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 MosaicDave » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:25 am

Aardwolf wrote: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.

1. Well you had asked how did I know the water wasn't charged. Because I got it from the faucet, attached to the grounded water pipe.

2. It doesn't matter: I've calculated the (quite astonishing) amount of charge, needed to move this certain mass of water, out of a glass, by electrostatic levitation. Say you divide the water into ten million billion microdroplets; you still need one ten million billionth of that total charge, to levitate each drop, in the defined electric field. Still the same total amount of charge.
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 jimmcginn » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:44 am

fosborn_ wrote:
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?

:?:

I knew you wouldn't answer that question.
fosborn_ wrote: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.

I've also heard that Uber is considering ducks as drivers:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searc ... IaegLvAQAJ
and
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searc ... LRd5owBQAJ
fosborn_ wrote:Only big talk so far. There is no cold steam controversy, speculation has no value.

My point exactly!
fosborn_ wrote:I did send him an email asking. But a hint, is his work with IBM doing weather graphics.

If you get any response at all from Thornhill I suspect it will be overwhelmingly underwhelming. (A hint for you: in the future, wait until after you get a response from somebody before you speak for them.)
fosborn_ wrote: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.

This reads like something the pope would have said to Galileo.

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 MosaicDave » Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:00 pm

fosborn_ wrote:I think you could quit your day job and write witty entertaining science articles. Who knew math could be so entertaining!


Thanks!

But I don't think I'll have time for that, because I've just thought of something much more interesting:

As we know now, quantitatively, there is this very very large change in the total charge inside an ordinary glass of water, as it evaporates, due to all those bazillions of little charged nano-droplets levitating out and floating away, carrying packets of charge with them.

So let's take a glass of water out of the faucet, a good full glass, maybe 750ml or so, making sure the water is neutral and grounded when it goes into the glass.

Then just leave it sit out, until 100ml of water evaporates. We could even warm it, so it happens faster, in an hour or so. Just don't boil it though, because that will create steam - we only want the nanodroplets.

Now, q=CV works the other way too: So when that water evaporates away, there will be this very large charge on the water remaining inside the glass. Which as we know is a very good insulator. And as we know now, the voltage inside the glass, will be up around 100,000 Volts, at least.

Anyway, the energy stored in a capacitor, is: E = 1/2 CV^2. So for our drinking glass, with the capacitance of 10nF, or 10^-9F, charged to a voltage of 10^5 volts, E = 1/2 (10^10) (10^-9), or 5 Joules of energy. Stored in our little glass-of-water Leyden jar.

Now, it so happens I know, that's about the same amount of energy they use to defibrillate your heart, if you show up in the emergency room with a serious arrhythmia - they give you a big shock, with usually around 3-10 Joules of energy.

So if you're ever out camping, far from a hospital, and your heart starts to misbehave and go all into some crazy bad rhythm, you could just evaporate some water from a glass, and then take a sip from it. You should hold the glass in your left hand, because your heart is a little more on your left side.

That way the current to discharge the glass, will flow from your left hand, down your left arm, through the area of your heart, up your neck, and down your lips to the charged water in the glass, and hopefully give your heart a good reset.

Make sure you need it though. A shock of 5 Joules REALLY REALLY HURTS. They give you anesthesia before they do it in the hospital.

--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 fosborn_ » Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:04 pm

Ardwolf wrote..We can discuss when you have established that the water is gas.

Ok, Do you dispute something about the gas laws?

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.


So what conditions do you think it occurs if you had your gas vapor hat on ?


Wal's paper? done with that. Your wrong about my take.
Fog?
Ardwolf..I think fog droplets don’t condense out of fog droplets?

Ok, how about droplets that fall out of the air. Your thought experiment seemed to imply droplets don't fall form the fog. But reality is they do. So some get heavy enough to fall and others are in small local eddies and drafts in my thought experiment. Which I had chance to test today, and will continue to test every opportunity.
So lets keep in reality, by personal observation. And there s room in my thought experiment for local electrostatics causing the eddies. I seen youtube video of spray droplets close to a cold water copper pipe, being deflected by a charged probe.
I'm thinking it was like 30 or 40 vdc

But I watched a cold morning fog today at 32 deg F. It looked like supper cooled droplets maybe, condensing to ice on a surface unless in the sunlight.
It was appeared still, but if I watched any one area I detected air movement. So I am testing your assertion. I'll keep observing.
.
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 jimmcginn » Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:06 pm

Aardwolf wrote:. . . . you need to isolate experiments to understand the effects otherwise you don't really know what's happening. Obviously that's difficult on earth when you're trying to isolate gravity and clearly this problem has been hid behind to support gravity rules theories.

Well stated. I think it is interesting to note that the guy who initiated this 'cold steam' misconception is the same guy who discovered gravity:
Isaac Newton was a human being
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16306
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.

Again, well stated. I think the concept you are discussing here is that of the atmosphere being a weak plasma as a consequence of the solar wind:
AGM Archive wrote:Bob Johnson's Talk
https://archive.org/details/BJ250415/v2
Jet Stream
http://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/jet-stream.htm-0

Electromagnetism
30 Apr 2015
For those unable to attend our AGM and Spring meeting . . .

The presentation outlines how the Sun affects the weather on Earth - and suggests what might make the Jet Stream tick. We have all heard of the Jet Stream as the Met Office . . .

How do we get from how the Sun works to how the jet streams perform in the atmosphere of the Earth. Bob Johnson begins by saying space is not a vacuum (as once thought) but is filled with plasma. The atmosphere of the Earth is not an electrified insulator either - but a weak plasma. This is an important point as it enables the Sun to play around with our weather - which is a fundamental change in thinking. Plasma can form cells and filaments and behaves differently to other gases. It has been described as a fourth state of matter. The presentation is written in a clear and concise manner and is designed to be transparent for a popular audience and the general public at large and is free of as much jargon as possible. It explains everything about plasma (well, almost) and how it is capable of conducting electricity. It can also contain magnetic energy embedded within itself - under the right conditions. Plasma has been the subject of research for a century and scientists know a lot about it - and so on.

The solar wind plasma is deflected by the Earth's magnetic field and this induces a complex system of electric currents which input energy to the magnetosphere and the ionosphere. The input depends on the velocity of the solar wind and the presence of a plasma filled solar wind interacts with the plasma in the Earth's atmosphere (and ionosphere).

Later, when looking at jet streams, which are quite narrow bands, he says they behave somewhat like plasma - or are influenced by plasma. In addition, sea water is an insulator and it is known that El Nino events and other ENSO cycles (the movement of ocean currents around the globe) move in synchronism with solar activity. We are essentially a water planet so this point is interesting to say the least (not least the role of evaporation and the formation of clouds etc).

Bob Johnson has produced an impressive presentation and quotes a host of scientific papers by people such as Akasofu, JA Eddy, H Alfven, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle, Lockwood, Zhang, Feng, Svalgaard, Svensmark, Vahrenholt and Luning, Wang, and so on (being just a few names that immediately ring a bell, although some of the others will, I'm sure, ring the door bell later). A terrific piece of endeavour to bring all this together and present it in such an easily digested manner. Highly recommended even if you are non-scientific, and let's face it, we've all heard of the jet stream but not many of us know what it entails, what it does, and what makes it move around and change our weather.


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 moonkoon » Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:15 pm

MosaicDave: ...It's too bad the linked PDF only included these first few pages of the chapter. ...

The complete lecture is here,
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html

He talks about how an electric field affects droplet size.

...If you take a small nozzle connected to a water faucet and direct it upward at a steep angle,... the water will come out in a fine stream that eventually breaks up into a spray of fine drops. If you now put an electric field across the stream at the nozzle, ... the form of the stream will change.

With a weak electric field you will find that the stream breaks up into a smaller number of large-sized drops. But if you apply a stronger field, the stream breaks up into many, many fine drops—smaller than before. ...

... The only point we wish to make is that in certain circumstances electric fields can have considerable influence on the drops. The exact machinery by which something happens in a thunderstorm is not at all known, and is not at all necessarily related to what we have just described. We have included it just so that you will appreciate the complexities that could come into play. In fact, nobody has a theory applicable to clouds based on that idea. ...
moonkoon
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:37 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:54 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
Ardwolf_ wrote:We can discuss when you have established that the water is gas.

Ok, Do you dispute something about the gas laws?

I dispute that they are applicable to liquid. (And I think Ardwolf does too.)
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.
So what conditions do you think it occurs if you had your gas vapor hat on ?


I won't pretend to speak for Ardwolf here, but in my opinon: Any conditions that raise the temperature above the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O, such as may occur during a meteor impact, volcano eruption, or a nuclear strike.
Wal's paper? done with that. Your wrong about my take.
Fog?

Yes, I think this describes your "take".

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 seasmith » Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:55 pm

`
MosaicDave wrote:

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


Dave, You may also want to check out the link i gave Cargo on previous page:
Feynman's earlier nebular thoughts are expanded upon there, by another actual engineer.

http://breakthroughinenergy.com/sitefil ... gyBook.pdf
seasmith
 
Posts: 2646
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

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

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:05 pm

seasmith wrote: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.

You are right. I didn't read it. (And now I am regretful because it sure would have come in handy with respect to Mosaic Dave's experiment. [see below].) However, in my defense, you did not make any effort to explain its significance (and you did the same here again) and you made a sarcastic comment. I usually interpret such as a troll tactic to obscure the issue.
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.

Wow! This is amazing. Seriously. This, possibly, could explain the results of Mosaic Dave's experiment. If you remembers, Dave's experiment demonstrate that evaporate was distinctly vertical. My interpretation of what is indicated here on the first few pages of this document (see link above) may explain why. Here are some relevant quotes:

Breakthrough In Energy wrote:This study recognizes that the red-hot magma surface of the Earth's interior acts as a thermionic charge emitter. However, thermionic charge emission is new only to geophysics. In the electrical sciences it has been known since 1883, when Edison first noticed an electric current between a cold metal plate and the heated filament in his electric lamp. Since then it has been shown that all materials, metals and insulators, emit electric charges and electrically charged matter in an increasingly large amount when they reach red-hot temperatures. Millions of electron tubes manufactured indicate the success of the theory of thermionic emission where the red-hot cathode emits electric charges.

I applied this theory to the Earth's magma surface which can be recognized as the magma cathode of the Earth. It is not necessary to make new observations to see the effects of the magma-cathode's charge emission. There is a vast collection of geophysical observations in the libraries of universities which describe these phenomena, although their current explanations are usually non-electrical. I removed the mostly mechanically oriented explanations from these observations, and applied modern electrical concepts and methods to find a better fit for the facts. In this view it can be clearly seen how the emitted charges pass through the magma-cathode's environment, that is the crust, the ocean, and the atmosphere, before they merge into another stream of thermionic charges, the solar wind, produced by the cathode Sun.

The electrically neutral matter in the environment of the magma cathode greatly impedes the flow of charges, it acts as a dam. There is an immense amount of energy stored in this dam. The telluric and the atmospheric electric potential gradients are the first indicators of this stored energy. The first and main purpose of this study is to show the existence of this stored energy, that this energy is continually replenished in the dam by the thermionic emission, and that this energy is available for human use.

It is possible to construct bypasses in this dam by existing technology, and to extract a very large amount of energy from it. A fully developed such bypass, a geopower plant, would produce more energy than a nuclear plant, at much less cost. Moreover, it would produce no harmful side effects, no radiation or any other kind of pollution. Practically there is no limit to the number of such power plants which could be built, and they could operate anywhere on the Earth.


The following quotes seem especially relevant to interpreting the results of Mosaic Dave's "green bottle" experiments:

. . . the red-hot magma surface of the Earth's interior acts as a thermionic charge emitter.

. . . thermionic charge emission is new only to geophysics.

. . . all materials, metals and insulators, emit electric charges and electrically charged matter in an increasingly large amount when they reach red-hot temperatures . . .

Earth's magma surface can be recognized as the magma cathode of the Earth.

. . . the emitted charges pass through the magma-cathode's environment, that is the crust, the ocean, and the atmosphere, before they merge into another stream of thermionic charges, the solar wind, produced by the cathode Sun.

The telluric and the atmospheric electric potential gradients are the first indicators of this stored energy.


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 6:44 pm

MosaicDave wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: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.

1. Well you had asked how did I know the water wasn't charged. Because I got it from the faucet, attached to the grounded water pipe.
No I didn't. Quote me please rather than decide what you hope I said.

MosaicDave wrote:2. It doesn't matter: I've calculated the (quite astonishing) amount of charge, needed to move this certain mass of water, out of a glass, by electrostatic levitation. Say you divide the water into ten million billion microdroplets; you still need one ten million billionth of that total charge, to levitate each drop, in the defined electric field. Still the same total amount of charge.
So are you still attempting to levitate all the water in an single instant?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

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

Unread postby MosaicDave » Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:57 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
MosaicDave wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: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.

1. Well you had asked how did I know the water wasn't charged. Because I got it from the faucet, attached to the grounded water pipe.
No I didn't. Quote me please rather than decide what you hope I said.


Aardwolf wrote:1) Where the water was sourced to ensure it was electrically neutral to the bottles and laboratory environment;
......
5) Were you able to ensure that the water used in the experiment was free of hygroelectricity. Before and after the experiment.


Aardwolf wrote:
MosaicDave wrote:2. It doesn't matter: I've calculated the (quite astonishing) amount of charge, needed to move this certain mass of water, out of a glass, by electrostatic levitation. Say you divide the water into ten million billion microdroplets; you still need one ten million billionth of that total charge, to levitate each drop, in the defined electric field. Still the same total amount of charge.
So are you still attempting to levitate all the water in an single instant?

no...
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 6:59 pm

MosaicDave wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:I think you could quit your day job and write witty entertaining science articles. Who knew math could be so entertaining!


Thanks!

But I don't think I'll have time for that, because I've just thought of something much more interesting:

As we know now, quantitatively, there is this very very large change in the total charge inside an ordinary glass of water, as it evaporates, due to all those bazillions of little charged nano-droplets levitating out and floating away, carrying packets of charge with them.

So let's take a glass of water out of the faucet, a good full glass, maybe 750ml or so, making sure the water is neutral and grounded when it goes into the glass.

Then just leave it sit out, until 100ml of water evaporates. We could even warm it, so it happens faster, in an hour or so. Just don't boil it though, because that will create steam - we only want the nanodroplets.

Now, q=CV works the other way too: So when that water evaporates away, there will be this very large charge on the water remaining inside the glass. Which as we know is a very good insulator. And as we know now, the voltage inside the glass, will be up around 100,000 Volts, at least.

Anyway, the energy stored in a capacitor, is: E = 1/2 CV^2. So for our drinking glass, with the capacitance of 10nF, or 10^-9F, charged to a voltage of 10^5 volts, E = 1/2 (10^10) (10^-9), or 5 Joules of energy. Stored in our little glass-of-water Leyden jar.

Now, it so happens I know, that's about the same amount of energy they use to defibrillate your heart, if you show up in the emergency room with a serious arrhythmia - they give you a big shock, with usually around 3-10 Joules of energy.

So if you're ever out camping, far from a hospital, and your heart starts to misbehave and go all into some crazy bad rhythm, you could just evaporate some water from a glass, and then take a sip from it. You should hold the glass in your left hand, because your heart is a little more on your left side.

That way the current to discharge the glass, will flow from your left hand, down your left arm, through the area of your heart, up your neck, and down your lips to the charged water in the glass, and hopefully give your heart a good reset.

Make sure you need it though. A shock of 5 Joules REALLY REALLY HURTS. They give you anesthesia before they do it in the hospital.

--dc
Still with the straw man. I guess it's only way you can respond.

Maybe you can check the link below and calculate the energy required for this phenomena.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHrgXDM3jAg

I reckon it's about 1.2 gigawatts. He's lucky he didn't explode into ash with all that energy he made with the towel and tube.
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 7:13 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
Ardwolf wrote..We can discuss when you have established that the water is gas.

Ok, Do you dispute something about the gas laws?
There's probably lots of things. Unfortunately I doubt I'll get any replies to my questions and just have to debunk reams of irrelevant papers. I think it would be more usefull for all of us for you to read this;
http://www.arbesman.net/the-half-life-of-facts/

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.


So what conditions do you think it occurs if you had your gas vapor hat on ?
I don't have one because to me it doesn't matter as it has no effect on my hypothesis.

fosborn_ wrote:Wal's paper? done with that. Your wrong about my take.
Fog?
Ardwolf..I think fog droplets don’t condense out of fog droplets?

Ok, how about droplets that fall out of the air. Your thought experiment seemed to imply droplets don't fall form the fog. But reality is they do. So some get heavy enough to fall and others are in small local eddies and drafts in my thought experiment. Which I had chance to test today, and will continue to test every opportunity.
So lets keep in reality, by personal observation. And there s room in my thought experiment for local electrostatics causing the eddies. I seen youtube video of spray droplets close to a cold water copper pipe, being deflected by a charged probe.
I'm thinking it was like 30 or 40 vdc

But I watched a cold morning fog today at 32 deg F. It looked like supper cooled droplets maybe, condensing to ice on a surface unless in the sunlight.
It was appeared still, but if I watched any one area I detected air movement. So I am testing your assertion. I'll keep observing.
.
Drafts? Does that include unnecessary updratfs? Or are these just sideways and down drafts? Please elaborate.
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 7:36 pm

MosaicDave wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:1) Where the water was sourced to ensure it was electrically neutral to the bottles and laboratory environment;
......
5) Were you able to ensure that the water used in the experiment was free of hygroelectricity. Before and after the experiment.
Nothing about it coming out of a grounded tap charged. You only just stated it came from a grounded tap. I had no idea.

MosaicDave wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
MosaicDave wrote:2. It doesn't matter: I've calculated the (quite astonishing) amount of charge, needed to move this certain mass of water, out of a glass, by electrostatic levitation. Say you divide the water into ten million billion microdroplets; you still need one ten million billionth of that total charge, to levitate each drop, in the defined electric field. Still the same total amount of charge.
So are you still attempting to levitate all the water in an single instant?

no...
So what is the time period?
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 3 guests