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 jimmcginn » Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:57 pm

fosborn_ wrote:Wal has done all the basic labs . . . that proves the theory

So, let me get this straight. Wallace Thornhill has done the experiment that would decisively resolve this "cold steam" controversy and he is concealing it from the world.

I just have one question, how did you come to know about this?

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby Cargo » Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:09 pm

I've been searching and reading lately on a view 'connections'. Anyway, I'll just leave this here.

http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~callen/energy_h ... 1to9-3.pdf

Cheers
Cargo
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:30 am

Cargo wrote:I've been searching and reading lately on a view 'connections'. Anyway, I'll just leave this here.

http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~callen/energy_h ... 1to9-3.pdf

Cheers


Thanks. I'd seen this previously.

It's interesting that it's got Feynman's name on it and it's from 1964. You'd think it would be more common knowledge by now.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:41 am

fosborn_ wrote:
Ardwolf...First of all, I have never stated that water is never molecular, that's James's hypothesis. I only state that it is possible either way as we have no way of really testing it.

When is it then? What circumstances would gaseous water vapor be present in the atmosphere ? Your vary vague on that. Please clarify exactly what your theory is. I feel like I'm getting it peace meal and on the fly.
I haven’t proposed a theory. I can support or critique someone else’s theory without proposing my own. I have a hypothesis which I stated previously, and for the hard of reading I’ll reproduce;
Aardwolf wrote:My point is that at a certain macro scale gravity (whatever that is) is dominant but below that in the micro scale and below, the weakness of gravity is supplanted by electrical fields. When you remove gravity, as per the ISS experiment, electrical fields take over. The atmosphere clearly doesn't behave when you apply gravity theories using molecular weight so all manor of explanation is required. To me it's very clear the atmosphere is charge/field dominated at that scale.

fosborn_ wrote:
Wal merely accepts the current paradigm regarding water in the atmosphere, butif it were shown that water was not vapour just nano-scale particles, this would in no way affect Wal's conclusion.

Wow, at lot of assumptions about Wal's casual attitude toward the accepted science. Really not his M.O.
If it were shown? OMG, He is a physicist! You think he doesn't think about every theory he apply s to his papers ?
If you think he can use nano and clusters instead of water vapor with the gas law like Mcginn? Mosaic Mike has you pegged right. Wal's paper was heavy on the properties water molecules in the form of gaseous vapor. But you can, as you do flippantly create parameter changes to other peoples papers and you give yourself a pass. Ok.
No, not a lot of assumptions, only one. Of course as you know his paper so well you can link to the point where he has proven the water to be molecular. This could have saved a lot of time.

By the way, has your open mind about the electrical effects in nature decided whether it agrees with Wal’s conclusions or not? It seems like a really easy yes/no answer.

fosborn_ wrote: How is your fog challenge going, you still think droplets don't condense out of fog? And why do you think a methanol saturated air at 4000 volts has anything to do with ground level fog where Mosaic Dave pointed out was 200 volts and less ?
You need to clear you open mind. This seems a very convoluted series of questions. Fog is droplets. So you say I think fog droplets don’t condense out of fog droplets? And Dave hasn’t addressed any fog questions. And you continually fail to explain how fog is suspended without the need for updraft.

fosborn_ wrote:So if its ok for your paper to use ethanol, so is it for mine... :roll:
a technique for the determination of water in air at ... - AMS Journals
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/.../1520-0469(1954)011%3C0214:ATFTDO%3E2.0.CO%3...
by WC Thuman - ‎1954 - ‎Cited by 6 - ‎Related articles
An investigation of ice fog in Alaska required a technique for the determination of the water content of the atmosphere ... the air through absolute methanol, an aliquot of which was then titrated with Karl Fischer reagent. ... A method of filtering the air in order to separate water vapor from precipitated water was also developed.
.

Which clearly has no relevance..
Obviously. You only have to read the limitations of the millipore filter in the experiment;
It will retain particles down to 0.2u
It’s not fit for the purpose you’re trying to attribute to it.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:15 am

MosaicDave wrote:Just for fun, because I have some time before going home for supper:

Let's pretend I pour a few ounces of water in a drinking glass. Or in my green glass bottle. Which I like to drink out of, because I hate drinking out of plastic. So we can work with nice even numbers, let's call it 100ml of water.

Well after a few days the water will evaporate away and dry up, right? I think even McGinn would agree to that. But just to be clear, it's one of the things we are assuming, that the water will dry up, or "evaporate".

Let's assume as McGinn does, that it evaporates into charged drops, which then levitate out of the bottle because everything's happening within an ambient electric field.

Okay, so let's think about that:

Well the water in the bottle must be charged to begin with - otherwise McGinn's method won't work. Because glass is a really good insulator, after all. So the charge won't be going through that glass or that bottle - noway, it has to start out in there from the beginning. Aardwolf says be careful, the water out of the tap may be charged. Even though the water pipe is grounded. Well maybe it's something else. But let's just say, okay, somehow we got 100 ml of water out of the tap, into the glass, and it ended up charged.

So now those nano-droplets coming off the surface of the water, are charged, and levitating out of the glass, because there's an ambient electric field that the glass is sitting in. According to McGinn.

Okay, moving along: Let's say the ambient electric field in the room is really strong. Dave says no that's impossible, but he won't prove it to us, and we are very strict scientists, no pulling the wool over our eyes, we require proof for anything we're asked to believe. (Unless we thought of it ourselves.) So let's say, the ambient electric field is good and strong, like, as strong as it ever gets under a thunderstorm. How strong is that?

Well let's look here:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1956)013%3C0269:EFIATG%3E2.0.CO%3B2

The US Weather Bureau says, they've measured fields of up to 100 V/cm. We'll work in SI units, so that's 10,000 V/m - 10^4 V/m.

So how much charge do we need, to levitate 100 ml of water in that field?

Well first, let's find the force necessary to levitate the water, in SI units. That 100 ml of water is 100 g of mass, or 0.1 kg. We are physicists, so we describe force in Newtons in SI units - and the weight of 0.1kg of mass, in the Earth's gravity, is 0.98N - let's round off and call it 1N.

So now how much charge do we need to levitate that water? F=qE, is the "electric force":

1N = q (10)4 V/m --> q = 10^-4 Coulombs (again in SI units).

So the water in the glass, begins by carrying 10^-4 Coulombs of charge. Okay.

So let's say I'm walking back from the tap, carrying that glass of water. And the charged water inside, is on the other side of the glass, from my hand. So we've got a capacitor - an old fashioned Leyden jar. I wonder what the voltage on that capacitor is?

q=CV, relates the voltage on a capacitor, to the charge it's carrying, in Coulombs. In SI units again. So we need to know the capacitance of the glass.

Well the capacitance of a glass plate capacitor, is this:

C = (K e0 A) / d

where K is the relative permittivity factor for glass; it's about 7 for normal glass;

e0, (e because I can't type epsilon) is the permittivity of vacuum, which is 8.85(10)^-12;

A is the area of the capacitor plates;

d is the thickness of the plates.

I have a pretty big drinking glass sitting here; I measure circumference and height and diameter, and come up with A = 475(10)-4 m^2.

Let's say, the thickness of the glass, is 3 mm - 3(10)-3 m.

Going to the calculator, C = 980 picofarads. Let's round it off to 1000 pF, or 1 nF, or 10^-9F.

Okay so back to q=CV:

10^-4 = 10^-9 * V

V = 10^5 Volts.

So I'm carrying that water back from the tap, in the glass that I'm carrying in my hand, and the water inside is charged to 100,000 Volts. In order for it to evaporate according to McGinn's scheme.

Maybe the ambient electric field is ten times less? Like around a weak thunderstorm?

Then we need ten times as much charge to levitate. So the water has to be charged to 1,000,000 volts, when it goes into the glass.

Hmmm....
1) Where did I state " the water out of the tap may be charged". Setting up straw man arguments doesn't really help matters.
2) Are you attempting to evaporate all of the water out of the cup, all at the same time, instantaneously?
3) It's a shame you didn't spend as much time and consideration isolating all the electrostatic and electromagnetic sources in your experiment. You might have got a genuine result.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:53 am

Cargo wrote:I've been searching and reading lately on a view 'connections'. Anyway, I'll just leave this here.

http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~callen/energy_h ... 1to9-3.pdf

Cheers


Cargo,
I offered this 1980 paper on Thermionic Emission from the Earth and the weather to Mcginn back in February,
but doubt he has read it.
[see particularly chapts on “The Cyclone and “The Anticyclone]

http://breakthroughinenergy.com/sitefil ... gyBook.pdf

Research on thermionics has been common since the advent of ‘vacuum tubes', but it’s application to the earth sciences has been neglected for a variety of reasons.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471&hilit=thermionic+emission&start=30#p117870
seasmith
 
Posts: 2646
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:57 am

:?:
jimmcginn wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:Wal has done all the basic labs . . . that proves the theory

So, let me get this straight. Wallace Thornhill has done the experiment that would decisively resolve this "cold steam" controversy and he is concealing it from the world.
I just have one question, how did you come to know about this?

FrankO wrote..See you wouldn't understand (as others have also said to you in other ways), that Wal has done all the basic labs ( as part of his education)that proves the theory s with a degree of confidence, he accepts. Have you?

As Charles states there is a body of work (the bed rock that supports it) And no work that denies s it. So the onus is yours to move beyond speculations or thought experiments. Only big talk so far.
There is no cold steam controversy, speculation has no value.

I did send him an email asking. But a hint, is his work with IBM doing weather graphics.

When I do graphics development on SCADA systems, I'm lost unless I have hands on, with the system I'm trying to automate. Even with field engineer Integrators, whom I have had to step through specific systems to get it to make sense to them. So Wal wouldn't be doing that level of development lest he had the basics in his education to qualify to be doing it.
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: 513
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:02 am

seasmith wrote:
Cargo wrote:I've been searching and reading lately on a view 'connections'. Anyway, I'll just leave this here.

http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~callen/energy_h ... 1to9-3.pdf

Cheers


Cargo,
I offered this 1980 paper on Thermionic Emission from the Earth and the weather to Mcginn back in February,
but doubt he has read it.
[see particularly chapts on “The Cyclone and “The Anticyclone]

http://breakthroughinenergy.com/sitefil ... gyBook.pdf

Research on thermionics has been common since the advent of ‘vacuum tubes', but it’s application to the earth sciences has been neglected for a variety of reasons.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 30#p117870
Interesting paper which suggests a reason for water travelling upwards.

Possibly explains where the water came from for noctilucent clouds also. There's no updraft up there either but they still manage to defy gravity.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:14 am

fosborn_ wrote:Wal has done all the basic labs . . . that proves the theory
fosborn_ wrote:As Charles states there is a body of work (the bed rock that supports it)
So you keep stating. So where are the papers showing this empirical "body of work" or "lab" tests proving water is molecular so we can discuss? As you like to put it
fosborn_ wrote:Only big talk so far.

And by the way have you decided if you agree with Wal's conclusions yet? You're impressed with his methods so it must be very easy to answer.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:30 am

seasmith wrote:
Cargo wrote:I'll just leave this here.
http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~callen/energy_h ... 1to9-3.pdf

I offered this 1980 paper on Thermionic Emission from the Earth and the weather to Mcginn back in February,
but doubt he has read it.

I read it and interpreted it as being complimentary to my model/thinking. And I, now, suspect that is also how Cargo intended it. if you think it contradicts or supersedes my model/thinking then please feel free to elaborate.
[see particularly chapters on “The Cyclone and “The Anticyclone]

This sounds interesting. if it is relevant to anything in this thread please elaborate. If not please don't hesitate to find a more appropriate thread or even start a new thread. Whatever the case, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I will look into it.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:36 am

:idea:
Aardwolf wrote:
My point is that at a certain macro scale gravity (whatever that is) is dominant but below that in the micro scale and below, the weakness of gravity is supplanted by electrical fields. When you remove gravity, as per the ISS experiment, electrical fields take over. The atmosphere clearly doesn't behave when you apply gravity theories using molecular weight so all manor of explanation is required. To me it's very clear the atmosphere is charge/field dominated at that scale.


Can you demonstrate some comprehension of your own idea, by stating when is or under what conditions gaseous water vapor is present in the atmosphere?
My main concern is with the beginning of the water cycle at ground level. I think we talk past each other when the subject matter covers everything. Just a FYI, if it helps communication.
I liked Wal's article, I think its more of a concept paper.(I finished it wishing he had continued to expand on it over time), but it was for public consumption and maybe to inspire others. I highlighted the key phrase, for me " in addition to" as an energy source. And that describes my position on electrical nature of the atmosphere and weather. There are various sources, and their effects on weather. Which I guess we agree. But right now the accepted model is what science and industry use. In materials research, they think more in terms of what you want to apply to weather.
So I hope I answered your question about Wal's paper, so please answer mine about gaseous water vapor, what conditions is it present? I understand why you want to avoid it.
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: 513
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:43 am

Aardwolf wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:Wal has done all the basic labs . . . that proves the theory
fosborn_ wrote:As Charles states there is a body of work (the bed rock that supports it)
Ardwolf..So you keep stating. So where are the papers showing this empirical "body of work" or "lab" tests proving water is molecular so we can discuss? As you like to put it


The gas laws? is a good place to start. What do you dispute?
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: 513
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

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

Unread postby MosaicDave » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:08 am

Cargo wrote:I've been searching and reading lately on a view 'connections'. Anyway, I'll just leave this here.

http://www.ittc.ku.edu/~callen/energy_h ... 1to9-3.pdf

Cheers

This is (the beginning of) a really interesting article; Feynman was awesome. It's too bad the linked PDF only included these first few pages of the chapter.

Cargo, if you're aware of where the remainder of this book may be in online PDF form, I would be interested to know. Otherwise I may try to look it up or borrow a paper copy from the University library here.

Anyway he's going in a couple of interesting directions at the end of the final page:

1) Why is there the oddly synchronized worldwide daily variation in atmospheric potential gradient, as shown in Fig. 9-5; and

2) What's driving the continuous global atmospheric current?

The second of these questions I feel applies to the Sun as well, and is I think a big difficulty for the entire Thunderbolts team's "electric universe" conceptions.

Everyone always assumes charge can't be just generated from nothing. But in a lot of ways, that's exactly what I feel appears to be going on somehow, inside the Earth, and inside the Sun.

Ditto with the creation of mass from nothing. I find the evidence for the "growing Earth" hypothesis to be quite compelling. Nobody knows how this mass could be generated, so it's easy to ridicule notions of a growing Earth.

But as my son asked his teacher in Fourth Grade, when Teacher was explaining that mass cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form into another:

"But if that's true, then where did it all come from?"

--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 Aardwolf » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:16 am

fosborn_ wrote::idea:
Aardwolf wrote:
My point is that at a certain macro scale gravity (whatever that is) is dominant but below that in the micro scale and below, the weakness of gravity is supplanted by electrical fields. When you remove gravity, as per the ISS experiment, electrical fields take over. The atmosphere clearly doesn't behave when you apply gravity theories using molecular weight so all manor of explanation is required. To me it's very clear the atmosphere is charge/field dominated at that scale.


Can you demonstrate some comprehension of your own idea, by stating when is or under what conditions gaseous water vapor is present in the atmosphere?
Thankfully I comprehend my idea and nothing in my hypothesis deals with a requirement or non-requirement of gas. You might as well be asking me if the water is happy or sad. My main interest is with known liquid water because at the nano scale it's all theory so there is no point in trying to discuss absolutes. I only really interjected here because members were pointing out it is somehow known that water is vapour. It isn't known. It's theoretical.

fosborn_ wrote:My main concern is with the beginning of the water cycle at ground level. I think we talk past each other when the subject matter covers everything. Just a FYI, if it helps communication.
Well, that's James area of dispute, however, expect me to interject if you try to say it's known/proven/observed/measured that water is gas. It's simply not true.

fosborn_ wrote:I liked Wal's article, I think its more of a concept paper.(I finished it wishing he had continued to expand on it over time), but it was for public consumption and maybe to inspire others. I highlighted the key phrase, for me " in addition to" as an energy source. And that describes my position on electrical nature of the atmosphere and weather. There are various sources, and their effects on weather. Which I guess we agree. But right now the accepted model is what science and industry use. In materials research, they think more in terms of what you want to apply to weather.
So I hope I answered your question about Wal's paper, so please answer mine about gaseous water vapor, what conditions is it present? I understand why you want to avoid it.
So your open mind disagrees then. No surprise there. However, the highlighted comment is an odd thing to say when previously you were bigging up his lab test proving water is gas. Are you now retracting those statements? Especially when you think his conclusion is bunk.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:19 am

fosborn_ wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:Wal has done all the basic labs . . . that proves the theory
fosborn_ wrote:As Charles states there is a body of work (the bed rock that supports it)
Ardwolf..So you keep stating. So where are the papers showing this empirical "body of work" or "lab" tests proving water is molecular so we can discuss? As you like to put it


The gas laws? is a good place to start. What do you dispute?
We can discuss when you have established that the water is gas.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
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 4 guests