FrankO_ you shouldn't be skipping Charles explanation of it.
Ardwolf wrote..Do you mean this explanation?
CharlesChandler wrote:I haven't studied fog, so I can't speak to that.
No this one..
CharlesChandler »..I don't know of anyone who is saying that water lofts itself high into the atmosphere. If it is, in fact, gaseous immediately on evaporating from a body of water, it IS lighter than the molecular nitrogen & oxygen in the air -- the atomic mass of H2O is 18, versus 28 for N2, and 32 for O2.So H2O has 62% the average mass of the N2/O2 mix in the air. But its terminal velocity will be effectively 0,so it isn't going to snake its way past the N2 & O2 to loft itself up into the atmosphere. And it isn't going to make the air itself much lighter. The total water vapor at 100% relative humidity is less than 1% of the air by volume.
So Mosaic Daves inverted bottles support this explanation, sense the inverted bottle trapped the lighter vapor. with an issue of electrostatics minimize by his indoor environment which Mcginn didn't dispute if, it is reproducible in another lab.
so seems just right for fog conditions, it doesn't have to travel far to condense, warming the immediate air arround the droplet or aerosol it coalesced with'
And this one..
CharlesChandler wrote.. Then thewater vapor can condense, releasing latent heat, when generates the updraft in the storm. Then the smaller water particles are hoisted to the top of the storm, while larger particles can fall out due to their higher terminal velocity. Then the water vapor can condense, releasing latent heat, when generates the updraft in the storm. Then the smaller water particles are hoisted to the top of the storm, while larger particles can fall out due to their higher terminal velocity.
So updraft isn't even a necessary component but still think the excess heat is going to do something to the immediate surrounding air. it doesn't even need to float up, simply condense in situ, and re evaporate.
AjrdWolf wrote...Fog is not gas.
But the microdroplets don't appear to exist.
Ardwolf wrote...How do you propose that gaseous water forms fog/rain droplets? Is there no stage in between?
So you have all the pieces, If there is vapor then it obeys the gas laws. It takes energy to evaporate and losses energy to condense.
fosborn_ wrote:Do you know of a better idea that explains it?
Ardwolf wrote..Here’s one idea;[/quote]
Thanks for your offering wolfie, but don't be shy, explain why you consider it relevant. I showed you mine. Your turn..
fosborn_ wrote: Can you refute it ?
Wolfie...Nothing to refute. It’s tells us nothing about the composition of the water nor what’s driving its motion. We know water raises upwards, the question is what's driving that motion against the force of gravity when in liquid form.
Mosaic Dave demonstrates its not electrostatic, pick something else..
fosborn_ wrote:If you insist its mercury, then explain it.
Are you even reading the posts? I suggested a thought experiment using mercury. No-ones taken it up. Do you want to try?
I don't see any relevance, its your baby. Put up or be silent..
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.
Ardwolf wrote...True, although these papers provide no basis to discuss the theory.
This shrinking droplets looses surface tension, that tells you droplets will evaporate and are evaporating.
Ardwolf wrote..I don’t remember anyone here saying evaporation is impossible.
O by the way, the reason I have the high ground to pick Mcginns notions apart.. I'm a paying customer, I bought his books and read them. Have you?
Aardwolf wrote: CharlesChandler wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Yes, we all forget how infallible accepted science is.
Nobody is saying that accepted science is infallible, certainly not just because it's accepted. If you know anything at all about my work, you know that I am perfectly willing to go against accepted theories, in meteorology, geophysics, astrophysics, and in other disciplines as well. As a result, I'm considered a crackpot on the mainstream forums in all of those disciplines. But some
aspects of accepted science are pretty solid, and a good theorist has to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. More to the point, it's useful when discussing the issues to clearly identify where you diverge from the consensus, and for what reasons.Challenge the consensus if you want, but if you don't know what you're challenging, and have a demonstrable reason for diverging, the reason is then just that you feel like arguing with somebody, validated only by the fact that the consensus can be wrong. But that doesn't make you right.