The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift

Unread postby comingfrom » Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:39 am

If H2O can become ionic (which I doubt) I think it is rare.
When H2O ionizes (which is very common) it becomes OH- and H+.
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift

Unread postby willendure » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:06 am

jimmcginn wrote:Okay, but his wording suggests that he is assuming that they start out as single molecules (presumably upon evaporation) and my theory says this is impossible.


Yes, evaporating as single molecules and recombining into micro-droplets would seem a higher energy path than just evaporating as micro-droplets in the first place. Feynman have anything to say about that?

How to set up an experiment to see if this really happens or not?

BTW, I think you should call them nano-droplets not micro-droplets. Micro kind of implies they are micron sized, and I think you are talking about much smaller than that, even down to just a pair of water molecules clinging together.
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:45 am

comingfrom wrote:
If H2O can become ionic (which I doubt) I think it is rare.
When H2O ionizes (which is very common) it becomes OH- and H+.


It's not common in the atmosphere.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:04 am

willendure wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:Okay, but his wording suggests that he is assuming that they start out as single molecules (presumably upon evaporation) and my theory says this is impossible.


Yes, evaporating as single molecules and recombining into micro-droplets would seem a higher energy path than just evaporating as micro-droplets in the first place.

Unfortunately the notion that water turns to steam (gaseous H2O) in the atmosphere at ambient temperatures is a very stubborn superstition. It started as a myth that nobody put much thought into, now it has evolved into a taboo such that large factions of science are intent upon not even questioning the notion. Most scientific disciplines--including physics--sidestep the issue by referencing meteorology. And meteorologists absolutely refuse to discuss the notion (since this notion is essential to meteorology's prevailing theory of storms).
willendure wrote: Feynman have anything to say about that?

Frustratingly, no. Or if he did I have yet to find it.
willendure wrote:How to set up an experiment to see if this really happens or not?

Check this out:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16647&start=45#p118512
willendure wrote:BTW, I think you should call them nano-droplets not micro-droplets. Micro kind of implies they are micron sized, and I think you are talking about much smaller than that, even down to just a pair of water molecules clinging together.


I think you are right about that. And I will do as you suggest.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift

Unread postby willendure » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:59 am

jimmcginn wrote:
willendure wrote:How to set up an experiment to see if this really happens or not?

Check this out:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16647&start=45#p118512


Sounds like a reasonable experiment for weighing moist vs dry air.

What I was meaning is how to know if evaporation from a liquid surface occurs as single water molecules leaving the surface, or as nano-droplets?
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:18 am

willendure wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:
willendure wrote:How to set up an experiment to see if this really happens or not?

Check this out:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16647&start=45#p118512


Sounds like a reasonable experiment for weighing moist vs dry air.

What I was meaning is how to know if evaporation from a liquid surface occurs as single water molecules leaving the surface, or as nano-droplets?


Ah. No. Microscopes are not powerful enough, to the best of my understanding.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift

Unread postby sketch1946 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:05 pm

Hi Jimmy,
mmm I started this off nice and logically to lift each statement made by Feynman to see how many facts and comments he makes.. but it was getting way too long, but here's a shorter version:

Feynman starts his explanation of what's going on in the atmosphere, especially in a 'storm cell' by setting the electrical field scene, talks about the productions of ions by cosmic rays, then how the different molecules, droplets, ions, and other physical entities interact with each other and all the physical forces of atmospheric pressure, density, temperature, composition etc:

1. electric potential increases by about 100 volts per meter
2. a negative charge on the earth’s surface
3. the atmosphere is about 400,000 volts
4. 10 micromicroamperes crosses each square meter parallel to the earth (continuously)
5. Here and there among the air molecules there is an ion (of different types)

6. for example: oxygen, which has acquired an extra electron, or perhaps lost one (eg: oxygen ion, + or - )
7. These ions do not stay as single molecules
8. Because of their electric field they usually accumulate a few other molecules
9. Each ion then becomes a little lump
10 The lumps drift either up or down, in the electric field

11. These ions drift in the field—moving slowly upward or downward-they are the current
12. Ions are produced continuously by cosmic rays.
13. The ions are being swept away all the time
14 New ions are being created continuously by the cosmic-ray particles coming from the outside.

What are 'cosmic rays'?
Firstly, they're not rays, but particles with mass and huge amounts of energy!
"...In current usage, the term cosmic ray almost exclusively refers to massive particles, as opposed to photons. Massive particles – those that have rest mass – can gain additional, kinetic, mass-energy when they are moving, due to relativistic effects.

Through this process, some particles acquire tremendously high mass-energies. These are significantly higher than the photon energy of even the highest-energy photons detected to date.

The energy of the massless photon depends solely on frequency, not speed, as photons always travel at the same speed. At the higher end of the energy spectrum, relativistic kinetic energy is the main source of the mass-energy of cosmic rays.

The Oh-My-God particle, the highest-energy fermionic cosmic ray detected to date, had an energy of about 3×10^20 eV, while the highest-energy gamma rays to be observed, very-high-energy gamma rays, are photons with energies of up to 10^14 eV. Hence, the highest-energy detected fermionic cosmic ray was around 3×10^6 times more energetic than the highest-energy detected cosmic photons.


Most are nuclei of well-known atoms:
Composition of primary cosmic rays, which originate outside of Earth's atmosphere, about 99% are the nuclei (stripped of their electron shells) of well-known atoms, and about 1% are solitary electrons (similar to beta particles).

Most are hydrogen nuclei aka protons:
Of the nuclei, about 90% are simple protons, i. e. hydrogen nuclei;

9% are alpha particles, identical to helium nuclei, and

1% are the nuclei of heavier elements, called HZE ions.

A very small fraction are stable particles of antimatter, such as positrons or antiprotons. The precise nature of this remaining fraction is an area of active research. An active search from Earth orbit for anti-alpha particles has failed to detect them.

Earthly effects
Cosmic rays attract great interest practically, due to the damage they inflict on microelectronics and life outside the protection of an atmosphere and magnetic field, and scientifically, because the energies of the most energetic ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) have been observed to approach 3 × 10^20 eV,

about 40 million times the energy of particles accelerated by the Large Hadron Collider.

At 50 J, the highest-energy ultra-high-energy cosmic rays have energies comparable to the kinetic energy of a 90-kilometre-per-hour (56 mph) baseball.

So these cosmic super-Hadron-collider-particles smash into and even through the atmosphere continuously
creating ions even in the depths of the oceans:
In the 1920s the term "cosmic rays" was coined by Robert Millikan who made measurements of ionization due to cosmic rays from deep under water to high altitudes and around the globe. Millikan believed that his measurements proved that the primary cosmic rays were gamma rays

...primary cosmic rays are deflected by the geomagnetic field and must therefore be charged particles, not photons. In 1929, Bothe and Kolhörster discovered charged cosmic-ray particles that could penetrate 4.1 cm of gold.

Three independent experiments found that the intensity is, in fact, greater from the west, proving that most primaries are ***positive. During the years from 1930 to 1945, a wide variety of investigations confirmed that the primary cosmic rays are mostly protons, and the ***secondary radiation produced in the atmosphere is primarily electrons, photons and muons.

...supernovae do not produce all cosmic rays, and the proportion of cosmic rays that they do produce is a question which cannot be answered without further study.

How many cosmic rays per second per sq meter?
particle energy (eV) particle rate (per square meter per second)
1×10^9 (GeV) 10,000
1×10^12 (TeV) 1
1×10^16 (10 PeV) (a few times a year)
1×10^20 (100 EeV) (once a century)

When cosmic rays enter the Earth's atmosphere they collide with atoms and molecules, mainly oxygen and nitrogen. The interaction produces a cascade of lighter particles, a so-called air shower secondary radiation that rains down, including x-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and neutrons.[55] All of the produced particles stay within about one degree of the primary particle's path.

Typical particles produced in such collisions are neutrons and charged mesons such as positive or negative pions and kaons. Some of these subsequently decay into muons, which are able to reach the surface of the Earth, and even penetrate for some distance into shallow mines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
So when Feynman is talking about what's going on in the atmosphere, he's talking about how all these things combine to make the atmosphere a complex web of interactions, electrical, combined with turbulence, bouyancy and convection:
(The total content of F's lecture amounted to approx 14 pages, this summary is approx 78 lines incl blank lines) :-)

ie the topics in F's lecture included water droplets mixed in with cosmic high energy particles producing a continuous supply of ions, charged ions of different types, some floating up, some down in an electric field graduated from 0 Volts at the earth's surface to 400,000 Volts at the top of the atmosphere, an atmospheric density gradient, from high density and pressure at the surface, to extremely thin but high energy ie high temperature low pressure, at the top of the atmosphere, evaporation of water including salt water with minute NACl crystals, dust, convection, turbulence, adiabatic cooling, water as heat conveyor, a steady current through the atmosphere, lightning of two types, ground to air, and air to ground, charge equalization at high altitudes, a gradient in charge density from higher at the surface to lower at high altitude, he also mentions some theories to explain some things, and the lack of theories to explain other things.... etc etc.. so I think he's showing clearly bouyancy and molecule sizes are just part of a bigger picture
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift

Unread postby comingfrom » Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:29 pm

Hi Jimm.

Something about lift.

I didn't say it before, because I thought you really wanted this to be about nanodroplets.
But just in case this new information is of interest to your theories and ideas.

Aerodynamic lift isn't from the aerodynamics.
If you drive a car too fast it will lift (and flip over backwards), as land speed record holders found out.
Fast cars have "spoilers", which work like wing flaps to apply downward pressure on the vehicle, to counter lift and keep the wheels firmly on the ground.
That means, if you take the wings of an aircraft, it will still take off (though not advisable to try it).
The wings act as fins, for stability, and to give the pilot a way to control the lift.
The wings are actually resisting the lift, so that the fuselage doesn't flip over with the lift (the lift force is stronger at the nose).

That's why wings don't need to be angled, nor curved on top.
All the aerodynamic talk is misdirection.
So what then causes lift?
The same thing that causes your nanodroplets to lift (so I don't have to explain to you).

Now, moist air will be taking some of the lift force, to lift the nanodroplets,
or to put another way, the nanodroplets are stealing some of the lift.
That reduces the amount of lift available to the aircraft.

~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift

Unread postby willendure » Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:42 am

comingfrom wrote:Hi Jimm.

Something about lift.

I didn't say it before, because I thought you really wanted this to be about nanodroplets.
But just in case this new information is of interest to your theories and ideas.

Aerodynamic lift isn't from the aerodynamics.
If you drive a car too fast it will lift (and flip over backwards), as land speed record holders found out.
Fast cars have "spoilers", which work like wing flaps to apply downward pressure on the vehicle, to counter lift and keep the wheels firmly on the ground.
That means, if you take the wings of an aircraft, it will still take off (though not advisable to try it).
The wings act as fins, for stability, and to give the pilot a way to control the lift.
The wings are actually resisting the lift, so that the fuselage doesn't flip over with the lift (the lift force is stronger at the nose).

That's why wings don't need to be angled, nor curved on top.
All the aerodynamic talk is misdirection.
So what then causes lift?
The same thing that causes your nanodroplets to lift (so I don't have to explain to you).

Now, moist air will be taking some of the lift force, to lift the nanodroplets,
or to put another way, the nanodroplets are stealing some of the lift.
That reduces the amount of lift available to the aircraft.

~Paul


What absolute nonsense. Sure the body of plane may contribute some lift, but most of it comes from the wings.
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:01 am

[quote="sketch1946"
when Feynman is talking about what's going on in the atmosphere, he's talking about how all these things combine to make the atmosphere a complex web of interactions, electrical, combined with turbulence, bouyancy and convection: [/quote]

Well, sure, he intended a comprehensive explanation of the atmosphere, but I think he fell short. He had some fairly big handicaps. Fistly, he had little understanding of H2O. He didn't, for example, make any of the discoveries that I have made (follow links upthread for more details) and he seems to not have even noticed the contradiction of moist-air convection and the supposition that moist air cannot turn to gas in the atmosphere, thus he had no chance of defeating the nonsense notion of moist air convection powers storms, and that itself prevented him from ever realizing the involvement of vortices to explain jet stream and tornadoes, which itself depended upon understanding the role of H2O's surface tension.

And so, in short, I would say he did a good job of explaining the role of electricity in the atmosphere, but he did not explain storms. As I stated, it was his failure to comprehend the dynamics of H2O that prevented him from making any progress in this regard.

Without a comprehensive understanding of H2O you can't understand the origin of vortices. And without an understanding of vortices you can't explain storms--which have nothing to do with the moist-air convection (this being a result of the popular but absurd notion that moist air is heavier than dry air). What is strange to me is how somebody as smart as Feynman didn't recognize the absurdity of meteorologists sily notion that storms are powered by moist-air convection. So, Feynman made the common mistake of failing to understand the dynamics of H2O that are instrumental to explaining much of what happens in the atmosphere.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:38 am

comingfrom wrote:So what then causes lift?
The same thing that causes your nanodroplets to lift (so I don't have to explain to you).


Static electricity? No. Lift is the result of highly energetic (moving 700 to 900 mph) air molecules impacting a surface and imparting force/energy. It is perfectly consistent with Newtonian physics. (There is no contradiction between Newton and Bernoulli. Bernoulli just described it from the perspective of air pressure, which is much more energetic than most people assume.)

comingfrom wrote:Now, moist air will be taking some of the lift force, to lift the nanodroplets,
or to put another way, the nanodroplets are stealing some of the lift.
That reduces the amount of lift available to the aircraft.
~Paul

I certainly agree with this last statement.

Any entity that has a surface and internal resilience (including plasmas!) can induce/effectuate aerodynamics. Aerodynamics involves a conversion of one type of kinetic energy (flow) to another type of energy (air pressure). But certain shapes will be more efficient in achieving this conversion than other shapes.

Unbeknownst to just about everybody except me, the aerodymanics of H2O-based plasmas play a huge role in storms and atmospheric flow. In fact the sheath of a jet stream/tornado (itself comprised of surface tension maximized spinning H2O nanodroplets) is itself an aerodynamic entity.

As I stated above, it is especially important to be cognizant of the fact that aerodynamics involves an exchange of one type of kinetic energy--the energy of flow--with another type of kinetic energy, that of air pressure. It is also important to be aware that while it is impossible for the energy of flow to produce wind speed greater than the flow itself, the same is not true of air pressure. Air pressure has an effective speed limit that is the speed of sound. The upshot of all of this is the fact that plasma-based aerodynamics and the high speed limit of air pressure explains the origins of the 300 mph winds associated with jet stream and severe weather. In contrast, meteorology has completely failed to explain the origins of jet stream, severe weather, and the high wind speeds that are associated with them.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift

Unread postby willendure » Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:10 pm

jimmcginn wrote:
comingfrom wrote:So what then causes lift?
The same thing that causes your nanodroplets to lift (so I don't have to explain to you).


Static electricity? No. Lift is the result of highly energetic (moving 700 to 900 mph) air molecules impacting a surface and imparting force/energy. It is perfectly consistent with Newtonian physics. (There is no contradiction between Newton and Bernoulli. Bernoulli just described it from the perspective of air pressure, which is much more energetic than most people assume.)


There are two things that cause a wing to produce lift. One is the Bernoulli effect; air follows a longer path round the top of the wing, reducing pressure there so pressure of the air under the wing is stronger, and pushes up on it. The other is simply that the wing deflects a lot of air downwards, the pushes down on the air produces a pushing up on the wing, as described by Newton. Mostly the Newton effect is the stronger one, but I would not vouch for all kinds of wing at all speeds such as in super-sonic flight.
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:35 pm

willendure wrote:There are two things that cause a wing to produce lift. One is the Bernoulli effect; air follows a longer path round the top of the wing, reducing pressure there so pressure of the air under the wing is stronger, and pushes up on it. The other is simply that the wing deflects a lot of air downwards, the pushes down on the air produces a pushing up on the wing, as described by Newton. Mostly the Newton effect is the stronger one, but I would not vouch for all kinds of wing at all speeds such as in super-sonic flight.

I agree with your conceptualization, but it is really just one thing, IMO. A vacuum (low pressure) does not exert force. It is the absence of force. It doesn't pull. It just doesn't push. On the top of the wing the molecules are mostly missing or just skipping across the surface, not imparting much force.

The air on the bottom of the wing bounces off the bottom of the wing, going downward, and the air going over the top of the wing misses the wing, it too goes downward.

There aren't two different forces. There are just two different perspectives to look a the same thing. Bernoulli is perfectly consistent with Newton.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift

Unread postby willendure » Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:05 am

jimmcginn wrote:There aren't two different forces. There are just two different perspectives to look a the same thing. Bernoulli is perfectly consistent with Newton.


Ok, I think you are right.

What I was really getting at is that it is possible to have a flat wing, like on a toy balsa wood glider. A more sophisticated wing has a curve and a shape to enhance the Bernoulli effect and sustain laminar flow for longer. Much of the lift can already be accounted for by a flat wing, but they are inefficient.

I think we can be clear though, that wings are the device which produces lift on an aircraft, not electrical forces as comingfrom suggests.
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:12 am

I agree.

I am continually perplexed, frustrated, and amazed at the ability of humans to form deep, unshakeable beliefs about concepts that involve any degree of abstraction.

Along these lines, here is a conversation that took place recently on another forum. Note how the participants in the discussion contradict themselves from one post to the next and eventually circle around to their original position and at no time do they seem to have the slightest self-awareness of how stupid they appear:

http://talkrational.org/index.php/topic ... l#msg68814

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests