Concerning the drying of wet shoes.

[fosborn_]

This is obviously wrong.

No. Your wrong. This really fits better with MosaicDave's observation of humid air is lighter than dry air.

[Maol]

The following Question/Answer regarding humidity vs. aircraft lift is located at http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae652.cfm

Who better than an aircraft pilot to know the effect of humidity?

Question
How does humidity effect the way that an airplane flies?
Asked by: Jesse Thune

Answer
Humidity affects the way an airplane flies because of the change in pressure that accompanies changes in humidity. As the humidity goes up, the air pressure for a given volume of air goes down. This means the wings have fewer air molecules to affect as they are pushed through the airmass. Fewer molecules = less lift.

The other problem is that jet engines do not like humidity either. Jet engines are built for cold, dry air, and humid air has fewer oxygen molecules to burn per unit volume. Therefore the engine combusts a little bit less and puts out slightly less thrust. There are four factors that decrease the performance of a jet airplane - heavy, hot, high, and humid. Notice that three of those factors all have the net effect of lowering the density of the air.

So there you have it. Humidity decreases the performance of most aircraft, not only because of it's effect on the wings, but also the effect on the engines.
Answered by: Frank DiBonaventuro, B.S., Air Force officer, Physics Grad, The Citadel

Humidity has a major affect on the way planes fly. This is due to the weight of the air when it is humid. When air is humid, it is actually lighter then dry air, contrary to common belief. That is because the water (H2O) weighs less then the N2 or O2 that it replaces. So if you take the fundamentals of lift, which is that the curved part of the wing (the top) will cause air to move by it quicker, causing the bottom of the wing to have a higher pressure (with slower moving air), causing lift. If you take humid air (less dense), then the plane can no longer create the amount of lift it could when the are is dry (more dense). This causes pilots to have longer runways to gain speed before enough air is passing the wings per second to create enough lift, it also forces pilots to fly faster then would be required if the air were dry.
Answered by: Steve Smith, None, High School Student

[Maol]

This is interesting.

Thrust Measurement of Dielectric Barrier Discharge (DBD) Plasma Actuators:
New Anti-Thrust Hypothesis,
Frequency Sweeps Methodology,
Humidity and Enclosure Effects

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 011154.pdf

[jimmcginn]

This is obviously wrong.

No. Your wrong. This really fits better with MosaicDave's observation of humid air is lighter than dry air.

If you can't show the math its meaningless.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[antosarai]

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

Richard P. Feynman

[jimmcginn]

The following Question/Answer regarding humidity vs. aircraft lift is located at http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae652.cfm

See my response here:
The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16652

[MosaicDave]

If you can't show the math its meaningless.

Interesting! Your statement applies exactly, to your ideas regarding "neutralization of hydrogen bonding".

At this point:

-- You have a novel conception of what happens to water as it evaporates at room temperature.

-- Your conception is based on a certain notion relating to hydrogen bonding. Which notion you've never explained, and certainly not in any way that involves any math, because it's "complicated". Though you think you could explain it in "about a week" if someone would listen to your lectures.

-- Your conception leads to a prediction, which is contradicted by experiment.

[jimmcginn]

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

Richard P. Feynman

True, but the experiment has to be designed properly. It cannot maintain any anecdote-based assumptions. If it does then the experiment is worthless or even misleading.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[fosborn_]

This is obviously wrong.

No. Your wrong. This really fits better with MosaicDave's observation of humid air is lighter than dry air.

If you can't show the math its meaningless.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

No . If your can't preform your own experment it's meaningless. Math is abstract. What you do on the test bench is reality. I gather you have no experience with your own ideas in that area.

[jimmcginn]

If you can't show the math its meaningless.

Interesting! Your statement applies exactly, to your ideas regarding "neutralization of hydrogen bonding".

The math of my H bonding explanation is even easier than the math associate with weight of moist air. It's the quantum mechanics that will confuse most people.

At this point:

-- You have a novel conception of what happens to water as it evaporates at room temperature.

My claims are much more ambitious than you suggest. I would say that I have a novel model of H2O structure than explains and/or will have serve as the basis of future explanations of ALL of H2O's numerous anomalies.

-- Your conception is based on a certain notion relating to hydrogen bonding. Which notion you've never explained,

Right. More specifically, the notion is that hydrogen bonds between H2O molecules are the mechanism that neutralizes H2O polarity. It is fully explained here:
Lookout For Bill
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060
If you don't read it and or don't ask questions if and when you find yourself confused while reading it, I won't be able to help you. You will then be resigned to maintain the vague, wishy-washy understanding of water that you currently maintain.
(It is also briefly explained here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... %5B1-25%5D

and certainly not in any way that involves any math, because it's "complicated".

If you want simple you should avoid anything I'm doing. Even though I try to keep my thinking simple, I refuse to compromise accuracy.

Though you think you could explain it in "about a week" if someone would listen to your lectures.

It involves an extreme amount of out-of-the-box thinking that does not come easily for most people. In person might work better because then I would be able to interrogate you (I mean that literally) and expose the assumptions that your subconscious is hiding from your conscious.

-- Your conception leads to a prediction, which is contradicted by experiment.

I don't know what you are talking about. Where is this experiment? Can you post a link? (Why do I even have to ask?)

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[jimmcginn]

No. If your can't perform your own experiment it's meaningless. Math is abstract. What you do on the test bench is reality. I gather you have no experience with your own ideas in that area.

Show your math and stop whining.

[jimmcginn]

No. If your can't perform your own experiment it's meaningless. Math is abstract. What you do on the test bench is reality. I gather you have no experience with your own ideas in that area.

Show your math and stop whining.

The reason you won't show the math, Frank, is because you know damn well that those clods at Scientific American assumed 18 for the weight of water.

Put up or shut up.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[fosborn_]

Put up or shut up.

LOL..
You need to "put up or shut up" some of your own bench testing, so you will have a connection with reality, Mr Arm Chair Citizen Scientist.
I set you up with an sales engineer for the scales you required, gave you contact information.
You ever done anything for yourself, to prove any of your imaginary thought experments?
Just curious...

[MosaicDave]

.......

Alice felt dreadfully puzzled. The Hatter's remark seemed to have no sort of meaning in it, and yet it was certainly English. `I don't quite understand you,' she said, as politely as she could.

[jimmcginn]

Put up or shut up.

LOL..
You need to "put up or shut up" some of your own bench testing, so you will have a connection with reality, Mr Arm Chair Citizen Scientist.
I set you up with an sales engineer for the scales you required, gave you contact information.
You ever done anything for yourself, to prove any of your imaginary thought experments?
Just curious...

I don't recall receiving any such contact info.

But there are a number of good reasons why I should not do the experiment.
1) I have no dispute with Avogadro's law, with the boiling temp of H2O, or with doing simple math.
2) I don't have time.
3) If I did the experiment nobody would believe it.

As explained in the first paragraph of my book that you read, people generally refuse to consider evidence that contradicts what they believe. Remember, the other astronomers refused to look through Galileo's telescope. That is not different now. (In fact I think it is worse now than then.)

Maybe you should ask meteorologists why after 140 years they still refuse to test this notion--a notion that stands in stark contrast to well known and well understood science.

Or, why don't you do the experiment. Since you are a water treatment operator, I assume you know your way around a laboratory. If you like I could assist you to set up some kind of crowd funding. You would have to track down the scales and you might want to get access to some kind of dry room. These are the two major complications. I don't know but I think it shouldn't be more than 1,000 dollars to do the whole experiment.

Think about it.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes