Could you please forward some reference?
antosarai
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 8:41 am

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:09 am

fosborn_ wrote:[...Millipore filters were used to separate particulate water from the water vapor component of the atmoshere. This type of filter is a plastic, porous structure, and has a varly low resistance to flow of air.. It will retain particles down to 0.02u within 10u of the suface of the filter [4]. An important characteristic of this filter is that the amount of water vapor it will absorb or release appears to be negligible un the conditions encoutered in the field.
I'm not sure what referencing this paper is trying to prove. If it only retains particles down to 0.02μ what about the molecules below that threshold? Are you stating that water droplets of less than circa 200,000 molecules are gas?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:46 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:[...Millipore filters were used to separate particulate water from the water vapor component of the atmoshere. This type of filter is a plastic, porous structure, and has a varly low resistance to flow of air.. It will retain particles down to 0.02u within 10u of the suface of the filter [4]. An important characteristic of this filter is that the amount of water vapor it will absorb or release appears to be negligible un the conditions encoutered in the field.
I'm not sure what referencing this paper is trying to prove. If it only retains particles down to 0.02μ what about the molecules below that threshold? Are you stating that water droplets of less than circa 200,000 molecules are gas?

The paper clearly removes precipitated frozen water content, then measures what can only be the gas phase or water vapor content of the atmosphere. :roll:
So a good question is what size droplets have been measured in that environment? Can you enlighten us? Or are you assuming?
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: 521
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:32 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:[...Millipore filters were used to separate particulate water from the water vapor component of the atmoshere. This type of filter is a plastic, porous structure, and has a varly low resistance to flow of air.. It will retain particles down to 0.02u within 10u of the suface of the filter [4]. An important characteristic of this filter is that the amount of water vapor it will absorb or release appears to be negligible un the conditions encoutered in the field.
I'm not sure what referencing this paper is trying to prove. If it only retains particles down to 0.02μ what about the molecules below that threshold? Are you stating that water droplets of less than circa 200,000 molecules are gas?

The paper clearly removes precipitated frozen water content, then measures what can only be the gas phase or water vapor content of the atmosphere. :roll:
Please explain how the filter is removing all the non-gas phase water when it only retains "particles down to 0.02μ"

fosborn_ wrote:So a good question is what size droplets have been measured in that environment?
I'm not sure how you would measure droplets that small in any environment and this experiment certainly didn't as the post filtered water was calculated in total, not by molecule. Theoretically it cannot separate all water droplets from water molecules because it only retains particles "down to 0.02μ". What is separating particles from 0.000275μ <= 0.02μ. The experiment may be removing most of the water droplets and possibly enough for the experiments purpose, but it can't remove all of them so there is no way to determine if the remaining water is single molecule or droplets between 2 and 200,000 molecules.

fosborn_ wrote:Can you enlighten us?
Not unless I can devise an apparatus that can measure airborne particles at the sub nano scale.

fosborn_ wrote:Or are you assuming?
The only assumption I can see is that this experiment removes all the water droplets. It doesn't and it can't. For all we know the remaining water could be in the range 2 - 200,000 molecules and none of it is gas.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:19 pm

The experiment may be removing most of the water droplets and possibly enough for the experiments purpose,

A good point, based on vapor alone, they didn't come up short on what it should have been. So nano droplets (which I think are so unstable due to the huge curvature on such a small volume, will have super weakened surface tension) would be such a small factor, and of little consequence overall.

Not unless I can devise an apparatus that can measure airborne particles at the sub nano scale.

Can you prove such water droplets exist more than the same time scale as the size in free air?
If you accepted evaporation as a gas phase, would a stable nano water droplets in free air seem unrealistic to you ? Cause it does to me.

I'm thinking this paper is saying they exist on about the same time scale as the size.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/ja405408n

This is an old paper comparing experiments to the calculations of evaporation.
https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewco ... ers_theses

Arctic Fog Droplet Size Distribution and Its Effect on Light Attenuation..
Arctic fog droplet sizes 3.3 to 65 μm, on gell imprents Using an electron microscope.
91% nuclei were sea salt particles.
Fog droplet impacting a gelatin film dissolves some of the gelatin and leaves a trace after it evaporates.
Refference to a paper Jiusto (1965) Ussing a simple wintunnel with gelaton films for droplets .5-25 μm radius using the same method
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10. ... -0469(1973)030%3C0635%3AAFDSDA%3E2.0.CO%3B2


SHEBA program, all-liquid clouds were identified 19% of the time and were characterized by an annual average droplet Re of 6.5 μm, LWC of 0.10 g m−3...
Because the distribution of retrieved Re is roughly normal in shape (Fig. 11a), the annual mean, median, and mode values are all about 6.5 μm. Monthly mean and median values vary between 5 and 7 μm over the course of the year...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAM2297.1

To show measurements have been made and maybe show the why the filter size limit...
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: 521
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:53 am

fosborn_ wrote:
The experiment may be removing most of the water droplets and possibly enough for the experiments purpose,

A good point, based on vapor alone, they didn't come up short on what it should have been.
Why would they be short. No-one is saying the water has disappeared only that they cant be sure what form it is. It might be gas or it might be sub 200,000 molecule size. Their experiment can’t tell the difference.

fosborn_ wrote:So nano droplets (which I think are so unstable due to the huge curvature on such a small volume, will have super weakened surface tension) would be such a small factor, and of little consequence overall.
Not just nano droplets. From 2 to 200,000 is the range. How do you propose that large droplets are formed? Are you saying that none can exist in this range which means they discretely appear and 200,000+ instantly group together?

fosborn_ wrote:
Not unless I can devise an apparatus that can measure airborne particles at the sub nano scale.

Can you prove such water droplets exist more than the same time scale as the size in free air?
No. And no-one can yet disprove it. I’m pretty sure however that larger droplets do not magically appear at the micro scale.

fosborn_ wrote:If you accepted evaporation as a gas phase, would a stable nano water droplets in free air seem unrealistic to you ? Cause it does to me.
I don’t necessarily accept evaporation as a gas phase but if I did, I see no reason why say 10,000 particles could become 10,001 particles and be just as stable at 200,000 becoming 200,001. Plus, as I’ve stated many times the range is 2 to 200,000. That’s not all at the nano scale but still outside the scope of the experiment. I only mention a nano scale measurement device because that is the only way to prove water is in gas phase.

fosborn_ wrote:I'm thinking this paper is saying they exist on about the same time scale as the size.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/ja405408n
I don’t think this is relevant to whether the particles can exist or not. If your theory assumes droplets discretely appear at the micro level than anything is possible. Personally I would assume droplets accrete steadily.

fosborn_ wrote:This is an old paper comparing experiments to the calculations of evaporation.
https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewco ... ers_theses
Seems largely irrelevant. They are measuring the rate of evaporation but have no way of determining if the particles are single molecules or groups.

fosborn_ wrote:Arctic Fog Droplet Size Distribution and Its Effect on Light Attenuation..
Arctic fog droplet sizes 3.3 to 65 μm, on gell imprents Using an electron microscope.
91% nuclei were sea salt particles.
Fog droplet impacting a gelatin film dissolves some of the gelatin and leaves a trace after it evaporates.
Refference to a paper Jiusto (1965) Ussing a simple wintunnel with gelaton films for droplets .5-25 μm radius using the same method
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10. ... -0469(1973)030%3C0635%3AAFDSDA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Unfortunately just like the others this experiment doesn’t go down to a small enough scale;
Imprint down to 1μm can be obtained


fosborn_ wrote:SHEBA program, all-liquid clouds were identified 19% of the time and were characterized by an annual average droplet Re of 6.5 μm, LWC of 0.10 g m−3...
Because the distribution of retrieved Re is roughly normal in shape (Fig. 11a), the annual mean, median, and mode values are all about 6.5 μm. Monthly mean and median values vary between 5 and 7 μm over the course of the year...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAM2297.1

To show measurements have been made and maybe show the why the filter size limit...
How is that paper evidence that smaller particles don’t exist? They didn't count all the particles to arrive at those averages, they just identified a large amount of water at those scales. 99.999% of the water on earth is on or in the surface, therefore, by that logic, clouds and rain must not exist.

All these links are not even relevant to the discussion. Where’s the experiment that has measured water at the single molecule scale to disprove the OP’s theory? The fact remains that water “vapour” could be liquid water at the sub micro level. It certainly must exist 200,000 molecules and down in a range we just can't measure to be certain.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:48 am

Aardwolf wrote:All these links are not even relevant to the discussion. Where’s the experiment that has measured water at the single molecule scale to disprove the OP’s theory? The fact remains that water “vapour” could be liquid water at the sub micro level. It certainly must exist 200,000 molecules and down in a range we just can't measure to be certain.

I don't know what the deal is with Frank. He is one of the few people that read both of my books. People that have read my books are either extremely positive or extremely negative. There is no in-between. Strangely, Frank has been both.

When he first read my books he was extremely positive. He even went so far as to recommend it here on Thunderbolts:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 71#p114172
But, as you can see further along in that same thread, he changed his mind. What happened? I know what happened, he encountered trolls on usenet:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... EU4TZlCwAJ
(On usenet Frank goes by the name of Paco.)

People who have read my books describe the experience as being almost religious--kind of an out-of-body experience. That was not intentional on my part. I was just trying to get people to think critically about the underlying assumptions of storm theory--something that never happens in this intellectually dead subject.

At times I would think Frank is playing devil's advocate. Or maybe that he as mad at me for not being more proactive in proving my own theory. I also think he is frustrated by the fact that one can easily find people who claim to understand current theory on storms (the convection model) it but none of them are able to explain why in much detail--which, of course, is a big reason as to why I wrote the books.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:05 pm

antosarai wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:(snip) it’s common knowledge that a plasma is like a gas but has properties similar to a solid, like the ability to maintain a form and a surface—structural properties. So the possibility that the structure of tornadoes can be explained by it being some kind of plasma also seemed obvious.

Never heard or read plasmas may have surface-structural properties or ability to maintain a form. Could you please forward some reference?


I think you should make more effort to understand the premise before you start looking for reasons to dismiss it. Here is another link to another post on this forum. I put it there specifically for you and others like you that are new to my hypothesis. I think it is important that you avoid the temptation to start looking for reason to dismiss it. Whether or not it complies with some academic definition is not as important as getting an accurate picture in your mind of this revolutionary approach to understanding the nature of storms.

Here is the link:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 10&t=16885

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:24 pm

Aardwolf »..Where’s the experiment that has measured water at the single molecule scale to disprove the OP’s theory?

I get the impression, You think, as if the OP has proven anything about his hypothesis. How does ice sublimate? And how do water droplets get liberated from a water surface? If there is a magic with enough energy to break droplets free from the surface tension, why not enough to remove molecules themselves?

No, for me the current model is still much better.

MicroDrpEvap.png
MicroDrpEvap.png (36.91 KiB) Viewed 1693 times

This shrinking droplets looses surface tension, that tells you droplets will evaporate and are evaporating.
The smaller particles smaller than the filtering in the arctic filter, have a vary poor probability of being present. As soon as they freeze they become attractive to evaporation of other droplets. Its momentary size will grow quickly. So vary unlikely many smaller ice particles are going to be present. Its not perfect but its a good indicator. The problem with Mcginns coolaid it blinds you to reasonable science.

I think this is another paper using simular techniques as a previous refference, getting simular results..
Arctic fog droplets were sampled on narrow glass plates precoated with chloride-sensitive gelatin film at Point Barrow, Alaska, in the summer of 1971. The relation between the radius of the log droplet and the radius of the imprint on the film was determined experimentally. The collection efficiency of the fog droplet was determined. About 20,000 fog droplet radii were measured.The results of the analysis of the concentration and the size distribution of fog droplets are presented in the form of tables and figures. It is shown that the concentration and the size distribution changed rapidly with time and space; the droplet radii ranged widely between 3.3 and 65 µm; the maximum concentration was 24 droplets cm3 and the liquid water content was 0.09 gm m3 at a visibility of 250 m. Calculations were made of the attenuation by fog at wavelengths of 0.55 and 1.06 µm for the observed size distributions and concentrations of fog droplets. The values of the visual range calculated at a threshold constant of 5% were closer to the observed values than those at a threshold constant of 2%

Arctic Fog Droplet Size Distribution and Its Effect on Light Attenuation. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ttenuation [accessed Nov 15 2017].


So how do all the references relate. To the objective observer, its measurements about the environment. They might like to know what are reasonable expectations and what are not. It was one of my priority interest in the context of the discussion. To coolaid drinkers, for sure its nonsense..

Drying of wet shoes, the lighter h2o gas trapped in an inverted bottle, not allowing it to dry out as the up right bottle. Mcginn says droplet laden, humid air will sink not rise.
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: 521
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:54 am

Ok, so you’re not going to actually respond to any of the experimental limitations I have pointed out nor reply to any questions. You modus operandi is just to keep posting water based papers that support none of theoretical assertions that are made.

fosborn_ wrote:I get the impression, You think, as if the OP has proven anything about his hypothesis.
On the contrary if you understood anything about the scientific method theories cannot be proven, only disproven. You have failed and are failing to disprove the premise of the theory. You won’t even engage the points I made about the papers.

fosborn_ wrote: How does ice sublimate?
Who knows? Show me some genuine empirical evidence and we can discuss. Unfortunately you can’t do that because none exists so we’re stuck with theoretical assumptions.

fosborn_ wrote:And how do water droplets get liberated from a water surface?
See above.

fosborn_ wrote: If there is a magic with enough energy to break droplets free from the surface tension, why not enough to remove molecules themselves?
So you accept that both mechanisms are possible.

fosborn_ wrote:No, for me the current model is still much better.
Yet you fail to discuss any of the limitations of the papers you provided. What specifically, makes them better? It's not because of evidence.

fosborn_ wrote:
MicroDrpEvap.png

This shrinking droplets looses surface tension, that tells you droplets will evaporate and are evaporating.
I don’t remember anyone here saying evaporation is impossible.

fosborn_ wrote:The smaller particles smaller than the filtering in the arctic filter, have a vary poor probability of being present. As soon as they freeze they become attractive to evaporation of other droplets. Its momentary size will grow quickly. So vary unlikely many smaller ice particles are going to be present. Its not perfect but its a good indicator.
So you are open to the existence of smaller particles you just don't want them to hang around for long. So please explain why smaller particles of say 2 or 3 H2O atoms rush to find other droplets yet a particle of 1 atom is happy to stay in perpetuity. Why isn't your assertion about the smaller particles true about the smallest particle?

fosborn_ wrote:The problem with Mcginns coolaid it blinds you to reasonable science.
Yet ironically your favourite theory has no genuine empirical evidence to back it up. You’re happy with the statement “we don’t have the equipment to measure small water droplets therefore they must not exist so we will theorise them out of existence”. How very scientific of you.

fosborn_ wrote:I think this is another paper using simular techniques as a previous refference, getting simular results..
Arctic fog droplets were sampled on narrow glass plates precoated with chloride-sensitive gelatin film at Point Barrow, Alaska, in the summer of 1971. The relation between the radius of the log droplet and the radius of the imprint on the film was determined experimentally. The collection efficiency of the fog droplet was determined. About 20,000 fog droplet radii were measured.The results of the analysis of the concentration and the size distribution of fog droplets are presented in the form of tables and figures. It is shown that the concentration and the size distribution changed rapidly with time and space; the droplet radii ranged widely between 3.3 and 65 µm; the maximum concentration was 24 droplets cm3 and the liquid water content was 0.09 gm m3 at a visibility of 250 m. Calculations were made of the attenuation by fog at wavelengths of 0.55 and 1.06 µm for the observed size distributions and concentrations of fog droplets. The values of the visual range calculated at a threshold constant of 5% were closer to the observed values than those at a threshold constant of 2%

Arctic Fog Droplet Size Distribution and Its Effect on Light Attenuation. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ttenuation [accessed Nov 15 2017].
Another irrelevant paper but let me ask you some questions I hope you feel you can answer;
1) Can this experiment detect droplets in the range 0.001µm to 3.3µm?
2) Do you think droplets in the range 0.001µm 3.3µm are possible?
3) Is it your belief that if an experiment does not have the sensitivity to detect something, that something does not exist?

fosborn_ wrote:So how do all the references relate. To the objective observer, its measurements about the environment. They might like to know what are reasonable expectations and what are not. It was one of my priority interest in the context of the discussion.
Unfortunately none of the experiments in these papers are sensitive enough to disprove the OP (nor support the prevailing theory), which makes them irrelevant to the discussion.

fosborn_ wrote:To coolaid drinkers, for sure its nonsense..
So, I’m the one drinking coolaid because I am open to the possibility that water can exist as gas or extremely small droplets because neither can be disproven, and you are the objective observer because all the papers you have provided (and won’t discuss their limits) are right because they say so and you agree with them (but won’t discuss their limits). I see.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:04 am

fosborn_ wrote:I get the impression, You think, as if the OP has proven anything about his hypothesis.

Aardwolf wrote:On the contrary if you understood anything about the scientific method theories cannot be proven, only disproven. You have failed and are failing to disprove the premise of the theory. You won’t even engage the points I made about the papers.

Hmmm.. seems like a subjective statement to me..

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_06
Misconception: Science proves ideas.
Misconception: Science can only disprove ideas.

Correction:Science neither proves nor disproves. It accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, but may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives



Aardwolf wrote:Who knows? Show me some genuine empirical evidence and we can discuss. Unfortunately you can’t do that because none exists so we’re stuck with theoretical assumptions.


fosborn_ wrote:And how do water droplets get liberated from a water surface?

Aardwolf wrote:Unfortunately you can’t do that because none exists so we’re stuck with theoretical assumptions...See above.


Then we have to work with what is implicit in the papers. I don't think we are too far apart except in levels of confidence an d what is relevant.


fosborn_ wrote: If there is a magic with enough energy to break droplets free from the surface tension, why not enough to remove molecules themselves?

Aardwolf wrote:So you accept that both mechanisms are possible


yes .

fosborn_ wrote:No, for me the current model is still much better.

Aardwolf wrote:Yet you fail to discuss any of the limitations of the papers you provided. What specifically, makes them better? It's not because of evidence.


ok, will in another post..

fosborn_ wrote:
MicroDrpEvap.png

This shrinking droplets looses surface tension, that tells you droplets will evaporate and are evaporating.

Aardwolf wrote:I don’t remember anyone here saying evaporation is impossible.

Awsome!


Aardwolf wrote:So you are open to the existence of smaller particles you just don't want them to hang around for long. So please explain why smaller particles of say 2 or 3 H2O atoms rush to find other droplets yet a particle of 1 atom is happy to stay in perpetuity. Why isn't your assertion about the smaller particles true about the smallest particle?

With a molecule, the only way to coalesce is to bump into another, if pure water and at lest 300%
saturation, or attach to an aerosol, But the temperature of the molecule needs to be low enough to condense and not re evaporate. if there is a droplet and its cold enough to freeze, it lowers its rate of evaporation and the non frozen droplets are evaporating more, than condensing on the frozen one, will grow from them.. Capish me amigo ?

fosborn_ wrote:The problem with Mcginns coolaid it blinds you to reasonable science.
Aardwolf wrote:Yet ironically your favourite theory has no genuine empirical evidence to back it up. You’re happy with the statement “we don’t have the equipment to measure small water droplets therefore they must not exist so we will theorise them out of existence”. How very scientific of you.


o dam... But still strong evidence, to be discussed, I hope..

fosborn_ wrote:I think this is another paper using simular techniques as a previous refference, getting simular results.

Arctic fog droplets were sampled on narrow glass plates precoated with chloride-sensitive gelatin film at Point Barrow... bla bla ..

Aardwolf wrote:Another irrelevant paper but let me ask you some questions I hope you feel you can answer;
1) Can this experiment detect droplets in the range 0.001µm to 3.3µm?
2) Do you think droplets in the range 0.001µm 3.3µm are possible?
3) Is it your belief that if an experiment does not have the sensitivity to detect something, that something does not exist?

No,,, Yes... No.. Butttt if the samples were crowding in the lower range it would imply greater accuracy is needed. But being all samples were spread out within limits, its profitable information.

fosborn_ wrote:So how do all the references relate. To the objective observer, its measurements about the environment. They might like to know what are reasonable expectations and what are not. It was one of my priority interest in the context of the discussion.

Aardwolf wrote:Unfortunately none of the experiments in these papers are sensitive enough to disprove the OP (nor support the prevailing theory), which makes them irrelevant to the discussion.


covered in the above, I think..

fosborn_ wrote:To coolaid drinkers, for sure its nonsense..

Aardwolf wrote:So, I’m the one drinking coolaid because I am open to the possibility that water can exist as gas or extremely small droplets because neither can be disproven, and you are the objective observer because all the papers you have provided (and won’t discuss their limits) are right because they say so and you agree with them (but won’t discuss their limits). I see.


"o dam" to be corrected... ;)
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: 521
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:15 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
Aardwolf »..Where’s the experiment that has measured water at the single molecule scale to disprove the OP’s theory?

I get the impression, You think, as if the OP has proven anything about his hypothesis. How does ice sublimate? And how do water droplets get liberated from a water surface? If there is a magic with enough energy to break droplets free from the surface tension, why not enough to remove molecules themselves?

We've already been over this, Frank. It's because a single molecule of H2O is at full polarity. It is only when there is a sufficient number of interconnected hydrogen bonds that H2O polarity has been neutralized enough to enable evaporation/sublimation. This has to do with the fact that H bonds between water molecules serve a duel function in that they are both the mechanism that adjoins H2O molecules to each other but is also the mechanism that neutralizes their respective polarity as a consequence of the adjoinment, as I explained in this paper (see link below) a paper that you refuse to read.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16798

<snip>
Drying of wet shoes, the lighter h2o gas trapped in an inverted bottle, not allowing it to dry out as the up right bottle. Mcginn says droplet laden, humid air will sink not rise.

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say it would sink. i said it was heavier and that it would levitate as a result of electrostatic forces. And I still say that.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:19 pm

We've already been over this, Frank. It's because a single molecule of H2O is at full polarity... It is only when there is a sufficient number of interconnected hydrogen bonds that H2O polarity has been neutralized enough to enable evaporation/sublimation<Snip>..


You use the term evaporation, but its nothing what the real evaporation is.
With out real evaporation, your nano droplets don't exist. The surface tension is so week with the huge curvature to a small volume, ratio and then you apply electrical stress and they blow apart. Notice the drooping smaller droplet,with weakened surface tension. your still just cooking off gaseous vapor. Normal kinetic energy is a far simpler explanation, with the same results.

MicroDrpEvap.png
MicroDrpEvap.png (36.91 KiB) Viewed 1616 times

Drying of wet shoes, the lighter h2o gas trapped in an inverted bottle, not allowing it to dry out as the up right bottle. Mcginn says droplet laden, humid air will sink not rise.

Mcginn wrote;Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say it would sink. i said it was heavier and that it would levitate as a result of electrostatic forces. And I still say that.

LOL..You can't have it both ways. If humid air is heavier than dry air. And humid air is levitated nano droplets, What makes humid air heavier?

Mcginn wrote;Firstly, and most obviously, if H2O generally became gaseous we could not anticipate the existence of the microdroplets (and/or nanodroplets) that are the requisite starting conditions for the spinning, surface maximized, H2O polymers of my model (as described in the above paragraph). Secondly,if H2O did actually become gaseous in the atmosphere then moist air would be lighter than dry air (in accordance with Avogadro’s Law) and, therefore, it wouldn't tend to lay out into long flat surfaces that are necessary for the wind shear in my model.).
My highlights..

Ouch...
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: 521
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:38 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
We've already been over this, Frank. It's because a single molecule of H2O is at full polarity... It is only when there is a sufficient number of interconnected hydrogen bonds that H2O polarity has been neutralized enough to enable evaporation/sublimation<Snip>..

You use the term evaporation, but its nothing what the real evaporation is.

So, I can only figure that you suffer from some delusion that the "real" evaporation involves gaseous H2O, but you won't come out and say it. Why not at least be clear. Why keep playing these rhetorical games. Define it or get off your horse.
With out real evaporation, your nano droplets don't exist.
Stop being a dope and explain what you mean.

The surface tension is so week

How is it you supposedly know this?
with the huge curvature to a small volume, ratio and then you apply electrical stress and they blow apart. Notice the drooping smaller droplet,with weakened surface tension. your still just cooking off gaseous vapor.

How is any of this relevant?
Normal kinetic energy is a far simpler explanation, with the same results.
You can say what you want because it's anybody's guess what you mean by this. Why not make an effort to be clear. What have you got to lose?

MicroDrpEvap.png

Drying of wet shoes, the lighter h2o gas trapped in an inverted bottle, not allowing it to dry out as the up right bottle. Mcginn says droplet laden, humid air will sink not rise.

Mcginn wrote;Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say it would sink. i said it was heavier and that it would levitate as a result of electrostatic forces. And I still say that.

LOL..You can't have it both ways. If humid air is heavier than dry air. And humid air is levitated nano droplets, What makes humid air heavier?

Actually, we do have it both ways. At lower pressures microdroplets combine. So as air rises and pressure decreases the individual droplets combine. They get heavier. Eventually they get heavy enough to break free of the levitation effects of the electrostatic forces. And they begin to fall.
Mcginn wrote;Firstly, and most obviously, if H2O generally became gaseous we could not anticipate the existence of the microdroplets (and/or nanodroplets) that are the requisite starting conditions for the spinning, surface maximized, H2O polymers of my model (as described in the above paragraph). Secondly,if H2O did actually become gaseous in the atmosphere then moist air would be lighter than dry air (in accordance with Avogadro’s Law) and, therefore, it wouldn't tend to lay out into long flat surfaces that are necessary for the wind shear in my model.).
My highlights..

Ouch...


I get your point. But it's not a deal breaker. But I could have been clearer. And so could you have been.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest