Lookout For Bill

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

Lookout For Bill

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:27 pm

I want to thank everybody for all of the wonderful comments and deeply considered, intelligent, questions that I've gotten from everybody I've spoken with here on this forum (Thunderbolts) since I joined this last Spring (2016). There isn't anything like this forum anywhere else on the internet! (Trust me, I know.) Thunderbolts is genuinely, genuinely, genuinely special because there is such long tradition of not just going along with what everybody else is going along with.

In no small part due to the confidence I garnered through this forum (Thunderbolts) I have completed 'Chapter One' of my latest (third) book.

There are actually two titles for this:
1) A Very Long Confessional Statement Attached To My Application for V-Phasian Membership: Chapter One
2) Bill: Chapter One

For the time being I've decided to go with 'Bill: Chapter One'.

There are four reasons underlying my decision to go with 'Bill' and not the longer and more descriptive 'A very Long Confessional Statement Attached To My Application for V-Phasian Membership':
1) It's short
2) It's longer than three letters, and so will be less likely to be confused with three letter acronyms, like BIL
3) Its familiar:
-- Lots of things are named bill, like those things that come in the mail where they ask you for money
-- Everybody knows somebody named Bill
4) It's part of a duck

And so, this is kind of a 'Heads Up!' Be on the lookout for 'Bill: Chapter One'

Kindest Regards to all,

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes (Plasma [1 of 5])

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:34 am

Bill
or
A Very Long Confessional Statement Attached To My Application for V-Phasian Membership

by James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Chapter One: Air Brakes

Plasma (Section One of Five)
Are you the kind of person that suspects an underlying complexity to our reality that nobody quite understands so everybody just pretends to understand and tacitly agrees to not call attention to each others pretenses? Are you the kind of person that suspects that different academic factions have colluded to sow confusion so that their collective failure to understand this underlying complexity of our reality is not revealed to the public? Are you the kind of person that believes the public can so easily be led astray by pretentious, sciencey sounding rhetoric that diverts attention away from the wider revelation of this poorly understood underlying complexity of our reality? Me neither. So I was just as perplexed as anybody would be when I first encountered the the zeroing out of polarity with with fully coordinated (symmetric) hydrogen bonding between H2O molecules (as in liquid water).

It had started with three hunches in regard to tornadogenesis. Unlike the gush of hunches, realizations and breakthroughs that would follow, these first three hunches took upwards of twenty years to formulate. The initial hunch involved the plainly observable tubular structure of atmospheric vortices. It seemed reasonable to assume (regardless of whether you viewed it from the perspective of the principles of fluid dynamics or just common sense) that in order for structure to exist and persist in the context of the collective particles of the atmosphere it must be comprised of a substance that has more structural resilience and a harder surface than the gases through which if flows and that flow through it. Otherwise it would be unable to maintain its coherence. It would succumb to friction; becoming chaotic as the substances inevitably mixed into each other. Therefore the fact that vortices exist and persist in our atmosphere indicates that the sheath of a vortice must be comprised of a substance that has greater structural resilience—such as in a plasma—than the gases through which it flows and that flows through its tubular structure.

There was personal history behind this hunch. When I was 10 years old I was given a picture book on meteorology. Therein was a section that discussed tornadoes and one of the side sections discussed the phenomena whereby a whole stream or pond is sucked up into a vortice, carried for miles and dumped all at one location, causing fish, frogs and other creatures to fall out of the sky, in an area no bigger than a football field. Winds alone—no matter how strong—could not do this. Tornadoes must act like the hose of a vacuum cleaner, I reasoned. They are genuinely structural. They had to be. There was no other way to explain that kind of directed low pressure. It requires a tubular structure. Or, to be more specific, it requires a tubular structure made from a substance that has greater structural resilience than the gases through which it flows and flow through it. Plasma seemed an obvious choice. I could see it.

Since that would come to be the lie I heard most often in response to my attempts to dispute the popular convection model of storm theory, I suppose I can reveal now that I do recognize this as having been a lie on my own part. I couldn’t actually see it. More specifically, I didn’t yet have any kind of theory about what could cause such a plasma to emerge in the atmosphere. I was sure it must exist. Maybe it was this confidence, this faith, that blinded me. Except for a few inconsistencies and minor explanatory shortcomings (like being unable to explain fish falling out of the sky) my classmates claimed to see a theory that perfectly matched observation. It was ‘well understood’ they assured me. All I saw was a tautology of vague—fundamentally unfalsifyable—rhetoric. To me it seemed my classmates had allowed their sensibilities to fall under the spell of its cartoonish simplicity. This realization, in and of itself, emboldened my belief in this theoretical plasma in that it helped explain why a concept that was so plainly sensible to me was not already, considered, investigated and/or discovered: it was completely off everybody else’s radar screen.

The actual work that meteorologists do mostly has to do with statistical mapping techniques referred to as synoptics. Storm theory (the convection model) is just something they are expected to convey to the public. It’s marketing. The whole ‘theory’ can be fully explained on the front and back of a sheet of paper, like a hand out brochure, with lots of bold header text and bullet points. It’s function is to create the illusion of a highly technical understanding but it does not actually function as a technical understanding. Maybe its most significant role is as the standard rhetoric that meteorologists fall back upon when confronted by skeptics, like myself. And if it the rhetoric should ever fall short there is always the old standby that will bring a conclusion to 97% of any attempts to expose the lack of technical proficiency of the convection model of storm theory, just state the following four words, “I can see it.” But my education was not wasted. Irregardless of the fact that I was never able to see what they saw and they, it seemed, would rather stare at the sun until blindness ensued than even glance in the direction of my vortice plasma, I have no regrets for my meteorological education. If not for this experience I would not have known how incredibly sparse is a meteorologist’s training on the physics of storms or the physics of the atmosphere. This saved me from making the error of listening to their frequent and unanimous advice that I should give up on this “delusion” that a plasma comprises the sheath of atmospheric vortices. I also might not have been cognizant of moist/dry wind-shear. And without moist/dry wind-shear to guide me I might never have envisioned the spinning polymers of H2O that underlie the atmospheric version of surface tension on steroids.

Continued: Surface Tension on Steroids (Section Two of Five)
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes (SToS [2 of 5])

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:16 am

Bill
or
A Very Long Confessional Statement Attached To My Application for V-Phasian Membership

by James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Chapter One: Air Brakes

Surface Tension on Steroids (Section Two of Five)
There is, maybe, no greater observational correlation to thunderstorm and tornadic activity than the prevalence of moist/dry wind-shear. (This is apparent in the academic literature and also in the numerous science-based TV documentaries on severe weather.) wind-shear involves two bodies of air moving in different directions meeting along a common flat boundary. It is especially important to be cognizant of the fact that along these boundaries where large bodies of air meet there exists conditional factors that don’t exist anywhere else in the atmosphere: molecules directly impacting each other in a highly directional manner along a usually flat or somewhat flat plane and often over long distances and/or wide areas, sometimes spanning hundreds or even thousands of miles. But there was a fact that stood out most prominently: not all forms of wind-shear are associated with tornadoes and thunderstorms. It is only wind-shear in which one body of air is moist (and usually warm, lower in altitude [and, often, stagnant]) and the other is dry (and usually cold and higher in altitude [and, always, gusty]).The other two types of wind-shear, moist/moist wind-shear and dry/dry wind-shear are not associated with thunderstorms and tornadoes. This seemed a clue. Why did that distinction matter? If I could reverse engineer an answer to that question, it seemed, it might shine a light on the theoretical path to a hypothesis for the molecular basis of my theorized vortice plasma. This would prove correct, . . . but you know how things don’t turn out like you think.

More than fifteen years would pass before I started entertaining the notion—casually, at first—that, possibly, H2O surface tension might serve as the basis of this theoretical vortice plasma. Interestingly, it was only because of my meteorological atheism that this notion, H2O surface tension, was even on the list of consideration. That is because H2O surface tension is only associated with the liquid phase of H2O. It is not associated with the gaseous phase. Meteorologists believe the moisture in clear moist air is gaseous H2O—genuine steam. They claim to know this. But that actually isn’t the case. The notion has never been tested or measured. But this is not something they are willing to discuss. Why the taboo? Its simple. The notion is pivotal to their marketing. It’s fundamental. Accordingly, the convection of ‘lighter’ moist air is what powers storms as well as much or even most, of the general circulation in our atmosphere. And so, I guess you could say that the reason they fib is because otherwise their car has no motor, which really isn’t a very good excuse in that their car has no body or wheels either. But none of that matters because they are not selling a car they are selling the idea of a car. But I don’t think they could have been any more expected to have been aware of their self deception than was I of mine. Knowing how to read a steam table, I realized that the earth’s atmosphere is too cool (and/or the pressure is too high) to support the existence of gaseous H2O. All of the moisture at the in earth’s atmosphere is in the liquid phase or the solid phase (snow, hail). Even clear moist air actually contains microdroplets of H2O, too small to be seen and not gaseous H2O. Not ever. Or so I thought.

(Do you know a meteorologist and want to have some fun with them? Get them in a corner of a room or backyard at a cocktail party, barbecue or sporting event. Do your best to leave them no easy manner of escape. Get them drinking—you want to catch them off guard. Then ask them if it is true that convection powers storms. Let them talk. This is the setup. Now for the kicker. Ask them to explain how it also powers the jet streams. Then just sit back and laugh as they squirm and try to flee. Tell all your friends!).

Here is one thing I didn’t know. I didn’t know what surface tension was. I suppose that is one thing I shared with meteorology. Whereas they had a vague notion of storms being the result of the convection of moist air I had a vague notion of storms being the result of a concept that I really didn’t understand, the surface tension of the microdroplets in moist air. They had the huge advantage of playing defense. All they had to do was stay mum, point to the literature and otherwise present a unified front. I didn’t have that option. I had to play offense. I couldn’t afford to allow my understanding of surface tension remain vague. I had to take the horns by the bull and fully comprehend what surface tension actually is to the most fundamental degree attainable. I couldn’t afford to lie to myself. But there’s the problem. I didn’t know any of that yet. And it would take the longest time to figure it out.

Since I knew that convection theory was all wet (nonsense) I knew that other factors must explain the power of storms and the reason storms are so wet (water). Most essentially, I knew that moist air was always heavier, not lighter, than any drier air in its vicinity. And, therefore, whatever model/solution one set upon it had to explain how heavier moist air, somehow, defied gravity. This turned out to have a very elegant and parsimonious solution. The reason heavier than air H2O microdroplets don’t drop out of the sky as a result of gravity (negative buoyancy) is because these microdroplets are suspended by electrostatic forces (an implication of the solar wind). (Note: This will be more explicitly addressed in a subsequent chapter.) (Note: as will be explained in a subsequent chapter, this also has huge implications on how we conceptualize evaporation/sublimation.) And so, putting it all in a nutshell, I knew what nobody else, it seemed, even suspected: the atmosphere contained microdroplets of H2O. It contained vapor, evaporate, aerosol. Even clear moist air contained microdroplets—too small to be seen—but the atmosphere contained exactly zero gaseous, singular molecules of H2O. Not ever. I didn’t know I was lying.

Even though I didn’t yet have a clear conceptualization of surface tension and wouldn’t until I encountered it on TV, I did know other things. I knew that each microdroplet had a surface and, therefore, each microdroplet had it—surface tension. I also knew that the smaller is any entity, including microdroplets, the greater is its ratio of surface to mass and, therefore, anything that might cause a microdroplet to split into smaller microdroplets would increase the ratio of surface to mass. Additionally, I knew that each microdroplet had a shape and a natural inherit tendency to become round, reducing (minimizing) its own surface area and, therefore, anything that caused a microdroplet to take a less round shape—an impact from another molecule, for example—would also increase the ratio of surface to mass. I also came to realize that surface tension was some kind of electromagnetic force. It had something to do with H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding between water molecules. Exactly what that meant I wasn’t sure at first. In fact, to be honest, it was more a matter of necessity that I latched onto these vaguely comprehended electromagnetic forces. My plasma needed something. Why not this?

And so, putting it all together, I suspected that moist/dry wind-shear must have something to do with situational factors that either split microdroplets into smaller microdroplets, thereby turning up the dial on surface tension or impacted these microdroplets to cause a less round shape and, again, thereby turning up the dial on surface tension or both. In short, I suspected that moist/dry wind-shear must have some inherit ability to turn up the dial on H2O surface tension by way of turning up dial on H2O’s surface area—possibly (for all I knew at this juncture) all the way down to the molecular level. But it would take a long time and a lot of smaller intellectual leaps of faith/logic to arrive at a clear conceptualization of surface tension on steroids. And keep in mind, I didn’t yet even have a clear conceptualization of surface tension. There were stops and starts. Many. Sometimes months, even years, lay between them. Sometimes it seemed these conjectures ran their own scenarios, playing out in my subconscious. But these were just conjectures. I didn’t really have any idea if any of this was even possible. It just seemed I could see it. But, of course, I couldn’t actually see it. Or, at least, not as being something that is stable, sustainable and persistent. And being stable, sustainable and persistent was absolutely necessary because even though tornadoes and their vortices seemed transitory or fleeting in comparison to a rock or a tree they are commonly observed to persist for minutes, sometimes hours. And I couldn’t see that. Or, at least, not with what I had surmised so far—and for the longest time. Then I considered side-glancing impacts of H2O microdroplets along wind-shear boundaries and it seemed my delusion came back into focus.

If someone were to take an accounting of the molecules in the atmosphere and enumerated the number of molecules at any point in time that are experiencing or participating in wind-shear and they compared that number to the number of molecules in the atmosphere that were not participating in wind-shear they would find that wind-shear comprises an incredibly small part of our atmosphere. My guess is one tenth of one percent, give or take an order of magnitude. This might bring one to dismiss it as inconsequential. But that would be a mistake. As was indicated previously, it is especially important to be cognizant of the fact that along these boundaries where large bodies of air meet there exists conditional factors that don’t exist anywhere else in the atmosphere: molecules directly impacting each other in a highly directional manner along a usually flat or somewhat flat plane and often over long distances and/or wide areas, sometimes spanning hundreds or even thousands of miles. I conjectured that moist/dry wind-shear would cause the microdroplets along the moist layer to be repeatedly impacted with side-glancing impacts and that would cause them to spin and, well, as they spun centrifugal forces would cause them to elongate into chains of H2O molecules—polymers or threads of H2O—spinning rapidly end over end. This would maximize the surface area of these H2O microdroplets. And, theoretically, this would also turn up the dial on H2O surface tension.

Originally it was more a matter of desperation that I resigned myself to even consider such an extraneous notion. Sometimes it seemed I didn’t have free will to not consider any and all options, if not only for the salvation of my deepest beliefs about the origins of tornadoes. I remember a conversation with a colleague. We were at the earliest part of our educational journey. He’d seen footage of NOAA aircraft encountering a tornado while conducting research on hurricanes. According to Greg, the pilot, having little time to take evasive action, intentionally flew the aircraft directly into it, cutting it in half and, apparently, killing it. We were in complete agreement about the significance of this observation. Tornadoes were a thing. If you cut a thing in half it isn’t the same. Like a bug or a balloon. Tornadoes were, in some way, shape or form, self sustaining—self actualizing. Moreover, they could grow. They could persist. They were an entity. We couldn’t have imagined that the insight we gained from this realization might not have been so immediately obvious to others as it had been to ourselves. We were oblivious anyway. We reveled in the excitement of witnessing a revolution in man’s understanding of nature. I couldn’t have known that Greg would be the last person to whom with which I would find any agreement whatsoever on any of this. In fact, the only reason I mention this to help you understand my frame of mind when I would, half a decade later, encounter the, previously mentioned, evidence of ponds and streams being sucked up and dropped at one location miles away. There is depth of thought underlying this plasma. It’s not a notion I just grabbed out of the air. In order for a thing to be a thing it had to have structure, it had to have resilience, it had to have a surface, it had to have skin. Plasma brought all of that—in a relative sense. And so, if not for this concept that a tornado is a thing and if not for the reinforcement of a like minded colleague whose opinion I had come to trust, I might never have had the depth of belief that brought me to become so desperate as to consider these spinning microdroplets/polymers as the basis of the plasma. After summer was over I was enrolled in kindergarten. I have since lost track of Greg McVery. To this day I am grateful to his parents for having let him stay up late enough to have seen that TV show. (I have banished from my mind the thought that Greg might have been lying.)

With these spinning, surface maximized, microdroplets/polymers in mind, I then tried to hunt down an explanation for why it matters that one body of air along the common wind-shear boundary is moist and the other is dry. As I indicated previously, I considered it a test that the spinning microdroplets/polymers had to pass. The answer came fairly quickly: 1) with dry/dry wind-shear there would be no microdroplets to begin spinning; and 2) with moist/moist wind-shear the spinning microdroplets would collide, combine and cancel each other’s spin. And so, accordingly, it is only in the context of moist/dry wind-shear that we would predict the spinning microdroplets and ensuing maximization of surface area to have any possibility of being stable, sustainable and persistent. The spinning polymers of molecular H2O had passed the first test.

It being pivotal, I was immediately enamored with the notion of spinning microdroplets because the conservation of angular momentum associated with the spinning allowed me to envision this form of surface tension being stable, sustainable and persistent. That seemed especially apparent in comparison to the alternative; the only other form of wind-shear related, atmospheric agitation that I could envision was straight on agitation—vibration. Vibration—essentially sound—didn’t seem sustainable, especially not in comparison to spinning. Once the source of the vibration was discontinued the microdroplet would immediately reestablish its roundness, minimizing its surface area (neutralizing any purported tensional forces). And, of course, there’s the fact that sound travels at a velocity of several hundred miles an hour. In sharp contrast, the spinning polymers stayed in place. Angular momentum. And so, the spinning polymers had, it seemed, passed the second test.

The third test is really more of a brief analysis. I wanted to consider the implications of these spinning polymers of H2O, inevitably, clashing against each other and, in so doing, bisecting each other. Might this interrupt the effect? Might the strength of the plasma become too weak—wisp out—as it churned down to smaller and smaller spinning H2O micropolymers? (This is where EME/weight is maximized and where particle weight [IE. Avogadro’s Law] is minimized. [Don’t be overly concerned about fully comprehending these details at this juncture.]) This is a hard one to guess at. But, it seemed, I could not find anything (or, at least, nothing obvious) to be concerned about here either. As was mentioned previously, the smaller is any entity, including microdroplets/polymers, the greater is its ratio of surface to mass and, therefore, anything that might cause a microdroplet/polymer to split into smaller microdroplets/polymers, like it being bisected as a result of an impact with another rapidly spinning polymer of H2O molecules, would, in effect, be increasing the ratio of surface to mass. (This is not to say that there might not be a high rate of attrition of bisected microdroplets spinning away so rapidly that they, effectively, escape the grasp of the plasma.)

One implication of this above analysis—and one that I admit is highly speculative—might turn out to be, for reasons I will attempt to explicate in the paragraph that follows this paragraph, highly sensible and highly significant. I, therefore, highly recommend that you take it into consideration. But before we get to this highly speculative, highly sensible, highly significant and highly recommended implication I would like to also highly recommend that you keep the following in mind: As I envision it, this atmospheric substance, this theoretical plasma of spinning H2O polymers is itself a conglomeration of billions upon billions of these spinning micro-polymers of H2O molecules, each being, literally, a chain of singular H2O molecules (length unknown) spread out by their centrifugal force, enjoined by H bonds. They occur in inches thick and, possibly, very extensive (lengthy, wide [possibly hundreds of miles]) layers in the atmosphere, at densities as high as a billion spinning polymers of H2O molecules per cubic [not square—this is important] centimeter—give or take an order of magnitude here or there.

Now we can examine this even more highly speculative, highly sensible, highly significant and highly recommended implication: consider the implications of full, absolute, surface maximization—cold steam. More explicitly, consider the implications of the micro-polymers spinning into each other, clashing, bisecting, getting bisected, maximizing surface tension as a result, collectively becoming a stronger plasma (presumably) causing more spinning microdroplets to come spinning in, more clashing, more bisecting, ad infinitum, churning down to 100% individual, rapidly spinning, H2O molecules—gaseous H2O. (By the way, this is where EME/weight is maximized and where particle weight [IE. Avogadro’s Law] is minimized. [As I mentioned above, don’t be overly concerned about fully comprehending these details at this juncture.]) Steam! Now here’s the question. What are the EME magnitudinal implications of such? Obviously, the smaller the chain length the greater is the EME/mass charge, therefore a chain length of one (gaseous H2O) will have the strongest EME/mass charge. (Note: be careful not to assume that this means it will produce the strongest plasma. Avogadro’s Law throws a monkey wrench into the gears of that assumption.) How much weaker will longer chain lengths be? Is two 10% weaker than one? 50%? Who knows? And what about all the other chain lengths? How much stronger/weaker is the plasma at an average chain length of ten than it is with an average chain length of 25 molecules? What about five? 50? More? Do the increments have proportional energy? At this juncture in this confession we don’t know the answers to these questions. Eventually, fabrication-free responses will be provided. (Note: This subject will be addressed more explicitly in a subsequent chapter.)

(To those that, upon reading this, are concerned that it may not in reality be possible for this spinning microdroplets to churn down to individual, rapidly spinning, H2O molecules [cold steam] I want you to know that I agree. But hell, none of this may be possible. So . . . )

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.

Continued: Hydrogen Bonding (Section Three of Five)
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes (H Bonds [3 of 5])

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:22 am

Bill
or
A Very Long Confessional Statement Attached To My Application for V-Phasian Membership

by James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Chapter One: Air Brakes

Hydrogen Bonds (Section Three of Five)
Wanting to inform the world that the enduring mystery of the molecular composition of atmospheric vortices had—finally—been resolved, I started a scientific organization (uh, I mean I got a website—isn’t that kinda the same thing?). I named it Solving Tornadoes and immediately began espousing these spinning polymers as the solution to the tornado puzzle. Nobody was interested. I kept trying. Occurring collectively in the billions or even trillions per cubic centimeter, it reformulates a two dimensional force that we barely notice—surface tension—and impels it with a third dimension. No response. I tried another angle. Comprised of billions of polymers (chains, length unknown) per cubic centimeter of H2O molecules spinning, maximizing their tensional forces, causing them to spin in against each other, clashing, bisecting, getting spun out, being pulled back again, continuously, it produces a highly energized, inches thick, plasmodic substance, it being the same substance associated with the sheath of a tornado—the cone—a substance that has more internal resilience and a harder surface than the gases (and/or plasmas) through which if flows and flow through it. Whew!

It was in the context of bringing non-Newtonian fluids into the discussion that I had to endure the humiliation of having one of my own lies exposed in front of my whole fan-base. In a blog post I attempted to explicate the concept of adding a third dimension to the two dimensions of H2O surface tension. And, in order to conceptualize the structural resilience of this three dimensional form of surface tension, what I tongue-in-cheek refer to as surface tension on steroids, I explained how the first thing they had to do was get a clear conceptualization of what surface tension actually is. Imagine a sheet of ice across a flat surface of water that is a billion times thinner than a human hair. It is as hard as ice but extremely thin and therefore weak. So, even though it is impossible, if it were possible to take multiple billions of these sheets and arrange them in a layer as thick as a sheet of glass it would have hardness more like that of glass than liquid water. We can, I explained, take that concept a step further to arrive at a more representative conceptualization of the nature of this newly theorized plasma of spinning, inter-clashing polymers of H2O. I forget exactly how I stated it, but I suggested that we could think of it as being like the same centimeter thick pane of H2O glass having been injected with bubbles, becoming several inches thick. Accordingly, we might envision it as possessing structural hardness like that of Styrofoam. A substance like this, I added, might allow us to explain some of the stranger phenomena associated with the high winds speeds of tornadoes at ground level, like blades of grass embedded into telephone poles. In an effort to drive the point home it was then that I brought non-Newtonian fluids into the discussion. (If you are not familiar with non-Newtonian fluids I suggest you watch one of the videos on YouTube.) I thought of it as a simple way to demonstrate how surface area (and surface tension) are maximized (increased) by the third dimension, producing a form of surface tension on steroids. It also turned out to be a good way to expose my self deception.

Non-Newtonian fluids (the most common of which being a mixture of corn starch and water) instantly become hard (solid) when pressure (an external compressive force) is applied. As you, hopefully, will have seen if you took my advice to look up examples on YouTube, some of these demonstrations go so far as to hit the fluid with a hammer, thereby demonstrating how instantaneously it turns hard—it is as if it turns to ice for an instant and then goes back to being fluid the instant the force is discontinued. “This is three dimensional surface tension,” I declared in my blog post. “This is surface tension on steroids!”

And then I got my first and only response, leading to this short email conversation:

Anonymous: I don’t get it. How does this demonstrate your point?

Me: Well, the very small—microscopic—size of the starch molecules gets between the H2O molecules, maximizing the surface area and that maximizes the surface tension. It’s a consequence of one of H2O’s underlying quirks. When we maximize surface area with liquid H2O we also maximize surface tension.

Anonymous: No, I mean, why does it pressure matter, you know, why does it hardness only appear when you hit wit hammer or pressure?

Me: Well, I’m really only using this to demonstrate surface tension in the third dimension, it being the means of maximizing the very limited electromagnetic forces associated with the two dimensions of a surface. But, to answer your questions, as I stated previously, when pressure is applied the very small—microscopic—size of the starch molecules gets between the H2O molecules, maximizing the surface area of the water in the fluid. And when you maximize surface area you also maximize surface tension. And with non-Newtonian fluids this happens in three dimensions. But surface tension on steroids is just a name. There are no steroids in any of this. Nor is there any testosterone!

Anonymous: You are a jester. I get that. But you are not getting my point. Let me ask it another way. Is the surface area of the H2O in the mixture not already maximized by the fact that it is mixed in with the corn starch?

Me: Well, no. Only when pressure is applied.

Anonymous: Then you need to explain that, man?

Me: Well, it has to do with H bonds—it has to do with weak H bonds being broken and, somehow activating strong bonds in its neighbor(s). Or something like that. And then when the pressure is discontinued the weak bonds reform, canceling out the strong bonds in its neighbor(s). Like I said, it has to do with H bonding. That is not my expertise. I just do storm theory.

Anonymous: But you are not making any sense, man. How can something that is broken create a force by being broken? You know? How can something that is not there create a force by not being there? You can’t just say, “somehow. You can’t just say, “something like that.” You know, man?

Me: Well, it’s got something to do with H bonds also functioning as switches. But not the kind of switches you might expect. They are not switches that create structural strength through connectedness but are switches that, somehow, neutralize the tensional forces of the other H2O molecules in their vicinity—or something like that—through connectedness. And so, consequently, the breaking of (or lack of completion of) an H bond(s) (or some of them—in some unknown way) doesn’t weaken the collective tensional forces of neighboring H bond(s) but actually stops neutralizing them. We could say that the breaking of an H bond restricts/prevents that H bond from neutralizing the tensional forces of neighboring H bond(s). Or something to that effect. So, to put it in a nutshell, breaking of H bonds doesn’t make bond(s) in their vicinity stronger. It just interrupts the H bonds inherent tendency to make neighboring H bond(s) weaker. Does that make sense?

Anonymous: I don’t know. You mean like air brakes?

Me: Bugs Bunny?

Anonymous: No! Like on buses and trains.

Me: Oh. Uh. I don’t know. Possibly.

Anonymous: But where are you getting this? You know, where are you getting this notion that H bonds also function as switches it neutralize the polarity of their neighbor(s)? I can’t find no thing like that. No thing in the scientific literature. Sorry, I must be brief, there is disruption in my country.

Me: It’s part of the standard model of H bonding in liquid water. (I didn’t know I was lying again.) Do an internet search. Be sure to look for explanations of surface tension in the scientific literature of H bonding.

Anonymous: I did. Mostly all I found is an explanation that indicates that surface tension is just a collective implications of the molecules a few layers deep along a surface. It’s by a guy named Richard Feynman. Sorry, I must go. I carry much responsibility with my people.

Me: I’ve seen that explanation. It discusses the surface tension of liquids in general and, therefore, misses the point about the uniqueness of surface tension of liquid H2O. You see, most liquids have surface tension that is proportional to (consistent with) their viscosity. With water something peculiar is taking place. It has very low viscosity below the surface and very high viscosity—literally hard—along the surface. IOW, the strength of the tensional forces along the surface are much greater than those below the surface. Of course this hard surface is so thin and otherwise transitory that we hardly notice it. But it is very real. We might even think of it as being an ultra-thin layer of ice laying across the surface. Maybe this Feynman character didn’t know about this.

Anonymous: Well, then, you need to clarify how that is possible. You know, you need to verify that underlying mechanism by which H bonds inherently neutralizing polarity—like air brakes.

Me: Like I said. It’s part of the standard model of H bonding. It’s well understood.

Anonymous: Wanna bet? I’ve looked. No air brakes. $100?

Me: Your on.

Even though I now realize I was lying, at that time I genuinely believed that my understanding of H bonding in regard to surface tension and that of the standard model were one and the same. And so, when I directed him to the scientific literature on H bonding between water molecules I was really only lying a little bit in that I really did believe it would be found there. So, I can’t beat up on myself too much on that one. Mostly I was embarrassed. That was the worst part. My one fan had exposed my self deception. I sent him a payment through PayPal. (Funny story. After sending this payment I got a check in the mail, from him, for $200. I emailed asking, you know, what’s up with this? He said, just go ahead and deposit it and send another payment through PayPal. So I did. And then another check shows up in my mail for $400. This ended up in a big fiasco and, well, I’ve about given up that we will ever get it worked out. There is disruption in his country.)

This notion that H bonds are switches that inherently neutralize other H bond(s) in their vicinity and that the breaking of the H bond, thereby, reactivates these other H bond(s)—like air brakes—was a supposition I developed after I became more fully cognizant of the weak/strong dichotomy. Long before I decided to put pen to paper on all of this and even after I began converting it all to ones and zeros, I would occasionally, come across somebody describing the hydrogen bonding of H2O and I noticed a dichotomy. (It is, essentially, the same dichotomy that was mentioned, briefly, above [ladder of lies].) Sometimes people talked about H bonds and the force that underlies it, H2O polarity, as being strong. Sometimes people talked of them being weak. The strength of H bonds, for example, explained the high boiling point of H2O or the hardness of ice, they would say. The weakness of H bonds, on the other hand, explained the extremely low viscosity (high fluidity) of liquid water and ease by which it evaporates/sublimates. So which is it? Are H bonds strong or are they weak? The literature on H bonding seemed to suggest the existence of weak bonds and strong bonds, but otherwise seemed arcane, confused and completely unhelpful. So I just kind of reverse engineered the understanding that I discussed above. It just seemed to fit the facts. Water molecules were both weak and strong. And H bonds themselves were the switch thereof. But it was not a normal switch, it was some kind of reverse switch—kind of like air brakes. (Not the kind in cartoons. The kind in buses and trains.)

One TV show stands out in my memory as having been especially helpful toward the end of helping me conceptualize this weak/strong dichotomy and how it relates to this notion that the structural hardness observed along the surface of liquid H2O (surface tension) was a consequence of broken H bonds. It was an episode of the History Channel’s Marvelous Marvels series. This particular episode was about, you guessed it, the scientific peculiarities and mysteries of H2O. They went into considerable detail about the anomalies of water (high boiling/melting point, surface tension, high heat capacity, expands upon freezing, super-chilled water, Mpemba effect and more, upwards of 70—and counting) And, as I recall, they seemed to suggest that these anomalies were indicative of some deeper mystery of H2O. Maybe I am making more out of it than it was, but I remember being amazed—or marveled—that the most passive of passive elements in our reality—the substance we use to put out fires, feed our plants, animals and ourselves, was so confusing and mysterious. They spent a considerable amount of time on the subject of surface tension. Up to that point the concept seemed a vague, obscure notion, like the concept that H2O has a high heat capacity. It is something people know but they know it by rote. They don’t know the how and why. They don’t really understand it. Up until then that was me in regard to surface tension. Maybe the most significant thing this TV show brought into focus for me is the fact that the surface tension of liquid H2O is associated with H bonds between water molecules and (what was surprising to me at the time) differences in the strengths of these H bonds. Specifically, surface tension involves H bonds along the surface of liquid water being strong H bonds and those below the surface being weak H bonds. It was a small step from there to arrive at the realization that a two dimensional surface would inhibit the completion of some bonds. So it seemed to fit. Broken H bonds, being a reverse switch, were inhibited from neutralizing the other H bond(s) along the surface, producing the observed tensional/structural forces. This explained surface tension. (To this day I don’t know if this ‘reverse switch’ notion is something I hit upon independently or if it was something that I absorbed from some other source. My recollection is that it was suggested on this TV show. But I have since been unable to confirm it.)

And so, a model of water structure was forming in my mind. Liquid water—below the surface—was fluid because the prevalence of H bonds was, somehow, associated with a prevalence of polarity neutralization below the surface. The hard bonds associated with the surface of liquid water—this being ”surface tension”—were hard bonds because the relative scarcity of H bonds along the surface is, somehow, associated with a relative scarcity of polarity neutralization along the surface. And so, this allowed me to consider it—surface tension—as being an implication of the restricted bonding imposed by the two dimensions of a surface. I even allowed myself to speculate that ice might be explicable as a three dimensional form of surface tension—a form of surface tension on steroids. Accordingly, the freezing process caused the breaking of ‘weak’ H bonds, just like the grains of corn starch did for the non-Newtonian fluids (wit pressure applied, man). Which begs the question, what is causing the ‘weak’ bonds to break since there are no starch molecules in pure water? The answer to this question, I envisioned, might involve some kind of mechanical implication associated with the way H2O molecules fit into and fold against each other under low energy conditions. Somehow, I assumed, they become entangled and begin prying between each other, forcing the breaking of weak bonds which, of course, de-neutralizes (activates) polarity, producing strong bonds in their vicinity. (Interestingly, this model allows us to describe the sharpness of the transition between the relatively low viscosity of liquid H2O before it freezes and the solidity of the ice after if freezes as being a consequence of the de-neutralization [activation] of polarity that had been neutralized [dormant] in the liquid stage.) Also, this model does a pretty good job describing the lower density of ice as being a result of the surface created within.

But, of course, and more and more as time went on, the biggest reason I was so attached to this (somewhat vague) notion had to do with the the spinning polymers of my theorized vortice plasma. Without this notion I, firstly, was unable to envision how the microdroplets/polymers would be flexible enough to maintain coherence as the microdroplet/polymer started to be impacted by side-glancing impacts and, secondly and somewhat consequentially, I could not envision how the whole conglomerate of spinning, churning micropolymers of H2O would obtain (or maintain) the concentration of electromagnetic energy [force] (EME [F]) necessary to form a strong, coherent plasma. (I apologize for the brevity and obscurity here. To really understand/explain this problem/issue requires a few more steps down the ladder. [Never hurry down a ladder]) So I was pretty committed to this notion that breaking of (or inhibition of) H bonds made other H bond(s) in its vicinity stronger. I was very sure that when I went looking for it in the literature, on the internet and on YouTube that I would find it.

Due to general lack of interest, I let the Solving Tornadoes website go dark—at least for the time being. The search engine data was not encouraging. Most of my views came from one country. I did learn one thing, however. If these statistic are any indication, tornadoes may be far more of a problem in Nigeria than anybody has heretofore revealed to the public!

Continued: Zeroing of Polarity (Section Four of Five)
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes (Zeroing of P [4 of 5])

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:26 am

Bill
or
A Very Long Confessional Statement Attached To My Application for V-Phasian Membership

by James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Chapter One: Air Brakes

Zeroing of Polarity (Section Four of Five)
My examination of the quantum mechanical factors underlying molecular polarity and hydrogen bonding was very confusing at first, but it got a lot simpler once I recognized the centrality (both figuratively and literally) of the electron cloud around the oxygen atom of the H2O molecule, it being the source of the force associated with H2O polarity. As is well known, each H2O molecule has electromagnetic forces associated with polarity. This is because electrons are considerably more attracted to the oxygen atom than they are to the hydrogen atoms. This is a consequence of electronegativity differences between the oxygen atom and the covalently attached hydrogen atoms. Accordingly, these electronegativity differences cause the electron cloud to be pulled more toward the oxygen end of the H2O molecule, causing it to be more negatively charged, causing the hydrogen end (the “rabbit ears”) of the H2O molecule to be more positively charged, making the H2O molecules a dipole—like a magnet (but with a two headed positive end [H atoms]). This phenomena is also referred to as tetrahedral asymmetry: tetrahedral because there are four locations around the oxygen atom where some kind of bond (either covalent or hydrogen) can potentially be made and these locations are equidistant (more or less) from each other, just like the four corners of a tetrahedron; and it is asymmetric because only two of these locations are filled with covalent bonds, causing the collective charges of the molecule to be lopsided or asymmetric relative to the oxygen atom, pulling the electrons down as suggested above. And so, please do keep the following in mind as you read the paragraph that follows: it is both the electronegativity differences and the tetrahedral asymmetry of these electronegativity differences that conspire—by way of their effect on the electron cloud around the oxygen atom—to cause the H2O molecule to be a dipole. (And, also, keep in mind that being a dipole is the force [polarity] that underlies the strength of the H bonds themselves.)

I considered what would happen to the electron cloud with the establishment of H bonds on the two other corners of the tetrahedron (where the two sets of “covalently non-bonding” pairs of electrons are located). First I added one H bond. It seemed plainly obvious that, consequently, the electron cloud would be forced to take a more balanced arrangement (more collectively central position) around the oxygen atom. This would, of course, nullify one half of the tetrahedral asymmetry and since tetrahedral asymmetry is essential to polarity it would also nullify one half of the polarity! This was not exactly the result I was expecting, but it did seem to confirm my premise in that it seemed to indicated considerable polarity—one half—to maintain a strong bond (or, at least, that [“one half”] seemed within the realm of reason to be a strong bond). Instantaneously, like a slap in the face, I realized that the only time H2O is at full polarity is when it is steam; when it is gaseous. Only then—when it has zero H bonds—is tetrahedral asymmetry maximized! That kind of took my intellectual breath away. There was nothing in the literature that indicated anything like this! But before I had time to process that I considered what would happen with the addition of a second H bond at the remaining corner of the tetrahedron. The implications were immediately obvious. The electron cloud would be forced to take a completely balanced arrangement around the oxygen atom. Polarity would drop to zero as full tetrahedral symmetry is achieved! And that is how I happened upon the understanding without which everybody has to lie.

I would like to be able to say that I followed the bread-crumb trail back to the ultimate source and that is how I discovered it. Or, I guess, I would like to be able to say that I was smart enough or determined enough to have done so. But, as you have seen, my investigation has more to do with flying frogs, African royalty and TV than it does any kind of general accounting of the words others use to describe their claimed scientific beliefs. I have not walked all the trails, climbed the peaks, spanned the canyons or forded the streams. I don’t need to have drunk from it to know that the river flows from one imperfect place to the next. And I don’t need to have walked all the trails to know they all lead to one place. The only time H2O is at full polarity is when it is steam (gaseous H2O). When it is liquid its polarity is zero or close to zero. And, in between these two, is solid water; with half polarity being the force that provides the strength of the bond.

But it took a while to achieve the purity of thought that allowed me to see what I was believing. It took a while for me to stop doubting that I must have made a mistake. In fact I hoped I had. I would run through it over and over. Each time I would go from the elation that the strong tensional forces associated with a singular (asymmetric) H bond—the basis of my spinning microdroplets/polymers—was so plainly evident, as I had predicted, thinking the explanatory path for my compact, parsimonious theory of tornadogenesis might be so simple from that point on, followed by the frustration of the increasingly inescapable realization that people would surely ask, “How is it possible for a bond to be a bond if the force associated with it has disappeared?” It was a strange mixture of emotions: the excitement of discovery mixed with another feeling more like that a wild animal might feel to hear the door of the cage close behind them. I couldn’t see how anybody else would be able to see all of this. The spinning microdroplets/polymers was already a giant explanatory challenge; I was well aware I was arguing from the back pew of the church on that one. I didn’t need another crazy notion to have to explain to everybody. And this was just one of about twenty different things that were happening with the greater theory of tornadogenesis. It seemed every week or so I would come encounter a new hunch that had to be explicated and subjected to extensive thought experiment. It was overwhelming. And so, at first, I just kind of hoped this zeroing of polarity with fully symmetric H bonding would serendipitously disappear as serendipitously as it had appeared. But eventually I had no choice but to accept it. The results were so definitive, so binary and so binding; there was no way to abandon the zeroing of polarity part of the explanation without also abandoning the strong tensional forces of asymmetric H bonding of my spinning microdroplets/polymers.

It was at this point that I didn’t make the biggest mistake a theorist can make and that is to think that one’s own past transgression against the literal truth nullifies one’s right to suspect a larger conspiracy to pretend to understand what everybody only believes. As you can see in the examination laid out above, the understanding that I was drawing upon didn’t require any special genius to arrive at. Other than a little bit more of an advanced understanding of the quantum mechanical factors associated with the electron cloud (with respect to the tetrahedron of the oxygen molecule) and the realization that H bonds would have had the same effect on the oxygen cloud as do an H2O molecule’s covalently attached H atoms, there was nothing about this explanation that is out reach of a freshman level student of physics and chemistry. Nevertheless, after I caught my intellectual breath, I didn’t bother to doubt that the zeroing of polarity with fully symmetric H bonding was correct. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that I wasn’t open to the possibility that it might be wrong. Even now I’m open to that possibility. What I am saying is that I didn’t make the (common) mistake of assuming that the ease with which I had uncovered this mechanism indicated that the researchers that preceded me on this subject must have already considered this, must have explicated it, must have tested it, must have found it erroneous and/or must possess some depth of understanding that I lack and, rightly, rejected it. Instead I assumed that, most likely, they had never even considered this mechanism, had never even asked the right questions to arrive at this mechanism or, if they had somehow arrived at this mechanism they, most likely, would have assumed that they must have made a mistake and rejected it (as I was tempted to do) Because everybody knows water is simple. Right? In fact, I don’t think it is going too far to say water is ‘well understood’ to be simple! And that is important, because once a notion is established as ‘well understood’ it no longer matters if it is true or false, right or wrong, valid or invalid. It is more important that it be easy to explain, not contradict existing models and not have any major or obvious conflicts with other popular scientific paradigms and social customs.

It is said that the scientific method is a monarchy and reproducible experimental evidence is the king. I don’t know how applicable this is in reality. The other side of that coin is academia, paradigms and, last but certainly not least, funding considerations. Here consensus is king. The message an academic discipline sends to the public must be saleable to the lowest common denominator of voters. Education is academia’s priority. Education relies heavily on simplified models and creation of an artificial sense of certainty in order to more effectively achieve educational goals. And that can involve dumbing down facts to make models appear to work better than they actually do. Then time happens. A couple of generations go by and collective memory forgets that a conjecture was just a conjecture based on an anecdote or that an assumption was never actually tested. It becomes ‘well understood’. And, of course, once something is ‘well understood’ in one discipline that creates opportunities for collusion with other disciplines; after all, there’s no reason to replicate each others (marketing) efforts. What is not ‘well understood’ in one discipline will be ‘well understood’ in another. This eventually evolves into a network of ‘well understoodedness’. And it was more and more beginning to appear that I had found the central node of the network; I had found the most ‘well understood’ thing in nature. Water is simple. Everybody knows this. It is ‘well understood’!

Assuming for the moment that all of this isn’t just a paranoia induced rant, the origins of which being deep in my subconscious (this is my last lie ever, I swear) we might ask ourselves how our understanding of nature might have been different if. In other words, if we could go back in time and, somehow, emplace a correct understanding of H2O (specifically, the one being introduced here) into the collective stream of scientific knowledge and ran the clock up to the present, how would it be different from our current understanding? What would stick out? What negative symptoms of our attachment to this artificially simplified understanding might be revealed? Might it reveal aspects of our understanding of the natural world to be overly complex and even convoluted? And then there is the question that sends shivers down my spine (but maybe that’s not completely a good thing) If we were to go through the trouble to correct it—expose the wider deception, rewrite all the textbooks and prosecute the unrepentant through the media—might it eventually result in less concepts/notions being ‘well understood’ and more of these same concepts/notions being, well, understood? But, to be honest, thoughts like this were beyond me at that time; awareness of an overriding current of dishonesty does not come so easily when you are part of the flow. Nevertheless, I knew there was something about the zeroing of polarity that I had not figured out. It was too weird to not be significant. Nature doesn’t do things for no reason. So I always knew I was on the right path. And, in that regard, I was soon to even more fully realize the enlightenment of the understanding without which everybody has to lie. It was more than just a guiding light. In its absence there would have been no parameter, no point of reference, through which to realize the the value of a model that is not simple and not ‘well understood.’ How else would one know there to be a bias that must be contradicted and corrected for? It also didn’t hurt that I knew something about steam engines. (And it didn’t have anything to do with trains or stopping them.)

Continued: Conservation of Energy (Section Five of Five)
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Bill -- Chapter One: Air Brakes (Conservation of E [5 of

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:31 am

Bill
or
A Very Long Confessional Statement Attached To My Application for V-Phasian Membership

by James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Chapter One: Air Brakes

Conservation of Energy (Section Five of Five)
Of course this is just ridiculousness. The rightness of a theory cannot pivot off of something so vaporous as it being opposite of things that are most likely to be assumed by a gullible populace. Can it? And ridiculousness it might have stayed, maybe forever, if not for a detail I noticed on the same Marvelous Marvels TV episode mentioned above. They were discussing the many functional uses of H2O. They brought up one of the ‘anomalous’ properties of H2O, it’s high heat capacity and the physical dynamics associated with how this property allows steam engines to do work. And they brought up a fact that, once again, left me marveled. The high heat capacity of H2O exists only in the liquid phase! In the gaseous phase H2O has a low heat capacity! And, most importantly, it is because of both of these facts that H2O was so useful in steam engines. It wasn’t useful solely because it turned to steam. It was useful also because it stored so much energy while it was liquid. In an instant (when steam flashes into existence under the high temperatures and high pressures in a steam engine) it goes from a substance that is hungry to absorb any energy that is hotter than itself (IE. Laws of thermodynamics, hot to cold) to a substance that is eager to shed any and all energy it possesses as quickly as possible (this being, of course, the energy that pushes the piston on a steam engine). This is where I noticed a detail that didn’t quite make sense to me. A molecules intrinsic properties don’t change as a result of the relatively moderate temperature differences in the environment or even in a steam engine. The H2O molecule was the same molecule when it was liquid, steam or ice. Something didn’t make sense in all of this. Something was missing. How could H2O have a high heat capacity as a liquid and low heat capacity as steam or ice if it was the same molecule? Could it be that H2O’s heat capacity is not a property that is intrinsic to the H2O molecule but one that is, actually, a collective property of (liquid) H2O molecules?

When the oxygen atom of an H2O molecule forms hydrogen bonds with the hydrogen atoms of two other H2O molecules—as in liquid water—the force that brings them together, polarity, disappears—drops to zero—just as the bonds are completed, causing them (the oxygen atom of one H2O molecule and the hydrogen atoms of the adjacent H2O molecules) to bounce off of each other. But the bond isn’t broken in that as the molecules move away from each other the force of polarity returns, bringing them back together again. Most significantly, the energy thereof is conserved in the continuous movement. In the steam engine, water is the David with its energy conservation slingshot, the piston is Goliath. The zeroing of polarity with fully symmetric H bonding is, thereby, the reason liquid H2O has such a high heat capacity—that is the slingshot. In a sense liquid H2O never really is a liquid. It is kind of a pseudo-gas and a pseudo-liquid. For example (assuming one H bond is already formed at the other non-bonding location of the respective oxygen atom) when the H atom of one H2O molecules knocks up against the oxygen molecule of an adjacent H2O molecule it bounces, just like a gas. But the molecules cannot escape each other’s attraction, staying in close proximity to each other like a liquid. Most significantly, energy is conserved in the continuous pendulumic movement as they bounce away from each other to be pulled back again, over and over. This is the thermal heartbeat of our environment. In conjunction with its ubiquity (the prevalence of H2O on earth) it is this pendulumic activity that delineates the thermal realities on the surface of our planet. Moreover, it is this pendulumic movement and the energy conservation and energy distribution implications of which that is the reason water is essential to life and many other energetic processes. In short, H2O is the energy conservation superhero of our reality. (Note: This will be addressed more explicitly in a subsequent chapter.)

It being the basis of the purity of thought that I promise to you the reader through the subsequent chapters of this book, in this new model H2O polarity is variable and H bonds are the mechanism thereof. In comparison, the current paradigm considers it 'well understood' that polarity is a constant, kind of like a weak ionic bond, I suppose. (Note: As will be more explicitly addressed in a subsequent chapter, this is blindly assumed by the current paradigm [ab initio].) Secondly, in this new model the space between H2O molecules (in liquid water) is the result of the polarity neutralizing to zero, with fully symmetric H bonding, as described above. This facilitates the constant movement (conserved energy) associated with H2O’s heat capacity. In comparison, the current paradigm considers it 'well understood' that the space between H2O molecules in liquid water is, more or less, constant, somewhat mysterious (Saykally) and otherwise not all that significant. Also, they lack any kind of an explanation for why liquid water has such a high heat capacity. Instead they, in effect, dismiss it as one of the many anomalies of H2O. Lastly, in this new model ice (solid water) is a consequence of the way H2O molecules collectively force the prying apart (breaking) of ‘weak’ H bonds (just like the grains of starch in the non-Newtonian fluids, wit pressure applied, man) itself a consequence of an unknown mechanical implications associated with the way H2O molecules fit into and fold against each other under low energy conditions. In other words, ice is a form of three dimensional surface tension—surface tension on steroids. (As indicated previously, one highlight of this model of ice/freezing is that it allows us to describe the sharpness of the transition between the relatively low viscosity of liquid H2O before it freezes and the solidity of the ice after if freezes as being a consequence of the de-neutralization [activation] of polarity that had been neutralized [dormant] in the liquid stage. [The current paradigm lacks any kind of elegant explanation for the sharpness of this transition.]) In comparison, the current paradigm considers it 'well understood' that ice is H2O molecules arranged in an end-to-end manner, producing a “lattice” structure. Their conceptualization of the freezing process, accordingly, involves water molecules, somehow, doing just that, arranging themselves in an end-to-end manner. (I consider this the strangest assumption of the current paradigm. There is no physical basis to expect that H2O molecules would arrange themselves as such. In my opinion, the probability that this could actually take place in nature is comparable to the probability of flipping a nickel a billion times and having it land standing on its side every time. [Most conspicuously, whether or not it is realistic to expect such an idealized notion {lattice ice} to be mirrored in reality seems to not have been discussed in the literature.] Lastly, and in sharp contrast to the understanding that has been explicated herein, this model lacks any kind of elegant explanation for surface tension, leaving the current paradigm to rely on the insights of a guy who played bongos back in the sixties.

I would also come to realize that in terms of providing conceptual support for the validity of the mechanism of the spinning microdroplets my examination couldn’t have gone better. Or, at least, that is how I saw it. (Note: The implications of different chain lengths will be addressed more explicitly in a subsequent chapter.) It even indicated what I judged to be significant up-ramp in the magnitude as the plasma churned down to rapidly spinning, individual H2O molecules (the incremental EME/weight increase between a chain length of two to a chain lengths of one being a full 25%) thus indicating that it, possibly, would not wisp out as a result of this churning activity. (Again, this is where EME/weight is maximized and where particle weight [IE. Avogadro’s Law] is minimized.) And so, it seemed to indicated that maximization of surface area should, presumably, still be a strong plasma even if, possibly, not as strong as one in which the average chain length is longer. And so, being at full polarity, it seemed it would have no shortage of polarity in the theorized “cold steam” phase of rapidly spinning individual H2O molecules. To those that may remain skeptical that microdroplets/polymers can achieve the spinning that will be gratuitously assumed through the rest of this book I want to put your concerns to rest. I suppose you might expect be provided some reproducible experimental evidence, concurring observational support or even the testimony of an expert. I have something much better than all of that. I hereby give you my personal assurance that there is no reason to be skeptical about the existence of this spinning droplets and their involvement in storms and atmospheric flow, because, . . . I can see it.

End Chapter One (End -- Five of Five)
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Lookout For Bill

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:11 am

Bill has arrived:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16584
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Lookout For Bill

Unread postby seasmith » Sat Jan 21, 2017 6:11 pm

?
That topic does not exist.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Lookout For Bill

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:00 pm

seasmith wrote:?
That topic does not exist.


You can ignore that. Originally this was a separate post that pointed back to this thread.

Jim
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fosborn_ and 2 guests