Moist Air Convection Myth

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: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby seasmith » Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:22 pm

Image

I agree with most of what you've said there, but i think with the concept of "burning water", that water vapor is what is being referred to; 'though Jimmcginn here calls it otherwise.

The above image, from GaryN's linked paper, shows an ATR spectra of liquid water, where the bumps on the graph show 'absorption bands', and the flat lines between are the 'bright non-aborption bands' in the 0-4000 cm infrared zone.
At least that's how i've always read spectrographs. I could be long wrong.

Recent work, using attenuated total reflectance (ATR) infrared spectroscopy, shows isosbestic points for both ordinary and heavy liquid water, with respect to temperature. For H2O these are at around 600, 1600, 1680 and 3550 cm-1 [1738] (171, 221, 669 and 3535 cm-1


http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_vibr ... ctrum.html
seasmith
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby webolife » Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:59 pm

We're on the same page.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2395
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:04 am

jimmcginn wrote:3) Now here is the weird part: There is more ice in warm, agitated (liquid) water than there is in cool calm (liquid) water.

You can't possibly know what I mean by #3 until after you've read and comprehended my first chapter.

webolife wrote:Also, Pollack's work has shown that at the critical freezing point of water an infrared burst is detected.

Wow! I suspect I might have come across this before in Pollacks writing but until you mentioned it here its significance never occurred to me. I'm not sure but I think my model actually predicts this. Enough said for now, but it relates to stopping the thermal heartbeat associated with H2O's high heat capacity. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes


Assuming you have read Bill (Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes) you can now get an understanding of why my theory predicts this infrared burst. In liquid water H2O molecules are in a constant state of pendulumic activity. That activity comes to a sudden halt with feezing--the energy has to go somewhere, thus the infrared burst.

Also, this is why the kinetic energy model is so inapplicable to H2O. It's not just Brownian motion. There is a distinctly different mechanism associated with the high heat capacity of H2O and it has everything to do with the zeroing of polarity associated with fully symmetrick H bonding.

If this is not perfectly clear to you I suggest reading Bill over and over again until it is.

Regards,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Jan 14, 2017 11:45 am

GaryN wrote:webolife:
And Gary, that just adds yet one more state for our "everyday" water!!


I have only just begun looking into water in any detail, and the complexity of such a common (to us in the Pacific N.W.!) substance has already amazed me. I have been looking into the spectral properties, and found this page:
Water Absorption Spectrum
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_vibr ... ctrum.html
I was looking for emission lines really, in the LWIR, but I'll try to 'absorb' the info on that page first.


And so, the reason H2O has such a huge (anomalous) absorption spectrum is the same reason it has a high heat capacity. It has to do with the pendulumic activity that exists in liquid water that itself is a result of the zeroing of polarity with fully symmetric H bonding. (This is fully explained here:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16584

This website is a good example of how desperate people get when the facts don't match with what the model predicts. The zeroing of polarity is unknown to science. It's unknown to Martin Chaplin. (Don't bother trying to discuss any of this with Martin Chaplin. He is *extremely* defensive about this. I've tried.)

All of the discussion about "symmetric stretch, asymmetric stretch, bend and libration is BS. It's just desperation to make their model work. The standard model of water structure is worthless because it starts with the wrong assumption that liquid H2O polarity is constant. It's not. As I explained in Bill, its highly variable.

You will find all the researchers associated with the current paradigm are extremely defensive about their inability to resolve over 70 anomalies of H2O. It's a taboo subject for them. They will not discuss it. They are a solid wall of silence on this.

Regards,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:57 am



Thanks Seaside,

Actually this is the link I was referring to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rheKIzEAmv0

Take special notice between 2:50 and 4:10.

Regards

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby GaryN » Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:31 pm

Hi James,
I'm wondering on your views on the origin of water? This is the standard answer it seems:

In the universe

Much of the universe's water is produced as a byproduct of star formation. The formation of stars is accompanied by a strong outward wind of gas and dust. When this outflow of material eventually impacts the surrounding gas, the shock waves that are created compress and heat the gas. The water observed is quickly produced in this warm dense gas.


The Sun did not form in this way according to EU theory, so how else could water be created?
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2535
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Jan 15, 2017 2:25 pm

GaryN wrote:The Sun did not form in this way according to EU theory, so how else could water be created?
I won't be of much help on this. But since water is a compound molecule and hydrogen is a given, then it only seems we would have to explain the origins of oxygen. But I am sure you already know this. Regards James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:25 am

The large bump is not associated with an intrinsic property of H2O, so it won't show up in any "burning". Its a collective property associated with H2O polarity and the ensuing zeroing of polarity explained in 'Bill'.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby MerLynn » Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:15 am

Moist air Convection? What about Liquid water defying convection?

Take a heavy gauge iron wire like for fences, about 10 feet long. Wrap it spirally from one end to the other with fine copper wire like used in motors. then spiral this electro magnetic wire around a water pipe. connect the electro magnetic wires ends to a DC power source and then run water through the pipe. For Novices best to recycle the water into a drum and continually cycle the water making very magnetic water indeed. (their is actually a formula but that's more technical than we need for this experiment)

Then to test the Magnetic Charge that the water now has, hold a flame from a lighter or match to the water pouring into the drum and watch the fire follow the water down defying "gravity" and Heat convection, that sort of implies fire cant go down.

Magnetic Field anomalies may have more to do with weather and "moist" air then they have ever thought of.

Can be done with a 12 car battery if the dimensions of wires, spacing of windings and diameter of pipe is 'formatted' to the Matrix of water and you have a liquid magnet flowing through a pipe that only requires more coils to tap into the swirling magnetic water past a copper coiled collector.

It might be the spin of the rain drops that help create lightning because what is moist may go up and may come down again. Its not gravity, its magnetic attraction.

Moist air is created by heat. And as the above experiment will show you, heat doesnt always go up in the atmosphere. Heated (plasma energised) water vapor can be attracted back to the earth.
MerLynn
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:28 am
Location: Land of OZ

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby MerLynn » Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:22 am

The real problem with the convection myth is that unless the liquid or gas is frozen its constantly in motion in its natural state. How else does a drop of dye permeate the entire pool or container of air.
Heat or Plasma energy merely speeds up this natural process.

More energy...... more movement.

Calling it convection implies its something newly created. As in, you create a convection by heating the water or air. All your doing is speeding it up by applying magnetic plasma energy. People, you need to think in terms of magnetic fields, not heat and convection terms.
MerLynn
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:28 am
Location: Land of OZ

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Jan 21, 2017 2:13 pm

MerLynn wrote:People, you need to think in terms of magnetic fields, not heat and convection terms.


Merlynn,

Thanks for the response. I've been dealing with this for about 5 years now, so I've had a lot of time to work out all the issues.

Electrical engineers tend to see electricity in everything. H2O as a conductor of electricity to explain the power of storms is a dead end. Hydrogen bonds/force is categorically distinct from Ionic bonds/force.

Convection is wrong, but what is right is not simple:
The theory of storm dates to the 19th Century and a science-based evangelist named Espy.

Modern meteorologists have something in common with Espy. Espy was confounded by water. Modern meteorologists are confounded by water, . . . in fact, all of science is confounded by water. Much of the understanding of nature that we have currently is built on a false premise--about our understanding of water. That needs to get fixed first.

The reality is meteorology doesn't care about storm theory. The reasons for this are deeply rooted in their history. They are about forecasting. They are not about comprehending dynamic processes. Forecasting involves synoptics (statistical mapping). Convection theory is their marketing. Whether it is actually true or not makes no difference when you are using synoptic methods. And so, they assume the validity of the convection model of storm theory for the same reason that almost everybody else does, . . . it seems to make sense. Beyond that they don't give it much thought. Storm theory is the marketing wing of the discipline and, well, . . . it seems to be effective. So why change it? And so, they actually don't care about it or even give it much thought. It is built into their culture--it's like a parable. It's reflected in their nomenclature. But they don't really understand it as a dynamic process.

Meteorologists got one thing right. Water is involved in storms and atmospheric flow. It just doesn't have anything to do with convection. It has to do with the high surface tension associated with microdroplets under high energy (moist/dry) wind shear conditions. And it has to do with the fact that when you maximize the surface area of water you maximize its surface tension. This is the basis of the plasma that underlies the structure that is plainly evident in tornadoes and hurricanes.

It is our failure to understand the dynamics associated with H2O polarity and H bonding that needs to get fixed first.

This explains it all:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060

Cheers,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby MerLynn » Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:40 pm

jimmcginn wrote:
It is our failure to understand the dynamics associated with H2O polarity and H bonding that needs to get fixed first.

This explains it all:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060

Cheers,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes



No I disagree, that link doesn't explain it all and IMO just confuses the issue even further

But you are right in that the dynamics of Water (which isnt H2O but Nickc doesnt like me to hijack threads so can we take this private?) is completely misunderstood.

But to keep it on thread, few actually watch water flow.... even from their genitalia.
One gets a largish drum say 20 liters that has a variable tap on the bottom. The water can either exit out a round hole say 1 to 3 mm or it can exit as a flat stream say 1 to 2 mm thick and 5 mm wide.
While adjusting the flow rate to get the maximum observable effect, one notices that water when it exits a tube in freefall to the earth to the observant it will be seen that the water twists 3 times before breaking up into droplets. first left hand then right had then left hand then droplets. The water is "formatting" itself. This is only non observable if the distance is too short.

For the really observant, these droplets continue the left hand spin until reaching the earth. This spinning raindrop interacts with the earths magnetic field and 'charges' the droplet with 'magnetic plasma' energy. Plants react favorably to this higher magnetic or life force charge. Every farmer knows an inch of rain is better than a bag of fertilizer. Its this spin that gives Lord Kelvins Thunderstorm the spark. Its all about the "charge" or magnetic factor.
Irrigation farmers have to use bagged Nitrogen to get the same effect as rain water.
Water stored for short periods of time in a (cheops) Pyramidal construct will give this same charged water effect to pot plants verses ordinary tap water. The a fore mentioned electromagnet water pipe will duplicate this charged water on plants too. Must be a stainless steel water pipe so the magnetism goes through the pipe into the water not along the pipe and has little effect on the water as a mild steel pipe would do.

Meteorologists, climate changers, water theorist experimenters of all kinds do not understand the magnetic field effects of Water. Convection is a made up word to explain that which they do not understand. Its a CON word.
MerLynn
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:28 am
Location: Land of OZ

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Jan 21, 2017 5:27 pm

MerLynn wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:It is our failure to understand the dynamics associated with H2O polarity and H bonding that needs to get fixed first.
This explains it all:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060
Cheers,
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

No I disagree, that link doesn't explain it all and IMO just confuses the issue even further

If you wanted me to take this assertion seriously you'd have to be more specific than this.
MerLynn wrote:But you are right in that the dynamics of Water (which isnt H2O but Nickc doesnt like me to hijack threads so can we take this private?

Okay. My email: jimmcginn9 at gmail dot com
MerLynn wrote:)<snip>Meteorologists, climate changers, water theorist experimenters of all kinds do not understand the magnetic field effects of Water. Convection is a made up word to explain that which they do not understand. Its a CON word.

I certainly agree with this last sentiment. I've been studying this subject for a long time. So, I think I know what I'm talking about. The subject has been thoroughly obscured by academia. That is a huge obstacle to deal with. So, I think NickC is right to not let the thread get hijacked. There is already a huge amount of misinformation on this subject generated by academia so there is a lot of vested interest in maintaining this obscurity. I don't want to add to it. I don't want to make it any easier for them to evade this subject. Surely, you understand.

You can't understand H2O until you first understand the quantum mechanical factors underlying polarity and how H bonds themselves are the mechanism that neutralized H2O polarity. This is the key. Once you understand this the other pieces of the puzzle start to fall into place. (See Bill Chapter one -- Air Brakes for more.)

H2O, in my estimation, does not have much involvement with electricity. But it has a huge relationship with energy. Until you understand this and why I say this it is probably pointless for us to have much of a discussion because we will be talking past each other. And I have no interest in that. Nevertheless, feel free to contact me at the email address above.

Cheers,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Moist Air Convection Myth

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:44 am

Maol wrote:Ultrasonic cleaners work better, clean faster, when the water is near and above about 60*C. Literature about using the cleaners describes the effect of water temperature on the characteristics of ultrasonic cavitation.

Good example. Cavitation is associated with the hard phase of water occurring briefly in the context of liquid water. We can think of it as a sudden, short lasting, occurrence of surface tension under turbulent conditions that force the existence of a surface. Since, as I've explained in other posts, H bonds neutralize polarity, any situational factor that reduces some bonds but maintains others--as happens naturally along a surface--will produce the hard phase of H2O--if only for microseconds. This happens more readily in warmer water because there is more energy to achieve the temporary bond breakage that reverses the neutralization of polarity that is associated with more comprehensive H bonding.

It's basically the same concept I was discussing here:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=120#p115051
JMcG:
Here is an interesting concept that might get you back on the right track and into the right frame of mind. Did you know that the instant before water that is being heated in an enclosed container (as in a steam engine, for example) flashes into steam it goes through a phase (maybe no longer than a billionth of a second) in which it is as hard as ice?

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests