The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms

[jimmcginn]

A link to a 1953 paper using two methods to remove precipitated water from artic air and in the next step to weigh only the condensed H2O gas.
One method is use of air filters the other is a absolute methanol solution to filter. But the idea being to weigh only condensed H2O gas.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... DQEP4S8tIA

Thereby falsifying J M "s notion of wet steam only in humid air and also the boyancy of humid air. I think someone posted this method previously but maybe the post was removed.

What do you think it indicates that you were, apparently, unable to quote anything in this paper that substantiates the "truth" that you claim you see?

[jimmcginn]

https://solvingtornadoesdotcom.wordpres ... okes-blog/

[fosborn_]

What do you think it indicates that you were, apparently, unable to quote anything in this paper that substantiates the "truth" that you claim you see?

So if this is readable, they preformed test many years back to disprove your notion of the non existence of H2O gas at normal atmosphere, so you need no longer be ignorant in this area of your investigation.

[jimmcginn]

So a simple falsification of the notion, wet air is heaver than dry air is;
Rainy weather generally low pressure, rising moist air.
Calm weather, high pressure, associated with heavier dry air.

I agree that this is simple. However, according to gas laws moist air is heavier than dry air.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =8&t=16306

So your "simple" is simply wrong.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[jimmcginn]

What do you think it indicates that you were, apparently, unable to quote anything in this paper that substantiates the "truth" that you claim you see?

Can explain why it is you chose to sidestep this question.

So if this is readable, they preformed test many years back to disprove your notion of the non existence of H2O gas at normal atmosphere,

Possibly your creative reading skills are better developed than are mine.

So you need no longer be ignorant in this area of your investigation.

It's regrettable that you can't provide a direct quote of what it is you think you see so that others, like myself, that lack these powers of perception can still benefit from your insight.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

It would appear that there is no middle ground on my thinking. People either love it or they hate it:

https://www.amazon.com/WHAT-GOES-meteor ... merReviews

1.0 out of 5 stars
insane rambling
By K. Parkeron July 3, 2014
Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase
The author believes that elementary concepts, which have been taught to and understood by first year Chemistry and Physics students for many decades, are some kind of meteorological conspiracy. The author also does not understand the very basic physics that drive convective updrafts (the positive buoyancy due to warm temperature anomalies that result from latent heat release). Instead, apparently based largely on reading websites, he proposes a mechanism that makes no physical sense and is totally unobserved and unobservable. This text violates even basic tenets of logic. Totally without merit.

1.0 out of 5 stars
Waste of time, a non-funny joke
By hunter on July 16, 2014
This book misleads the reader on basic physical concepts like density, the basics of weather dynamics, and offers a silly idea that confuses metaphors about how the jet stream operates with reality. It solves nothing but does offer a way to waste time and money buying and reading it. This book is an example of the risks posed in the age of inexpensive self publishing.

5.0 out of 5 stars
... a average joe that likes science and have always enjoyed seeing the sciences I love finding real life applications
By MSDon June 19, 2016
I am a average joe that likes science and have always enjoyed seeing the sciences I love finding real life applications. With NASA providing so much information how our Sun has direct electromagnetic coupling to the Earth's poles, this book is thrilling, in pointing out the obvious applications of letting the Earths saturated plasma environment help explain our wether phenomena.
The author's educational background is compatible with this task. He has pursued a cross disciplinary approach. I have read the lack thereof is a hindrance to advancements.
Plasma physics isn't as tidy as gravitational based theory. But it seems pretty handy when phenomena defies gravity.
So I find the book refreshing and outside the box using established science.

5.0 out of 5 stars
Intriguing, perhaps convincing
By S. Davison August 15, 2016
If you're someone who likes to think about the why of things, and you're unafraid to do that thinking outside the box, you'll enjoy this short read.

[jimmcginn]

BREAKTHROUGH: Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
https://zenodo.org/record/37224

You may not find this paper an easy read, but if you can understand what is being said you will have the basis of a very profound understanding of H2O.

I like it, and if I understand it correctly, which I won't say I do fully yet, then the implications are profound indeed. Some further ideas came to mind, staggering in their implications, but will have to re-read your paper and make sure I'm not jumping the gun, but my brain put the work of Buckminster Fuller, Gerrald Pollack, and perhaps Bob Beckwiths' neutrino models together and came up with a concept of 'charge-pattern integrities'.

Hi Gary,

I did a couple of simple Google searches and couldn't find anything on Bob Beckwith, Neutrino models, or charge pattern integrities. But that's okay because I'd probably be out of my element anyway.

Along the lines of things that are out of my element, I previously came across this video of Frank Wilczek. I found it interesting because the nature of the mechanism that he discovered is similar to that of the mechanism for H2O that I explicated in my "Breakthrough" paper:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rheKIzEAmv0

About a year or two ago I arranged a phone conversation with Gerrald Pollack. I tried to explain the mechanism that I had discovered. He didn't seem to be all that interested, which seemed strange considering his involvement with H2O. I subsequently sent him a copy of my "breakthrough" paper. I don't know if he read it or not but he did suggest I submit it to his publication, Water. I don't know if I will follow through on that.

I do think there is something to his EZ water. But I think of it as another of many pieces of evidence (See H2O anomalies) that indicate that H2O has an underlying quirkiness. In contrast, I think my thinking directly addresses the underlying cause of this quirkiness.

I didn't know that much about Buckminster Fuller until a chance encounter with a, now, friend of mine Fred Krumbein. In the context of me explaining the Oxygen molecules involvement in my hypothesis he kept mentioning tetrahedron and Buckminster Fuller. Fred influenced me to look closer into the underlying dynamics that delineate the tetrahedron as the template underlying Oxygen (and Carbon, Nitrogen, Flourine, and Neon) and this brought me to look closer into VESPR theory, which plays a fundamental role in my "Breakthrough" paper.

I too am still somewhat staggered by the implications of it all. The one that is still somewhat staggering to me is the notion that the "pendulumic" aspect of my theory explains not only the space between water molecules (something that still baffles physical chemists) but also the high heat capacity of H2O in that every swing of the "pendulum" stores kinetic energy. When I began writing that paper I was only looking for an explanation of H2O surface tension in order to substantiate my notion that if you maximize H2O surface you maximize H2O surface tension, allowing for the formation of a plasma in the atmosphere associated with vortices. And I was happy with the result. But then when I also ended up with this strange result that H2O polarity drops to zero with the achievement of tetrahedral symmetry I didn't know what to think of this at first. But eventually I came to the realization that each swing of the "pendulum" was itself stored kinetic energy, explaining the high heat capacity of water. The realization that I was solving conceptual problems that I was not even trying to answer was a big boost to my confidence that my theoretical thinking was on the right track.

Cheers,

Jim McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[seasmith]

James,
Some random thoughts on first read of your paper:
Concerning the constant ‘dance' between the available bondings, the concept of “low density anomalies” … “reverberating through the matrix” until a critical degree of tension, or density of states is reached; at which point a chain reaction/cascade occurs, is intriguing.

I think that the prevailing aethero-electric matrix is also based on a fluid tetrahedral morphology, hence the many analogies between water and electricity.

Never mind the occasional pundits or sycophants you may encounter around here, just politely state your case.
I think you are on to something.

[GaryN]

Thanks for the reply James, but trying to explain to others what I think I see when I don't have a clear picture in my own head is likely just to confuse all of us! I was excited by an idea that popped into my head when I saw in your model a possible explanation for how complex life has arisen, and not anything do do with meteorology!
That quite complex chemical structures can be formed by thermal self assembly means, and even more complex ones by EM radiation affecting water explains much, but for the processes needed to create complex life I think a guided self-assembly is needed, a mechanism to impart information to a system in such a way as to guide the system towards complexity. With your 'balanced' water model, the idea of neutrinos being able to make subtle changes to the state of an atom or molecules simply by passing through the gap between a nucleus and electrons, or maybe just the vicinity of an atom, and not involving any kind of collision, thus setting off a chain reaction with surrounding matter, seems to me to offer a possible explanation.
I'll attempt to put together a more coherent explanation, and put it in a more appropriate forum, but here are a few links that may help explain the direction of my thinking so far, confused as it may be!

Pattern Integrity - SynEarth
http://www.synearth.net/UCS2-Science-Order.pdf

Electricity and Chemistry
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/Electric/-E12-chemistry.htm

What is (Schrödinger's) Negentropy?
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/negentr.php

Magnetic and Electric Effects on Water
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/magnetic_e ... fects.html

Pollack Laboratory - Origin of Life
http://faculty.washington.edu/ghp/resea ... n-of-life/

A Force Model of the Universe and the Role of Neutrinos
http://www.beckwithelectric.com/ber/dow ... EMODEL.pdf

[jimmcginn]

Thanks for the reply James, but trying to explain to others what I think I see when I don't have a clear picture in my own head is likely just to confuse all of us! I was excited by an idea that popped into my head when I saw in your model a possible explanation for how complex life has arisen,

Yes. The pendulumic aspect of (liquid) H2O molecules is the "clock cycle" of computation in lifeforms. Carbon and other nutrients provide the structure and self-replicative capabilities but water provides the source of persistent, measured energy that enables the information processing aspect of life, IMO. (I suspect you are aware of Chaos Theory and the Science of Complexity [ie. Santa Fe Institute].)

and not anything do do with meteorology!
That quite complex chemical structures can be formed by thermal self assembly means, and even more complex ones by EM radiation affecting water explains much, but for the processes needed to create complex life I think a guided self-assembly is needed, a mechanism to impart information to a system in such a way as to guide the system towards complexity. With your 'balanced' water model, the idea of neutrinos being able to make subtle changes to the state of an atom or molecules simply by passing through the gap between a nucleus and electrons, or maybe just the vicinity of an atom, and not involving any kind of collision, thus setting off a chain reaction with surrounding matter, seems to me to offer a possible explanation.
I'll attempt to put together a more coherent explanation, and put it in a more appropriate forum, but here are a few links that may help explain the direction of my thinking so far, confused as it may be!

Actually, together with Seasmith, you seem to be about the least confused person that I've encountered since I began soliciting attention for my "Breakthrough" paper this last December. And I have to admit to be largely ignorant about Neutrinos. Thanks for these reading suggestions.

Pattern Integrity - SynEarth
http://www.synearth.net/UCS2-Science-Order.pdf

Electricity and Chemistry
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/Electric/-E12-chemistry.htm

What is (Schrödinger's) Negentropy?
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/negentr.php

Magnetic and Electric Effects on Water
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/magnetic_e ... fects.html

Pollack Laboratory - Origin of Life
http://faculty.washington.edu/ghp/resea ... n-of-life/

A Force Model of the Universe and the Role of Neutrinos
http://www.beckwithelectric.com/ber/dow ... EMODEL.pdf

[jimmcginn]

James,
Some random thoughts on first read of your paper:
Concerning the constant ‘dance' between the available bondings, the concept of “low density anomalies” … “reverberating through the matrix” until a critical degree of tension, or density of states is reached; at which point a chain reaction/cascade occurs, is intriguing.

Mpemba Effect
Low density anomalies are a consequence of perturbation and/or rapid cooling/heating of a quantity of H2O. Having stronger bonds (bonds with higher tensional forces between neighboring H2O molecules) low density anomalies transfer heat over longer distances better than their higher density counterparts. Accordingly, we can think of these higher density counterparts as having a collective insulative effect. And since the pendulums will, over time, tend to influence each other and balance out each other’s pendulumic energy states, the longer a quantity of liquid H2O goes without additional perturbation or influx of energy the more the pendulumic energy states across the matrix will become more equivalent, effectuating this insulative state of high density and, therefore, the better the quantity of liquid H2O will conserve energy and take longer to freeze, thereby explaining the Mpemba effect. And so, the underlying cause of the Mpemba effect is that perturbation and/or rapid cooling/heating inhibits the synchronization of the pendulums that effectuates this insulative effect.

I think that the prevailing aethero-electric matrix is also based on a fluid tetrahedral morphology, hence the many analogies between water and electricity.

Interesting. I will have to look into this more.

Never mind the occasional pundits or sycophants you may encounter around here, just politely state your case.
I think you are on to something.

Yep.

Here is a YouTube video you might find interesting with respect to low density anomalies and such. Anders Nilsson does a good job of explaining how perplexed modern physical chemistry is with what their models predict and what is actually observed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hGqlEpvODw

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[willendure]

Mpemba Effect

In short - the observation that sometimes hot water can freeze faster than cold water in the same freezer.

An explanation that was touted recently is that the hot water was able to set up a convection current, which made it loose its heat from the surface faster. The cold water did not experience a large enough heat differential to start convecting, hence the water deeper in the cold beaker was insulated by the water nearer its surface, so it lost heat very slowly.

This very conventional explanation seems plausible and satisfactory to me.

[jimmcginn]

This very conventional explanation seems plausible and satisfactory to me.

To me it just seems ignorant.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

[jimmcginn]

An explanation that was touted recently is that the hot water was able to set up a convection current, which made it loose its heat from the surface faster.

The cold water did not experience a large enough heat differential to start convecting, hence the water deeper in the cold beaker was insulated by the water nearer its surface, so it lost heat very slowly.

This very conventional explanation seems plausible and satisfactory to me.

Obviously your simple explanation fails. Keep in mind, your imagination isn't evidence.

[fosborn_]

lol..niether is yours..

"Frank, I have tried getting a hold of you about your attempt to measure by weight the moisture content of air. It might be possible but I can't say until I know the volume of air you would be measuring , the type of container you would be using and the difference in moisture content of the air masses. If you can provide that information I can let you know if we can help you. Thanks for the inquiry
King Snyder
Sales Engineer | Data Weighing Systems"

so whats your specs Mcginn? Anty up dude...

[jimmcginn]

Frank:
" . . . attempt to measure by weight the moisture content of air."

JMc:
Say what? Frank, are you even paying attention? We need to measure the weight of equal volumes of air with all factors being controlled except humidity. How did you manage to misinterpret that to badly?

So, Frank, there are no specs. One has to contain clear moist air and the other has to contain clear dry air. See my instructions for more details

Now do you get it?

BTW, Frank, you have zero chance of being successful. The moist air will be heavier.

And there's nothing for you to wager. If you can prove moist air is lighter you will win 100,000 dollars.