We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is g

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: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:58 pm

seasmith wrote:?
Nobody confuses a vapor for a gas, do they ?
Where did they go to school anyway ?


Meteorologists refuse to make a clear distinction. Surely you've heard of the convection model of storm theory. It is a standard, but unadvertised, assumption therein. Don't bother to ask them why they maintain this obfuscation. You won't get a straight answer because, frankly, they themselves don't know why. Its just standard. If you were to ask, at best they might refer to it as a "simplifying" assumption. If you press beyond that expect to be aggressively dismissed.

It is also widely assumed by the populace at large.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:00 am

D_Archer wrote: EU already solved liquids in air and how rainclouds can exist, water is a dipolar molecule and they are held up in the air because of charge, when a charge breakdown occurs, ie lightning the water will fall.

True, EU (Wallace Thornhill) explained how heavier microdroplets can/do remain suspended between air molecules as a consequence of the electricity provided by the solar wind. This is very important. But it isn't the whole story.

Without storms this moist air would hover (possibly) no higher than a few thousand feet over the surface of the planet. This is a consequence of the fact that moist air, being 3 to 7 percent heavier than dry air, has negative buoyancy. Vortices deliver the low pressure energy that does the heavy lifting that can lift it as high as the top of the troposphere. Understanding vortices is, therefore, the key to understanding storms and atmospheric flow. And, according to my theory, the principles involve with understanding vortices involve water theory, plasma physics, gas theory, fluid dynamics, and, maybe most importantly of all, thermodynamics. But electrodynamics is not much involved in this part of the process, in my estimation.

Academic mischaracterization of water is the biggest obstacle to understanding the weather.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby sketch1946 » Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:32 pm

Haha, very interesting discussion, my experience is purely at an ordinary day to day practical level... carburettors, spray painting, welding etc..

However the physics appeals to me in the light of trying to understand plasma better, and to get my words right...

https://www.av8n.com/physics/vapor.htm
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:20 am

sketch1946 wrote:Haha, very interesting discussion, my experience is purely at an ordinary day to day practical level... carburettors, spray painting, welding etc..


The heart of this problem is laziness and deceptiveness. Common usage is, unavoidably, ambiguous. Real scientist realize this and are very careful to define their phraseology so that there is no confusion. Phoney scientist (in some disciplines, meteorology for example, phoney science reigns) refuse to define their phraseology and depend upon the confusion of ambiguity to hide their phoney explanations.

sketch1946 wrote:However the physics appeals to me in the light of trying to understand plasma better, and to get my words right...


Plasma is actually a lot simpler of a concept than people generally assume. Here is a pretty good explanation here:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117061

A plasma—all plasmas—are a consequence of two opposing forces. One force tries to push the particles apart the other tries to pull them together again. Often the force/energy that tries to pull them apart is provided externally. For example, with man-made, ionic plasma (arc welding) electricity is the source of the external energy. With fire (yes, fire is a plasma) combustion is the source. To those (myself included) that believe the atmosphere is, in its entirety, a slight plasma, “all the way to down to the air we breath” (Bob Johnson) the solar wind is the source of the external energy. (Note: As will be more explicitly addressed in a subsequent chapter, the solar wind has a significant effect on the atmosphere and weather.) And, as explained, for this newly theorized vortex plasma wind-shear—molecules directly impacting each other in a highly directional manner along a usually flat or somewhat flat plane—is the source of the external energy.

The coherence of this newly theorized plasma of spinning microdroplets/polymers, therefore, can be viewed as a consequence of two opposing forces: 1) the centrifugal forces of the spinning pulling the individual molecules of the polymers apart and, upon clashing, knocking each other around and, 2) their own collective (surface tension maximized) electromagnetic forces—literally the force associate with H2O polarity—pulling the spinning microdroplets/polymers together, pulling them back in towards the greater collective of spinning microdroplets/polymers of the greater plasma. We might even envision each microdroplet/polymer as being like an ice skater spinning faster or slower as they pull their arms in and let them out again. (When it comes to spinning, water is a natural. (Note: In a subsequent chapter we will discuss more explicitly how suspended H2O microdroplets are, seemingly, perfectly designed to absorb angular momentum and begin spinning along wind-shear boundaries.)

The strength (structural resilience and surface hardness) of a plasma can be comprehended by understanding the strength of the two opposing forces. Since we would expect there to be some equivalency between these opposing forces (otherwise the plasma couldn’t maintain coherence) if we know the strength of one we can infer the other and, at least, get a general idea of the strength of the plasma. Being novel, theoretical and, possibly, a complete illusion, we don’t have any way of quantifying the energy or force associated with the spinning micropolymers of H2O. But that is not the case for the force that opposes it. Or, I should say, we at least know the upper limit of this force. And we have reason to believe it is significant in that it is associated with the same mechanism that underlies the high boiling point of H2O. It can be strictly defined as the force needed to separate two H bonded H2O molecules into two singular H2O molecules (producing genuine gaseous H2O—steam). And so, individual molecules of H2O have a huge force attempting to pull them together into a microdroplet—their own polarity. Without the end-over-end spinning their own mutual attraction (a direct consequence of their polarity) would cause them to collapse in on themselves, re-forming into a round, surface minimized, microdroplet. Lastly, you may have noticed a dichotomy in what is written above in this paragraph. Or you may just feel not quite comfortable with it. That is a feeling you will get used to as you descend the ladder of lies.


James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby comingfrom » Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:55 am

Water doesn't have to be at boiling temperature to evaporate (e-vapor-ate, or, to become vapor).
In fact, the air will strip the water off you, as you know if you have ever come out from a swim on a windy day.

Water dissolves in air.
Just like gases dissolve in water.

There isn't more water inside a cloud, than there is outside the cloud.
Clouds are clouds of ions, which attract water molecules, and we can then see the water because the molecules become structured around the ions and refract the sunlight to our eyes.

Excuse the abrupt introduction, but whether water in the air is a vapor or a gas seems to me to be splitting hairs, or a matter of semantics. The fact is, we know there is water in the air, and we know how it gets there. Lakes dams and oceans aren't boiling, yet water evaporates from them into the air.
I wasn't ever satisfied with the explanations of cloud formation given to me in school. They didn't explain my own simple observations for me, and I have pursued a better explanation all my life. So I'm interested in what you have to say, and agree with most of what I have read so far. I agree that "mainstream" has got things all wrong (and not just in Meteorology).
Anyhow, this is where I am up to.

The Earth is part of the Solar circuit.
The solar wind delivers particles, electrons, protons and cations, which the Earth's magnetic field draws some in (causing the Northern and Southern Auroras). Since electrons are approximately 1/1,800th the size of a proton, most or many of them manage the passage through the atmosphere without striking a molecule, and the Earth acts as a semiconductor soaking them up, but the protons and cations get caught by colliding with molecules in the atmosphere (hence the glow). All these positively charged particles accumulate and spread around the globe in a layer we call the ionosphere. The charge of the ionosphere is maintained by a double layer, however the charge difference to the ground (negatively charged Earth) is very great, and the double layer breaks here and there from time to time discharging some cations into the lower atmosphere, where there are water molecules. Water molecules have two Hydrogen atoms at one end of an Oxygen atom causing them to be slightly more positive one end, and negative at the other. In the vicinity of a cation the water molecule will "magnetize" itself to that cation. When many water molecules have oriented themselves and clung to the ion they are lined up like a crystal formation, and sometimes form into snowflakes by this means. And like crystals the water droplets refract sunlight and send little flashes to our eye, the end result is that we see clouds. Water outside of clouds are randomly oriented and so don't exhibit this effect.

So, clouds are clouds of ions, and the ions effect the water in the air in the cloud. A cloud is also a double layer, which separates a region of positively charged atmosphere from the ambient relatively negative air around the cloud. The double layer contains the ions within the cloud and gives the cloud it's distinctive boundary. Or sometimes the cloud's double layer breaks, and you can watch it sometimes when a stream jets out the side of a cloud.

The protons and ions ultimately want to discharge themselves to Earth, but are fighting multiple electric forces in the atmosphere before they are able to. Eventually they always do. They discharge as rain, as well as lightning. Each raindrop having a proton or a cation at it's center, just waiting to recapture an electron when it reaches the ground.

I don't know if I have explained very well, I have assumed a bit of background knowledge, such as on double layers.
Or if it is helpful to you in any way.

This explained for me how clouds can "pop out of nowhere" in the middle of the desert on a bright sunny day, a long way away from any evaporating water bodies.
It explained for me why gardens grow so much better with rain, than on town water. Plants make good use of charged free protons, for making hydrocarbons.
It also implies that this is how the Earth is (and probably all the planets are) gradually growing in size. Material blown off from the Sun is steadily raining down on Earth. Literally.

The clouds teach me EU theory :D
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:42 am

comingfrom wrote:Water doesn't have to be at boiling temperature to evaporate (e-vapor-ate, or, to become vapor).
In fact, the air will strip the water off you, as you know if you have ever come out from a swim on a windy day.

Paul, we aren't bargaining to buy a used car here. Truth isn't negotiable.
comingfrom wrote:Water dissolves in air. Just like gases dissolve in water.

There are similarities, but so what? That is not a good excuse for just imagining them being exactly the same. Vapor is liquid. Gas is gaseous. We cannot just pretend that a vapor is a liquid so that we can pretend that meterology's notion of storms seems to make sense. Truth isn't negotiable.
comingfrom wrote:There isn't more water inside a cloud, than there is outside the cloud.
Clouds are clouds of ions, which attract water molecules, and we can then see the water because the molecules become structured around the ions and refract the sunlight to our eyes.

I don't agree that it is in any way reasonable to refer to H2O as being ionic.
comingfrom wrote:Excuse the abrupt introduction, but whether water in the air is a vapor or a gas seems to me to be splitting hairs,

It seems as such to everybody. That is the problem. Our intuition misleads us. Meteorology's storm theory panders to this intuition providing us a false understanding of atmospheric flow, which is a huge political obstacle to the acceptance of advanced thinking, like mine.
comingfrom wrote: or a matter of semantics. The fact is, we know there is water in the air, and we know how it gets there. Lakes dams and oceans aren't boiling, yet water evaporates from them into the air.

And since we know evaporate is liquid and, therefore, moist air is heavier than dry air we thereby know that evaporate can only have negative buoyancy and, therefore, the force that causes evaporation must be something not well understood. I believe electricity, as a result of the solar wind, may play a significant role. More recently I came across this:
http://principia-scientific.org/new-met ... y-objects/
comingfrom wrote:I wasn't ever satisfied with the explanations of cloud formation given to me in school. They didn't explain my own simple observations for me, and I have pursued a better explanation all my life. So I'm interested in what you have to say, and agree with most of what I have read so far. I agree that "mainstream" has got things all wrong (and not just in Meteorology).
Anyhow, this is where I am up to.

Many people get to the point you are at and they become overwhelmed and they fall back on the simple certainty of meteorology's model. It is very difficult to defeat your own intuition. (It has become even more difficult as a result of the fact that all of academia is in collusion to pander to our collective intuitions for fiscal [funding] reasons.)
comingfrom wrote:
The Earth is part of the Solar circuit.
The solar wind delivers particles, electrons, protons and cations, which the Earth's magnetic field draws some in (causing the Northern and Southern Auroras). Since electrons are approximately 1/1,800th the size of a proton, most or many of them manage the passage through the atmosphere without striking a molecule, and the Earth acts as a semiconductor soaking them up, but the protons and cations get caught by colliding with molecules in the atmosphere (hence the glow). All these positively charged particles accumulate and spread around the globe in a layer we call the ionosphere. The charge of the ionosphere is maintained by a double layer, however the charge difference to the ground (negatively charged Earth) is very great,

Interesting. It sound like you know a lot about the upper atmosphere.
comingfrom wrote: and the double layer breaks here and there from time to time discharging some cations into the lower atmosphere, where there are water molecules. Water molecules have two Hydrogen atoms at one end of an Oxygen atom causing them to be slightly more positive one end, and negative at the other.

This is true, but . . . well, let's just say that water is a lot more complex than people give it credit for being. See this:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16597#p117256
comingfrom wrote: In the vicinity of a cation the water molecule will "magnetize" itself to that cation. When many water molecules have oriented themselves and clung to the ion they are lined up like a crystal formation, and sometimes form into snowflakes by this means. And like crystals the water droplets refract sunlight and send little flashes to our eye, the end result is that we see clouds. Water outside of clouds are randomly oriented and so don't exhibit this effect.

So, clouds are clouds of ions, and the ions effect the water in the air in the cloud.

Thornhill assumes this also. I think it is mistaken to refer to H2O as being ionic, as I explain in the link above.

Unless and until you/everbody understand(s) water you will always be confused about cloud formation. And, once again, academia is the major obstacle.
comingfrom wrote:A cloud is also a double layer, which separates a region of positively charged atmosphere from the ambient relatively negative air around the cloud. The double layer contains the ions within the cloud and gives the cloud it's distinctive boundary. Or sometimes the cloud's double layer breaks, and you can watch it sometimes when a stream jets out the side of a cloud.

Excellent comment. Not many people realize that "stream jets" can be seen tracking between puffy clouds. They are actually much more plainly observable than most people realize.
comingfrom wrote:
The protons and ions ultimately want to discharge themselves to Earth, but are fighting multiple electric forces in the atmosphere before they are able to. Eventually they always do. They discharge as rain, as well as lightning. Each raindrop having a proton or a cation at it's center, just waiting to recapture an electron when it reaches the ground.

I don't know if I have explained very well, I have assumed a bit of background knowledge, such as on double layers.
Or if it is helpful to you in any way.

It is helpful. It is complimentary from what I can tell. It is a step in the right direction. I disagree that ions are involved. But your model (which seems similar to Thornhill's model) is closer to reality than is the meteorology's convection fairy tale.
comingfrom wrote:
This explained for me how clouds can "pop out of nowhere" in the middle of the desert on a bright sunny day, a long way away from any evaporating water bodies.
It explained for me why gardens grow so much better with rain, than on town water. Plants make good use of charged free protons, for making hydrocarbons.
It also implies that this is how the Earth is (and probably all the planets are) gradually growing in size. Material blown off from the Sun is steadily raining down on Earth. Literally.

The clouds teach me EU theory :D
~Paul


I think you are on the right track, but you aren't there yet. The key is to get a better understanding of H2O. It is much more complicated and categorically distinct from other chemical elements and, consequently, extremely counterintuitive. Unfortunately, once again, academia amplifies the problem by shielding us from the complexity by way of propping up models that appeal to our intuition.

When you have a comprehensive understanding of water then and only then will you have all the pieces of the puzzle from which a correct (more correct) understanding of atmospheric flow can be constructed.

I keep telling people that the key is in understanding water. They take a few steps in the right direction, and then they become confused, frustrated, and they fall back into the comfort of the simple certainty of academia's simple models.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby seasmith » Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:20 pm

comingfrom wrote:Water doesn't have to be at boiling temperature to evaporate (e-vapor-ate, or, to become vapor).
In fact, the air will strip the water off you, as you know if you have ever come out from a swim on a windy day.

Water dissolves in air.
Just like gases dissolve in water.

There isn't more water inside a cloud, than there is outside the cloud.
Clouds are clouds of ions, which attract water molecules, and we can then see the water because the molecules become structured around the ions and refract the sunlight to our eyes.

Excuse the abrupt introduction, but whether water in the air is a vapor or a gas seems to me to be splitting hairs, or a matter of semantics. The fact is, we know there is water in the air, and we know how it gets there. Lakes dams and oceans aren't boiling, yet water evaporates from them into the air.
I wasn't ever satisfied with the explanations of cloud formation given to me in school. They didn't explain my own simple observations for me, and I have pursued a better explanation all my life. So I'm interested in what you have to say, and agree with most of what I have read so far. I agree that "mainstream" has got things all wrong (and not just in Meteorology).
Anyhow, this is where I am up to.

The Earth is part of the Solar circuit.
The solar wind delivers particles, electrons, protons and cations, which the Earth's magnetic field draws some in (causing the Northern and Southern Auroras). Since electrons are approximately 1/1,800th the size of a proton, most or many of them manage the passage through the atmosphere without striking a molecule, and the Earth acts as a semiconductor soaking them up, but the protons and cations get caught by colliding with molecules in the atmosphere (hence the glow). All these positively charged particles accumulate and spread around the globe in a layer we call the ionosphere. The charge of the ionosphere is maintained by a double layer, however the charge difference to the ground (negatively charged Earth) is very great, and the double layer breaks here and there from time to time discharging some cations into the lower atmosphere, where there are water molecules. Water molecules have two Hydrogen atoms at one end of an Oxygen atom causing them to be slightly more positive one end, and negative at the other. In the vicinity of a cation the water molecule will "magnetize" itself to that cation. When many water molecules have oriented themselves and clung to the ion they are lined up like a crystal formation, and sometimes form into snowflakes by this means. And like crystals the water droplets refract sunlight and send little flashes to our eye, the end result is that we see clouds. Water outside of clouds are randomly oriented and so don't exhibit this effect.

So, clouds are clouds of ions, and the ions effect the water in the air in the cloud. A cloud is also a double layer, which separates a region of positively charged atmosphere from the ambient relatively negative air around the cloud. The double layer contains the ions within the cloud and gives the cloud it's distinctive boundary. Or sometimes the cloud's double layer breaks, and you can watch it sometimes when a stream jets out the side of a cloud.

The protons and ions ultimately want to discharge themselves to Earth, but are fighting multiple electric forces in the atmosphere before they are able to. Eventually they always do. They discharge as rain, as well as lightning. Each raindrop having a proton or a cation at it's center, just waiting to recapture an electron when it reaches the ground.

I don't know if I have explained very well, I have assumed a bit of background knowledge, such as on double layers.
Or if it is helpful to you in any way.

This explained for me how clouds can "pop out of nowhere" in the middle of the desert on a bright sunny day, a long way away from any evaporating water bodies.
It explained for me why gardens grow so much better with rain, than on town water. Plants make good use of charged free protons, for making hydrocarbons.
It also implies that this is how the Earth is (and probably all the planets are) gradually growing in size. Material blown off from the Sun is steadily raining down on Earth. Literally.

The clouds teach me EU theory :D
~Paul


Paul, A very effective model, and i think you are correct that "ions" are the key.

I would only add that clouds are first plasmoids, surrounded by (leaky) double-layers, which are formed themselves within a complex double-layer, being the atmosphere.
That ~layering is in effect an atmospheric capacitor, for which the ground itself forms the lower surface charge. As such, the ground is also a very rich source of ionic emission, so feeding energy for evaporation and updrafts.
It is this thermionic emission (heat and -+ions combined) which accelerate the fast rising cumulus rain clouds much more forcefully than heat convection could do alone.
When the electron component of Earth's emission (the same electricity that played havoc with early un-grounded telegraph lines) passes through, as you noted, on up toward the ionosphere to produce elves and sprites; then the clouds anvil out on top and stop rising.
The remaining positively charged and neutral water droplets are then free to fall as the very nourishing rainfall you have described.

Any gardener could agree with you.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:31 pm

Paul, A very effective model, and i think you are correct that "ions" are the key.


I have not digested this paper yet, but for a model I am working on, I need to be able to show the possibility of creating a very strong double layer at the water surface, megavolts/metre. Opinions?

On the nature of ions at the liquid water surface.
http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/rjsgrp/pu ... n_2006.pdf
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: 2586
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:24 pm

GaryN wrote:
Paul, A very effective model, and i think you are correct that "ions" are the key.


I have not digested this paper yet, but for a model I am working on, I need to be able to show the possibility of creating a very strong double layer at the water surface, megavolts/metre.


Double layer of what?
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:02 pm

seasmith wrote:i think you are correct that "ions" are the key.


Wallace Thornhill made some statements along these lines back in 2004. But it doesn't seem like a clear hypothesis ever emerged from it.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-weather/

"Ions" are a red herring, in my experience. On an aesthetic level, I think "ions" appeal to electrical engineers because that is what engineers are familiar with. I think this attitude harbors a significant oversight/misconception. The bonds that exist between H2O molecule are not (and cannot be) ionic bonds. They are hydrogen bonds.

So, I think to try to force H2O to be ionic you are trying to put a square peg into a round hole.

The mistake everybody makes with water is to try to get it to conform to the rules of the standard model. And the only way to do that is to dumb down the model or dumb down the evidence or by talking in extreme generalities.

Mostly I would suggest that before you commit that you at least formulate a clear hypothesis, supposition, or even a point.

Explicitness and clarity are the key to evading the attraction of what seems simple but is really just vague.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby comingfrom » Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:44 am

Thank you Jim,

but twice you said I said the water is ionic, but I never said the water is ionic.

I believe ionized water is OH- and H+.
I was saying the whole H2O molecules cling to ions. That's how rain droplets form in the air.

Air is gas, whether it is humid air or low humidity air.
Once water is dissolved in the air it is no longer a liquid but in a gaseous state.

I do not know a lot about the upper atmosphere, but one thing I do remember was being taught that there is a layer called the ionosphere. Though I wasn't ever taught much about it, I figured it must contain a higher percentage of ions, to have been named the ionosphere. I also figure it plays an important role, since we live in an electric universe.

-----------
Thank you Seasmith,

a wonderful addition.
I'm fully in agreement, but could not have worded it as well you have.

The sky is electric, and a wonderful place to observe plasma behavior.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:01 am

comingfrom wrote:I was saying the whole H2O molecules cling to ions. That's how rain droplets form in the air.

Do you realize you are asserting that H2O can become a gas at temperatures lower than has ever been detected in a laboratory? Do you realize that this is an extraordinary claim for which you (and nobody) has provided any empirical verification? What force or process do you imagine--if any--that is keeping the molecules of water from doing what all the laboratory evidence indicates they will do (becoming/maintaining themselves in a liquid state)? Surely you realize that the fact that you can imagine it as such doesn't mean that your imagination is evidence that substantiates your extraordinary claim. Right? (Answer this question.)
comingfrom wrote:Air is gas, whether it is humid air or low humidity air.
Once water is dissolved in the air it is no longer a liquid but in a gaseous state.
Based on what? Your imagination?

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby comingfrom » Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:32 pm

Thank you, Jim.

Do you realize you are asserting that H2O can become a gas at temperatures lower than has ever been detected in a laboratory?
I'm not asserting that.
When the water is in droplets, or ice crystals, or snowflakes, it isn't in gaseous form anymore.

Do you realize that this is an extraordinary claim for which you (and nobody) has provided any empirical verification?
You say after putting a false claim in my mouth.

What force or process do you imagine--if any--that is keeping the molecules of water from doing what all the laboratory evidence indicates they will do (becoming/maintaining themselves in a liquid state)? Surely you realize that the fact that you can imagine it as such doesn't mean that your imagination is evidence that substantiates your extraordinary claim. Right? (Answer this question.)
The questions don't apply, because I wasn't asserting anything of the sort that you claim.

Based on what? Your imagination?
Upon my breath, actually.

Just look at your beer.
It is sitting in the air, which is gas.
But water is condensing on the glass.
The water is coming from the air, from a gaseous form, and it is liquefying into droplets on the cold glass.

When water is liquid in the air, like vapor, like we think of coming from a vaporizer which sprays fine droplets of liquid, we call that fog, here in Australia.
Then the water is liquid in the air.

In my understanding, the difference between liquid and solid state is the amount of space between the molecules, which in turn is dependent on their Brownian motion.
In a raindrop, the water molecules are packed closely, and they are water in liquid state.
Water in the air, which has a few thousands of nitrogen and oxygen molecules between the water molecules, is just some water molecules mixed in the gas.

Just saying how I understand it.
And I don't mind correction, but don't put words in my mouth, please.

Maybe you can explain to us what your theory is.
I was just trying to add something to the conversation, I haven't got to tornadoes yet.

I believe electricity drives the wind.
When I stand in a strong wind, and feel it's push, I'm certain it surely isn't just some molecules of air gas that is pushing me. Whatever is pushing the air molecules is also pushing on us, and that's why wind, a light fluid gas, can have so much force.
Whirlwinds, tornadoes and dust devils, are also formed from an electrical discharge.
Do you agree?
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:15 pm

comingfrom wrote:Just look at your beer.
It is sitting in the air, which is gas.

You did it again.
comingfrom wrote:But water is condensing on the glass.

It's "condensing" from invisible suspended liquid (microdroplets) to visible pooled liquid. So, there is no phase change involved.
comingfrom wrote:The water is coming from the air, from a gaseous form, and it is liquefying into droplets on the cold glass.

It is not coming from a gaseous form. You imagine it being gaseous. Vaporous H2O (liquid) can be in microdroplets that are so small they are invisible.
comingfrom wrote:
When water is liquid in the air, like vapor, like we think of coming from a vaporizer which sprays fine droplets of liquid, we call that fog, here in Australia.
Then the water is liquid in the air.

It's always liquid in the air. Earth's atmosphere is not hot enough to produce genuine steam. So, you are wrong.
comingfrom wrote:
In my understanding, the difference between liquid and solid state is the amount of space between the molecules, which in turn is dependent on their Brownian motion.
In a raindrop, the water molecules are packed closely, and they are water in liquid state.
Water in the air, which has a few thousands of nitrogen and oxygen molecules between the water molecules, is just some water molecules mixed in the gas.

Just saying how I understand it.
And I don't mind correction, but don't put words in my mouth, please.

It's a common mistake to assume that clear moist air is gaseous.
comingfrom wrote:
Maybe you can explain to us what your theory is.
I was just trying to add something to the conversation, I haven't got to tornadoes yet.

No problem.
comingfrom wrote:
I believe electricity drives the wind.
When I stand in a strong wind, and feel it's push, I'm certain it surely isn't just some molecules of air gas that is pushing me. Whatever is pushing the air molecules is also pushing on us, and that's why wind, a light fluid gas, can have so much force.
Whirlwinds, tornadoes and dust devils, are also formed from an electrical discharge.
Do you agree?

I agree that our atmosphere is, actually, a slight plasma and plasmas have higher viscosity than gas, and electricity is involved in that respect.
comingfrom wrote:~Paul




comingfrom wrote:Just look at your beer.
It is sitting in the air, which is gas.

You did it again.
comingfrom wrote:But water is condensing on the glass.

It's "condensing" from invisible suspended liquid (microdroplets) to visible pooled liquid. So, there is no phase change involved.
comingfrom wrote:The water is coming from the air, from a gaseous form, and it is liquefying into droplets on the cold glass.

It is not coming from a gaseous form. You imagine it being gaseous. Vaporous H2O (liquid) can be in microdroplets that are so small they are invisible.
comingfrom wrote:
When water is liquid in the air, like vapor, like we think of coming from a vaporizer which sprays fine droplets of liquid, we call that fog, here in Australia.
Then the water is liquid in the air.

It's always liquid in the air. Earth's atmosphere is not hot enough to produce genuine steam. So, you are wrong.
comingfrom wrote:
In my understanding, the difference between liquid and solid state is the amount of space between the molecules, which in turn is dependent on their Brownian motion.
In a raindrop, the water molecules are packed closely, and they are water in liquid state.
Water in the air, which has a few thousands of nitrogen and oxygen molecules between the water molecules, is just some water molecules mixed in the gas.

Just saying how I understand it.
And I don't mind correction, but don't put words in my mouth, please.

It's a common mistake to assume that clear moist air is gaseous.
comingfrom wrote:
Maybe you can explain to us what your theory is.
I was just trying to add something to the conversation, I haven't got to tornadoes yet.

No problem.
comingfrom wrote:
I believe electricity drives the wind.
When I stand in a strong wind, and feel it's push, I'm certain it surely isn't just some molecules of air gas that is pushing me. Whatever is pushing the air molecules is also pushing on us, and that's why wind, a light fluid gas, can have so much force.
Whirlwinds, tornadoes and dust devils, are also formed from an electrical discharge.
Do you agree?

I agree that our atmosphere is, actually, a slight plasma and plasmas have higher viscosity than gas, and electricity is involved in that respect. But, no, I don't think electricity is involved as a source of the energy of storms or vortices.
comingfrom wrote:~Paul


You may think I'm being dogmatic, but actually its pivotal. There is no steam in earth's atmosphere. Consequently meteorology's notion that moist air convection powers storms is refuted.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby MerLynn » Tue Feb 21, 2017 8:15 pm

Jim, before we can understand how (plasma) energy applied to liquid water turns it to a "gaseous" state. must we not first understand what liquid water is?
in the following experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us-mmrBY9uQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bfWREqlxuI

and the clinical trial done by a certified Lab...
http://www.footbathtruth.com/documents/ ... 0Water.pdf

It would appear in the present Atomic structure theory that all that is applied to the water is 'electrons'.

Yet despite the experiments being conducted to make a comparison between brands.
Just where does the food coloring or dye go?

Can "electrons' added to water in an "electrolysis apparatus" make food dyes "cease to exist"
Or would you entertain that water and electricity and even food coloring might have properties or an atomic structure not fully understood?

If so, may I have your description of how you understand the above food dye disappearance results explained by any means you deem appropriate so we can understand the true nature of Water and what happens when (Plasma) energy is applied either by fire, electricity or sunlight interacts upon said water.
MerLynn
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:28 am
Location: Land of OZ

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests