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_ » Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:17 am

Mcginn wrote; 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.


So how do nano droplets affect the buoyancy of warm and cold air masses? You can't use the gas laws for molecule displacement in a volume of air.

Mcginn wrote; 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.

Brilliant deduction. So I'm outed,,, :roll:

me...The surface tension is so week


Mcginn wrote...How is it you supposedly know this?


The vapor pressure of a liquid is determined by the attractive forces that act on the molecules at the surface of a liquid. In a very small drop, the liquid surface is curved in such a way that each molecule experiences fewer nearest-neighbor attractions than is the case for the bulk liquid. The outermost molecules of the liquid are bound to the droplet less tightly, and the drop has a larger vapor pressure than does the bulk liquid. If the vapor pressure of the drop is greater than the partial pressure of vapor in the gas phase, the drop will evaporate.
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: 522
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:35 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
Mcginn wrote; 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.

So how do nano droplets affect the buoyancy of warm and cold air masses?

Great question. And the more one considers all of the factors involved the more the questions seem to generate even more questions. Causal factors are pressure, temperature, gravity, and electrostatic forces (the last of which being largely unknown). And the resultant factors are size of nanodroplets, capacity of H2O being suspended per cubic unit, density (more or less massive [heavier or lighter]), effect of gravity (buoyancy), effect of electrostatic levitation forces, and whether it results in net upward or downward movement.

I think a fundamental insight of this analysis is to realize the inadequacy of referring to a body of air as being more or less buoyant as being a direct indication of whether it will go up or down. Now we can conceive of a body of air as being more buoyant and falling or less buoyant and rising. Words tend to dictate conclusions and its going to be hard to get across to people that the the word buoyancy does not directly equate to whether the body of air is rising or falling. Along these lines it might be preferable to avoid the use of the word/concept so that people are not confused.
You can't use the gas laws for molecule displacement in a volume of air.

Assuming you know the average size of any suspended H2O nanodroplets (which is almost always unknown and/or immeasurable) then, theoretically, we still could use gas laws to determine the weight/buoyancy but, as stated above, that would not necessarily dictate any conclusion as to whether a body should be expected to be rising or falling.

It would also seem that the greater is the temperature of air and the higher is its pressure (lower altitude) the greater is its capacity to suspend nanodroplets but the smaller and more invisible will be these suspended nanodroplets. Accordingly, the lower is its temperature and the lower is its pressure (higher altitude) the lesser is its capacity to suspend nanodroplets and the larger are the suspended nanodroplets, making them more likely to be visible. And all of this varies depending on the involvement of electrostatic forces, that are largely unknown.

All of this conceptual clarity is providing me a better understanding of how difficult any of this would be to actually measure.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:57 pm

jimmcginn wrote:Words tend to dictate conclusions and its going to be hard to get across to people that the the word buoyancy does not directly equate to whether the body of air is rising or falling.

What's your definition of the word "buoyancy"?
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: 1786
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 » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:13 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:Words tend to dictate conclusions and its going to be hard to get across to people that the the word buoyancy does not directly equate to whether the body of air is rising or falling.

What's your definition of the word "buoyancy"?


It's no different from the standard definition.

The point here is that there is another force--electrostatics--that is strong enough overcome the effect of gravity/buoyancy/convection. For example, let's say we have a balloon filled with helium. We let it go and it rises due to buoyancy. But then it hits the ceiling and stops rising. Would we say that it lost its buoyancy when it hit the ceiling? Of course not. It stopped rising because the ceiling exerted a downward force. It didn't stop rising because it became heavy and less buoyant as it hit the ceiling. Right? And if we then pulled the balloon down by its string we wouldn't say that it came down as a result of negative buoyancy. It still has positive buoyancy, it's just that the downward force pulling it down more than compensates for its positive buoyancy.

Epistemologically this realization allows us to get away from the notion that the only way H2O can get up high in the atmosphere is if it becomes gaseous, making its parcel more buoyant. And, therefore, no longer do we have to feign ignorance of the fact that the phase diagram of H2O clearly indicates that its impossible for H2O to turn to gas at the low temperatures and high pressures in the troposphere. Now a saturated parcel of air can have negative buoyancy as a result of it containing nanodroplets of liquid H2O and we can still describe it as rising. Because now the fact that it rises and/or is suspended in the atmosphere is decoupled from the assumption that it must have positive buoyancy in order to do so.

I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms. As I explain at the beginning of this thread, the power of storms in my model has to do with vortice plasma and resulting concentrated flow bridging between high pressure to low pressure, which will be better explained in future posts.

The most important concept for people to grasp from this point on is the role of H2O's surface tension in the formation of vortices. And the most important concept for understanding the origins of vortices is the formation of flat, extensive, moist/dry boundary layers, not the least of which being the moist/dry boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:05 am

jimmcginn wrote:And, therefore, no longer do we have to feign ignorance of the fact that the phase diagram of H2O clearly indicates that its impossible for H2O to turn to gas at the low temperatures and high pressures in the troposphere.

All liquids are capable of evaporation, even if the temperature is below the boiling point. The BP isn't the temperature at which gases become possible. Rather, it's the temperature at which liquids become impossible. Below the BP, molecules can get knocked loose from the surface tension of the liquid, or even from the crystal lattice of the solid, just by random vibrations, which could add up to a force in excess of the binding potential of the surface tension or the crystal lattice. If so, a molecule gets ejected and enters the gaseous phase. The temperature of that particular molecule is above the boiling point, even if it evaporated from something that was below the BP. The difference in temperature between a liquid and the gas evaporating from it can be measured in the loss of heat in the liquid due to the evaporation. This is because of the conservation of energy -- if one aspect of the substance gets hotter, another has to get colder. Once the water molecule evaporates into the air, the average temperature of the air might be below the BP of water, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't contain water vapor that is itself above the BP. Likewise when the water vapor condenses, the air gets warmer (i.e., latent heating), because one aspect of the air (i.e., the water vapor) got colder, so another aspect got hotter. All of this stuff has been quantified, down to the atomic level, and it has all been confirmed in the laboratory. If you're going to argue with this, you have to identify exactly where you branch off, and why.
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: 1786
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 » Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:37 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:And, therefore, no longer do we have to feign ignorance of the fact that the phase diagram of H2O clearly indicates that its impossible for H2O to turn to gas at the low temperatures and high pressures in the troposphere.

All liquids are capable of evaporation, even if the temperature is below the boiling point. The BP isn't the temperature at which gases become possible.

So, do you think phase diagrams are dishonest. Are they propaganda? Why would hundreds of scientist over hundreds of years want to mislead the public on something like this?
Rather, it's the temperature at which liquids become impossible.

Surreal. This is just something you believe. No evidence suggests such.
Below the BP, molecules can get knocked loose from the surface tension of the liquid, or even from the crystal lattice of the solid, just by random vibrations, which could add up to a force in excess of the binding potential of the surface tension or the crystal lattice.

This is just silly speculation for which you have no evidence.
If so, a molecule gets ejected and enters the gaseous phase.

Your explanation sounds like science fiction to my ears. It's not like the gaseous phase is a doorway into an alternate reality. The force associated with a shift in phase must be maintained or it reverts back instantly.
The temperature of that particular molecule is above the boiling point, even if it evaporated from something that was below the BP. The difference in temperature between a liquid and the gas evaporating from it can be measured in the loss of heat in the liquid due to the evaporation. This is because of the conservation of energy -- if one aspect of the substance gets hotter, another has to get colder.

Apples and oranges. What you are saying here is true but irrelevant and, otherwise, common knowledge. (BTW, because of the huge heat capacity of liquid water, temperature differences are averaged out almost instantly over shorter distances.)
Once the water molecule evaporates into the air, the average temperature of the air might be below the BP of water,

There is no such thing as one molecule of water evaporating. This is an urban myth. (ie. it is something that is generally assumed but for which there is zero experimental evidence.) So your thinking is off on the wrong foot right from the start. It is also an urban myth that clear moist air contains gaseous H2O. This is physically impossible. The fact that clear moist air is clear is NOT evidence that it is gaseous. Nanodroplets are just as invisible as gaseous H2O.
but that doesn't mean that it doesn't contain water vapor that is itself above the BP.

Based on what evidence? Your imagination? Seriously, where is the evidence for this popularistic pseudo-science? We will never know because it is just an urban myth.

Misconceptions about H2O are incredibly common.
Likewise when the water vapor condenses, the air gets warmer (i.e., latent heating), because one aspect of the air (i.e., the water vapor) got colder, so another aspect got hotter.

So what. Nobody disputes this. Yes, hot water can warm the surrounding environment. H2O has a huge heat capacity and it releases heat gradually. Everybody knows this. (Unfortunately, meteorologists use this common understanding as the basis of some rather absurd claims about the role of "latent heat" in storms.)
All of this stuff has been quantified, down to the atomic level, and it has all been confirmed in the laboratory.

LOL. No such laboratory exists. It is just your imagination.
If you're going to argue with this, you have to identify exactly where you branch off, and why.

You haven't presented anything worth arguing with. There are certain things you believe that are just part of the urban mythology. You will never support these urban myths--nobody ever does. You will never be able to identify an empirical basis for why you maintain these urban myths. You believe what everybody believes for no other reason but that everybody believes it.

Do me a favor. I've discussed this subject to death in this and other threads. If you want to continue discussing this please take it to one of those other threads or even start your own thread.

Regards,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
If you maximize the surface area of H2O you maximize the surface tension. See more here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 82#p117061
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:51 pm

:arrow:
.Charles Chandler wrote Mcginn..What's your definition of the word "buoyancy"?


Mcginn wrote to Charles C...It's no different from the standard definition...The point here is that there is another force--electrostatics--that is strong enough overcome the effect of gravity/buoyancy/convection..


Mcginn to me...Causal factors are pressure, temperature, gravity, and electrostatic forces (the last of which being largely unknown)..

Mcginn wrote to me...All of this conceptual clarity is providing me a better understanding of how difficult any of this would be to actually measure.

Mcginn wrote to me..So, I can only figure that you suffer from some delusion that the "real" evaporation involves gaseous H2O,

I thinks its the other way around ...

Mcginn wrote...Assuming you know the average size of any suspended H2O nanodroplets (which is almost always unknown and/or immeasurable)then, theoretically, we still could use gas laws to determine the weight/buoyancy

Quoting Mcginn here..
"How is it you supposedly know this?"
"Surreal. This is just something you believe. No evidence suggests such."
"Your explanation sounds like science fiction to my ears."

Mcginn wrote to Charles Chandler..I should mention, however, that my model does not involve electricity (or convection) as the cause of the rapid, high energy uplift witnessed in storms...
The most important concept for people to grasp from this point on is the role of H2O's surface tension in the formation of vortices. ..


LOL..O really? You need an alternative for kinetic evaporation. With out it, your imaginary surface tension is a farce.
And so far you strongly imply, you got nothin'...

Mcginn wrote to Charles Chanler..Do me a favor. I've discussed this subject to death in this and other threads. If you want to continue discussing this please take it to one of those other threads or even start your own thread.

It's to bad its a public forum and not your personal blog, We need to keep discussing it as long as you do. I don't want anyone getting derailed from good science, with the foolishness I had to unlearn from your books.
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: 522
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:28 pm

JMcG:
The most important concept for people to grasp from this point on is the role of H2O's surface tension in the formation of vortices.

Frank Fosborn:
You need an alternative for kinetic evaporation. With out it, your imaginary surface tension is a farce.

JMcG:
Go wallow in vagueness someplace else.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
It's Not What You Know That Will Hurt You . . .
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =8&t=16318
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby MosaicDave » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:45 pm

jimmcginn--

I've shown you a simple experiment which demonstrates that humid air contains water in the form of a monomolecular gas, and falsifies the existence of droplets containing anything more than one water molecule.

(For anyone else coming upon this thread, that was here: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16647)

You assert that "electrostatic forces, that are largely unknown", account for the buoyancy of your droplets.

Electrostatic forces aren't "largely unknown", they're well understood. But besides that, in the environment of the experiment, as I've explained to you, there's negligible DC electric field. Yes, outdoors there can be a significant vertically-oriented electric field, especially under a thunderstorm. In clear weather outdoors, the ambient electric field is usually around 100-200 V/m. But indoors, no - it's next to none. Many people have measured these fields; actually I myself have measured them, indoors and out. But even still, I will tell you, that the building where the "green bottles" experiment took place, is a typical steel-framed office building, moreover with the interior walls and ceilings framed with steel studs. So it's basically a Faraday cage. Also, the carpeting in this room is special static-dissipative carpeting; I myself had this specially installed, because we deal with sensitive electronics here. Anyway, there is no DC electric field; none; zero.

Furthermore, I've also explained to you, that if you really think the humid air is levitating out of the green bottle by electrostatic forces, you could just repeat the experiment yourself, but surrounding it in an enclosure of wire screen, thereby excluding all DC electric fields.

But no, you don't want to do your own science; you only want to expound on your thought experiments. You really should, though: You are so heroically attached to and convinced of your microdroplets, that you should take your own theory more seriously, and just demonstrate it. Just for yourself, first of all. And then finally everyone on any forum would respect you and listen to you; you might even win a Nobel prize.

But the microdroplets don't appear to exist.

Besides all that, there are so many things wrong with your Theory of Storms, that it's hard to know even where to begin pointing first. For example, your notion that somehow an aerosol of droplets will as a whole have a surface with surface tension. Which it wouldn't; each individual drop will have surface tension, tending to keep it spherical, but the bulk aerosol won't; that's not how surface tension even works. Just because there might be "a lot of surface tension around", doesn't mean that an aerosol would itself have a surface with surface tension.

But anyway, none of that matters. Because there are no microdroplets to begin with. No matter how desperately you want them to exist, to buttress the whole fantastical complex construction you've built, they don't.

--dc
MosaicDave
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Pennsylvania

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:06 am

MosaicDave wrote:For example, your notion that somehow an aerosol of droplets will as a whole have a surface with surface tension. Which it wouldn't; each individual drop will have surface tension, tending to keep it spherical, but the bulk aerosol won't; that's not how surface tension even works.

Indeed, he's hijacking the term "surface tension" to apply to his collections of droplets, which wouldn't be "surface tension" at all, since that only applies within liquids, and for very specific reasons (e.g., Van der Waals forces, which just aren't there between separated water droplets). Whatever he's talking about, which gives his droplets a combined structure, would be something different, if it existed at all.

We all know what it's like, to see that the mainstream model of something just doesn't work, and then to start coming up with ideas in search of what they missed. This invariably involves reinterpreting existing science, which is hard for people who think that the mainstream model works just fine, but very easy for people who know that it doesn't. Still, a theorist has to pick his battles carefully -- somebody who fights everything that stands between him and his vision just might pick a fight with bedrock, and the bedrock always wins. ;) As concerns the atomic theory & laboratory confirmation related to surface tension, he's probably going to lose that one. ;)
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: 1786
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 » Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:14 am

MosaicDave wrote:jimmcginn--
I've shown you a simple experiment which demonstrates that humid air contains water in the form of a monomolecular gas, and falsifies the existence of droplets containing anything more than one water molecule.

Wow. I wasn’t expecting that. It's good that you said something because up until now I had assumed that you had no dispute with my dispute of your claims in that thread. To me your experiment was interesting because it showed that evaporation involves forces that are (strictly) vertical. That surprised me. But the limitations of your experiment were never anything but obvious to me. As you know, it didn’t directly detect/measure the molecular composition of the evaporate. Also, it didn't show that this vertical force involves buoyancy/convection and/or that moist air is lighter than drier air and/or that evaporate is gaseous H2O. It’s perplexing why you think it did demonstrate such. I think you need to be more cognizant of the limitations of your experiment.

Additionally, even if it could be proven that this upward force is not caused by static electricity I would want to consider all other options before I would resign myself to the conclusion that H2O can become gaseous at temperatures/pressures below/above its boiling temperature/pressure (especially in the light of the fact that such has never been detected under laboratory conditions). The fact that the answer is not immediately forthcoming is no reason to jump to the conclusion that something we know to be impossible is suddenly possible.
(For anyone else coming upon this thread, that was here: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16647)
You assert that "electrostatic forces, that are largely unknown", account for the buoyancy of your droplets. Electrostatic forces aren't "largely unknown", they're well understood.

In my experience when people describe something as 'well understood' the one thing that I know it is not is well understood by them. If it was well understood by you then you would be able to demonstrate your depth of understanding and, thereby, you would have no reason to describe it as ‘well understood.’
But besides that, in the environment of the experiment, as I've explained to you, there's negligible DC electric field.

Obviously I'm not going to just take your word on it, right? You may believe that you described it but people believe all kinds of things that aren’t true. Keep in mind, as Feynman said, the person that is easiest to fool is oneself. (If you don't verify you don't know. You are just guessing.)
Yes, outdoors there can be a significant vertically-oriented electric field, especially under a thunderstorm. In clear weather outdoors, the ambient electric field is usually around 100-200 V/m. But indoors, no - it's next to none.

Again, obviously I'm not going to take your word on it. Right? Maybe you should put some thought into how your belief can be verified. Remember, an experiment has to be replicable by people that don’t possess your self assurance on this subject.
Many people have measured these fields; actually I myself have measured them, indoors and out. But even still, I will tell you, that the building where the "green bottles" experiment took place, is a typical steel-framed office building, moreover with the interior walls and ceilings framed with steel studs. So it's basically a Faraday cage. Also, the carpeting in this room is special static-dissipative carpeting; I myself had this specially installed, because we deal with sensitive electronics here. Anyway, there is no DC electric field; none; zero.

Again. obviously I'm not going to take your word on it. Right? (I would think by now you would at least know me well enough to realize that.) And that is not to say that I think you might be lying. I don't doubt that you are being honest. Let’s just say that I just suspect that you may not understand it as well as you think you do. (If you don't verify you don't know. You are just guessing.)
Furthermore, I've also explained to you, that if you really think the humid air is levitating out of the green bottle by electrostatic forces, you could just repeat the experiment yourself, but surrounding it in an enclosure of wire screen, thereby excluding all DC electric fields.

I am extremely skeptical that it is a simple as you are suggesting.
But no, you don't want to do your own science; you only want to expound on your thought experiments. You really should, though: You are so heroically attached to and convinced of your microdroplets, that you should take your own theory more seriously, and just demonstrate it. Just for yourself, first of all. And then finally everyone on any forum would respect you and listen to you; you might even win a Nobel prize.

Sorry, but I don't think the experiment is as simple as you seem to think it is.
But the microdroplets don't appear to exist.

Using that logic I can just as well say that your gaseous H2O doesn’t appear to exist either.

Dave, the more you express absolute confidence in things that are known to be unknown the more skeptical I become about your ability to maintain a dispassionate and objective perspective.
Besides all that, there are so many things wrong with your Theory of Storms, that it's hard to know even where to begin pointing first.

Well, the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing may be a result of the fact that my thinking is wrong or it may be a result of the fact that my thinking is right and everything you've taken for granted up to this point is wrong.

Nobody can tell you what you should or should not believe. But my advice is that you should ignore the consensus of dunces who would have you believe what they can't explain and are sure is, 'well understood.'
For example, your notion that somehow an aerosol of droplets will as a whole have a surface with surface tension. Which it wouldn't; each individual drop will have surface tension, tending to keep it spherical, but the bulk aerosol won't; that's not how surface tension even works. Just because there might be "a lot of surface tension around", doesn't mean that an aerosol would itself have a surface with surface tension.

Well, if the bulk aerosol can be described as a slight plasma then it does have a surface (all plasmas have a surface). Or, at least, we could say that it has a slight surface. But, actually, whether or not moist air does or does not have a surface is academic. I suggest that you avoid becoming ensconced in the rhetoric. It isn’t worth arguing about. Instead do you best to conceptualize the processes that I describe.

Nevertheless, in comparison to dry air, moist air does possess a greater balance of negative and positive charges giving it greater internal coherence than dry air. This explains how clouds tend to remain clouds. Additionally, and in conjuction with the fact that moist air is ALWAYS (no exceptions) heavier than any drier air in its vicinity, this also explains how moist air will tend to lay out in extensive, flat layers in atmosphere under calm weather conditions..

Also, the aerosol nanodroplets that are suspended in moist air, being liquid, do themselves have a surface and surface tension. I suspect you are already aware of this. However, it is very unlikely that you are aware that the surface tension of H2O is categorically distinct from that of any other liquid. Specifically, it involve the fact that there are electromagnetic forces in H2O of which most people are only remotely cognizant. (I will be discussing the how and why of all of this in a subsequent post on this thread.)
But anyway, none of that matters. Because there are no microdroplets to begin with. No matter how desperately you want them to exist, to buttress the whole fantastical complex construction you've built, they don't.

The belief that the atmosphere contains gaseous H2O is just a group delusion. It’s one of those notions that everybody believes for no other reason but that everybody believes it.

Don’t fall for it!

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby antosarai » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:53 am

jimmcginn wrote: (If you don't verify you don't know. You are just guessing.)

Your conjecture regarding Theory of Storms posits many things. Did you ever verify some one of them, any one of them? Or are you just guessing?
antosarai
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 8:41 am

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

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:30 am

jimmcginn wrote:
For example, your notion that somehow an aerosol of droplets will as a whole have a surface with surface tension. Which it wouldn't; each individual drop will have surface tension, tending to keep it spherical, but the bulk aerosol won't; that's not how surface tension even works. Just because there might be "a lot of surface tension around", doesn't mean that an aerosol would itself have a surface with surface tension.

Well, if the bulk aerosol can be described as a slight plasma then it does have a surface (all plasmas have a surface). Or, at least, we could say that it has a slight surface. But, actually, whether or not moist air does or does not have a surface is academic. I suggest that you avoid becoming ensconced in the rhetoric. It isn’t worth arguing about. Instead do you best to conceptualize the processes that I describe.

The processes that you describe are difficult to conceptualize. From what I can tell, there are two main pieces here: 1) water in the atmosphere is liquid, because it's below its boiling point, and as a liquid it has surface tension, and 2) the aggregate of droplets has a surface because it's plasma, and all plasmas have a surface. Putting those pieces together, moist air has a surface, because it's plasma, and that surface has tension, because it's made of liquids.

I'm not sure that those parts make a whole.

And then there is a very long way from there to the demonstration that a slight plasma can transform itself into a vortex and then expend millions of watts of power on the ground during a tornado, just on the basis of its "surface tension".
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: 1786
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:39 pm

MosaicDave wrote:But the microdroplets don't appear to exist.
How do you propose that gaseous water forms fog/rain droplets? Is there no stage in between?

Also, what do you think the result of your experiment would be if you used mercury instead of water?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:57 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
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
Which is also a subjective statement. Is also means no theory has ever been disproven. Ptolemy, Becher and the Flat Earthers will be pleased. Also, if that is what Berkeley is teaching students no wonder academic science is in the mess it's in.

fosborn_ wrote: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 and what is relevant.
True, although these papers provide no basis to discuss the theory.

fosborn_ wrote:
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..
No response yet.

fosborn_ wrote:
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 ?
No. And small 2-3 molecule droplets must exist if they all start as gaseous in the first place.

fosborn_ wrote:
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.. .
No not strong. None of the papers are running experiments to detect particles at the scale. There is no evidence, it’s all theory based.

fosborn_ wrote:
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.
Profitable for the paper being written. It says nothing about nano scale droplets although I’m glad you agree such droplets possibly exist. The question is why are you subjectively assuming they don’t.

fosborn_ wrote:
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..
Only if you covered by not answering here or above. All you have done is concur with most of my points but still believe your theory to be better. It’s bordering on dogma.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests