Lloyd,Lloyd wrote:Charles already proved that tornadoes are not due to surface tension of water.
It's regrettable the internet doesn't allow you to drop a link to your imagination so that the rest of us could see what it is you thought you saw.
Lloyd,Lloyd wrote:Charles already proved that tornadoes are not due to surface tension of water.
You mean lower friction, not lower viscosity. These are not interchangeable concepts.CharlesChandler wrote:And here's another one...
If the greater velocity of the jet stream is because of its lower viscosity,
So, how does any of this explain the highly focused flow of the jet streams? You jump between concepts like electricity, ionization, viscosity, friction and fail to explain anything.CharlesChandler wrote: and if that's because of its electric charge, then the next question is: how does it get charged? If the jet stream occurs at the boundary between cool & warm air masses, that's where the thunderstorms occur. And where there are thunderstorms, there are electric charges.
Our atmosphere is constantly and continually charged by the solar wind. So there is no reason to speculate about wind shear causing electric charges. Specifically, the tops of the storms are positively charged. And positively charged air has a lower viscosity, because the repulsion of like charges prevents the particle collision that instantiate friction within the fluid (i.e., viscosity).
Nonsense. This is science, not science fiction. A vortice without a sheath isn't a vortice. It's just spinning air that quickly is overwhelmed by chaos and ensuing friction. Without a sheath you have no isolation between the fast-moving air going up the vortice tube and the vortice tube itself. And the sheath had better have a surface (ie. plasma) and internal coherence (ability to maintain a form) or the sheath and the fast-moving air will mix producing chaos and not the highly ordered structure that is plainly observable in a tornado vortice.CharlesChandler wrote: No, vortexes don't need "sheaths" made of different stuff.
Here's what I actually said:CharlesChandler wrote: and if that's because of its electric charge, then the next question is: how does it get charged? If the jet stream occurs at the boundary between cool & warm air masses, that's where the thunderstorms occur. And where there are thunderstorms, there are electric charges.
Our atmosphere is constantly and continually charged by the solar wind. So there is no reason to speculate about wind shear causing electric charges. Specifically, the tops of the storms are positively charged. And positively charged air has a lower viscosity, because the repulsion of like charges prevents the particle collision that instantiate friction within the fluid (i.e., viscosity).
You can't keep straight who said what, to the point that now, you're just arguing against yourself. And when you argue against yourself, you can't win, because you'll never let you.CharlesChandler wrote:If the greater velocity of the jet stream is because of its lower viscosity, and if that's because of its electric charge, then the next question is: how does it get charged? If the jet stream occurs at the boundary between cool & warm air masses, that's where the thunderstorms occur. And where there are thunderstorms, there are electric charges. Specifically, the tops of the storms are positively charged. And positively charged air has a lower viscosity, because the repulsion of like charges prevents the particle collision that instantiate friction within the fluid (i.e., viscosity).
This is a nonsense statement. Kind of like something you'd read in a children's book. So, you make a nonsense statement, using sciencey sounding words, then you change the subject. You jump from velocity to viscosity, then mention electric charge, then, abracadabra, reduced friction. It's like you are doing poetry, or writing a song. It's like these words have no real meaning other than the fact that if you use them they leave your audience just confused enough that they won't be able to dispute you because the words don't have literal meaning anyways.CharlesChandler wrote:If the greater velocity of the jet stream is because of its lower viscosity,
Like charges, positive to positive or negative to negative repel. As I see it that is more likely to be a factor in the stratosphere with the abundance of negatively charges associated with the solar wind coming in from above. And so, maybe what you are saying here would be additive to explaining the qualities of the components of the stratosphere.CharlesChandler wrote:and if that's because of its electric charge, then the next question is: how does it get charged? If the jet stream occurs at the boundary between cool & warm air masses, that's where the thunderstorms occur. And where there are thunderstorms, there are electric charges.
This is nonsense. It's that simple. Lower viscosity doesn't have anything to do with increased reduced friction or increased velocity. This isn't science, it's just poor english usage.CharlesChandler wrote:Specifically, the tops of the storms are positively charged. And positively charged air has a lower viscosity, because the repulsion of like charges prevents the particle collision that instantiate friction within the fluid (i.e., viscosity).
High-humidity air is actually lighter, because the H2O molecule is lighter than the other constituents of air (N2 and O2). The effect is predictable, given the masses of the molecules, and measurements of the mass of various mixtures of these molecules confirm it. Water is the best-studied molecule in all of the sciences, so there is no shortage of laboratory data.fosborn_ wrote:I would like to note. James in his book used an experiment to prove moist air is heaver than dry air, using differential scales. With further enquiry, James admitts he never preformed this experiment, he simply has faith it will work.
So what happens when he boils water?fosborn_ wrote:I think a lot of his theory is based on the premise that h2o as a gas can't exist at a normal atmosphere and temperature range.
I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe my creative reading skills aren't as well developed as are yours.fosborn_ wrote:I would like to note. James in his book used an experiment to prove moist air is heaver than dry air, using differential scales.
Hmm. Well, I do have faith that the people that constructed steam tables knew what they were doing.fosborn_ wrote: With further enquiry, James admitts he never preformed this experiment, he simply has faith it will work. I think a lot of his theory is based on the premise that h2o as a gas can't exist at a normal atmosphere and temperature range.
Hmm.. you didn't dispute it there...- show quoted text -
I haven't done the experiment, if that is what you are asking. Do you have access to a scale (mass comparator) in your current job?
Do you want to do the experiment? It's a very simple experiment. The only major complications are that you have to start from a very dry and windless environment and you need to have an extremely sensitive scale. Other than that you just have to be careful not to contaminate the results. That's what the "thingies" are about. You could improvise that.
I don't think this will gain traction with James, I think he believes only electrostatics can overcome surface tension to create water clusters and microdroplets. He doesn't believe in evaporation.CharlesChandler wrote:fosborn_ wrote:I would like to note. James in his book used an experiment to prove moist air is heaver than dry air, using differential scales. With further enquiry, James admitts he never preformed this experiment, he simply has faith it will work.Charles wrote; High-humidity air is actually lighter, because the H2O molecule is lighter than the other constituents of air (N2 and O2). The effect is predictable, given the masses of the molecules, and measurements of the mass of various mixtures of these molecules confirm it. Water is the best-studied molecule in all of the sciences, so there is no shortage of laboratory data.
I'm starting to think James plays the same game. This reminds me of another thread I have participated in over the years.Charhles wrote;. Then they use physics jargon to make it sound like proven physical science, when really, they never looked at the physical forces at play.
Well in the summer it can get really humid here in Pennsylvania, so I keep a dehumidifier running in my lab space here. It removes several liters of water from the air in this room each day. Before dehumidifier does his work, this water is dissolved in the mixture of gases comprising the air. There aren't "microdroplets", even though the temperature here is well below the boiling point of water.jimmcginn wrote:You don't realize gaseous H2O has to be contained (as in a steam engine) to remain gaseous. That is just ignorant.
It's easy to calculate what the mass will be of a certain volume of air, containing certain percentages of N2, O2, H2O, CO2, &c, and at a certain pressure. There is the equation PV=nRT, I think it's called the Ideal Gas Law; it's basic high school chemistry or physics, probably there's a wikipedia article explaining it. Air containing more CO2 will be heavier, since CO2 is a heavier molecule. The air going into my dehumidifier, at an equal temperature, will be a little less dense than the air coming out: Because the air going in contains proportionally more H2O and less of the other components, and H2O is a lighter molecule.jimmcginn wrote:LOL. Look up the boiling temperature of N2 and O2 then look up the boiling temperature of H2O. Now do you get it? Moist air is about 7 to 10 percent heavier than dry air.
Agree completely, especially after the last few posts. Is this now the troll feeding forum?Such is why I have complained this shouldn't be in a science thread but in NIMI ..
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 73 guests